[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/11/10/rossis-dream-following-the-automotive-industry-model/']Here’s a quote from Andrea Rossi today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics regarding what he sees as being the more difficult work before him, if he can make it successfully through the current test on the 1 MW E-Cat plant: “It is obvious that the sole real thing that will dissipate any doubt about […][/feedquote]
Rossi’s ‘Dream’ — Following the Automotive Industry Model
-
Quote
“It is obvious that the sole real thing that will dissipate any doubt about a product is the product itself. Until we will not have diffused in the market our product anybody can doubt whatever he wants and maybe he is right. We are working hard to arrive to the product massively diffused in the market, but we need to complete the tests and after the tests, if they will confirm positive results, we will have to make an even harder work to pass from reactors handmade in a small factory to a major producing company.”
This is the lowest common denominator of stupidity-- the idea that you have to have a product to demonstrate a scientific concept or principle. It's complete nonsense and the very hallmark of common free energy scams of the past. It is so idiotic and so sleezy, it makes one wonder how low in the intelligence quotient Rossi is aiming at. And this is what Rossi has studiously avoided for the last four years! Of course he has. It would show his ecats are nothing but electrical heater and Rossi would go the way of Defkalion -- into disrepute and oblivion.Sure, the existence of a popular product makes it easy to verify that it's real but nobody needs a product to prove a principle. What one needs is a proper, decent, appropriate and well conducted experiment or test or demo, verified by independent credible and reliable sources such as a government lab or a university department from a major school, acting officially. And then there needs to be at least one source of similar quality to confirm it. No product is needed for the demonstration of a new concept or method. Rossi is conning people, as usual.
Anyway, Rossi has been claiming a product for more than four years. He said he had sold one to a "military customer" and had TWELVE more orders and he wrote it in 2011 and 2012. So what happened to those lies? Does anyone care?
-
I think it is something many LENR watchers don't consider.
Sure, there is new technology just not commercialisable because too expensive etc. There is even good technology that does not get funded through to commercial viability.
But given a proven new bit of working technology commercial success can follow. With LENR, you'd need first to have proof of technological concept. Say just one experiment with bomb-proof results indicating something nuclear. What MFMP have been looking for but never yet found.
Given what LENR is supposed to be the fingerprints should be easy to prove. Excess energy 1000s of times beyond chemical easily available. And not expensice to prove, if it exists.
No-one in their right minds would attempt commercialisation until they had scientific proof of concept.
-
May I roll over the floor reading Mary ?
skeptic just ask a tea kettle and have laughed at many scientific evidence, boiling electrolytic cells, COP around 2, transmutations.one day you should be coherent Mary.
What you say Thomas would be rational, but you are the evidence that there is something not so rational in that story.
The competent man you are, supported the crazy inverted clamp theory before you found something mer serious with emissivity. You behave like a desperate attorney trying to save his client from the death row.
You focus on some evidence, while avoiding the annoying evidences.
In a way you behave like the theoreticians that Edmund Storms love to bash, who support their theory based on 1 or two observation, ignoring the others.As usual in such academic denial, it have to go to the market, or at least to the mainstream application.
It worked so for Pasteur and Immunization, which is the most similar story which lasted 125 years of denial from Oliver Gordon de Aberdeen, to Pasteur , Via Oliver Wendel Holmes and Ignaz Semmelweis.Pasteur won the academic war, not because of better evidence than Semmelweis, but because he was a much better salesman, and because he immunized innocent kids in public, and demonstrated result publicly.
Pasteur behavior today would be considered unethical, criminal, and commercial, especially because unlike Pasteur he would need big funding, patents, and attorneys. -
@Alain, as well as the Inverted Clamp theory, you missed out the also quickly-forgotten-about Wye vs Delta wiring theory, an explanation which was also on the verge of becoming gospel at one point (in skeptic circles).
Perhaps all three theories could be put together to prove that Rossi is actually annihilating energy, which I think would be the ultimate proof against the ecat.
-
No-one in their right minds would attempt commercialisation until they had scientific proof of concept.
LOLs. Rossi is just the person for the job then!
