I seems to me that the Professors in Sweden have been doing some sort of replication-related activity, or at least were doing one at one point. They should have seen the emissivity issue crop up immediately, using the Lugano protocol. Every test would have looked like it was working to some significant degree. The emissivity thing is unavoidable.
N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science
-
-
I seems to me that the Professors in Sweden have been doing some sort of replication-related activity, or at least were doing one at one point. They should have seen the emissivity issue crop up immediately, using the Lugano protocol. Every test would have looked like it was working to some significant degree. The emissivity thing is unavoidable.
yes, I think they must have realised it when replicating. Alan says that no replication was done - which conflicts with mats previous info that they had got as far as calibrating. maybe after the calibration they did not want to know more?
-
I'd agree with your arguments here Jed, except the last. Technical competence is not a requirement for debate.
Insofar as it is a technical debate here, some minimum level of technical competence is called for. To take an extreme example, some time ago, someone claimed that if saunas were installed in Rossi's factory, they could hide the heat. This person does not understand the conservation of energy. He does not understand fundamental facts about heat. I think that disqualifies him from making comments.
The dispute I was having with Ele was regarding the ERV data that Rossi uploaded. It shows the same flow rate and the same temperature to the nearest tenth-degree, day after day, for weeks. It even shows 1 MW of heat on days when Rossi reported the reactor was turned off. To me, this shouts out "FAKE DATA!!! FRAUD!" I cannot imagine how a technically competent person would not see this, yet some Rossi supporters here come up with convoluted excuses to paper over the problems. Excuses that I find mind-boggling. I think that is a failure to reach the minimum level of technical competence -- like the sauna hypothesis.
[People] are foolhardy to dispute technical matters with those better informed, unless they directly quote others better informed. Even then, relying on others is not a secure position to take, and makes it difficult to weight contrary arguments.
A great example of this is Levi (also - it seems very possible - randombit0 et al here) vs others. Levi is clearly and irrefutably wrong over the emissivity vs band emissivity issue.I do not know know enough about emissivity to take part in this debate. So, as you say, I would be foolhardy to comment on that. I myself cannot judge whether Levi is irrefutably wrong about this.
On the other hand, I can read the manual and follow directions. It says you put a sticker with known emissivity on the hot object, to calibrate. In the previous test they did that, but I don't think they did at Lugano. Plus, in the previous test they took the common-sense step of comparing the temperature to the thermocouple, but not this time. Why not?!? What's with that? I can't judge whether this is irrefutably wrong, but I can see it is sloppy. Plus, they are not doing themselves any favors by refusing to answer technical questions. Not least my question to them: What color was it? That's fundamental. That's how potters and ironmongers measured temperatures in ancient Egypt and Edo Japan. Before you get to thermocouples and IR sensors, use the 5000-year-old method.
So even if I cannot fully agree with you (or disagree!) I can along with you for a good distance.
-
Alan says that no replication was done - which conflicts with mats previous info that they had got as far as calibrating. maybe after the calibration they did not want to know more?
I would like to think I was wrong about that. None in Bologna for sure, but it is very probably ongoing in Upsalla.
-
