The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long as possible.
When asked :"how does it work" the builders will then ask "you tell Me". LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all > > On the matter of scepticism: > > No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR > but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and > put your eye to the telescope. > > For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been > published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. > > For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, > is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. > > If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party > test report: > http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 > > and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it > at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main > stream media as these and others did: > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ > > > http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ > > > http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says > > Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific > scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or > critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence > that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. > > Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third > Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first > Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the > fundamental principles of the scientific method: > > In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on > empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of > reasoning. > > This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report > are engaged in religion not science. > > The Experiment is king. > > To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and > put your eye to the telescope. > > Kind Regards walker >
