Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • 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?


    To properly comment upon the Ecat affair, it's essential to know with precision which was the entire sequence of demo and tests performed during the first year of public activity. I post again the following jpeg, which shows all these tests:


    rB93G1X.jpg


    As you can see, 11 tests are listed, all those for which some public information are available. For each of them, a small picture of the tested devices is accompanied by the the date (in red), the name of the main reporter (in green) and some notes (in black)


    The 11 tests are subdivided in three rows, one for each Ecat model.


    The first line refers to the first and most famous Ecat model, which had 4 external band resistors and one internal cartridge resistor for a total electric power of about 1500 W. The calorimetric performances of all these first 3 tests have been documented by Levi.


    The first two tests, held on December 16, 2010 and January 14, 2011, are described as Test 1 and Test 2 respectively in the calorimetric report of UniBo (1&2a), which was published on internet as official document (1&2b). The January 14 demo is the most important and documented Ecat test, the one that let it be known in the world, thanks to the three videos which shows every phase of that event (2c1-2-3).


    (1&2a) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf   

    (1&2b) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…le-esperimento-della.html

    (2c1) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0ysNSN9Ng

    (2c2) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdXpSUDRlw

    (2c3) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSD-NP2Sogc


    The third test, started on February 10, 2011, was an initiative of PD, whose aim was to demonstrate that the energy output was incompatible with any possible chemical source hidden somewhere in the Ecat components, as explained by Levi in a first interview to Lewan (3a). Its results were first anticipated by Rothwell on Vortex (3b), then Lewan published a second interview in which Levi reported the main outcomes of the test (3c). Other information are contained in an Rothwell's analysis posted by Josephson on PhysicsForum (3d) and that presumably he got directly from JR. The only 3 known pictures of this test were published on 22 passi (3e-3f) along with some very interesting details on the experimental data reported in some comments posted by Passerini, who was present during the night between the 10th and 11th of February.


    (3a) http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3083834.ece

    (3b) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg42873.html

    (3c) http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece

    (3d) http://www.physicsforums.com/s…hp?p=3214604&postcount=41

    (3e) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…-ufficiale-delle-cat.html

    (3f) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…ficiale-delle-cat_23.html


    The second row includes the four public tests which were performed with a smaller version of the previous model. Each one of the four small Ecats aligned on a board were equipped with 2 resistors, an inner cartridge and an external band, probably derived by the dismantled first model. for a total electric power of about 800 W.


    The 4th test, the first with this model, was held on March 29, 2011, and was first documented by Essen and Kullander in a travel report published on NyTeknik (4a), which subsequently was published as a report signed by all the participants (4b). Some more information and photos about this test and, in general, about the reasons of the Swedish professors involvement in the Ecat affair are contained in the Kullander lecture held on November 2011 (4c).


    (4a) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Essen-Kullander3April.pdf

    (4b) https://www.scribd.com/documen…lander-Essen-E-CAT-Report

    (4c) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…11123KullanderLecture.pdf


    The next two tests, the 5th (April 19, 2011) and the 6th (April 28, 2011), were documented by Mats Lewan (5a, 6a). His reports are quite good and reveal for the first time the maximum capacity of the yellow pump used in almost every test of 2011. The second test has been also filmed by Lewan. The video (6b) shows the hose which goes into a blue bucket, while the reactor was "stable, … stable".


    (5a) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…/2011Lewan19AprilData.pdf

    (6a) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…/2011Lewan28AprilData.pdf

    (6b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8SeOteFPtM


    The 7th test, the last with the small Ecat, has been documented by Krivit in his videos shot on June 14, 2011. The first video (7a) includes the test and shows the hose going into the wall, from which, after being pulled out, escapes a weak steam flow barely visible on the background of the Levi t-shirt. The second video (7b) shows the calculation made by Rossi in the presence of Focardi which was confirming the results.


    (7a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E

    (7b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA


    The third row is dedicated to the testing of a completely different Ecat model, a tank type model called also ottoman or Fat-cat. In this case the operating way is totally different and the trick is revealed by its weight, which allows to store a large quantity of heat in order to simulate a prolonged "heat after dead" operation. The main characteristics of this Fat-cat were already outlined by Rossi during a answer-question session hosted by NyTeknik on March 2011: https://www.nyteknik.se/energi…1308#conversion-122831618


    The first documented test of this Ecat model, the 8th of the sequence, was held on July 7, 2011, but was revealed 3 months later, on the eve of another test, by the blog 22passi, which published a report written by Stremmenos (8a).


    (8a) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html


    The first Fat-cat to have been publicly shown had been that used in the 9th test, held on September 7, 2011. This test was again documented by Lewan in a technical report (9a) and in a video (9b).


