At 03:40 PM 12/13/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
No argument. All we can say right now is neither factor (HF supply noise / enthalpy) appears to be significant based on the available data for the supplies and reasonable analysis on the chemical side. Neither the data nor the analysis is everything one could ask for.
I want to make it clear that what I've written about this work is not a specific criticism of it. My comments have been general, not specific.
In a certain sense, proceeding first with a Celani replication, rather than jumping to more accurate calorimetry, is quite sensible. A "replication" aims to reproduce original results, where possible Using the *same* calorimetry as Celani, even though that calorimetry is subject to criticism, if it shows the same results, serves as a replication. *Then* more accurate calorimetry can be used, in an effort to discover artifact.
