At 09:36 PM 2/25/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/25/2011 04:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > >>> Yet you persist in calling these results "marginal." You are either >>> technically illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who glances at the >>> graph on the front page at >>> <http://lenr-canr.org/index.html>http://lenr-canr.org will see you >>> are wrong. >> >> That's P13/P14. There is another graph of this that was page 2 in the >> review paper presented to the DoE in 2004. >> >> Seeing these graphs in isolation, with a background if distrust and >> rejection, can be less than convincing. The caption on that image on >> your page, Jed, is accurate. But people will not necessarily grasp >> the implications. > > That's true. Perhaps I exaggerated. You do need to read and understand > the paper to grasp the implications of this graph. Actually I thought the graph was pretty darn clear even in isolation. The paper lends weight to it, by making it clearer that the whole graph isn't some weird anomaly, but anybody familiar with the field should be able to grasp the graph's significance immediately. I think it's a good choice for the front page.
I like the chart that shows the current a little better. Truth be told, I'd like to see all three current excursions, not just the "interesting" one.
The fact that the beast appears sometimes and not others is very important to understand. It is actually *more* impressive, because if it appears all the time, then, it might more likely be a systematic error....
