On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot > be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree > with it, for that matter. It is meaningless. > This sounds like the tactic of a loser. The same can be said of Rossi's claim that the heat comes from nuclear reactions. Rossi's claim is based on energy density. If it does not exceed the energy density possible by chemical or thermal storage, then he has nothing. And any claim of magic (illusion) still has to satisfy the laws of nature. It is perfectly feasible to conceive of ways Rossi could do his demo to exclude illusion as an explanation. That makes it falsifiable. But trying to obfuscate an argument with rules of logic that you don't understand may allow you to keep jabbering, but I have no idea who could possibly buy into it. The levels of energy Rossi is demonstrating are small enough to be produced by thermal storage, chemical reactions, or by misdirection and sleight of hand. Much larger levels of energy would not be. That would be falsification. > No matter how you fake an eCat, the moment the reactor is opened up > experts will see how it works. > Too bad, they just cracked the lid. I'd like to see the actual amount of nickel powder used, and the absence of any other thermal mass, before I'm prepared to believe nuclear reactions are needed. > There is no way to hide wires. > There is no need for wires in a 100 kg device. > The cell is much too small to produce a chemical reaction of this > magnitude, when you take into account the space needed for the equipment > such as tanks and burners. > You should look up thermochemical energy storage. > Arguments that cannot be tested, falsified or refuted are verboten in > science, > All the arguments *against* the ecat can be. Rossi won't allow it for the claims for it.
