Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote

    There have been reasons to think that Rossi had something of value. As I pointed out before, other people tested his devices with their own instruments, when he was not there. They were in the U.S. and he was in Italy during the entire test. They got positive results in the kilowatt range. I am pretty sure I told you that, so you are being disingenuous when you say there is no reason.


    Actually, you are the disingenuous one if any. I already said many times that anonymous results are worthless, especially when it comes to Rossi. He already bamboozled Lewan, Kullander, Essen and the professors and probably Levi and Focardi too. Why couldn't he just hornswoggle some other people, especially since you won't say who they are or what they did. Such information is worthless and is absolutely no reason to believe anything Rossi says or said. Heck, you're the guy who said that Rossi had proven his case on "first principles" with one of his silly demos! It looks as if your distasteful experience with Rossi, who discredits legitimate research in LENR, and Defkalion, has taught you little.


    As for reading the literature, which you mentioned in another post, I did that... or I started to. What I found, and it was among your recommendations, was confusing, badly presented, with unnecessarily complex figures and unclear conclusions or inadequate precautions. I do not think it proves anything but yes, I did look at it. I refuse to spend more time looking at more. I always asked you for the one single definitive paper which proves LENR is real and best as I recall, you always came back with way too many.


    Quote

    It is hard to know what to make of those tests. The people who did them did not provide me with much information...

    No, it's not hard at all. You can't make any determination from such reports. They are completely worthless and certainly no reason to believe a convicted felon and obvious chronic liar whose only past history is expensive scams.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Actually, you are the disingenuous one if any. I already said many times that anonymous results are worthless, especially when it comes to Rossi


    All cold fusion results are anomalous.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    He already bamboozled Lewan, Kullander, Essen and the professors and probably Levi and Focardi too.


    You are sure of that, but I am not, based on the first Levi report. It is possible Levi bamboozled himself.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Why couldn't he just hornswoggle some other people, especially since you won't say who they are or what they did.


    As I said, they did not use his instruments, and he was not present at any time during the test as far as I know. They used conventional HVAC techniques. I do not see how how he could have fooled them under these circumstances. It is possible I suppose, but I do not see how. If there was a mistake it is more likely they made it themselves. I believe the mistakes made at Lugano were all the fault of the people there, and not to be blamed on Rossi.


    You seem to ascribe to Rossi a Svengali-like magic ability to fool people. Based on the data I saw from the 1-year test, which is described in Exhibit 5, I do not think he is skilled at fooling people. I do not see how that test would fool anyone. It was not a subtle attempt at deception. It was not clever. Anyone could see at a glance it was nonsense. If anything, he seems inept at fooling people. Another example of how bad he is at deception can be seen in his response during the abortive NASA test when the outlet tube was plugged up. As I said, he insisted it was working. They pulled the tube off and said, "Andrea, look! Nothing is coming out!" He got angry. He did fool anyone.


    Having said that, he has fooled the people Planet Rossi including many people here. I do not see how he has managed to do that, but I agree he has. I don't see how anyone can read Exhibit 5 and not conclude that either Rossi or I.H. is lying. There seems to be no middle ground. Some commentators here have said Exhibit 5 doesn't matter, or "I'll wait to see Rossi's response" to it. No response is possible. Nothing can explain away such nonsense. I suppose the people who are enthralled by Rossi believe him for emotional reasons, not technical ones. They say, for example, that it is inconceivable the entire test was a fraud. I say it is even more inconceivable that the warehouse atmospheric pressure was 0.0 bar (a vacuum). When we must choose between evaluating a claim based on our grasp of human nature on one hand, or instrument readings on the other, I go with the instruments.


    You, on the other hand, seem to judge everything based on your belief that Rossi is a thief and a scoundrel, even to the point that you are sure he can change the course of a test that he did not see or play any role in, when he is on another continent. You ascribe magical abilities to him.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    You can't make any determination from such reports. They are completely worthless and certainly no reason to believe a convicted felon and obvious chronic liar whose only past history is expensive scams.


