Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Faulty instruments is one thing you can rule out! Those people at NI are really, really good. The experiment looked like a product brochure illustration. I am sure the temperature readings are correct. The question is: do they represent what they seem to represent? Actually, as a practical matter, if this method were as problematic as McKubre thinks, I suppose the people at NI would have fixed it. They are world class experts at measurements and I am sure they have in-house experts in calorimetry. They worked on this night and day for 12 days before NIWeek. (I think they said 12 days.) If this method is hopeless someone within NI would have said so. When the President and CEO personally orders his top people to drop everything and work on a project for 12 days, and when he -- in person -- is in there working on the equipment, I expect that every relevant expert in the company was consulted. From what Brian told me, they are not shy about expressing technical doubts. It is not that kind of corporate culture. I am not worried about this. NI being heavily involved for the last month inspires confidence. Anyway, no experiment will convince the editors at Nature and Sci. Am. They are a lost cause. Only commercial sales in the hundreds of millions will convince them. Then they will modestly take credit for it. - Jed
