Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Shane D. wrote:

I hope they walk out in protest

Think about what you said. You should be ashamed.

Almost all the comments here are negative, almost all om ECW are positive.

Birds of a feather...

Display More

I don't know what world you live in, but in mine anyone that does not condemn Rossi for his deceptions should be ashamed. My gosh man, he rigged the Doral test by forming a shell company, fooled everyone into believing there was a real customer, with a real need for steam, and that a real product was actually being made and sold.

He lied about the mezzazine heat exchanger, and the special "recirculator pump" he is supposedly going to patent that ran the non-existent contraption. Then, after the 1MW container was padlocked, he set about destroying the plumbing so no one could reverse engineer it. Once IH turned over the plant to him as per the settlement, he could not disassemble it fast enough, and now he claims the customers do not want it. LOLs.

I could go on and on, but will save that for another day. The guy is as dishonest as they come, and he thrives on fooling others. If you ask me -just some guy on the internet interested in LENR, the longer Rossi stays in the limelight, the more the field will suffer. He is a laughingstock, and naysayers will use his fame/infamy within the community to justify their further condemning of LENR as a fringe, or voodoo science.

Quote from Roger

Yes of course it makes total sense that people with a high level of scientific education would debate daily for hours on end what they think is bogus, pathological science, hokum, woowoo etc.

And then there are those that spend countless hours commenting on those silly fools that debate countless hours about this or that.

Jed posted this on Vortex the other day. I thought it was very good, and explained many things in LENR land. Do not know why he did not copy here, but here it is (hope you do not mind):

I regret to announce that Coolescence has closed their doors. They never

were able to replicate excess heat. I think they ran out of money, and

perhaps they ran out of gumption. That would be understandable.

Over at CMNS, Ed Storms posted a melancholy comment about this. We are not

supposed to quote CMNS but in this case I will take the liberty of quoting

a short portion:

> The skeptics will say, "Obviously, the better and more carefully the

> studies are done, the less likely the false claims would result." How can

> we respond to such a conclusion?

>

Since I can quote myself as much as I like, here is what I wrote in

response.

. . . That is a good question. I think the answer is as follows --

The most careful studies were done by people such as Mel Miles showed a

positive effect.

Coolescence tried to replicate Miles, but they failed. Miles says this is

because they made mistakes in the replication. You can ask him for details.

I conclude that they made mistakes in this replication, and in the other

replications they attempted. I assume the original studies were positive

and correct. Coolescence reported their results correctly, and these

results were negative. The disconnect is in the experimental materials or

procedures, not in the reporting.

Here is why I reached this conclusion and why I think it is plausible.

*Many Replications Fail Because This Experiment is Difficult*

There were many failed replications in 1989, including many done by

experienced scientists in well-equipped major laboratories. In most cases

these failures occured because the scientists were not electrochemists;

they did not consult with electrochemists, and they made elementary

mistakes. I described an example on p. 10 and 11 here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

There were some failed experiments conducted by experienced

electrochemists. In a few cases it is likely these were false negatives.

Here is a well-known example, by Lewis:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

This failure was not due to lack of skill or attention. Lewis did excellent

work. His paper is good. It has many useful suggestions. His failure was in

his analysis.

Even people who succeeded from time to time in cold fusion often failed.

Mel Miles worked for months before getting positive results. As I wrote

here the other day, the research project at the University of Missouri has

not worked well:

Many techniques have been described in the literature that worked a few

times spectacularly, but most of the time they do not work. They are

irreproducible. The SuperWave technique once produced, "Excess Power of up

to 34 watts; Average ~20 watts for 17 h." (http://www.lenr-canr.org/acro

bat/DardikIexcessheat.pdf) I have heard that despite strenuous efforts, it

has never done that at U. Missouri.

I do not think these earlier results could be an error. 20 W is a lot of

heat. With no input power it seems unlikely to me anyone would confuse zero

watts with 20 W.

Richard Oriani told me that in his 50-year career in electrochemistry, the

Fleischmann Pons experiment was the most difficult one he did.

Experiments and technologies that fail drastically are not uncommon. As

Beaudette pointed out, to clone the first sheep, biologists had to make

hundreds of attempts before one finally worked. Billions of dollars have

been invested in rocket technology. Every rocket launch costs millions of

dollars. Rockets carry satellites worth millions more. Despite these high

stakes, rockets often explode. The technology is not reliable.

It makes no sense to say that cold may not exist because it is so difficult

to replicate. No one would claim that rockets do not exist because they are

unreliable.

*You Need A PhD in Electrochemistry*

As far as I know, everyone who replicated cold fusion had a PhD in

electrochemistry, or they worked with people who did. I am not sure about

Storms at Los Alamos, but Los Alamos is chock-full of experts in every

subject. Coolescence may have had first-class instruments but they probably

did not have the kind of expertise on tap that Storms did. I do not know

whether anyone at Coolescence has a PhD in electrochemistry. I do not think

so. That is my impression talking to Mel Miles. If professionals at a place

like Kamiokande failed for lack of electrochemical expertise, it would not

surprise me if the people at Coolescence also failed for this reason.

