Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • I think all of the invitees will be

    “Friends of the Program”, personally hand selected by Rossi to nod their heads on cue in collective agreement, ask only questions that Rossi has written for them, and to

    stick to the script they have been given.

  • I think all of the invitees will be

    “Friends of the Program”, personally hand selected by Rossi to nod their heads on cue in collective agreement, ask only questions that Rossi has written for them, and to

    stick to the script they have been given.

    I'm sure you do. However, you would be wrong.

  • @Bob

    Looks like I hit a nerve there. It sounds like you have some solid engineering experience. It takes much more than that, however, to run a business. Yes, I know a thing or two and have accomplished a few things of significance. I tend not to enumerate all things here because unnecessary. You can know me through my writings. At the end of the day, we are all just a bunch of (mostly) anonymous forum participants with no ability to show proof to any of our claims. My suggestion that the most critical of Rossi are the least experienced in real-world situations is my own opinion formed by observation of the writings of others on this forum.

  • “has often boasted on JONP, that he has or is building "robotic factories" that ARE a "magnificence"!” He never said they existed outside of his head. He has said he was planning and anyone in his position would do that. Show the actual quotation if you can.

    Rossi's quote from Bob' link:

    "The 1 MW plant is a magnificence, and the preparation of the robotized line to produce the E-Cats is in schedule to start the production within Autumn and the deliveries within the next Winter, with some luck;"

    Not the same thing is it.

  • There was a better roboticized factory quote somewhere in 2012. There were questions about building it before the certifications were done, and changes needing to be accommodated. But Rossi said something to the effect that the cost of changes was less than that of delays in building the factory. will do the full history (but watch out for mis-matched questions and answers) combined with CTL+F or find on page to find whatever term one is looking for.

    The /all addition makes for a rather large download, so be prepared for that.

  • I dusted off my handy-dandy notch filter nanoapp that lets one see the truth in context with autotranslate of R code - what was actually said follows:

    "The 1MW is a malfeasance".

    Dewey you are coming (ICCF-21) next year right? I need to check here. I am glad to see you still have blood in the game. I was concerned that it was just about business. And the requirement to minimize losses. Not about proving LENR beyond a shadow of a doubt. If someone took me for that kinda cash they bitter better be the IRS.

    I quite honestly hate travelling, I know we joke here, but if I can, I want to do it. I hope Jed and many others come. I am not sure why we are still talking about the "magnificence" after all this. But I do not mess with people that think differently than I do. We now think similar so I can mess with you.

    I notice (catching up) that Mary had a quite poignant response a few pages ago about why IH cut losses. Also I hope you are still working with IH and LENR regardless.

    I certainly did not want this result to happen and wanted it to come to an end.


    My thanks to those members ( and lurkers) who have donated so generously (and unexpectedly) toward the cost of my trip to the Andrea Rossi show on the 24th. I am most grateful, and am now in a position to say 'no more!' The hotel and travel bill is covered - I am happy to eat at my own expense as always. The demo is (hopefully) going to be livestreamed as it happens, but whatever, I will try to file some kind of report ASAP after the show -which I guess will then segue into dinner. There is unlikely to be WiFi available to all at the venue itself so it will have to wait until I get back to my hotel. I expect to produce a more considered write-up shortly after the day.

  • From http://www.ecat-ilnuovofuoco.i…ference-con-andrea-rossi/

    Web Conference with Andrea Rossi


    November 7, 2017 by vessinik


    Hello everybody.

    I would like to thank Andrea Rossi publicly for giving me the opportunity to be a moderator for a debate in Italian that will meet him in Skype video conferencing - and exclusively for Italy - to anyone who wants to ask him questions right after the conclusion of the public test of the QuarkX reactor , to be held on November 24th.

    In order to be able to take part in the web conference, it is compulsory to subscribe to my blog newsletter by specifying First Name, Last Name, and Email Address to which you will later be contacted for residual data (Profession and Skype Contact). Alternatively, you can provide the same 5 data via email, sending them to [email protected] .


    Up to 24 people will be accepted, so - even receiving all the required data - we can not guarantee the inclusion of the conference call participants list. You will also be informed that the debate will be recorded.

