Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Adrian,


    “Pretty good proof” is an oxymoron.


    There is proof or there is no proof.

  • Adrian,


    “Pretty good proof” is an oxymoron.


    There is proof or there is no proof.

    Actually, the list provides no proof of anything other than there being people who are convinced about the existence of LENR. That may provide a reason to believe it exists but it is no sort of proof. But Adrian’s standards of evidence are, shall we say, unconventional.

  • 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.


    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 ?

    The Scientists with guts.

    Sergio for sure being the first scientist to work with A.R.

    Rossi said he will feature him

    at demonstration.

  • The support of a scientific institution is expressed by its members and ceases only when it is explicitly and publicly withdrawn


    Institutions contain 1000 scientists or more. Even 100 scientists cannot agree on something as important and widely considered as climate change, where the science is clear, but outliers, who are almost certainly wrong in overall interpretation, such as Nick Lewis remain tolerated (and should be so).


    So is the view of an institution to be decided according to what 1% or 0.1% of its membership believes?


    Penrose believes that human consciousness is only possible because neurons are quantum computers. A highly eccentric view. Is that the view of Oxford University? (The answer BTW is no).


    And Penrose is a distinguished Professor. Unlike the guys supporting Rossi from UoB and Sweden.

  • Institutions contain 1000 scientists or more. Even 100 scientists cannot agree on something as important and widely considered as climate change, where the science is clear, but outliers, who are almost certainly wrong in overall interpretation, such as Nick Lewis remain tolerated (and should be so).

    I see that you don't follow climate science any more closely than you do LENR.


    If you look at the actual data you would see that the IPCC (which is a political organization) has exaggerated global warming by at least twice. Their models have been falsified.


    There are more babblers on global warming than on LENR and it is pointless to discuss it.

  • Ascoli65

    Quote

    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.


    Complete nonsense. Suppose a scientist has an opinion about a claim and then years later, that scientist is confronted with new evidence and is so embarrassed that they remain silent. Should one still value their original opinion? My suspicion without proof is that the Swedish scientists remain silent possibly because they are now unsure about their earlier findings or they may be ashamed of their associations with Rossi now that Rossi vs IH proved him to be a liar and a crook.


    Quote

    ... the Ecat, that has ALREADY been acknowledged by these academics to have produced kilowatts of excess heat


    The basis of such erroneous conclusions is that academics tend to be unsuspecting of fraud and deception. They are not looking for it. In addition, they may not have the specific technical skills and experience to detect and appreciate the misdirection and mismeasurements which are Rossi's stock in trade.


    Quote

    Who is Rossi is not our business.


    How in the world do you arrive at that? Had you been an investor at the time, you would have been ripe for the plucking by a fraud like Madoff . Many investment advisors recommended him, analogously to the scientists who recommend Rossi, because they had a very high threshold for considering deception. Rossi is a liar and a proven fraud. His history is of disasters, broken promises, and a total lack of real accomplishments, at least in the past 15 years. When you consider his claims, and trust in his measurement methods and allow him to take part in your experiments, it is foolhardy and frankly stupid to ignore his personality and track record. I can't understand how intelligent people do.

  • Institutions contain 1000 scientists or more. Even 100 scientists cannot agree on something as important and widely considered as climate change, where the science is clear, but outliers, who are almost certainly wrong in overall interpretation, such as Nick Lewis remain tolerated (and should be so).

    So is the view of an institution to be decided according to what 1% or 0.1% of its membership believes?


    Wrong example. Climate is much more complex than a tabletop device and most of the controversy pertains to future evolution, which is impossible to verify at once. Climate evolution is the realm of opinions and ICCP documents present their results in a probabilistic form. The Ecat facts I'm talking about are much more deterministic.


    In any case, scientists are free to provide interpretations which go beyond and even against current opinion, this is how science evolves, but it is not allowed for any reason to invent or falsify data. In the case of the academic involvement in the Ecat, the problem is not the opinion of some professors about its possible performances, the main problem is that their opinion was based on the invented data reported in a document issued with the UniBo logo (1). This is an inadmissible behavior. There is no quorum that allows derogation from this basic principle.


    A second inadmissible behavior is related to the decision to bypass the normal scientific procedure of submitting the paper to a scientific journal and to disseminate their results by using the normal media, addressing directly the large public. This route is not forbidden by itself, but if you choose to skip the review of the scientific community you should also accept the burden of responding all the pertinent criticisms raised by any person who was directly informed of these results. The professors instead refused to provide this information, claiming that they had the sole duty to respond to criticisms coming from their peers.


