On 12/16/2009 10:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
. . . [T]his is a variation of the non-falsifiable claim that the more
credible a claim appears to be, the more likely it is a scam. In that
case, as a real claim and a scam approach perfection, it becomes
impossible to tell them apart. That can't be!
What I mean is, strictly according to this standard, on the day Steorn
ships its millionth magnet motor powered automobile and declares a
trillion-dollar net worth, they will have achieved the perfect scam.
At some point, the scam and the real thing diverge. There have to be
criteria that make an dependable distinction between the two. I believe
there is: independent replication and verification.
Yes, yes, and yes -- I don't disagree with what you're saying here, but
I would like to clarify what I said to start with just a little.
I certainly wasn't trying to say that anything that doesn't look like a
scam must therefore be a scam! I was merely trying to say that if a
person doesn't behave the way you *EXPECT* a scammer to behave, that, by
itself, doesn't prove anything, because any true scammer is going to be
trying very hard *not* to look like a scammer.
To put it in terms of a trite old metaphor, you can't judge a book by
its cover. You must judge by the substance, not by the appearance.
They *show* the battery -- a scammer, you say, wouldn't do that. Well,
then, maybe they're honest, or maybe they're just trying to act that
way. So, showing the battery does not actually prove anything about
their honesty -- and that was my point.
But as to the "substance" -- since there are no published, checkable
numbers regarding this demonstration (we don't know the battery drain,
we don't know the power required to spin the motor), there is no
substance to this demonstration, and it consequently shows nothing.
Quite aside from replications or lack thereof, there are NO QUANTITATIVE
CLAIMS made about this demo! They're apparently not even *trying* to
show anything with it! It looks cool, it goes around, maybe it's
entertaining to watch, but that's all.
Now -- back to appearances -- a scammer is not going to tell you what
the battery drain is, and what the torque required to drive the motor
is, because that would also require disclosing the technique used to
measure same, which would open them up to being checked. And the check
could show in short order that the numbers didn't match the claims. So,
with this thought in mind, we can see that the Steorn folks are acting
*exactly* like scammers: They are carefully avoiding making the
numerical claims which would be necessary to provide any substance to
their demonstration. Honest researchers publish numbers. Scammers wave
their hands, or provide numbers which can't be checked. This bit of
"behavioral difference" is *required* by the nature of scamming: The
scammer hasn't got the numbers to back up the claims and so can't
publish them (or, if he "invents" the numbers, he must assure that
nobody can check the claimed values).
Note well: CF researchers publish numbers. Many of them document
everything they do, in painful detail. This is an important point to
keep in mind: CF: lots of numbers. Steorn: No numbers.
Hoyt Stearns tells us the battery merely "modifies parameters" and
doesn't directly provide kinetic energy. But without knowing what
"parameters" it modifies, that also tells us nothing, and we're left
with no more information than we had before regarding inputs and
outputs, and again, the demo shows nothing. According to pages on the
Web describing the demo, the battery is powering an outer ring of coils,
which sounds to me like it's doing something more than just "modifying
parameters" -- but again, this is hearsay, based on vague statements to
start with, without any numbers attached to anything.
- Jed
