Talk-Polywell.org

Blimey! How much proof do we need? I mean, if a little hump of gammas were detected once in around the 15 minute time-frame around when Rossi says he got his device started, so there is simply no need to turn this thing off and start it up again, to see if it was just co-incidental with background cosmics, is there?

Once we have one data-point of hearsay, science is made!!

(... or is that religion? Sorry, maybe I'm getting the two confused here... maybe there's no difference?)

parallel wrote:

If reaction goes with gamma radiation, radiation appears for a short time and then stopped, so - reaction was stopped too.

What part of "the gamma radiation then dropped to about 50% above ambient and it was variable" did you not understand?

Yes, I do not understand how it is possible.
I am very primitive. And need simple evidences.
If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.

Joseph Chikva wrote: If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.

Only if the proposition is dependent on the precedent. We've got a logical flaw there (not that it supports Parallel). Can anyone name the logical flaw?

Helius wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote: If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.

Only if the proposition is dependent on the precedent. We've got a logical flaw there (not that it supports Parallel). Can anyone name the logical flaw?

Harmonous logical constructions on unsteady soil would not give anything good too.
Or anyone can say that soil is steady?

Besides for time which LERN discussed there was quite possible to put experiment much better. As only doubtless data of experiment provides required steady soil.
What do you think why that was not done?

According to prof. Francesco Celani(INFN:National Institute for Nuclear Physics) ),at about 20:14 in this Video, there was gamma radiation 50% above normal during the whole experiment, it just dropped from a peak at the beginning("the gamma detector and the mini Geiger had hit the top of the scale"), the radiation stopped only after rossi switched off his apparatus.

Joseph Chikva wrote:

parallel wrote:

If reaction goes with gamma radiation, radiation appears for a short time and then stopped, so - reaction was stopped too.

What part of "the gamma radiation then dropped to about 50% above ambient and it was variable" did you not understand?

Yes, I do not understand how it is possible.
I am very primitive. And need simple evidences.
If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.

Joseph Chikva wrote:

Helius wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote: If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.

Only if the proposition is dependent on the precedent. We've got a logical flaw there (not that it supports Parallel). Can anyone name the logical flaw?

Harmonous logical constructions on unsteady soil would not give anything good too.
Or anyone can say that soil is steady?

Besides for time which LERN discussed there was quite possible to put experiment much better. As only doubtless data of experiment provides required steady soil.
What do you think why that was not done?

Don't get me wrong: I agree with what you've said regarding Rossi, it is just That I wan't to identify the logical fallacy of the statement:

If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.

The truth of Radiation being evidence of a reaction does not follow that no radiation means no reaction.
Strictly logically: It is not true that A implying B means not A implies not B. It is a logical fallacy, but what's this particular fallacy called? I'd call it: The fallacy of negating the precedent, but I made that up just now.

Boy, this diversion has been REALLY successful. Several months now and no talk of Polywell!

Try for 200

SEVEN

It's The fallacy of denying the antecedent, an Invalid Argument Form, true premise but false conclusion.

Helius wrote: The truth of Radiation being evidence of a reaction does not follow that no radiation means no reaction.
Strictly logically: It is not true that A implying B means not A implies not B. It is a logical fallacy, but what's this particular fallacy called? I'd call it: The fallacy of negating the precedent, but I made that up just now.

SIX, OOPS, FIVE

FOUR

THREE

TWO

ONE