On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote:
> So Josh,**** > > Why do you **ignore** the FACT that Ekstrom and others are using the > emissivity of stainless when that is irrelevant???**** > > Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called > ‘experts’ who make such an obvious mistake???**** > > ** > Well, I wasn't replying to them, or defending them. They did make some simple mistakes. Why do I not criticize them? If they were claiming to revolutionize science, and made mistakes like that in the claims, I might just. But they're not. They're writing blogs in response to such claims. Some hastiness is to be forgiven in that context. In the context of Levi's claims, I would expect greater care. > ** > > RE: unknown emissivity of the paint in the December test…**** > > Yes, as they have explained, they analyzed the December test, realized > some weaknesses, took measures in the March test to eliminate/calibrate for > those weaknesses, and will be improving their instrumentation and > procedures for the next test. **** > > ** ** > > > RIght, but why even bother reporting the December test in that case? And while they improved the emissivity question, they made the question of input murkier.
