That is what is so interesting about all this. How Rossi fooled so many smart people so easily ...............
What you wrote does not prove Rossi has nothing. It is just your opinion. It cannot be proved without further evidence. You didn't add a single new thought and simply repeated what has been said countless times already.
Repeat all this often enough and it becomes babble.
Absent Rossi allowing an ideal and truly independent test (which I predict he never has and never will*), it's all babble in @Adrian Ashfield 's terms of reference.
*never has and never will except for a very few instances, including accidental ones, in all of which, the reactors did not work.
That is what is so interesting about all this. How Rossi fooled so many smart people so easily and completely and so long.
Yes, they are (were) smart, and also very competent in LENR and/or physics, that's the reason why you can't say they have been fooled.
QuoteMost are, however, no longer fooled.
Or they had never been, and now they are simply silent. How can you know it?
QuoteI have seen nothing to suggest malice or some nefarious conspiracy among those folks.
Malice and conspiracy are tough terms, they entail an ethical level of judgment, thus preventing a fair and serene analysis of the role of these folks. There is no need to discuss about these engaging aspects.
We should limit ourselves to analyzing only the factual and technical aspects. What happened, who did what, who knew what? If you carefully analyze the experimental evidences of the first tests, you will realize that many have contributed to setup those farces, and that all the people involved could and should have known that they were farces.
QuoteThey are simply the sort of people whose brains are wired to believe and trust without adequate evidence and that, for reasons beyond the scope of this forum, comprises the majority of humanity (for example: religion).
That's true. We all are affected by many biases. We need to trust and believe in something. But this cannot be an excuse for the professors. They are well paid and respected because they have the duty to correctly inform the people, avoiding any bias. Otherwise, why common people should believe them?
QuoteThis and the rest of the quotes you provided are simply evidence of appeal to authority and reliance on other people's opinions rather than facts, observations, and replication of the experiment independently.
Exactly. It is a legitimate appeal to authority of Essen with respect to the UniBo professors regarding the first 3 tests carried out by them. What I said is that these latter could not have done the same, because they were the testers and the reporters of the results.
QuoteBut they are very weak arguments, inasmuch as they are based on opinion rather than replication …
Oh no, not on opinions. They are based on written and oral public statements by many competent and respected professionals, who have repeatedly declared that THEY have undoubtedly measured exceptional amounts of excess heat.
Display MoreYou come back and say:
(a) It was not a logical statement because only opinion.
(b) My response to you is to ask questions, not make statements. As a logical device I will often follow what you say, demonstrate an inconsistency, and ask you to clarify that. If you would prefer me not to give you that courtesy I could just point out why what you say is logically wrong without asking for clarification? But I don't see any substantive difference.
You can hide behind nothing you say having any relationship to the truth, I guess. Everything we write is an opinion in the sense that certainty is hard to come by in the real world. That does not prevent opinions from being logically sound, or illogical. Yours here was illogical for the reasons I gave (specifically, I explained a logical reason that you said did not exist) and that also answers your request that I provide text from you quoted and demonstrate a logical error.
If you'd like me to let you off this perhaps you could highlight every statement you make which should not be subjected to any tests of logical consistency because it is only opinion? I will then ignore such statements as having no worth. If you so highlight all of your posts you will likely hear much less from me.
It is fun having somone to argue Rossi's case. But, if you do it here, you will face not just polemic but testing of the logic of your views.
I can understand why you were confused. My words and placement of them could give the impression I was talking about my use of the word logic in my Delco Times pie. Sorry about that. What was trying to say was that it was not a logical problem about who's opinion was right about Rossi. That was something that requires more evidence to settle.
I still think my use of the word logic in the Times piece was correct. As is it was a logical argument.
1. If you think I made a mistake (in earlier times) please quote it in my words.
2. Ask a simple question. You keeps saying I won't answer questions.
Your PS was far from clear.
Display MoreI can understand why you were confused. My words and placement of them could give the impression I was talking about my use of the word logic in my Delco Times pie. Sorry about that. What was trying to say was that it was not a logical problem about who's opinion was right about Rossi. That was something that requires more evidence to settle.
I still think my use of the word logic in the Times piece was correct. As is it was a logical argument.
1. If you think I made a mistake (in earlier times) please quote it in my words.
2. Ask a simple question. You keeps saying I won't answer questions.
Your PS was far from clear.
example of you not answer questions_
I know I am still waiting for your answer to my question in post 5194-
Again, where does it say "they did considerable research and testing and that it worked" ??????
As I said: the only the only thing about research in the patent you gave as reference [4] is: "research in this field has largely been inconclusive."
You claimed that IH "researched and tested a working reactor in their recent patent."
Basically the input power was determined by the voltage drop across a 1 ohm resistor in series with the reactor. This gave the current flowing though the circuit. The power used by rector is effected by its resistance and it was assumed to be low (~1 ohm). This is what one would expect from plasma. Rossi didn’t want to allow the voltage across the reactor itself as it would give away his proprietary waveform. So this is the only thing missing to prove certainty of the performance of the QX. I could easily measure this myself and, as I said, any investor thinking of providing funding would do that as part of their due diligence. So it seems unlikely that Rossi is faking this.
Oh come on Adrian. It's simply not true that the input power was "determined" in any way. The input resistance could have been anything. The input power could easily have been more than 30W. There are plenty of ways he could have measured the input power without giving away his secret waveform.
