Unfortunately his "expert" opinion will be used to futher delay investment in LENR research in favour of pouring more money into god particles and hot fusion.
harry On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> To be fair to all parties on this forum we need to read Joe Zawodny's >> comments on the Nasa video: >> http://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/2012/01/14/technology-gateway-video/ > > > Good find, AG. Thanks. Some parts are well worth quoting out loud (also the > dark text on dark background of the original hurts my eyes): > > " There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into > NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works. Many > extraordinary claims have been made in 2010. In my scientific opinion, > extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct > absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find > sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I > remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing > demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of > net energy." > > and > > "So what does extraordinary evidence look like? As a trained scientist, I > have been taught the historical standards for acceptance of experimental > results or theories. Experiments and theories go hand-in-hand in what is > known as the scientific method. Both must be independently tested, > replicated, or verified. As a minimum, experimental results must be > replicated by an objective and independent party. The nature of the test or > replication needs to adhere to the spirit of the original experiment but, > should be under the full design, implementation, and control of the > independent tester. So, if a device is claimed to be capable of producing > excess heat by nature of its operation (i.e., the consumption of fuel via a > nuclear process), it must be operated properly. The way power input and > power output are measured should be left up to the independent tester. This > is standard scientific practice. What would take this to the next level > (extraordinary evidence) would be to have the test be an open public test. > The nature of the test and specific approach to executing the test should be > made public. The conduct of the test should be open to additional 3rd party > experts. And finally, the data should be publicly released. Further peer > review of all aspects of the independent test is a must. Community consensus > is the ultimate goal. Every attempted demonstration of a LENR device that I > am aware of has failed to meet one or more of these criteria." > > To which, if I were religious, I'd say "amen!" And I now have renewed > respect for Dr. Zawodny. Perhaps he'll be a bit more precise and > informative in his next released NASA video. > > >
