Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Sam,


    If history is any example, you do not have to wait for the demo, you can write your comments now.

    It doesn’t matter what this next demo shows, your opinion of it and Rossi will be the same as it today.


  • Sam, as a believer, did the ending with puppets singing "I believe in the SK" increase or decrease your belief in the SK?

    (Sincere question - I'm interested in your thoughts given your perspective heading into this demo)

  • Hardly to believe that somebody like sam12 who was almost 24/7 in contact with the master, couldn‘t make it to this presentation of the eve of a new energy era, and if really missed it, couldn’t find the time afterwards to watch it in full length... :/

  • Hardly to believe that somebody like sam12 who was almost 24/7 in contact with the master, couldn‘t make it to this presentation of the eve of a new energy era, and if really missed it, couldn’t find the time afterwards to watch it in full length... :/

    My job comes first way ahead of

    Rossi.Following him doesn’t pay my

    bills.The night driver did not get all

    his calls picked up due to weather

    and they asked me to start early.

    I watched it when I got home.

    It was kind of boring so glad I went

    to work.The comments on LF and

    ECW seem to make it more interesting this morning.

  • Having seen that latest 'demo', the only thing demonstrated was a complete and utter load of nonsense that an apparently deranged loonatic cobbled together !

    The very nature of the whole thing, Including puppets and 'music'......., makes it very hard to believe that any technological 'masterpiece' has been created or any scientific breakthrough that could potentially revolutionise the sourcing of energy has been discovered.

    In fact, any schoolkid could have done a better job for their science project !

    I didn't expect such a lacklustre, meaningless, technologically devoid, pile of crap with about as much content as an empty box.

    Of course, the predictability of exactly what was going to be 'demonstrated' was rather obvious given that, through the years, nothing of any substance has EVER been demonstrated other than warmed, expelled air, vocally modulated from one source......

    On a tangential offshoot.....projects like this exlplain how R&D like NIF and ITER continue to receive funding....through utter obfuscation and technobabble of a sufficient magnitude to deceive the unwitting Governments involved into maintining the R&D.

    Of which, either project has never produced ONE WATT of excess energy.

    I'm sure there are better places to discuss that so I'll not get into that here.

    Shoot me down in flames if you find any grammatical errors in what I've typed.

    I had higher hopes for what could be gleened from the latest demo, in that, there may have been fundamental exhibits leading to a potential of belief in ANY LENR process.

    That 'demo' is utterly hilarious.......

  • NLM,


    I had higher hopes for my fellow human beings.

    How in the world can any sane person believe anything from that man is beyond me, alas, PT Barnum was correct.

  • NLM,


    I had higher hopes for my fellow human beings.

    How in the world can any sane person believe anything from that man is beyond me, alas, PT Barnum was correct.

    Indeed, there is one born every minute....

    What is slightly, (acutely), disconcerting, is that, somehow in todays world of technological achievments, stuff like this can be perpetuated to the point that even this FORUM exists !

    This is surely a sign of a lack of competence and/or ability of mainstream academics who are apparently unable to discern fact from fiction.

    I'd be guilty of detracting from the topic if I was to continue on that subject too much but I'll chuck in my tuppence whilst I'm here....

    The very fact that a certain 'Investor', (who may have the surname of Woodford),..., was able to chuck millions of pounds into what is obviously 'pseudo-science', highlights, (at least to me), the worrying situation of todays engineering world.

    Maybe it was an irrational decision, however, I'd like to think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before decisions are made to commence with funding such things.

    To me, it seems that this situation can only be arrived at by lack of due diligence in relation to the basics like... the laws of physics and proven engineering methods.

    Basically, what I'm trying to say here is that anyone with enough cash can go and BUY a degree.

    With a smattering of plagiarism and a few adjustments, choose a subject and hey presto...you are now in possession of a sheet of paper which has the capability to make those around you think you know what you are talking about !

    It all looks great on paper until reality comes knocking on their door.....

    R&D is great when in the realm of R&D and not being touted as proven with the prospect of seeking investors in a final product which does not exist ! Lol !

    Indeed, higher hopes...........

  • The very fact that a certain 'Investor', (who may have the surname of Woodford),..., was able to chuck millions of pounds into what is obviously 'pseudo-science', highlights, (at least to me), the worrying situation of todays engineering world.

