Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: Gee, I guess their behavior seems highly suspicious :-))) It seemed a little evasive, but in spite of that, in 1904 the prestigious journal Science wrote: The newspapers of December 18 contained the announcement that Wilbur Wright had flown a distance of 3 miles with an aeroplane propeled by a 16-horse power, four-cylinder, gasoline motor, the whole weighing more than 700 pounds…. But to the student of aeronautics, and particularly to those who had followed the careful scientific experiments with aeroplanes which were being made by Orville and Wilbur Wright, it meant an epoch in the progress of invention and achievement, perhaps as great as that when Stevenson first drove a locomotive along a railroad. They proceed to admit wide skepticism because of many failures, but then say (remember, in 1904): Mr. Wright's success in rising and landing safely with a motor-driven aeroplane is a crowning achievement showing the possibility of human flight. Nothing like that has ever appeared in Science about cold fusion, or about Rossi. They clearly actively avoided the press until the were really ready in 1908, when their demonstration left no doubt. Rossi has claimed working ecats for 4 years or so, and claimed to have heated a factory with one for 2 years. He didn't invite the press until his big show in Jan 2011. He has since had a dozen demos with invited press *with* video cameras, and with invited scientists. But although he has claimed he is ready for the marketplace, whereas the Wrights clearly weren't, Rossi's demo falls far short of satisfying the skeptics, let alone catapulting him onto the world stage. And instead of actually *showing* the public what an ecat can do, by using it to heat something, or to do some obvious work, he sends all the claimed energy down a drain or into the sky, and then reports measured temperatures, requiring his audience to trust his measurements. The Wrights in 1908 did not depend on trust. They showed the world how far they could jump.
RE: [Vo]:When faced with reality
From Marcello, The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention they received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still without a patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From then on, they refused to fly anywhere unless they had a firm contract to sell their aircraft. They wrote to the U.S. government, then to Britain, France and Germany with an offer to sell a flying machine, but were rebuffed because they insisted on a signed contract before giving a demonstration. They were unwilling even to show their photographs of the airborne Flyer. The American military, having recently spent $50,000 on the Langley Aerodrome-a product of the nation's foremost scientist-only to see it plunge twice into the Potomac River like a handful of mortar, was particularly unreceptive to the claims of two unknown bicycle makers from Ohio.[66] Thus, doubted or scorned, the Wright brothers continued their work in semi-obscurity, while other aviation pioneers like Brazilian Alberto Santos-Dumont, Henri Farman, Leon Delagrange and American Glenn Curtiss entered the limelight. There do seem to be some similarities. Regrettably, history often repeats itself. We shall see if that is the case... again. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Let me repeat that I started this thread to discern what might have been reported from ardent skeptics AFTER it had been determined beyond reasonable doubt that the Wright Brothers [Sorry about that blatant misspelling of Wright with Right in my original post... Hadn't had my cup'o'Java.] had successfully flown an aircraft under their own power. I'm curious as to what their personal views were, how they might have changed or didn't change, when when faced with the reality of the situation. Did they simply shrug their shoulders, change their minds and get on with the rest of their lives, or did they manufacture new rationalizations to explain why they remain(ed) so skeptical. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Am 16.11.2011 14:28, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson: From Marcello, The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention they received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still without a patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From then on, they refused to fly anywhere unless they had a firm contract to sell their aircraft. They wrote to the U.S. government, then to Britain, France and Germany with an offer to sell a flying machine, but were rebuffed because they insisted on a signed contract before giving a demonstration. They were unwilling even to show their photographs of the airborne Flyer. The American military, having recently spent $50,000 on the Langley Aerodrome-a product of the nation's foremost scientist-only to see it plunge twice into the Potomac River like a handful of mortar, was particularly unreceptive to the claims of two unknown bicycle makers from Ohio.[66] Thus, doubted or scorned, the Wright brothers continued their work in semi-obscurity, while other aviation pioneers like Brazilian Alberto Santos-Dumont, Henri Farman, Leon Delagrange and American Glenn Curtiss entered the limelight. There do seem to be some similarities. Regrettably, history often repeats itself. There are some obvious differences. Rossis secret is securely encapsuled and hidden. Even nonproprietary parts as the vaporizer content and steam and pressure are hidden (without?) reason. It was impossible for the Wright brothers to hide construction details. They had really to fear, some competitor could copy it. We shall see if that is the case... again. In this case it does not repeat. This is a very different case and not comparable. Peter
