Steven,
Yes ... and there could be a third and more important inescapable conclusion. You do not delay a report for an isotopic analysis if there has been no excess heat ! You simply issue a negative report. IOW if the report was indeed delayed for this reason, it is a slam-dunk that they have seen excess heat. From: Orionworks - Jones sez: > ... sounding like a scratched vinyl record Perhaps so. However I'm inclined to speculate that two inescapable conclusions have been drawn: (1) Spurious anomalous heat continues to be recorded. (2) They can not accurately predict and/or control the generation of spurious anomalous heat. When it comes to conducting scientific investigations where highly controversial claims of anomalous heat have been alleged, precise AND PREDICTABLE calorimetric data must be recorded repeatedly. The unpredictability of the heat measurements - I could see how this is likely to drive a lot of researchers who have had had little or no exposure to the LENR field, up the wall. By nature most of these researchers are going to be pre-disposed to assume that a measurement mistake had been made. I suspect many are baffled that they have not found such a definitive mistake. It sticks in their craw. Combine this with the likely fact that the recorded data is often unpredictable. Such unpredictability is likely feed off of their suspicions that something is just not right here. It continues to breed a sense that a lack of proper scientific control is the most likely explanation. So... what do you do? Call in more troops and advisors. Prepare to conduct another "surge" test in a final attempt to root out what is assumed to be pesky insurgency of bad "elements" that they haven't been able to eliminate. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
