This is not the first letter of Prof. Guglielmi to LENR researchers I remember he wrote to Celani and Carpinteri too (can find the letters but I think it is not worth. Now he transforms a technical problem (have they checked really everything, the most fantastic possible tricks of the malefic Rossi?) in ethical problem -are they accomplices of Rossi in his criminal activity. The Professors had to solve a well defined problem: does the HotCat give EXCESS HEAT? Not more or less, just excess heat. And the answer is clear Yes, all the still continuing orgies of nit-picking can change the quantitative aspect a bit but not the answer. Do not forget there exists a favorable context for he positive answer. It seems Prof Guglielmi is the porta-voce or better said porta-lettere of the desperate hyper-skeptics whose reputations are at play. Peter
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Akira Shirakawa <[email protected] > wrote: > Hello group, > > It appears that this email by prof. Guglielmi of the University of Bath is > being circulated in several blogs. In short, the author wonders whether > Levi et al. did with their E-Cat investigation a good job from an ethical > point of view. I don't necessarily agree with the message, but I think it's > brave of him to put his real name (and those of a few supporters) on this. > History will tell whether he was right or not. > > http://cassandralegacy.**blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-**of-e-cat.html<http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-of-e-cat.html> > http://news.newenergytimes.**net/2013/05/27/scientific-** > ethics-of-e-cat-promoters-**questioned/<http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/27/scientific-ethics-of-e-cat-promoters-questioned/> > http://ecatnews.com/?p=2545#**comment-50191<http://ecatnews.com/?p=2545#comment-50191> > http://wavewatching.net/**fringe/the-hot-cat-report/#**comment-5641<http://wavewatching.net/fringe/the-hot-cat-report/#comment-5641> > http://fusionefredda.**wordpress.com/2013/05/24/**vettore/#comment-21110<http://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/vettore/#comment-21110>(original) > > Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:58:24 +0100 >> To: Giuseppe Levi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars >> Tegnér, Hanno Essén >> From: Alessio Guglielmi >> Subject: Ethics of your recent work with Mr Rossi >> Cc: Ugo Bardi, Dario Braga, Sylvie Coyaud, Camillo Franchini, Giancarlo >> Ruocco >> >> Dear Doctors Levi, Foschi, Hartman, Höistad, Pettersson, Tegnér and Essén, >> >> I have read your recent manuscript `Indication of anomalous heat energy >> production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder´ on >> arXiv and I am very perplexed. >> >> You are aware that several alleged technical mistakes have been pointed >> out, such as omitting control on DC current input (which has been >> acknowledged by Prof. Essén in a recent interview) and assuming that the >> output heat is released by a perfect black body (this assumption is >> contested by Prof. Gianni Comoretto, for example). The picture that >> emerges, and I am sorry if this sounds offensive, is that some crucial >> measures have not been taken seriously enough on a discovery that, if >> genuine, would alter the history of mankind. >> >> However, I have an issue that appears to me even more important, because >> it concerns the very essence of your continued activities on Rossi’s >> device. Our job as researchers is to advance knowledge, and to do so >> whatever we investigate must be reproducible by other researchers, so that >> the knowledge we generate becomes established and we can move forward. This >> seems at odds with your behaviour. You went to the workshop of a private >> individual who claims to be solving half of mankind’s problems, and >> performed measures on a device that you could not fully control and that is >> not available to other researchers. Therefore, your manuscript does not >> contain any reproducible experience. So, how does it advance knowledge? >> What do we learn? >> >> This brings me to asking another natural question: who will profit from >> the release of your manuscript? You do realise that Mr Rossi sells >> distribution licences and that he needs to convince customers to order some >> of his plants. There is no doubt that your manuscript will help that >> market, but is this something that academics should do? Is our job to help >> a private sell his stuff in the absence of solid, reproducible evidence? >> >> In other words, I wonder whether you are adhering to the scientific >> method and I wonder whether what you are doing is legitimate for academics. >> Others questioned your technical ability, but I think that the ethical >> questions that I am posing here come before, also because they are more >> understandable by the layman. I trust that you appreciate my frankness, and >> I hope that you can prove my concerns unjustified. >> >> I am forwarding this letter in copy to several persons who are following >> this matter: Ugo Bardi (Professor of Chemistry, Univ. Florence, blogger), >> Dario Braga (Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, University of Bologna), >> Sylvie Coyaud (Scientific Journalist, Il Sole 24 Ore), Camillo Franchini >> (blogger, former Supervisor of the CAMEN nuclear plant) and Giancarlo >> Ruocco (Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, La Sapienza, Rome). Whoever >> wishes to publish this letter is welcome to do so, of course, and I hope >> that also the answer could be given public form. >> >> Could you please forward this letter to Dr Foschi, whose address I could >> not find? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Alessio Guglielmi >> University of Bath >> http://alessio.guglielmi.name >> > > Cheers, > S.A. > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