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Also in the same, rather short, wikipedia article, one can read of the furious patent dispute (on the mechanism to steer the planes, not on lift, by the way), of the disrepute that befell the brothers because of their perceived greed, and of the refusal (for 40 years! ) of the Smithsonian to recognize their precedence because another contender to the claim of first to fly had been a director there. As it is to be expected, if you live in the same world as I do, even after their discovery was accepted as irrefutable fact (I am sure for some that only happened when they themselves flew), their role was not. Draw your own conclusions. To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. - how is Rossi trying to make money out of his wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian scam? I already wrote a detailed post on that and got no reaction. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:27 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Let me repeat that I started this thread to discern what might have been reported from ardent skeptics AFTER it had been determined beyond reasonable doubt that the Wright Brothers had successfully flown an aircraft under their own power. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Mary Yugo pointed out that other energy scams make money by accepting secret investments from carefully selected credulous people, who have to sign iron clad nondisclosure agreements... this can go on for years... On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: Also in the same, rather short, wikipedia article, one can read of the furious patent dispute (on the mechanism to steer the planes, not on lift, by the way), of the disrepute that befell the brothers because of their perceived greed, and of the refusal (for 40 years! ) of the Smithsonian to recognize their precedence because another contender to the claim of first to fly had been a director there. As it is to be expected, if you live in the same world as I do, even after their discovery was accepted as irrefutable fact (I am sure for some that only happened when they themselves flew), their role was not. Draw your own conclusions. To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. - how is Rossi trying to make money out of his wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian scam? I already wrote a detailed post on that and got no reaction. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:27 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Let me repeat that I started this thread to discern what might have been reported from ardent skeptics AFTER it had been determined beyond reasonable doubt that the Wright Brothers had successfully flown an aircraft under their own power. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for us to witness it directly. But the sheer number of complicit people -- probably 10s of thousands -- required to fake it make that scenario infinitely more difficult to believe than a moon landing, which after all is based on perfectly well-understood physics. There is no unknown reaction claimed here. In Rossi's case, it is completely feasible to demonstrate the effect without any need for trust, and so here the fact that he doesn't makes it likely that he can't. Furthermore, the number of complicit people necessary is much, much smaller. In fact, it could be all delusion or incompetence (definitely not possible in the moon-landing). - how is Rossi trying to make money out of his wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian scam? I already wrote a detailed post on that and got no reaction. Maybe you missed the cross-post of Krivit's comment on his latest post, where he spells it out pretty well. Briefly, entirely plausible, confidential, and substantial, investments. Or, for another clue, look at BLP and how their wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian story, in which no product has ever been marketed, and in which promises have been repeatedly unfulfilled, has nevertheless earned them about $60M in investment.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for us to witness it directly. Maybe. But if you've seen a Saturn V launch, as have hundreds of thousands if not millions, you have to be impressed that some considerable chunk of mass is traveling very fast moonward. And then there's the bill for NASA and its activities measuring in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That'd be a pretty expensive movie.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