    Their institutions, the Physics Department as well as the University are responsible for these non-scientific behaviors.


    Quote

    Penrose believes that human consciousness is only possible because neurons are quantum computers. A highly eccentric view. Is that the view of Oxford University? (The answer BTW is no).


    And Penrose is a distinguished Professor. Unlike the guys supporting Rossi from UoB and Sweden.


    Another wrong example, I'm sorry. Calorimetry is not subject to quantum disquisitions. A much better comparison is with F&P.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf  

  • I see that you don't follow climate science any more closely than you do LENR.


    If you look at the actual data you would see that the IPCC (which is a political organization) has exaggerated global warming by at least twice. Their models have been falsified.


    There are more babblers on global warming than on LENR and it is pointless to discuss it.



    Nuff said! AA true to his colors again...

  • Complete nonsense. Suppose a scientist has an opinion about a claim and then years later, that scientist is confronted with new evidence and is so embarrassed that they remain silent. Should one still value their original opinion?


    Yes of course. The only valid interpretation is provided by their last words on the subject. Public scientists are not paid to be embarrassed by their claims. They have the right to make mistakes, but also the duty to correct them as soon as they realize the error. If the mistake is public, the correction must also be public.


    Quote

    My suspicion without proof is that the Swedish scientists remain silent possibly because they are now unsure about their earlier findings or they may be ashamed of their associations with Rossi now that Rossi vs IH proved him to be a liar and a crook.


    You have no right to interpret their silence. In any case, in science, silence is confirmation of the last expressed opinion. The correct interpretation of their silence is that provided by Alan Smith: Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion .


    Quote

    The basis of such erroneous conclusions is that academics tend to be unsuspecting of fraud and deception. They are not looking for it. In addition, they may not have the specific technical skills and experience to detect and appreciate the misdirection and mismeasurements which are Rossi's stock in trade.


    Come on. What are you saying? The most appreciated Physic Department in Italy, involved for about 20 years on CF using calorimetric techniques, about a dozen people involved in that activity and claiming to be experimentalists, all deceived by a controversy graduate in philosophy? This is a real nonsense. In any case all the measurements during the Ecat demo held on January 14, 2011, and the relative evaluations were entirely under the responsibility of the Physics Department: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…1-Levi-PressRelease.shtml


    Quote

    Had you been an investor at the time, you would have been ripe for the plucking by a fraud like Madoff . Many investment advisors recommended him, analogously to the scientists who recommend Rossi, because they had a very high threshold for considering deception. Rossi is a liar and a proven fraud. His history is of disasters, broken promises, and a total lack of real accomplishments, at least in the past 15 years. When you consider his claims, and trust in his measurement methods and allow him to take part in your experiments, it is foolhardy and frankly stupid to ignore his personality and track record. I can't understand how intelligent people do.


    This is a scientific forum, not a court. We have no right to judge anyone from a criminal point of view. In any case, what you reported was well known also to the professors who documented and supported the Ecat performances, and is a further responsibility on their account. They gave this controversial dude all the credibility that allowed him to prolong the Ecat farce for another 8 years.

  • The IPCC propaganda is based on unproven models.

    The models have been falsified because their assumptions were wrong.


    You are completely right: Because of political pressure the underestimated the changes we will face. 2 degrees will be missed. I expect anything between 2 & 4 degrees because they under account for the methane problem because of US farmers beef and Chinese a & other far east rice production.

  • Quote

    In any case all the measurements during the Ecat demo held on January 14, 2011, and the relative evaluations were entirely under the responsibility of the Physics Department: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…1-Levi-PressRelease.shtml

    I don't know much about that demo. I started paying attention with the demos that Lewan promoted and "supervised" which IIRC started some weeks after that one You know, the ones where the dry steam was wet, the hose from the reactor went into a wall, and no blank run or calibration was performed, all the while two huge heaters, one around the ecat and the other occupying its center, were connected to the mains via a controller which Rossi was filmed tweaking during a run to make the water boil. Remember that video? Want to see it again?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?…er_embedded&v=uviXoafHWrU

    If professors at U of B were really fooled by these charades, they should return their PhD's.


