one key point I've noticed is that they typically ask for impossible things, at the date of demand - tea kettle when PdD was not reliable. now they forgot - IR camera to solve hostpots possibilityes with thermocouple - phase change calorimetry when thermocouple and flow calorimetry was questioned - black box test - test by independent team free to choose instruments - peer reviewed article (except in magazine that accept LENr article like Naturwissenschaften, and some electrochemistry journals) when all mainstream journals refuse them more or less clearly, by many clear misconducts. - removing energy source when it is clear that like a nuclear powerplant or an otto-engine you need to inject energy...
it is so clear that we should stop discussin about that subject. it is ridiculous. as i said earlier the fact that rossi have accepted a test with thermocouple, IR cam, access to outside of the reactor and to the socket, choice of instruments around the socket... all that let no doubt that Rossi is not doing a fraud. The same argument support the "non-fraud" about defkalion. current deliria of skepticism explain why Defkalion is not making public tests (probably nelson test was a probe, and they abandoned seeing the uselessness of it). 2013/6/22 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: > > While you might prefer the skeptics (actually, they are arguably >> pseudo-skeptics) to compile such a list until someone does and does it >> right they can keep bringing up the same objections over and over again. >> > > They will do that anyway. It isn't as if they are going to consult the > list, and not say X or Y because it is already listed. After all, where > would this list be published? Where would they find it? > > They will repeat objections also because they think the objections are > valid, and have not been addressed. For example, many skeptics insist that > a test is only valid if there is no input energy. This comes up again and > again. I suppose they think it is impossible to eliminate the possibility > of fraud from electric power measurements. > > Mary Yugo and many others will insist that a test can only be valid if it > is conducted in another lab where Rossi is not present. They have a point. > That would enhance credibility. Mats Lewan and I have urged Rossi to allow > this. But I doubt it will happen anytime soon. > > > >> I'd suggest it is your opportunity to take the high-ground on objectivity >> ... >> > > Well, the skeptics themselves do not all agree on all points. I think most > of them concede than an IR camera checked against a thermocouple is right, > but Shanahan does not concede that. Whereas he might concede that the input > power measurement is right (I wouldn't know) but the others will not. So it > would be quite a heterogeneous list, with all kinds of cats and dogs. No > one would agree with all points, and most skeptics would not agree to the > rebuttals I list; i.e. they do not agree you have to examine the bare wire > to measure voltage. It is not up to me to untangle their ideas. It is hard > enough trying to sort out the truth. Sorting out confusion may be > impossible. > > I think I covered the major categories. I do not think I could tally up > all the individual hypotheses. There are too many, too scattered about, and > frankly most of them make no sense and cannot be characterized. How would > you describe Shanahan's weird demand that the authors draw a line on top of > another identical line? That's what it boils down to. The only full data > set representation from the IR camera is in that graph. Maybe he wants them > to provide a spreadsheet with all values? Who knows what he has in mind. He > would have to specify a sane method. > > Maybe the job could be done if we limit objections to one set of comments > made in response to one of your articles, rather than searching far afield > into the batty parts of the Internet such as Wikipedia. > > - Jed > >