Unfortunately without knowing the input power any attempt to calculate the COP is pointless.
I'm not saying Rossi faked anything but scientifically it wasnt unconvincing.
Sorry for some reason my spool checker called you Alan till I figured out how to edit it.
Oh come on Adrian. It's simply not true that the input power was "determined" in any way. The input resistance could have been anything. The input power could easily have been more than 30W. There are plenty of ways he could have measured the input power without giving away his secret waveform.
Unfortunately without knowing the input power any attempt to calculate the COP is pointless.
I'm not saying Rossi faked anything but scientifically it wasnt unconvincing.
CW,
Of course this is how AA would measure input power? NOT.
No engineer, scientist, technician, electrician anywhere on the planet would have measured input power this way, except the great Andrea Rossi.
If AA was hiring engineers to work for him during his career and they told him this, wonder what he would have done?
example of you not answer questions_
I know I am still waiting for your answer to my question in post 5194-
Again, where does it say "they did considerable research and testing and that it worked" ??????
I have no idea what post 5194 says. Where are the post numbers shown?
As I have already told you I saw that comment in the patent (that you said I was wrong to call recent, even though it was.) I'm not going to go through it again to look it up for you.
Oh come on Adrian. It's simply not true that the input power was "determined" in any way. The input resistance could have been anything. The input power could easily have been more than 30W. There are plenty of ways he could have measured the input power without giving away his secret waveform.
Look at the video again and also Mats Lewan's comments to understand the reasoning. As I said, the resistance of the reactor needs to be checked, so why go on about it again? If the reactor is a plasma the resistance is probably <1 ohm.
Adrian,
Look at the upper right hand corner of any post. There you will see the post # in RED, that OG is referring to. They are sequential for each thread. So go back about 4 pages on this thread and you will find #5194.
have no idea what post 5194 says. Where are the post numbers shown?
Each post is labeled with a number. Upper left has time, upper right in red, the post number.
edited add... post #5194 is on page 174, this is page 177
So this thread now consists almost entirely of posts trying to convince Adrian that his unwavering support for Rossi has no basis in reality (which is utterly obvious) and posts from Adrian denying his mindless support of Rossi and accusing everyone else of being babblers. Rinse and repeat. Are we having fun?
Look, what I could find.... it is quite interesting, that we still BELIEVE him:
1) First info ( highest density ever ? )
https://e-catworld.com/2018/07…e-highest-i-ever-reached/
2) Problems with gas turbine ?
https://e-catworld.com/2018/07…e-e-cat-to-a-gas-turbine/
From a pure logical perspective, the 2nd post renders the first one wrong. That means, such high claims are not true. That means, he falsifies his own claims. But he does not falsify them explicitely, telling us, that "this and that post" could be wrong, no, he posts new nonsense, which contradicts old nonsense.
That means, he is either shizophrenic or playing with us all.
BTW: Does anybody remember his answer, which sounded like " We need the Carnot's cycle first"...???
If so, what suddenly happened to this target ?
The most logic explanation is that he invents arguments for chatting on JONP, having not better to do.
The most logic explanation is that he invents arguments for chatting on JONP, having not better to do.
IMHO,
The most logical explanation is that Andrea Rossi has nothing and is a confidence man
From a pure logical perspective, the 2nd post renders the first one wrong. That means, such high claims are not true. That means, he falsifies his own claims. But he does not falsify them explicitely, telling us, that "this and that post" could be wrong, no, he posts new nonsense, which contradicts old nonsense.
That means, he is either shizophrenic or playing with us all.
There is another possibility. There are people who - however clever in some areas - are happy to use scientific words in a very loose sense, as an poet might paint a colorful picture. This disposition can surprisingly occur with an extensive (though not accurate or useful) knowledge of science. Without an overarching respect for quantitative calculations based on maths all can seem plausible, and flights of fancy can be easily constructed.
Rossi could have this characteristic, which would be consistent with a major in philosophy.
The problem is with the people who on talking to Rossi think that he is expert in areas he is not even competent. Since by Marci's account he talks very well, as expected from a graduate level philosopher, some will misjudge him.
Rossi lies and deceives as well, in his business relationships, as we know. I'm not trying to excuse that.
Look at the upper right hand corner of any post.
Thanks Shane. My eyesight is now so bad I always run with text enlarged. When you do that the post number disappears. If I reduce the size I can't read the posts.
From a pure logical perspective, the 2nd post renders the first one wrong. That means, such high claims are not true. That means, he falsifies his own claims. But he does not falsify them explicitely, telling us, that "this and that post" could be wrong, no, he posts new nonsense, which contradicts old nonsense.
You don't know enough about how gas turbines work to comment intelligently. You might modify the combustion chamber just for an experiment, but as it stands it is not suitable for a commercial LENR turbine.
Rossi lies and deceives as well, in his business relationships, as we know. I'm not trying to excuse that.
You are good at writing long insulting pieces based on generalizations. I suppose that gives you pleasure but it adds nothing useful to the debate.
Rossi is not here to defend himself, but you would find it more difficult to make your point if you actually quoted what he said in context. Also, as the facts change people change their minds, so it maybe disingenuous to show ancient quotes that don't apply to the current situation.
