At 05:33 PM 6/17/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:
Fran,
You summed it up quite well...
I think the overall concensus of those vorts who have discussed the
e-Cat tests agree that the
dryness of the steam is a MAJOR source of concern and there are
INADEQUATE explanations from the
Rossi camp as to that issue. Steve was pushing hard to make sure
that that issue was understood by
Levi/Rossi and an adequate explanation was returned. I don't think
he got what he, and most of us,
wanted...
However, what I'd like to see now is some discussion from the
collective about Levi's written
response, aside from its contentious nature, and to have fellow
vorts answer these questions:
1) Does Levi, et.al., understand the importance of the dry steam issue?
I find it hard to understand that he could be a physicist -- and he
is -- and not understand it. Something else is happening here.
2) If the answer to #1 is YES, then do you feel that adequate care
was taken in the tests we've seen
to establish that the steam was truly dry?
It looks like the opposite. Reasonable precautions were avoided.
3) Has this recent exchange caused by Krivit's visit changed your
opinion at all? Good or bad...
The way that Rossi and Levi reacted to Krivit has me worried, but, I
have to recall, I've been hypothesizing that Rossi has a strong
business motive to make it appear that it's fake, a mistake, or
fraud. That motive appears if the effect is real, and it also appears
even more strongly if Rossi knows that there might be some glitch, or
delay, in delivery of the 1 MW Greek plant.
I am slightly in the position of advising those who are starting to
pursue NiH, and I'd not want them to be discouraged by the
appearances here. There were always reasons to suspect NiH as a
possible practical way to go, and it's really about time that it be
nailed down, for NiH could be far, far more practical than PdD, for
lots of obvious reasons. Assuming it works, of course! But it
probably works, and the real problem is making the reaction reliable
and sustainable.
("it works" is based on prior work, and reports from others as to
current work, not simply on Rossi, who has merely shown more striking results.)
Rossi, if nothing else and even if he turns out to be as phony as a
three-dollar bill, may have gotten us off our collective duffs. I
think that the lackadaisical attitude toward NiH has been the
theoretical difficulties, and we really ought to know better than that!
But, putting together all I know and have heard from the grapevine,
Rossi is probably not fake, and I'm inclined to the red herring theory.
