Joseph Chikva wrote:parallel wrote:IF the E-Cat works it will transform the world at least as much as Tesla did.
Once again:
IF grandmother would have penis she/he will grandfather.
At least one year you repeat the same "if".
It is easy to provide evidence of effect existence but they could not. Instead they have thought up the next fairy tale about secret customer. Not enough?
This is what is so easily ignored:
Rossi: if he had what he claims we would have evidence of this from at least one of the many different demos. He clearly wants to convince scientists he has something, after all...
LENR: if any of the "wow, there must be something" 20% excess heat for months claims were correct then it would be possible for an LENR researcher to use good calorimetry, like Earthtech's 0.1% accuracy calorimeter to nail it. This has never happened. (Earthtech have tried various replications, never with conclusive results).
Now that does not in theory rule out some very difficult to find effect with say 0.1% excess heat, which maybe could be optimised when understood. But why on earth should there be such an effect? The whole of CF research comes from trying to explain anomalous heat from experiments. If there is no anomalous heat, why would anyone think CF likely?
The same is true for transmutation evidence. This is less strong than heat evidence (because it is relatively easy to get spurious results from bad calorimetry) and remains within the limits of experimental error + contamination.
The same is true for evidence of high energy particles. It is inconceivable that nuclear reactions should proceed without the generation of high energy decay products. Yet these are not seen. When there are claims, these are within the limits of experiment error, like the "triple pits" on SPAWAR films. Look hard enough at tea leaves, you will find patterns. It is remarkable that with all this effort the CF results remain within experimental error - inconclusive.
All of these things: heat, transmutation, high energy decay products, should be very easy to see and distinguish from background if CF is real.
From which the only rational conclusion is: "no nuclear reactions", since it is inherently unlikely, and we have zero evidence except the hopes of hundreds of researchers.
I remain kindly disposed towards weird effects. It would be wonderful if CF existed. But I have little patience with sloppy engineering and people debating a whole load of "phenomena" without subjecting the results to the sort of careful analysis that would distinguish reality and error.
Rossi is an extreme example of this. He makes claims more strong, and is more obviously flakey, than any other CF. No-one thinks most CF researchers are scammers whereas there must be at least a strong suspicion that Rossi is. Yet his claims get such internet approbation, and even nice write=ups from "The Examiner". Which tells you something about the febrile nature of internet opinion?
Best wishes, Tom
PS - the "agnostic argument" is particularly thoughtless. Thomas Henry Huxley would turn in his grave the way it is applied. Make a scientific claim which has no supporting evidence, no consistent supporting theory, no consistency even as to phenomena expected. Say "it is wrong to dismiss this because we cannot disprove it".
Well I can claim there are green men on the far side of the moon. I can construct entirely plausible theories for how they got there, how they live, why we have never seen them. No-one can disprove this. Yet people would not give them the credibility that Rossi appears to have with some here.
And I don't have a record as a criminal...