Posted on 10/30/2011 7:52:15 PM PDT by Kevmo
how could something like the E-Cat work in defiance of known science?
Even so, to be completely dismissive of Rossi’s claims would seem to be foolish as it is one thing to *believe* something is false based on your assumptions and quite another to be able to *prove* beyond a reasonable doubt that it is false.
So, before we look at the results of the E-Cat test on the 28th, what of Rossi and the E-Cat? Why has he been so cagey and secretive about the E-Cat and not permitted a reputable third party to conduct an objective performance test? Well, there appear to be two plausible explanations .
The first is that Rossi is honestly mistaken and he just believes the E-Cat works and produces excess energy when, in fact, it doesn’t... it’s hard to believe as Rossi has been collaborating with a well-credentialed physicist and emeritus professor from Bologna University, Sergio Focardi. A failure of this kind would be a sad and unfortunate conclusion for all concerned as they would be discredited and reviled .
The other explanation is that the whole thing is a fraud and that the E-Cat doesn’t work at all. This too is hard to swallow because there would be no obvious upside. What benefit could either Rossi or Focardi hope to gain?
Sure, there may be some money involved but I doubt whether it would be a large enough amount to justify what would be an usually elaborate and public hoax and whoever the funds came from would, almost certainly, start legal proceedings (if not retain the services of a “mechanic”) .
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
A shill that buys a faulty device isn't extraordinary proof.
Your source for that claim isn't credible.
Then Rossi came along with his catalyzer that made it more reproducible.
LOL!
Yes, the patent application is a mess, and Rossi having a shill customer tote his hunk of garbage away doesn't make it any more credible.
***Business man.
Con man.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62
It appears that a relatively innocuous post responding to you was pulled.
This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.
55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62
It appears that a relatively innocuous post responding to you was pulled.
This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.
55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62
It appears that a relatively innocuous post responding to you was pulled.
This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.
55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I have a PhD in Physics, what are your technical qualifications to make a technical assessment?
I have a PhD in Physics,
***Then make a name for yourself an refute the theory where it is published.
I have posted my background on these LENR threads. You go fetch.
“Either way, all this reproducibility and peer review stuff is being ignored for the useless procedure it is.” - K
Wow - in one post you claim Pons Fleischman is valid because it has been replicated 14,700 times. In the next, you claim that reproducibility doesn’t matter. Hmmmm....
And just who is this customer, Rossi claims to have?
Whatever is going on here - it is not science, it is much more like a Ronco veg-o-matic infomercial.
“Either way, all this reproducibility and peer review stuff is being ignored for the useless procedure it is.” - K
Wow - in one post you claim Pons Fleischman is valid because it has been replicated 14,700 times.
***So then you acknowledge it has been replicated so many times? Why the demand to have it replicated yet again? So that it can be ignored, yet again? Do you or do you not acknowledge that it has been replicated that many times? Simple question. If you do acknowledge it, why would you need to see it replicated yet again? If you do not acknowledge it, what good is getting it replicated yet again? Your own attitude towards this subject demonstrates that it is wise for someone who has a lead on this technology would be better off selling it to satisfied customers and treating the scientific replication path as a secondary consideration.
And just who is this customer, Rossi claims to have?
***Why do you ask? Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem? No one knows, DUHH.
Whatever is going on here - it is not science,
***I agree, it is not science it is business. Rossi is sending two units to two universities and the scientists can play catchup after he’s sold 30 1MW plants.
it is much more like a Ronco veg-o-matic infomercial.
***Those guys sold a lot of vegomatics.
What customer?
What Rossi is doing is not a replication of Pons, which many labs have investigated independently.
The “customer” is an unverified mystery.
I am saying that trying to wrap what Rossi is doing in a cloak of science is wrong. Science would have no secret formula.
We agree that this is a business issue, and Rossi is engaged in informercials - not science. Further, according to Rossi, the Fusion-O-Matic is selling.
What Rossi is doing is not a replication of Pons,
***He is building on it. Focardi was a well known LENR researcher. The problem with LENR is that it’s hard to get a reaction to start reliably. Rossi solved that.
which many labs have investigated independently.
***Glad you accept such a simple fact. It is within this context that Rossi developed his catalyzer. It worked so well that Ni-H is now considered easier to reproduce than D-Pd. Before Rossi it was definitely the other way around.
The “customer” is an unverified mystery.
***Ho hum. We all know that. POTO: Pointing Out The Obvious.
I am saying that trying to wrap what Rossi is doing in a cloak of science is wrong.
***This isn’t science, it’s business.
Science would have no secret formula.
***IBM did this kind of stuff all the time.
We agree that this is a business issue, and Rossi is engaged in informercials - not science. Further, according to Rossi, the Fusion-O-Matic is selling.
***There is some science in those infomercials. For those of us who are inductive reasoners, we can catch it. But the “mundanes” will miss it.
And just who is this customer, Rossi claims to have?
***Why do you ask? Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem? No one knows, DUHH.
Thank you for admitting that know one knows if there is a customer. Now if you would quit reporting it as fact ...
Fixed.
Then how can you claim that "Ni-H is now considered easier to reproduce than D-Pd. Before Rossi it was definitely the other way around."?
T4BTT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62
It appears that a relatively innocuous post responding to you was pulled.
This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.
55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.