Abd... I think you haven't been following this as closely as the active contributors... Perhaps your time is limited and you have not been able to read all the postings...
"What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that...." Rossi has stated that he did NOT want to do the demo; that was Focardi's idea. If he wanted publicity, he would have been much more active at public venues such as scientific/engineering/energy conferences. Compared to most others with novel ideas/research, he has been keeping a pretty low profile until this demo. "By appearances, this thing sucks big time!" My impression to date is that most of the contributors on vortex think that the Jan demo was the most important (can't quite say 'convincing') demo ***SO FAR*** for any kind of LENR/Mills process. Yes, the concensus is also that it could have been done better (i.e., easily made 'irrefutable'). However, the apparent energy gain has been far greater, for a demonstrable time, and more or less on demand, than any previous LENR/Mills reported results. And the non-public test in Dec had even more interesting results when input power was shut off completely... So your statement that it 'sucks big time' means that all other LENR results suck even bigger... Yet, you are convinced that those results prove that something is going on! You also seem to be unaware of the statement from Rossi himself, that he has funded this out of his own pocket. So doing the demo to attract investors is quite unlikely... In fact, that's why he was very RELUCTANT to even do a demo. He knew that it was still somewhat 'tempermental', and a botched demo could cause serious delays in getting the 1MW plant online -- which is his ONLY focus right now. He is an engineer first, and in his mind, the best way to PROVE this works is to get an operating plant online; to win in the marketplace. That is the only thing that he can use as a 'trump card' against the skeptical scientists that, all too easily, fall back on (hot fusion) theory to refute his claims... He wants to boil some water to make Garwin some tea! -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration At 08:00 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Rich Murray <<mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com>rmfor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater >electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2 >that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni nanopowder may in part >be leaking into the coolant water output . . . > > >That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no >measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out >and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it >had leaked out. > >In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not >need to be addressed. Sure. I responded here out of concern for Murray. The explanation is preposterous because there is far too little hydrogen being introduced. Unless, of course, that's faked, i.e., a lot more hydrogen is introduced. There would have to be an oxygen input, but that could come from ambient air. And once we consider the possibility of fraud, as we must in this case, the refutation of that hypothesis is independent replication, and probably some multiplicity in this, depending on details. "Fraud" is not a specific hypothesis as to the mechanism of the fraud. For a convincing demonstration of a Black Box device, rigorous and independent monitoring of all possible inputs and outputs is necessary. I've never seen an inventor making claims like Rossi allow that, and then still have visible *major* excess power, beyond chemical storage possibility. I think these public demonstrations are a waste of time and effort, they will convince only those who are ready to be convinced, those inclined to trust someone based on? Appearances? By appearances, this thing sucks big time! Reputation? Whose reputation? Very bright people, experts, can be fooled, by something that they just didn't expect and check for. Happens all the time! And the experts who witnessed that demonstration are queasy about it, particularly Celani. What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that.... If I were an investor, I'd insist on full disclosure of adequate details for reproduction, to me, under a non-disclosure agreement, and I'd pay an expert of my choice to review those, and if the report were "possible," even if "unlikely" were appended, I'd enter into a contract with Rossi that gave me an investment option, and I'd arrange for independent replication under my control. I'd allow Rossi to make all kinds of suggestions, but not to touch the device, nor would I allow anyone affiliated with Rossi to get anywhere near it. It's also possible that the first step,before that, would be an independent examination and operation of a device supplied by Rossi, and he'd be paid for that device. And if it turned out that Rossi had lied in the disclosures, I'd demand the payment back, and the lying would void the non-disclosure agreeement -- a non-disclosure agreement that allowed fraud would be contrary to public policy, I believe, doesn't matter what it says! I'd understand that I might not get my early investment back. Investors inclined to risky investments expect to lose money on most ideas, they are playing for the big one. Rossi claims, though, that only he knows the secrets of the device. Am I correct about that?