There is the only problem with the investment story that it does not appear to be true. The only source of money Krivit cites is Ampenergo, that is Rossi himself. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for us to witness it directly. But the sheer number of complicit people -- probably 10s of thousands -- required to fake it make that scenario infinitely more difficult to believe than a moon landing, which after all is based on perfectly well-understood physics. There is no unknown reaction claimed here. In Rossi's case, it is completely feasible to demonstrate the effect without any need for trust, and so here the fact that he doesn't makes it likely that he can't. Furthermore, the number of complicit people necessary is much, much smaller. In fact, it could be all delusion or incompetence (definitely not possible in the moon-landing). - how is Rossi trying to make money out of his wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian scam? I already wrote a detailed post on that and got no reaction. Maybe you missed the cross-post of Krivit's comment on his latest post, where he spells it out pretty well. Briefly, entirely plausible, confidential, and substantial, investments. Or, for another clue, look at BLP and how their wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian story, in which no product has ever been marketed, and in which promises have been repeatedly unfulfilled, has nevertheless earned them about $60M in investment. -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Ampenergo is owned by his wife. 2011/11/16 Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net There is the only problem with the investment story that it does not appear to be true. The only source of money Krivit cites is Ampenergo, that is Rossi himself. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for us to witness it directly. But the sheer number of complicit people -- probably 10s of thousands -- required to fake it make that scenario infinitely more difficult to believe than a moon landing, which after all is based on perfectly well-understood physics. There is no unknown reaction claimed here. In Rossi's case, it is completely feasible to demonstrate the effect without any need for trust, and so here the fact that he doesn't makes it likely that he can't. Furthermore, the number of complicit people necessary is much, much smaller. In fact, it could be all delusion or incompetence (definitely not possible in the moon-landing). - how is Rossi trying to make money out of his wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian scam? I already wrote a detailed post on that and got no reaction. Maybe you missed the cross-post of Krivit's comment on his latest post, where he spells it out pretty well. Briefly, entirely plausible, confidential, and substantial, investments. Or, for another clue, look at BLP and how their wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian story, in which no product has ever been marketed, and in which promises have been repeatedly unfulfilled, has nevertheless earned them about $60M in investment. -- Marcello Vitale via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY phone: +39 338 484 9724 skype: marcello_vitale_UK email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.netwrote: There is the only problem with the investment story that it does not appear to be true. The only source of money Krivit cites is Ampenergo, that is Rossi himself. That may be the only source that he claims succeeded, and I don't think we know where Ampenergo might have got the money (private investors?), or how much they gave him. But to explain Rossi's motivation, we don't need to show that he got money, only how he intended (or intends) to get it. Not all scams are successful, and this may be one that fails to fulfill Rossi's hopes. He got lucky with Kullander and Essen, but he probably didn't anticipate the level of scrutiny Krivit would put him under. Still, to read the many people on these forums that are ready and willing to give him money, based on the demos done so far, I expect he will be able to convert some of the adoration and hero worship (some even evident on this list) into cash. In any case, it's not implausible.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Ampenergo is owned by his wife. No: This was confirmed by Andrea Rossi’s wife, Maddalena Pascucci who is a commerce graduate and manages the commercial part of the energy catalyzer. Formally, the agreement was made between Praxen and the Italian company EFA srl, of which she is principal owner. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3194216.ece Ampenergo is owned by: The founders of Ampenergo are Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece You really should buy a program. You can't tell the players without a program.. