Yes, but just because there are some things that are real but not very commercially viable, and just because in our ignorance we may be unable to say if it is commercially viable or not does not change the fact of what it is.
It either is real and useful, real and useless to some degree and false. Chance and probability has no place. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a big difference between a certain physical process being valid > and the commercial viability of a product based on that process. > > Just because a spark will explode gasoline vapor does not imply that a > Lamborghini can be designed to use that principle or that the car will sell > in the marketplace. Designing the car requires far more science and > engineering fields than demonstrating gasoline detonation. > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:53 AM, John Berry <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. >> >> Earlier you said: Not even Pons & Fleischmann can lay claim to having >> found the effect. >> >> Which sound to me something like "the great (not even) P&F can't claim >> they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly >> certian..." >> >> Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was >> ignorant of if his effect was real or not. >> >> Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is >> a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by >> Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. >> >> Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and >> has the associated difficulties. >> I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic >> hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a >> robust aetheric effect to me. >> >> But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have >> insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. >> But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing >> magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has >> an MO that is at odds with a con man. >> >> But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. >> >> As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that >> probability has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
