On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> > The monitoring of the input was comically inadequate, if there is any >> possibility of deception, the blank run used a different power regimen, the >> claims of power density 100 times that of nuclear fuel without cooling and >> without melting are totally implausible, the lack of calorimetry is >> completely inexplicable. >> > > I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I get the impression the > input monitoring was actually pretty good, and that there have been some > crossed signals with different authors of the report as to what > measurements were actually carried out. > > This situation in itself is comical. The paper should report the relevant measurements and checks that were needed. The fact that they are coming back after the fact with various and contradictory and incomplete claims shows that it's a farce. I don't see how measurements with a PCE830 can be considered pretty good, when there are obvious and easy ways to get power past it. > >> Once that is acknowledged, the question is whether he's simply being > squirmy, or whether he's doing something more. I rather like the fact that > people here generally proceed on an assumption of innocence until such an > assumption becomes untenable. > > > For many of us, that point was passed a long time ago, particularly because he chooses equivocal methods, when it would be easy to make an unequivocal demonstration. Such a thing could have been done in a trivially easy way with the original ecat. Just the fact that he's abandoned that before it was proven, and moved to an entirely new equivocal demonstration makes the assumption untenable The fact that the alternative is almost as unlikely as cheese power, makes it's untenableness virtually certain.
