Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Kevmo

Let’s assume Rossi’s device is working.

Now... in your opinion is there any way that the testing could be faked? Or that what we see on the internet about it is being faked ?

Remember, thousands of ‘scientists’ around the world still believe in the ‘global warming/carbon credits’ scam.

This is a purely hypothetical question, and not meant to reflect on Rossi and his device.


35 posted on 05/30/2013 9:59:31 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The monsters are due on Maple Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: UCANSEE2

I think the only remaining possibility of the testing was for some DC to be fed through the wires. But it turned out that Hanno Essen said they tested for it.

Another way is to have weapons grade plutonium inside the box, but then the radiation would be... shall we say... inconvenient because there wasn’t near enough volume for a Pb containment. I think it was Levi who had brought a Geiger counter to some earlier Rossi demo, and Rossi had no control over what measurement equipment these guys would bring. Also, it would be a hugely expensive fake, costing $millions, so the risk/benefit ratio is terrible for someone looking to scam others.

Then when you examine the evidence in light of 14,700 prior replications of the Anomalous Heat Effect, the data starts to fit a very definitive Cold Fusion pattern rather than a Scam pattern.

Even if Rossi is a scam artist, LENR is still worth looking into.

And keep in mind some simple inductive reasoning. At this point, the scam theory means that Rossi would be the greatest scam artist in history. If LENR is a conspiracy, it is the widest conspiracy conspiracy in history. But my hypothesis only requires that Rossi is a mediocre scientist, a crappy demonstrator, an Edisonian experimenter, has a shady reputation that requires the independent scientists to quadruple check their results, and was possibly even just lucky to have found this catalyst in the first place. Which hypothesis obeys Ockham’s razor? There is no deductive proof in inductive reasoning; there is the preponderance of the evidence.


40 posted on 05/30/2013 10:13:44 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson