Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You keep saying the results of Rossi's demos were obvious but there is > continuing disagreement over that from very smart people so you could be > wrong. > I do not know any very smart people who say this. All of the scientists I know who have examined the results are convinced. They include people such as Kullander, who is chairman of the Royal Academy of Sciences Energy Committee. I am certain that he knows more about energy than you do. I am sure he knows more about energy than all of skeptics tied together. The people who dispute these results have never offered any valid technical reasons to back up their assertions. For example, Jones Beene claimed that the calorimetry during the 18-hour flowing water test might be off by a factor of 1000, but he never gave any reasons why this is possible. Other people said that the input power might be measured incorrectly in that test, but that is impossible because the wires would burn up if there was that much electricity being input. You have never offered any technical reasons for any of your claims. You say that there may be a stage magician somewhere on Earth who knows some method of doing a fake test of this nature. That is not falsifiable so it is not a scientific assertion. Whenever anyone asks you for a scientific reason, you change the subject and point to Rossi's personality, and then you say he might be a fraud, and then you talk about Steorn. You are evading the issue. In the last year I have not seen a a single valid technical objection to Rossi's claims. I'm sure that if the skeptics could come up with something by now if they could. That is not to say Rossi's tests have been perfect. I myself have pointed out many weaknesses. However these weaknesses have no impact on the conclusion. Any experiment has weaknesses. Even the most irrefutable demonstration of a phenomenon could always be done with better instrumentation or more rigor. > You and others persist in making unlikely excuses for Rossi. > I never make excuses for anyone, least of all myself. My belief is in Rossi's claims, based on physics, not in the man himself. Rossi's problem is a failure to conduct his tests properly and to get > independent testing. The skeptics merely point this out. > I POINT THIS OUT. Often. > They also point out simple and safe, inexpensive ways to remedy the > problems. > These problem are annoying but unimportant. > It's Rossi's fault, not the fault of the skeptics, that he doesn't follow > your advice, much less skeptics' advice. > Yes, but his failure to follow this advice has no bearing whatever on the reality of his claim. That is based solely on fundamental physics and it would not change even if it Rossi turns out to be a fraud and an ax murderer to boot. Also: Please stop saying that I accuse Rossi of lying about his technical claims. I said very clearly that I have NEVER seen him do that. Perhaps he has lied but I have never caught him saying anything which was not either true or that he did not indicate was pure speculation. He has said some dubious things about personal matters such as his PhD from the diploma mill, his reasons for breaking with Defkalion, and about me, personally. That has nothing to do with the scientific claims. I think he sometimes practices misdirection and selective leaking of facts. Every inventor I have ever heard of did this. Edison was a master at that. IBM held a gigantic share of the computer market decades longer than they might have, partly thanks to their masterful use of this technique. - Jed
