Totally agree Andrew. Rossi is possibly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by not allowing sufficiently clear measurement.
I find myself in a similar situation to 2011, tests that looked initially compelling, appear with greater thought to have potentially significant flaws. There is no need for 6 month long tests. He could make billions in a matter of weeks with just one unambiguous well documented 4-day demo. Yet for 2 and a half years he has prevented this from happening and now (seemingly) plans to waste another year on similarly poorly instrumented closed testing. In my opinion his behaviour is starting to give off a nasty odour. On 26 May 2013 14:42, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > If you are a scientist, then what you do is cut the Gordian knot of doubt. > The resistors are powered single-phase in the latest incarnation of the > control, meaning a normal 2-wire connection. You put a scope across these > while the device is in operation, and ditto a spectrum analyzer. If you are > disallowed to do so - not by some fundamental law of physics, but by Rossi > - > then you conclude that it is not possible to conclude anything about the > real COP value. > > That's if you're an honest scientist. YMMV. > > Andrew > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ransom Wuller" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:44 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis > > > I loved Carl Sagan but the biggest mistake he made in his lifetime was >> making that phrase popular. A claim requires evidence, it doesn't matter >> what kind of claim. >> >> If what you are saying is science can't consider the possibility of >> something extraordinary unless they are clobbered over the head into >> submission, science is tantamount to religion and not science. Obviously, >> for science to conclude anything the proof needs to be conclusive, but >> that is true of any claim. >> >> I would never urge a lack of prudence. But your discussion (what you are >> calling it) can't be advanced to certainty and that seems to be what you >> are after. I have seen and read enough to conclude that some deception >> can be imagined. There is likely no proof of deception and probably won't >> be any. If some is shown it sould be considered, but lacking any what >> more can be said. Everyone is likely to have a different opinion as to >> how likely such a crime is. >> >> The question is, given the above what do you do as a scientist regarding >> the recently disclosed report? I was simply pointing out that ignoring it >> or concluding without proof of fraud that it isn't some evidence is at >> least imprudent. >> >> Ransom >> >> 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<http://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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
