Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There have been dramatic demonstrations, I've read about them, but I
don't care to look them up. I'm simply going to assert that, given
enough motivation, I could fake a demonstration like that reported.
I'd have to have the motivation, and I certainly don't. I'm not
interested in fake anything.
If you think it could not be done, you are suffering from a poverty of
imagination.
Or a surfeit of experience. I have seen some of these machines in
person, and read about many others. Not only would they be dead simple
to fake, but most of them demonstrate nothing. Absolutely nothing! The
worst example was the Correa claim that a stationary gold leaf
electroscope does work. No, it doesn't! It isn't a little guy standing
with his arms out. And their claim that a gadget placed in sunlight was
somehow absorbing energy from somewhere other than the sun . . . I don't
recall the details.
I have never heard of one that presents any mystery or open question at
all, except for one: the Papp machine that was apparently accidentally
sabotaged by Feynman, when he pulled the plug on the control current. I
have no idea what happened there, but I think Feymman was criminally
irresponsible. The accident killed one person and severely hurt another.
Would it be easy? Not particularly. I'd want to control certain
things, but they would not necessarily be obvious.
Unlikely? Perhaps!
Impossible. Until someone can propose a plausible a way to fake the two
Rossi demos, I will consider that impossible. Without specifics, the
claim that "it might be faked" cannot be tested or falsified.
I disagree, but do not know if we will have proof on this being such a
case. If he comes up with the 1 MW demo, or even something lesser than
that, which can be *independently verified*, great!
This is about as independent as can be. The fact that he was standing in
the room has no bearing on it. A person standing in a room cannot
influence thermocouples or power meters, or make tap water feel like
bath water. Or, if he could influence it, with secret hidden electrical
controls or what-have-you, he wouldn't have to stand in the room. He
could be a continent away, secretly controlling it by cell phone with
virtual presence. Nowadays, being physically present or absent does not
mean as much as it used to.
That would prove that this was not a fake. Sometimes, however, a
person believes that they are *just about to make it work,* and they
need to generate support. So they fake it till they make it. That's
the kind of thing I've heard about before.
That's also happened with faked research results. The person believed
that their results were real, but, damn it! something happened! Here,
we can make this look better by a leetle data seelection.
Sure, that happens all the time, but it would absurd to claim that
happened in this instance.
You are correct, and that is one reason why I don't place much
credence in demonstrations. Arata ran a stirling engine. So what? You
could run a stirling engine with the heat of formation of palladium
deuteride.
Yup. I agree with that. I think I even said that to Arata, which is one
of the reasons he refuses to talk to me.
The point is, you can easily hide a thin wire to light an LED, but
you cannot hide a wire that carries 130 kW.
Jed, you are setting too high a bar, making assumptions. Energy can be
stored, for release upon a trigger.
The Feb. 10 Rossi demo energy cannot be stored by chemical means. That
is absolutely, positively, out of the question, amen. That was the whole
point of letting it run for 18 hours. The energy to drive an itty-bitty
LED for months can be hidden in a watch battery.
I'm telling you, the demo could be faked. Without collusion. With
collusion, it gets much easier.
Well of course. You need not repeat that. If Levi is in cahoots with
Rossi, the whole thing goes out the window. Heck, they might not have
done the second experiment. They might be pretending. The only proof we
have of it are a few numbers sent by e-mail. If Levi is in on it there
are a hundred ways the Jan. 14 experiment might have been faked.
Witnesses mean nothing. (I would like to know how they caused that burst
of gamma rays that Celani detected.)
None of this means anything if you do not trust Levi. I acknowledge
that. I trust him. Skeptics outside of Sweden will not trust him, and
they will not accept these results for that reason. Robert Park will
dismiss Levi as a criminal and a lunatic. Joshua Cude will say he must
be an incompetent idiot who can be fooled by some simple trick such as
hidden wires or dry ice looking like steam. Cude has the notion that
experts such as Jalbert are making obvious errors that any expert in
tritium could find, but they haven't bothered to look because the data
is marginal anyway and they moved on. A person who believes that should
have no difficulty imagining it would be easy to fake a 40°C. I may
suffer from poverty of imagination -- I probably do. What you see in
Cude is the result of an over-active imagination free of stubborn facts
and a gullible nature, as far removed from real skepticism as a person
can get. He has gulled himself.
- Jed
