The same idiotic thinking like "The car will not move because has NO horse traction" "The airplane will not fly because it's heavier than air."
Majority of errors coming from bad assumptions, not flawed logic. Peter On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I shouldn't, but I do sometimes read the discussions in the Wikipedia > article on the Rossi device: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer>This article is holding up > remarkably well. The skeptics will gut it or delete it sooner or later, and > they are starting to add their patented weirdness, such as these sentence: > > "No gamma ray spectroscopy was performed due to restrictions from Rossi and > Focardi.[5]" > > [Footnote 5 references the Villa report, which describes gamma ray > spectroscopy. Whaddya know! Just the opposite of it says. I guess they are > hoping no one reads the reference.] > > "The plant which would supply heating for Defkalion's own purposes only, > was supposed to be inaugurated in October 2011." > > [Past tense, because they assume it will not happen. They keep changing it > from future to past tense.] > > > Anyway, in the discussion section, the skeptics cannot fathom why Rossi > would self-publish information that appears to draw doubts about his own > finding; i.e. that the cell does not produce gamma rays in the same ratio to > the heat as a plasma fusion device. They assume this means the device > "doesn't work." One of their comments: > > "So it's a self-published claim that his own device doesn't work? > Weird.TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)" > > I could not resist responding: > > > You wrote: "So it's a self-published claim that his own device doesn't > work? Weird." That is a wonderful comment! It distills the essence of > Wikipedia. Let me explain this situation. > > First, Rossi et al. are scientists. When they discover something, they feel > an ethical obligation to publish it, no matter what the implications are. > You find that "weird" because here is Wikipedia, when you disagree with > facts or they do not fit your agenda, you ignore them, suppress them or lie > about them. Rossi would never do that. > > Second, you are wrong. This does not indicate that the device "doesn't > work." Cold fusion does not produce neutrons or gamma rays in the same ratio > to the heat as plasma fusion does. Cold fusion has been observed by > thousands of people in hundreds of major laboratories. If it produced > radiation in the same ratio as plasma fusion, all of those people would be > dead. This is a defining characteristic of the phenomenon and one of the > reasons we know that Rossi's device is a cold fusion reactor. We also know > this because Rossi's colleagues and others have been publishing > peer-reviewed papers describing similar nickel light water devices since > 1994. This device is an improvement with lots of precedent. It is no > surprise. - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org > > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
