I agree that it needs to be relatively safe if you are going to sell it, but you don't need a theory to prove it is safe. If he really has a device that can produce power at commercial levels, I don't want to see time wasted on explaining the theory of how the reaction works before he can sell it. Just as some others have said, we used fire for thousands of years before understanding how it worked. On Mar 16, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I infer from what was conspicuously left out of your response is that > Rossi, in your view, is at present to be placed in the "buyer beware" > category. > > As I said in the past, I would not want to buy anything from him. Not even a > nail clipper. Not because I think he is a crook. I know him pretty well. I > have done business with him, and I know several other people who have. He is > very difficult to deal with! He is mercurial, as I say. That's an old > fashioned word meaning: > > Adjective: > (of a person) Subject to sudden or unpredictable changes. > > > I would be curious to know what you current take on Rossi is these > days. Care to speculate? > > I wouldn't want to speculate about Rossi. He is the most unpredictable person > I know. You never know what he will come up with. Or say, or do. He does > things that make no sense to me, such as building a 1 MW reactor. That was an > astounding accomplishment. Astounding technically, and astounding because it > was so utterly pointless. But who knows . . . maybe he actually sold the > thing for a barrel of money. I guess that would be the point. > > > I could be wrong, but at present my own impression of Rossi is that he > is not a scammer. > > I do not know of any evidence for a scam. No one has suggested a method you > could use to fake most of these tests, especially the heat after death one in > October. As I have often said, Rossi seems like the world's most inept > confidence man. He inspires no confidence in anyone I know. As I said with > regard to the NASA visit (described by Krivit) he might have inspired a > little less confidence if he had met them at the door naked waving a shotgun. > > > I suspect he actually does have a valid "eCat" > technology for which he is trying very hard to develop and subsequently > market. > > It looks valid to me, as does Defkalion's version. I think he is trying very > hard to market it, but I think his methods are screwy. It is almost as if he > is trying to fail. Like the business plan in "The Producers." > > > I simply have my doubts (or concerns) as to how > reliable, in commercial terms, Rossi's current technology is. > > I would not want to live within 10 kilometers of a working 1 MW reactor. This > is a nuclear reaction of unknown etiology, for goodness sake! > > A plan to sell thousands of these machines without first testing them > exhaustively in major laboratories world-wide seems like lunacy to me. I > can't imagine any government would allow it. I sure wouldn't, if I were a > government official. Especially in the post-Fukushima world. > > Going around telling people: "this is not a nuclear reaction" -- the way > Rossi is doing -- will not actually solve the problem. That does not ensure > safety. Saying does not make it so. > > One serious accident could land Rossi or Defkalion in a world of trouble. It > could hold back commercial production for years. There have been several > unexplained serious accidents. See: > > http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187#PhotosAccidents > > How on earth can they be sure it cannot happen to them? Do they understand > the physics of cold fusion? No one does, as far as I know. > > I would not risk it if I were them. I would place devices in ten-thousand > labs worldwide, and have those labs run up millions of hours of use. I would > want to see every major scientist agree on theory, and -- more important -- > every engineer agree the thing is safe. Do that before you sell a single > reactor. I don't see how else you can do business in the 21st century. The > public demands safety. The public deserves safety. We spend billions ensuring > safety in new products such as the Prius or the Boeing Dreamliner airplane. > It is worth every penny. Why should anyone take any risks when a little money > up front can eliminate them? The cost per unit will be trivial. > > - Jed >
