Two wrongs make a right? Huh. Anyways, I think the criticism that the report was not independent is obvious and should be accepted by all. The very beginning of the abstract on the original report says:
"An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out. The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives." However, they were not allowed to look inside and independently verify that this is what it was (a pretty important thing to verify, no?) What else did they merely accept as fact without independently verifying? Rossi claims it was a third party independent report. It wasn't. This is just more of an example of Rossi's exaggerations. Given the extraordinary claim being made, we should all wait for a truly independent report before accepting this as real. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: blaze spinnaker > > Hardly the criticism of the comments here isn't much > better. > You guys are just resorting to pointless insults. > > You seem to be saying that these commentators should get a free ride? Why? > > Almost every skeptic glosses over the HUGE detail, mentioned in the > Abstract, but further elucidated after the testing in interviews with the > participants - that before the active ingredients were added, the dry run > testing showed that when 920 watts of electrical input was applied to the > HotCat, the camera showed over 900 watts of thermal output. Exactly as > expected. This was a long control run and almost no one has taken note of > the implications of a near perfect match in the context of what happened > after the active material was added. > > These commentators - in ignoring this detail and what happened before and > after the active material was added, are essentially suggesting that Rossi > must have tricked the observers into somehow leaving the room or looking > the > other way so that he could alter the wiring (or some other fraud, so that > extra energy in the form of DC current could be used when the AC was > pulsed). > > I say that is complete BS. > > Yes - I am incensed that they will imply fraud, like we have seen from the > skeptics in the US - when they cannot show any sign of it - other than that > they cannot explain the results. Or else they are guilty of arrogant > stupidity by not reading the report thoroughly and not talking to their own > associates. Göran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp should have taken full notice > of > the implications of the dry run and the good match of input and output that > existed without the active material present - which later, after the active > material was added - showed nearly 3 to 1 gain. How could they neglect this > ? > > Ericsson and Pomp should be investigated for academic dishonesty if nothing > else. Do they do work for the Swedish fossil fuel energy establishment - or > do they work for others who would lose funding if LENR is successful ? > > Jones >
