Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote:
> b. Safety certification can be obtained with a nonfunctional product. > Are you sure about that? I doubt it. > Rossi has successfully created the appearance of being a con artist. Some > of his defenders think that he is doing this deliberately, to throw off > would--be "snakes" who might otherwise try to imitate his work and steal > his rights. > I think he is doing it deliberately, but that does not make me his "defender." I think it is a stupid strategy. I think it will fail. Patterson had a similar strategy, for similar reasons. He deliberately made an unimpressive, crude demonstration. It failed to convince Motorola. I predicted it would fail when I saw it, and when he told me why it was so poorly constructed. Rossi could quickly bypass all this by simply allowing independent > verification of his claims. He hasn't done it. > He does not want to. That's what he says. I see no reason to doubt he means it. Patterson said exactly the same thing, for similar reasons. If Rossi sticks to this strategy I predict he will take his technology to the grave the way Patterson did. I see no way this strategy can succeed. If it begins to succeed the strategy will backfire and destroy any chance of success. That is what happened with Patterson, and I see it happening now with Rossi. > NiH is clearly a promising approach, worthy of continued investigation. > But we should not shut down PdD research, because of the scientific > implications. Knowing and understanding what is happening in PdD remains a > crucial research goal, and it might apply to or elucidate what happens with > NiH. > I agree. I think most researchers who continue to work with PdD would also agree. - Jed
