View Single Post
Old 01-22-2009, 01:06 PM   #13 (permalink)
ConnClark's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richland,WA
Posts: 967

Das Schlepper Frog - '85 Mercedes Benz 300SD
90 day: 23.23 mpg (US)

Gentoo320 - '04 Mercedes C320 4Matic
90 day: 22.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 46
Thanked 227 Times in 156 Posts
Originally Posted by htaylor View Post
It must have some effect, or the paper would not have gotten into the Energy and Fuel publication. If you take time to read one of their publications you will see that it is a serious publication and not and advertisement in Popular Mechanics. try reading a issue.
I agree Energy and Fuels is a highly regarded scientific journal however, if you read the following link (which was also published in the same journal) you will see that it should not have made it into the publication.

It did not meet the standards for being published there. This scientist raised questions about the efficacy of the test procedure and its lack of detail so that other scientists could confirm the results. This is a basic requirement of all serious scientific trade publications. Someone dropped the ball in the editors office.

This scientist also raised serious doubts about the claims being made in regard to the laws of thermodynamics.

If R. Tao, K. Huang, H. Tang, and D. Bell wish to address and clarify the questions raised they have the opportunity to do so. If they do they can have their rebuttal published in this journal provided it meets standards. This is how peer reviewed scientific journals work.
  Reply With Quote