Ransom, I agree with you. I have experienced Tom D's situation. It is no sense in supporting something one even suspect is a fraud and it is even less sensible to try to save a bad investment by support a fraud (it will eventually be seen through). The fact is they have proven COP larger than 1 even with the most 'evil' assumption of the material and chemistry involved. I think fraud is just evil talk. It remains that the procedure still contains unknown and Rossi sits on the know how of all or part of what is unknown to us. As Peter Gluck says in his blog - Rossi's et al's operation is not a charity, they need to protect their business before they bother about merits in the academical world.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Ransom Wuller <[email protected]> wrote: > Jed: > > > > The problem is the issue is NOT scientific. The issue is actually rather > simple at this point. Is a very juvenile fraud being perpetrated or not. > The latest test leaves little to talk about scientifically (notwithstanding > the issue associated with the alumina) making the issue of fraud the only > legitimate reason to discard the results. And skeptics are essentially > doing just that for that very reason. > > > > IH and Darden, after owning the process for 18 months or so, could hardly > be expected to be ignorant of a juvenile fraud. They are either complicit > at this point or their isn’t fraud. If there isn’t fraud there is no > legitimate basis for ignoring or questioning the results. There probably > isn’t anyway. However, Darden’s interview is significant because he > validates his view that the Ecat is real in the face of fraud allegations. > I think what Blaze is saying and I agree is that Darden’s statements > diminish the likelihood of fraud and would allow us to refocus on the > science which seems strongly supportive of a cold fusion reaction. > > > > As to the issue of fraud, Darden is much more important than results which > possibly could have been manipulated by Rossi. > > > > Ransom > > > > *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:43 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks. > > > > Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated. Or > something crazy like that. > > > > Where did you read that, and what sort of papers did it refer to? I > believe I have read that studies in sociology have poor replication rates. > That is not true of cold fusion. Many experiments have not been replicated, > but that is because no one has tried to replicate them. > > > > > > Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's. > > > > This makes no sense. The issue is scientific. A scientist is a better > judge of that than a businessman. Furthermore, hundreds of distinguished > scientists have published compelling proof that cold fusion is real. You > are moving your estimate by several percentage points in response to the > opinions of one businessman. Surely, with regard to a scientific subject, > the relative weight of peer-reviewed scientific papers by experts should be > a hundred times -- or a thousand times -- that of a businessman's opinion! > Those papers should be 99.9% of your evaluation, and Darden's opinion would > be 0.1%. > > > > If you wanted an evaluation of the flight performance of the Boeing > Dreamliner airplane, who would you ask? A businessman who invests in > aviation? Or a group of 200 experienced professional pilots who have > hundreds of hours experience flying the Dreamliner, and thousands of hours > flying other aircraft? > > > > > > Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat. He has complete, > unfettered access. The same can not be said for Levi. > > > > First, Levi knows what is in the cell. Second, this can be considered a > black box test. It makes no difference what is in the cell. The calorimetry > proves that whatever it is, it produces orders of magnitude more energy > than any chemical fuel, and it works at a high temperature, and high power. > So, if the effect can be controlled, it will not only be a practical source > of energy, it will be far better than any other sources. That is what > matters. > > > > - Jed > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8365 - Release Date: 10/11/14 >
