Most of us do not believe that “absolute proof” has yet been provided for Rossi’s e-cat technology. One way or the other, it will be soon. One of the next few Rossi customers will be willing to go public with it, or customers will be returning product.
So we are confronted with a simple question, Err on the side of rejection or err on the side of acceptance. Let’s look at the cost of the two. If we err on the side of acceptance, and Rossi’s technology is true, we will do our part, small or big, to bring this technology to light. We will help to bring in a brave new world.
But what if Rossi is pulling a scam? He’s not asking for any money except from corporations who both can afford it, and who can test the technology before they accept it. He gives you and me no opportunity to buy in. We can jiggle our investments around a bit. I have pulled out of all other energy stocks, for instance. If it is a scam, these plays could cost the hopefuls a few dollars.
However, there is one serous risk of being positive. If nickel + hydrogen fusion is possible (a la Piantelli etc.) but Rossi is pulling a scam, he may produce hardened skeptics of those of us who are currently positive. We may end up joining the group described below. You know, “fool me once …”.
If we respond to Rossi negitively, we affect how easy it is for Rossi to move ahead. Consider the case of Pons and Fleishmann, the negative skeptics ruled the day. Despite Nasa saying, “Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat … such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals” (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm) Wikipedia continues to describe LENR as “pathological science”, and the US patent offices automatically rejects all LENR patents. Contrast that with the hot fusion boys who have hundreds of millions of dollars of funding. Had the positive skeptics ruled the day, this funding issue would have been very different. Surely LENR would have become practical far before now. I contend that even voices like yours and mine make a difference in this. I believe that when the scientific and media community “market” the negative position, they take a read of whether their “marketing” has been successful. Had we the people declared that we were not buying the “cold fusion is bogus” line, the research would have been done.
If the nay sayers prove to be the reason that Rossi does not break through with his technology (kinda doubtful, partly because there are so many positive skeptics) or even if they delay this technology by one day, they harm the many who can benefit from an infinite and cheap supply of energy.
But what if the negatives are right? What do they benefit. Their portfolio might not take the small hit that mine might take for getting out of energy. But mostly, they’ll be able to say “I told yea so” Yippee!
The value of being positive and right — high.
The cost of being positive and wrong — low.
The value of being negitive and right — “I told yea so”.
The cost of being negative and wrong — HUGE.