    In addition, your link is to a news release from Dr. Levi, the same Dr. Levi who could not provide any documentation when politely asked by Steven Krivit who went all the way to Italy to meet Rossi and Levi and probably Focardi as well. I am not sure if Krivit was asking about the same test you've brought up but I suspect so. Finally, some time later, the physics department at U of B repudiated any links to Rossi. I have that somewhere but not at hand but I am sure others remember. So my response to the above quote is: you must be joking!


    Quote

    ...what you reported was well known also to the professors who documented and supported the Ecat performances, and is a further responsibility on their account. They gave this controversial dude all the credibility that allowed him to prolong the Ecat farce for another 8 years.

    I suppose that could be true but I doubt it very much. Bianchini (IIRC) continued making radiation measurements for Rossi but I don't recall any other U of B professors endorsing Rossi or assisting him in any way other than Dr. Levi. And I will leave it to you to look up Dr. Levi's credentials in his bio on the U of B bio pages.


    I'm not sure where the responsibility should be for Rossi's success at bilking IH and others. Most, of course, is Rossi's. IH completely failed to vet or test Rossi and his gear properly. All the credulous "distributors," some of whom were crooks or dupes on their own are also responsible and finally, all the endorsement on the internet forums, including threatening, insulting and banning critics helped Rossi also.

  • The IPCC propaganda is based on unproven models.

    The models have been falsified because their assumptions were wrong.


    You apparently prefer tot go with the consensus as a religion, rather than look at the actual data. See

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/03/2018-was-the-6th-warmest-year-in-the-past-40-y


    Well, well. On this issue AA and I actually agree, and I disagree with THH (which I rarely do). The IPCC's estimate of CO2 forcing (delta T per C02 doubling), which has been estimated at 4 degrees, is almost certainly wrong, and most likely by more than double. Also, Nic Lewis' conclusions are far more convincing than the IPCC "consensus" statement, in my opinion. There's good evidence for CO2 forcing at 1.6 to 1.8, and I can provide detailed citations supporting this conclusion, as well as the gross errors promoted by the IPCC. But this is a blog about Rossi, so I digress.


    Having followed the IPCC for 20 years with several neighbor/scientist/friends who work for NOAA and NCAR, and as a published analytical scientist myself, it is my conclusion that the IPCC's horribly flawed and highly political conclusions are a text book case of an abominable abuse of so-called science. (Which has some sliver of relevance to the Rossi discussion, perhaps).

  • Adrian,


    “Pretty good proof” is an oxymoron.


    There is proof or there is no proof.

    This statement is wrong.

    Maybe it works for mathematics.

    But take a look at climate science for example. As soon as the thing you want to proof involves complex systems there is only pretty good proof and not absolute proof.

    1. Frank Acland January 6, 2019 at 8:17 PM

      Dear Andrea,

      In you answer to TheFutureIsNow, you stated that you have observed balls of plasma in the QX, can you tell us anything more about them?

      Many thanks,

      Frank Acland

    2. Andrea Rossi January 6, 2019 at 9:04 PM

      Frank Acland:

      As you know, we will talk of this issue diffusely and we will see very interesting things during the presentation.

      This will be probably one of the more fascinating things we will see, so let’s wait for the presentation of the Ecat SK.

      Thank you for the continue attention and respect that your team has always dedicated to the work of our team.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

  • Interesting. On ecw is a longer version of this post. For example the part with the 7 cameras disappeared:


    Frank Acland:

    As you know, we will talk of this issue diffusely and we will see very interesting things during the presentation.

    This will be probably one of the more fascinating things we will see, so let’s wait for the presentation of the Ecat SK. We will see the Ecat SK in a show room and we will see a video that has been already made, as you know, in a factory heated by the Ecat SK, where we have placed a camera in a strategic position to look at the plasma. We placed seven cameras in seven crucial points and, honestly, I think it will be worth the while to watch the 2 hours of the direct streaming.

    Thank you for the continue attention and respect that your team has always dedicated to the work of our team.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • We will see the Ecat SK in a show room and we will see a video that has been already made, as you know, in a factory heated by the Ecat SK, where we have placed a camera in a strategic position to look at the plasma. We placed seven cameras in seven crucial points and, honestly, I think it will be worth the while to watch the 2 hours of the direct streaming.


    Sounds like quite the show he is putting on by this description. Definitely more than what I had in mind. For some reason, I do not think he is lying.