OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: Rossi's "demos" have consistently not followed proper scientific protocol. > Therefore, what could any of these individuals say publicly on the matter – > ESPECIALLY from a scientific POV. If I were in their shoes I couldn't say > anything publicly either because I wouldn't have a scientific leg to stand > on pertaining and what I could write about. > Sure, that is one problem. But I think for a reporter, not knowing who the customer is, or whether Fioravanti is who he claims to be is a much bigger problem. If I were a reporter I would not print one word about this until I confirm these things.
I myself have no serious doubts that Fioravanti is a genuine HVAC engineer working for real customer. But that is just my gut feeling based on the sort of person he is. I suppose it would be difficult to find a middle-aged person who looks and acts like HVAC engineer but is not, or a real engineer who would risk going to jail to help Rossi pull off a scam. That is my feeling, but I would never publish a newspaper article on the strength of a feeling. By the same token, even if I were a skeptic with a gut feeling that Rossi is probably cheating, I would not boldly reach that conclusion based on these tests, or the Oct. 28 test in which Rossi and Fioravanti revealed nothing to the audience. I sure as heck would not publish that conclusion in a newspaper or even New Energy Times! That is reckless. There is not a shred of evidence that Rossi has scammed anyone with the eCat. Not one police report; not a single customer or investor complaint. There is no technical reason to doubt his tests. Of course there is no reason to believe the October 28 test at all, since no details about it were released and no observer was allowed to see the instruments, but the other tests were all positive, beyond a reasonable doubt. They were sloppy, but definitely positive. I do not think that any skeptic here or elsewhere has come up with a viable reason to doubt these tests. Hefner's assertions that the cell might contain within it enough material to produce the four-hour heat after death event is wrong. That is physically impossible by a wide margin. His assertion that the output power is much lower than it appears to be based on the cooling water loop temperatures is also mistaken. That is my opinion, and the opinion of several other scientists and engineers I have discussed this matter with. None of them thinks that this hypothesis has any merit. By the way, putting on a test and not allowing the observers to look at the instruments is an extraordinarily stupid thing to do. It is bad from a public relations point of view, and it is an insult to your observers. It is bound to produce bad publicity. The worst publicity imaginable! I do not know why Rossi did that. I suppose it is because he does not care about public relations, or he does not understand public relations. I do not think this is some sort of clever reverse psychology. A person running a business should understand the importance of presenting a good image to the public, and maintaining a good reputation. - Jed
