On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work > could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the > conclusions." > First of all, there are many specific ways suggested to explain the ecat, that do not involve nuclear reactions. Secondly, none are necessary. Unless the energy density exceeds what is known to be possible, there is no reason to accept the claims. And thirdly, the failure of scientists (for a time) to identify the flaws in the N-ray and polywater experiments did not mean the conclusions were right, or that they should not be challenged. And that goes for all the perpetual motion claims that are repeatedly made. At some point, it is no longer interesting or necessary to even try to understand the observations made by people claiming yet again to have built a perpetual motion machine. > All critiques of experiments must be based on specific discussions of > instruments and techniques. No appealing to theory allowed. > It's a good thing you don't make the rules. If appeals to theory were not used to guide understanding, we would lose the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants. Robust experimental results must be accepted in contradiction to theory, for sure, and are, of course. But that's not the same as ignoring theory in the interpretation of experiments.Theory just represents an accepted generalization based on previous experiments. If a result (or more commonly, an interpretation of a result) contradicts theory, then it has to be questioned. That's a critical part of making progress. And if another interpretation of the same results fits existing theory, then it's more likely to be correct. In the case of the ecat, the experimental results consist of temperature and flow rate measurements. Claiming it's nuclear is a *theory* to explain the results. And since it is not consistent with expectations of existing theory, it is important to question it. If the temperatures and flow rates are consistent with an alternative theory that *is* consistent with existing theory, it's more likely to be correct. > > replication is always required. It does not matter how strong the > evidence is; you cannot short-circuit that step. That's another rule of > experimental science, > Replication is always desirable to improve and understand, but it's not always necessary to accept a new phenomenon. The Wright's 1908 flight in Paris was enough to convince all skeptics. An exploding nuclear bomb would convince all skeptics. And it's not hard to imagine a single demo of the ecat that would convince all skeptics. Rossi has not come close to that yet. > That is in fact where we stand with the Fleischmann Pons effect. The > statute of limitations ran out a long time ago. > > I agree. If they claim heat from nuclear reactions and can't convince the scientific mainstream, who would love nothing more, then it's time to cut losses.
