I think this report was very good from many aspects. I understand from the comments that the Pomp's of this world now have one and only one way to deny the existence of Rossi's E-cat and that is to say that Rossi is an fraud and a magician. As much as I want to be critical and as much as it is OK to be skeptic, there are too many people involved in the process to say that fraud is an option. I am sure that Rossi have had to demonstrate that the E=cat works for his investors-they do not want to lose capital. I know that the people doing the test are concerned about there reputation - they do not want to lose credibility as scientists. If Rossi is able to fool us all I am sure that he could go to Vegas and compete with David Copperfield earning much more money. (and status). The alternative is that all others involved are :) Nae!!
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:08 AM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
