Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


  • Adrian,


    Good thing you did not read this thread today: New USPTO Patent Applications from Industrial Heat

  • Does anyone here actually believe it is possible to have a rational argument with Adrian? Seriously?


    From my point of view it is always possible to present a rational case, and make rational rebuttal of other arguments that are unsound. On this thread it seems that must be done repeatedly. That is boring, but OK. Adrian would also reckon he needs to repeat his arguments because they are opposed by those who he thinks are biased. That is OK. In this repetition it is not difficult to discern the wheat from the chaff.


    It is only when the (rationally more meritorious) side of things departs from rational debate and in frustration moves to name calling that we have a problem: then a new observer would be less able to see who has sense on their side. I get most upset when people lie, not when they are wrong. Being wrong, egregiously so, is the human condition:


    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.


    (Schiller)

  • Good thing you did not read this thread today: New USPTO Patent Applications from Industrial Heat

    Why? You are right I had not been following that thread, but I don't see that I missed much.

    I was simply replying to the post that gave the link.


    It looks to me that IH , who had Rossi's IP, set out to write a spoiler patent broad enough to cover just about everything. I wonder if it would stand up in court but it would be expensive to fight it.


    It strikes me as odd that the babblers who keep on saying "Rossi has never shown anything" don't say that about IH. What have IH shown? The patent states they have carried our extensive research and tests that produced excess heat.

    Will the babblers accept LENR now that IH claims ti have succeeded? Or will they now doubt IH's word?

  • THH: What are the arguments that Adrian makes, as you see them? As far as I can tell, his position is that Rossi has claimed all sorts of things and his claims have not been definitively disproven. Therefore Adrian accepts them as being true or, at the very least, sees a crying need to defend them with every fiber of his being. Am I missing something?

  • Dewey should answer 8)

  • Therefore Adrian accepts them as being true or, at the very least, sees a crying need to defend them with every fiber of his being. Am I missing something?

    I really dislike it when people make up things about my views. I have expressed them often enough that there is no excuse not to know them.


    I don't take Rossi's claims to be true just because he made them.

    I said that they were not disproven by the babblers and one would have to wait for more evidence to judge them. So when babblers state they are not true, without proof, I may point out their error.

  • Lots of numbskullery in some of these posts - folks don't seem to understand what they are looking at or are not taking the time to study before posting.


    Cyd - do you have a question?

    Dear Dewey,

    I really followed this thread from afar, because this battle between IH / Rossi doesn't concern me anymore.

    However, I suggest about this battle that truth should be more subtle than related/expected.

    I followed well Rossi's patent, from a technical point of view, I found consistent things on technical side about Ecat HT, that I'm going to replicate with own money.

    We discovered recently interesting things in relation with Ecat HT.

    You always told me that Florida's type Ecat was a scam and didn't work, but what's about Ecat HT technology and IH implication on it ?

    DF

  • THH: What are the arguments that Adrian makes, as you see them? As far as I can tell, his position is that Rossi has claimed all sorts of things and his claims have not been definitively disproven. Therefore Adrian accepts them as being true or, at the very least, sees a crying need to defend them with every fiber of his being. Am I missing something?


    That, more or less, is as I see it. He feels that not being "fair" to Rossi shows bias, and that to be fair we need generously to assume his statements most likely true until they are definitively disproven.


    Rossi's modus operandi is to make statements that are difficult to disprove - and if necessary in scientific tests simply not do the simple measurements needed to make that disproof obvious. So even if his self-admitted history of deceit and cheating is ignored that is too generous for me.


    In addition, Adrian considers the statements made here pointing out issues with Rossi to be made by "babblers" who are not serious, or serious but ignorant or biased. A lot of his posts are devoted, not to defending Rossi, but to criticising (on little stated evidence) the character of this nebulous group of babblers. I'd suggest to him that this does not help his cause - though given the above I can't see anything else that would help it either!


    Another strand of Adrian's posts here, more interesting perhaps, is how he comes to his judgement of probability. Thus he thinks it unlikely that statements made in legal testimony by Tom Darden are true: the damning story of the unfuelled reactor mistakenly included in a group test and giving the same results as the fueled ones: a serendipitous and extremely rare genuine control of a Rossi test. Here I feel he owes us more insight into how he can hold his views. Especially since by his own criteria he surely would want to be fair to Darden?