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On 11-11-16 10:43 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net mailto:mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: To the hard-core skeptics, two questions: - did man actually set foot on the moon? Compare and contrast level of proof. I agree, the moon-landing requires some trust, because there is no way for us to witness it directly. True, but not much. Among other things, we can look at the photographs which were taken. Some of them, particularly the slides which are still on file at NASA and which can be accessed by anyone with a good reason, and which have been scanned and are available online for the rest of us, would have been incredibly hard to fake with technology of that time. Frankly, I find it easier to understand how they could have physically gone to the Moon than to understand how they could have put that perfectly distorted reflection on the visor of the astronaut standing on the Moon's surface using the analog technology that was available to them. Do *that* using physical lenses in a darkroom?? Good luck! The best bit is the image of the Earth reflected in the visor. It's not even visible in the published versions of the picture (like, in Life magazine, for instance) but it's there in the original. And it's in the right place in the reflected sky. Some trick! Carving the backs of the gargoyles on Notre Dame is nothing compared to *that* level of attention to detail! The videos are pretty interesting, also, even though the online versions are rather low resolution. Note, for instance, how the dust falls all wrong when they race around on the little scooter. Faking that would have been a challenge, to say the least, and it's not clear anyone would have noticed if they hadn't bothered with that little detail. Again, if it's a fake, that's like carving the backs of the gargoyles, raised to the tenth power. Or, for another clue, look at BLP and how their wonderful, long, elaborate, hollywoodian story, in which no product has ever been marketed, and in which promises have been repeatedly unfulfilled, has nevertheless earned them about $60M in investment. Now, I'd agree that believing in BLP requires a certain level of trust
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
In any case, it doesn't make sense to call Ampenergo as one of the (supposedly) scammed parts. The deal with AP was to sell the e-cat in the name of AR's company, so they should actually be the front gate of a scam. 2011/11/16 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Ampenergo is owned by his wife. No: This was confirmed by Andrea Rossi’s wife, Maddalena Pascucci who is a commerce graduate and manages the commercial part of the energy catalyzer. Formally, the agreement was made between Praxen and the Italian company EFA srl, of which she is principal owner. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3194216.ece Ampenergo is owned by: The founders of Ampenergo are Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece You really should buy a program. You can't tell the players without a program.. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** Now, I'd agree that believing in BLP requires a certain level of trust This string isn't about BLP but BLP has a lot of the hallmarks of a scam. It could also be a delusion and I suppose there is a still a vanishingly tiny chance it could be real. There's more detail, writing papers, math, and involvement by others including Rowan University in BLP than there is in Rossi's story. Mills could fix all his problems by closing the loop. Show that the end result of the reaction can be returned to the input to power the reaction. Or in Mills' case, that you can make the magic powder tested by Rowan cheaply. Closing the loop is what free energy (or almost free energy) advocates have, so far, *always* failed to do -- including Rossi.
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Marcello Vitale mvit...@ucsbalum.net wrote: The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention they received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still without a patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From then on, they refused to fly anywhere unless they had a firm contract to sell their aircraft. They wrote to the U.S. government, then to Britain, France and Germany with an offer to sell a flying machine, but were rebuffed because they insisted on a signed contract before giving a demonstration. This contract was similar to what Rossi is asking for, except there was no escrow arrangement. The Wrights trusted national governments to pay according to contract. What they demanded was: The other party agreed to a price. The other party set performance standards, subject to the Wrights' agreement. If the Wrights met the performance, the other party would pay the agreed amount. This is an ordinary contract, and it would not normally be disputed, but many people thought that airplanes were impossible so the national governments hesitated to sign this agreement. Finally, thanks to Pres. Roosevelt intervention, the U.S. Army agreed to it. No money was paid until the Wrights demonstrated the airplane to the satisfaction of Army experts. Rossi is asking for similar terms. Fraud is impossible under these circumstances. Many authors feel that the Wrights were complicit but I disagree. It is true they kept a low profile. But I think this has been exaggerated. It was exaggerated first by the Scientific American magazine which began attacking the Wrights in 1906 and continued into the 21st century, most recently in 2003, publishing an article full of distortions and nonsense, try to justify their own original attacks. This is exaggerated for several reasons. First they got patent in 1906, which is not a low profile act. Second, the British and French governments sent agents to Dayton to meet with the Wrights. The Wrights showed them documents proving they had flown, the agents were immediately convinced and reported back to the governments that they should negotiate