Rossi: Leonardo ‘Warship’ Ready With Robotics to Rapidly Produce Low Price E-Cats, ‘Burn Out’ Competition

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/25/rossi-leonardo-warship-ready-with-robotics-to-rapidly-produce-low-price-e-cats/']Andrea Rossi has said recently that his biggest problem is the size of his potential market, and it got me thinking. The need for energy is universal, and who would not want a source of energy that is much cheaper than what is currently available, and clean and green at the same time. So I […][/feedquote]
  • Rossi's USPTO patent will not protect him when big governments like China/India. turn a blindeye for the sake of national interest.
    His swamp the market idea is very savvy and necessary to avoid dangerous copies which would endanger the whole global market.
    I remember the 'bindies' fiasco when the substitution of one chemical component in a glue with a slightly cheaper chemical caused hospitalisation of children and destroyed the global market for a children's toy..the E-cat is much more critical for the world future
    .

  • you nailed it. i have no idea what ur talking about...
    I think we will see soon enought if Rossi et al really have what he claims they have.
    Till then I think its difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

  • Thomas

    extraordinary world-changing technology, and which has never yet been shown to work


    That depends on who you believe, I for my part take far more notice of people like Edmund Storms who consolidates his research in more credible ways than you do or have ever done in my opinion, but I think we will have to wait and see.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Thomas


    Now I know how much you dislike censorship of any kind so I hope you will apologise and let me develop my response.


    It may be my views are so atypical of people here that this place will ban me, or start heavily moderating my posts (the same, because I would go). I won't complain about that, if it happens. Until it does I will stay in the corner of the few LENR supporters who believe robust criticism and debate the best way to progress scientific understanding.


    When you claim: "It is beyond a joke that such grandiose speculations should be made about a claimed product with extraordinary world-changing technology, and which has never yet been shown to work" you are factually incorrect, the product has been shown to work but the demonstration conclusions are under review . Whilst we do not know many conclusive facts about the 'product' I grant you, we do know much about the 'extraordinary world-changing technology'. In my opinion (I hope you agree I am entitled to an opinion and that it is not 'off topic') the 'extraordinary world-changing technology' has been researched by Dr Storms (among many others) who has carried out the most comprehensive research on LENR as a 'main stream scientist. He worked for the Los Alamos Laboratory.


    On that basis alone (and there are many more) you are wrong and unscientific, to dismiss the 'extraordinary world-changing technology'. As to Rossi's product, you have your views and I respect that, but we live in a free market economy, a vital component of which is 'free speech' which allows ontrapnures to advertise their products. I have no doubt most of the advertising we see published is biased and some factually false. Purchasers must make their own mind up. I hope you don't feel this response is 'off topic' if you do not, perhaps you will have the courtesy to apologise.


    If you still do feel it is 'off topic' I am happy for you to refer my contribution to the moderators who's decision I am quite content to accept and abide by.


    Best regards Thomas
    Frank

  • Quote

    you are factually incorrect, the product has been shown to work but the demonstration conclusions are under review .


    Rossi has conducted many demonstrations which he has claimed show the product works. However others, looking at the same demonstrations, have discovered clear flaws. That would not be "shown to work" were the claims ordinary. In reality they are extraordinary - greater care is therefore needed.


    Quote

    Whilst we do not know many conclusive facts about the 'product' I grant you, we do know much about the 'extraordinary world-changing technology'. In my opinion (I hope you agree I am entitled to an opinion and that it is not 'off topic') the 'extraordinary world-changing technology' has been researched by Dr Storms (among many others) who has carried out the most comprehensive research on LENR as a 'main stream scientist. He worked for the Los Alamos Laboratory.


    We perhaps disagree as to whether LENR technology works. I'd only say that technology is the application of science to useful problems. Storms may be convinced that there is a real scientific anomaly with an LENR explanation. He cannot point to any practical use of this (if you have found such a use, please let me know?).


    Of course personally I disagree on the issue of LENR science. I don't find the various anomalies best explained by LENR. But what is needed here for my point (which you disagree with) is weaker. The claim that no LENR technology has currently been shown to work. You might want to consider that and change your mind or provide an example?

