But in the comics, the superhero inventor does things like this every day. And fans cheer!
I urge people to read An Impossible Invention, but read it without assuming any reality to Rossi claims. Do assume that what Mats observed happened, but be careful. Mats sometimes reports, not what he actually observed, but what Rossi told him was happening. For example, if Mats reports that in a test, so much water was evaporated, that is not an actual measure, it is an inference, typically assuming that 100% of water was evaporated.
All other evidence is ignored. Mats is aware of the problem, at least at times. He worries that he's becoming too involved.
Many, many assumptions are made by observers. For example, self-sustain mode is considered proof of power generation. But the devil is in the details. SS mode for how long and with what water flow and heat output? The e-Cats apparently consider of a metal chamber that is heated to high temperature, in which the fuel is placed. So it's operating at high temperature, way above boiling, and it has a certain mass. That is energy storage. That heat could then be used to boil water for a time. The lower the water flow, the longer the time. And the cooling water temperature would matter. The higher the temperature going in, the longer power generation could be sustained.
One fraud possibility that occurred to me for the 1 MW reactor would be that in the "customer area" was a boiler, that sent steam back into the 1 MW plant. Remember, Rossi asked the ERV to disregard input water temperature. Now, one observer mentioned that the steam would not register in the flow meter. I doubt that is true, but the flow meter might show incorrect flow. There would be a mixture of water and steam going in, and liquid water-steam heat transfer is slow. The steam would be essentially invisible going in. But adding heat. These are fraud scenarios, requiring intention.
What is amazing to me is people very ready to assume fraud on the part of IH, where it takes a very weird conspiracy theory, but not willing to allow the possibility with Rossi. Why? Krivit has been fond of pointing out "convicted white-collar criminal," and I deprecate that, because the interpretation of that history is quite difficult, but ... an assumption of complete innocence, while at the same time accusing some fairly reputable people of fraud? People who actually put up a lot of money to support the Rossi invention?
What this requires is a certain kind of paranoid thinking, which is, if you read An Impossible Invention, more or less how Rossi thinks. So Rossi inspires people who think like him. Not surprising, eh?
However, then there are the rest of us, who welcomed the possibility that Rossi had actually found an effect and how to generate it with reasonable reliability., who were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and who then, as his psychology became apparent, were still willing to note that just because he is "eccentric" doesn't mean he has nothing. We came up with rationalizations to explain Rossi's behavior. He deliberately was avoiding conclusive demonstrations because as soon as he made one, then competition would ramp up, billions would be invested to beat him in the market.
What's the truth? With all I've seen, I come down with "I don't know." But there are things I do know or reasonably infer, and I write about them.
The rational of avoiding conclusive demonstrations would not apply to his relationship with a serious investor. His idea of keeping the "catalyst" secret -- which made it impossible for him to get patents on the core technology -- would no longer apply against a partner who had fully purchased the IP, nothing held back, which was IH. Did Rossi simply continue in his habits? People do that kind of thing, continuing a once-functional behavior long beyond function.
Or is IH is a bunch of crooks who set out to ruin Rossi from the outset? Somehow .... I don't get that. I can't say, though, that it is *impossible.* Dedicated crooks can fool anyone. They can wear business suits and smile a lot. Nice people. Or so it can seem.
But I don't run my life making that kind of assumption about people routinely. And, somehow, I've mostly entirely avoided meeting such. I think they are not common. Some politicians, perhaps, the field may attract them.
