On 01/20/2011 04:58 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> Is Rossi honest? >> >> If he is, it's for real. > > As of Friday, Jan. 14, this question no longer hangs on Rossi's > honesty. Thank goodness!
No, that's not correct. The test on Jan 14 could have been rigged with a chemical fuel supply. See earlier messages for some calculations, courtesy of an engineer I know (who is cleverer than I am about stuff like this). It is exactly that demonstration whose interpretation depends on knowing whether Rossi is honest. >> If he isn't, then a "chemical scam", using thermite or some other >> high-energy-density fuel, hasn't been ruled out. Furthermore, in >> that case it may be the simplest explanation. > > That has been ruled out. Reliable people have observed the machine > produce more energy than a hidden store of chemical fuel could > produce. That was in previous tests, not in this particular one-hour > run. I do not know whether Levi et al. observed any long-duration > runs, but other people have. In that case, the "public demonstration" on Jan 14 was unnecessary -- right? The proof was already in, if the earlier demos were sufficiently long and sufficiently tightly run. Where does the information come from that there have been longer tests, and how long were the tests? And do we know what kind of "security" was present at the earlier tests? The Jan 14 test was before a live audience, and there could have been no "games" during the test. A test which mostly runs unattended, on the other hand, may be subject to serious "gaming". These seem like extremely important questions at this time. > > - Jed >