    Hoping that the thing is welcome, I greet my readers.


  • "pathoskeptic technofascism" - wow, is that a thing? Or is it just nonsense?

    In fact most people here started off believing in Rossi (Jed, Shane, myself and many others).

    Others at least had an open mind and wanted to investigate.

    So why all the criticism against Rossi?

    You can blame mystery shills paid by IH (how is that still working now the court case is settled)?

    You can blame secret government black ops (not very successful are they)?

    You can blame space aliens.

    The real answer is much simpler and closer to home.

    It is Rossi that has changed minds with his actions and lack of actions.

    For those who are scientifically able the data produced by Rossi and the lack of replication is damning.

    For many others it is simply his actions and behaviour. His dishonesty and ability to take the money and provide nothing in return speaks volumes.

    As Adrian says - it is true that the fact he has not produced a product to market does not prove he does not have one. But it does not prove anything, it is not proof of any kind.

    So obviously, at this point, we cannot know 100% for sure Rossi does not have what he claims.

    Guesses on 1% or 0.1% chance. I and others would be amazed and embarrassed but also delighted.

    Of course we want LENR, which is why we are here.

    So those who expect nothing from the November demo and those who expect a triumph, who will be correct? Either way it is interesting to watch the Rossi show.

    Good luck to Alan.

  • Rossi's quote from Bob' link:

    "The 1 MW plant is a magnificence, and the preparation of the robotized line to produce the E-Cats is in schedule to start the production within Autumn and the deliveries within the next Winter, with some luck;"

    Not the same thing is it.

    You can read in what you want. Rossi's words state that the production will start within Autumn. This was written 6 months before. So you believe he was going to build a complete Robotic factory "outside his head" in six months? He then stated, which YOU left out of your sentence..... "in the worst case, within 18 months we will deliver, and we will deliver at the prices we promised. "

    I will pull IHFB's favorite demand out of the hat here. The statement CLEARLY states that the "with some luck" was applying to the "Autumn" statement, but Rossi THEN goes on to promise,... "in the worst case, within 18 months we will deliver, and we will deliver at the prices we promised". This is a very specific time frame and statement. Not "inside his head" It is certain from the past history, Rossi never had a robotic factory, much less one that would be ready in 6 months! He simply was lying as he often does.

    I challenge you this... in 15 days, if Rossi shows a reactor demo that has true substance, if he shows or allows participants to confirm setup or readings. If there is actual FACTS that are verifiable, I will applaud and "eat crow".

    However, if all that is shown is a blue light coming from some strip plumbing... if there is no inspection allowed... if all are kept at a long distance.... if no real verification is done, but just a blue light is shown.

    What will your reaction be?

  • interested observer wrote:

    My only prediction about the November demo: those who expect a triumph disaster will claim to have seen one, regardless of what actually happens.


    Hmmm.... does history have any importance at all? Does contemplating repetitive history have any value at all?

    “Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it” .... Santanya

    I was a strong supporter for several years. Then Rossi's own actions starting speaking volumes. Not a single skeptic swayed me, it was Rossi himself.

    I would ask those who still believe every Rossi word to look back over his complete history. Put the events into two columns. One showing substantiated successes, the other showing subpar and suspicious events. (I am being kind here)

    To my opinion, column 1 (Success) is zero (nothing substantiated or proven) and column 2 (major disappointment on every event, serious flaws) is at least 10.

    Now, using calm and reasoned logic, looking back over Rossi's complete past, not just the eCat, should I simply forget history ?

    Which side of the fence so to speak, should I be leaning on? Does history have NO value?

    Perhaps I should still be supporting Defkalion and singing praises to their reactor. After all, it was based upon Rossi's info so it MUST work! They had the same evil protagonist that Rossi faces and are the "underdog" so they must be supported! Being an underdog is one of the highest credentials for authenticity of course!

    Perhaps I should still be supporting Steorn and the Orbo will be the planet's energy savior. The same of Rossi can be said of Steorn. So therefore, we should expect the best out of them!

    Energia RAR should have our best support, as their cause is as Rossi's.

