On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat <[email protected]>wrote:
> Are you saying Levi, Celani, Kullander, Essen,Bianchi, McKubre,Focardi, > etc and Rossi are ALL fools, idiots, liars or incompetents? If you throw > mud at Rossi you throw mud at them as well. > No. You're putting up a straw man. The people you mention may have been bamboozled by being gullible. That doesn't make them what you suggested. Scientists are very poor at detecting scams because while they may expect and look for errors they are often insensitive about deception which they fail to anticipate. That's how Puthoff and Targ, who are very bright and not fools, liars or incompetents, were totally flummoxed by a mediocre magician, Uri Geller, in a complicated but classical scam. If you are unaware of that story, I'll be happy to provide links including the unfortunate and now withdrawn article they wrote in the journal "Nature". The other point you miss is that Kullander and Essen are clear that they want better testing from Rossi. And I am not convinced McKubre believes Rossi without reservation either. > I suspect you have never had any contact with Rossi? I can tell you he is > VERY conservative in his claims. He has NEVER asked for money up front. > Always no money until my plant passes your test, which also meets his > published specifications. There is no fraud or scam here. If there is a scam on Rossi's part, when it comes to collecting money, you're not the mark. Investors are. You're a decoy. He doesn't need or expect your money. Where there is fraud or scam here is in the actions of deniers, some who > refuse to accept the data of fellow scientists and professors and some who > have an agenda to destroy Rossi and the E-Cat by any method or statement > they can dream up like the power meter was placed in HOLD mode and NO one > noticed it. The power meter on hold was just a thought someone had. There innumerable *other* ways to cheat given Rossi's sloppy demonstrations. More to the point, if Rossi had something real and demonstrated it properly using the methods suggested here and elsewhere ad nauseam, nobody could possibly impede, much less stop his development. There is no way to suppress a robust, working and reproducible cold fusion power generator -- none at all in this day and age of information technology and rapid communication. | The testing methods at the 15 Jan test were fine as they were in the Kullander and Essen test as they were in the 6 Oct test and in the 28 Oct test. It works as claimed. Time to accept it and to move on to trying to understand the physics that is occurring. No they were not. Enthalpy measurement by heat of evaporation of water is highly error prone as Grabowski et al clearly illustrated with their paper. If you need the link again, I can find it for you. > I'm not a scientists but I am very good at connecting the dots, in > seeing patterns and systemic relationships before others see them. That is > one way I make money. Humans probably evolved a sensitive and rapid pattern recognition to evade predators. As such, it's highly error prone in that it overestimates the positive matches. In that sense, I suppose, you seem to be highly evolved.
