Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • You said the output power measurement was wrong. It wasn't. You were wrong.


    I noted the problem with the input power measurement the day after the demo, noting that the missing measurement was easy to do and any customer would make it..


    It is you who is being dense.


    Any normal customer - yes.


    Any Rossi customer? No.


    Look at the Doral "customer" for the most recent and obvious example...


    And also note that IH went a long time without being sure Rossi was not worth backing, due to those faked Lugano-style tests. Why suppose a customer unwise enough to hook up with Rossi now will be more savvy than IH?

  • Re Jan 31 demo.

    Rossi has stated:


    1. The SK was installed and working on Nov 19

    2. It is producing more than 20 kW

    3. The total input power and heat output will be measured.

    4. The company where it is installed will not be released.


    To which I would add:

    5. The babblers will claim any measurement done by Rossi or made while he is in the same building will be false.

    6. We probably will not get much more from Rossi until production of the SK is high enough that he doesn't have to worry about competition.

  • An awful lot of conjecture and arguing on this topic could be cleared up if we just recognise that 1) there is something to LENR/cold fusion but 2) its very difficult to commercialise so 3) maybe we do need someone like AR to break all the rules and plough on ahead regardless. I certainly respect the progress (even if it is partly fictitious) he has made in promoting LENR and attracting funding by convincing at least some investors that this is not a completely dead subject (as other mainstream physicists would like to have us believe!). You don't have to believe what he is going to demonstrate on 31 Jan is going to be the God's honest truth but I say let's just go along with it, let's give him our support in promoting LENR, then let other big enterprises like IH and BEC follow along in his trailblazing footsteps as they have always done up to now. LENR per se has everything to gain but nothing to lose by supporting good ol' AR!

  • 5. The babblers will claim any measurement done by Rossi or made while he is in the same building will be false.


    But, in this case, you assume contrary historical evidence that a measurement Rossi claims will some time be made made, and no-one else substantiates, is good evidence.


    That is weird.

  • Quote

    The company where it is installed will not be released.

    Just like the fake military customer from November 2011 was never identified. Here we are 7 years and hundreds of lies later and Rossi's advocates are not one bit smarter.


    What better way would there be to sell whatever it is that Rossi currently is claiming he sells than to have a well known company endorse it? None of course. The only possible reason Rossi is not revealing his client is because, as always, there is none.

  • But, in this case, you assume contrary historical evidence that a measurement Rossi claims will some time be made made, and no-one else substantiates, is good evidence.

    Contrary to you, I assume nothing. I take what Rossi says at face value until it is proven or disproven.


    You assume anything he says is always wrong and keep dragging up 30 year old history accusing him of fraud , never mentioning tat he was ultimately aquitted


    That's not weird it's sick..

  • I learned the hard way that never take anything at face value, people can have the best intention, but do unintentionally miss things, and what they say is still wrong.


    As a computer developer I am therefore constantly mistrusting. Not of the person, but of the facts. And this mean that I mistrust myself as well and always test

    and verify code that I produce.


    This would mean that if I designed a revolutionary heat generator I would over measure it, I would not trust good values but try to see if there is a bug behind it

    and most importantly I would document everything carefully. And automate as much tasks as possible in order to get consistency and remove sources of human

    error. (notice that this is what seam to happen in the ATOM ECOLOGY thread)


    It's fine though in stages in the development process to move faster, with less stringency. A good strategy is to set up gates where one verify that the idea

    holds.


    Maybe you can get away not doing that, but my intuition scream to me a big no no many times in this history due to this.


    And then it's that email popping up in the court where Rossi is bragging about lying to hydrofusion.


    So no face value and money from me. But let's hope it's all true, that would be one hell of a fun and good thing.

  • You are so keen on historical evidence being proof, how do you explain the people on this two page list who believe Rossi has demonstrated LENR?

    http://www.lenrproof.com/slide_05.html


    I think many of them are smarter and more knowledgeable about LENR than you are.

    You seem to get most of your facts" from the babbler echo chamber here.


    I don't see that the list shows that these people believe Rossi.

    At least one of them was dead before Rossi appeared on the LENR scene.

  • learned the hard way that never take anything at face value, people can have the best intention, but do unintentionally miss things, and what they say is still wrong

    You misunderstand me, I take what Rossi says at face value until proven otherwise as it is often all we have to go on and I have no good reason to doubt it.

    Of course there are other things out there that I can see are nonsense and so ignore.

  • You are so keen on historical evidence being proof, how do you explain the people on this two page list who believe Rossi has demonstrated LENR?

    http://www.lenrproof.com/slide_05.html


    I think many of them are smarter and more knowledgeable about LENR than you are.

    You seem to get most of your facts" from the babbler echo chamber here.

    Garbage, it says nothing about Rossi only LENR. Just go down the list and ask them what they think of Rossi. For example ask Brian Ahern and see what he says. Or Dr. T at Nat'l Inst. and see what he thinks of Rossi and Rossi's claims of NI acceptance and support.


