On 02/21/2011 09:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com <mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they > are so easy to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so > hard? The more they neglect to do that, the more justified the > suspicion becomes. > > > No, it isn't hard, but they are not "neglecting" the issue. They are > unaware of the fact that you and others suspect that the pump may be a > problem. No one has communicated this to them, as far as I know. They > have no reason to tell you the exact pump model.
I disagree, Jed. If anything resembling a "paper" had actually been produced for this experiment, it would have included a description of the equipment used in testing, along with make and model. That's just standard procedure, at least in scientific papers I've seen. And, included in the description, there would have been a statement of the pump model number, along with the relative humidity probe model number used. That's *normal*, and since it wasn't given, asking about it is normal, too. Refusing to answer the question, and accusing the asker of being a hysterical skeptic because they asked the question, is *not* normal. If there had been any kind of real "paper" on this, it would also have included data for the output of the RH probe, along with an explanation of how that data was used to determine that the steam was dry. But there wasn't, and all we've got is handwaving and a lot of speculation. There would have been some statement as to how the observers knew the hose was dumping only steam into the drain, rather than a mix of steam and hot water, once the end of the hose had been sealed out of view. But there wasn't; instead, all we've got is speculation about whistling noises and gurgles from the pump. There would have been a graph of temperature versus time which actually had axis labels, and if there were screen shots, they would have been readable. We don't have any of this. We just have Levi's report, which is almost worthless, and we have hearsay to the effect that in some OTHER experimental runs, for which we don't even have the level of reporting we had here, much more impressive things were done. I'm sorry, this doesn't cut it, and accusing someone who remains unconvinced by this demo of being a pathological skeptic is totally unjustified. The demo might have been a dog and pony show to impress somebody, somewhere, who has some money to spend and not much sense. It certainly wasn't anything approaching a scientific demonstration of "proof" that Rossi's process works.