On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Alan J Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 02:40 AM 11/17/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> Or use two ecats. Then of course you'd need someone independent to select >> which one to use for the blank run. >> > > Solves nothing. In fact, nor does my proposed protocol. > > Rossi just "turns on" the fakium for the live run, and leaves it off for > the "blank" run. > Well, if Rossi is made to keep his distance, that would be difficult. And even if he did turn on the fakium in the live run, at least it would be easier to quantify the fakium output. You could for example turn up the electric heater to give the same output from the blank run as you get from the live run, and then you'd know what energy input is needed to produce the observed result. ps : I've always supported the position that the excess power * run time > must be long enough to eliminate all possible fakes, and have no problem > with anyone who insists that is required for "absolute proof". > > But that's not to say that anything less than that is proof of failure, Absolutely true. No one is claiming to have proof that Rossi does not have nuclear reactions. Only that nuclear reactions are not necessary to explain the observations. And to many, the default position on heat from nuclear reactions under these conditions is skepticism, until the evidence is unequivocal. Especially since unequivocal evidence should be easy to provide. > Meaningful conclusions can be drawn from incomplete, inconsistent or > even faulty data. > > Maybe in some cases, but I don't think anything meaningful can be gleaned from Rossi's demos.
