JoeP wrote:I just found that Kite's comment is a pretty common problem that prevents discussions from being more productive, if less provocative.
Excuse me. My comment, or what I commented on?
I was agreeing in a general way with the sentiments you expressed in the following line: "Then of course, often the individual most unable to think in a subject is that individual who is very learned in another and mistakenly thinks that qualifies him."
Like a condensed matter physicist (or two) who mistakenly think that they are qualified on the intricacies of electrostatic repulsion, quantum mechanics, and the coulomb barrier?
Whatever argument Kite is making regarding an "HT Physicist" not being able to understand condensed matter can just be reversed to say that a condensed matter physicist can't possibly understand quantum behaviors and the coulomb barrier. Personally, I wouldn't speculate that each is as professionally blind as to not have a working knowledge in the others field of specialization. But that is just me.
My feeling is that attempting to discredit reasonable counter arguments by simply attributing them to professional blindness is not a very sophisticated tactic. It is as simple minded as providing endless individual "maybe" defenses for mountains of examples of apparent fraud without being able to appreciate the significance of the whole.
seedload wrote:Like a condensed matter physicist (or two) who mistakenly think that they are qualified on the intricacies of electrostatic repulsion, quantum mechanics, and the coulomb barrier?
Whatever argument Kite is making regarding an "HT Physicist" not being able to understand condensed matter can just be reversed to say that a condensed matter physicist can't possibly understand quantum behaviors and the coulomb barrier. Personally, I wouldn't speculate that each is as professionally blind as to not have a working knowledge in the others field of specialization. But that is just me.
My feeling is that attempting to discredit reasonable counter arguments by simply attributing them to professional blindness is not a very sophisticated tactic. It is as simple minded as providing endless individual "maybe" defenses for mountains of examples of apparent fraud without being able to appreciate the significance of the whole.
I have to admit you raise a good point about the role reversal...a mirror image of the same behavior.
This entire business is getting pretty scary. Apparently the danger from snakes has taken a new and more dangerous turn. Rossi says that "higher echelons" are getting involved and that there are "ground forces" in place that present dangers to him at a "another order of magnitude". Ground forces "supplied by deadly force". Thankfully, he is apparently safe as long as he stays in the US, at least according to his sources.
While we can all fear from Rossi's safety, it seems like the technology for the ECat will live on regardless of the outcome of these risks to his personal safety. All of the "secrets" of the ECat are now in the hands of his US partner and Rossi admits that he is no longer indispensable.
Hadn't seen this before. Also hadn't looked at Krivit for a while either.
If I was more motivated, I would check this against Rossiposts in the same time line to see if he was his usual double speaking self-agrandizing name dropper, and how it may correlate to this post by Krivit.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
The only blurb I could find "This was only a failure because the technician saw that Rossi wasn't using a
true RMS power meter."
I call that a big oops , in my mind I think I can replicate Rossi results given his test parameters and equipment.
This does not mean he is a fake, just I can make a device that fakes his exact reading ( +- 10% )and methods and show results similar to his reactor without making net power
Cheese power!
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Looks like the distinction is that it failed to be a good test, not that it failed during a good test. Kind of like, the operation was a failure but the patient lives on without impact.
I think that the RMS test was another different run.
I was just looking at some of Mats Lewans latest (I'm bored), and found this:
It has been discussed whether a DC current could have been drawn through the power supply to the control box of the E-Cat, without being detected by the instruments, and thus feeding undetected power into the E-Cat.
The new appendix gives a clearer picture of how the electric measurements were done. Both voltage and current were monitored. Since a DC current through a load would have resulted in a DC voltage, this would have been detected by the measurement instrument as an offset of the AC voltage sine curve.
However, it’s not clear from the specifications of the instrument – the PCE-830 Power Analyser — if it can detect DC Voltage. I will investigate this issue further.
UPDATE: I have been in contact with a representative of PCE Instruments UK Ltd who has confirmed that the PCE-830 cannot detect DC tension. When connected to an AC source with an offset DC tension it will display the graph of the AC tension correctly but it will not detect the offset DC tension.
Like, ooops. So manufacturer of said meter says that it will not detect DC. Meanwhile, tester claims that it would have shown DC. This opens more on the floating ground theory. They also still have not addressed distortion and circulating currents. Firing SCRs or TRIACs on a line feed really, truly distorts the line. And so far Rossi has shown no technical ability to suggest he is using more sophisticated equipment like digitally controlled IGBT or some such.
Even Mats Lewans back and forth with test team members show that at least two of them do not think the testing was controlled nor proof.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
KitemanSA wrote:Looks like the distinction is that it failed to be a good test, not that it failed during a good test. Kind of like, the operation was a failure but the patient lives on without impact.
The test in quesiton was another test by Kullander at Uppsala that was apparently not made public due to failure. Guilt by ommision is the spin. Kind of like the patient going in for cancer surgery, and they don't remove any cancer, and then tell the patient nothing.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
ladajo wrote: The test in quesiton was another test by Kullander at Uppsala that was apparently not made public due to failure. Guilt by ommision is the spin. Kind of like the patient going in for cancer surgery, and they don't remove any cancer, and then tell the patient nothing.
Sorry, don't get your analogy. Who is the patient?
KitemanSA wrote:Kind of like, the operation was a failure but the patient lives on without impact.
Kind of like that, yes, except that the heart monitor was connected to a little person hidden under the operating table, the surgeon pulled a chicken liver from the patients belly button while releasing a little sack of cow blood, and there is good reason to suspect that the patient was as dead before the operation as he was after - despite Andrew McCarthy holding his head up by his hair and waving his arm around a bit.
ladajo wrote: The test in quesiton was another test by Kullander at Uppsala that was apparently not made public due to failure. Guilt by ommision is the spin. Kind of like the patient going in for cancer surgery, and they don't remove any cancer, and then tell the patient nothing.
Sorry, don't get your analogy. Who is the patient?
Does it matter?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
ladajo wrote: The test in quesiton was another test by Kullander at Uppsala that was apparently not made public due to failure. Guilt by ommision is the spin. Kind of like the patient going in for cancer surgery, and they don't remove any cancer, and then tell the patient nothing.
Sorry, don't get your analogy. Who is the patient?
Does it matter?
If you "analogy" was just shite, then no. But then:
"First you set down on your hams, fiddle with you keys and cams, cock your head as to berate and obfuscate, obfuscate, obfusate". (With apologies to Tom Lehrer)
Really really ironic for you to say that Kite. I mean.... For all your defense of Rossi? After all these years of his stage antics? What do we have to show for it?
Nothing but hot air.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.
Kite,
I don't think who the patient is actually matters for what I was saying. But if you don't get it, the patient is Rossi's Ecat public reputation. He let Kullander have a go, as he thought Kullander would prop him up and help cure his cancer. Kullander got no joy on the testing, and decided not to say anything about the fail. The Doctors decided not to tell the public the cancer is still there.
If you don't see issue with that, then god help you.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)