Hello Jed, Hey, I've failed to communicate to you just what I mean...
Not being mean, just presenting meaning... I'm describing firstly: 1. a way of causing the output thermister to put out a 5 deg C higher signal than the input thermister, assuming as a pragmatic skeptic, that the water temperature is in fact unchanged -- so hide a small heater within or behind the thermister, with a small wire supplying 10-20 W right by the tiny sensitive region of the thermister, perhaps with a thin transparent insulating layer over the thermister, to reduce heat loss from the small heater into the water... 2. probably even easier, mess with the electric signal that goes into the temperature display device, probably with hidden circuits within the device, so that an operator at a distance can control the temperature display with a very low power wireless signal that is received within the device. So, please think about this and come up with some cogent arguments that both of these approaches to scientific fraud are impossible, so that thoughtful, polite, and reason and evidence driven discussion can eliminate this as a real factor in today's demonstration... Rich Murray is a polite, pragmatic, cautious, imaginative skeptic, just one ordinary contributor, playing an essential role in a possibly crucial field with over two decades of mistakes, fraud, lack of persistent independent confirmation of any anomalies, lack of experimental and theoretical progress, polarization of positions, and a shortage of critical self-scrutiny by those who present claims of anomalies... Again, he emphasizes that exploration of all these claims should be publicly explored, and he praises you for presenting a thorough free public archive of two decades of research. You impugn your own credibility and our common cause, if you continue to choose to dismiss Rich Murray as a "pathological skeptic"... within mutual service, Rich Murray On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Jed, so, you can say now that you are convinced that eCat is 100% true. > > Unless these people are lying. Or, unless when they open the reactor they > find a 5 kW heating element. > There may be some problem with the test. Let us wait to see the reports. My > point is that the problem suggested by Murray is ruled out. There is no such > thing as an invisible 5 kW electric water heater with no wires. That's > ridiculous. > That does not mean all other problems are ruled out, or ridiculous. For > example, it could be that the inlet and outlet thermocouples are not > properly calibrated. There might be a large bias. I hope that they took > steps to ensure this is not the case. I suggested several steps they should > take to do this. I have not heard yet whether they did take these or other > steps. > A lot of things can go wrong with flow calorimetry. However, many people are > practiced in the technique, and it is not difficult to eliminate all likely > sources of error. Whether they eliminated them in this test I cannot say. > The previous reports were not detailed enough to ensure that all sources > were eliminated, but they did give me the impression that an error is > unlikely. The previous tests should have been more rigorous, and the reports > should have been more detailed. They should have included, for example, the > make and model of every instrument used, and some discussion of null runs > and calibration. Krivit says there is "no evidence" of heat in 10 tests. > That's an outrageous exaggeration. There was considerable evidence even if > it was poorly presented and not fully convincing. There was also evidence of > other Ni-H reactions from other researchers. In cutting edge scientific > research, if you demand perfectly convincing proof before you begin to > believe something -- or at least find it credible -- and you demand that > every i dotted and every t crossed, you will never look at any interesting > new claims. All discoveries are a mixture of true and false. > It remains to be seen whether this test will be convincing. > - Jed