  • Umm - Monty it is not for me to give Rossi anything. I'll just remind you that identical statements to yours have been made throughout the last 5 years, so the sense of imminence you convey is misleading.


    For me, I'm pretty sure based on external evidence that Rossi has never had, and will never have, any working product, and therefore the only question is whether he can join the ranks of Steorn and BLP, with essentially infinite non-product life (OK - Steorn has a product but non working product life) or whether all will come tumbling down in some spectacular fashion. I don't have a clue which of these is more likely.

  • It seems to me if the measure of success is the production of excess heat that Rossi would surly know how the ERV yearlong test went. But the criteria for successfully passing the 1 year test may not be COP but the production of ionizing radiation or the lack of it. Rossi has spent many years in beating back the occasional bursts of ionizing radiation from his various E-Cat prototypes; control and radiation where his concerns. We know that the ERV test director is a person with long years of experience in the nuclear industry. He may have set up radiation detectors all throughout the shipping container to check for any appearance of a radiation burst.


    Rossi would have no way to predict that his technology is radiation free. This is his reason for the F9 response in terms of the ERV test. If any radiation is seen coming out of the X-Cat, that would put Rossi in a very difficult spot with NRC and FDA regulation and licensing. The ERV test director could easily torpedo Rossi's LENR warship.

  • @axil


    Re ERV and test results:


    Pweet on ECN seldom posts, but I find his remarks pretty insightful when he does.


  • Thomas


    Since you have clearly engaged in the exchange regarding the excellent research of 'Edmund Storms' I can only conclude his views, as noted by me earlier, on this thread, are not 'off topic' as you claimed. I know this is as close as I am going to get to an apology, but I accept it anyway, thank you.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Quote

    All the BS that you cloth in scientific certitude is invalidated because the nickel inside the Lugano reactor melted. The core temperature exceeded 1450C. KISS.


    I have not elaborated this point. But I don't disagree with you - you make a plausible case for the ash tested having come from a different reactor than the one in which the fuel was inserted. As you know, that has been my strong view for other reasons.


    PS - Nothing has ever been simple about Rossi's tests. What better evidence for this than the novel use of IR thermography without temperature control to establish temperature of an alumina surface?

  • I believe he either had, or hoped to find during the 12 month period of the test, a way of fudging the results either by under reading the input energy or over reading the output energy, and then passing off the deception without being discovered by any overseers of [lexicon]IH[/lexicon].


    Now, we might think that would be an impossible task, to put one over the ‘entity responsible for verification, but then no more difficult a task than it was to fool a team of independent professors in the Lugano test who could discuss the matter between themselves and look of possible errors. And yet this deception was done to perfection.


    I've seen enough positions taken on Rossi over the last few years to be able to start to codify them in a simple codification scheme. The position expressed above is the "Rossi as expert magician" position. In this position, readers are asked to allow that Rossi is an expert magician who is able to pull off a series of magic shows that purport to demonstrate an overunity device but which in reality is nothing more than a resistance heater. Some notes about this specific argument:

    • Since Rossi is putting on a (magic) show, his behavior is intentional. The unavoidable implication is fraud. We see the judgment of intentionality in the fact that "deception" and "done to perfection" are used.
    • The magical show must be expert, for Rossi has allowed the testers some leeway for negotiating the test protocol, as happened in Lugano.
    • The Pomp and Ericsson critique, in which the proposal was made that a laser might have been used to heat the E-Cat from a distance, is a variation of this argument.
  • Well Thomas since you are so sure Rossi is a fraud why are you still here? Is it the mission to convert the rest of the world of this opinion? Is the majority of the people here plainly stupid and you have to show them the light?

  • Quote: “All the BS that you cloth in scientific certitude is invalidated because the nickel inside the Lugano reactor melted. The core temperature exceeded 1450C. KISS.”


    I have not elaborated this point. But I don't disagree with you - you make a…


    NiAl Alloys may have a higher melting point > 1600C see WO2002092265 for a deeper discussion!


    Just for comming back to the facts...