I have no "beliefs" about Rossi. I have beliefs about his technology. The difference is that I am relying on hard facts on the subject, and you are relying on innuendo and speculation.
YOU HAVE NO PROOF, not one single item of provable fact that the technology is fraudulent. Your "arguments from authority" mean precisely zero to me, because I an sufficiently knowledgable in the area to not need an external authority. I'm capable of looking at the SCIENCE evidence and drawing the necessary conclusions.
I suggest you spend some time on Vortex-L on a thread about "Rossi comments about "It Was Sent Back" where a major discussion is going on about Rossi's "truthiness" or lack of same.
Jone Beene:
Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:43:09 -0800
Having said all that - let me be clear that good evidence still indicates Rossi has invented a robust energy anomaly.
That is where myself and Yugo part company. She believes that the dishonesty extends to everything, but that is wrong. At the bottom of it all, there is enough proof from other honest sources, and from 22 years of positive R&D - that this energy anomaly is now ready for prime time - that we should not abandon Rossi altogether.
Mary Yugo could be your twin in her (there is evidence that "she" isn't she...perhaps she is YOU) lack of technical capacity and viewpoint on Rossi, and uses virtually the same argument.
Snippet:
This patent doesn't show up on google searches of discussion boards.
I am curious how it fits into the various LENR categories, and also whether the approach works on nano-scales, and in which atmospheres, emulsions and for which crystal distributions.
Although the fusion is claimed to be initiated at low temperature, the USPTO did not reject it as a "cold fusion" claim- maybe because of the mention of particle beams?
One of the inventors, Seth Putterman, is also a sonofusion researcher.
Does anyone have any insights on the patent's value? Do the claims conflict with any pending patents? Does it overlap any current LENR approaches?
Thanks, Lou Pagnucco
YOU HAVE NO PROOF, not one single item of provable fact that the technology is fraudulent.No, but I don't have to "prove" he's a fraud. It's up to him to prove that he's legitimate. He isn't even close to doing so.
You have faith in Rossi, which has no place in scientific enquiry.
When Rossi fulfills his promise to provide an E-Cat for independent testing to the University of Bologna, and if they determine that it really works...
OR
When a real, verifiable, legitimate company, university or other credible organization announces that they have an E-Cat and it works as described
THEN
I'll believe that Rossi is legitimate.
Until then, the very long and detailed list I've provided on numerous occasions provides more than enough evidence to believe that Rossi continues to be a con man, as he has been for decades.