    Beware of such facile judgments based on personality or personal history. You cannot always tell a book by its cover. Read about Robert Stroud, the so-called Birdman of Alcatraz. He was one of the most notorious criminals in U.S. history. He was such a psychopath, in 1916 he killed a prison guard in front of the other guards and inmates. He was so dangerous the guards would not go into his cell, where he was held in solitary confinement. Yet he was also a distinguished scientist. His book published in 1933 is still in print, and not just as a novelty. It is still pertinent.


    https://www.amazon.com/Disease…troud-ebook/dp/B004SB0A5W


    There are many other examples of bad people and untrustworthy people who happen to be good scientists. That is the most dramatic example, but there are countless others.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As you saw from the photos, it is not possible there was 1 MW of heat being produced. If there was any anomalous heat at all, it could not have been more than ~50 kW of low grade steam, or more likely, hot water.



    WOW that's interesting !
    You then states that for a year were only 50kW of energy were produced and nobody noticed it before now?
    We know from documents that Tom Darden had been there along with some visitors, some of which presumably experts in the field, and no one has noticed nothing.
    While you says that only the photos everything is clear?


    That is really amazing! And quite incredible !

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Exactly the point I have been making all along. trusting a liar to tell the truth on occasion is simply foolish and gullible.


    Mary ..... how we can trust you ? Are you telling always the truth ? Your real name is George isn't it ?


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    He already bamboozled Lewan, Kullander, Essen and the professors and probably Levi and Focardi too


    So in your opinion this guy is really powerfull much better then Mandrake the magician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandrake_the_Magician_(serial) !


    That's not credible !

    • Official Post
    Quote from ele

    We know from documents that Tom Darden had been there along with some visitors, some of which presumably experts in the field, and no one has noticed nothing.
    While you says that only the photos everything is clear?



    Ele,


    As a beginner, it would not hurt for you to better familiarize yourself with the facts before commenting. The only "expert in the field" that visited Doral we know of, is Murray. And he was no "visitor", but an expert hired by IH to query Rossi after the alarm bells started going off. So obviously someone "noticed", and it was fairly early on.


    Back to the books for you! :)

    Quote from ele

    You then states that for a year were only 50kW of energy were produced and nobody noticed it before now?
    We know from documents that Tom Darden had been there along with some visitors, some of which presumably experts in the field, and no one has noticed nothing.


    They all saw it. I saw a sample of the data, and I knew within minutes it was fake. The problems were described by Murray in Exhibit 5. Read it before you comment.

    ele- "some of which presumably experts in the field, "


    not exactly so. From my understanding the ones with Darden where business types (Peter and Henry) not scientists.


    The times that scientist or engineers were there, Rossi escorted them out.

    @Mary Yugo


    No you did not offend me lol. I have a sense of humor and think we are all here to either discuss LENR or possibly the ROSSI saga. But for me it's about learning new ideas and ways of looking at existing physics.
    Questioning me is quite all right and should be encouraged as you say bs is bs after all . Separately I still find it funny that people are trying to doxx you.


    Anyway, I mentioned Papp because I try to look at everything (another example is cavitation). But to change the subject. For example, I also find that it is logical the electron is un-described.


    Another day. Edit

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    I already said many times that anonymous results are worthless, especially when it comes to Rossi. He already bamboozled Lewan, Kullander, Essen and the professors and probably Levi and Focardi too. Why couldn't he just hornswoggle some other people, especially since you won't say who they are or what they did.


    So it is easier thinking that everyone in your list above has been bamboozled by Rossi instead of thinking that they saw something really working? Rossi must be a snake charmer!! LOL :)


    Quote from JedRothwell

    I don't see how anyone can read Exhibit 5 and not conclude that either Rossi or I.H. is lying.


