This is part of letter in response to an article that appeared in New Scientist in 1994 about Reifenschweiler's findings. Unfortunately a New Scientist subscription is required to read the full letter. The writer doesn't regard the measurements as artifacts or errors but claims the findings can be explained conventionally. I have no idea if his explanation is correct and/or applicable in this case.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14219245.000-letters-out-in-the-cold.html Harry
