Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Ascoli65

I have already answered you about these topics. See, please, Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

I do not see how you get that figure. You seem to assume-wrongly- that the ecat was the only thing IH had in its portfolio that was worth Woodford's investment. That is clearly not the case. You can see how their evaluate of IH more than doubled after they returned the IP to Rossi who evidently was considered by them as a liability. Their evaluation has climbed faster without Rossi than with it. And your claim that ICCF would have folded without Rossi is clearly wrong since at ICCF21 there was no mention or papers based on Rossi's claims. You just keep pushing a clearly false narrative.

The thing about IH that was consistent with the whole Rossi extravaganza right out the gate is that they did not have any physical presence or other evidence of being anything more than a company on paper. They were created only months before the Rossi investment and had no address other than that of the VC fund run by Darden and Vaughn. If they are more than just a funding vehicle at this point, it is not self-evident. Do they have a facility? Technical people? Capabilities beyond writing checks? Perhaps those things are known here, but I haven’t seen any evidence. Perhaps like everything else in the world of Rossi, it is all a deep dark secret. For this reason, the whole narrative of “is the good guy Rossi or IH” always struck me as an absurd comparison of apples and oranges.

Quote from interested observer

The thing about IH that was consistent with the whole Rossi extravaganza right out the gate is that they did not have any physical presence or other evidence of being anything more than a company on paper. They were created only months before the Rossi investment and had no address other than that of the VC fund run by Darden and Vaughn. If they are more than just a funding vehicle at this point, it is not self-evident. Do they have a facility? Technical people? Capabilities beyond writing checks? Perhaps those things are known here, but I haven’t seen any evidence. Perhaps like everything else in the world of Rossi, it is all a deep dark secret. For this reason, the whole narrative of “is the good guy Rossi or IH” always struck me as an absurd comparison of apples and oranges.

Old IH lab below, with the old Blue Container in front of bay door. The newer place looked much nicer.

Edit: Not much of a trail before Rossi 2012

Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

A press release a real company does not make. Their address is still the VC office, they have no website, and go ahead and try to find any evidence of an actual operating company. People here talk about Industrial Heat as though they were some prestigious laboratory filled with state-of-the-art equipment and staffed by world-class scientists. Really? Perhaps they are located down the block from one of Rossi’s factories. And perhaps they have received the same waver from having to get any licenses, permits, or other documentation that even a hot dog stand would require. Or perhaps they really are a paper tiger. Even if somebody thinks they are worth $112m.

Quote from oldguy

I do not see how you get that figure. You seem to assume-wrongly- that the ecat was the only thing IH had in its portfolio that was worth Woodford's investment. That is clearly not the case.

Please, give a better look to the quote from Shane D. included in my cited answer.

Quote

And your claim that ICCF would have folded without Rossi is clearly wrong since at ICCF21 there was no mention or papers based on Rossi's claims. You just keep pushing a clearly false narrative.

I said a different thing: no Ecat > no investments > no money for LENR > no more ICCFs

Quote from interested observer

The thing about IH that was consistent with the whole Rossi extravaganza right out the gate is that they did not have any physical presence or other evidence of being anything more than a company on paper. They were created only months before the Rossi investment ...

Not months, but ("on or about") 2 days before:

If you believe that low level LENR effects have been widely observed, but are not understand, and must be nuclear, as most do here, then Darden's actions make perfect sense.

(1) LENR looks like a good long-term bet that might save the planet but seems far from commercialisation because people have been trying so long without success.

(2) Rossi was once working with LENR guys, and claims clearly commercialisable results even though he is working out of a box and himself not technically qualified. This must be possible, even if by a fluke a replication of a late Focardi breakthrough. The many demos, although they all have obvious flaws except Ferrara, and none are independent, give enough credibility that whatever you think of Rossi - and I think even when forming IH Darden here to have saw him as a totally undesirable person to have a business relationship with - you would reasonably take a long ods but very high pay-off bet that Rossi had the goods. The reward is very high, and as is fair the risk is also very high. No-one else would have given Rossi proper money and attention, to enable commercialisation, for the reasons we know. Darden has a high appetite for risk.

While from my position he did the wrong thing - Rossi's demos were bad technically in ways Darden was not aware of, and to a technical person Rossi's PR on his blog is particularly distasteful because so mendacious - I can see easily how it would make sense to him and i do not blame him for that.

Rossi would be the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of provoking an LENR investment. Both for Darden, and because the same hope would motivate other people to stump up money.

Darden is on record as saying (I think) that Rossi's stuff, if real, would short circuit 10 or 20 years worth of expected research.

