On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: ** > That is precisely why I (and Duncan Cumming) are calling for a test > whereby there is no power input for a decent amount of time. If there is no > power input, there's nothing than can be fudged past the limitations of the > measurement equipment. >
I appreciate the legitimate desire of many observers to rule out fraud, even if one must entertain elaborate conspiracy theories to sustain the possibility. People just want to be sure and not fall into a trap by an Amazing Randi-type character. But what you're asking for here is a significant technological accomplishment; even giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt (as I do), it is not clear that this is something that would be achievable without a significant development period. It's like asking the guys who worked out the initial transistor to fast-forward their development ten years in order to provide a more convincing demonstration. We should try to be practical and reasonable. Checking the full spectrum of the input power sounds reasonable and straightforward to me. Asking Rossi to put together a closed system that can go indefinitely, without external control input, either making use of a heat transfer fluid or capturing the heat and turning it into electricity, sounds like a very difficult thing to pull off. Assume for the sake of argument that Rossi has figured out a way to extract nuclear levels of energy from nickel and hydrogen. That's not an insignificant accomplishment. We should be reasonable in how we go about testing such a claim and use our intelligence but not require that possibly insurmountable hurdles be overcome. The one thing that is unclear to me at this point is why Rossi would even provide a public demonstration. I suspect it is a requirement of one of his sponsors. Perhaps if the sponsor can be identified, it can be prevailed upon to require a more foolproof set of test conditions. But there is the possibility of an infinite regress that we should avoid as well. Eric
