On 11/13/2011 1:15 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: >> I have had it with Mary Yugo. > > I think Mary Yugo is a good addition to this list. > > Mary Yugo's skepticism is better than excusing Rossi's odd > behaviour on the grounds that he must be an eccentric genius.
I have no idea if Rossi is a scammer or if he really has something. There's evidence to point both ways. He's certainly... unique. I'd like to be real, but he's gone out of his way to muddy the waters. Now the Pro-Rossi side is going to scream "He has nothing to prove to anyone!" Yeah, save it, heard it before. I'm going to agree with Vorl Bek and Peter Gluck. Mary is a good addition to the list, she's asking good questions, and has a sense of humor I like. The bacardi comment made me laugh, thanks Mary. Alan, she was kidding around, Google "comedy" and "sarcasm". If you can't poke a little fun at all this mess, well, you're being entirely too serious. Vorl, Peter, the following is not directed at you, so if I say "you" in what I type below, I am only being general... I'll go on record saying that if anyone here is acting like a fully convicted creationist, it's the pro-Rossi side, at least here on Vortex. The man may be scamming, or he may not be. He may have the find of the century. It'd be great if he did. But just to believe that he isn't doing this... sounds like faith? Things are starting to sound so evangelical it's getting disturbing. But what can I say, I don't have a taste for faith and those sort of things these days, being one-hair-shy-of-an-agnostic. Show me da proof, mah boy. "But...but... Rossi has nothing to prove to you!!!" Nope, he doesn't, but he's made himself plenty public, made God knows how many claims, and there's money changing hands. How many people worldwide are spending money to replicate this? In the off chance he is lying (or more likely self deluding, if [IF] this isn't the real deal), valuable research time and money is being lost by unaffiliated parties. And while we're at it, you pro-Rossi folk want to talk about a dry run? Well, let's talk about a dry run. The following is an excerpt from a post I almost made, but clicked cancel. I'm sure plenty of you will be glad I didn't post the whole thing, but Warnock or not, here it is: <Begin> 1. Boiler companies may not (may not is stressed... a new design MAY) do any sort of "dry runs", but this is using a technology that is hundreds of years old, and is known to work and reasonably well understood. There are no bullshit isotopes of copper that are somehow stable in an oil furnace. That said, I have talked to an older fellow who once worked with Dunkirk Radiator, and in the design process it is not unheard of to run the thing with line water pressure WITHOUT firing the thing up. How is this different than Rossi's thing? Very simply: Conventional boiler (type 2 diesel oil as example): -Chemical reaction -> heats water -No electric heaters contributing to effect -No need to use inert fuel (nitrogen, etc) to see where the anomalous heat is coming from, because there is NO alternate heat source (no electric heater inside) Rossi's boiler (for want of a better term): -Nuclear reaction (unverified) -> heats water -Electric heaters involved, contributes to effect by some amount -DEFINITE need to use inert fuel to make certain no nuclear reaction is taking place to see what the difference is between running on pure electric support power, and what the magnitude of the effect is. This is not a debatable point, and is how science is done. PERIOD. If you want to take Rossi's statement on face value, remember the N-rays. And that isn't science, so maybe you'd better go to church instead. 1a. Why would you NOT do this to convince anyone? 1b. Rossi doesn't want to convince anyone, but he wants to sell. Why not do both when it is cheap to do so? What have you lost, a little time? You supporters make it sound like the guy has no time to even hit the latrine. 1c. "He has nothing to prove to anyone." Granted, fine. But going around making claims is inviting skepticism and criticism. You may be able to get away with it if you're not involving cash, but if you are, well, you'd better get used to it. 1d. If this experiment wasn't the pet favorite topic of the pro-Rossi Vortexians, no one would be doing the 1c above. It would be "put up or shut up." <End> So that's my opinion, and I stick to it. If you like it, great. If not, well, I have other opinions. Sorry Groucho, I honestly do respect your principles. And just one more thing... if anyone here wants to throw the no sneering rule at Mary, or anyone else for that matter, then you better damn well do as Eric Clapton said: "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself." Read your own posts, and remove the spanish galleon from thine own eye before picking at sawdust. I will say this, and I am convinced of it; if this didn't have to do with cold fusion, if Rossi was claiming antigravity or something else, things would be very different here. The religious conviction would be far, far less. This one just happens to hit really close to home, and human nature kicks in. I'm an outsider. I do not lean one way or another, and really have relatively little interest in cold fusion, per se. I'd like it to be real. But I am far from convinced either way. All I see on this list, from what I've read over the years, is that some list members seem to have come to the consensus that there is one unspoken rule, which Bill B probably doesn't endorse at all. "All Vortexians are equal, but some are more equal than others." Before you write off a nasty reply, why don't you just take a few moments, gentlemen, and sit back and think about whether or not there may be a couple of decent points here to contemplate. And for crying out loud, relax. Take her advice and HAVE a damn bacardi. --Kyle
