Cousin Jed, I simply think Rossi wants to convince the Customer and all the potential customers that he already has a usable industrial product, however in fact he has only some technologically underdeveloped generators. Defkalion has called them lab prototypes. Like a car that has some weak motor but no reliable acceleration and with very bad brakes. I don't think this analogy helps much, but...
If the Customer is an engineering Company, this could be of use but not fast Peter On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > That's excellent news. Very open of Rossi. Entirely reasonable. > > We complain about Rossi's habits, but you have give him credit for allowing > a lot of access to this tests, and for giving out a great deal of > information. The problem is not that he is unwilling to share data. It is > that his tests do not produce good data, and he does not write scientific > papers. > > People have said that Rossi is a liar, or he exaggerates, or he cannot be > trusted. As I see it, he has a split personality. When he talks about > business or personal matters, I think he gets excited and he blurts out > nonsense. I don't take this nonsense seriously. He scapegoats people -- > including me. He can be devious, sometimes planting misinformation to > cause dissension. I know he does that, because he did it to me several > times. > > However, when it comes to engineering-based technical claims, as far as I > know, Rossi is the soul of honestly. He has often made astounding claims > that seem utterly impossible. As far as I know, all the ones that have been > put to the test turned out to be true. I do not know about that factory > heater that ran for a year. Cousin Peter says he cannot believe it. I can't > be sure it is real, but I am sure it is unwise to bet against Rossi. > > I do not think there is a shred of evidence that Rossi has ever tried to > use a hidden source of energy, fake instruments, or any other kind of fraud. > It would be much harder to do this with his cells and reactors than with any > previous cold fusion devices, because the scale of the reaction is so much > larger. He is careless with instruments, and sloppy, and this sometimes > obscures the results. That is not a deliberate effort to hide results or > escape from scrutiny. It is what it appears to be: sloppy. Lots of people > are like that. Some geniuses such are Arata are like that. Many programmers > write unstructured spaghetti code too. It is not because they are devious or > they want to sabotage the project or infuriate their co-workers. It is > because they are sloppy. They should be promoted to management where they > will cause less harm. > > Many engineers and inventors have this kind of split personality. Edison is > a famous example. He was a "sharp dealer" as they said in the 19th century. > Sharp dealing -- cheating, breaking contracts, and taking unfair advantage > -- was widespread and considered normal back then. He put on Dog and Pony > show exhibits of his inventions. When investors asked him how much progress > he was making, he lied so extravagantly, it would have embarrassed a data > processing project manager circa 1972, when computer programming was at the > lowest ebb of reliability and projects routinely went off the rails. Edison > did all of that, but he would *never* lie to himself, to his coworkers, or > in a serious technical discussion. He did not have it in him to lie. Most > engineers and programmers do not. It would be analogous to a farmer who > neglects to plant seeds and then expects a crop to grow. Every technician in > history has known that you cannot fool Mother Nature. > > I cannot judge Rossi's assertions about theory or transmutations. > Theoreticians tell me they are bunk. I suppose they are, but Rossi is > unaware of that. They are not lies. > > I have also learned to believe everything Rossi says about his operational > plans. When he said he was building a 1 MW reactor, I believed him. He says > he will try to turn it on. I have no doubt he means it. I just hope he does > not blow himself up, or get arrested for operating it without a license. I > hope that someone dissuades him but I doubt anyone will. If he changes his > mind at the last minute, I would never accuse him of lying. A person who > does cutting edge research who does not frequently change his mind, his > plans, and his entire approach will fail catastrophically. Flexibility is > essential to that job, as it is to a general fighting a battle. As > Eisenhower said, "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy." You have > to respond to things as they are, not as you hoped they would be. I wish > Rossi would change course more often, not less often. > > I think Rossi is careless with instruments because he is old fashioned and > he agrees with Fleischmann and me that direct observation is the best > science. It is better than proof by instruments and calculation. He does not > bother to write down the thermocouple readings, or insert an SD card, > because he thinks that the heat continuing for 4 hours is all the proof > anyone can ask for. Worrying about the thermocouples when you have a reactor > too hot to touch is ridiculous. It is useless nitpicking in the face of > definitive, first-principle proof that you can literally feel with your > hand. The instruments are the icing on the cake; the real proof in Rossi's > best work is visual and tactile observation. That is what Rossi told Lewan > and me. > > Peter Heckert calls this "junk science." We think this is still the best > way to do science, as it has been for all of human history. Natural science > is the queen of sciences -- physics is not! In natural science and much of > biology even today visual observations still rule. People look at animals, > plants, rocks and weather. They smell and touch. Newton may have > been greatest scientist, but Darwin was a close second, and he never used an > instrument or a mathematical formula. All of his work was based on field > observation and dissection, followed by analysis. As Francis Bacon said, "we > are not to deny the authority of the human senses and understanding, > although weak; but rather to furnish them with assistance." > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
