FOIA Request of the Munson report about Rossi's thermoelectric claims

@colwyn

Paypal do not allow transfer of money to settle bets. And on open internet forums they quite often get told about bets, and enforce this rule.

So it can be done, but with considerable care.

Note: I've just realised 'Consumer Reports' is some sort of well-regarded US publication. I don't think they are going to feature the Orbo any time soon, but I think other clearly independent publications might. I wrote the rest of this beforehand, but I think it's all still relevant...

Yes I think consumer reports are the only way to proceed on this. My main worry is that we will disagree over the credibility of the 'reporters', and because of this it would be good to arrive at some sort of understanding beforehand. For example e-catworld: I can understand that from your point of view, you might not consider him an impeccable/respectable source. However, from my point of view, his writings on this display a reasonable amount of skepticism, so I would deem his views valid.

If we choose not to rely on Frank, the problem is framing the bet in terms of who might or might not write a decent consumer test report. Ultimately this is why is keep referring to good faith etc.: It might come down to one of us conceding defeat.

But like I've said, I'm sure there will be some sort of consensus between reviewers. Even if there is not clarity in the short term, in the medium term it should become obvious whether the Orbo has self-charging properties. So like I say, good faith is probably the key to this...

What's your opinion on all this? Can we rely on e-catworld, or just reasonable consensus between reviewers, as to whether more energy is available (over a period of time) than would be if it was just a big LiPo battery.

I know I generally give you some grief, but that doesn't prevent me from acting honorably.

Tom: Thanks, you make a good point (as you do regarding Amazon). I guess the details of the Paypal transaction would be sorted out by private email, and hence, be fairly anonymous.

MY did not say it was never tested. But that it was never tested independently by genuine uni personel. Obviously, Rossi controlled testing is not the same, whether done in a uni lab or not.

MY wins the bet. The report does not contain proof.
MY loses the battle. Conspiracy to hide the Appendix proof shows that the gubbermint has super high tech TEG, and has had it for years...

Shane D Where is the Appendix sections of report?

Let us acknowledge that this FOI request has turned up something other than a smoking gun that Rossi perpetrated a scam with the TE's, whatever other evidence leads some to that conclusion.

Quote

LOLs, Guess he did! Mary worded that wager so vaguely no one ever would have collected, as what he defines as a "proper test", is in the eyes of the beholder.

LOL. You are saying you think a Rossi controlled test is worth anything? All that was needed, for MY to pay, was a bona fide test conducted by real University staff - not people employed by Rossi. That is what is commonly supposed when people say "... University tested my invention".

Quote from Alain

I notice a recent change in the critics, moving from sciento to smear campaign,

I have not noticed such a change. MY has always concentrated on character. I've always had no belief that any of Rossi's technical comments or tests are reliable. What's new?

Quote from Shane

I think this is much ado about nothing.

I agree. And if everyone realised that what Rossi provides is nothing we would be better off!

Sorry for intervening on an apparently long story of which I obviously don't know all the details, but may I ask, as a newcomer in this forum, why is this relevant to LENR (which is more or less the gist of a couple of comments above?)

Having participated in many similar research projects (one of which on thermoelectrics for automotive heat recuperation, which did not lead to the expected breakthrough), I can say that an unsuccessful outcome of such a project (as it seems to be implied by the phrase " nothing to suggest any high efficiency prototype ever worked") is difficult to prove to be a scam, let alone after so many years. These projects are not paid "by achievement of results", but by "best effort", so not reaching high efficiency or a sufficient durability is not enough grounds for defining such a project a scam, otherwise this would be true for 60-80% of them. For instance, if these were the metrics, how would any manager of defence programs like the F35 or the Boeing tanker still be at large ?

Of course this issue might be raised because somebody still deems Mr Rossi's eCat a scam and wants to establish a link. If so, may I ask on which grounds?

In fact, after reading some of the abundant material on this site, in particular the very recent replication announcements, I came up with the following "reductio ad absurdum":

1 Assumption: Rossi is a scammer
2 He has manipulated all his tests (including the ones where the device was handled by third parties, which are obviously colluded.)
3 He swapped the fuel from the Lugano tests with one having an altered isotopic composition
4 This fake material was analysed with a mass spectrometer and the results published
5 Mr Parkhomov, Songshen Jiang et al deduced from these fake data a composition of the fuel (that happens to be the one in the awarded patent) and build a replica eCat
6 These replications, and other, seem to work, including the one by MFMF that has been conducted in a quite transparent way. Yesterday announcement by Mr Jiang even shows self sustaining operation for a relatively long time.

My (simplistic, I admit) deduction is that either it's not a scam, as multiple scientists cannot develop different working devices from fraudulent data, or one must look into a wide conspiracy where all the replicators are in fact accomplices of Mr Rossi.

Am I missing something?

Thanks for any clarifications

LENR implies an alternative scientific paradigm that is just as persecuted as religious heresy and perversion has been in the worst historical examples of this reaction. It is almost as if the currently established scientific beliefs are religious in nature and these divinely revealed beliefs must be protected with extreme zeal where the ends justify the means just like divine revelation must be protected from the mischief inspired by the devil. The opposition that Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Charles Robert Darwin faced are born anew in a religious frenzy that LENR inspires with as much venom and misdirection as ever in this dawning of this new LENR age.

The following words are from the great philosopher Bertrand Russell from his book Religion and Science.

Quote

“Those to whom intellectual freedom is personally important may be a minority in the community, but among them are the men of most importance to the future. We have seen the importance of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin in the history of mankind, and it is not to be supposed that the future will produce no more such men. If they are prevented from doing their work and having their due effect, the human race will stagnate, and a new Dark Age will succeed, as the earlier Dark Age succeeded the brilliant period of antiquity. New truth is often uncomfortable, especially to the holders of power; nevertheless, amid the long record of cruelty and bigotry, it is the most important achievement of our intelligent but wayward species.”