The scientist don't agree on what to write. some want to write the reality some want to write the reality
one reality is the undeniable experimental result, the other is the infallible theory. as said here, it is easy to imagine the testers have seen it work, and anybody who did not see it working is sure it cannot work and imagine improbable conspiracy. don't forget that beside the testers who cannot reasonably disagree (if one was disagreeing he would ask for a new experiment, and others would agree), any foreigner , reviewer, boss, dean of academy, editor, would simply asy IT IS IMPOSSIBLE I REFUSE TO ALLOW THAT BE PUBLISHED. it is old story. if you see cold fusion history as written by Mallove or Beaudette, finally the conviction was absolute it was erroneous, caused by artifacts, yet there is no theory that survived any inspection nor is defended. the stirring problem is no more supported by lewis. the recombination hypothesis, proposed moderately after all critics failed, is no more supported. gary taubes is refuted by experiments done by ed Storms and by all known laws of diffusion, plus by common sense and other replications. the synchronicity theory of taubes is refuted statistically, plus he hide some case where his theory was wrong... taubes is not only wrong but a fraudster as he accuse others, who did cherry picking. Shanahan CCS was refused for publication because nobody dare to support such heresy (if one know well the F&P cell with dewar and mirror treatment, CCS explaining burst of >50% are absurd, not even considering flow calorimetry, tritium) there is no need of the least facts to deny reality when you have theory and consensus on your side. it can last forever until industrialists push you out of your seat. because it is a question of seat, not of reality. 2014-08-20 17:28 GMT+02:00 Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com>: > Sure, you can be optimistic and read it that way; but it seems clear in > the context of the statements, that the "Polarized opinions" is the reason. > Reason for what? reason for not giving pre-statements about a timing or > content of the report. Why would any polarized outside opinion be the > reason for any delay in the timing of the release? or affect the content of > the report? > > It seems clear. The testers can not agree on what to write. This can > only mean some think it is positive, some think it is negative. They can't > agree like a hang jury. > > > > Jojo > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Fletcher" <a...@well.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:20 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers > > > > From: "Jojo Iznart" <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:07:08 AM >> http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/ >> As reported in e-catworld. It seems the TIP2 testers are having a lot of >> disagreements; hence the delay in the release of the report. This does not >> bode well for the ECat. I have been one of a few that think too many >> warning flags have been seen lately regarding the ECat. Chances of it being >> a Scam has increased. >> >> I don't read it that way --- >> "The response I received was that they realize there is a great amount of >> interest in the report, but that because of polarized opinions surrounding >> the LENR and E-Cat, it was not advisable to give any pre-statements about >> the content of timing or the report." >> >> The "polarized opinions" are those in the outside world, not within the >> team - which wants to get it right. And, quite correctly, say "nothing to >> nobody" until the report's out. >> >> >
