At 06:02 PM 1/2/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Kullander and Essen were taken in. Whether or not there was really
generation of heat, in what they witnessed, is debatable.
Nonsense. I am sure they were right. They checked carefully.
Instruments of that nature, such as commercial flow meters, are
highly reliable and there is no way Rossi could make a fake one.
That's not the issue. Jed, I'm shocked.
You have no evidence they were taken in. They are smart people and
they have been doing experiments for decades.
Not of this type.
Many other people observed these tests and apart from Krivit not
one has said there was anything fake about it.
No, *many people* have examined the results and came up with problems
that were overlooked by Essen and Kullander. Yes, Krivit pulled all
of this together, but he didn't invent it. This has been discussed to
death on Vortex.
Several people, such as the NASA group, said the tests did not
work the day they saw them. It was obvious the thing was not working.
Which, as you know, only means that the thing wasn't working.
If Rossi was faking it, why would he make the machine look like it
is not working on the day NASA showed up?
You've already come up with one reason. Another would be very simple:
it's not reliable and it wasn't working on the day they showed up.
Presumably a fake demonstration can be made to look like it is
working at any time, since there is actually nothing difficult going
on, but only an illusion.
Rossi developed a technique vulnerable to a certain illusion.
Perhaps, if we want to speculate, he realized that NASA might see
through it. So. No demonstration. Jed, your imagination is sometimes
poor. When imagining possibilities, much more freedom is required!
There is a reason why we want to see independent replications. They
are *much* harder to fake, and it's also harder to make an innocent
mistake, to be fooled by an artifact.
You keep claiming that scientists are easy to fool, but you have
never said what specific, actual method might be used to fool them.
Your assertion is not testable or falsifiable.
Okay, scientists could be fooled by the unexpected presence of
overflow water. They could assume that a single look at the outlet
hose would be adequate to show that there was no overflow water. No,
the hose would have to go into a bucket to show that, and the hose
would have to be well-insulated and short. As you know, that was not
the experimental setup. Overflow water, when quantity of water boiled
is the measure of heat, is fatal to accuracy.
Kullander and Essen also attempted to use a humidity meter to measure
steam quality. That was as much of a bonehead error as were Pons and
Fleischmann's neutron results. More so, in fact, as a little research
on steam quality would have shown. At last Pons and Fleischmann were
using a neutron-measuring device! Humidity meters do not measure
steam quality, period.
And to this day, as far as I know, Kullander and Essen have not
clearly addressed the problems. That is *not* a good sign!
But the proof of it, that they accepted, was clearly defective.
Says who?
I say so. I reviewed that evidence, and that's my conclusion.
Why was it defective? Because and invisible Leprechaun was
changing the power meter reading when no one watched?
Jed, you might consider taking up kite flying. It was defective for
the reason you know: the measurement of power was defective. Too many
ways for it to be off.
I wrote that there was no way that fraud could be ruled out, and
that's a general truth. A sophsticated fraud can fool *anyone*.
However, there are easy frauds and very difficult ones, and simple
error, to boot. The demonstrations were flawed. That they were
accepted was, therefore, also flawed. That does *not* mean that there
was no generated power, XP. It *does* mean that we don't know how
much, or even if there was any.
Perhaps you recall Rossi's answer to a suggestion that he do control
experiments.
That shows that even people considered expert can be fooled.
No, it does not. You are making unfalsifiable assertions, like Mary
Yugo's. You have demonstrate how they were fooled.
You are fooled, right now, Jed. Fooled by yourself. That's the way in
which most frauds operate, in fact. They feed into the assumptions
people will readily make. That's how magicians work, and, believe me,
a good magician can make tricks look very, very real. It's *easy* to
fool people, if you work at it.
Fooling a *subject matter expert* can be much more difficult. It can
still be done, particularly if the expert has only a naive
understanding of what frauds are possible. Experts, except experts in
fraud, mostly assume that what they are told is correct. They may
check this or that, but, for example, not continuously monitor input.
Really, there were many holes in the Kullander and Essen observation.
They were not prepared for the task. They were invited by Rossi, and set up.
Rossi would not have allowed usage of instrumentation that would have
been definitive, that is almost certain. You know that he's refused
help. So if an observer is confined to very limited observation, how
complete is their work? At the very least, they should have specified
fully what they did *not* check. But they also erred, with the
humidity meter gaffe.
It's pretty clear to me that Rossi should not have announced until
he actually had a reliable device ready to sell.
I disagree.
You are free to do so.
The story is that Rossi announced at the wish of his friend
Focardi. That's touching, but ... what if it cost him a billion dollars?
No. Word was getting out anyway. He did not reveal anything that
endangered his IP. I heard about him a year before the tests.
Yes, I'd heard about him too. But that does not mean that he should
have announced.
He is no worse off now than he was before the tests. Not much better
off either.
Well, if he pulls a E-Rabbit out of a hat, that passes everyone in a
flash, and you can buy one, and it works, he could recover. But he's
built up a huge reservoir of distrust. He might have trouble getting attention.