    This is a reasonable doubt. Who is the lair? Rossi or IH? This is the reason why I don't bother with Exhibit 5.


    Quote from oldguy

    From my understanding the ones with Darden where business types (Peter and Henry) not scientists.


    I think that scientists should have visited the plant before business men did it. Darden asked for money having no guarantee about the real performance of the plant...... A carelessness which is not above suspicion.

    Quote from Jed

    There have been reasons to think that Rossi had something of value. As I pointed out before, other people tested his devices with their own instruments, when he was not there. They were in the U.S. and he was in Italy during the entire test. They got positive results in the kilowatt range.


    Do you have specifics for this? I'm not aware of any of the Rossi tests that provide credible reasons of this type - because all have crucial objective defects in personel or methodology or (usually) both. Perhaps you could say a bit more about this?


    Quote from ele

    Mary ..... how we can trust you ? Are you telling always the truth ? Your real name is George isn't it ?


    That is a despicable non-sequitur. What does the real identity of anyone posting under an alias here have to do with whether they always tell the truth?


    Regards, THH

    Quote from Rigel

    Anyway, I mentioned Papp because I try to look at everything (another example is cavitation).


    I, too, am interested in the Papp claims. I would not worry too much about Mary's very critical take on them. It's good to be wary and critical of woo, but it's also good to do a proper investigation of specific technical claims rather than painting a person with a broad brush and then throwing everything out.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    They all saw it. I saw a sample of the data, and I knew within minutes it was fake.


    You knew within a minute that was fake ? Really ? Are you so expert ?
    can you write a report on that ? can you show us the data sample ?
    Or are you just lying ?
    If it was SO evident why was Rossi to sue IH and not IH to sue Rossi.


    Quote from oldguy

    Rossi escorted them out.


    Really ? There is a long list of people who visited Doral. All of them where just business people ? Without any consultant ? Not credible.

    Quote from THHuxley

    Do you have specifics for this?


    I have few specifics. Some photos of the equipment and some sample data. I cannot share either one. The equipment is industrial standard HVAC equipment, of the type used a million times a day to measure the heat from boilers. The methods were industry standard. The results were positive. As I recall they measured every day for a week or so. That's all there is to it.


    Quote from THHuxley

    I'm not aware of any of the Rossi tests that provide credible reasons of this type


    It wasn't all that credible. But okay, you are now aware.

    Quote from ele

    ou knew within a minute that was fake ? Really ? Are you so expert ?


    It does not take an expert. Anyone who understands instruments can see the data is fake, and the results are impossible.


    Quote from ele

    can you write a report on that ? can you show us the data sample ?


    There is already a report with sample data. It reveals more than I could tell from the data I saw. It is Exhibit 5:


    https://drive.google.com/file/…MAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E/view


    Quote from ele

    Or are you just lying ?


    No, Rossi is lying.


    Quote from ele

    If it was SO evident why was Rossi to sue IH and not IH to sue Rossi.


    You would have to ask I.H.

    ele:"If it was SO evident why was Rossi to sue IH and not IH to sue Rossi"


    1) Rossi sued before the deadline for payment What was left then was for them to counter sue.
    2) IH did not believe that the testing in FL was for the GPT
    3) If IH did not think that the testing fulfill the requirements (as per signed document - start date agreed to, ERV approved,....)
    then what was there to sue concerning the 89M?

    Quote from ele

    JedRothwell wrote:


    You knew within a minute that was fake ? Really ? Are you so expert ?


    Well, compared with about everyone who posts in this group, he is. However, what he saw could be recognized by anyone. He saw a version of a file, allegedly from Rossi, that showed certain characteristics. The same characteristics appear, he tells us, in the description of preliminary Penon reports, described in Exhibit 5. Yes. To use technical terms that us experts like to employ, the data was fishy as hell.


