This paper says:
> We note first of all that the circumstances and people involved in the >> test make if far from being an independent one. > > This is in a physics paper!?! What an outrageous thing to say. Where are they trying to publish, in the National Enquirer? That's incredible. Outlandish. And completely false. You lose all credibility when you publish this kind of garbage in the guise of a physics paper. What is the claim here, that scientists are not supposed to know one another? Or maybe it is that people with relevant experience and some expertise in a field should not publish papers. That's the Wikipedia standard: anyone who knows what he or she is talking about is booted out. The paper itself is also garbage. Look at this: "Estimating the heat output by a combination of IR camera measurements and convection calculations represents a new situation compared to previous tests,seemingly imposed by the circumstances(i.e. Rossi) rather than by choice." It was "imposed" by the operating temperature and power of the cell, which have been improved. Hotter temperatures and higher power density are a good thing. This is a technical advantage. The authors are saying we should only test second-rate and third-rate devices which are impractical, commercially useless, because the authors -- for no apparent reason -- do not trust IR cameras. - Jed
