At 02:32 AM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
It is not in any way proof that the E-Cat is *not* producing excess power.
That's true, but I've only been arguing that Rossi has not provided
the public with evidence of excess heat. I don't have proof that the
rock in my front yard is not producing heat either. But Rossi is
making the claim. The onus is on him to provide the evidence.
For science, yes. For dramatic theater, no. He can say what he wants,
he can induce you to tie yourself in knots, and he knows what he has
in reserve, and you don't.
If he wants to convince us, he could do so -- if this thing is real.
That doesn't mean that he has *any* motive to convince us. Are we
offering him payment? Is he asking us for payment? I don't think so.
At this point, the more skeptical outrage there is, the more he wins,
if the device is real. And if it's not real, he doesn't lose
anything, unless he fails to avoid actionable fraud.
Look, Rossi, attacking Krivit, looks like a complete nut case. Jed
excuses this as an idiosyncracy of an inventor. Maybe. I'm
skeptical. I suspect that Rossi is smarter than that, that he knows
how he looks and is deliberately creating the impressions that he's
creating. I can think of a number of reasons for this, both
psychological and practical or economic.
I don't know how one can come to this idea except to start with the
conclusion that the ecat works, and you said starting from the
conclusion is a bad thing.
No, the "number of reasons" could include scenarios where he's a
fraud. A suspicion is not "reasoning from conclusions," though
certainly held conclusions could influence it, such as your held
conclusion, my guess, that this thing *must* be bogus, since LENR is
impossible. Right?
