At 05:06 PM 12/20/2012, James Bowery wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
James Bowery
<<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22James+Bowery%22>http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22James+Bowery%22>
Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:07:16 -0800
<<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20121219>http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20121219>
Perhaps what is so difficult for the Vortex "lame brains" is not
deciphering the "Mole" comment, but figuring out why "Lucky Saint" has not
provided a video of this LENR disk boiling water.
One could easily fake this in a video, it would be trivial. It could
be done with, indeed, induction heating of the copper, that could be
invisible on the video, and *anything* can be faked in a video. But
this could be extremely difficult to fake with an in-person
demonstration, where observers could check everything -- except, to
preserve "privacy" -- i.e., intellectual rights, if those matter --
the contents of the copper cell.
Induction heating would require a visible device nearby. If "Lucky
Saint" is sincerely attempting to help the world by releasing this
technology, as he has presumably attempted by disclosing the
fabrication technique, then it would be a small additional effort to
post a video of a beaker of water containing the boiling device,
with the beaker elevated on some sort of stand that would not
plausibly contain an induction heater.
Faking that video would be difficult enough to motivate a "Russ"
type of fellow, who has access to the requisite resources, to
proceed to replicate the recipe.
Aw, c'mon. That level of fake would be trivial. Sure, the video might
be made so that it would be difficult. But it would still be quite
possible with video editing software.
Look, it's a lot of work to replicate something like this. I would
*not* invest that work unless:
1. The researcher is credible, behaves as if sane.
2. The claims are credible. A small disk that boils water for five
years, not credible.
3. Something that could be confirmed, easily, has been confirmed.
All three tests fail, here.
Absolutely, we can't claim that failing these tests *proves* that
there is no effect, or that the fellow is actually lying. It merely
makes that probable enough that investing the resources to verify the
recipe is likely doomed to find nothing but a failed replication. And
what would that prove? The guy is claiming five years. Great! If he
really is out to help the world, *share that*. Show it to someone.
Let someone credible and independent make that video. I'd trust
Stewart Allen, assuming he were willing to do some simple tests. It
is not necessary to open the device. Just to verify that it, sitting
there with no input, is boiling water in a beaker. Steward should be
able to pick up the beaker and move it around, so he'll need
appropriate gloves or the like. Someone should figure out the
chemical limits from a sealed cell like that, and the video should
then be on long enough to take the heat out of any reasonable
chemical explanation.
Look, this is trivial to verify, compared to the trouble of doing a
replication. Replication of what?
Here is your replication, quite the same as what you already have:
I made one of these, and it's been boiling water continuously now for days.
There. That is an exact replication of the original claim.
Except I'm lying. I just made that up. But suppose someone else makes
a claim like that? Is the claim therefore *any more credible*?
Not unless the person is a credible researcher, known for honest
testimony, or the research is independently observed, etc.
The whole field of cold fusion, with hundreds of independent
researchers verifying the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, were not able
to produce a simple device like this. The NiH workers, including
Rossi, have not produced the kind of evidence we would need, and the
other companies working on it are keeping their results largely
secret. A device that does what is being claimed would truly be revolutionary.
But Sagan was right: extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. Okay, maybe not extraordinary evidence, just ordinary
evidence. What is the evidence here. When someone claims something
considered as possible, even remotely, we don't out of hand reject
it. But when it's considered impossible, something *never before
seen* -- and nobody credible has reported seeing any thing like this,
sustained for so long -- we *do* note lack of supporting evidence and
make "investment decisions" accordingly.
Sure if you have some spare time and have the resources, you can
check it out. As I mentioned, someone who does that is performing a
public service, albeit one with relatively low expected utility.
Reporting the attempt, accurately, adds to the body of things that
have been tried, which is a good thing.
There are almost as many peer-reviewed reports that failed to find
cold fusion as there are that found it. Those negative reports are
extremely valuable. They show that if one does A and B and C, one may
not see the effect, at all. Sometimes people see the effect
apparently doing the same thing, but all that indicates is that
*something* was different.
It only takes a few confirmations, ordinarily, to establish an effect
as probably real. Interpretation is quite another matter. Claims that
the FPHE was nuclear in origin were not actually verified until Miles
did his heat/helium study. Huizenga recognized the importance of
Miles in 1993, but he expected that Miles would not be confirmed.
After all, no gammas. But Miles *was* confirmed, with increased
measurement accuracy.
Once that happened, the issue of the reality of cold fusion, as a
nuclear effect, and almost certainly *some kind of fusion*, should
have been considered resolved. But a social phenomenon, a cascade,
had formed, and cascades can be highly resistant to evidence.
For a while. The scientific process does eventually prevail.
If this 5-year-boiling-device is real, and if the guy doesn't
actually hide it, the truth will come out. It's just extraordinarily
unlikely, that's all.
