Or it might be that after 3 years he does not yet have a stable reactor,
like DGT, Rohners, Terrawatt, etc. these things might last for a short
period of time for a demo but then break down in short order. They run
just long enough to show a patent officer or inspector or investor...
On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:
> Many viral infections are successful in infecting other hosts because
> these pathogens delay symptoms until they have had an almost certain
> opportunity to spread. Evolution has proven that such a delaying survival
> tactic allows the pathogen to survive and prosper, ADS and influenza are
> examples of the “kept it quiet” infection strategy.
>
> Rossi is using this dormancy infection strategy to imbed his product
> deeply in the marketplace before it can be stuffed out by a countering
> competitive eradication procedure by another form of energy production. .
>
>
>
> Cheers: Axil
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell
> <jedrothw...@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jedrothw...@gmail.com');>
> > wrote:
>
>> ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>> 'cheme...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> Of course I agree with Jed. This is the same plague that effects all of
>>> these devices.
>>
>>
>> Well, not the small scale cold fusion devices at places like SRI, thank
>> goodness. They are established beyond any rational doubt.
>>
>> If I may be a little more serious about Rossi . . . It is clear to me
>> that his policy is the same as Patterson's was. He does not want
>> credibility. He *does not want* people to know for sure that his device
>> is real -- or that it is fake. (I assume it is real, mainly because there
>> are a growing number of credible nanoparticle Ni-H results.)
>>
>> Rossi has repeatedly gone out of his way to prevent people from
>> independently confirming his claims. People including me. I could have
>> verified it to a far greater extent than it has been so far. I could have
>> done this easily in a few hours. He knows I could have. He put his foot
>> down. Let me repeat with emphasis, and let me make this clear: he told me
>> and he told several other people that *he will he will never allow
>> independent public testing*.
>>
>> I and many others have proposed such tests. We could arrange them in a
>> few days. He says "no tests!" He means it. He only allows tests that will
>> remain secret under NDAs. As I have said here before, I know of some secret
>> tests. I never publish things without permission. The last thing I need is
>> to have researchers upset with me. I get in enough trouble with Rossi and
>> others when I say the sort of thing I am saying here, in this message.
>>
>> I assume Rossi cultivates this ambiguity for the same reason Patterson
>> did. I doubt it is because he is trying to cover up a fraud, and I can't
>> think of any other reasons. Patterson and Reding both told me they wanted
>> most people to think they were wrong, or crazy, or frauds, because that
>> gave them "100% market share." I told him Patterson he would end up with
>> 100% of nothing. Needless to say, he took his technology and his market
>> share to the grave with him. I predicted he would. I predict Rossi will do
>> the same thing if he persists with this strategy. There is no chance you
>> can keep this secret to the extent he is trying to do yet also achieve
>> commercial success.
>>
>> Rossi and Patterson also shunned mass media exposure. No kidding. They
>> went out of their way to make themselves look bad in the mass media. This
>> is a business strategy, not lunacy. It is a lousy strategy, in my opinion.
>> It usually fails.
>>
>> Defkalion has done the same thing, by the way. Last January they said
>> they wanted tests with the results made public. Apparently they changed
>> their minds, or they changed the schedule. As far as I know, all tests done
>> since then have been under restrictive NDAs. I do not know if any of these
>> NDAs have a time limit. A little information has leaked out despite the
>> NDAs. As far as I can tell the tests have been unimpressive. But who knows?
>> Until they publish a complete independent data set, you don't know whether
>> their claims are valid. I see no point to speculating. It is a waste of
>> time trying to suss out information people do not want you to have.
>>
>> Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is
>> inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
