Poll: Should we ban Rossi-related discussions?

To all the new members: If you had watched Rossi for the last six years, as some of us have, you might have a deffenent perspective on his "vital" information. Perhaps there is a way to get a recapitulation of the amazing snakes and ladders and teasers from Mr. R. A huge waste of time, and distraction from real developments in the LENR field. I have now mostly moved on, and check in here and a few other sites from time to time, and it is the same as it ever was. Rossi blah blah Rossi blah blah blah. In MANY years not a single shred of substance.

Quote from TheGomp

In MANY years not a single shred of substance.

Indeed. I agree completely.

But some things have changed:

1. I.H. experts did a careful study of his 1 MW test. They determined it did not work. Experts have never had a chance to look so closely at his tests before. (The Motion to Dismiss mentions several "inoperable reactors" so I suppose they looked at more than one.)

2. He wrote a report. (Or perhaps Penon wrote it, but he endorsed it.) He has never written a report before. This was a big mistake. I have seen some data from this report, and a small schematic. It proves his claims are wrong.

3. He stated publicly that he did not allow the I.H. expert to visit the customer site, even though the expert insisted. In my opinion, this is tantamount to admitting he committed fraud. Rossi's supporters here don't see it that way, but I do. I have never seen Rossi so boldly brag about one of his underhanded tricks.

These three developments are why I finally, belatedly, came to the conclusion that Rossi is a fraud. I am sorry to say this, but he is as bad as Krivit and others said all along. I told Krivit that. It wasn't easy swallowing my pride and admitting it.

hmm Is this thread gonna become yet another Rossi thread?

Quote from Mary Yugo

But you didn't tell me that, you silly boy, you.

I should have. Mea culpa.

Quote from Mary Yugo

And I was on the case since you and I tried to get Rossi to agree to some simple and definitive tests such as sparging steam.

Yes, I recall that. I pretty much lost interest in him after that. Especially after he nearly blew up those nice people from NASA. I felt renewed interest in him, and renewed respect, when he signed the deal with I.H. That is ironic. Those people seemed sharp to me. They still do, I guess but everyone makes mistakes.

Let me say this though, about both you and Krivit. It is easy to be right when you predict failure. When a discovery is made, a new business started, someone tries to reform an institution, or any other difficult but worthwhile task begins, you can get yourself a fine reputation as a seer by saying: "It's hopeless. It is not even worth looking at. Stuff like that always fails." Just bet on failure every time and you will do well. But that is no way to go through life. As Theodore Roosevelt put it:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Holy Moly, Mary Yugo is here!

How about starting a Brilliant Light Power discussion. Here is a quote from their new presentation, plus some answers below from Mills today. This is way beyond Rossi:

"There are very interesting new developments at BrLP. The power of the plasma as shown for the first run of a new approach that we started about a month ago can be extraordinary, bursts of millions of watts in a volume of a coffee cup. Cell meltdown including the thick tungsten electrodes can occur in seconds. Five independent validators using four cross confirming methodologies, two absolute spectroscopic and two thermal techniques using a commercial calorimeter and a heat exchanger on the SunCell, have established that the power demonstrated is megawatt level with about 8 kW total input."

Great new results! Pease put the changes into context of the current design and process for us.
>>I will present that on the 28th.

Also you mentioned megawatt bursts but was the continuous power measured at the megawatt level in the new calorimeter validations?
>>Continuous until the cell melted.

I hope the melting problems can be controlled or was this allowed to happen merely
<<We have a refractory material design for the high powers and temperatures.
for demonstration purposes?

Brilliant Light Power, aka Black Light Power, been at it for over 20 years,
these guys like to sue critics
que Elmer Fudd, be vehwey vehwey careful

Andrea Rossi
June 15, 2016 at 6:08 PM
Ovidiu Herlea:
Thank you for the suggestion: I need to add a Physicist specialized in optics and photonics to the Team.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Maybe the blue light of the QuarkX has finally shown Rossi the proper path to valid LENR theory.

Brilliant Light Power (BLP)also sees light as a path to a new energy source.

Quote

Proof of a new energy source is provided by two otherwise inexplicable observations: (i) The formation of a high-energy hydrogen plasma in the absence of any input electrical power, the nonexistence of any energy releasing chemistry with this fuel, and the further impossibility of known chemistry of this high energy. (ii) The emission of soft X-ray radiation at a voltage far less than that of the light energy produced and the inability of any known chemistry to release such high energy.

BLP realizes that the hydrino theory is not able to support the magnitude of the power produced during the meltdown of their SunCell reactor.

The lack of educational background and interest in optics, photonics, and nanotechnology among LENR advocates makes exploration of the role light plays in LENR problematic among rank and file LENRests.

The bottom line, the road to understanding the LENR reaction is rooted in the photon as the active agent in LENR.

Mary

Welcome back.

