Andrew <andrew...@att.net> wrote: ** > Would you have us believe that the use of an oscilloscope and/or a > spectrum analyzer was *not* forbidden for these tests? >
There were absolutely not forbidden. I have that from the horse's mouth. > This has been discussed on this very forum just this week, and the > opposite conclusion was drawn by the folks here. > This is a matter of fact, not something you can "draw conclusions" about. The participants say they were not constrained. Unless you think the participants are lying or taking part in a conspiracy, that ends the discussion. The constraints were clearly stated in the paper. They were not allowed to measure the power from the control box to the reactor, and not allowed to view the powder. If there had been other constraints they would stated them. The researchers and I consider these restraints perfectly reasonable and understandable, given the circumstances and the business Rossi is engaged in. Perhaps you do not think so, but we do. We think that a valid measurement of input and output energy can be done even with these constraints, and that the excess energy can be compared to the limits of chemical energy. > Either it was forbidden, and what you write is misinformed, or you're > correctly describing the situation, in which case the testers were not, in > my view, as thorough as they ought to have been. > The latter is the case. Okay, it is your "opinion" they were not "as thorough as they ought to have been." Fine. That is a heck of a long way from "unethical" isn't it? It is not unethical for professors to disagree with you. I hope you agree that "disagreeing with Andrew" is not a criminal offense or a violation of academic ethics. - Jed
