Vorl Bek <[email protected]> wrote: As I said the other day, if this test was of competing coffee > makers, and they chose brand A as the best one, I would probably > accept their recommendation rather than demanding more tests . . .
Measuring the difference between 300 Watts and 900 Watts is much easier than evaluating coffeemakers. The list of features that you want to check in a coffeemaker is long, and you have to evaluate the machine over months of use, to see how it holds up. This is a much simpler problem. These people are experts. The fact that these measurements have enormous implications has no bearing on how easy or difficult the measurements are, or how believable they are. > ; but > there is a lot more at stake with LENR, so I, and anybody with his > head screwed on right, will want to see more tests, and more > independent ones than this one, before we are willing to accept > the results. > You not only reject the results, you reject them with prejudice and you say various unreasonable things about the researchers and about the people here. It seems to me you are biased against this research. If you are evenhanded as you say, I think you would now say that you lean toward accepting them or at least you are neutral. You have not given us any technical reason to doubt the results. You have only suggested that Levi is corrupt and that he is willing to destroy his career in return for a few thousand euros. If you believe this you are poor judge of human behavior. > I don't have the impression that anybody has been able to shoot > this test down . . . Exactly. So you should at least be neutral. > but has merely pointed to the ways it might have > been faked, which is exactly what anybody should do when the > stakes are this high. > Calorimetry works the same why whether the stakes are high or low.The Stefan-Boltzmann law works equally well with a high school textbook problem or a problem bearing on the most important technology in history, and the survival of the human race and the solution to global warming. The only thing you need to consider is the validity of the instruments and techniques. Suppose a group of astronomers were to measure the path of an asteroid and determined that it will soon strike the earth and wipe out the human race. You would not reject their mathematics because the stakes are high. The fact that the conclusion is frighting and will cause world-wide pandemonium has absolutely no bearing on the physics and mathematics of celestial mechanics. It only means we should double-check the calculations. Once that is done to the usual standards of astronomy, it is case closed. People have now used industry-standard power company techniques to confirm Rossi's claims. It is case closed. There is nothing more to discuss. The implications have no bearing on the performance of a watt meter. If you insist on evaluating not only the technical issues also with reference to the reputations of the researchers, I suggest you take a close look at the assumptions you are making about human nature. A professor making well over €100,000 a year is not going to destroy his reputation and lose all of his friends and his job for a few thousand euros. Someone like Rossi is not going to cash in all of his money and spent years working 12 hours a day making dozens of prototypes just to produce one fake reactor. There is no doubt he cashed in. That is a matter of public record. People have seen the reactors. The behavior you ascribe to these people is completely irrational and pointless, and there is not a shred of evidence for it. - Jed
