Some personal thoughts on Jeff Driscoll's recently expressed concerns - originally derived from subject thread: "Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms", such as:
... > Does anybody on Vortex agree with my previous email > to Vortex about the capacitance probe? It can only > sense the partial pressure of the water but saturated > steam has a constant vapor pressure of 14.7 psi at > all steam qualities between 0% and 100%. So the > capitance will never change while the steam quality > changes. and > I know a guy that has visited many overunity groups that > make extraordinary claims about a new energy source and > every time after some scrutiny, there is fraud involved > or some sort of mistake or he can never get close enough > to determine the legitimacy of it. In my opinion Rossi > shows signs of the fraud category. First, the LONG VERFSION OF A PERSONAL ADVENTURE OF MINE: I gather Mr. Driscoll has expressed concerns about the legitimacy of the measurements derived from a capacitance probe used in part to prove the quality of the steam allegedly generated from one of Rossi's e-cats. It seems to me that Mr. Driscoll has invested a considerable amount of his personal time in trying to explain as best he can his concerns on the matter. It is a commendable trait - to express one's concerns, to presumably seek feedback from others... assuming it really is honest feedback one is after, as compared to simply shopping around for additional confirmation that one's original theory had been correct all along. Mr. Driscoll's persistence on this matter reminds me of someone I know... I know a guy who didn't just visit overunity groups and kick a few tires in the sales lot. This particular individual allowed himself to become heavily invested (certainly in an emotional sense) in one particular overunity project. He also invested some of his own personal savings in trying to create a small POC, a Proof of Concept device. That guy was me. About five years ago I feverously worked in isolation on a personal OU project of mine. I worked on the project for about six months straight. Eventually, I assembled a report and I brought the fruits of my research to the attention of the organization I was working for under contract - without pay I might add. A colleague evaluated my findings. He completely dismissed my hard work, all in a matter of hours. He told me my design specs wouldn't work. He also chided me as to why had I waited so long before bringing my work to his attention. My response was that according to my calculations my design specs should work. He said my calculations were incorrect. We couldn't see eye-to-eye. Because the individual had been such a SOB to work for in the past, this based on past experience working for him as well as feedback I received from other colleagues, I was not entirely inclined to trust the conclusions he had arrived at - at face value, all within a matter of hours, not after I had spent 6 months of my own time meticulously working out the specs. This meant I had no recourse left me but to try to construct a preliminary bare-bones prototype myself... just enough of a prototype to strongly suggest to my peers that my POV on the matter might be reasonably accurate. It was time see who was right and who was wrong. My POC failed. Spectacularly so. I lost six months of my life pursuing a wild goose chase, along with eighteen months of personal savings. Quite understandably, I was in utter shock for about 48 hours. After an obligatory period of mourning, of suicidal rage, of crying and moaning and gnashing of teeth, I eventually took a closer look at my theoretical calculations. I eventually discerned a flaw in how I had interpreted certain readings generated from the software simulation package I was using. Turns out that my colleague, who honest-to-god really was a SOB to work for, was mostly correct - and I was entirely wrong. Granted, I was an honest mistake, a misinterpretation on my part, but a mistake nevertheless. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that I was trying to work in a field where there really weren't that many people I knew and that I could ask and get decent feedback from. I had learned from past experience that it was difficult to engage in "feedback" with this particular colleague because I occasionally observed him trash the work of other colleagues he felt he might be in competition with, regardless of whether such concerns were real or imagined. The point being, I made a decision to work in isolation. Unfortunately, it was an unwise decision on my part. Had there been someone I could have confided in I might have discovered my mistake earlier in the game and possibly have saved myself a lot of pain and hardship... as well eighteen months of personal $$$. One of the ironic lessons I took from that adventure was how exciting those times had been for me, this despite the fact that unbeknownst to me I was chasing a wild goose. I paid 18 months of "tuition" fees to earn a degree in how to chase wild geese. From a hard-knock POV, the expense was probably worth it. Another valuable lesson I took from my personal folly is that it is unwise to work in isolation when trying to create the one truly unique "thing" that will change the world. Likewise, it seems to me that to focus on and subsequently critique a particular item pertaining to work of others, and to do so in isolation of other equally important factors is also, in my view, unwise. And now, a slightly SHORTER VERFSION OF THE SAME ADVENTURE: It seems unlikely to me to assume Defkalion does not avail itself to a steady stream of feedback pertaining to their on-going efforts to develop a preliminary line of products.not at the stage they are at. Therefore, it seems to me that Mr. Driscoll's persistent focusing in seeming isolation on the merits (or lack of) of a recorded measurements derived from a capacitance probe, while Defkalion continues to publish a steady stream of announcements claiming to have products based on the Rossi Effect ready for the market by October of this year... Well, it suggests the possibility that Mr. Driscoll's concerns might be just a tad myopic. But that's just a personal opinion of mine. I could be wrong. I still think it honorable that Jeff continues to share his concerns on the matter. Hopefully Mr. Driscoll will be able to avail himself to honest feedback. >From time-to-time, we all need it. I sure could have used it. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
