ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: Of course I agree with Jed. This is the same plague that effects all of > these devices.
Well, not the small scale cold fusion devices at places like SRI, thank goodness. They are established beyond any rational doubt. If I may be a little more serious about Rossi . . . It is clear to me that his policy is the same as Patterson's was. He does not want credibility. He *does not want* people to know for sure that his device is real -- or that it is fake. (I assume it is real, mainly because there are a growing number of credible nanoparticle Ni-H results.) Rossi has repeatedly gone out of his way to prevent people from independently confirming his claims. People including me. I could have verified it to a far greater extent than it has been so far. I could have done this easily in a few hours. He knows I could have. He put his foot down. Let me repeat with emphasis, and let me make this clear: he told me and he told several other people that *he will he will never allow independent public testing*. I and many others have proposed such tests. We could arrange them in a few days. He says "no tests!" He means it. He only allows tests that will remain secret under NDAs. As I have said here before, I know of some secret tests. I never publish things without permission. The last thing I need is to have researchers upset with me. I get in enough trouble with Rossi and others when I say the sort of thing I am saying here, in this message. I assume Rossi cultivates this ambiguity for the same reason Patterson did. I doubt it is because he is trying to cover up a fraud, and I can't think of any other reasons. Patterson and Reding both told me they wanted most people to think they were wrong, or crazy, or frauds, because that gave them "100% market share." I told him Patterson he would end up with 100% of nothing. Needless to say, he took his technology and his market share to the grave with him. I predicted he would. I predict Rossi will do the same thing if he persists with this strategy. There is no chance you can keep this secret to the extent he is trying to do yet also achieve commercial success. Rossi and Patterson also shunned mass media exposure. No kidding. They went out of their way to make themselves look bad in the mass media. This is a business strategy, not lunacy. It is a lousy strategy, in my opinion. It usually fails. Defkalion has done the same thing, by the way. Last January they said they wanted tests with the results made public. Apparently they changed their minds, or they changed the schedule. As far as I know, all tests done since then have been under restrictive NDAs. I do not know if any of these NDAs have a time limit. A little information has leaked out despite the NDAs. As far as I can tell the tests have been unimpressive. But who knows? Until they publish a complete independent data set, you don't know whether their claims are valid. I see no point to speculating. It is a waste of time trying to suss out information people do not want you to have. Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it. - Jed