    (9a) https://medier.talentum.com/me…t%20September%207%20(pdf)

    (9b) https://www.nyteknik.se/energi…lf-sustained-mode-6419716


    The last test of a single Ecat, the 10th of the series, was a public demo held on October 6, 2011. It was the 4th and last in 2011 nicely documented by Lewan with the usual technical report (10a) attached to an article published on NyTeknik (10b). There are many videos which shows this test: one shot by Lewan (10c), another published by ecatdotcom (10d). Other two videos are in Italian: one filmed by a RCDC, a local radio, with interviews to many protagonists (10e) and another published by Focus, an Italian main stream scientific journal, whose journalists were present at the event (10f).


    (10a) https://medier.talentum.com/me…cat%20October%206%20(pdf)

    (10b) https://www.nyteknik.se/energi…ces-proof-of-heat-6419717

    (10c) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCuLAZKvL4

    (10d) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhvD4KuAEmo

    (10e) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-5cFOsisAo

    (10f) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF8ifZZ_iVo


    The last and 11th test of the year was the famous 1 MW demo, performed on October 28, 2011, whose results are summarized in the acceptance report signed by Fioravanti, here transcribed by Rothwell on a mail to Vortex (11a). The video shot by Lewan is still available on YouTube (11b).


    (11a) https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg53889.html

    (11b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lOYlFyotXk


    I hope that this resume will be useful to better identify the role and understand the responsibilities of all the many protagonists of this story.

  • 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.


    Yes. Also in ancient China. I don't know much about them. I read about building regulations in medieval Europe, such as the specifications for stone materials used in large buildings, in book about how the cathedrals were constructed. The Romans must have had similar regulations given all the large buildings, aqueducts, and other structures they built which are still standing.


    The people who built Stonehenge must have known a lot, but they were not literate so they had no formal written laws. Only oral traditions, I suppose.


    There were zilions of written regulations in Edo-period Japan, covering everything under the sun, including what you could wear, how your house must be constructed, where you were allowed to stop and spend the night on the Tokaido highway, how to care for woodlands, and on and on. It was perhaps the most bureaucratic nation in history. They still have a lot of red tape.

  • Homeopathy would be an example.


    Actually, there is some pretty good evidence for that. See Jacques Benveniste. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand if I were you. The people at Nature did, and their unfair treatment of Benveniste was a disgrace. Water is one of the most complex and poorly understand materials in nature. It does, definitely, have structure above the H2O molecule itself. In other other words, the molecules are aligned in larger structures. However, the structure does not appear to be long-lived as far as anyone knows, but no one knows much about water. See:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste


    Felix Franks, "Polywater." (Polywater is not real, but other structures in water are real)

  • “Pretty good proof” is an oxymoron.


    There is proof or there is no proof.


    It is an oxymoron, but it widely used. Similar to "quite unique." In a scientific paper I would suggest, "strong evidence" or "compelling evidence." That doesn't work in everyday discourse because "evidence" means "something you are not sure of," in contrast with "proof."


    This resembles the word "theory" which means one thing in ordinary discourse and quite another in a formal scientific context. For example, the theory of evolution is not debatable. That doesn't mean "theory" in the sense of "hypothesis."

  • JedRothwell Homepathy is the lowest common denominator of woowoo along with astrology. Both are completely in opposition to all known facts about their claims. Hard to say which is the most improbable because both are impossible. Do you even know what homeopathy claims? If water had memory for diluted substances it contained in the past, imagine what you are drinking. Where has your water been before, ROTFWL? And another tenet of homeopathy is that highly diluted solutions, so dilute that there is essentially no probability they contain a single molecule of the claimed active ingredient in a bottle (or a swimming pool) of the stuff -- that such solutions are more therapeutic than the normally concentrated ones used in Western medicine. Yikes.


    I'll be happy to discuss this with you in another string, if you like. It does concern me that you attend to such ... well... crap. It makes you quite non-credible about your other claims. Now, I see how it was possible for you to fall so hard for Rossi early on.

  • Actually, there is some pretty good evidence for that. See Jacques Benveniste. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand if I were you. The people at Nature did, and their unfair treatment of Benveniste was a disgrace. Water is one of the most complex and poorly understand materials in nature. It does, definitely, have structure above the H2O molecule itself. In other other words, the molecules are aligned in larger structures. However, the structure does not appear to be long-lived as far as anyone knows, but no one knows much about water. See:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste


    Felix Franks, "Polywater." (Polywater is not real, but other structures in water are real)


    Just four words:


    Double Blind Randomised Trial


    The applicability is obvious in this case where placebo effect is known to affect reporting of symptoms.


    A good example of where you need to be sophisticated in your understanding of possible artefacts in order not to read a false positive as something real.

  • Do you even know what homeopathy claims? If water had memory for diluted substances it contained in the past, imagine what you are drinking. Where has your water been before, ROTFWL?


    That line of reasoning makes me laugh every time. It just gets right to the substance of the idea.

    Supposedly someone calculated that in every breath a person takes, there is a very high probability that a molecule previously breathed in by Julius Caesar will be inhaled.

    So far as I know, no one has attempted the analogous calculation for the Earth's surface water...

  • Just four words:


    Double Blind Randomised Trial


    I recall Ennis et al. did that. The people at Nature emphatically did not! So you should dismiss them.


    The applicability is obvious in this case where placebo effect is known to affect reporting of symptoms.


    I do not think the placebo effect exists. See the NEJM:


    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200105243442106


    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117429


    To be a little more specific, the placebo effect is a misunderstanding of statistics. There is no doubt many patients recover after being given placebos, but the recovery rate is no different than it is with patients who are given no treatment or even an examination. In other words, it is the natural rate at which animals recover from disease on their own. The placebo itself plays no role.


    The people who originally proposed the placebo hypothesis in the 1950s forgot to test a group of patients who received no care at all (a complete blank, or null). Comparing group 1 that gets an assumed effective drug with group 2 that gets a fake drug is not a complete test. You also need to compare group 1 to group 3 that gets nothing -- not even a doctor visit. You will see that groups 2 and 3 are the same, so the placebo has no effect.



    A good example of where you need to be sophisticated in your understanding of possible artefacts in order not to read a false positive as something real.


    Your statement about placebos is a good example of where you need to read more recent literature, and perhaps improve your understanding of artefacts.


    By the way, this discussion of placebos is not new. My late mother expressed doubts about them in the 1960s, for the reasons I gave above. That was not long after the placebo hypothesis was first proposed. (My mother was a leading social science researcher, Fellow of the American Statistical Association, etc. So this is yet another appeal to authority. Mea culpa.)

  • Homepathy is the lowest common denominator of woowoo along with astrology. Both are completely in opposition to all known facts about their claims.


    There is a big difference, however. There is no evidence for astrology, whereas some expert scientists in relevant fields have done studies showing that homeopathy might exist. Benveniste had positive results, and Ennis replicated. Some others did as well, as I recall. I have not looked closely at the studies but I gather they were pretty good. It would take more than one or two studies to prove this, but evidence is evidence, and it must always be taken seriously. Otherwise we might fail to see an actual phenomenon just because we assume it is impossible. People have made that mistake again and again throughout history.


    The other important difference is that there is no conceivable mechanism for astrology, whereas it is well known that liquid water has structure. Whether the structure can last for a long time is not know. It seems unlikely, but many things that seem unlikely turn out to be true. Such as spooky action at a distance.


    In any case, there is only one criterion for resolving any question about nature. The experiment. If replicated experiments show an effect is real, that makes it real. No matter how much it might be "in opposition to all known facts," or how many theories it violates. Experiments are the only valid standard of science. Everything else must give way to them. They are not the gold standard of proof, or the best standard; they are the only standard. If experiments showed that astrology is true, we would have to accept that. ("We" in this case means people who believe in the scientific method -- not you.)

  • Your statement about placebos is a good example of where you need to read more recent literature, and perhaps improve your understanding of artefacts.


    By the way, this discussion of placebos is not new. My late mother expressed doubts about them in the 1960s, for the reasons I gave above. That was not long after the placebo hypothesis was first proposed. (My mother was a leading social science researcher, Fellow of the American Statistical Association, etc. So this is yet another appeal to authority. Mea culpa.)


    There has never been any doubt that how people feel, and how they are (unconsciously) coached by those interrogating them, affects the answers.


    That was what I said about Placebo effect. No more. And it is enough to invalidate the Benveniste results.


    There is then an argument (not resolved) about whether the way people feel about cures can actually change their physiology.


    This is a slippery area, since mind and body interact in complex ways. I'm not making any statements about it other than that. None was needed for the matter at hand, that Benveniste's results were demonstrably unsafe and unreplicatable.

  • There has never been any doubt that how people feel, and how they are (unconsciously) coached by those interrogating them, affects the answers.


    That was what I said about Placebo effect. No more. And it is enough to invalidate the Benveniste results.


    Not the double blind versions.


    I think if you wish to invalidate the Benveniste results, you should look for a technical error in the methods or choice of instruments. Your argument seems to be "they talked themselves into it" or "they were deluded." That is a weak argument. It is impossible to prove or falsify. It is presumptuous. You did not know Benveniste, or talk to him, or observe the experiments, so you have no reason to think he was less objective than most scientists. He was a distinguished scientist, and the head of a major department at a national institute (INSERM). If he had not published this result, you would probably not imagine that he was suggestible, or gullible, or incapable of objective analysis.



