At 06:20 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Impossible. Until someone can propose a plausible a way to fake the
two Rossi demos, I will consider that impossible. Without specifics,
the claim that "it might be faked" cannot be tested or falsified.
Why does this sound so familiar?
"Until someone can propose a plausible mechanism that will explain
cold fusion, I will consider it impossible."
Here, I'm merely asserting the possible depth of human ingenuity.
With faking a demo, that is. I'll claim that faking a demo -- or
maybe a couple of demos! -- is easier than discovering or developing
what Rossi claims to have discovered or developed.
I'll claim that the financial implications might far exceed in value
the cost of corrupting an observer, if that were necessary.
And, again, I need to emphasize, these are general considerations,
not, in any way, a claim that anyone has committed any fraud or
deception. I do not have any evidence of deception, and am only
asserting a theoretical possibility. Nothing that I write about this
should be taken as impugning the integrity of Rossi or anyone else involved.
If I had evidence, I would disclose it, I'm not afraid of
consequences from disclosing the truth. But I have no such evidence.
What I can say is that I believe, were it necessary, that I could
design a fake demo, given time and some funding. I don't intend to do
this, just to win some silly argument. There are ways around all the
objections I've seen, through a combination of methods.
Barring something unforseen, we will have a much better idea in less
than a year or so. I propose waiting to find out, eh?
Meanwhile, how about an effort to point out to the U.S. patent office
that their policy has been totally stupid and defeats the purpose of
patent law, the encouragement of disclosure? At best, this is
preventing Rossi from disclosing his invention, for fear of losing
protection, and at worst, it would be providing cover for a fraud by
legitimizing the secrecy. Bad idea all around.
Tell me again, what is the harm of allowing a patent on a perpetual
motion machine? If the "inventor" pays the fees? And the patent
states, for example, that no proof was provided, that the issuance of
a patent does not validate the alleged invention?
Patents don't validate alleged inventions, necessarily, or, hey,
would you like to buy a thin gamma-ray shield? According to this here
patent, protection is guaranteed.