    As is the case most of the time, your "facts" are lies.

  • AA claiming that the list is supporting Rossi's claims is laughable.

    notice that on the second page it lists Darden and Vaugh.


    and as Parad. noticed on the first page, it lists Eugen Mallove who died in 2004


    His "facts" are just grasping at straws by a babbler.

  • This page is about LENR .. not Rossi.

    The lenrproof.com link was a general one about LENR. Keep in mind that THH doesn't believe LENR has ever been proven. The site provides prety good proof that it does.


    I was my intention to pick out names form the list of people that believed Rossi. However the site does not allow cut and paste so I didn't


    Here are a few names that apply.

    Sven Kullander, Essen, Dennis Bushnell, Josephson & Forcadi, etc

    AS I said they know more about LENR than THH, who doesn't even believe it exists! Don't bother tell me the babblers know better.

  • Quote

    You misunderstand me, I take what Rossi says at face value until proven otherwise as it is often all we have to go on and I have no good reason to doubt it.

    This mystifies me. That Rossi has demonstrably lied about virtually every technological accomplishment he's claimed in more than ten years is, to Adrian and like minded folks, no good reason to doubt him.


    Quote

    It was my intention to pick out names form the list of people that believed Rossi. However the site does not allow cut and paste so I didn't

    Here are a few names that apply.

    Sven Kullander, Essen, Dennis Bushnell, Josephson & Forcadi, etc

    AS I said they know more about LENR than THH, who doesn't even believe it exists! Don't bother tell me the babblers know better.

    Poor Dr. Focardi was increasingly ill when Rossi shamefully flummoxed him. The late Dr. Kullander was always circumspect about his opinion of Rossi and cautious in how he described the experiments. Dr. Essen was as well. And these opinions are old. Why not ask Essen, Bushnell, and Josephson what they think now? Are you up to it Adrian Ashfield ?

  • AA: you state without any qualification that "The SK relies on a plasma contained in a tiny tube which can't be more than a few mg of non radioactive elements." What is your evidence for that statement, other than RossiSays?


    Last I understood, Rossi had not disclosed for examination any IP or details of how his "magnificence" works. If that is correct, unless you have access to confidential information, which so far you have denied, then your unqualified statement is the equivalent of a pile of steaming shite.

  • Jed, you mentioned regulations as early as the Roman empire. We know that there were regulations long before, with the most well known probably being the Code of Hammurabi. However there were numerous other similar Codes during the era, all of which are assumed to have contained regulations of one sort or another.


    As to a comment (I don't recall who made it) about AA not having a sense of humor, I think a more accurate assessment would be AA doesn't have any sense at all.


    As to the upcoming "demonstration," most of us expected and / or predicted a Potemkin demonstration and that is what we are now promised. All of the people involved in the demonstration are Rossi employees, there will be no independent assessment or verification, we will not have anyone from the unidentified customer validating the demonstration and I am confident that everything will be slightly out of focus, excepting close up shots of whatever crap Rossi puts up to demonstrate his magnificence.


    But have no worries, AA will, if not right away, assert that this piece of shite demonstration proves that Rossi has the goods and that we babblers should acknowledge that, Rossi's brilliance and AA's brilliance.


    Until then, 26 days to go.

  • Poor Dr. Focardi was increasingly ill when Rossi shamefully flummoxed him. The late Dr. Kullander was always circumspect about his opinion of Rossi and cautious in how he described the experiments. Dr. Essen was as well. And these opinions are old. Why not ask Essen, Bushnell, and Josephson what they think now? Are you up to it Adrian Ashfield?


    Let me say that AA is right in this case: the academic support is the only and undeniable valid argument in favor of the Ecat. Many professor have publicly affirmed that they have measured or seen in person the Ecat, in its various versions, produce huge quantities of excess heat. This is their last public opinion on this regard, the only valid one. Scientific statements have no expiration date. They don't need to be periodically confirmed. They expire when their authors withdraw them, explaining the reasons. None of the many professors involved in the Ecat tests or evaluation of the experimental results has withdrawn their positive conclusion. A couple of them can't do it anymore, others can but they don't. Their supporting declarations were public, many people have heard or read and believed them, including AA. The people can't be forced to ask these professors if they still maintain the same opinion.


    We have to understand once and for all that the Ecat initiative is supported by legitimate science, of course a tiny minority of it, but it doesn't matter, every new field began with the support of a few proponents, often with the ostracism of all the others. In the case of the Ecat, it is evident that the supporting professors and experts are wrong, but, until they don't publicly retract their support, the Ecat initiative is scientifically legitimated by them.


    The big problem here is that all the critiques are addressed to Rossi and not to the professors, who are the real responsible of this whole mess. Perhaps, it happens because some of the critics here are, or were, in the university or public research and find in Rossi the perfect scapegoat to absolve the responsibilities of their category. But it's not fair. Each one who believes, or has believed, in Rossi or his devices, including AA, has believed in the reliability of the reputable professors and LENR experts who have proclaimed or supported the Ecat performances.

