If you want the Ecat tested in what you consider a trustworthy site, Rossi will have to trust that his ecat will be returned.
Trust an integral part of life, and since science is done by the living rather than the deceased, trust is also an integral part of science. Harry On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The same socket in the wall, or the very same plug in that socket? I >> suppose one plug could be secretly wired and the all the others in the >> building not. Rossi would have to worry that they might come in to the lab, >> unplug it from where it is and plug it in somewhere else. I doubt they >> would do that. >> >> > > The requirement for 3-phase input solves that problem. There was probably > only one available 3-phase line in the room. Simple. > > > >> >> People can go on playing these games of what if, maybe, suppose until the >> cows come home. >> > > Only because Rossi's protocol's allow them. It would be easy to exclude > this kind of game by making ecats available to skeptics for testing on > their own premises. > > > The bottom line is not whether or not we can think of ways they may have > cheated (they could have just made the whole thing up), but the fact that > cheating is even possible. > > > A properly claimed scientific claim should not require trust -- at least > not for long. It has to be possible for anyone skilled in the art to check > the claims. And these can't be checked. > > > > >> For example, you might ask why did it worked normally after the second >> run, during the six hour calibration? Perhaps Rossi was present when the >> test ended, and secretly went and turned off the extra electricity. >> > > Well, they conveniently used different power configurations for the > calibration and the live runs, with continuous instead of cycled power. The > switch between those modes could have involved some deception involving dc > bias or double wires or something. The input power was calculated based on > the peak power and the duty cycle. > > > >> This sort of thing is a fantasy like one of these cheesy paperback >> thrillers for sale in the drugstore. To believe you have to up a scenario >> that becomes more and more improbable. >> > > Again, this only happens because the experiment can't be independently > checked by anyone else. No one wants such a significant claim to depend on > trust. And as improbable as these scenarios are, to skeptics, they are > still orders of magnitude more plausible than an explanation involving > nuclear reactions. > > > > >
