Hypotheses and Science

To use the word scam: you must draw a conclusion that not only is the experiment flawed but that deception was the intent of the "scientist"
This is the mistake of the quasi-skeptic perspective. A truly unemotional skeptic must say we cannot prove this to be wrong, we can only raise doubts. One scheme for example suggested that if H202 were a large part of the inlet water, then there would be enough energy to account for the excess apparent in the demonstration. As a doubt this has validity until it can be proven otherwise, but the doubt is not conclusive proof in any way shape or form. It falls to the doubt to prove itself on infallible evidence, not the hypothesis. The hypothesis doesn't need to prove itself to be right. The criticism must prove the hypothesis wrong, or it isn't valid science at all. Remember, this is a black box experiment. All that can be monitored is what goes in and what comes out of the box over a certain time period. However, you and I did not do the monitoring, so technically this is a doubt we can never satisfy. We monitor the monitoring, but that cannot bring scientific proof at best it can only raise doubt.. The hypothesis must be FALSIFIED; to be found to be discounted, otherwise it stands among many hypotheses--some with a greater body of evidence than others.

The nature of a black box experiment is that as the observation is limited, so the conclusions must be prefaced by terms like: "it would appear (That temperatures were maintained at x over a delta t."; or "apparently (the input was in fact tap water for example). In the last experiment for example, it is valid to comment that the initiating generator ran through out the test. However, what is unknown is the degree this 3rd party was certain that power source was disconnected. (remember they supplied the switches and guages).

I share many of the doubts of this group of skeptics, but I resist drawing premature conclusions. If I were there, I would verify this and that and settle the issues in my own mind. Only if you were there to do the same things, would your skepticism stand. Otherwise, it is cynicism to jump to a conclusion when there are not enough facts to do so.