Look, all I know is what I read. I called out Motl for BS about the emissivity, and you immediately agreed with me. That's a purely logical analysis. As for everything else - I can only process to arrive at a separate conclusion when what I read is conflicting. Then I have to try to sort that out. Since, unlike yourself, I have not made direct contact with any of the researchers, I go on what I read from others.
"They were not allowed to measure the power from the control box to the reactor" The story as I receive it continues to change. In all versions they weren't allowed to look inside the control box or to view and/or analyze the powder. There's one version where they weren't allowed to measure anything on the output side of the control box, except for a constant power dummy run; but never when pulsed mode was switched on. Doing a power measurement there is the least analytical thing you can do. Obviously finer detail is available, so by inference they couldn't do that either. So that's what you understand to be the case also. So it seems that any future test will not allow any instrumentation of any kind on the lines between the control box and the device. And we're back where we started. Tell us, if you'd be so kind, since you have the ear of the horse's mouth, whether the researchers were allowed, and/or would be allowed in the future, to break apart and examine the cable between the control box and the device? Or to supply their own cable? Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:41 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: Would you have us believe that the use of an oscilloscope and/or a spectrum analyzer was not forbidden for these tests? There were absolutely not forbidden. I have that from the horse's mouth. This has been discussed on this very forum just this week, and the opposite conclusion was drawn by the folks here. This is a matter of fact, not something you can "draw conclusions" about. The participants say they were not constrained. Unless you think the participants are lying or taking part in a conspiracy, that ends the discussion. The constraints were clearly stated in the paper. They were not allowed to measure the power from the control box to the reactor, and not allowed to view the powder. If there had been other constraints they would stated them. The researchers and I consider these restraints perfectly reasonable and understandable, given the circumstances and the business Rossi is engaged in. Perhaps you do not think so, but we do. We think that a valid measurement of input and output energy can be done even with these constraints, and that the excess energy can be compared to the limits of chemical energy. Either it was forbidden, and what you write is misinformed, or you're correctly describing the situation, in which case the testers were not, in my view, as thorough as they ought to have been. The latter is the case. Okay, it is your "opinion" they were not "as thorough as they ought to have been." Fine. That is a heck of a long way from "unethical" isn't it? It is not unethical for professors to disagree with you. I hope you agree that "disagreeing with Andrew" is not a criminal offense or a violation of academic ethics. - Jed
