On 02/17/2011 11:41 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > I do not think this demo required any trust. > > > But you said, if you trust... then there's no point.
Calm down, Joshua. Jed meant there's no need to trust the inventor, Rossi, not "there's no need to trust anybody anywhere". Jed is a smart dude and there's no call to talk to him like he's an idiot. If you really don't trust anybody then you must conclude that the moon landings *could* have been faked (unless you happen to have been along for the ride on one of them). So, Jed clearly didn't mean there's no need to trust *anybody*. Issues with steam wetness aside, if Rossi's gadget doesn't work, it seems difficult to account for the heat needed simply to bring all the water to the boiling point -- and the evidence is pretty convincing that that, at least, was done. Some notions have been floated to explain the heat of the output in the absence of a working device but none of them seems very convincing (and I'm including the assertion that the pump was insufficient on the list of "not very convincing" notions, because it requires that Levi et al either be idiots or co-conspirators). As to the investors, or lack thereof, I'm still confused on this point. If there really are Greek investors floating around in the background, then some of Rossi's statements don't make a lot of sense. If there aren't, then some other of Rossi's statements don't seem to make sense. If there are no investors then I would tend to conclude that Rossi, at least, believes in the device; otherwise his behavior doesn't make sense. And if Rossi believes in it, then the idea that there's chemical fuel on board is a non-starter. If there *are* investors, on the other hand, then the demo is a much tougher sell, IMO, because when there's a pile of money involved, even seemingly far-fetched explanations can no longer be discarded out of hand. The only explanation that allows one to comfortably conclude that it's all bogus and which ... er ... "holds water" even if there are no investors is Horace's, because it could be correct even if Rossi believes the device really works. But I haven't seen a double-check of Horace's math (and I certainly haven't done one myself) and enough slings and arrows have been cast at it to raise some doubt. Of course, as soon as the "secret ingredient" is revealed we'll know whether Horace was on the right track!
