David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: 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. >
I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is "neither small nor fleeting." http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand that. If he does not understand it he is incompetent and if he does understand it he is being disingenuous. - Jed
