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

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
.

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.

I was thinking of writing a letter to The Telegraph and signing it "Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells".

[This is a UK cultural reference which maybe will not make much sense elsewhere]

Quote from monty

I think we will see soon enough if Rossi et al really have what he claims they have.

Could I perhaps hold you to that? It is, I should warn you, something that has been said many times over the last 5 years...

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

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

frank:

My comment was directed at Rossi, and his claimed technology, not Storms, and research. So your reply is off topic.

Thomas

Ooops sorry! is that an attempt at censorship? I didn't know you were now a moderator, congratulations.

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.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

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?

@frankwtu

I've answered the "attempt at censorship" issue on the other thread.

Quote from monty

I don't see any reason why you should not.

Would you care to quantify "soon enough"?

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.

Quote from Pweet

Regarding the above comment;-
“Rossi is awaiting the “test results” and I just don’t know if Rossi knows what they will be.”

Some insight on this can come from the previous Lugano test.
At the time when everyone including Rossi were waiting on the results, he mentioned he was anxious about them and didn’t know what the report would find.
In hindsight we can see that this was true.
Had the professors wised up to his tactic of keeping the control test at a lower temperature to arrive at an incorrect emissivity to bend the real test in his favour, the results would certainly have shown the device to be a failure.
If the trick remained undiscovered, Rossi would know that the device would appear to work and thus the test would appear as a success, which is what happened.
I think the current 1MW test will be the same.
I don’t believe Mr. Ross confined himself to the container for the purpose of nursing his cat.
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.
So the question now being asked of Rossi as to whether the 1MW plant was a success during the 12 month test is not really the right question. The real question is, what sort of fudging of the results was done and does he think he got away with it?
The answer to the latter part he answers truthfully. “The results could be positive or negative. (f9)”

At this point I take the other possibility, that the 1MW plant was a great success with a COP of six, as being so close to zero that it is not worth considering.

Display More