A test we might hope to see is heat afer death where a fueled reactor is red hot after 10 minutes, the microwave off, and the dummy reactor cooled to darkness. That would impress anybody.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:05 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > To anyone requiring absolute proof, the dummy reactor will not be > adequate. The mere fact that it looks the same and behaves differently > proves that it is not an exact replacement. Magic tricks use this same > type of desception to convince folks that what they are seeing defies > common sense. > > If your goal is to convince normal, non professional people that LENR is > real, the dummy demo may work well enough. Even though Dennis Cravens had > a wonderful dummy demonstration, none of the high level skeptics accept the > fact that it was all above board. > > Unfortunately, I suspect that even the best constructed calorimeter is not > going to change the mind of determined skeptical scientists. The main > reason is that their minds are so convinced that LENR is not possible that > they will not even make the effort to review the experiment honestly. And, > if by chance that want to show why the published results are in error by > examining the data, any proof that it is real is going to be set aside by > them as being associated with a new error that they must have made. You > can never convince people with that mindset to believe that what they have > held sacred for most of their lives is not true. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 11:42 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The good, the bad and the ugly > > The dummy reactor comparison is the most simple concept to understand > for the non expert. There are not many calorimeter experts. > > The simplest demo is the most persuasive demo. > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:23 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I agree with Dan. It will be more difficult to convince anyone except >> a person that believes that LENR is real. This technique is no where near >> as reliable as a true, calibrated calorimeter. There are just too many >> variables to contend with. >> >> If the goal is to prove that LENR exists to others then this is not going >> to be adequate. All you have to do is to observe the recent history of >> skeptical behavior towards any experiment that we have witnessed. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Rocha < [email protected]> >> To: John Milstone < [email protected]> >> Sent: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 10:21 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The good, the bad and the ugly >> >> Also, even with the control, it is like food. Using different food >> will heat differently. The material of the control should be different from >> the actual cell. >> > >
