If it's "silly" to urge prudence, then go ahead and be as "wise" as you
like. Your handwaving generalities and misrepresentations of my position
don't progress the discussion any further, unfortunately.
I will say two things: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence, and, if this were Fleischmann, I would not be nearly as
concerned.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Wuller
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Andrew:
Your point is not well taken. Proof is a continuum. In this case you
must posit fraud to counter proof. Fraud may or may not be actually
possible in this case but it can always be imagined.
The real question is whether the scientific community is required to
ignore these results because they can imagine fraud. Such a position is
beyond lunacy to me. Of course not. What they should do is consider
them in light of the range of proof from zero to conclusive and if they
feel conclusive proof is absent, insist that the next investigation
remedy the issue.
They certainly should not take the position that since we can imagine a
possibility where the proof is not conclusive that we can then, 1)
ignore the results, or 2) without proof of the imagined exception
conclude NO proof exists.
You seem to be insisting on black or white even to embrace the
possible.
This the kind of silly position taken by Cude.
Ransom
Sent from my iPhone
On May 26, 2013, at 1:19 AM, "Andrew" <[email protected]> wrote:
The bottom line is that currently there is no way to deny the thesis
that all the output power derives from the input power. The due
diligence exercised by all these august testers was quite frankly of a
disappointingly low standard, because they failed to obtain a
resolution to this question. What is worse, they appear not to have
been aware of it, since it finds no mention in the report. Elephant in
the room syndrome, quite likely.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Murray
To: [email protected] ; Rich Murray ; Joshua Cude
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Thanks, Duncan --
I'd certainly be excited, as would be Joshua Cude, if irrefutable
evidence, no faith in anyone needed, arises to launch a scientific
explosion of work on cold fusion.
My part-time contribution since December 1996 has been to give
un-expert detailed critiques of simple facets of cold fusion claims.
I am totally willing to be convinced. I'm playing the critical
role, because then the enthusiasts have to succeed at the public
evidence game, which is much of what drives overall scientific
progress.
So, the apparent excess heat in this E-Cat HT is several times the
apparent electrical input, at up to 960 deg C in a device the size
of a bowling pin.
So, one of the first candidates for a fake would be at least one
well hidden wire, which, if it uses ten time higher voltage, can
have a very small diameter conducting gold core -- or it could even
be a tube of elastic conducting plastic of much larger size, hidden
within a larger plastic water tube -- somewhere in the world by now,
this stuff may exist -- or, high voltage conducing wires that are
hidden within the insulation of what appears to be conventional
power wires -- Jed, is this inane? -- no way to dodge this ball...
[PDF]
Conducting Polymers and the Evolving Electronics ... - NEPP - NASA
nepp.nasa.gov/docuploads/4D1C9F67-F567-4E16.../SyedRevision2.pdf
The simplest of these polymers is polyacetelene. The mechanical
flexibility and tunable optical properties of some conducting
polymers make them attractive ...
So, this is proof that subtle, unexpected ways of providing extra
electric power may be developed by a highly motivated.... dare I
say?... inventor.
So, if what Rossi is actually doing is hiding a thin high
temperature tungsten or conducting ceramic straight wire in the
center of his device, then the first step is to to find out whether
he has or will allow this to be publicly vetted with video records.
Joshua Cude raised the question of whether the many evenly spaced
horizontal lines on the outside of the glowing case were from the
heater resistor wires looking hotter, or were from the resistor wire
shadows from an even brighter central source inside the cylinder of
heater resistor wires -- has this been ascertained?
within the community of service, Rich
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Duncan Cumming
<[email protected]> wrote:
I myself am somewhat doubtful about the power measurements, and
would like to consider the meter A / meter B issue.
There is nothing at all mysterious about this. Meter A is a
current clamp, incapable of detecting DC. Meter B is a current
shunt or hall effect clamp, capable of detecting DC. The way to
bamboozle meter A is a simple diode in series with the load,
costing under a dollar. Hardly rocket science. There is, of
course, a simple way to uncover such a fraud - just use an
oscilloscope to measure the current waveform.
