> There could be something going on here that we don't understand.
In science, the null hypothesis rules. The null hypothesis -- the premise that something is false until evidence proves otherwise -- is why scientists have a reputation for skepticism. It also filters out claims like this one.
A scientist wouldn't give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. A scientist would demand scientific evidence, not a marketing sheet with some very obvious defects.
> I understand physics.
If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that?
> All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_.
No! The burden of evidence belongs to Rossi, not to his critics (see below). He cannot meet that burden.
> If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that?
What makes you think that it hasn't occurred to me? Maybe I just don't think it's worth posting about until Rossi has a physical product we can test?
Again, no disagreement, but you're starting your attack before he has a finished product with which he can attempt to meet that burden.
Just because you know something, doesn't mean that you need to be aggressive about it. You're actually giving Rossi more attention than he deserves before these things are ready to be tested.
You talk about the null hypothesis and filtering out claims and not even giving him the benefit of the doubt. Absolutely. A scientist who has useful things to do with their time just ignores it until there is evidence otherwise.
Going on the attack is something completely different.
Edit: ^ The moment that I realize I'm arguing about this with a legit scientist who I have major respect for and whose site I've read on occasion. :(
> What makes you think that it hasn't occurred to me?
Because it's a fatal error and you didn't mention it.
> Maybe I just don't think it's worth posting about until Rossi has a physical product we can test?
What, so uneducated people can be scammed out of their life savings? Where's your sense of public duty?
His claims are bogus. If he had achieved what he claims, he would not be calling for 200 KW of input power. And even given that absurd premise, assuming this fantasy requirement as a thought experiment, he could use one of his small units to power five small units of the same kind, then five to power 25, etc., resulting in a very small initial power input for a vast output power.
The reason the "fact sheet" isn't written that way is because this guy doesn't even know how to lie convincingly.
> Edit: ^ The moment that I realize I'm arguing about this with a legit scientist who I have major respect for and whose site I've read on occasion. :(
That shouldn't matter as you evaluate my claims, any more than it should matter in evaluating Rossi's claims. Evidence should be the only issue.
A guy once said, "In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence."
why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement?
Because it's necessary to input the power to bootstrap the reaction. Of course, that just begs the question: why not say it's only needed for start-up? I suppose that there could be engineering concerns...
Don't get me wrong, I believe this is baloney. But I don't think the argument about requiring input power is what proves that.
>> why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement?
> Because it's necessary to input the power to bootstrap the reaction.
Yes, but his megawatt unit consists of dozens of smaller units, each of which (if we accept the premise for the moment) requires a much smaller amount of bootstrap power. Therefore, logically, he would power one unit with a tiny bootstrap kick, that unit would use its generated power to sustain itself and bootstrap four additional units, four would bootstrap 16, all with surplus power. Logical, yes?
Anyone with the slightest familiarity with science and technology would see this is the logical arrangement, but it appears Rossi doesn't have the slightest familiarity with science and technology.
In science, the null hypothesis rules. The null hypothesis -- the premise that something is false until evidence proves otherwise -- is why scientists have a reputation for skepticism. It also filters out claims like this one.
A scientist wouldn't give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. A scientist would demand scientific evidence, not a marketing sheet with some very obvious defects.
> I understand physics.
If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that?
> All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_.
No! The burden of evidence belongs to Rossi, not to his critics (see below). He cannot meet that burden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot