I meant to say: 1. You could NOT have done this IR camera method with the previous reactors running at lower temperatures.
Maybe you could . . . but not very well. I do not think it would be as convincing. David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Blaze, you should review the paper by these two guys in detail. You will > see that they fail to understand how the device operates and the model that > they used to simulate the behavior did a poor job of replicating the > operation of the device. They admit this in at least two ways. First, > they claim that the data from the original report must have been time > shifted since it did not match their latest model. Second, they admit that > much additional power was needed to make the temperatures agree to a > reasonable extent. . . . > Why not expect the paper written by these guys to be representative of the > data collected during the experiment? > To put it another way, they are making logical fallacies. They assume their answer is correct even though it does not fit the data. That is a cardinal sin in experimental science. Then they say the data must be wrong, or fraudulent, instead of going back and reworking their own model. More generally this is an error in this class: "Begging the Question. Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii. Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true." (They assume their own conclusion is true, and try to force the facts to fit it.) - Jed
