Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> 3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed that the >> first test was right >> > > No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented. I said that too. Only a few details were released. If you believe these details, then the second test conclusively confirmed the first. If you don't believe those few details then obviously you cannot agree with the conclusions. I heard a few more details about the test than have been released, so I have somewhat more confidence. I was expecting they would publish all that they told me, and more. As I said, I am disappointed they have not. It is unprofessional. It was viewed, in private, by exactly the people whose earlier results I'm > suspicious of, and they told us everything is fine, don't worry. > You can be suspicious of the results, but you have no reason to be suspicious of the people themselves. That is to say, you might suspect they are mistaken, but you have no reason to think they are lying. I don't anyway. Given the simplicity of liquid phase flow calorimetry there is no reason to doubt they got that right. > That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they just > state what they have and everyone believes them. In poker, you do not have to show your card if everyone else folds. That's how it works in industrial R&D as well. > The "honor system" isn't used in poker, and it doesn't get you very far in > science, either. > This is not exactly science. It is more like industrial R&D, where the rules are different. That's unfortunate, but that's the way things are. Fortunately, Rossi is forging ahead with development and with cooperation the Defkalion, so even though this is not academic science, we are likely to learn the full details and we are likely to see convincing proof eventually. - Jed
