At 09:53 AM 7/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And this has been said to you many times, Jed,
and you keep repeating that this is "nonsense."
It is all nonsense and bullshit.
Sure, with proper specification of the "it." Nice to be able to agree.
The 18-hour tests with flowing water proved
that the large cell is producing ~17 kW.
"tests." That's one non-public test, done by Levi
and Rossi. A single demonstration (or even a
series of personal experiments) might ordinarily
be considered a certain kind of "conclusive,"
i.e. the method appears straightforward, the
conclusions sound. An example would be the Pam
Boss neutron findings. But that is not normally
considered "proof." We reserve that term for what
is reported by multiple independent observers, in controlled experiments.
Nothing like that has been permitted. You know that, Jed.
What I and others have been examining is not the
18-hour test, but the public tests based on assumptions of complete boiling.
The Lewan video proved that the smaller cells
are producing lots of steam. The precise amount
of steam does not matter because if there was
not excess heat, there would be water at 60°C and no steam at all.
Jed, you seem to be conflating a series of
demonstrations, mixing characteristics. Maybe not.
I had not recently read the Mats Lewan report of
the April demo. I will examine it and the video
separately. Jed, something you don't seem to
understand. My position has rapidly become that
certain publicized demonstrations failed to show,
conclusively, the amount of excess heat -- if any
-- being generated by the device. You are crying
"bullshit," but then, as proof, you cite yet
another demonstration. The other demonstration
might totally show that the claimed excess heat
was real, suppose for a moment it does. This is
*irrelevant* on the issue of whether or not the
first demonstrations showed that.
You are confusing "truth" with "what a particular
demonstration shows." No wonder you had so much
trouble on Wikipedia! (Wikipedia's theoretical
standard for inclusion is not "truth," but what
is found in "reliable sources," and, note: what
you think a reliable source "proves" is not what
can be included. Rather, for science articles,
especially, to present conclusions requires
reliable "secondary sources," which examine
claims and judge them. Wikipedia's *actual*
standards are far more socially complex....
If you do not believe the 18-hour test data, you
have no reason to believe any of the other data,
so you might as well drop the subject.
So, Jed, you believe that data. That's fine, you
are a believer, right? I do not *reject* the
data, but neither do I believe it. A
pseudoskeptic, here, would reject it. My position
is, I hope, normal scientific skepticism. I give
the data the benefit of the doubt, i.e., I
operate on an assumption that the researcher is
presenting what he observed. I may or may not
agree with the researcher's conclusions.
Jed, if you don't understand this, you need to
finish your lunch, or you won't understand the
legitimate skepticism that exists in some areas,
you will confuse it with pseudoskepticism.
If you don't like the steam tests, and you
actually believe this garbage about people
boiling away water with 7 times less energy than
it normally takes, or 20 times, or 1000 times
(the numbers keep changing) then I suggest you
forget about the boiling tests and look at
liquid water flow tests of these machines only.
Your comment assumes the very assumptions that
are being questioned, the amount of water boiled
away. I'd love to look at liquid water flow tests
of these machines, but the data is not available.
Look, it's very simple: do you believe that the
*public demonstrations* should be adequate to silence skepticism on this?
That is a very different question from the
question you seem to be answering: "Do you
believe that real excess heat existed in the public demonstrations."
Can you see why people might rationally remain
skeptical, based on the public demonstration
data, and, further, why they then would not
deeply trust the private data? (Data? What data?
That's what Krivit asked for and did not get, right?)
- Jed
