On 02/21/2011 01:28 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > On 02/21/2011 12:39 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> In any case, a test as today's unofficial Bologna test (18 hours 15 KW) >> > Any documentation, or reports by witnesses? Any clear measurements > which give substance to the 15 kW number? Did anybody write it up? >
Sorry, I saw your original post on the demo today, with the note "No details given..." only after I sent that. I don't know about Joshua, but a report of an experiment with no details given sure doesn't convince *me*, but maybe that makes me a pathological skeptic, too, eh? I seriously doubted ol' Stiffler's results, and I'm dead cert that the Steorn gadget is a scam, so maybe I'm just an incurable skeptic, eh? When someone with a dubious background and no relevant formal training reports a potentially highly profitable breakthrough in physics, I want to see clear documentation of experiments by trained scientists with good reputations before I'm going to do more than yawn and write it off as another PPM that just happens not to be physically totally impossible. So far that hasn't been forthcoming from Bologna: The documentation of the results has been too sloppy and incomplete to conclude very much or to rule out cheating by Rossi, IMO, and the behavior of the experimenter has been too bizarre to take him seriously. As my ol' Grandad might have said, if BS were music, Rossi'd be a brass band. > I'm not sure what an "official" test would be, really. The issue isn't > whether it's official, it's whether it's convincing. > > For the record, the last experiment I saw from Ed Storms which I saw > mentioned on this list, which involved, IIRC, radiation detection during > gas-phase loading of palladium, was *extremely* convincing, IMO. > > It is Rossi, and Rossi's work, and Rossi's claims, and the demonstration > at UoB in December with what I would call really poor documentation of > measurements and results, which I find unconvincing. > > I wish to heaven someone of Ed's caliber had been conducting the test of > Rossi's reactor. (But then, to be blunt, the result might have been > negative in that case, and we wouldn't be wasting our time arguing about > it.) > > >