to buy airplanes. Unfortunately for the Wrights, the British and French government decided that it couldn't be that hard to build an airplane so they decided to do it themselves rather than buy one from the Wrights. The Wrights met with many other people and showed them documents, photographs, and so on, and they published interviews and letters in magazines. Furthermore, they did not fly because flying was extremely dangerous. It was not something you did on a whim. They had nearly been killed many times in accidents. In 1908 Orville was nearly killed again and suffered the rest of his life from his wounds. After 1909 I do not think they ever flew again. My take on this is here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf They were unwilling even to show their photographs of the airborne Flyer. This is nonsense. Many people, including the British and French government agents saw the photographs and spoke with people who observed flights. The Wrights had dozens of affidavits from leading citizens of Dayton attesting that they had seen flights. They showed the affidavits to the agents and invited them to speak with those people. If the U.S. Army had sent agents to Dayton I am sure they would have been convinced. The Army thought it was the Wright's job to convince *them*. They did not bother to send anyone. Granted, the Wrights should have sent a few photos to Washington. But they were so fed up with the officials after years of getting the run-around, so they did not do this. Along similar lines I have often asked leading cold fusion researchers to send some photos or other evidence to high officials in the US government. They say it is not worth bothering. They said they know they will be rejected out of hand. Rossi says the same thing, and he may well be right. If any magazine or newspaper had bothered to send a reporter to Dayton that reporter would also have been convinced. No newspaper or magazine bothered to send a reporter. Even the local newspapers did not bother to send anyone. There was a streetcar line running next to the field where the Wrights flew. People riding streetcars often saw them flying in circles. The streetcar driver would stop to let the passengers watch. These people often call the newspapers and asked why there was nothing about the flights. Here is a wonderful description of what happened next, from the authorized biography: Dan Kumler . . . city editor Daily News, in Dayton, recalled in 1940 . . . that many people who had been on interurban cars passing the Huffman field and seen the Wrights in the air used to come to the Daily News office to inquire why there was nothing in the paper about the flights. Such callers, said Kumler, got to be a nuisance. And why wasn’t there anything in the paper? Kumler was asked. [by the author of the
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding the Right Brothers, when proof became irrefutable that their contraption could fly under power, how did some of the most ardent (and well known) skeptics deal with the news? I'm curious as to what kind of follow-up might have been performed on these individual. Were some interviewed and asked as to what they were thinking about when the news finally sunk in? Did they simply change their opinion and tehn get on with the rest of their lives, or did some come up with other interesting rationalizations to explain their prior POVs? That is a very interesting question. The responses from three groups of skeptics has been preserved in history books. You can probably find more in original sources, such as books now available on Google. Anyway, the three groups I have in mind were: 1. Scientists 2. Rival aviators 3. People in small cities and rural places who still didn't believe it. This group went on disbelieving up to WWI. The first group was scientists who thought they were experts. As I wrote in my essay, they declared that a heavier-than-air flying machine was physically impossible. It was an absurdity, a gross violation of the laws of nature. This had been proved mathematically with 'unassailable logic' by leading experts in physics, writing in distinguished journals and magazines. These people did not say it is impossible to fly. Anyone could see birds and insects can fly. They said that no man-made machine would ever be larger than an insect. Some of them said that even if you manage to fly there is no method of landing without smashing the machine. Others said that no internal combustion engine will ever produce as a power to weight ratio as good as the muscles of a bird. These statements were preposterous but they were taken seriously in the mass media. After the Wright brothers flew, most of these people shut up. One of the most famous, Prof. Simon Newcomb, was contacted by reporters after the Orville flew in Washington DC in 1908. The reporter asked if he thought passenger planes would be the next step. Quoting the official biography, p. 228: No, Newcomb was reported to have replied, because no plane could ever carry the weight of anyone besides the pilot. It might have been expected that by this time professor Newcomb would have become more cautious! A few days later Orville flew with a passenger, as he had done months earlier -- a fact reported in many magazines. History does not record what Newcomb said after that, but for many years people opposed the development of aviation because they said it would it would never become a practical means of transportation, it would always be very dangerous, and it had no value for the military, in reconnaissance or for any other purpose. They tried to prevent national armies from wasting money on it. They successfully prevented the US army from developing aviation before 1917. If they had also prevented the British and French governments, the allies would have lost the war by 1916. Rivals included the French aviators, A. G. Bell, Curtiss, Chanute and others. Some were supportive of the Wrights all along. Others said the Wrights' claims were exaggerated. The French were particularly sarcastic until the day Wilbur flew in France. Most of them immediately admitted in the national press that they had been wrong. They praised the Wrights to the skies. F. Peyrey wrote: I shall try to give an idea of the incomparable mastery of the American aviators in the marvelous art of imitating the birds. For a long time -- for too long a time -- the Wright brothers have been accused in Europe of bluffing; perhaps even in their own land. Today they are hallowed by France, and I feel an intense pleasure in counting myself among the first to make amends for such flagrant injustice . . . I predict that no opponent of cold fusion will ever say anything so nice. Chanute -- who considered himself their mentor -- accused the Wrights of tying to make money from their invention instead of giving it over to society out of altruism. In the press Chanute modestly took credit for their work. Their long friendship ended badly. It is difficult to understand why he thought that two brothers who had worked night and day for eight years, risked all their money, and were nearly killed a dozen times should have handed over their invention for nothing. By the same token I wonder why people nowadays think that although Rossi has worked for 15 years and often risked his life he should be kind enough to give us his discovery for nothing, even though it is worth a trillion dollars. As I said, I wish that such people would please send me a check for all the money they have, as a favor, because I am such a nice person. A cashier's check would be great. My address is 1954 Airport Rd. Curtiss and others immediately began trying to prove that Langley had actually flown before the Wrights, in order to break the
RE: [Vo]:When faced with reality
Jed, Thank you for taking some time out to answer this query. A willingness to share your knowledge of certain historical events is much appreciated. Regarding Rossi, will history repeat itself, again? I suspect we must wait for some more shoes to drop for the definitive answer. All I can say is that from my perspective I do get the impression that a lot of shoes have already have dropped. As such, I would be very reluctant to bet on a premise that Rossi is a scammer. Such odds don't look good to me. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
from the wikipedia article about the Wright brothers. about the first flight in 1903 The Wrights sent a telegram about the flights to their father, requesting that he inform press. However, the *Dayton Journal* refused to publish the story, saying the flights were too short to be important. Meanwhile, against the brothers' wishes, a telegraph operator leaked their message to a Virginia newspaper, which concocted a highly inaccurate news article Later, in 1904 They invited reporters to their first flight attempt of the year on May 23, on the condition that no photographs be taken. Engine troubles and slack winds prevented any flying, and they could manage only a very short hop a few days later with fewer reporters present. Some scholars of the Wrights speculate the brothers may have intentionally failed to fly in order to cause reporters to lose interest in their experiments.[58]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#cite_note-57Whether that is true is not known, but after their poor showing local newspapers virtually ignored them for the next year and a half. Easy as pie, I see later A few newspapers published articles about the long flights, but no reporters or photographers had been there. The lack of splashy eyewitness press coverage was a major reason for disbelief in Washington, D.C. and Europe and in journals like *Scientific American,* whose editors doubted the alleged experiments and asked how U.S. newspapers, alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice.[65]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#cite_note-66 The Wright brothers were certainly complicit in the lack of attention they received. Fearful of competitors stealing their ideas, and still without a patent, they flew on only one more day after October 5. From then on, they refused to fly anywhere unless they had a firm contract to sell their aircraft. They wrote to the U.S. government, then to Britain, France and Germany with an offer to sell a flying machine, but were rebuffed because they insisted on a signed contract before giving a demonstration. They were unwilling even to show their photographs of the airborne Flyer. The American military, having recently spent $50,000 on the Langley Aerodromehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley_Aerodrome—a product of the nation's foremost scientist—only to see it plunge twice into the Potomac River like a handful of mortar, was particularly unreceptive to the claims of two unknown bicycle makers from Ohio.