Quote from THHuxleynew

If you believe that low level LENR effects have been widely observed, but are not understand, and must be nuclear, as most do here, then Darden's actions make perfect sense.

It's a non-scientific premise. From a scientific point of view you have to consider only facts. In this case you can only say that LENR effects have been widely claimed, not necessarily observed. In reality these claims have not generally been replicated, so they have not been endorsed by the broad scientific community. This situation is and was well known to everybody, including scientists and investors.

The big difference between "claims" and "observations" is well exemplified, IMO, by the time misrepresentation on Figure 8 in the F&P paper at ICCF3 (1). It's not the only mistake and misrepresentation made by the two CF's pioneers, but - being the basis of the Heat After Death claim - it was one of the most important, because it was widely cited in the subsequent works of F&P and other cold fusionists.

It is also a mistake that is very easy to detect and recognize. Well, can you please explain how it could have happened? I mean both the misrepresentation and the consequent belief in the HAD claim professed by all the LENR experts and supporters.

(1) FP's experiments discussion

Quote from Ascoli65

It's a non-scientific premise.

I never said Darden was a scientist. Nor did he claim to be one.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I never said Darden was a scientist.

Me neither. I wrote "scientists and investors", because it's normal for investors to rely on the judgments of expert advisers, in this specific case scientists.

Anyway, you belong to this last category and have followed the LENR field for many years. Could you please answer my question about the F&P misrepresentation of times on Figure 8 of their paper at ICCF3?

Quote from Roseland67

Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Steve Wozniak,

Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and countless others say hello.

Interesting article.

https://www.smartcompany.com.a…ice-risk-versus-gambling/

Quote from Alan Smith

That's pretty ridiculous. Conferences go on all the time for the strangest reasons, and even make a little (or a lot of) money. There is no shortage of hotels willing to give amazing 'off season' bargains to organisers either.

You can organize every meeting of LENR veterans when and where you want. I just hope not to see any more among the ICCF sponsors or patrons the name of the Italian political and scientific institutions, as happened for ICCF19 in Padua.

As for the role of money, I was referring to the opinion of this LENR veteran.

Quote from Ascoli65

You can organize every meeting of LENR veterans when and where you want. I just hope not to see any more among the ICCF sponsors or patrons the name of the Italian political and scientific institutions, as happened for ICCF19 in Padua.

Ascoli65 : Did you just lift your mask?

Quote

Joseph Fine

January 12, 2019 at 10:58 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

In the past you have said the ‘temperature’ of the core of the E-Cat reaches 1 eV (or about 11,600 deg K).

1) Is this an average temperature during normal operation, self-sustained operation or a maximum temperature that should not be exceeded?

2) What is the initial temperature following normal startup (for example, ten minutes after you push the START button) ?

3) Does core temperature reach 1 eV if the E-Cat produces only 10% of rated power, or is this temperature reached at 90-110% (??) of rated power?

Happy and Healthy New Year,

Joseph Fine

Andrea Rossi

January 12, 2019 at 2:00 PM

Dr Joseph Fine:

1- average/ssm operation

2- 1 eV

3- the modulation of the energy generated is made by on/off series, the temperature is always 1 eV

Happy and Healthy New Year also to you,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

It's interesting that Rossi seems to use something similar to a PWM to change the heat output of his reactor.

More interesting would be how he gets his accurate 1eV =11604 K for the electron gas in the plasma inside the little SK quartz cylinders...

Quote from Wyttenbach

Did you just lift your mask?

What do you mean? That's what I've always said. For me, everybody is free to meet with others for talking about everything they like, but not at the expenses of the public money. Furthermore, professors and other public researchers should also behave in accordance to the scientific ethic, keeping in mind their public responsibilities. They can't abuse of the public credulity in their role.

For the rest, I just reminded that the money which allowed many LENR researchers to participate to the last ICCFs was collected thanks to the Ecat initiative.

Quote from Alan Smith

If you are really concerned about Italian Universities wasting stupid amounts of public money I suggest you look at the excessive number of generally very well paid bureaucrats they employ, far outnumbering the teaching staff in many cases. The wage bill for the leeches far outweighs the piddling amounts they have ever spent on LENR.

The major problems that each state has are not good reasons to justify any other minor waste of money, even if spent with the pretense to solve the country's energetic problem or even to save the entire planet.

As for the research on fusion, both hot and cold, a much worse damage than wasting money has been to mislead the public and the decision makers, providing them an easy excuse not to face the global resource problems in a truly effective and long lasting way. The illusions spread by the FUSION chimeras have largely contributed to creating the current critical situation. Part of this responsibility lies on ambitious or unscrupulous professors and other public researchers.