Stephen Pomp asserts that it is possible to use commercially available isotopes to make an ash sample that gives the same values as measured in the report. Setting aside the issues of how Rossi would switch samples and his motivation for doing so, we should ask if Pomp is exaggerating the correspondence between the measured ash values and the commercially available materials.
Harry On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > bad logic > > even a fraudster cannot change the physics of heat. > > > a fraudster need to control his environment. he makes pony show. > he ensure condition for his fraud. he does not let people play with his > reactor, choose methods... > > the fraud hypotheis are empty... they don't even consider the consequences > of their hypothsis and how it will have been spotted... how it could have > been spotted according to the protocol. > > the fraud theory have to propose a reliable way to fraud... not just luck. > they have to prove that it cannot be spotted, not only the the measurement > don, but by the one that could have been done reasonably... > > > moreover Rossi is not a convicted fraudster, but a loose polluting > industrialist as the justice said. this is an urban myth. his numerous > mistakes and failures are not incoherent with Italian justice opinion, with > his clients opinion, with his bosses opinions, with Mats lewan ... > creative, yes. real yes, loose and stubborn, sometime... that is what makes > disruptive inventors. nice and cautious guys follow the train, don't lead > it. > > > > 2014-10-09 3:58 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com>: > >> Jed, it doesn't matter. If the ash is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud. >> Plain and simple. I'm not interesting in debating the other aspects of >> the experiment because of the complexities involved in calorimetry. >> >> There are no such complexities in the ash which makes the discussion >> very straightforward. He either switched it out or he didn't. He's >> either a liar or he isn't. It's pretty simple.. >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I'm betting he's a fraud, simply because the probability of him doing >>>> this is too incredible. What he's done is nothing short of miraculous. >>>> >>> >>> It is more miraculous than what Fleischmann and Pons and several hundred >>> other groups have done. Do you think they are all frauds? >>> >>> In any case, your hypothesis does not get a free pass. If you say this >>> is fraud, and you want anyone here to take you seriously, you will have to >>> suggest a plausible way in which Rossi could carry it out. I do not mean >>> the isotope changes; I realize it is physically possible for someone to >>> swap the samples by sleight of hand. I mean how would he fool the >>> calorimetry for 32 days when he was not present, and when none of >>> instruments belong to him? Is Rossi capable of changing the >>> Stephan-Boltzmann law? Can he magically alter an IR camera? >>> >>> If you cannot present a plausible, step-by-step description of how he >>> did this, you are assertion has no merit. You might was well say, "it was >>> caused by invisible unicorns." >>> >>> >>> >>>> It is total inflection point in the progress of humanity and all that >>>> we know. >>>> >>> >>> That inflection point came on March 23, 1989. In the long view of >>> history, Rossi is a minor incremental improvement to F&P. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
