OK Mary, you are correct in realizing that Rossi could be attempting a fake. Many of his supporters have reviewed the sparse data supplied during his demonstrations and have convinced ourselves that it is real. I am confident that we are seeing a real LENR device. Rossi succeeded in operating a single core ECAT for a length of time that makes it dificult to be absolutely 100 % certain that it could not be faked.
Now the game, some atomic bombs are suitcase size and have a small yield. I perform an underground test of a very large quaintly of conventional explosives that has a yield equal to the suitcase device that I show you before I safely lower it into the cavity to be sealed within. Of course I do not allow you to inspect my setup before the test or bring your equipment as it is too dangerous for you to enter the cavity. Who knows, you might break a finger nail or something. ;-) This is similiar to the proceedure that magicians use when they do their magic. No more games Mary. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Mary Yugo <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Nov 11, 2011 12:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade Mary, you seem to love to find ways to scam scientific tests or do magic tricks or whatever. Let me ask you a question. Can you name one scientific experiment that is impossible to scam from the past? I tried and can not come up with one, so give it a try. There are many ways to suggest a trick that could, maybe be done. I will grant you this: Rossi has left the possible field open to a lot of tricks. Give one example of an experiment that is fool proof to save me from having to think too hard. I bet the vortex can figure a way to fake any you name. OK, I'll play. Fake an atomic bomb. But the argument is silly. I agree almost any subtle looking and complex experiment can be faked. THAT'S MY POINT. And Rossi's experiments are so loosely done and so different from one to another that it's hard to follow what he's doing. The whole purpose of having independent testing is to rule out fakery. Sure, the experimenters can be in on a scam. That's why they need to have no association with Rossi and an excellent reputation for skill and fairness. That's why I named the companies and labs I did. You suggest that because we accept other experiments from the past that could have been faked, we should also accept Rossi's. But that's defective reasoning. The only evidence that Rossi's device works has always involved Rossi's equipment and methods. That's the problem. The problem is not that anything can be a scam. It's that Rossi's device could fairly easily be a scam. The corollary is that a scam can be easily ruled out except that Rossi, who has done all sorts of complicated and time/effort consuming maneuvers, won't allow it!
