Terry wrote:
What amazes me, Grimer, is that I can't seem to get anyone to even go see it. A few people will discuss it; but, I have yet to convince anyone to go with me and help verify the measurements.
I would love to go see it, but I am not qualified to verify the measurements. I wouldn't know were to start, and I would not want to waste the inventor's time.
I think this calls for a better meter. If someone wants to rent a deluxe power meter, I would be happy to chip in and come watch the thing in operation. It is hard to imagine how we would measure output, but if the deluxe meter agrees with the inventor's input measurements, that would be a good sign.
If the inventor decides to go fully public and wants to write a report, I would be happy to assist editing the English.
It reminds me of the people in sci.physics.fusion who refused to even read the CF papers and the people who would not look through Galileo's telescope.
Actually, the results from Galileo's telescope were ambiguous and required expert observation, training and patience. An ordinary person looking through it (or you or I) would see nothing. The instrument quality was poor, and there was no proper mounting to aim it or keep it steady. Stars often appeared duplicated or distorted because of internal reflections, and the whole thing vibrated. Much better telescopes emerged a few years later, confirming the results. At the beginning, it was unconvincing, like some of the early cold fusion experiments.
- Jed
