Rossi has posted that the secret is protected against loss or suppression...
I haven't been focused only on large amounts of H2 being leaked, as a tiny leak could still wreck havok at 80 bar and 100s of degrees C, for hours, days, weeks, months... On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: > 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? > > >
