I know, I’m the only man on campus willing to defend Rossi’s recent statements as presented by An inspector from the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control. However, I am doing so.
I got an e-mail from Stirling Allen which stated:
Liar Rossi Tells Florida Bureau He Has No Factory, No Nuclear Reactions – An inspector from the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control said that Rossi told him “No nuclear reactions occur during the process;” and “There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation;” and “Currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas.” He’s either lying to us or to the inspector or both. (PESN; March 11, 2012)
Let me present my case in Rossi’s defense.
Rossi is reported to have made three statements:
- No nuclear reactions occur during the process.
- There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation.
- Currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas.
But first, the definition of lie, and truth must be discussed. It seems that truthful is well understood, but there are two groups of people who well understand just how grey truth is — entrepreneurs, and lawyers. Ultimately if there is a reasonable frame of reference where Rossi’s statements are true, then he did not lie — even if his statements would appear to be true from the most obvious of frame.
Consider these questions from the easiest to defend to the most difficult.
1 - ”Currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas.”
We followers of Rossi assume that he is building a factory in Florida, therefore falsifying this statement. However, if Rossi is building a factory in Florida, and if that factory is not yet producing a finished product (even if it is producing a bunch of the parts thereof) this statement is true. If he is not producing a device yet, then even if he is producing the equipment necessary to produce a device, he’s still not producing a device. If he is producing a bunch of component parts, as long as he is not producing the finished device, his statement remains truthful.
Where it gets a bit dicey is if he is doing in-house testing of devices in Florida. While he still would be fully truthful about distributing, he would not truly be truthful about producing such a device. If he has tested the device in Florida, then the device could be seen as being “put to use”. However, though this may be technically true, it does not meet the fundamental understanding of this statement. He ain’t makin’, sellin’, or sellin’ the resultant product of his device in Florida. In addition, MIT recently ran a month long demonstration of an LENR device for a course. If Rossi is “technically” making and using because he is testing, then MIT is just as guilty. (Of course there’s a jurisdictional issue, but Massachusetts surely has similar nuclear laws to Florida.
2 – There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation.
My understanding is that if you are measuring outside of the case, this statement is consistent with the other statements Rossi has made.
3 - The hard one, No nuclear reactions occur during the process. I don’t believe that Rossi could make this statement and pass a lie detector test. I think there are a bunch of similar statements that Rossi could honestly make:
- There is no fission reaction taking place.
- There is (or might be) no fusion reaction taking place. (Of course only if the test sample of the reactor core were seeded with copper.)
- Depending how Florida law reads, “nuclear reaction” may be defined as a fission reaction and/or fusion reaction. If so, then by the definition of “nuclear reaction” of Florida law, there would be no nuclear reaction.
- No nuclear waste is produced.
- No possibility of a nuclear explosion exists.
- Rossi may have said to the inspector, “I use Nickel, and I use Hydrogen at temperatures lower than the melting point of Nickel. Do you know of any nuclear reaction with those characteristics?
And the best one –
- No nuclear reaction recognized by science is taking place. As long as the scientific community disavows LENR, this statement would be true.
Now, in Rossi’s defense, it is quite reasonable to believe that an inspector, especially one who is particularly skeptical of LENR or one who is particularly supportive of Rossi’s work, would hear some or all of the above true statements, and interpret these statements to mean, “No nuclear reactions occur during the process.” If this is what happened then Rossi was not untruthful. He could only be held as untruthful if the investigator asked him to confirm the investigator’s language.
Rossi has surely been untruthful with all of us. I am not by any means ready to believe that he had a 1Mw plant operating for a year back in August (I think) when he first made this statement. He flipped all over the place on the location of the 1Mw plant, to where his statements cannot be truthful. However, being untruthful to a government inspector seems to be a higher level of dishonesty, a level that could get one into serious trouble. He may have lied to the inspector, but in the tradition of the presumption of innocence, I don’t believe that this is proven.
Lastly, most importantly Rossi is not necessary to confirm the phenomenon of LENR, to confirm the Ni + H variant or to confirm high COP LENR. Even if Rossi is a total scammer who has nothing (which I don’t believe) LENR is still established here.