On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]>wrote:
> ** > > > On 11-11-16 06:16 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a problem. >> The error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to accept it if (and >> only if) he runs so long that it's accounted for... >> >> Oh get real. You just made my point -- the blank and non-blank runs must >> run "long enough" so the excess due to adsorption "is accounted for" -- as >> I said, we're right back to square 1, arguing over the calorimetry. >> >> As I said, it's not a yes/no test -- yes, the signature is higher *than*the >> blank, or no, it's not. >> > > No. "The signature in the blank is higher?" What does that mean? > > > It means you didn't read it right. I said "higher *than* the blank", not > "higher *in* the blank". > > Obviously. > > Obvious, at any rate, if you devote more than about half a second to > trying to understand it. > You're right -- my error -- trying to go too fast. Sorry. I think I answered that objection even though I misread it. If not to your satisfaction, please let me know and I can try again.
