This is not a "good job" by Steve. It borders on bogosity. Yes - Rossi may manage to draw a decent salary for a few years for R&D by creating a scam - but that is NOT even close to "getting rich".
-----Original Message----- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax >I read through all of this - and still do not understand how Rossi >will get rich without a working device. >Can anyone explain it ? Krivit isn't totally explicit. But you get money for "research and development." Which somehow is all spent. Rossi did it before, that's a big part of Krivit's report. Good job for Steve, by the way. If the money goes to a corporation, Rossi can get salary and other benefits from the corporation, and only if fraud is proven can he get nailed. The public claims he makes mean nothing, legally, because an investor is supposed to do due diligence. The actual representations *in writing* are what count. Verbal representations might count in a fraud action, if not contradicted by the writing, and if they can be proven. Often, though the actual contract will say that the parties are not bound by verbal representations, and the skilled, legal con artist will look at the customer and say, "Of course, my lawyer requires me to have this in here," and quite a few, even some smart people, will fall for it. "But look at his eyes, how could a man with such a face be lying through his teeth?" Easily. Some people are really good at it. Look at the video Lewan took in that alledged excess heat demonstration, where Lewan turns quickly back to Rossi, who certainly looks as if he's been manipulating the heat. So Lewan then looks back at the bucket, to check if things are the same, not realizing that Rossie would probably have been doing the opposite of what Lewan may have immediately suspected. *Restoring* the former settings, not changing them from them. The first change wasn't observed. Rossi's face, at that point, looked to me like he'd been caught in the act, but he knew how to keep up the appearance of innocence. If he was doing something legitimate in the middle of the test, simple: he'd have disclosed it. He'd have said to Lewan, I need to turn down the heat, because ... , or the reverse. Rossi, however, looks like a con artist, it is blatant. Rossi might also end up slammed. So? People go to jail all the time because they thought they could get away with stuff. That he might be risking a fraud charge is, in no way, a proof that there is no fraud! This is what is very, very clear: if Rossi is not a con artist, he has gone far out of his way to appear to be one. We have speculated that he might have a commercial motive for this, and it's a possibility. However, we should, most of his, treat him as if the appearance he has created is real. There is another important possibility, that Rossi did find some substantial excess heat, but hasn't been able to make it reliable, see below. Since he needs to make demonstrations, he nudges them when he needs to,under this theory. Absent conclusive proof, we cannot know for sure. I wish that certain prominent cold fusion researchers, real scientists, had followed my advice about caution, early last year. It looks really, really bad, having spent some recent time with a pile of pseudoskeptics. They take this stuff and run with it. Not that we should care that much, but it helps to maintain the general skepticism, whenever a prominent cold fusion researcher demonstrates what certainly looks like gullibility. The rest of the field gets discredited by association. That Rossi is following a known possibility, NiH, doesn't change this at all. Just because that possibility exists does not mean that Rossi has found the secret of exploiting it. Further, he might even be getting some serious heat, sometimes. That doesn't mean that he's found a way to make the reaction reliable, and that's the real Holy Grail of Cold Fusion, reliability. We know the effect exists, there is serious proof for that -- or at least for some kind of deuterium fusion in PdD, through the helium correlation -- but what has been totally elusive, from the beginning, is reliability as to the magnitude of the effect, and sustaining it long-term. Those are requirements for any commercial product, with little exception. (one could make a chaotic, relatively unpredictable reaction, work in a product by vastly scaling it down and then running vastly redundant cells, so that an overall average reaction rate is very reliable, and a massively increased reaction rate is effectively impossible. In fact, this is what is effectively done in many products, but it's concealed, it doesn't look like that. It looks reliable. Nuclear process in general are unpredictable at the individual reaction level! They are only predictable, overall, statistically.) Bottom line, there is no evidence that anyone has done this, as to what has been published. I'm seeing some stuff, but privately. So maybe. But that I say this here means nothing as to what people should accept and trust. It's a rumor, hearsay, unverifiable at present, right?
