Jed wrote at news section:
»There were no chemical or electrical sources of power inside this
reactor so the heat must have come from an anomalous reaction.»
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm

I think that here we have too categorical conclusion. I would say
something like:

»There was not seen any chemical power sources inside the reactor and
eCat was weighted before and after the demonstration without
significant loss or gain in mass. Also measured electricity input was
not sufficient to explain observed amount of excess heat. Therefore it
is likely conclusion that the source of excess heat was from anomalous
nuclear reaction.»

Measurements were not made by independent scientists and especially
they were made by Rossi's own instruments. Although I do not see how
it could be possible that Rossi has made this illusion of anomalous
excess heat, I would not exclude the remote possibility of very
elaborate hoax.

We have seen in history extremely elaborate hoaxes and illusions
before. And many people are paid for performing grand illusions that
cannot be exposed by observers in audience and live television.

   –Jouni


2011/10/21 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>:
> I decided to write a longish report on this. I do not usually include this
> much detail in the news section. I prefer to use links to original sources.
> there are so many original sources and they are so difficult to understand I
> decided I should summarize them.
> See:
> http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
> I decided to sign this because include so many of my own opinions. I usually
> leave these brief reports unsigned, although Ed Storms and I did sign some
> of them in the 2004 DoE Review section:
> http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm
>
> If you think I did not include one of the best or worst aspects of this, let
> me know and I will change the text. Maybe. I do not wish to discuss any
> political aspects of these events, or anything such as my fear that
> something might go wrong in the next test. That is not appropriate for the
> news section.
> - Jed
>

Reply via email to