On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Randy wuller <rwul...@freeark.com> wrote:
> ** > > This argument can't be won or lost because at this point fraud can't be > proven. There is no evidence of fraud even if that possibility has not > been excluded by the tests, > > What seems clear is that the measure of output energy was reasonable in > the two tests. The input measure of energy is reasonable absent an > intentional deception by Rossi or Rossi with the aid of one or more of the > testers. That is significant. > > In my opinion this is a report that can be built upon which I suggest > should be the purpose of the scientific community. There can be little > doubt that mankind and indeed science would benefit from a clear > determination of the reality of this effect. The scientific community is > currently expending little effort on the issue and if it is true that is > very unfortunate. > > Participation of the scientific community is constrained by Rossi. If he made the ecats available to any willing scientist, things would be different. > It is also clear that if the scientific community comes to believe that > the effect is real, significant effort will immediately be spent trying to > understand it. This is also a good thing. > > So instead of endlessly debating the past tests the real goal should be > making sure there are next ones and that they satisfy the skeptics. > > I assume the skeptics would find it very unlikely (assuming a fraud is > being committed) for Rossi to agree to further testing. This would be > telling and evidence particularly since further testing has already been > discussed. Instead of trying to prevent them, given the issues that exist, > (and I am referencing Guglielmi"s letter) it seems the scientific community > should now insist the next tests be scheduled as soon as possible > and include as many safeguards as the scientific community can imagine to > exclude fraud (consistent with a real legitimate interest on the inventor's > part to protect IP). > > In other words, Guglielmi's apparent suggestion that future tests should > be prevented is exactly the wrong approach at this point. His concern > voiced can't be remedied by ignoring the tests or precluding further tests > but by insisting on them as quickly as possible. (Since for all intent the > Ecat is out of the bag) > > I agree with much of what you've said, but I think Guglielmi's point was not to prevent further tests, but to prevent further exploitation of scientists' reputations for what may be unethical motives. If Rossi has what he claims, at the levels he claims, I think most scientists would agree that a whiz-bang demo could be easily staged that would exclude deceptions, and that would not need to involve scientists. Evidently, Rossi claims the science is complete. The demos require only some good engineering. So, let him show the world, and then they'll come to him. For example, if it really needs input power (and it shouldn't), then use a 400 W gasoline generator, with a measured amount of gasoline and use it to heat up a 1000L tub of water. Do it in a stadium, far from any line voltage. Do it with two ecats, one with and one without the Ni-H, and then swap them. All of this does not need scientists. It needs careful and public scrutiny in a neutral location. Most skeptics are convinced that if he really had what he claims, there would not be niggling discussions. It would be secret until such time as to spring it on the world, and then there would be a stampede. Two and a half years of this kind of bickering (not to mention 24 years of it with respect to cold fusion) is the stuff of scams. Bringing scientists in who accept Levi's choice of instruments, and the 3-phase building power, and do the experiments in private, and then submit to the world nothing but a document that no one else can check is simply not good enough. And never will be.
