On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Joshua Cude wrote:
>  I suspect it is designed to have large thermal mass (maybe in hot oil, or
>> even water under pressure), so that after the power is turned off, the
>> thermal mass keeps the output at the bp for some time. That way, they can
>> claim it is self-sustaining, even though it's just cooling off. Clever.
> The professors tested and calibrated this machine for 6 weeks. They would
> have discovered that it has a large hidden thermal mass.

They did. It takes 30 minutes to bring the temperature up to the level
needed to deliver water at 100C.

> They observed semi-uncontrolled heat after death among other things.

They observed the temperature stay at 100C for 15 minutes. Thermal mass
explains that.

> Others in the U.S. have tested it for many hours at a time.

Others? Who?

> "I suspect" is not a particularly useful hypothesis, in any case.

Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such suspicions
impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true.

> Anyone can suspect anything, including hidden wires; a specially
> reconstructed plug in the wall and a superconducting wire that allows much
> more electricity than normal while fooling the power meter; oxygen added to
> the tap water; or a fluid replacing the tap water that happens to be
> tasteless and potable, but has a lower boiling point than water. All of
> these have been proposed. Such hypothesis are so far-fetched they should not
> be taken seriously.

Maybe, but thermal mass, as evidenced by the startup and cool-off times, is
not at all far-fetched.

And the suspicions you list could be easily excluded with a better designed
demo, and in any case, made less likely by allowing observers who are not

> Skeptics can come up with hundreds of them, culminating in something like
> the hypothesis that thousands of rats gathered every night to drink the
> water in Mizuno's heat after death experiments.

Right. But set the skeptic in from of his experiments, and he will not
suspect rats.

> I think we should stick to reasonable, plausible hypotheses that have some
> supporting evidence rather than "I suspect" or "hypothetically someone could
> . . ." or "the specifications for a pump I saw on the Internet mean the
> professors can't read a weight scale."

And I think the experiment should be designed so no one could say "I
suspect", you know like in the examples I gave, there is no room for

> Even allowing the hypothesis that Rossi is a con man, I do not think we
> should assume that he has an astounding ability to replace wires in walls,
> or the drinking water in ordinary pipes, or that by standing in the room he
> can make a university power meter go haywire, or make Dufour think a pipe is
> hot when it is lukewarm.

Whatever. My suspicions do not require any of that. Just some thermal mass
inside that giant tin-foil phallus.


Reply via email to