Jones Beene wrote:
--- Stephen
If searching for a conventional explanation for an
apparent COE violation in a simple system is
considered
"unreasonable" or "closed-minded", then we have
entered the realm of religion.
You are way off-base here.
No one is suggesting a COE violation,
I'm sorry; your posts have seemed to me to suggest very strongly that
Ron is on the verge of "closing the loop". If that's not suggesting COE
violation then I don't understand the term.
Ron has stated that the power in was insignificant, vis a vis the power
out. That seems to me to suggest COE violation as well.
Disconnecting one wire, and observing that the power in must surely be
zero, while the LED continues to glow, surely suggests COE violation (if
one doesn't so much as suggest that there might be some way for the
current to be bypassing the disconnected wire).
nor trying to
limit criticism.
Good!
It's only that the "conventional
explanations" you are rehashing, and a few you have
overlooked, were obvious from day-one;
And if they were so obvious why were they apparently ignored? Why did
Ron go on about how people thought he was faking it because it was
(presumably) impossible?
If the explanations were so obvious, why did anyone ever think Ron might
be faking it?
and although
they cannot yet be fully eliminated, the best-guess is
that there is some real anomaly present.
Why would you say the "best guess" is that it's anomalous, when the
conventional explanations haven't been eliminated?
[ ... ]
For you to say that "I have not seen" relevant power
readings, as if only you can be the judge of that -
Don't be silly and don't extrapolate past what I said.
___I___ have not seen the particular power measurements which I
mentioned. I speak in the first person because it is only ___I___ about
whom I can speak with authority.
Has Ron seen (made) such measurements? I have no idea and so I didn't
comment on it.
___I___ cannot judge power-in versus power-out, since ___I___ have not
seen any measurement of power-out from the signal generator.
How much clearer can I make that?
yes, that seems like negative "insinuation" to me...
and I cannot see how that is helpful.
Pfaugh.
If you can't see how a suggestion for an additional measurement which
might help to track down the source of the energy could possibly be
helpful, and if you think a comment that that there's an additional
measurement I'd like to see is some kind of "negative insinuation",
then... oh forget it.
Scientific debate, engineering debate, involves asking questions about
what we know, what we might know, and what we might do to learn the
things we don't know. You've said twice now that by asking questions
about the experiment and what additional measurements one might make I'm
"insinuating" bad stuff.
Jones, that's completely uncalled for. I was doing no such thing. You
may not intend to stifle debate but that's sure how it comes across.
