If it's "silly" to urge prudence, then go ahead and be as "wise" as you like.
Your handwaving generalities and misrepresentations of my position don't
progress the discussion any further, unfortunately.
I will say two things: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,
and, if this were Fleischmann, I would not be nearly as concerned.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Wuller
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Andrew:
Your point is not well taken. Proof is a continuum. In this case you must
posit fraud to counter proof. Fraud may or may not be actually possible in
this case but it can always be imagined.
The real question is whether the scientific community is required to ignore
these results because they can imagine fraud. Such a position is beyond lunacy
to me. Of course not. What they should do is consider them in light of the
range of proof from zero to conclusive and if they feel conclusive proof is
absent, insist that the next investigation remedy the issue.
They certainly should not take the position that since we can imagine a
possibility where the proof is not conclusive that we can then, 1) ignore the
results, or 2) without proof of the imagined exception conclude NO proof exists.
You seem to be insisting on black or white even to embrace the possible.
This the kind of silly position taken by Cude.
Ransom
Sent from my iPhone
On May 26, 2013, at 1:19 AM, "Andrew" <andrew...@att.net> wrote:
The bottom line is that currently there is no way to deny the thesis that
all the output power derives from the input power. The due diligence exercised
by all these august testers was quite frankly of a disappointingly low
standard, because they failed to obtain a resolution to this question. What is
worse, they appear not to have been aware of it, since it finds no mention in
the report. Elephant in the room syndrome, quite likely.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Murray
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Rich Murray ; Joshua Cude
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
Thanks, Duncan --
I'd certainly be excited, as would be Joshua Cude, if irrefutable
evidence, no faith in anyone needed, arises to launch a scientific explosion of
work on cold fusion.
My part-time contribution since December 1996 has been to give un-expert
detailed critiques of simple facets of cold fusion claims. I am totally
willing to be convinced. I'm playing the critical role, because then the
enthusiasts have to succeed at the public evidence game, which is much of what
drives overall scientific progress.
So, the apparent excess heat in this E-Cat HT is several times the
apparent electrical input, at up to 960 deg C in a device the size of a bowling
pin.
So, one of the first candidates for a fake would be at least one well
hidden wire, which, if it uses ten time higher voltage, can have a very small
diameter conducting gold core -- or it could even be a tube of elastic
conducting plastic of much larger size, hidden within a larger plastic water
tube -- somewhere in the world by now, this stuff may exist -- or, high voltage
conducing wires that are hidden within the insulation of what appears to be
conventional power wires -- Jed, is this inane? -- no way to dodge this ball...
[PDF]
Conducting Polymers and the Evolving Electronics ... - NEPP - NASA
nepp.nasa.gov/docuploads/4D1C9F67-F567-4E16.../SyedRevision2.pdf
The simplest of these polymers is polyacetelene. The mechanical
flexibility and tunable optical properties of some conducting polymers make
them attractive ...
So, this is proof that subtle, unexpected ways of providing extra
electric power may be developed by a highly motivated.... dare I say?...
inventor.
So, if what Rossi is actually doing is hiding a thin high temperature
tungsten or conducting ceramic straight wire in the center of his device, then
the first step is to to find out whether he has or will allow this to be
publicly vetted with video records.
Joshua Cude raised the question of whether the many evenly spaced
horizontal lines on the outside of the glowing case were from the heater
resistor wires looking hotter, or were from the resistor wire shadows from an
even brighter central source inside the cylinder of heater resistor wires --
has this been ascertained?
within the community of service, Rich
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Duncan Cumming <spacedr...@cumming.info>
wrote:
I myself am somewhat doubtful about the power measurements, and would
like to consider the meter A / meter B issue.
There is nothing at all mysterious about this. Meter A is a current
clamp, incapable of detecting DC. Meter B is a current shunt or hall effect
clamp, capable of detecting DC. The way to bamboozle meter A is a simple diode
in series with the load, costing under a dollar. Hardly rocket science. There
is, of course, a simple way to uncover such a fraud - just use an oscilloscope
to measure the current waveform.