    And I could go on and on.....

    Why do people think we should discard and ignore Rossi's history? What has he done to change that real perception? He has promised us something we all desire and it is a worthy dream. Unfortunately, history has shown him to be unreliable and a liar. Period. Some give him credence by association. (Focardi etc.) But that can only go so far and I believe it has drained the reservoir.

    If he comes through, I will applaud. I still will not excuse his lying and deceitful ways. They were not needed.

    However, there certainly is wisdom in this "Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice shame on me!" People, how long until it becomes clear?

    Yes Alan, I would ask... what do YOU expect? If you say nothing, your posts bely that. Do you think you should completely ignore the past? Does association really override current actions?

    I support you or anyone else attending. I will be happy if it is a meaningful event. However, history demands that I be VERY skeptical about anything Rossi does! If not then "shame on me".

    Yes, true science is having an open mind, but it also is very critical thinking. Science is not about looking through Rose Colored Glasses. It is about facts, methods and results. :thumbup:

  • According to Krivit, ITER only has a COP of 1.6 at best - and possibly <1. Hot fusion scientists told Congress the COP was 10, but they only counted a small fraction of the total power used to run it. The objective is apparentlye to operate for 10 minutes in ~20 years time at a cost of $25 billion.

    I wrote DOE asking them if Krivit's figures were correct and have never received an answer.

    I wonder why the critics here don't understand how much time it takes to develop new technology and yet never complain about ITER

    Actually reading Krivit's article and the background info he cites reveals why one can't trust Krivit. He starts off with all these quotes about ITER making 500 MW with 50 MW input for a COP of 10, and then makes claims about how these are lies. He then cites a Japanese ITER team's Web page as 'proof', but if you look at what they actually say, i.e.

    "ITER will produce about 500 MW of fusion power in nominal operation, for pulses of 400 seconds and longer. Typical plasma heating levels duriung the pulse are expected to be about 50 MW, so power amplification (Q) is 10. Thus during the pulse the ITER plasma will create more energy than it consumes.

    The efficiency of the heating systems is ~40%. Other site power requirements lead to a total steady power consumption af about 200 MW during the pulse. Now the fusion power of ITER is enhanced by about 20% due to exothermic nuclear reactions in the surrounding materials. If this total thermal power were then converted to electricity at 33% (well within reach of commercial steam turbines), about 200 MW of electrical power would be generated.

    Thus ITER is about equivalent to a zero (net) power reactor, when the plasma is burning. Not very useful, but the minimum required for a convincing proof of principle. In ITER the conversion to electricity will not be made: the production of fusion power by the ITER experiment is too spasmodic for commercial use, and the ITER reactor can be designed with low temperature coolants which ease safety and licensing conditions with today's nuclear-licensed austenitic steels, and money can be saved on relatively well-known engineering.

    This also explains ITER's interest in extending pulses to steady state. A reactor operating for only 7 minutes every 30 minutes is not attractive, since little electricity can be produced during much of the "dwell" time, but some plant power is nevertheless consumed then.

    ITER will carry out tests of electricity production from fusion on a small scale. Some test blanket modules being used to develop power reactor blankets will include a complete steam-raising cycle and turbine in the port cell, allowing the generation of some electrical power even on ITER. The electric power delivered from such a small section of the ITER blanket will be ~ 1 MW. "

    one can see clearly that the 500/50 numbers relate to the figures during actual burn time, which is only a fraction of the total run time. The Japanese folks go on to explain this in detail, and include the other statement that Krivit chose to quote about the ITER device only running at breakeven. Krivit leaves out the fact that this is all clearly presented, instead attempting to create another sensationalistic news story out of thin air. He used this same tactic on me, as I documented here

    Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132

    Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132

    Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132

    Thus I repeat, it isn't a good idea to quote Krivit uncritically.

    As a person who has been peripherally involved in *one* ITER-related project, and as a person whose colleagues have been involved, are involved, and will be involved in ITER-related projects, I can assure you ITER was never billed as a COP 10 reactor. It was always billed to us as running at net zero gain, but as necessary to develop technology for the next generation machine which *is* supposed to be an actual power reactor.