On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> So, do you need help with that spice model? > You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the alleged observations, but do not hold themselves to the same standard to give an explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation, or how NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel without melting, regardless of what produces the energy. That doesn't stop you from believing it happens though. There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, and an unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. > The remainder of your discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. They are a direct response to your arguments or requests. But you have no counter to them, so you just repeat what you said before. > You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I want to take apart one by one. Yea, sure. But you don't respond to any of them. Instead you just stomp your feet and repeat yourself. As long as you ignore my responses, I'll keep repeating them. You have a double standard. Answer for that.
