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?)
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Yes, I do not understand how it is possible.parallel wrote:What part of "the gamma radiation then dropped to about 50% above ambient and it was variable" did you not understand?If reaction goes with gamma radiation, radiation appears for a short time and then stopped, so - reaction was stopped too.
I am very primitive. And need simple evidences.
If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Harmonous logical constructions on unsteady soil would not give anything good too.Helius wrote: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?Joseph Chikva wrote: If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.
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:Yes, I do not understand how it is possible.parallel wrote:What part of "the gamma radiation then dropped to about 50% above ambient and it was variable" did you not understand?If reaction goes with gamma radiation, radiation appears for a short time and then stopped, so - reaction was stopped too.
I am very primitive. And need simple evidences.
If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.
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:Joseph Chikva wrote:Harmonous logical constructions on unsteady soil would not give anything good too.Helius wrote: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?Joseph Chikva wrote: If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - no reaction.
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?
The truth of Radiation being evidence of a reaction does not follow that no radiation means no reaction.If radiation is an evidence of reaction. So, no radiation - 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.
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.