On 01/17/2011 02:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >>> How do we know that all the water ( 8.8 l) evaporated? > > That's what the RH meter is for. (May have answered already.)
Mmmm? I didn't see that mentioned, and I didn't realize that's what it was doing. In fact I thought that was being used as part of the verification that it was "dry" steam. If it's pure steam, presumably the RH is 100% -- right? And was the flow rate of the /output/ measured, and integrated to obtain a total volume? I don't recall that being mentioned. >> This is another example of the disastrous consequences of depending >> on a "black box" test. The stuff coming out could have been dry >> steam, or it could have been hot air. > > No, for two reasons: 1. You can tell the difference between steam and > hot air. You mean "one can tell...". It was not clear to me that the check to see that it really was steam was being done. You are apparently asserting it was, indeed, done; that's good! > 2. The volume of the machine is much smaller than the 18 liters of > water injected into it over the course of an hour. There is no place > inside it to hide the water. The fact that it is a black box does not > reduce the certainty of this particular factor in any way. > > >> In fact, unless the "dry steam" was recondensed and the water which >> resulted was weighed, all we know for sure is that Rossi has >> demonstrated a device which made some quantity of water /vanish/. > > That would be even more remarkable than cold fusion. Vanish were? How? > Into a 5th dimension? Same place the Statue of Liberty went. Heck, Jed, you've surely seen stage magicians -- making things vanish is an illusionist's stock in trade. Just because I can't tell you where it might have gone doesn't mean it didn't go somewhere other than where we're told it went. Trying to prove otherwise is trying to prove a negative. Again, the issue is trust. If we haven't got it, it's a problem. And as I've observed ad nauseum, Rossi's "secret ingredient" makes it impossible for anyone to replicate this, which makes it impossible to check the results. And that would absolutely serve his purpose if he really is cheating. > > >> The person presenting the demonstration -- Rossi -- claims he turned >> it into steam. >> >> What proof is there of that? > > The profs who designed the experiment made sure there was proof. They > -- not Rossi -- confirmed it was steam. I hope so. Note well: If they trust Rossi, then there would be no /a priori/ reason for us to assume they'd check to be sure the water that went in all came back out. They'd want to know it was /dry/ steam, of course, but that's just guarding against a /mistake/ on Rossi's part, not intentional deception. So, it's good to hear that they verified it really was steam, /and/ that they measured the total volume which came out -- right? >> With a single demonstration, in which only one researcher knows >> what's inside the box, unless you have rock solid confidence in that >> researcher, you should take /nothing/ for granted. > > Maybe, but you should also not assume that someone can magically make > 18 liters of water vanish into thin air. > > >> Once again, this is also probably not the "trick". In fact, I don't >> know what the "trick" might be; chances are, if there's a "trick", >> it's something far cleverer than any idea we'll come up with here. > > The only people who could engineer a trick would be the profs who > designed the experiment. They would do this with something like a > secret hose from the device that runs under the table, through the > table leg and through the floor, with a secret hose bringing in steam. > > I can think of a dozen ways to fake this. If this were a stage trick > or a movie I could easily come up with ways to make it look real. > HOWEVER, the key point is, the professors who did this experiment have > no motivation to set up that kind of stage trick, and Rossi himself is > physically incapable of doing it. Do you think they let him into the > lab for a week with a team of special effects experts, so they could > drill holes in the table and floor for tubes, or so that they could > change the electric sockets? /I have no idea what they allowed him to do/. Do you know, for sure, whether he was allowed to set things up in the lab, by himself, ahead of time? (Perhaps to assure that the reactor would work correctly, or something was properly adjusted, or to add the secret ingredient?) I sure don't, and as I've also said, repeatedly, if there is a player involved whom you don't fully trust, you should /assume nothing/. > As long as you trust the people who designed, implemented and operated > the experiment, the black box in the middle is irrelevant. That is true /if/ the creator of the black box isn't the one running the experiment. But that's not the case here, unless I'm seriously mistaken. Others worked on the design, but Rossi ran the show -- right? > The whole point of an experiment is to reveal the nature of a sample > (or "black box" if you like). Even if you know exactly how the sample > works -- for example, if it is a Nicad battery attached to a resistor > -- your experiment should treat it as a black box that might yield any > answer, even an endothermic reaction. You wouldn't want to make a > calorimeter that automatically rejects or hides an endothermic result, > even if you have no expectation you will see one. A experiment that > requires you understand what the test sample is and what it is doing > is not, strictly speaking, an experiment at all. > > All cold fusion experiments are block box tests. Not in the same sense, not at all. > No one knows how the effect works, or in detail what causes it. This > particular test happens to be a single-blind test, where one person > knows the content of the device and the others do not. Actually, this > is a more reliable way to confirm heat than a test where everyone > knows the sample content. This reduces bias, or wishful thinking. I disagree. There is a world of difference between errors and fraud. > The single-blind tests for helium conducted by labs in cooperation > with Melvin Miles were more convincing precisely because the people > testing the samples had no idea of the sample history, and no > preconceived notions about what they might find, or what they were > "supposed to" find. Miles sent them blank samples such a laboratory > air, to help eliminate bias. Big difference: Miles is known to be honest, and all that needed to be ruled out were errors. Nobody, including you, is arguing that Rossi is known to be honest. > > - Jed >
