Jed, When you start with certainty that Rossi is a fraud all becomes
clear to you.
Someone will always come up with a scheme about how Rossi cheated on any
test. Craig is right. Far better to leave the judgement to an unbiased
expert. Even then some will doubt it, as we now see.
It is obvious IH were stalling for time. Do you really believe they
could not find a customer in a year? As for setting up an independent
test, see above.
For commercial sales it was absolutely necessary to have the experience
of a year's operation. It is no good selling a plant that dies in a few
months and the only way to be sure of that is a long trial.
On 7/5/2016 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig Haynie <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If I were Rossi, what I would want is an independent evaluation of
the device, from which, neither side could dispute the results.
He did not do that. On the contrary, his test was a farce. It was as
bad as his previous tests. Anyone with knowledge of calorimetry will
dismiss the results.
It is just way too much time to waste on another demonstration
test for IH.
In one week, he could have easily proved to everyone's satisfaction
that the machine works. There was never any need to spend one year.
That was his idea. He insisted on it. There was also no need to make a
1 MW reactor. He insisted on that as well. A small reactor would have
been much easier to test and it would have given better results.
So Rossi may be a fraud, but if he's legitimate, then his behavior
during the test is totally expected.
I do not understand why you would expect this. But I would say this
behavior would only be totally expected from someone who is committing
fraud.
- Jed
