I am currently of the opinion that all the resistance to accepting the possibility of cold fusion is irrational on the part of many. This irrational way of thinking, the reluctance to accept new things, and he emotional disruption of the judgment process may be rooted in the fact that cold fusion is based primarily on the weirdness of quantum mechanics being far removed from everyday life.
Having been faced with this clear and growing resistance to cold fusion, early on, Rossi decided that a logical scientific argument was not the best way to present cold fusion to the world. Rossi instinctively recognized that the most powerful motivator of human nature whether that nature is being expressed in terms of business, government or simply the guy on the street is competition. If an innovative business can use cold fusion to gain a decisive edge on its competition, all other business must follow its lead or eventually face bankruptcy; no matter what the religious, scientific, ideological, or strategic position of those other companies might be. The same is true for national governments. If one nation gains through the adoption of cold fusion a decisive competitive global economic and military advantage over all others, all these other national governments must eventually follow along the same path of this early adopter or eventually lose out to the demands of global competition. For example, even if lowly starving North Korea or bankrupt Greece first adopts cold fusion to generate power, it will eventually force the all-powerful US government to incentivize the adoption of cold fusion no matter how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decides to disrupt cold fusion initiative based on the traditional fear of possible military or radiation dangers that this disruptive technology might imply. If a nuclear scientist has spent his whole life studying the intricate and obscure ways of the fission process of the light water reactor or the hot fusion process of the tokomak, no matter how distasteful, that person must eventually come over to the new cold fusion theory of the Rossi reactor because that is where all the work will be...or he can retire. When one analyzes the Rossi thought process, one must weigh in heavily the primacy of competition as a means and a method in the Rossi commercial and engineering strategy. Like the tiniest of sparks struck in a tinder dry forest, a conflagration of the old naysayer doctrinaire will once started be irresistible and unstoppable. On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Cousin Jed, > > I simply think Rossi wants to convince the Customer and all the potential > customers that he already has a usable industrial product, however in fact > he has only some technologically underdeveloped generators. Defkalion has > called them lab prototypes. > Like a car that has some weak motor but no > reliable acceleration and with very bad brakes. I don't think this analogy > helps much, but... > > If the Customer is an engineering Company, this could be of use but not > fast > > Peter > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> That's excellent news. Very open of Rossi. Entirely reasonable. >> >> We complain about Rossi's habits, but you have give him credit for >> allowing a lot of access to this tests, and for giving out a great deal of >> information. The problem is not that he is unwilling to share data. It is >> that his tests do not produce good data, and he does not write scientific >> papers. >> >> People have said that Rossi is a liar, or he exaggerates, or he cannot be >> trusted. As I see it, he has a split personality. When he talks about >> business or personal matters, I think he gets excited and he blurts out >> nonsense. I don't take this nonsense seriously. He scapegoats people -- >> including me. He can be devious, sometimes planting misinformation to >> cause dissension. I know he does that, because he did it to me several >> times. >> >> However, when it comes to engineering-based technical claims, as far as I >> know, Rossi is the soul of honestly. He has often made astounding claims >> that seem utterly impossible. As far as I know, all the ones that have been >> put to the test turned out to be true. I do not know about that factory >> heater that ran for a year. Cousin Peter says he cannot believe it. I can't >> be sure it is real, but I am sure it is unwise to bet against Rossi. >> >> I do not think there is a shred of evidence that Rossi has ever tried to >> use a hidden source of energy, fake instruments, or any other kind of fraud. >> It would be much harder to do this with his cells and reactors than with any >> previous cold fusion devices, because the scale of the reaction is so much >> larger. He is careless with instruments, and sloppy, and this sometimes >> obscures the results. That is not a deliberate effort to hide results or >> escape from scrutiny. It is what it appears to be: sloppy. Lots of people >> are like that. Some geniuses such are Arata are like that. Many programmers >> write unstructured spaghetti code too. It is not because they are devious or >> they want to sabotage the project or infuriate their co-workers. It is >> because they are sloppy. They should be promoted to management where they >> will cause less harm. >> >> Many engineers and inventors have this kind of split personality. Edison >> is a famous example. He was a "sharp dealer" as they said in the 19th >> century. Sharp dealing -- cheating, breaking contracts, and taking unfair >> advantage -- was widespread and considered normal back then. He put on Dog >> and Pony show exhibits of his inventions. When investors asked him how much >> progress he was making, he lied so extravagantly, it would >> have embarrassed a data processing project manager circa 1972, when computer >> programming was at the lowest ebb of reliability and projects routinely went >> off the rails. Edison did all of that, but he would *never* lie to >> himself, to his coworkers, or in a serious technical discussion. He did not >> have it in him to lie. Most engineers and programmers do not. It would be >> analogous to a farmer who neglects to plant seeds and then expects a crop to >> grow. Every technician in history has known that you cannot fool Mother >> Nature. >> >> I cannot judge Rossi's assertions about theory or transmutations. >> Theoreticians tell me they are bunk. I suppose they are, but Rossi is >> unaware of that. They are not lies. >> >> I have also learned to believe everything Rossi says about his >> operational plans. When he said he was building a 1 MW reactor, I believed >> him. He says he will try to turn it on. I have no doubt he means it. I just >> hope he does not blow himself up, or get arrested for operating it without a >> license. I hope that someone dissuades him but I doubt anyone will. If he >> changes his mind at the last minute, I would never accuse him of lying. A >> person who does cutting edge research who does not frequently change his >> mind, his plans, and his entire approach will fail catastrophically. >> Flexibility is essential to that job, as it is to a general fighting a >> battle. As Eisenhower said, "no battle plan survives contact with the >> enemy." You have to respond to things as they are, not as you hoped they >> would be. I wish Rossi would change course more often, not less often. >> >> I think Rossi is careless with instruments because he is old fashioned >> and he agrees with Fleischmann and me that direct observation is the best >> science. It is better than proof by instruments and calculation. He does not >> bother to write down the thermocouple readings, or insert an SD card, >> because he thinks that the heat continuing for 4 hours is all the proof >> anyone can ask for. Worrying about the thermocouples when you have a reactor >> too hot to touch is ridiculous. It is useless nitpicking in the face of >> definitive, first-principle proof that you can literally feel with your >> hand. The instruments are the icing on the cake; the real proof in Rossi's >> best work is visual and tactile observation. That is what Rossi told Lewan >> and me. >> >> Peter Heckert calls this "junk science." We think this is still the best >> way to do science, as it has been for all of human history. Natural science >> is the queen of sciences -- physics is not! In natural science and much of >> biology even today visual observations still rule. People look at animals, >> plants, rocks and weather. They smell and touch. Newton may have >> been greatest scientist, but Darwin was a close second, and he never used an >> instrument or a mathematical formula. All of his work was based on field >> observation and dissection, followed by analysis. As Francis Bacon said, "we >> are not to deny the authority of the human senses and understanding, >> although weak; but rather to furnish them with assistance." >> >> - Jed >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > >
