Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I'm still reading the discussion with deep interest. I've slung some
mud, it's true, but largely in the hope that my points would be answered.
(The unfortunate thing is, if this is not on the up-and-up, then it's
in the world of con games, and nobody on this list is an expert at
them. Furthermore, I would guess that nobody at Bologna is an expert
on con games.
I think you should propose a method by which a con game would be
physically possible without the cooperation of the people who designed
the calorimetry, brought the instruments, and operated them. Imagine, if
you will, that an Interstellar alien gives you a small indestructible
box that cannot be opened, and tells you only that if you input 400 W,
it will produce 12 kW. Even though you cannot see inside it, and you
have no idea how it works, please describe it might be a "con" if you
yourself test it, or if a group of distinguished expert professors test
it. In what sense could it be wrong?
A calorimeter by its very nature "knows" nothing about the source of the
energy. All calorimeters are inherently "black box" testing machines.
They see all heat the same way, be it nuclear, chemical or mechanical
friction. They do not NOT see heat that is not really there, and there
is no way you can fool one.
There are no hidden inputs or outputs to this device. It is small enough
and portable enough to confirm that. The only inputs are electricity,
hydrogen gas, and water, and the only output is hot water which turns to
steam. I do not think it is physically possible for this to be con. If
you do, please describe the general nature of this con. If you cannot
suggest any plausible con, then your assertion is like saying: "I think
it is magic." That is to say, your assertion cannot be tested or
falsified. If an invisible, undetectable, unspecified con is possible,
any experiment might be one.
As I said, anyone could think of ways to make a stage magician trick, or
a movie special effect version. That's trivial. But that would be
instantly apparent to the professors. They would see an extra hose or a
heavy-duty electric wire. You cannot hide such things from people who
are right there, looking at and arranging the equipment (which they
did), when those people understand the nature of electricity, water,
steam, physics and chemistry. There is no conceivable way you can make
them think that hot air is steam.
I assume you are not asserting that the professors are in cahoots with
Rossi. If they are, all bets are off.
By the way, a wire capable of conducting 12 kW is MUCH thicker and
heavier than an ordinary 1.5 kW wall socket wire. See the wires on
electric water heaters or clothes driers. If you tried to draw 12 kW
with an ordinary wire it would burn up instantly.
I am not necessarily ready to believe this claim. I think Nagel's
criteria should be applied. But I am even less ready to reject it on the
basis that calorimetry might not work for unspecified reasons which no
one can define, test, or falsify.
- Jed
