Replies

Well, if by "applying the presumed laws of physics" you mean, isolating the device from inputs and measuring the output, I suppose you have a point.

I wasn't referring to a general measurement of inputs (I presume you refer to energy input) and outputs (again, I presume you mean energy outputs).

I was responding to a post where the poster said the device should be evaluated as to an expected, according the law of physics, elemental reaction. That poster wrote:

One merely needs to demonstrate that precise quantities of starting materials (nickel and hydrogen) entered the system, and that a precise quantity of copper and leftover starting materials resulted.

So, yes, many of focused on the desire for a more public measurement of how much energy the generator was inputting and exactly how much energy the e-CAT was outputting.

But, repeating for clarity: I understood this poster as saying another way to "scientifically" evaluate the reaction inside the e-CAT would be to compare "the precise quantities of starting materials (nickel and hydrogen)" to the precise quantities of ending materials, specifically copper.

What I was trying to say was that particular evaluation was based on a reaction *expected* solely on the "law of physics."

IOW, the law of physics says nickel and hydrogen react in such a way and copper is produced in such a way and the amounts of nickel and hydrogen that are input determine the amount of copper that is output in such a way.

If an inventor, say, stumbled upon a reaction that simply did not occur the way the law of physics said it "would" ("should") -- let's say there was no denying that something else was going on, and that something else was presently replicable BUT NOT EXPLAINABLE, but rather, in fact, it somehow CONTRADICTED the expected (orthodox) way in which these elements were "known" to react ---

As I said, why would an inventor take a process he knows is replicable, but is, at least at the moment, unorthodox, and subject it to "testing" by people who would only rigidly evaluate it against orthodoxy?

Here's a simple analogy:

Let's say there's a "law" (orthodoxy) that when you add known starting elements, food coloring in the primary colors blue and yellow together, the result is a known result, food coloring in the color green.

(Now, you could take this further, and talk about how the known starting quantities should result in a known shade of green, i.e., how much nickel and hydrogen is inputted should result in a known quantity of copper outputted. But that's an aside for now.)

What if a scientist applied a catalyst to the process of adding the blue and yellow food colors together. And no matter how many times he added them and applied the catalyst, the result was not green food coloring, but red food coloring.

Of course, the "law" of food coloring says there's no way adding blue and green food coloring together equals red food coloring.

But, there it is: red food coloring!

Why would that inventor subject his process to evaluation by people whom he knew would rigidly attempt to measure how much green food coloring (the orthodox result) was present at the completion of his process?

My point being: if the orthodox answer is that copper results when nickel and hydrogen combine, subjecting the inventor's process to an orthodox evaluation makes no sense when he knows the result of his process is unorthodox.

This was a philosophical point of discussion. It may or may not apply to Rossi's process.