"That is incorrect. They verified all facts. That was not hard, because this was a black box test with only two relevant sets of facts regarding power input, and heat output. They did not discuss anything else in this paper."
Gotcha. You're no longer worth talking to. Thanks for the heads up. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > blaze spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's not the personal friendship being questioned. >> > > Yes, it is. Right here: > > i. The first author,G. Levi, has been closely involved in numerous tests > and promotions of the E‐Cat together with the inventor, A. Rossi, over the > last 2½years. His independence is not as clear as one would wish, > ii. Several of the other authors, at least R. Pettersson and H. Essén, > have also participated in > previous demonstrations arranged by Rossi and have then to some degree > committed to a > positive appreciation of the device . . . > > I suppose most plasma fusion experiments are conducted by and then > reviewed by people who are to some degree committed to the idea that plasma > fusion exists and that it might be a useful source of energy. This fact is > not usually brought up in critiques of plasma fusion papers. > > Often, the Sec. of the DoE is involved with energy, and has promoted one > or the other type (gas, coal, nuclear), yet this does not disqualify these > people. > > > >> It's the fact that the scientists are repeating facts given to them by >> Rossi without verifying them. >> > > That is incorrect. They verified all facts. That was not hard, because > this was a black box test with only two relevant sets of facts regarding > power input, and heat output. They did not discuss anything else in this > paper. > > > >> It shows the beginning of a pattern that there may be other facts that >> they are reporting without verifying. >> > > There is no such pattern. It is a figment of the author's imagination. And > yours. > > - Jed > >
