Joshua: I have keyed up on your sneering in the past, so it is only right that I point out that your skepticism on this post is quite healthy and, with the cheese analogy, even interesting to read. Once you drop the sneering, you bring value to Vortex.
The next thing to learn is the difference between hyperskepticism (Big S) and Small s skepticism. Let me ask this hypothetical. If the 7 scientists wheeled in their own power generator, would you accept this report for the most part as it stands? On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you >>> to measure are already exposed. Clever, huh. >>> >> >> Too clever by half. This would not begin to fool any scientist, >> electrician or EE on God's Green Earth. There has not been an electrician >> since Edison who would not check all the wires, and who might fall for this. >> >> > You miss the point as usual, which was that no wires need to be stripped > to measure voltage. > > > As for no engineers being fooled by the video, that's because the > alternative to a trick is cheese power. Almost no one would be fooled by it > for that reason. The immediate assumption is a trick and so the immediate > reaction is to look for it. Plus Tinsel deliberately left a couple of clues > in the video. That's not the case for the ecat. > > > But what if he found some true believers in cheese power, or instead of > cheese, he used a little box that was maybe a little radioactive, and he > called it a cold fusion electrical generator. Then he could have used the > same laissez faire Swedish team and Levi. And say he skillfully built up > expectations in a very elaborate way over a period of time, and was a > little more careful in the deception, and maybe used a more complicated > input with 3-phase power, and restricted the measurements and inspection to > protect his secret sauce. I'm confident that team could have been easily > fooled. And then, instead of nice video with a couple of tells, he gets the > true believer team to write up their account of the device. Now, if the > Swedes were fooled, people who have access only to the written account > cannot determine what the trick is, and so you and the rest of the cold > fusion believers would insist that unless we can prove what the trick was, > it has to be real cold fusion. > > > You are just guessing about the measurements they must have made to > exclude things. But those things are not in the paper, and to hear their > interviews, it sounds like they were mostly napping. > > > >> No, they measured the voltage at the connection points on the 830, or >>> some other previously prepared monitoring points. >>> >> >> Quoting from the report: >> >> "As in the previous test, the LCD display of the electrical power meter >> (PCE-830) was >> continually filmed by a video camera. The clamp ammeters were connected >> upstream from the >> control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, >> and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the >> measurements themselves." >> >> As noted, they made a video showing every minute of both tests. Rossi >> could not have touched the equipment or the instruments. >> >> > What the hell does that prove? The argument is that Rossi set it up > beforehand. In the first case, that's obvious. Any measurements they made > could easily have been on points provided by Rossi when the experiment was > set up, or on the PCE830, which clearly is not designed to detect > deception; it's a but like Essen using a relative humidity probe to measure > steam quality. You're not suggesting they would strip the wires while the > experiment was in progress are you? So that monitoring video is meaningless. > > > >> This is proof that the people doing the tests are not naive idiots who >> trust Rossi, and that they took reasonable precautions against obvious >> tricks such as hidden wires. >> > > It is the furthest thing from proof of anything. It in no way excludes the > likely possibility that Rossi set up both experiments, leaving only "safe" > points to monitor the input during the run. (Is that video publicly > available, by the way? I haven't seen it.) > > Additional messages from the authors confirm that they looked for things >> like a DC component in the electricity and they checked the equipment stand >> to sure it was not charged with electricity. >> >> > > Essen said they excluded it, but he didn't say how. If we're just going to > accept what they say without scrutiny, then why bother reading the paper at > all? Just accept their conclusions and rejoice. > > > Except that Essen said of the steam tests that the steam was dry based on > a visual inspection, and then based on a measurement with a relative > humidity probe. So, I'm not prepared to accept his claim at face value. And > even if his measurements do exclude dc in the exposed conductors, I'm not > prepared to accept that a concealed conductor was not there. > > > There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how > it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, and an > unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and they used a completely > inadequate measuring device, so that deception on Rossi's part is far more > likely than the sort of power density they claim without melting, let alone > a nuclear reaction. > > There is not the slightest chance Rossi could have done anything so easy >> to discover as the "hidden wire under the insulation" trick. >> > > You should keep an open mind. That kind of dogmatic certainty is > unscientific. You know some people said there was not the slightest chance > man would ever fly, too. > >
