At 03:20 PM 10/3/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
b. Safety certification can be obtained with a nonfunctional product.
Are you sure about that? I doubt it.
"Safety certification" is according to codes that cover design. I
very much doubt that specific safety codes exist for LENR devices;
the certification obtained is very likely for the control systems.
Will they burn up? Will the power short to the case? Stuff like that.
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."
Okay, some random commentators think that. I've classified you as a
"defender" because you think that he's not a fraud, per se. In the
universe of relationships to Rossi, that's a "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.
I don't doubt you.
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.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. The problem is that if you make yourself look
like a fraud, that's how the world might end up viewing you. It's a
weird sort of dishonesty, but it's still dishonest.
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.
Indeed. I can understand it if people want to focus on NiH. It's
tempting. However, myself, I have a cabinet full of wire and other
materials for SPAWAR type replications, heavy water, palladium
chloride, etc. All dressed up with no place to go. So I'm going to use it.
Still, I also have some stainless steel yarn (12 micron wire, 2x275
strands) and it would be fun to use a nickel cathode with the
stainless as an anode and see what it does to some LR-115 radiation
detectors. Cheap experiment. I've having some suspicions.... how
about some hot deuterons?