    There is then an argument (not resolved) about whether the way people feel about cures can actually change their physiology


    It may happen in some cases, with some diseases, but for the most part I think the placebo effect has been disproved, for the reasons I gave above from the NEJM. That is, the placebo effect narrowly defined: the patient is unknowingly given a sugar pill or a surgical procedure with no plausible therapeutic value. That, I think, is a mistaken interpretation of the data.


    There may be other ways to affect people's feelings that do affect the recovery rate. Some of them might make it worse. For example, a widely held hypothesis is that an expression of concern and sympathy from the doctor is effective. It isn't the placebo that cures. It is the doctor's visit that help people recover. I think Richard Dawkins proposed that, and I think I read it in the Scientific American. As far as I know, this hypothesis has not been tested. They have not tried sending home sick people with no treatment and no sympathy. There was a proposal to do that in the U.K. but it was rejected on ethical grounds. So, no one knows whether sympathy from doctors promotes recovery. I have my doubts. When the doctor expresses anything other than casual unconcern, it frightens me. I prefer it when his attitude is: "don't waste my time; you should realize that's nothing to worry about." (My doctor is a nice fellow who would never say that, but I can read it in his expression.)

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


    It's necessary to well understand what really happened. For the rest, UniBo has an Ethic Code.


    Quote

    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.


    The first line of the press release reads "11/1/11, Comunicato Stampa (Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Bologna)". When Levi was asked about it by Krivit, he answered in this way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld7Z1FHupZc#t=2m38s


    And yes, Krivit also met Focardi in that occasion: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Transcript-Excerpts.shtml


    Quote

    I am not sure if Krivit was asking about the same test you've brought up but I suspect so.


    Yes, he did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYJIG3ymOk#t=2m51s


    Quote

    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.


    The title of the press release posted by Paradigmnoia (Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion ) is misleading.


    The situation is better explained by Krivit: http://news.newenergytimes.net…y-involvement-with-rossi/


    In any case, the UniBo press release only denied a specific sentence written in an article published by FoxNews which said that Rossi "demonstrated the device, called an E-Cat, at the University of Bologna in Italy on Oct. 28." (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech…-fusion-plant/?test=faces). This is not true, of course, because the test was run in the Rossi's compound. However, the same press release confirmed that "erano presenti agli esperimenti, in qualità di osservatori, i ricercatori dell’Università di Bologna", a sentence which is in contrast with its title "E-cat: l’Università di Bologna non è coinvolta"


    Quote

    So my response to the above quote is: you must be joking!


    Maybe someone was joking. Not me.


    Quote

    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 already explained, that all the public statements made by many UniBo professors during 2011 about the extraordinary calorimetric performances of the Ecat are still effective today, because they have not been publicly and explicitly withdrawn. Moreover the subsequent two reports published by Levi and the Swedes, those describing the Ferrara and Lugano tests, mention other UniBo professors as reviewers and the second report is still hosted in the UniBo site: http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/ .


    Quote

    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 Ecat story is much more complex. It could even be the phase 2 of the initiative started with F&P. In any case, Rossi is a PR man, or at most an entrepreneur, not a scientist. From the scientific point of view the real and sole responsibility is upon the people paid with public money to protect the public faith on science and academy.

  • It is an oxymoron, but it widely used. Similar to "quite unique." In a scientific paper I would suggest, "strong evidence" or "compelling evidence." That doesn't work in everyday discourse because "evidence" means "something you are not sure of," in contrast with "proof."


    This resembles the word "theory" which means one thing in ordinary discourse and quite another in a formal scientific context. For example, the theory of evolution is not debatable. That doesn't mean "theory" in the sense of "hypothesis."

    I dunno, I guess “strong” is pretty subjective also. For initials e perimantal data, sure, We can certainly use any synonymous definition we need to get the point across.


    BUT, eventually, “strong evidence” must turn into proof, replicated by multiple trusted sources, otherwise, maybe it wasn’t so strong in the first place.

  • http://www.ecatskdemo.com

    Thus spoke Zarathustra...


    It was only a matter of time! Who made that? I did not see it on ECW, or Ecat.com.


    Got to give the maestro some credit. With only his JONP as a marketing tool, he is doing a good job of hyping something so seemingly boring, as an upcoming internet live stream video of a small energy device, showing another video of it in a supposed clients factory. With 7 camera angles!


    Now admittedly, he has caught my attention the past few days. Looking forward to see what he has to offer. We have twice seen the big build up before, only to find out he is a slick con artist, instead of genius inventor. Will this time be different?