On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There can be no rational question that these people can read a weight
> scale, and use a graduated cylinder. There are no rational reasons to doubt
> the flow rate. The reasons you come up with are mere excuses. You are moving
> the goalposts to evade the issue.
>

My original objections to Levi's interpretation (reposted in this list) were
enough to dismiss the demo, and they did not include the flow-rate question,
which was raised by someone else. But asking why flow rate measurements are
inconsistent with photographic evidence is not only rational, but it does
not represent any moving of goal posts. If things appear inconsistent, it is
rational to try to understand why.


>  Even if someone were to give you the model number, you would demand proof
> they are not lying or that it really was the model. Since you do not trust
> they can read a weight scale, why should you trust they will give you the
> right model number?
>

If the model number was consistent with the picture, and the model was
capable of the claimed flow rate, then this particular objection would
vanish. I suspect the pump in the picture is the J5 model found on-line.
Find one of the high-res pics, and zoom in on the pump. It's pretty unlikely
that there's another model that similar. If they ever respond to this
question, they will likely claim the pump was modified, and yes, that would
remain suspicious. Why would they bother? Why would they not report it up
front?


> You demand they use a bigger reservoir, enough to last 1 hour. Suppose they
> do? You will then demand a 2-hour reservoir. Then you will demand proof that
> there is not a block of glass or something in the reservoir taking up space,
> making the capacity look bigger than it is. Then you will demand something
> else, and something else after that. Skeptics can play this game
> indefinitely, moving the goalposts down the field, outside the stadium, and
> into the next county.
>
>
The objections raised have not been flippant, and have not been difficult to
meet, and do not represent moving goalposts, unless you mean moving them
closer. I have described a demo that would be immune to such objections, and
you have described it too. An isolated device palpably warmer than its
surroundings for an indefinite duration. If cold fusion is to have a role in
supplying (not consuming) energy, such a demo should be trivial.


If you abandon reasonable, scientific standards and declare that people
> cannot be depended upon to read a weight scale, that is tantamount to saying
> you not trust these people.
>

It is saying that no one's perfect. Let others try it. Others who are
skeptical. Make it obvious. It's not that hard.



> You think they not even minimally competent to do a grade-school level
> task. Or you think they are dishonest. Nothing they can do or say will
> convince you of anything.
>

Again, Wrong. If they light a match, I will be convinced they can produce
heat from chemistry, and if they power the earth with hydrogen and nickel, I
will be convinced they have discovered a new energy source.

Reply via email to