    Properly collected data will show certain characteristics. If you haven't read Exhibit 5, you don't know the freaking hell what you are talking about. Come back when you have done your homework. If you still have questions, someone may be able to answer them. In particular, here, these are some of Murray's questions from that exhibit:



    ele again:


    Quote

    can you write a report on that ? can you show us the data sample ?


    This has already been discussed at length here. How about reading what has already been written before barging in like a bull? Jed has written at length and so have others. At some point, enough should be enough.


    Quote

    Or are you just lying ?


    He is a real person, long known to the LENR community (25 years?) and respected. He has paid his dues, making major investments at times, supporting researchers, and maintaining the library at lenr-canr.org. You are bupkis, to ask him such a rude question.


    Quote

    If it was SO evident why was Rossi to sue IH and not IH to sue Rossi.


    Again, all this has been explained, though IH has not stated why they did what they did, there are plausible motivations and IH was, from a very reasonable point of view, successful. They got what they wanted, which was to find out the reality behind the Rossi claims. What they found may not be complete, but it's a lot more than anyone else except maybe Rossi himself knew. Why did Rossi sue IH? Good question. Try to answer it instead of bluffing with questions as if you find the answer obvious.


    Quote

    oldguy wrote:


    Really ? There is a long list of people who visited Doral. All of them where just business people? Without any consultant ? Not credible.


    Yes. All were apparently business people until the test was over. (Though it is not impossible that an investor rep was an engineer.) Maybe you should read the list? Only Murray was an engineer, and Rossi did not allow him to visit (until the test was over).


    I'm not sure who oldguy was talking about, but it would not have been Doral. Many times, though, over the years, Rossi expelled people from his demonstrations who showed signs of expert curiosity. So in July, 2015, IH attempted to arrange a visit with their newly retained engineer, Murray. Rossi was contractually obligated to allow that visit, in several ways, but he refused. IH could have immediately shut the installation down or sued if necessary, but they chose to ride it out. They were definitely not knee-jerk. They were giving Rossi every opportunity to show his stuff.

    Seems that ele knows how to press the hot buttons quite well.


    Lets see how I do:


    1 MW Plant null reaction calibration ?
    40DN steam ?
    80DN water ?
    156 thermocouples ?
    millions of data points ?
    boiler permits ?
    100 m^3 pulses ?
    Sensors rated for working temperature ?
    115 reactors ?

    Quote from Jed

    It wasn't all that credible. But okay, you are now aware.


    Thanks for this Jed. It is of course very proper for you to reach your own judgement on the data you have but cannot share. But I cannot agree with you that this makes me aware of credible data - especially since you say it was not all that credible and I know that I tend to be somewhat more cautious than you in evaluating this type of data.


    But I am now aware of why you might have a different view of this matter than I have.


    Quote from Abd

    Well, compared with about everyone who posts in this group, he is.


    I can see why you might believe that, but it is an unwise comparison when there are various people here who in some areas at least show greater technical competence than Jed. Let us just say that he has good general competence without making specific comparisons? Expertise is a slippery term, and has many forms.


    Regards, THH

    Since we're talking about exhibit 5 ITT, I pulled this quote from another thread:



    Quote from zeus46

    The thing I find odd about exhibit five, is that they mention 40mm tube, and infer that is the steam pipe. Which wouldn't be able to carry the necesaary amount of steam unless it's at a silly velocity.But the photos, as I recall, show two pipes, a thick one and a thin one. The thin one looks to be about 40mm. That's clearly the water return pipe.



    As a reminder, I'll quote the corresponding section of exhibit 5:



    Quote

    5. The flow of steam through the pipe to J.M. Products. You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia). The steam passed through a stretch of insulated pipe that was at least 6 meters long before entering the JMP space. (Presumably there was additional steam pipe on the JMP side.) According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on average 33,558 kg/day (1398 kg/h) and the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively. The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40. For steam to flow, a pressure differential is required to overcome the losses in the pipe. Given the foregoing, this would require that the pressure on the JMP side of the building was significantly below atmospheric (vacuum) and that the steam would flow at extraordinary velocity. But this was obviously not the situation present at the location. Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 29-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2016 Page 3 of 4 3 Given your reported measurements, how do you account for the lack of an adequate pressure differential to provide for the flow of steam?




