On 11-11-07 02:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Isotope shifts!?! I must have said a hundred times these shifts make
no sense and I suppose they are errors.
Sorry! I thought you had defended that one. (It was, after all, one
of Rossi's "technical" claims, as I recall -- the 'created' copper
has non-natural isotope ratios.)
I make a key distinction here between "engineering technical claims"
and physics claims. His physics claims include extraordinary
assertions about isotope shifts and a new theory he has devised.
His claim about isotope shifts which I found interesting was that he had
observed them.
It was primarily interesting because the supposed 'created' copper which
was analyzed by an outside lab didn't exhibit them.
I have no idea what this theory is about. Rossi himself has often
pointed out that he is an engineer, not a theoretical physicist, so it
seems unlikely to me that he has developed a radical new theory which
is correct. But you never know.
I doubt that he has lied about the isotope shifts.
OK, he just misspoke...
My impression is that he probably does not know much about measuring
such things. I don't either, but I know it is a lot harder than it looks.
I'm sorry, Jed, but your 200 prophets of Baal can't stand up to one
temperature graph.
In other words, the experts in steam are all wrong, HVAC engineers are
all wrong, and you are right.
Darn right. (Besides, they're YOUR experts, not mine -- I've never
talked to a single one of them. And that makes *all* their testimony
"hearsay" as far as I'm concerned. The only "expert" testimony on the
steam quality I've actually seen was from Galantini and the statements
I've seen from him on this topic were less than impressive.)
With that attitude you cannot criticize Rossi for thinking he has a
grand new theory that trumps the textbooks.
I don't criticize him for that.
(My only problem with Rossi, in fact, is that I don't believe he really
thinks that.)
- Jed
