Replies

And yet hundreds of live witnesses, and millions of TV viewers saw it disappear.
***And yet there are witnesses to the heat generation of Rossi's E-Cat. That would make Rossi a far better magician than anyone else because he's doing the trick right in front of them while they have physical access to it. They have weighed it, looked under it, torn it apart, dunked it in water to get its density, all kinds of things.

Again I like what Jed has to say.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi Deserves Our Gratitude
Jed Rothwell
Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:01:28 -0800

Mary Yugo wrote:

> You keep saying the results of Rossi's demos were obvious but there is
> continuing disagreement over that from very smart people so you could be
> wrong.
>

I do not know any very smart people who say this. All of the scientists
I know who have examined the results are convinced. They include people
such as Kullander, who is chairman of the Royal Academy of Sciences Energy
Committee. I am certain that he knows more about energy than you do. I am
sure he knows more about energy than all of skeptics tied together.

The people who dispute these results have never offered any valid technical
reasons to back up their assertions. For example, Jones Beene claimed that
the calorimetry during the 18-hour flowing water test might be off by a
factor of 1000, but he never gave any reasons why this is possible. Other
people said that the input power might be measured incorrectly in that
test, but that is impossible because the wires would burn up if there was
that much electricity being input.

You have never offered any technical reasons for any of your claims. You
say that there may be a stage magician somewhere on Earth who knows some
method of doing a fake test of this nature. That is not falsifiable so it
is not a scientific assertion. Whenever anyone asks you for a scientific
reason, you change the subject and point to Rossi's personality, and then
you say he might be a fraud, and then you talk about Steorn. You are
evading the issue.

In the last year I have not seen a a single valid technical objection to
Rossi's claims. I'm sure that if the skeptics could come up with something
by now if they could.

That is not to say Rossi's tests have been perfect. I myself have pointed
out many weaknesses. However these weaknesses have no impact on the
conclusion. Any experiment has weaknesses. Even the most irrefutable
demonstration of a phenomenon could always be done with better
instrumentation or more rigor.

> You and others persist in making unlikely excuses for Rossi.
>

I never make excuses for anyone, least of all myself. My belief is in
Rossi's claims, based on physics, not in the man himself.

Rossi's problem is a failure to conduct his tests properly and to get
> independent testing. The skeptics merely point this out.
>

I POINT THIS OUT. Often.

> They also point out simple and safe, inexpensive ways to remedy the
> problems.
>

These problem are annoying but unimportant.

> It's Rossi's fault, not the fault of the skeptics, that he doesn't follow
> your advice, much less skeptics' advice.
>

Yes, but his failure to follow this advice has no bearing whatever on the
reality of his claim. That is based solely on fundamental physics and it
would not change even if it Rossi turns out to be a fraud and an ax
murderer to boot.

Also: Please stop saying that I accuse Rossi of lying about his technical
claims. I said very clearly that I have NEVER seen him do that. Perhaps he
has lied but I have never caught him saying anything which was not either
true or that he did not indicate was pure speculation.

He has said some dubious things about personal matters such as his PhD from
the diploma mill, his reasons for breaking with Defkalion, and about me,
personally. That has nothing to do with the scientific claims.

I think he sometimes practices misdirection and selective leaking of facts.
Every inventor I have ever heard of did this. Edison was a master at that.
IBM held a gigantic share of the computer market decades longer than they
might have, partly thanks to their masterful use of this technique.

- Jed

--------------------------------------------------

Re: [Vo]:Best and worst aspects of the Oct. 6 test summarized at LENR-CANR News
Jed Rothwell
Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:27:43 -0700

Terry Blanton wrote:

> > And many people are paid for performing grand illusions that
> > cannot be exposed by observers in audience and live television.
>
> And who is going to pay Rossi for a hoax? This engineer will tell you
> that none of us will be fooled.
>

Yeah! About those stage magicians: they only fool you because you are in the
audience, not on stage. Put Terry on the stage for a few minutes, let him go
behind the apparatus, and he will tell you how the trick works.

Special effects in movies are blatantly obvious when you are on the sound
stage, watching them film. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2001_CENTRIFUGE_SET.jpg

Do you think anyone would mistake this for an actual space ship?

This notion that "fakers" or "scammers" can fool engineers is silly. I been
watching this business for nearly 20 years. I have heard of many scammers
and met a few in person. They did not fool me or any other knowledgeable
person.

There are claims difficult to judge. There have been confused people, or
people who had complicated machines that took time to understand. Especially
the magnet machines. There are cold fusion experiments claiming effects
close to the margin of error, such as 2% excess heat. That is hard to
confirm or deny. Those are all a different story. Rossi's machine is dead
simple from the point of view of calorimetry. Let's see a scammer or stage
magician disconnect the power from a box with 30 L of boiling water, change
out the water twice, and still have it boiling hot. Not gunna happen.

As I have often said, it is a lot easier to find blatant, deliberate fraud
than a subtle experimental error. Nature knows more ways to fool us than man
will ever dream up.

- Jed