I just read the paper again and believe that the author is not confident that excess heat is being generated. He apparently has witnessed the small signal detected by the apparatus, but expresses caution that this result might contain measurement errors of an unknown type. This reminds me of the feeling you get when you do not believe in something but see evidence before you that it is real. Since, he also sees evidence against these systems being conducted at other labs, a large cloud obscures his view.
My conclusion is that this paper does not represent an endorsement by these guys. It merely leaves the door open a tiny bit that the effect may be real. But, I get the impression that they do not completely accept the results and that it would take a much more extensive review to come to a positive conclusion. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> To: Vortex List <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 3:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent 2014/1/2 Foks0904 . <[email protected]> Garwin and Lewis is it linked to that report http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/GarwinLewisReport/garwin.shtml what an irony that Lewis, who seems to be THE CAUSE of general LENR denial, admitted in silence that it worked.
