Abd...
I think you haven't been following this as closely as the active 
contributors... Perhaps your time
is limited and you have not been able to read all the postings... 

"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...."

Rossi has stated that he did NOT want to do the demo; that was Focardi's idea.  
If he wanted
publicity, he would have been much more active at public venues such as
scientific/engineering/energy conferences.  Compared to most others with novel 
ideas/research, he
has been keeping a pretty low profile until this demo.

"By appearances, this thing sucks big time!"

My impression to date is that most of the contributors on vortex think that the 
Jan demo was the
most important (can't quite say 'convincing') demo ***SO FAR*** for any kind of 
LENR/Mills process.
Yes, the concensus is also that it could have been done better (i.e., easily 
made 'irrefutable').
However, the apparent energy gain has been far greater, for a demonstrable 
time, and more or less on
demand, than any previous LENR/Mills reported results.  And the non-public test 
in Dec had even more
interesting results when input power was shut off completely... So your 
statement that it 'sucks big
time' means that all other LENR results suck even bigger...  Yet, you are 
convinced that those
results prove that something is going on!

You also seem to be unaware of the statement from Rossi himself, that he has 
funded this out of his
own pocket.  So doing the demo to attract investors is quite unlikely... In 
fact, that's why he was
very RELUCTANT to even do a demo.  He knew that it was still somewhat 
'tempermental', and a botched
demo could cause serious delays in getting the 1MW plant online -- which is his 
ONLY focus right
now.  He is an engineer first, and in his mind, the best way to PROVE this 
works is to get an
operating plant online; to win in the marketplace.  That is the only thing that 
he can use as a
'trump card' against the skeptical scientists that, all too easily, fall back 
on (hot fusion) theory
to refute his claims... He wants to boil some water to make Garwin some tea!

-Mark


-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:04 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration

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?


Reply via email to