  • Let me say that AA is right in this case: the academic support is the only and undeniable valid argument in favor of the Ecat. Many professor have publicly affirmed that they have measured or seen in person the Ecat, in its various versions, produce huge quantities of excess heat. This is their last public opinion on this regard, the only valid one. Scientific statements have no expiration date. They don't need to be periodically confirmed. They expire when their authors withdraw them, explaining the reasons. None of the many professors involved in the Ecat tests or evaluation of the experimental results has withdrawn their positive conclusion. A couple of them can't do it anymore, others can but they don't. Their supporting declarations were public, many people have heard or read and believed them, including AA. The people can't be forced to ask these professors if they still maintain the same opinion.


    We have to understand once and for all that the Ecat initiative is supported by legitimate science, of course a tiny minority of it, but it doesn't matter, every new field began with the support of a few proponents, often with the ostracism of all the others. In the case of the Ecat, it is evident that the supporting professors and experts are wrong, but, until they don't publicly retract their support, the Ecat initiative is scientifically legitimated by them.


    The big problem here is that all the critiques are addressed to Rossi and not to the professors, who are the real responsible of this whole mess. Perhaps, it happens because some of the critics here are, or were, in the university or public research and find in Rossi the perfect scapegoat to absolve the responsibilities of their category. But it's not fair. Each one who believes, or has believed, in Rossi or his devices, including AA, has believed in the reliability of the reputable professors and LENR experts who have proclaimed or supported the Ecat performances.


    Ascoli: I agree with a lot of this. Except the nature of the academic support for Rossi has always been unclear, and now appears deceased. Which academics are currently supporting Rossi?


    Alan will say they are "unwilling to put their heads above the parapet" which gives the matter a gloss of nobility. The main thing academics do not want to do is publicly to acknowledge a clearly fraudulent trickster. After all, you will find academics willing to support pretty well any pseudoscience you care to name. Homeopathy would be an example. Just, very few of them. (Of course homeopathy generates positive symptomatic relief from Placebo effect, but that is not what it is billed to do).


    Rossi is clearly an inveterate liar (AA has never addressed this aspect of his hero's known attributes). Personally, I would put consistent known lies down as a reason not to believe what somone says, especially when it relates to their own self-interest. But AA is more tolerant of liars than me. Is he an out an out fraudster, as Dewey here strongly states (or at least implies)?


    Let me put it this way. On public evidence - irrespective of whether you think his devices work - Rossi is either a deliberate fraudster - or he has a very tenuous connection with what most would consider business and scientific reality.

  • Alan will say they are "unwilling to put their heads above the parapet" which gives the matter a gloss of nobility.


    And- gloss or not -I stand by that. I have seen people in the field stand up and call Rossi a fraud in public while privately they confess to thinking he 'has something'. A very sad state of affairs, and no way am I going to name names so don't even ask. As for AA's list, I could knock at least a half-dozen off it for various reasons including death, but could also add at least four more still alive and kicking.

  • Ascoli: I agree with a lot of this. Except the nature of the academic support for Rossi has always been unclear, and now appears deceased. Which academics are currently supporting Rossi?


    All those who have publicly stated that the Ecat produced excess heat and have not withdrawn these statements with an equivalent public emphasis. Moreover, the institutes which allow them to use their affiliation are as responsible as their affiliates.


    The support of a scientific institution is expressed by its members and ceases only when it is explicitly and publicly withdrawn. The page cited by AA (http://www.lenrproof.com/slide_05.html) lists many scientists along with their institutions. The latter are the most important for ordinary people. They could also read Mikey Mouse (NASA) or Pinocchio (UniBo), what matters is the affiliation.


    If the professors refute to answer the critiques to their estimations about the alleged excess heat produced by the Ecat, their institutions should take care of the problem.


    People here should stop acquitting the professors and their institutions just because they have shut up, hoping that the people will forget their support to the Ecat. It will never happen (1).


    Quote

    The main thing academics do not want to do is publicly to acknowledge a clearly fraudulent trickster.


    Yes, of course, but I'm not talking about "a clearly fraudulent trickster", I'm referring to a device, the Ecat, that has ALREADY been acknowledged by these academics to have produced kilowatts of excess heat.


    Quote

    Rossi is clearly an inveterate liar


    Rossi acts as an entrepreneur. He cleverly uses all the margins granted to an entrepreneur to successfully accomplish his business. On the specific point of the alleged performances of his devices, he relies only on the endorsements of academics or other LENR experts. These last are the solely responsible for the scientific side of the Ecat farce.


    Quote

    Let me put it this way. On public evidence - irrespective of whether you think his devices work - Rossi is either a deliberate fraudster - or he has a very tenuous connection with what most would consider business and scientific reality.


    Who is Rossi is not our business. Strong or tenuous, all the connection he has with the scientific reality and the resulting public credulity comes entirely from professors, other researchers and their public institutions.


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion