At 08:58 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Celani's description of the demo was more critical than his discussion with me, yesterday. He was quite upset that they did not let him make nuclear measurements, and I suspect that has colored his thinking. Rossi told him "we can't let you take a gamma spectrum because that will tell you exactly what reactions are going on, and we cannot reveal that information until we can get a patent." That remark alone is revealing, isn't it!
I don't trust anything Rossi says; once the fraud possibility exists, as it does from many appearances, nothing can be taken at face value, everything must be independently verified. Rossi, if not a fraud, is acting very suspiciously, without a clear non-fraud reason for it.
Obviously, if there were suspicious gamma, this would be a nuclear reaction of some kind (though possible, perhaps, a fake with some hot radioisotope inside. Not easy to do, and I don't have the knowledge to quickly come up with a possibility.)
On the fraud theory, Rossi prohibited the gamma spectrum measurements to increase the appearance of a nuclear reaction! After all, if it produced no gammas, why not allow the measurements? And if it is producing gammas, then we have "nuclear" right at the tip of our tongues. If it's assumed that Rossi's purpose is publicity at this point -- and isn't it, rather openly? -- then this fits perfectly.
And if the patent is denied? If Rossi applies for a patent, it's denied because he hasn't satisfied the requirements of patents, that is adequate disclosure for someone "skilled in the art" to produce a working device, he's not protected. Failure to disclose, here, could be destroying his patent rights, not protecting them. If the patent were granted, he'd be protected, from the time of filing, as to any subsequent work by others.
So he's playing the game as if the patent will not be granted. He expects that it will not be granted, and, I suspect, he filed it only to gain publicity. Had he seriously desired a patent, he would have made adequate disclosure, from the beginning.
Contrary to what you've said, Jed, this doesn't look "good." All that it might mean is that Rossi faked a demonstration, well enough to cause some experts to make some noises. Experts will not -- and should not -- speculate on fraud, unless they clearly identify it. They would be expected to couch their comments with plenty of caveats -- "assuming that input power was accurately measured," etc.
What I've seen from the experts who have reviewed this is such as to make me think that, if there was no fraud, Rossi is working on something huge in import. But there is a big caveat, for two little letters: "if."
