home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!fusion
- From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
- Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell
- Message-ID: <930126141130.208008fc@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
- Sender: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
- Reply-To: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
- Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:32:05 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- Jed, in a response to Frank Close says:
-
- "How so? What other work? Tell us exactly what McKubre, Kunimatsu, Srinvasan,
- Storms, Mills, and Thermacore have done wrong."
-
- McKubre looks pretty good. Kunimatsu I do not recognize. Srinvasan I have
- already critiqued here. Storms published on 1/2 of a good run. I would have
- been more conservative. Mills I did extensive work duplicating, and found
- problems which have not yet been resolved. Thermacore has not to my knowledge
- published, so I have no way of evaluating their work.
-
- So my personal assessment is that the field (based mainly on McKubre's work)
- is provocative, but not convincing.
-
- Later Jed says:
-
- "Let me make your assignment crystal clear: prove the heat is an experimental
- error."
-
- That is not the way science works, Jed. Experiments are published with enough
- detail for replication. Belief results when enough separate replications are
- made so that workers in the field generally agree on the result. One problem
- for me is that I have observed that McKubre leaves importent parts of the
- recipe out of the published papers. So I can not be sure that my work is
- really a replication. So that reduces the weight of the McKubre result.
-
- Tom Droege
-