Quote from Mary Yugo

The lesson for the believers is to never believe something simply because someone tells it to you. Look for proof.

Yes, I agree but this must be applied to all sides of the discussion, not just the anti Rossi stuff, do you agree?

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Mary Yugo

The lesson for the believers is to never believe something simply because someone tells it to you. Look for proof. Look for evidence from reliable, well proven sources-- major companies, commercial and government test labs, university departments acting officially, not independent professors with obscure backgrounds.

"Look for proof" is good advice, but it only applies to very few people, only those who have the knowledge necessary to look for evidences and to evaluate them. Millions of people around the world became aware of the Ecat's wonders, but the vast majority of them had no other way to assess their reality than relying on the prestige of the experts who evaluated the heat output. These experts were primarily some university professors. Those who believed to the extraordinary performances of the January 14, 2011 demo did not base on Rossi says, but on the university department which assumed the responsibility in front of the media to assess the energy output of his devices.

Rossi didn't fool anyone having a minimum of common sense and the knowledge of a physics teacher. All physicists of that department became aware of the claimed exceptional results of that demo. They could have seen and analyzed frame by frame the 3 videos showing all the main phases of that event (1-2-3), and immediately available on the web. The calorimetry report of the department came out ten days after, claiming the fantastic and imaginative data that confirmed an unbelievable excess of power (4). It would not be so difficult to recognize that the claimed power/energy output was due to 3 blatant errors in the reported data (5). It would have required no more than half a day to a physics professor. Despite these clear flaws had been denounced on many public blogs, those professors and researchers did officially approve a research contract on the Ecat (6), which would have directly involved 5 of them for 2 years!

So, the support to the Ecat was not the initiative of "independent professors with obscure backgrounds", but the official involvement of prestigious academic institutions, cleverly exploited by the propaganda.

I believe that it is appropriate to stop putting Rossi at the center of the debate on the Ecat. The academicians who did support this affair over the years could not have been deceived by him. To the search for truth, it's much more helpful to clarify what has been the role of people who acted around Rossi to achieve their specific objectives.

The Ecat provides us an example, one of the most sensational, in which mankind has deceived itself by means of the highest scientific and academic institutions, those ones which more than any other would have to raise warnings against this kind of popular illusions.

This is a lesson not only for the believers, but for all of us. We should strongly ask those institutions to tell us the truth on the Ecat. They know it. The discussion shouldn't stop before then.

(1)

Quote from Shane D.

I do take exception with your alluding that the profs somehow profited from their time with Rossi. I have heard nothing of that, and believe they did it all for the good.

For the good of what? Certainly not that of science or humanity. Levi knew that he had calculated enormous excess heat on the basis of incorrect data. His collegues knew it's impossible to verify the steam dryness with a phantom probe, measure a flow rate 2.5 times greater than the maximum deliverable by a dosimetric pump, overstate of 100% the duration of a phenomenon on a graph.

Quote from Shane D.

Feeling it was their scientific duty to step up to the plate, risk their reputations, to see if the Ecat really worked.

Assuming that it really was a duty of the Bologna physicists to verify a phenomenon already amply refuted in the 22 previous years by the scientific community, their department would have had the duty to apply for the maximum correctness towards the public, correcting asap these obvious mistakes, on which all the subsequent Ecat's credibility was based. But Levi did not corrected those data, and none of his colleagues and bosses objected anything, so that after more than 5 years someone can yet be said on the web: "Some of the previous tests, such as the first Levi tests, seem positive."

This is not the responsibility of Rossi, but of the scientific institutions that supported his claims.

Quote from Shane D.

Well, their reps are shot, so I guess they paid the ultimate price. Too bad. Rossi ruined a lot of careers, and I am sure he does not care in the least.

Which price? No one has paid any price. Indeed, some has done a good career.

I think we should stop judging all the aspects of the Ecat affair with respect to Rossi. He is not the savior of the world, but he is neither the responsible of its present difficult situation. The unfounded hopes spread by some interested scientific and academic lobbies have resulted in much worst troubles.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Sorry, Jed, but you are doomed to repeat the same mistake over and over again. My antipathy to Rossi had absolutely nothing to do about discovery, new businesses, predicting failure to be right,

Okay, prove it. Let us see you stick your neck out, be bold, and predict a difficult but important success. Is there any cold fusion experiment you feel is probably correct? Are you willing to justify your belief in something that most scientists dismiss? Or are you the kind of person who only kicks those who are already down. I get a sense you are that kind of bully, who enjoys being right when most people agree with you, and when you would be readily forgiven if it turned out you were wrong.

I suggest you try taking an unpopular stand on some issue that matters. See how it feels.

/* Should we ban Rossi-related discussions? */

Of course not. Like it or not, Rossi is the most close of commercialization of cold fusion.
Not to say, the censorship at forum dedicated to cold fusion, i.e. the topic already censored with mainstream physics would be moronic oxymoron.