At 08:00 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Rich Murray <<mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com>rmfor...@gmail.com> wrote:
If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater
electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2
that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni nanopowder may in part
be leaking into the coolant water output . . .
That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is
no measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked
out and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would
see it had leaked out.
In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does
not need to be addressed.
Sure. I responded here out of concern for Murray. The explanation is
preposterous because there is far too little hydrogen being
introduced. Unless, of course, that's faked, i.e., a lot more
hydrogen is introduced. There would have to be an oxygen input, but
that could come from ambient air. And once we consider the
possibility of fraud, as we must in this case, the refutation of that
hypothesis is independent replication, and probably some multiplicity
in this, depending on details. "Fraud" is not a specific hypothesis
as to the mechanism of the fraud.
For a convincing demonstration of a Black Box device, rigorous and
independent monitoring of all possible inputs and outputs is
necessary. I've never seen an inventor making claims like Rossi allow
that, and then still have visible *major* excess power, beyond
chemical storage possibility. I think these public demonstrations are
a waste of time and effort, they will convince only those who are
ready to be convinced, those inclined to trust someone based on?
Appearances? By appearances, this thing sucks big time! Reputation?
Whose reputation? Very bright people, experts, can be fooled, by
something that they just didn't expect and check for. Happens all the
time! And the experts who witnessed that demonstration are queasy
about it, particularly Celani.
What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion
is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by
attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that....
If I were an investor, I'd insist on full disclosure of adequate
details for reproduction, to me, under a non-disclosure agreement,
and I'd pay an expert of my choice to review those, and if the report
were "possible," even if "unlikely" were appended, I'd enter into a
contract with Rossi that gave me an investment option, and I'd
arrange for independent replication under my control. I'd allow Rossi
to make all kinds of suggestions, but not to touch the device, nor
would I allow anyone affiliated with Rossi to get anywhere near it.
It's also possible that the first step,before that, would be an
independent examination and operation of a device supplied by Rossi,
and he'd be paid for that device. And if it turned out that Rossi had
lied in the disclosures, I'd demand the payment back, and the lying
would void the non-disclosure agreeement -- a non-disclosure
agreement that allowed fraud would be contrary to public policy, I
believe, doesn't matter what it says! I'd understand that I might not
get my early investment back. Investors inclined to risky investments
expect to lose money on most ideas, they are playing for the big one.
Rossi claims, though, that only he knows the secrets of the device.
Am I correct about that?