I think it is important to distinguish between a test and a demo. This was the latter. When you demo software, you are not obligated to allow some coders from Microsoft to pore over the code.
In a way, the glitch that forced them to bring down the reactor was a good thing. Frauds, like narcissists, are incapable of error. ----------------------------------------------- "I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin ________________________________ From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan's comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan Craig <[email protected]> wrote: It is a better test than the one that Levi and company performed. This >is a complete and total, independent, replication of Rossi's method; >even if they don't plan to write it up. > I did not see this test, but I gather the instruments were supplied by Defkalion, and the only independent observer was Mats. I think it is better to have a group of independent observers. Plus: They should use their own instruments. They should spend a week or two, returning several times with improved instruments and techniques. They should think about what they saw for a few weeks, draft a paper, and discuss it among themselves before publishing. This is better than jumping to a conclusion in real time. You make fewer mistakes. Science is done best at a slow, deliberate pace, with rigor. As I said, a video demonstration has value. In some ways it is better than a test, but it is no substitute for a test. - Jed