I do not know much about electrochemistry but I have spent a lot of time

editing papers about it and listening to people such as Mizuno, McKubre,

Miles, Bockris and Fleischman talk about it. They know a terrific amount

about the subject. Enough to write a textbook. Bockris *did* write an

authoritative textbook. Here is the point: you have to know thousands of

details about electrochemistry, if you get a single detail wrong the

experiment may not work. You will not know why.

According to Mizuno, McKubre and others, getting a PhD in electrochemistry

is like an apprenticeship. With Bockris it was like slavery, according to

Mizuno. It is something you do hands-on in a laboratory working

side-by-side with experts. It resembles surgery. You cannot learn it on

your own from a textbook.

McKubre and some others who replicated learned electrochemistry from

Fleischmann. That may have put them in a better position to replicate.

There may be details about electrochemistry that Fleischmann emphasized and

taught that were relevant to this experiment, including specifics that

Fleischmann and McKubre themselves may not realize were critical to

success. McKubre might be compared to an airplane pilot who had the good

fortune to be trained by the engineers at Boeing. He has inside knowledge

of the machine.

The other day Mizuno pointed out some errors in chemistry that he thinks

the people at Industrial Heat made when they tried to replicate his

experiment. Murray, at I.H., is an impressive guy. He has world-class

skills in calorimetry and thermal engineering. He designed and built

equipment for the US military and others, some of it costing millions of

dollars. If Mizuno were to explain these errors to him, and if the two of

them were to work side-by-side for several months, I suppose Murray could

master the chemistry. Unfortunately, Mizuno spent only a few weeks in the

I.H. lab. Murray knows a lot about chemistry and materials, but he probably

does not know the specifics needed to master this particular experiment,

because this is not his area of expertise. I may be mistaken, but I do not

think I.H. had an in-house electrochemist working on this project.

In short, people seldom master complicated science and technology without

direct, hands-on, in-person training by experts.

This is somewhat beyond the scope of the discussion, but it raises an

interesting question: How did we ever master these technologies in the

first place? For example, to learn to fly an airplane, you must train with

an experienced pilot. So how did people learn to fly in the first place?

The answer is that only two people learned without training: the Wright

brothers. They trained the first pilots, and these pilots trained others.

There is a direct line from pilot to pilot going back to the Wrights. Each

generation of pilots learns nearly everything from other pilots, and goes

on to master only a few new techniques and new equipment. Airplanes grew

bigger, more complex and took more training to master. Sometime around 1920

it became impossible for anyone to master an airplane without training. You

could no longer recapitulate the skills on your own, starting from scratch.

The process resembles the emergence of complexity in biological evolution.

No species emerges *de novo*.

Oh, now I see why Rossi abandoned the 1MW Ecat. It was "ready to die", along with "the reactors and many parts of it". Dang those machines! Too bad we are not in the 21st century, where those engineering problems are easily resolved...oh, wait, we are! But thankfully the 1MW, in it's "death", has planted the seed for it's offspring the QX. How touching:

Frank Acland

November 6, 2017 at 5:06 PM

Dear Andrea,

1. So far, how much more reliable is the E-Cat QX compared to the E-Cat reactors used in the 1 MW plant you ran for the year-long test?

2. When you say that after inspection you found that the 1 MW plant was “ready to die” do you mean the reactors, or other components of the plant?

Thank you,

Frank Acland

Andrea Rossi

November 6, 2017 at 6:39 PM

Frank Acland:

1- much, much more, but this is thanks to the !MW E-Cat tested for one year

2- the reactors and many parts of it

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

Parkhomov Padua! I thought it its day of glory! Physicists are mistaken, energy should be looked for on geology!

Gennaidy,

One thing that bothers me about Parkomov and Padua, is that MFMP was there also to replicate his Rossi Hotcat replication. There in Padua, he helped MFMP set up for *another* test of his reactor...the first being the failed replication in Moscow, and after helping do that, left with his granddaughter/interpreter for travel. It came to be known as the second failed MFMP/AP test. I wish AP would give an explanation.

Are all institutional scientists biased towards delivering the results results in small increments?

Detectable EH, cop 1.3, effect, proof of effect, papers, book, cop 1.4 repeat...

Adamenko with his proton-21 lab comes to mind. They were so exited explaining and documenting results that commercialization must be on the bottom of the list.

I see that AR has now revealed the demo date on JONP. The 24th November 2017. The place is still not public, but I am as they say 'all booked up and ready' thanks in part to some generous and unexpected donations from forum members and others. I think Rossi is cautious about being mobbed by groupies.

Quote from Forty-Two

Well, the way I see it (and I think not only me but anyone who hasn’t lost his common sense) - going to Florida to check if Rossi has a working LENR reactor makes same sense as travelling to Nigeria and checking if Dr. Ibrahim Ahmed really has a gold treasury which he wants to share with others.

That will be the week after. See you there, Ahmed says such good things about you..