“Of course there is not practical way to put rocket fuel in this reactor. Or
gasoline, butane, or any other high energy density chemical. You would only
make a bomb.”
FALSE. Plenty of racers have cheated with hydrazine. Their cars did not turn into bombs, and only a thin layer was required.
I’m not saying that Rossi is using hydrazine, but he’s using something to cheat. The fact that he dumps his water right down the drain is damned suspicious. It’s too bad the “researchers” whom are watching these experiments are not taking and testing samples. Perhaps they are on Rossi’s payroll?
Jed says it so well in the post you responded to. Basically, in order for there to be enough hydrazine to account for the excess heat, it would need to be far more than a thin layer.
Any scam must obey the laws of physics.
I suspect Rossi may be cheating but you’re right — I can’t name the
> method or methods.
>
If you cannot name it, then no one can test it or falsify it. A thing that
you cannot name or specify cannot be part of a scientific debate. That
would be form or religion, or perhaps literature.
All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to
testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that
somewhere, someone might somehow know how to do this by stage magic . . .
means nothing. That is like saying there is an invisible unicorn or a lump
of concrete in the reactor but no one can see, detect, or weigh, and it
does not displace any water. If there is no way you or any of us can know
anything at all about this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in
the universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?
> They may be different and multiple each and every time.
>
Stop multiplying entities. You violate Ockham’s razor. Especially, stop
multiplying invisible entities that cannot be detected by any means, even
in principle. This is — literally — like debating how many angels can
dance on the head of pin. Until you specify a method of stage magic you
have proposed NOTHING.