At 05:38 PM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

His strategy might be reasonable. But a consequence of that strategy is that I'm not going to believe that Rossi is a demonstration of cold fusion.

That's rather short-sighted of you.

Please do not confuse "not going to believe" with "believe that it is not."

You do not know what is going on inside a Pd-D cathode either. You can look right at it, and learn all there is to know from the ENEA database, but you still do not know. If U. Bologna publishes a more detailed, convincing report describing the 18-hour run, there will be practically no room left to doubt this. David Kidwell told me that if they could have the Rossi device in their 10 kW-scale testbed at the NRL, they could conclude within an hour that it is real, and they would not have to know the first thing about what is inside it. (The testbed is described in ICCF-16 paper ET01. It is way better than the U. Bologna calorimeter. It resembles the industrial-scale testbed at Hydrodynamics, Inc., which was designed by the Dean of Mech. Eng. at Georgia Tech. That system was bulletproof as far as I know -- and as far as the Dean knew.)

As is quite traditional, I remain in some level of doubt until there is independent confirmation. The more confirmation, the less doubt. That's all. It's simply natural consequences. Lack of confirmation is no proof of error, you know that. Even independent efforts to confirm don't prove original error. Failure is failure.

"Failure" *can* be caused by original error, but it can also be caused, easily, by uncontrolled variables.

So ... we need to wait, sometimes, if we want clarity and certainty. There is some human discomfort with not knowing, so people rush to judgment.

Kidwell did say he would insist they conduct a test with Rossi not present. I think this is slight case of magical thinking. I do not see how a person standing in a room can affect dial thermometers and watt-meters.

The person can insure that untoward "interference" doesn't happen. It's merely a sign, Jed. Kidwell wasn't crazy.

I'm not going to claim that it's fraud, on the other hand. I'm going to claim that *I don't know* and that I think I don't have enough information to decide.

You will soon, if we get a better report from Levi. I think you can be 95% sure it is real now. The fraud hypothesis is awfully far fetched, and getter farther fetched with each new test. Frankly, I don't think it is worth worrying about.

Well, Jed, I respect *to a degree* your judgment. I'm certainly much more inclined to be friendly to Rossi's report because of your comments.

But that's all I can say, and that's good, otherwise we could get a domino effect from trust relationships. It's better if we have independent judgment.

Again, depending on so many details about which we know nothing, so far, and may not ever know.

What do you mean "we" Kemo Sabe? (Quoting the old joke about the Lone Ranger surrounded by hostile Indians.)

I mean that I think you do not have all the details, though you certainly have more than I.

I've argued that making a huge fuss over Rossi simply discredits the field . . .

I don't see why. For one thing, other researchers are not responsible for what Rossi claims, except perhaps Focardi. Levi is not a cold fusion research. Or he wasn't before Jan. 14.

It discredits the field because other scientists, reading about this, and seeing the obvious reasons to be skeptical, if they see the cold fusion researchers falling over themselves to praise Rossi or to validate Rossi, see this as proof of their gullibility. I'm suggesting prudence and caution, that's all.

Some of the damage will be done anyway. People are already using Rossi as an example of overblown, inflated claims.

I don't see any damage.

I've seen it. Your turn to trust me, Jed.

People will say that it is fraud or inflated no matter who makes what claim. Heck, they say that about Energetics Tech., even after SRI replicated them spot on with some cathodes. So far I have not seen any evidence that Rossi has made inflated claims. On the contrary, he said it was 12 kW and it was probably closer to 15 kW. That will not surprise anyone familiar with calorimetry. The method they used was very lossy, as I said.

You are trusting evidence that has not been *independently* confirmed. That's your choice! But the problem I'm talking about remains.

That could backfire, for them, but, then, if Rossi doesn't show up with his 1 MW reactor, we end up looking very foolish.

I doubt he will complete that within a year! I am hoping we can persuade him to let the NRL and others test the smaller gadget. That's better than a 1 MW machine. More convincing, in a way.

I agree. However, Jed, Rossi doesn't agree, and can you see how this increases my skepticism?

I sure as heck would not want to be present in Florida when they turn on the big machine! The radiation Celani detected lasted for a fraction of a second. If something like that lasts for a few seconds, I imagine it might kill everyone within 100 m. It seems like a stupendously bad idea to scale up to 1 MW at this stage.

I think the same. I wouldn't go near the thing. If it doesn't work, waste of time, and if it works, it could be phenomenally dangerous. Game theory analysis: don't play this game, negative sum. Payoff only in a narrow region, and payoff small.

(I.e., if it works, and if it isn't dangerous, in fact, I'm sure I'll find out soon enough!)

If someone trusts Rossi, thinks that his work is solid, great.

I wouldn't trust Rossi personally as far as I can throw him. I trust calorimetry. I trust that no stage magician or con-man can fool a watt-meter or thermometer.

That is, my opinion, quite naive. Both can be fooled, in many ways. You've left out many conditions that might be necessary to make your conclusion clear and solid. I'm not about to list them!

I have never heard of an incident in which a con-man did manage to fool scientists using their own, off-the-shelf instruments.

And the skeptics in 1989 had never heard of a report of cold fusion. "Never heard of" is not a proof of any kind, in fact. However, I *have* heard of "convincing fakes" that did, in fact, run for a substantial time before they were exposed. I'm not going to go searching for them.

Believe me, I have seen and heard of a wide variety of con-men and bogus over-unity energy claims. I am practically an expert on that. None of them stood up to more than a few days of tests. None were replicated, and none were replications of previous work (as Rossi is).

Don't forget that Levi et al. conducted tests and calibrations for 6 weeks prior the Jan. 14 test. It there was something like a hidden thermal mass, they would have seen that in a few hours the first day. You do not have to know anything about what is in the machine to see that. Calorimetry alone tells you a great deal about a black box. As I said, so far, it is the only reliable means we have of knowing anything about the contents or inner workings of the cathode black boxes in Pd-D cold fusion.

Just remember, it is possible to fool a small group of neutral observers for a time. It is possible that an apparently neutral observer is not neutral, has been corrupted in some way. What gets really difficult as a con is to set up a fully-disclosed and open experiment that is independently confirmed, by someone who can take the thing apart and put it back together.

Rossi cannot make money unless he makes independent confirmation possible. If he sells the devices, people can and will take them apart, and if he hasn't fully disclosed the necessary information in a patent, he has no protection at all. He could even "rent" the devices, and people would still take them apart, even if they have to steal them or violate a contract. It wouldn't work.

There is allegedly some device that enhances battery life in golf carts, I had some discussion with a fellow who claimed to be working for the company, which he would not disclose. The enhancement is major, apparently, if I take his report at face value, and he was explicitly claiming over unity. I remain quite skeptical, because all it would take is for someone to buy one, take the damn thing apart, and if it really works, they could become, themselves, rich. They'd transfer the information to someone apparently independent, and *that person would patent it.*

Oh! You had prior art? Prove it! Where is your patent? Applied for and rejected? Was the necessary information fully disclosed? No? Case closed, dismissed, granted patent upheld. Next time, fella, follow the patent law if you want protection!

If the patent application were full disclosure, there might be hope of a subsequent reversal of the patent office rejection....

Reply via email to