Updated: Nobel Physicist Brian Josephson To Test eCat On October 6th
Monday, September 26, 2011
UPDATE: Brian Josephson (Noble Prize winning physicist) will NOT test Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer. A misinterpreted posting led to this misunderstanding.
Nobel Prize Winning Physicist: Brian Josephson
UPDATE: "Someone who couldn't read failed to see that the text talking about 'our test' was written by Levi not me. It is Levi's test." - Brian Josephson
UPDATE: "Someone who couldn't read failed to see that the text talking about 'our test' was written by Levi not me. It is Levi's test." - Brian Josephson
"On October 6th we will have the opportunity to make a long (more then 12 hours) of testing one of the modules of the RC 1 MW generator. The module will be Opened to us and we will have the opportunity to verify weights and volumes of the internal components.
Heat measurements will be done at condensing the steam produced in heat exchanger and a secondary circuit where no water will be vaporized. This is NOT an official test of the University of Bologna Because the contract is not active yet." - Brian Josephson
As usual the supervision of the new test by a Nobel Physics Prize Winner is STILL not good enough for the drooling faceless pseudosceptics, who continue day after day to CONSTANTLY change the goal posts. Looking at some of the crazy comments today on various blogs it was patently obvious that the pseudosceptics know they are going down.
Their preferred option would be for a shill or a dogma obsessed establishment defender to conduct the tests so that they can try and undermine it somehow.
The latest video by Mats Lewan shows MASSIVE amounts of steam gushing from the eCat at a fantastic rate - and I couldn't help but notice this amazing piece of footage was conveniently ignored by the lunatic pseudosceptics.
Lunatics? Why of course they are. Who in their right mind would want to sabotage or harm the emergence of a new non-polluting energy technology? What type of person would go out of their way to twist and turn every piece of evidence into something it clearly isn't? The PRETENCE of FAKE concern for gullible investors (which is the usual bullshit we hear) cannot be cited in Rossi's case since he is entirely self-funded - so that particular avenue of pseudoscepticism was immediately closed down to them. And another thing, what kind of complete moron would be even slightly concerned for a super rich investor they've NEVER EVEN MET losing money that he clearly doesn't mind putting down?
Well, the answer is that pseeudosceptics are hell-bent on preserving dogma AT ANY COST even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A brilliant example right now is with the current "Neutrinos Faster Than Light Speed" story. It has been fascinating to watch the big establishment science publications squirm and writhe in agony trying to explain the unexplainable as one of the pillars of modern physics turns to jelly before their eyes.
And what will the pseudosceptics say when eCats go on the market? What will they say when a BIG name player steps in to remove all doubt? With nowhere to go the next plan of attack for the drooling lapdogs when finally beaten into submission by the truth will be to grudgingly admit it works, but to state that it is "unsafe" and "dangerous" and to pursue non-existent and false safety issues.
Mark my words.
1 comments:
Pseudoscience is a specter that looms over science today. It can be found in various disciplines from climate to particle physics. It tends to happen when science is swayed by political advantage, or influenced by profitable conclusions. It seems to me this necessitates a broad-ranged discussion about science, and how we teach it today. In some areas the lack of rigor is pathetic, while in others great care is taken before disclosure.
This is found where a rush to judgement occurs against a dearth of solid facts. Instead of jumping headlong to conclusions, a prudent scientist is patient to see all the facts before he concludes the validity of the theory. History is unkind to those foolish enough make claims without sufficient evidence.
Never is this more true than in this discovery. It is a black box experiment which accordingly must be bracketed by caveat. Irrespective of the conclusions of either side, there stands this question: The science is either valid or it isn't valid. Without opening the black box, this is the stark reality. Indirect scrutiny clearly provides interesting questions but cannot answer them.
I look forward to seeing the Rossi device in operation; and in dissection. Followed by a theory that shows itself unfalsifiable. Pseudo science jumps to conclusions. Real science quietly collects the data, patiently assuring that it is all in before a conclusion is drawn.
--Rather unsatisfying for the instantanaity the world is looking for, but avoids playing to the audience for cheers and jeers without hard evidence.
Post a Comment