On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
Sufficiently, to exclude hidden chemical power sources. If there was > hidden fuel, such as thermite or propanol/oxygen mixture . . . || Exactly. This is even more the case for the 18-hour test in Feb. That device was easy to look into, and it had a small cell. They did look inside it. Wonderful. I love that test. But the result is poorly documented and the system wasn't calibrated. Levi refused to discuss any details of it when interviewed by Krivit. Actually I don't care about any of that. What I find very highly suspicious is that such a simple and almost unarguable experiment would not have been repeated again and again properly and in public and with documentation. Instead, Rossi did more and more bizarre demos culminating in one that demo'd nothing at all! On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> But, as a scientist I want the truth and I hate, yes hate, scam artists >> of any type, in particular when they use science as a prop for their >> egotistical and destructive goals.Rossi is making astounding claims so he >> should be under intense scrutiny and people should not make continuous >> justifications for his strange and unprofessional behavior. >> > > 1. He is under intense scrutiny. So far, no one has found any hint of > experimental fraud. You have no reason to think he is committing fraud. > Yes we do. He behaves as a classical fraudster who has taken money from investors, then responded tangentially and irrelevantly and inconsistently to questions and has never done independent replication. It's standard SOP for scammers. So are setup meetings such as the ones with Quantum, NASA and most recently MIT where the inventor stalks off in some pretend huff when he is asked to produced the right evidence and is asked the right questions. > > 3. His behavior is not all that strange. > Are we watching the same behavior? Some of it borders on apparent psychosis including the raves and rants about snakes and clowns. > In any case, it has no bearing on his experimental results. And it is none > of your business. It is a free country. He can act any way he wants. He is > under no obligation to meet your standards, mine, or the standards of > academic scientists. > Oh right. I forgot Rothwell claims that Rossi succeeds by failing and did all those demos with the intent not to convince anyone. > He has contempt for most academic scientists. He thinks they are trying to > steal his ideas. I think some of them are. > So what? Nobody who wants to test his device is asking him to reveal any secrets. All they are asking is for a black box with an input and an output and for Rossi to stay of anything not in the black box. That would reveal only whether or not the device works. On the other hand, selling 13 copies puts about 1800 modules into the hands of ... someone who would likely be tempted to check out how they work and maybe sell the secrets to the highest bidder. Otherwise, why buy the thing? To heat a few dozen installations? > 4. No one is making justifications for his behavior. McKubre and I have > explained it, not excused it. If you do not believe our explanation, that's > fine. Take it or leave it. Mary Yugo does not think we have explained it. > That's no problem, but she should stop saying "no one can explain this" or > "no one has explained this." She should say: "I do not believe these > explanations. I think McKubre and Rothwell are wrong." > Happy to. I think Rothwell is wrong. McKubre is I heard him right was way more careful. He made no commitment about the Rossi's likely veracity and in fact joked lightly about his colorful background.\
