He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category.
It just appears that many people maintain some level of doubt regardless of the evidence before them. They always suspect that a trick of some sort is being conducted. Consider the major problem we recently had convincing the skeptics that the latest Rossi 3rd party test was legitimate. I seriously doubt that any of them changed their minds even though they could prove nothing of substance. There is always room for doubt when a subject defies your belief system. I think that his behavior is consistent with many peoples reactions. I am not confident that he would have accepted any amount of excess power as beyond trickery. It would have helped had the excess been 100%, but that might still have not been sufficient for him. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: I just read the paper again and believe that the author is not confident that excess heat is being generated. He should be, though. Because as he himself says: "The uncertainty in excess power measurement is about 50 mW, but the excess power appears to be on the order of 500 mW or even 1 W peak." If he agrees that is true then there is no doubt the effect is real. He does not give any reason to doubt this. He gives disingenuous reasons to ignore this fact, starting with: "We also had extensive discussions of data from one of these cells, which according to a summary chart has provided about 3% excess heat." - Jed
