From: Jed Rothwell
Ø As I wrote in the report there was no heat and: "this was confirmed by running the pump for a day with all other systems turned off." OK. That test would be adequate if the data were included. The data of a long control run must be included since the 3 watts, which is clearly stated in the manufacturer’s pump specifications, is otherwise unaccounted for - and logic suggests that this power has to go somewhere. How does it magically disappear? If real data shows no rise in temperature, then everyone is happy, but without it, skeptics have a place to hang their hats – and they will. There is no good reason to leave this detail open for discussion. Ø Ø Furthermore, if the pump were the source of heat, the reactor would not cool down. You can see that it does cool down. You are not stating the problem correctly. No one suggests that the pump is the only source of heat – but it could be contributory. Any good scientific paper absolutely needs to present the calibration data which shows that that the pump does not contribute over a sufficient time frame, despite the fact that common sense suggests that it should contribute several watts. As you say, this is easy to do – but the experimenter cannot shift the burden of proof to his audience and suggest that they do calibration data for themselves. However, the experimenter can shift the burden of proof to the audience to explain exactly where the 3 watts ended up, so long as he shows it did not end up in the system under observation. Jones
