Cude: Why do you bother to respond when you post replies like that.
The result of the paper is different than the paper? Come now, the result of the paper is a component of the paper, as a component, if it advances knowledge, then the whole advances knowledge. Didn't you take logic in your training? Whether the viewer deems it credible enough is for the viewer. You wouldn't deem a paper on this topic credible enough under any circumstances, so your opinion is hardly instructive or representative. And citing a view vocal outliers (Guglielmi) is hardly a census of the reaction. As far as benefiting mankind, waiting for Rossi to achieve a working product might (even if the report is accurate) be a long wait (in fact there is no assurances he will even succeed), but you don't need to understand the mechanism to determine if a new form of energy has been achieved. So the scientific community need not wait on the inventor. And of course for the scientific community to wait for an inventor to school them is a sad commentary on the discipline. If this report is insufficient to confirm a new source of energy the testers should be encouraged to do the tests again with modified methodology. It is certainly sufficient to raise the possibility of a new source of energy (the need to interpose a theory of fraud proves it's sufficiency) Ransom > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Randy Wuller <rwul...@freeark.com> wrote: > >> Jed: >> >> His two questions can easily be answered. >> >> 1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to >> be >> impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a >> potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of >> fact >> is a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed >> advance >> may produce. >> >> > He didn't ask how the result would advance knowledge, but how the paper > would. Since the claim is not testable, the paper does *not* serve to > change the misperception, as should be obvious by now. What he's saying is > that for this exercise to advance knowledge, it is necessary for others to > be able to test the claims, and that's not possible. > > >> 2) Mankind. >> >> > Mankind will not benefit from this paper. If the claim is real, mankind > would benefit from the technology. He admits that. But this paper will not > promote that. Something else is needed. Something testable. As it stands, > it benefits Rossi's ability to attract investment, and he's got several > academic stooges to help him do it. > > If Rossi has what he claims, then he has to show the world in a way that > they will believer >
