On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:23 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> if conditions are kept the same, it can suffice *for comparisons.* >> > > What if the comparison is between a known heat source (ie: "unity") and a > suspected anomalous heat source (ie: "above unity")? > > Why isn't that adequate for a qualitative demonstration that puts to rest > all questions concerning the _existence_ of the phenomenon? >
I don't know why it isn't good enough, but until independent replications are made the possibility of fraud or faulty instruments will be used by prominent skeptics (such as the editors of Nature and Scientific American) to dismiss the achievement. Harry Harry
