Lewan's book describes several tests conducted by Rossi which ended in failure, and some that ended in fiascos. An example was the test for Hydrofusion:
"The instruments Rossi was using to measure how much electrical energy was consumed to heat the device showed lower values than the instruments that the researcher from SP [Technical Research Institute of Sweden,] had brought. The difference was not trivial—Rossi’s readings were between half and a third of the researcher’s measurements. If the researcher’s instruments were credible, the device was consuming two to three times more electrical energy than expected. It wasn’t producing three times more energy than the input but was delivering no net energy. It did not work. I believed the researcher’s instruments because I had immediately understood the source of the problem. . . ." There was a test in Uppsala when the equipment came unglued because Rossi glued it the night before and did not give it enough time to set. Then there was the visit by Jim Dunn and NASA, when Rossi came unglued. Lewan describes it diplomatically. I knew about these tests, plus I know of two other failed tests not described in the book. This may sound paradoxical, but in a strange way these failures bolster my belief that Rossi cannot be a hoax, so his claims are probably true. As I have said before, if he is a confidence man, he is the most incompetent one on earth. He inspires no confidence in anyone, especially when he does tests that fail drastically for obvious reasons. Why would a con man go around doing these things? It is not difficult to arrange a fake energy device that seems to work perfectly. At least until someone examines it closely with proper instruments. So why would you set up a fake energy device that looks like it is not working? Why would you spend vast sums of money and years of effort making a pretend 1 MW reactor with 51 complicated boxes in it? It seems to me it is far more likely he is what he appears to be: a brilliant but headstrong inventor who often does sloppy work. He often cuts corners because he assumes he is right. He has no regard for conventional scientific standards. He does not understand why other people do not believe his claims. He refused to do properly designed, careful tests with good instruments, because he said such tests will not convince anyone and will do no good. He had no reason to say that! He did not even *try* doing careful tests. So how did he know they would fail to convince people? I found that infuriating. Many lone inventors share some or all of these characteristics. Inventors are not all alike of course but they all have great self-confidence which breeds these kinds of attitudes. If they did not have confidence, they would not continue working for years despite opposition, lack of money, lack of support and even danger. The Wright brothers were the opposite of sloppy. They were very careful and methodical. But, for a long time they put off doing definitive public flight tests partly because they thought a test would do no good. They sounded a lot like Rossi in that respect. They felt contempt for the public and for skeptical scientists and engineers. This was unwarranted. When they finally got around to doing a public flight test in August 1908, the situation changed overnight. The world was their oyster. Newspaper celebrated them, millions of dollars fell into their hands, the top industrialists clamored to cut a deal with them, and the Congress gave them gold medals. I think it is likely something similar would happen to Rossi if he would only let it happen. Perhaps he is finally on track to doing that with Cherokee Investment Partners. Lewan's book reminds me of some of the personal histories of the Wrights, such as "First Flight" by Heppenheimer, and the fictionalized "Dawn over Kitty Hawk" by Boyne. There was a cast of characters associated with aviation from 1890 to 1908, including many stupid people, many cranks, and some out-and-out frauds along for the ride. Boyne portrays them well. Like the guy who claimed he had a flying machine in his briefcase. They remind me of Certain Unnamed People in this field. The Wrights were not what you would call stable, sane, ordinary people. Read "The Bishop's Boys" for details on their dysfunctional family, lack of sociability, and their peculiar Victorian psycho-sexuality. Their sister, Katherine, married late in life. Orville was so upset with her for marrying he did not speak to her for years. He considered it a betrayal. - Jed
