people should separate the idea that the test was screwed up, debunked, from the fact that all skeptic claims it is screwed up and debunked...
for now, with the parenthesis of alumina closed (low transmitance at IR cam wavelength) the test is solid. note also that the skeptic carefull avoid the kind of euristic they love when it support their ideas... they forget that the test was done without inventor presence, in both case, with freedom to use any instrucment to measure electric of heat parameters, to touch unplug, rewire... stage magic is ruled out since first test. now, just consider that even if the transmittance was higher than what it is, a hoter reactor bright more... we can try to explain to skeptics that they are right, to check some interesting question, but we are not forced to swallow their incompetence as a reality. we should not also take as reality their claim of fraud that we cannot check... something not refuted is not necessarily true. it is open. 2014-10-11 17:48 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]>: > I don't find Levi to be credible! I'm enthusiastic too and want to > believe, but Levi was a very poor choice to be primary author on the paper. > > A scientist with a credible track record would be better than Darden, but > Levi is not that scientist. > > The CEO of Elforsk, even the Nasa scientist - these are credible folks. > > The reality is this paper, coming from Levi, seemed more like an attempt > to prove that they he didn't screw up on the first one. Hardly an > unbiased source. > > It should have been different scientists. > > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated. >>> Or something crazy like that. >>> >> >> Where did you read that, and what sort of papers did it refer to? I >> believe I have read that studies in sociology have poor replication rates. >> That is not true of cold fusion. Many experiments have not been replicated, >> but that is because no one has tried to replicate them. >> >> >> >>> Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's. >>> >> >> This makes no sense. The issue is scientific. A scientist is a better >> judge of that than a businessman. Furthermore, hundreds of distinguished >> scientists have published compelling proof that cold fusion is real. You >> are moving your estimate by several percentage points in response to the >> opinions of one businessman. Surely, with regard to a scientific subject, >> the relative weight of peer-reviewed scientific papers by experts should be >> a hundred times -- or a thousand times -- that of a businessman's opinion! >> Those papers should be 99.9% of your evaluation, and Darden's opinion would >> be 0.1%. >> >> If you wanted an evaluation of the flight performance of the Boeing >> Dreamliner airplane, who would you ask? A businessman who invests in >> aviation? Or a group of 200 experienced professional pilots who have >> hundreds of hours experience flying the Dreamliner, and thousands of hours >> flying other aircraft? >> >> >> Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat. He has complete, >>> unfettered access. The same can not be said for Levi. >>> >> >> First, Levi knows what is in the cell. Second, this can be considered a >> black box test. It makes no difference what is in the cell. The calorimetry >> proves that whatever it is, it produces orders of magnitude more energy >> than any chemical fuel, and it works at a high temperature, and high power. >> So, if the effect can be controlled, it will not only be a practical source >> of energy, it will be far better than any other sources. That is what >> matters. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
