We should not forget though that there is a gap here between input and output and that is what happens inside the e-cat. It is not just some mysterious process inside the lattice but everything that happens inside the black box. In normal circumstances we would be able to see what is inside the box and take it apart but we are not allowed to do so. We could trust Rossi in claiming that the box is not rigged, that there are no tricks, but we cannot do that on face value (beside as a playful but not very satisfactory exercise). To be honest it is easier to invoke human nature, deviating behavior, trickery than to accept, on the basis of what is given to us, new physics. New physics would be the inevitable answer if we could eliminate without a shade of a doubt any other (and simpler) explanation involving fraud and scam. Believing me I would be the first one to be so happy and excited if new physics would one day would be the only possibility for the e-cat. But I would rather err on the safe side (given Rossi behavior and history) and be pleasantly surprised than bitterly disappointed and heart broken by a unscrupulous and antisocial individual. Giovanni Giovanni
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jed, >> With all respect I cannot understand where you come from when you make >> such comments: >> laws of nature-- >> Rossi's claim is a violation of known laws of nature . . . >> > > Sure. I meant the *calorimetry* must follow the laws of nature. As Harry > Veeder wrote: "Only the science of instrumentation should be bound by the > 'laws of physics'." > > If you do not admit that the results of an experiment can violate known > laws, there will be no progress. > > To put it another way, older laws trump newer ones. If calorimetry and > thermodynamics prove that cold fusion does exist, you cannot point to the > newer laws governing plasma fusion to prove it does not exist, and that > calorimetry does not work. You have to conclude that a metal lattice is > nothing like the sun. > > > , that would be ok, if he would make open the details of the experiment >> set up to third parties even just in terms of reliable input and >> output measurements. >> > > His measurements are reliable enough to be sure the effect is real. You do > not even need instruments to be sure the heat is real, and not chemical. > Granted, instrument readings are a lot more accurate. I agree it is a shame > he uses lousy instruments. > > - Jed > >