It is much cheaper and easier to procure meter A than meter B,
and
also much easier to use. It is a pain to break the cables and
insert current shunts, plus some power is wasted in the shunts.
Also, you need a floating power supply and true differential
amplifier to power the amplifiers after the shunts. All of this is
possible, but a lot more difficult than a simple clamp ammeter. So
Rossi would make a good guess that meter A (not DC capable) would
be used for the test.
Now for the argument that Rossi runs the risk that somebody will
try a type B meter (DC capable), or, for that matter, a simple
oscilloscope. He simply does not permit such things. He claims not
to allow an oscilloscope because it would reveal a "proprietary
waveform". By keeping tight control over the test conditions, he
is able to ensure that his questionable power measurements are not
exposed. By not allowing inspection of the heater controller, he
keeps the diode (or asymmetrical firing of the Triacs) from public
view. Rossi behaves as if a mundane heater control is super-secret
technology - does nobody else find this strange?
As to the hypothesis that only a fool would give money to an
inventor without independent testing, I can only agree.
Duncan
On 5/24/2013 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Several people have proposed that Rossi has secretly installed
equipment in the wall circuit to deliver more electricity than
the power meter shows. Common sense considerations show that
this is so unlikely we can dismiss it. People should do a
reality check.
First, let us define the hypothesis, in general terms.
You say there is a method of arranging electricity with hidden
DC or something else that will fool a certain kind of power
meter. Let us call it meter Type A.
There must also be a meter of Type B that will detect this
trick. You do not assert that it impossible to detect this power
with any instrument on the market. That would be absurd. You are
saying that Levi et al. brought the wrong kind of meter.
Here are some problems with this hypothesis:
Rossi did not know what kind of meter they intended to bring.
He
might have gone to a lot of trouble to fool Type A only to see
them show up with Type B. His scheme would fall apart.
Rossi does not know what kind of meter they will bring to the
next test. They might show up with Type B, putting an end to his
scheme a few weeks from now.
Sooner or later, someone is bound to try Type B. Or they will
try plugging it into another circuit. Despite all the blather to
the contrary, it is a fact that Rossi has allowed several
completely independent tests of his machines, in Italy and the
U.S. He was not present. He wasn't even on the same continent.
They plugged the machines into their own wall sockets.
There is not the slightest chance anyone will give him a large
sum or money without independent testing. I know some of the
people who might give him money, and who have given him money.
They are not fools.
Perhaps you assert that Levi may have brought Type A because he
is in cahoots with Rossi. The same set of conditions apply.
Sooner or later someone will try power meter Type B and the scam
will collapse instantly. Levi knows that. If he knows how to
conspire to select the wrong kind of meter, he will also know
the right kind, and he will know there is no chance of keeping
this under wraps indefinitely, and no chance of cashing in on
it. He knows that he will be caught sooner or later.
This applies to all of the other far fetched notions about IR
lasers and so on.
I would also point out that despite all the noise from Krivit,
neither he nor anyone else has caught Rossi cheating so far.
They have caught him making stupid mistakes, with a plugged up
reactor. Suppose Rossi had allowed me to come with my
instruments. Or suppose that I had gone with Krivit and used
Rossi's instruments. I would measured a few things, sparged the
water, and I would have said, "Andrea, this thing is not
working. It is plugged up." That is exactly what happened to the
people at NASA. It took them little time to figure this out. It
would not have taken me much longer. I have spent several months
making similar measurements. I may not know much, but I can tell
when X liters per minute are going in but only a fraction of X
is coming out, and I darn well would check for that. Anyone who
has ever done flow calorimetry would. The cooling water flows
everywhere. It leaks. Always.
Krivit got the idea that Rossi was cheating because neither
Krivit nor Rossi measured anything or made any effort to see
what the machine was doing. It is not an attempt fool someone
when the method is so simple that I or anyone else who bothers
to look will find it within minutes.
- Jed