  • Attention: Rossi trolles...Please demonstrate your mastery of all knowledge and disprove this theory from Rossi:


    1. Prof July 18, 2018 at 12:03 AM

      Dr Rossi:

      Can you explain in few word which are the bases of your theoretical thinking about your effect?

    2. Andrea Rossi July 18, 2018 at 5:13 AM

      Prof:

      Standard Model:

      elementary particles are tiny vibrating waves, quantistically defined, in a particular field.

      When the temperature reaches the mass of an elementary particle, waves are formed corresponding to those elementary particles.

      When the field of these elementary particles resonates with another field during their interaction, new waves can be raised in the second field corresponding to its temperature and if a third field is resonating with these two fields, further particles are raised corresponding with its temperature.

      This is what I an consider to be tha base of my effect and I also am convinced that the “source field” is made by electrons, the resonating ones are of virtual e.p. and their antiparticles. Due to the fact that the source field has a T=1-2 eV, this explains why we do not have strong radiations during the thermalization process.

      Carl-Oscar and I are preparing a series of heavy experimentation to prove this.

      Maybe I am wrong. I think to be right.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

  • Attention: Rossi trolles...Please demonstrate your mastery of all knowledge and disprove this theory from Rossi:


    I am no expert in the standard model but I don't think this message board post by Rossi really qualifies as a theory, sounds more like hand waving. There may not be enough detail to prove or disprove. If it is in fact a theory, it would be the first physics theory I have seen that has no mathematical equations, except "T=1-2 eV". Has anyone been in contact with Carl-Oscar lately, and is he really even working on this?

  • Has anyone been in contact with Carl-Oscar lately, and is he really even working on this?


    I assume he is, because he was at the Stockholm QX event last November. Last time we talked about him before that, he had stopped working towards his PhD. Anyone know if he is back in school?


    Lewan had said he was going to get an interview with him, but apparently that never happened. He must have talked with him at Stockholm though.

  • That, more or less, is as I see it. He feels that not being "fair" to Rossi shows bias, and that to be fair we need generously to assume his statements most likely true until they are definitively disproven.

    Rossi's modus operandi is to make statements that are difficult to disprove - and if necessary in scientific tests simply not do the simple measurements needed to make that disproof obvious. So even if his self-admitted history of deceit and cheating is ignored that is too generous for me.


    In addition, Adrian considers the statements made here pointing out issues with Rossi to be made by "babblers" who are not serious, or serious but ignorant or biased. A lot of his posts are devoted, not to defending Rossi, but to criticising (on little stated evidence) the character of this nebulous group of babblers. I'd suggest to him that this does not help his cause - though given the above I can't see anything else that would help it either!


    Another strand of Adrian's posts here, more interesting perhaps, is how he comes to his judgement of probability. Thus he thinks it unlikely that statements made in legal testimony by Tom Darden are true: the damning story of the unfuelled reactor mistakenly included in a group test and giving the same results as the fueled ones: a serendipitous and extremely rare genuine control of a Rossi test. Here I feel he owes us more insight into how he can hold his views. Especially since by his own criteria he surely would want to be fair to Darden?

    This thread is not about me. It is supposed to be about Rossi and his blog.

    I could write a critical reply about your supposed failings too, but I have no desire to do so and Alan Smith recently cautioned this was not desirable.


    If you have specific examples, using my actual words, of here I hav been wrong logically or hectically , please give them, so we can debate them.

    Preferably without a page of extraneous comments.

  • This thread is not about me. It is supposed to be about Rossi and his blog.

    I could write a critical reply about your supposed failings too, but I have no desire to do so and Alan Smith recently cautioned this was not desirable.


    If you have specific examples, using my actual words, of here I hav been wrong logically or hectically , please give them, so we can debate them.

    Preferably without a page of extraneous comments.


    Perhaps you could address the specifics I mention? How you rationalise Tom Darden's sworn testimony about Rossi's test protocol that showed an unfuelled reactor giving the same output as a whole set of fuelled reactors?