[66]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#cite_note-67Thus, doubted or scorned, the Wright brothers continued their work in semi-obscurity, while other aviation pioneers like Brazilian Alberto Santos-Dumont http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Santos-Dumont, Henri Farman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Farman, Leon Delagrangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Delagrangeand American Glenn Curtiss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Curtiss entered the limelight. Gee, I guess their behavior seems highly suspicious :-))) On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:45 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, Since you are a pretty decent historian on a number of events... Regarding the Right Brothers, when proof became irrefutable that their contraption could fly under power, how did some of the most ardent (and well known) skeptics deal with the news? I'm not Jed, and you've got the Rong brothers, but I can answer anyway. First of all, the scientific mainstream was not skeptical of powered flight, although there were some skeptics, most notably Lord Kelvin. The subject was treated with respect from before 1900 by journals like Science, Nature, and Scientific American. It was regarded by most scientists as inevitable, and in any case, could not be regarded as contrary to any physical principles or generalizations already accumulated and verified, because after all, birds are heavier than air. That's a difference compared to cold fusion. However, there was widespread skepticism of the Wright's claims of flights in 1904 and 1905 (and earlier) (especially in Europe), largely because of the Wrights' own restrictions on the press and photography. (Contrary to Rossi's secret sauce, the Wright's secrets could in fact be photographed.) It could have been resolved quickly, but the Wrights did not fly at all in 1906 and 1907. In 1908, when they flew in France, it took 105 seconds for all skepticism to vanish. Wikipedia puts it like this: The Wright brothers catapulted to world fame overnight. Former doubters issued apologies and effusive praise. L'Aérophile editor Georges Besançon wrote that the flights have completely dissipated all doubts. Not one of the former detractors of the Wrights dare question, today, the previous experiments of the men who were truly the first to fly Producing heat is not quite as
Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:45 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, Since you are a pretty decent historian on a number of events... Regarding the Right Brothers, when proof became irrefutable that their contraption could fly under power, how did some of the most ardent (and well known) skeptics deal with the news? I'm not Jed, and you've got the Rong brothers, but I can answer anyway. First of all, the scientific mainstream was not skeptical of powered flight, although there were some skeptics, most notably Lord Kelvin. The subject was treated with respect from before 1900 by journals like Science, Nature, and Scientific American. It was regarded by most scientists as inevitable, and in any case, could not be regarded as contrary to any physical principles or generalizations already accumulated and verified, because after all, birds are heavier than air. That's a difference compared to cold fusion. However, there was widespread skepticism of the Wright's claims of flights in 1904 and 1905 (and earlier) (especially in Europe), largely because of the Wrights' own restrictions on the press and photography. (Contrary to Rossi's secret sauce, the Wright's secrets could in fact be photographed.) It could have been resolved quickly, but the Wrights did not fly at all in 1906 and 1907. In 1908, when they flew in France, it took 105 seconds for all skepticism to vanish. Wikipedia puts it like this: The Wright brothers catapulted to world fame overnight. Former doubters issued apologies and effusive praise. L'Aérophile editor Georges Besançon wrote that the flights have completely dissipated all doubts. Not one of the former detractors of the Wrights dare question, today, the previous experiments of the men who were truly the first to fly Producing heat is not quite as obvious as powered flight, but it's close, and a similarly convincing demo would be easy to design, if the claims were real. Rossi's Kitty Hawk was in 2008, in his factory that was heated for 2 years by an ecat. Jan 2011 should have been his France demo, and he has had a dozen of them this year, with invited press and scientists. But he has not catapulted to fame, and skeptics have not capitulated. Instead of setting up a demo like that of the Wright brothers in France (which might involve heating an olympic pool without any input power, or something), Rossi encloses his observers in a room without windows, and has his associates read remote altimeters, and then he gives the observers a scan of the paper where the altitude is written down. Is it any wonder, skeptics still are. When he flings the doors open, and lets the public see the ecat soar, he will get his love.
