On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < [email protected]> wrote:
> . However I'm inclined to speculate that two inescapable > conclusions have been drawn: > > > > (1) Spurious anomalous heat continues to be recorded. > > (2) They can not accurately predict and/or control the generation of > spurious anomalous heat. > ***Why should that make one whit of difference? If they record anomalous heat, it is their duty to report it. It is not their duty to control nor predict it. > > > > When it comes to conducting scientific investigations where highly > controversial claims of anomalous heat have been alleged, precise AND > PREDICTABLE calorimetric data must be recorded repeatedly. ***Why? This is a scientific report, not an industrial qualification. > The > unpredictability of the heat measurements - I could see how this is likely > to drive a lot of researchers who have had had little or no exposure to the > LENR field, up the wall. ***I can see it as well. But their duty as scientists is to generate the report in the timeframe they committed to. All the rest is just additional stuff. They've had MONTHS. > By nature most of these researchers are going to be > pre-disposed to assume that a measurement mistake had been made. ***That is why they were given MONTHS to look into it. > I suspect > many are baffled that they have not found such a definitive mistake. ***Then they were not the right guys to be involved in this report. It is no wonder Rossi has a low view of scientists. > It > sticks in their craw. Combine this with the likely fact that the recorded > data is often unpredictable. ***Predictability is for industrial testing. This is scientific testing. > Such unpredictability is likely feed off of > their suspicions that something is just not right here. ***And they drag their feet rather than report what they see. They stopped being scientists when they dragged their feet past a certain point. > It continues to > breed a sense that a lack of proper scientific control is the most likely > explanation. > ***They knew that going in. It is unconscionable that they would hang their hats on such a thing at this point in the endeavor. > > > So... what do you do? ***You start ringing the bell loudly that these guys aint doing their jobs, and they are very likely being selfish with the information. > Call in more troops and advisors. ***That's their problem, they had months to deal with it, and they're going past the point where their competence is presumed. > Prepare to conduct > another "surge" test in a final attempt to root out what is assumed to be > pesky insurgency of bad "elements" that they haven't been able to > eliminate. > ***If that's what they're doing, they are incompetent. > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks > > > > > >
