It is amazing that there are so many lofty positions being taken on the basis of little-to-no released data. If IH and Rossi each believe their positions, then I say, "PUBLICLY RELEASE THE RAW DATA ALONG WITH OBSERVER COMMENTS". Play chicken. See who objects to release of the data.
Let the internet use its thousands of eyes to dig out the real truth. There is a great wealth of technical acumen in the internet - many of whom really want to know the truth. There will be analyses of the data that reveal the truth, which could range from validation to ambiguity to deception. In the absence of data we can concoct a position to support any of these - as we are seeing in this forum. Phrases like, "at times had a COP of 50", are specious propaganda and meaningless. Of course, there could be bursts of COP=50, and what is not said would make all the difference - for example, were the bursts of COP=50 more than averaged out by long bursts of COP=0.9? The actual data would speak for itself. On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:29 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > Have a look at Mats Lewan's analysis. It seems much more comprehensive > and less biased to me > https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/09/heres-my-hypothesis-on-the-rossi-ih-affair/ > He is a science reporter who is MUCH more knowledgeable about LENR than > Wang. > > Jones, further to your belief in Clarke's analysis of the Lugano > experiment. I have had hundreds of on-line duels with him over the years. > He is absolutely certain LENR is impossible and no experiment has ever > shown anomalous heat. Also absolutely certain that the IPCC is right about > global warming and the effect of CO2. > >
