Alan J Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2010Levi-Report-RossiDemo.pdf > Power from the 220V line was monitor and logged by a “WATTUP?” Pro Es > power meter. > Plus a clamp-on ammeter. So you think that a watt meter can be wrong by a factor of 200 (16 kw)? Or by a factor of 1,600 (130 kW)? Because if cannot be anywhere near that wrong, you are wasting your time considering it. I understand that these are merely hypothetical examinations of what *could* happen. However, when you consider how a trick might work, you should pay some attention to how that trick might fail to work, and to the fact that if the person testing the machine took even minimal common-sense precautions, or looked closely at the machine, the trick would be immediately revealed. The thing is, I could add dozens more impossible tricks, or a hundred more variations. For example, maybe Rossi waited until the professors left the room for a moment and then swapped instruments with fake one. Where would he find ones that looked exactly alike? Well, he hired someone to brake into their labs, photograph the equipment, and make an exact duplicate. The FBI did this in a episode of the "Soprano's." Sure, it could happen. Or, lets say, when they were not looking, he substituted a machine that looked exactly the same except it had a fuel line going through one of the legs. Or, he hypnotized them, and by power of persuasion and post-hypnotic suggestion, made them believe they saw 130 kW. That could happen too! Hypnosis is remarkable. I could go on like that all day, getting farther and farther removed from reality. I have not addressed the fact that they are now testing the gadget in Rossi's absence and they will soon open it up and find whatever trick he is using. Forget about motive or the likelihood of anyone actually doing this. If we fantasize and assume that anything can happen, we can come up with an endless series of reasons why *any* experiment might be fake or wrong. You can disprove the moon landings. The skeptics have been doing that for years with Pd-D experiments by McKubre and others. I could a far better job than they do, and not a single one of their hypotheses is worth considering, but that does not stop them. You need to draw the line, and exclude tricks that any experienced person would detect in a few minutes. You need to exclude tricks that only the FBI would have the resources to do. The trick has to be plausible, or it is a waste of time thinking about it. - Jed
