--- Stephen > If searching for a conventional explanation for an apparent COE violation in a simple system is considered "unreasonable" or "closed-minded", then we have entered the realm of religion.
You are way off-base here. No one is suggesting a COE violation, nor trying to limit criticism. It's only that the "conventional explanations" you are rehashing, and a few you have overlooked, were obvious from day-one; and although they cannot yet be fully eliminated, the best-guess is that there is some real anomaly present. At the same time, it is unreasonable to expect that the experimenter himself will take the time to respond to such tedious rehashing, until he has exhausted all efforts at advancing the experiment, otherwise. There is without any doubt, to my thinking, an external source of energy. IOW no COE violation. The only question for me is this: is that external source of energy related to ZPE or something even more exotic like neutrino flux? If it is not, and if it is related to mundane ground looping of super-efficient radio reception, then that too will show up in the end. But it was an obvious explanation from the start, and reasonable effort to eliminate it has been taken Of course BaFe or whatever material is in the cores, could be responsible for some (of all) of any anomaly- there could even be enhanced nuclear decay. Someone mentioned using a GM (Geiger) rad monitor. That is a worthwhile suggestion which was not not previously considered. The important thing for a "premature" posting, even at the risk of a mundane explanation turning-up, of this information, is that it is so very important, and so unusual and non-commercial (in intent), that others may be interested or motivated to improve or adding to what is known, in a positive way. For you to say that "I have not seen" relevant power readings, as if only you can be the judge of that - yes, that seems like negative "insinuation" to me... and I cannot see how that is helpful. Jones
