Did Lewis, in his report, describe which members of SRI would make a good football team?
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Two at least included Richard Garwin and Nathan Lewis in 1993. The report > was quite positive overall. Yet, as expected, both Garwin and Lewis kept to > themselves and sat idle as a validated science continued to be ignorantly > chastised. Their report can be located on New Energy Times if you Google it > or are willing to dig through the site. > > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> >> In Excess Heat (chapter 10 p171=141), Beaudette talk of >> 4 scientists (1 alosn,e and a team of 3) who visited McKubre, inspected >> all, and seen no problem, then stay silent... >> >> who was they, is there any report ? >> >> "Sometimes peer review takes the form of visits to a working laboratory. >> Mike McKubre’s laboratory did successful anomalous power experiments from >> 1989 to 1997 and continuing. He was visited twice by scientists who were >> eminently qualified in the appropriate technology but who were completely >> out of the public eye. >> The first visitor was an electrochemist fully qualified in calorimetry. A >> day was spent studying the experimental and measurement processes, and >> looking at the equipment operation in the laboratory. This previously >> outspoken critic found nothing wrong with the experimental work. If the >> results showed excess energy, the visitor could see no basis on which that >> result might be wrong. He so informed McKubre of his conclusion. >> The second visit was by a team of three scientists. One was a >> well-experienced >> nuclear experimental physicist. The other two were senior >> electrochemists, one of whom had written several textbooks in the field. >> They enjoyed the same visiting routine as the first visitor. They arrived >> at the same endpoint as the first visitor, that there was nothing wrong >> with the calorimetry. They so informed McKubre. >> Then they were silent, completely silent. Were their individual >> reputations so important to them that they could not be put at risk by >> reporting publicly what they had found? What they had found was that >> McKubre’s experiments did reveal the existence of anomalous power as far as >> these experts were able to tell. Their silence was unethical in view of the >> importance of the matter at hand and the special expertise the four could >> bring to bear on the subject." >> >> >> >
