Serious, explosive document? Too who? Too the few souls in the world who follow this?
Replications will need to come from multiple sources before they are considered significant in any overall evaluation, but any positive replication is in essence positive. Further, so far I haven't seen any failed replication. In 1989 those added to the negative publicity and consensus attitude. So if you are just commenting about your silly % evaluation, it is nonsense to begin with, so your evaluation of this fellow is also meaningless, if you are suggesting that a positive replication, regardless of the source is not a positive development, than what would a failed replication be? As to the significance of the replication, it really depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the results. Frankly, your comment smacks of the pseudo skeptic curmudgeons who post on E-Cat News. Ransom > I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as > this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this > without massive caveats. If the caveats are in the paper, than I > apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as > of yet that I could find. > > The lack of a control run is frightening in itself. > > > > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker > <blazespinna...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications >> >> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker >> <blazespinna...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing >>> context. >>> >>> There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer >>> reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer >>> reviewed scientists and someone who has not. >>> >>> Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the >>> latter >>> category. >>> >>> I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi >>> editted >>> his comment from "I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot >>> comment, but it is normal that the so called âRossi Effectâ" to "I >>> do >>> not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible >>> that >>> the so called âRossi Effectâ is replicable after the data published >>> in the >>> Report of Lugano." was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to >>> be >>> credible. >>> >>> Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find >>> this >>> guy credible at all. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> See: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/ >>>> >>> >>> >> >
