Anyone except for a skeptical scientist that must assume some type of trick since it appears to violate his core beliefs. I am afraid it sounds like some religious behavior; perhaps that is exactly what strong belief in theory amounts to!
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 12:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The good, the bad and the ugly 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.