    Now, let's go a bit deeper into this steam drop issue. I happen to have found this steam drop calculator: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…op-calculator-d_1093.html



    If we use Murray's data in the above quote:


    1398kg/h flow rate


    6m length of pipe
    ~40mm pipe inside diameter (DN40's ID can vary it seems, so I made an assumption based on this link)
    0.590 kg/m3 density (from this link @ 1 bar)


    Then the differential pressure is: 430572 Pa = 4.3 bar



    Now understandingly, Murray is perplexed.



    However, is the pipe really a DN40? What if inside diameter is 100mm?


    Then differential pressure becomes: 2569 Pa = 0.025 bar << 1 bar



    So as we see, if Murray got the ID wrong, his question #5 goes out the window.



    Maybe we have some info/picture somewhere about the actual ID of the steam pipe?

    Quote from THHuxley

    Abd wrote:
    Well, compared with about everyone who posts in this group, he is.


    I can see why you might believe that, but it is an unwise comparison when there are various people here who in some areas at least show greater technical competence than Jed. Let us just say that he has good general competence without making specific comparisons? Expertise is a slippery term, and has many forms.


    I don't tend to add extra words without cause. "About" is a qualifier that allows exceptions. The situation is obvious: Jed has seen a lot of work, both skilled and not. He reviewed some private reports and thought that they were prima facie sound. But he also is aware that even such can be misleading. He is not claiming that you should therefore be convinced about "credible evidence." This is secondary evidence, which is, as a standard matter, weak. It can be a reason to look further, possibly to postpone judgment, that's about it.


    I wrote in 2011, mostly privately, that it was possible to fake any test, that magicians were highly skilled at this, and could fool any expert. Jed argued against that, as I recall. He had a higher trust in "experts" than I. There is a reason why science wants independent replication or confirmation, as distinct from observation of some demonstration. It is demonstrations that magicians can fake, because they can control attention and what is visible and what is not. Magicians are typically highly skilled at attention control. If they are facing skeptics, they know what skeptics will be looking for, and they do something else.


    It is far more difficult to fake independent testing, that is actually independent. If, say, Rossi set up reactors for IH, showing them how they were generating XP, and then IH was left alone with them, able to run any tests they wanted, very difficult to maintain a fake. The mechanism the "trick" or "error" will likely be found, with controlled experiment. In a demonstration, one is looking, typically, at a fixed data set, missing any of the many other tests that might be performed. It can take time and a lot of attention to develop hypotheses of artifact from fixed tests, possibilities, and then some can argue about them forever, because a hypothesis of artifact is rarely proof. Lugano? The fundamental error is known, and it's entirely possible that was entirely the doing of the "independent professors," who, if so, managed to fool themselves, but in a context where this might produce an immediate social reward. It also might produce long-term opprobrium, but short-term can outweigh long term, the former is immediate, the later might be quite delayed.


    If there is an open magician, the game is clear, and "success" simply means that the skeptic can't figure out how the magician did it. With a practically infinite world of possibilities, and the limited observational powers of an expert, this game favors the experienced magician. This is not a claim that Rossi is a magician, but that this is within the bounds of possibility. As well, there are people who function like magicians, but who believe in what they do. Not all "magic" is deliberate. Sometimes the force of belief of the person is enough to draw people along. Pseudoskeptics are contemptuous and think anyone fooled by a magician is gullible.


    Somewhere recently I saw this rustic advice: "Believe none of what you hear, little of what you read, and half of what you see."


    I reserve belief for what I've seen, at least in theory, and even then, I believe that I saw it, not that "it actually happened," and that is rebuttable. After all, memory is defective!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.