Joshua:
Your initial response was to my reply to Guglielmi's claim of an ethical
violation because the paper wouldn't advance knowledge. You have now come full
circle.
You said he was talking about the paper not the results. Now all you are saying
is that the methodology used by the testers wasn't sufficient to advance
knowledge. That means Guglielmi"s criticism is misplaced and he should not have
been talking about ethics but instead methodology. The paper could have
advanced knowledge if the methodology had been as you later proposed or in many
other ways.
To further the point, if Rossi can, as you have mentioned a number of times,
perform a demonstration that would convince the world, surely the scientific
community can perform a black box test that does the same. So Guglielmi is
wrong about the issue of ethics, the paper can advance scientific knowledge as
I stated and the only thing that is required is a proper methodology.
Of course, that raises the real issue. There is nothing scientifically wrong
with the methodology used in this test. You haven't been able to scientifically
criticize the output energy so the need to heat a tub of water is unnecessary
and one of your many red herrings. The methodology to measure input is also
acceptable unless fraud is occurring, so to be determinative, all the testers
need do is tighten the input measures to assure your requirement for an
isolated location (that is what you really mean). So again the issue isn't an
ethical one but instead one of tightening the methodology to eliminate the
concern for fraud.
However, the idea that the scientific community can ignore results which absent
fraud prove a new energy source is quite telling. It tells me the scientific
community has slipped into dogma and abandoned science, which is patently
obvious to a non scientist looking from the outside in and especially for a
lawyer who specializes in proof and it's levels. While a test which fails to
eliminate every possibility of fraud may not be determinative, it is a level of
real proof and would stand in any court of law. Further absent any real
evidence of fraud the proof is actually even stronger. It clearly is sufficient
to put the scientific community on notice to pay closer attention to the issues
and to demand further tests which will result in a conclusive determination.
Anything less from them would likely be deemed negligence and I would be happy
to prosecute the claim (assuming one could do so in some imaginary court of
human progress).
Ransom
----- Original Message -----
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi
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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3184/5865 - Release Date: 05/28/13
