Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed? On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who >> are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and >> Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver >> denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution: If >> P&F's cold fusion claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of >> advances on P&F's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated. >> > > That's completely wrong-- both sides of it. If P&F are correct, that does > not mean that Rossi's entirely different claim is correct. Rossi claims > way more power and uses different materials. Second, if P&F were wrong, > Rossi could still have found the golden goose. Again, his method is > different from P&F's. > > The argument against Rossi is simply that it is very easy to test his > claim. He has been told by many experts, including enthusiasts of CF like > Jed Rothwell, *exactly* how it needs to be done. It's not a risky process, > needs not reveal his secrets and can be done cheaply and quickly. And he > has *never* done it in nine months of fussing around with lots of people. > He has instead gone through one experiment after another based on > evaporation of steam. His October 6 demo featured a much larger and > heavier device which was poorly inspected and had a lower power density > than ever before. Each subsequent device seems to make less power per > volume and weight than the one before. And his October 28 demo of the > megawatt plant was not properly witnessed by any of the guest scientists > and journalists. Those are Rossi's problems. The problems are not that > there are "pseusoskeptics" (whatever the heck that is) any more than the > problems are that there are clowns and snakes. The problem is simply and > squarely Rossi and his unnecessarily evasive activities. > >
