Look at this way the paper is getting peer reviewed in public. Hopefully they will revise the paper to address the criticisms.
Harry On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Robert Lynn < robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nullis in verba. :) I believe my eyes more than others words. In finding > so many potential faults with so little published information (they had a > month to investigate!!) I can only say that I am unimpressed by the > critical observational skills or reporting of the testers. If they had > approached this demo with a more critical mindset I might be more inclined > to believe them. There is a mountain to climb to convince the world, and > they have not really helped that process. > > On 16 October 2014 11:41, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for posting your ideas. >> I hadn't seen that picture of the march 2013 reactor sitting on the scale >> with heating coils visible. >> >> Why don't we just accept that the authors of the 2014 test also know >> enough about the construction of the reactor to say that the dark bands >> align with the wires? >> >> Harry >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: >> >>> I wrote up my analysis of the "banding" : (Draft -- I'll rename it >>> later). >>> >>> http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_141014a.php >>> >>> Short answer : we don't even know whether the bright bands line up with >>> the wires, or the gaps between them. >>> >>> There are multiple explanations, which depend on the structure used to >>> hold the wires, and on the properties of everything. >>> >>> Insufficient data !!!!! >>> >>> >> >
