Yes, that fits in with the relaxed innocence with which he waved the
black hose against Focardi's black sweater to reveal the wisps of
visible water mist -- since then he's been more and more panicked,
like the warlord in Kurosawa's version of Macbeth, being pinned
against the castle wall by volleys of huge arrows from his own
disgusted troops -- I wonder too if he is caught up in trying to
impress his lovely wife, an expert physicist at CERN -- I wonder what
she is thinking by now -- they really need help and support from the
people they most trust -- full disclosure would take the target off
his back -- the world could reconsider various possibilities for LENR
research -- he could write a book and sell the media rights and give
lectures -- legitimate income for genuine contributions -- he too
could be a victim of scammers moving in --
Rich Murray
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
As many Vorticians know, I've followed the Rossi affair since early 2011. I
found, fairly quickly, reasons to think that the demonstrations were not
conclusive, that they may have shown anything from no excess heat, mild
excess heat, to strong excess heat.
From certain evidence (asserted most notably by Mr. Krivit), I came to think
that, as well, some level of deliberate deception was involved, though it
might be rationalized by Rossi as allowing fools to believe what he hasn't
actually stated. Did Rossi anywhere state that, during the Mats Lewan demo,
where he was seen apparently manipulating the power input -- it's unclear,
but he looks like the cat that just ate the canary -- that he had *not*
changed the input power (at a point where the output seems to change?) I'm
suspecting that there are many questions that Rossi hasn't been directly
asked by some of the prominent reporters.
After all, they could be considered rude.
If the questions were asked, he may have successfully avoided answering
them.
In any case, one thing is clear: Rossi promised that it would all be plainly
obvious by October of 2011. It wasn't. Given his secrecy and the obvious
failure, we can't trust what he sais about what will happen in the future.
Why was Rossi accepted by many in the LENR community? I should note that
many did not accept him, and that the LENR community of researchers includes
many who think Rossi is a scammer or the like. But he was accepted partly
because there were researchers who thought that the NiH line of approach had
promise, it did not surprise them that someone would claim results with NiH,
and, unlike many other scientists, they know that LENR is real, that there
is no specific, clear theoretical impossibility there. This isn't a free
energy scam, even though it may still be a scam. (Some claimed
*explanations* of NiH results might indeed be impossible; I'm speaking
generally. Once one knows that low energy nuclear reactions are possible,
it's no longer wise to reject LENR reports out of hand, and the researchers
know this, being generally familiar with the evidence.)
What was truly surprising about the Rossi reports was not NiH excess heat.
That had been reported before. What was surprising was the level of heat,
far above what had been achieved by others, and the implied claim of
reliability. Others have, as with much in LENR research, found quite
variable results. Especially it's been found that material that produces
results, as to excess heat, may not continue to do so. It works for a while,
then stops working.
So an obvious posibility is that Rossi did indeed find a reaction that
*sometimes* produces significant excess heat. But that only does so for some
time. That would mean that he might set up demos, and some of them might
work, and he believes, then, that he's just around the corner from making it
work reliably for a long time. And then, because sometimes it doesn't work,
well, he can't let people think it doesn't work, so he, perhaps, fudges the
demos a bit. They're all snakes anyway, out to steal his secrets
A LENR device that produces power for a few hours or a few days isn't
practical. It might indeed be of interest, and someone, someday, might
figure out how to make something like this reliable, but Rossi might not
even be close. His approach might be too crude.
But, he'd think, it's just around the corner, if he just tweaks this or
that, surely it will work.
This is just a hypothesis, but it does explain a lot, if true.
