*If Rossi had nothing to do with the test, then who is the person executing the scam, and for what reason? This looks like a battle between the believers and the non-believers. Do the believers feel strongly enough to violate their scientific ethos, and compromise their integrity. What happened to the objective experimental findings?*
*For the non-believers, it might be that the publication of the truth will damage their career and reputations just by putting their names on the report.* On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]>: > > 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" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:20 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers >> >> >> >> From: "Jojo Iznart" <[email protected]> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> >
