On 02/11/2010 09:03 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mark Iverson wrote: > >> "So, it looks to me like Naudin's playing games with his measurements. >> His setup's interesting but I would hesitate to trust a single >> measurement on that page." >> >> You guys are pathetic... You're looking for any little discrepancy in >> other people's work, and when >> you find one, YOU IMMEDIATELY accuse the person of some conscious >> attempt at fakery or nefarious >> intentions. > > I think you are wrong. Lawrence was not accusing Naudin of falsifying > data. He is only saying that Naudin substituted one graph for another > for reasons that are unclear. I will grant that "playing games" sounds > suspicious. He could have described it better.
Hey, I jumped to a conclusion. No doubt about it. Comparing Naudin's graphs of voltage and current versus his graph of power makes it look like it may very well be that the earlier power graph was in error, and the new one has actually been "corrected". Since the power graphs have been overlaid by hand, rather than on the scope, that's plausible. And in that case my objection was totally off base. The earlier graph looked more like what I expected, but that doesn't prove it was correct. And Iverson could have said all that. But he didn't; he didn't say anything like that. He just lashed out with name calling, and some vague speculation about Naudin improving his experiment in some way (which isn't implied by anything on the page). And that kind of stuff, I don't need. I'm happy to be told I'm wrong; I often learn something when that happens. But being told I'm "pathetic" doesn't exactly make my day. > It reminds me of the > "climategate" scandal where someone referred to a legitimate processing > technique as a "trick." That's programmer jargon; don't read too much > into it. Melich pointed out that it tends to be antisocial or even > autistic, with expressions such as "abort the process." > > More to the point, you should never trust one observation or dataset > from one experimentalist. Nothing is true until it is replicated. > Although I guess Naudin is a partial replication of the Steorn claim. And, as I observed more than once, Naudin documented everything he did very clearly and precisely, and anyone -- even me -- could replicate it and take their own measurements. > > By the way, Lawrence should ask Naudin what he is up to. He is a very > friendly fellow. > > - Jed >