    Maybe it was an irrational decision, however, I'd like to think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before decisions are made to commence with funding such things.


    To me, it seems that this situation can only be arrived at by lack of due diligence in relation to the basics like... the laws of physics and proven engineering methods.


    Woodford Patient Capital gets 357% energy boost (because of Industrial Heat upgraded to $112Mn$ value)


    Now, now, Woodford (and IH) may have made a mistake thinking Rossi was the ticket to riches, but the IH team made up for that one bad investment as you can see. Lots of mistakes are made on the road to success. The end is what matters.

  • Anyone care to comment on difference between Rossi and Brillouin technology?


    As far as I know comparing to the original Rossi reactor, both where using Hydrogen, both where using Nickel and both are using some electrical pulse signal to get the reaction going?


    Are we saying that Brillouin probably has something, while Rossi never had anything?

  • The main difference is that BEC have never made any exaggerated claims about their work quoting energy out/energy in values ranging from 1.2-2.2 and also claim the reaction occurs in the cores without plasma formation - other than that they have secured worldwide funding in $millions but whether any of it will be successful is anybody's guess. Maybe they are just playing the game more carefully than Rossi who seems far more reckless. My guess is that the technology being similar both have the same thing, a small amount of excess heat in line with all the other observations reported to date and more recently at ICCF-21 and previous meetings. Sorry Jed but I don't agree with you about the COP values being unimportant, its the ONLY figure of any importance in these experiments - nobody would bother with any of it if energy out > energy in was never ever observed.

  • Sorry Jed but I don't agree with you about the COP values being unimportant, its the ONLY figure of any importance in these experiments - nobody would bother with any of it if energy out > energy in was never ever observed.

    How can it be a critical factor when it can be changed to any number you like, for example by adding insulation to a cell? It is arbitrary.


    Note that researchers do not add insulation to a cell because that would interfere with the instruments.


    Since many experiments have no input, what you say makes no sense. A ratio of infinity is no ratio at all, and it means nothing. Input power is higher in many tests where no anomalous output is detected than it is in positive tests. That would be a ratio of negative infinity, which also makes no sense. If you disagree I suggest you explain what we should make of negative-infinity. Is that more convincing or less convincing than saying, "it didn't work"?


    The measure of energy out does not change with input. Input does not cause energy output in any sense. This is not a heat pump. Input electrolysis power does not "cause" cold fusion.

  • Using heat pump language to describe an LENR device is confusing. Heat pumps use the COP calculation because they derive much of the heat they produce from an external heat sink (the ground, air or water table) rather than their power source. Thus the ratio of the power out to the power in is often well above unity (5 or 6 is not uncommon.)


    That being said, there should be some metric for an LENR reactor if it is actually to be used as an energy source. If the input power is irrelevant or nonexistent then of course any ratio including it is meaningless. Obviously, if there is some need to supply power to a controller, regulator, or anything else when using the reactor, it had better not be more power than one wants to get out of the device. Perhaps then the only meaningful quantitative metric is output in watts. In that case, then until there is a reliable way to scale that number up to whatever value is required, then talking about LENR as a technology as opposed to an phenomenon is premature.

  • Like you say IO it is the divisor part of the COP that is the issue,

    I suggest something more like:

    ((Power out * conversion efficiency to useful energy) - Power in) / cost to make and fuel and service device over useful life per unit time

    So if for example if the power output were 100% neutrinos it wouldn't be quite as useful

  • Can't see the problem here - all LENR devices/reactors /electrolyzers require an energy input to initiate the 'proposed' nuclear reaction - OK SOMETIMES once the reaction has been initiated the input energy can be turned off and 'heat after death' occurs releasing energy for a period without any energy input - but to say we start initiating a nuclear reaction without any input at all just mixing the reactants together and letting it sit-has that ever been observed? And then if indeed it has, how reliable or repeatable is the claim? I'm just trying to achieve some kind of overview from the published data what levels of energy production are possible with this technology and barring obviously exaggerated claims the figure in the range 1.2 to 2.2 for energy out/energy in (measured over the whole experiment from start to finish) is about all that can be expected. Whether the reactor is insulated or not is irrelevant.