the only reasonable question, probably because I'm not expert, is the impact of the alumina transparency.
anyway if one forget the absolute temperature and power, just comparing colors at given power says the E-cat works. that is my sanity check. what is funny , or sad, is that when facing technical evidence, the guys flee - to ad hominem - to tricks claims with no evidence - ask for other protocols asserting colorimetry is not safe, without evidence - more annoying to general heuristics like "third party", like "changing protocol too often", - or notice tiny detail that may make the number change (emissivity) but not the conclusion : it works anyway unlike what I was estimating yesterday, it seems the report is having more consequences than usual. my bet is that there was already many people counscious that it works, that it is a pathological denial, they waited for the report, and now they get out out the wood. the skeptics are desperate, time to euthanize their myth. 2014-10-10 7:07 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Motl actually said that! Amazing. Quote: >> > > One encouraging thing -- Motl, Yugo, etc., appear to be a little on the > defensive. > > Eric > >
