On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lewan's book describes several tests conducted by Rossi which ended in > failure, and some that ended in fiascos. An example was the test for > Hydrofusion: > > "The instruments Rossi was using to measure how much electrical energy was > consumed to heat the device showed lower values than the instruments that > the researcher from SP [Technical Research Institute of Sweden,] had > brought. The difference was not trivial—Rossi’s readings were between half > and a third of the researcher’s measurements. If the researcher’s > instruments were credible, the device was consuming two to three times more > electrical energy than expected. It wasn’t producing three times more > energy than the input but was delivering no net energy. It did not work. I > believed the researcher’s instruments because I had immediately understood > the source of the problem. . . ." > > There was a test in Uppsala when the equipment came unglued because Rossi > glued it the night before and did not give it enough time to set. Then > there was the visit by Jim Dunn and NASA, when Rossi came unglued. Lewan > describes it diplomatically. > > I knew about these tests, plus I know of two other failed tests not > described in the book. > > This may sound paradoxical, but in a strange way these failures bolster my > belief that Rossi cannot be a hoax, so his claims are probably true. As I > have said before, if he is a confidence man, he is the most incompetent one > on earth. He inspires no confidence in anyone, especially when he does > tests that fail drastically for obvious reasons. > > Why would a con man go around doing these things? It is not difficult to > arrange a fake energy device that seems to work perfectly. At least until > someone examines it closely with proper instruments. So why would you set > up a fake energy device that looks like it is not working? Why would you > spend vast sums of money and years of effort making a pretend 1 MW reactor > with 51 complicated boxes in it? It seems to me it is far more likely he is > what he appears to be: a brilliant but headstrong inventor who often does > sloppy work. He often cuts corners because he assumes he is right. He has > no regard for conventional scientific standards. He does not understand why > other people do not believe his claims. He refused to do properly designed, > careful tests with good instruments, because he said such tests will not > convince anyone and will do no good. He had no reason to say that! He did > not even *try* doing careful tests. So how did he know they would fail to > convince people? I found that infuriating. > > Many lone inventors share some or all of these characteristics. Inventors > are not all alike of course but they all have great self-confidence which > breeds these kinds of attitudes. If they did not have confidence, they > would not continue working for years despite opposition, lack of money, > lack of support and even danger. > > The Wright brothers were the opposite of sloppy. They were very careful > and methodical. But, for a long time they put off doing definitive public > flight tests partly because they thought a test would do no good. They > sounded a lot like Rossi in that respect. They felt contempt for the public > and for skeptical scientists and engineers. This was unwarranted. When they > finally got around to doing a public flight test in August 1908, the > situation changed overnight. The world was their oyster. Newspaper > celebrated them, millions of dollars fell into their hands, the top > industrialists clamored to cut a deal with them, and the Congress gave them > gold medals. I think it is likely something similar would happen to Rossi > if he would only let it happen. Perhaps he is finally on track to doing > that with Cherokee Investment Partners. > > Lewan's book reminds me of some of the personal histories of the Wrights, > such as "First Flight" by Heppenheimer, and the fictionalized "Dawn over > Kitty Hawk" by Boyne. There was a cast of characters associated with > aviation from 1890 to 1908, including many stupid people, many cranks, and > some out-and-out frauds along for the ride. Boyne portrays them well. Like > the guy who claimed he had a flying machine in his briefcase. They remind > me of Certain Unnamed People in this field. > > The Wrights were not what you would call stable, sane, ordinary people. > Read "The Bishop's Boys" for details on their dysfunctional family, lack of > sociability, and their peculiar Victorian psycho-sexuality. Their sister, > Katherine, married late in life. Orville was so upset with her for marrying > he did not speak to her for years. He considered it a betrayal. > > - Jed > >
