On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous' > Well, it's just that it doesn't fit most skeptical criticism of Rossi any more than does "snake" or "clown" with which Rossi is so fond of labeling people. > I am just writing an essay > about Rossi. Not black or white dualistic thinking. > I'll be interested to read that but don't you think it may be premature? Rossi has not revealed his hand yet. Is there really much to say about him at this point other than that? By the way, the article has an interesting way of cheating the power-in measurement. See the last figure. I don't think Rossi does this but I can't rule it out. In the photos, the line cord is taken apart and the wire being measured looks like it's a single cable. I suppose Rossi could have made a special line cord with doubled conductors in each wire but that's a bit far fetched though certainly not impossible. But while I don't think Rossi used that particular "magic" cheating method, I think it's important to note that it's one that most of us didn't think of, probably including Jed Rothwell. Which reinforces my issue that it's not possible to think of an anticipate every method by which Rossi could cheat. That's the main and overwhelming reason why testing has to be independent and not involve Rossi's venue, his power supply, his coolant supply and most of all his enthalphy measurement methods. It's the issue Jed seems to resist the most. Jed challenges me to make the issue of whether or not Rossi is cheating falsifiable -- using any method including sleight of hand "magic". Of course, the theory that Rossi is faking (by *any* method) *is* falsified if Rossi's device is proven to work independently of Rossi for long enough in a properly calibrated set up. Somehow that logic seems to slip by. This (the altered line cord) is an example of a faking method that, although it's an unlikely method in Rossi's case, would have been missed by K & E, Lewan and most likely everyone else.
