what seems unavoidable is that IH was unable to replicate. Question is if they could not replicate anything, or just replicate something usable.
Fraud is not even a problem if it works for IH. Doubt on methodology is also a problem with a test. Dubious behavior is also a possible problem, increasing question on methods. but who cares if the factory is made of hardpaper, if E-cat works in IH labs. 2016-05-24 14:30 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>: > Jed, > > ""[Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial > ventilation would be fatal"" > > Why did you set up that straw man in the first place? Is your source > Dewey Weaver? I see he earlier wrote many of the same things you have. > > > As I said, the Rossi affair reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons, where the > poorly executed efforts at replication were sufficient to get academia and > the supposed experts to pile on and accuse them of fraud. It is not clear > to me whether IH's statement is that the 1 MW plant didn't work or that > that they can't duplicate the results. > > > >