It is much cheaper and easier to procure meter A than meter B, and also
much easier to use. It is a pain to break the cables and insert current shunts,
plus some power is wasted in the shunts. Also, you need a floating power supply
and true differential amplifier to power the amplifiers after the shunts. All
of this is possible, but a lot more difficult than a simple clamp ammeter. So
Rossi would make a good guess that meter A (not DC capable) would be used for
the test.
Now for the argument that Rossi runs the risk that somebody will try a
type B meter (DC capable), or, for that matter, a simple oscilloscope. He
simply does not permit such things. He claims not to allow an oscilloscope
because it would reveal a "proprietary waveform". By keeping tight control over
the test conditions, he is able to ensure that his questionable power
measurements are not exposed. By not allowing inspection of the heater
controller, he keeps the diode (or asymmetrical firing of the Triacs) from
public view. Rossi behaves as if a mundane heater control is super-secret
technology - does nobody else find this strange?
As to the hypothesis that only a fool would give money to an inventor
without independent testing, I can only agree.
Duncan
On 5/24/2013 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Several people have proposed that Rossi has secretly installed
equipment in the wall circuit to deliver more electricity than the power meter
shows. Common sense considerations show that this is so unlikely we can dismiss
it. People should do a reality check.
First, let us define the hypothesis, in general terms.
You say there is a method of arranging electricity with hidden DC or
something else that will fool a certain kind of power meter. Let us call it
meter Type A.
There must also be a meter of Type B that will detect this trick. You
do not assert that it impossible to detect this power with any instrument on
the market. That would be absurd. You are saying that Levi et al. brought the
wrong kind of meter.
Here are some problems with this hypothesis:
Rossi did not know what kind of meter they intended to bring. He
might have gone to a lot of trouble to fool Type A only to see them show up
with Type B. His scheme would fall apart.
Rossi does not know what kind of meter they will bring to the next
test. They might show up with Type B, putting an end to his scheme a few weeks
from now.
Sooner or later, someone is bound to try Type B. Or they will try
plugging it into another circuit. Despite all the blather to the contrary, it
is a fact that Rossi has allowed several completely independent tests of his
machines, in Italy and the U.S. He was not present. He wasn't even on the same
continent. They plugged the machines into their own wall sockets.
There is not the slightest chance anyone will give him a large sum or
money without independent testing. I know some of the people who might give him
money, and who have given him money. They are not fools.
Perhaps you assert that Levi may have brought Type A because he is in
cahoots with Rossi. The same set of conditions apply. Sooner or later someone
will try power meter Type B and the scam will collapse instantly. Levi knows
that. If he knows how to conspire to select the wrong kind of meter, he will
also know the right kind, and he will know there is no chance of keeping this
under wraps indefinitely, and no chance of cashing in on it. He knows that he
will be caught sooner or later.
This applies to all of the other far fetched notions about IR lasers
and so on.
I would also point out that despite all the noise from Krivit,
neither he nor anyone else has caught Rossi cheating so far. They have caught
him making stupid mistakes, with a plugged up reactor. Suppose Rossi had
allowed me to come with my instruments. Or suppose that I had gone with Krivit
and used Rossi's instruments. I would measured a few things, sparged the water,
and I would have said, "Andrea, this thing is not working. It is plugged up."
That is exactly what happened to the people at NASA. It took them little time
to figure this out. It would not have taken me much longer. I have spent
several months making similar measurements. I may not know much, but I can tell
when X liters per minute are going in but only a fraction of X is coming out,
and I darn well would check for that. Anyone who has ever done flow calorimetry
would. The cooling water flows everywhere. It leaks. Always.
Krivit got the idea that Rossi was cheating because neither Krivit
nor Rossi measured anything or made any effort to see what the machine was
doing. It is not an attempt fool someone when the method is so simple that I or
anyone else who bothers to look will find it within minutes.
- Jed
