Well, that's the general strategy of group selection: Get the group on your side and go after the individual, or, failing that, after the smaller group. It isn't the human condition so much as it is the civil condition to which humanity has subjected itself. It is _very_ difficult to maintain social disciplines to contain its deleterious effects without mandating acceptance, particularly by "authorities", of challenges to duel to the death in nature over matters of honor. That, of course, precludes civilization as we know it.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case > presented by the derided through justly committed believer, but to > prejudice the less technically conversant members of the general public who > might be evaluating the debate. > > > > The obstructionist realizes that neither his farfetched pejorative case > nor his propaganda of recrimination is wasted on the knowledgeable LENR > expert. His goal is to undercut any spark of belief among the common folk > before it is rightly turns into a conflagration of LENR enthusiasm. > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:47 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> So, do you need help with that spice model? The remainder of your >> discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. It would >> take you less time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million >> words that prove nothing. >> >> You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I >> want to take apart one by one. It takes far too much time and is frankly >> boring to the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of >> material needed to rebut each one. That is why I ask you to concentrate >> upon one of your choice. Is that asking too much? >> >> Dave >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. >> >> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: >> >>> Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a >>> few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal >>> rectification changes the power delivered to it. >> >> >> You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've >> already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True >> believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the >> alleged observations, but do not hold themselves to the same standard to >> give an explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those >> circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation, >> or how NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel >> without melting, regardless of what produces the energy. That doesn't >> stop you from believing it happens though. >> >> There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know >> how it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, >> and an unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception >> on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. >> >> Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was >> a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to >> describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. >> But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. >> >> And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of >> electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power >> unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the >> ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is >> in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which >> are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, >> when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just >> happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply >> box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the >> claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> You will fail miserably I assure you! You love to make unsupported >>> statements and then fail to do any of the simple tests required to clear up >>> your misunderstanding. I have waited a long time for you or Andrew or >>> Duncan to make that spice model that will demonstrate that what I say is >>> accurate. I will be happy to help you set up a model that will take >>> perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run. If you do not know how to makes >>> such a model then you should remove yourself from this discussion since >>> that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> >>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. >>> >>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson >>> <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: >>> >>>> I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. >>>> >>> >>> Only according to the credulous true believers. Essen said they >>> excluded it, but he didn't say how. If we're just going to accept what they >>> say without scrutiny, then why bother reading the paper at all? Just accept >>> their conclusions and rejoice. >>> >>> Except that Essen said of the steam tests that the steam was dry based >>> on a visual inspection, and then based on a measurement with a relative >>> humidity probe. So, I'm not prepared to accept his claim at face value. And >>> even if his measurements do exclude dc in the exposed conductors, I'm not >>> prepared to accept that a concealed conductor was not there. >>> >>> There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know >>> how it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, >>> and an unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception >>> on Rossi's part is far more likely than the sort of power density they >>> claim without melting, let alone a nuclear reaction. >>> >>> >>>> It can be easily shown that there is not amount of diode trickery >>>> which can be put into the control box that will confuse the primary power >>>> measurement. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I don't agree. Just because you or I can't think of diode trickery >>> doesn't mean it's not possible. You or I can't think of any nuclear >>> reactions to explain the results either, but that doesn't seem to convince >>> you that it's not possible. You should keep an open mind to possibilities >>> you have not thought of. >>> >>> >>> >>>> DC input has been eliminated so that is not an issue due to direct >>>> observation by one or more of the test personnel. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Except we don't know the observation, so it's not convincing. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> There is noting left to clarify as far as the input is concerned. >>>> >>> >>> Manipulation of the mains line is a far smaller perturbation than used >>> in many similar scale scams. Concealed conductors can make the current look >>> like it's zero, or could carry dc or high frequency power. >>> >>> >>> >>>> And you also agree that duty cycle operation is obvious by output >>>> waveform picture review. >>>> >>> >>> No. I disagreed with that at least 3 times. Maybe you missed them. >>> >>> I don't see your problem here. Yes, the modulation of the temperature >>> is consistent with the modulation of the input, but it says nothing about >>> the actual power level in the alleged off part of the cycle. The claim is >>> that the ecat is sustained in the off-cycle, so the decay curve is >>> consistent with the total power *not* going to zero. All the skeptics are >>> claiming is that you'd get the same thing if the input drops to the same >>> level as the level the ecat is claimed to be producing by itself during the >>> off cycle. And that could be done using the cheese power method with a >>> voltage divider or a variac or something. >>> >>> I'm not saying that's how it was done. I'm saying that the >>> unnecessarily indirect output measurement, the unnecessarily complex input >>> supply and the inadequate input measurement, and the blank that was run >>> under different conditions, makes the entire operation suspicious and >>> leaves possibilities for deception. I just don't believe someone who >>> actually had an energy source with MJ+/g, that could produce hundreds of >>> watts at a COP of 3, would demonstrate in this way. It could be made so >>> much better. And so I remain skeptical. When nothing comes of this in a >>> year, will you be a little more skeptical? >>> >>> >>> >>>> The viewed duty cycle matches that stated within the report. Anyone >>>> that suggests a cheese power type scam is not looking at the evidence. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> It matches the frequency. Anyone who suggests the evidence proves it >>> goes to zero in the off-cycle does not understand the evidence. Cheese >>> power is far more likely than nickel powder with a power density 100 times >>> that of uranium in a fission reactor, let alone than the possibility of >>> nuclear reactions in that context. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Any RF power input would cause serious disruption of the test reading >>>> with any change of position of the probes. If that is not seen, the scope >>>> would have detected it. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Essen said they did not use a scope, and I'm not convinced it would >>> affect meters that have a limited response in the 60 Hz range. >>> >>> >>> >>>> It is time for the skeptics to leave this poor horse alone. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Many people suspected James Ernst Worrell Keely of fraud and >>> deception, but no one knew exactly how he did it, and his supporters >>> dismissed the skeptics. After his death, a most elaborate and complex >>> series of hidden devices were found below the floors and behind walls and >>> so on. >>> >>> There are many more recent examples as well such as Madison Priest and >>> Stoern and Papp and so on. This sort of thing is utterly common, but the >>> claimed scientific revolution is rare indeed. >>> >>> And all of this is independent of how much you want it to be true. >>> >>> >>>> >> >
