Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Anyway, in case that they didn’t tell Boeing in advance, a simple explanation would be that they couldn’t get exactly the same ingredients (e.g from the same supplier Rossi told IH), so they tried the best substitute and didn’t tell Boeing (exactly what they did) because it would reveal part of the IP of the fuel.


    If your scenario is true, Rossi fans may still have some reason for hope. Yeah. :) That would mean Rossi either; never gave up the real formula, or IH could not get the exact ingredients Rossi used to make it work. And the story lives on.


  • ...didn’t tell Boeing (exactly what they did) because it would reveal part of the IP of the fuel.

    ***that would be...."supposedly worthless IP".



    Rossi might very well have taken precautions which make it very difficult for IH (or anyone else) to create exactly “his” fuel mix.

    ***Pretty smart & wily for a third rate con man. Also, evidence towards the Fred Flintstone hypothesis.

  • In particular pg 115, where Childress sent a follow up email to ask he be provided "the correct fuel"...in order to determine the Ecat's validity, along wth some other requests. TD never complied, and Boeing was never given another chance to test. Why?

    Maybe IH was trying to establish a baseline? ... A Rossi reactor which doesn't work, how much heat it generates. I know this seems simplistic this late in the game but apparently that is the hypothesis being pushed right now, that IH:was so stupid that they didn't know how to test a reactor that didn't work, they overlooked a missing heat exchanger for a whole year, they blindly accepted pure nonsense from Rossi, they never thought to bring a thermometer to any test, they paid $10M according to the Validation contract and then paid someone else money to invalidate that validation, etc.

  • That would mean Rossi either; never gave up the real formula, or IH could not get the exact ingredients Rossi used to make it work. And the story lives on.


    This reminds me of something I investigated a long time ago

    Somewhere it was stated that Rossi visited a small town in Sweden (Don't remember the name of the town anymore and lost the information)

    I wondered what Rossi was doing in such a small town and using Google I investigated the companies which where there.

    Besides some in the wood industrie, one stood out.

    It was a small company which by using PECVD (Plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition) produced custom metal powders.

    As such I was wondering if his nickel powder came from there.

  • So a mixture of supposition about IH's technical capacity and a report of two experiments. Reading your comment with it's all-embracing tone i thought you were referring to grander claims by the Swedes that I had somehow overlooked.


    Grander claims?


    The Two reports - Ferrara and Lugano - make pretty definite and eye-watering claims that Rossi's devices work, indisputably:


    - High could-not-be-calorimetry-error COP

    - Long period of running makes chemical affects impossible (more for Lugano than Ferrara)

    - Testing independent of device inventor


    Those claims are unparalleled in the history of LENR research, if taken as real.

  • Maybe IH was trying to establish a baseline? ... A Rossi reactor which doesn't work, how much heat it generates. I know this seems simplistic this late in the game but apparently that is the hypothesis being pushed right now, that IH:was so stupid that they didn't know how to test a reactor that didn't work, they overlooked a missing heat exchanger for a whole year, they blindly accepted pure nonsense from Rossi, they never thought to bring a thermometer to any test, they paid $10M according to the Validation contract and then paid someone else money to invalidate that validation, etc.


    KevMo


    IH were stupid in that way. But the Lugano testers (5 Swedish & 1 Italian scientists) were more stupid in that case. They did it first and IH believed them.


    That is not a hypothesis being pushed now. It is a fact well attested here and elsewhere and admitted by all except (perhaps, according to Mats's most recent report., itself now quite old) Levi. And Rossi of course.


    You could get out of your metaphorical inductive armchair and check the error yourself - it is when you understand it quite a glaring and obvious one - and it is well written up in the Lugano Report, no place to hide.


  • IH were stupid in that way.

    ***Stretching credulity, as previously noted on another thread.


    But the Lugano testers (5 Swedish & 1 Italian scientists) were more stupid in that case. They did it first and IH believed them.

    ***Again, stretching credulity,which begs the question why there is such an attitude towards those who question the credulity of this line of reasoning.



    That is not a hypothesis being pushed now.

    ***Of course it is. You just don't like that word for some reason.



    It is a fact

    ***There you go again, claiming FACTS where there are merely ASSERTIONs.


    well attested here and elsewhere and admitted by all except

    ***Ding ding ding! You figured out what the meaning of a fact is. When it is ADMITTED By ALL.


    (perhaps, according to Mats's most recent report., itself now quite old) Levi. And Rossi of course.

    ***And other inquirers. And some LENR:researchers who wrote a second report backing Lugano, etc....




    You could get out of your metaphorical inductive armchair

    ***I did, and I explicitly invited YOU over to the discussion. but apparently you can't get out of your own metaphorical inductive armchair enough to be bothered with these disputed ASSERTIONs.


    https://disqus.com/home/discus…_report_on_rossi_reactor/


    and check the error yourself - it is when you understand it quite a glaring and obvious one

    ***Others have understood it and it appears not quite so glaring nor obvious, to them.



    - and it is well written up in the Lugano Report, no place to hide.

    ***Then dispute it.



    https://disqus.com/home/discus…_report_on_rossi_reactor/

  • Maybe IH was trying to establish a baseline? ... A Rossi reactor which doesn't work, how much heat it generates.


    That would have been redundant, as Boeing was already working out a baseline using 2 reactors, and a common emissivity setting on the thermal camera. It is possible though. If so, I would think it poor use of resources for an upstart like IH.... with little engineering talent at their disposal, to tap into Boeing and assign them a basic task like that. Such a waste.


    Anyway, I like Forty-Two's story, because it breathes new life into the Rossi saga. :) We can assume until Dewy comes along, that IH failed to develop the IP because they could not get the fuel mix right.

  • That is not a hypothesis being pushed now.

    Of course it is. You just don't like that word for some reason.


    KevMo - you are either very obtuse or intellectually dishonest. I'll do you the credit of assuming the latter, and block you as many others have (apologies everyone else who must find my replies to KevMo tiresome). He does enliven the thread, but there is only so much well-written false logic a guy can put up with.


    Your comment, in context Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion , clearly implied that we are now saying (and did not before) that the Lugano test methodology is bust.


    In fact you said: " A Rossi reactor which doesn't work, how much heat it generates. I know this seems simplistic this late in the game but apparently that is the hypothesis being pushed right now, that IH:was so stupid that they didn't know how to test a reactor that didn't work"


    There have been multiple threads on this. The first one some 4 years ago (?) - Paradigmnoia who was active on it will confirm.


    When you asked or facts I posted the decently written paper, properly references, that comments on the Lugano Report and explains the error. I'm not trying to blind you with science. Paradigmnoia here, or me, or even Alan, could lead you through it. Though Alan for his own reasons might not wish to do that.


    Let me just deal (for the last time) with the rest of what I believe is false indignation in the service of dishonest rhetoric in your comment


    they [IH] overlooked a missing heat exchanger for a whole year, They had no access to the place where Rossi claimed it existed. Nor did they think Rossi would rig the test measurement as he did (that was stupid I agree, past history would tell them of his capability) and therefore they might need to prove it did not work. How does it make sense for you to say this?


    they blindly accepted pure nonsense from Rossi. No, as we have told you, they blindly accepted what seemed a decent set of multiple reports from the Lugano testers, and positive results from their own testing using the method validated (wrongly) by those testers. They did not trust Rossi an inch, they just underestimated his ability to make a sow's ear look like a silk purse.


    they never thought to bring a thermometer to any test, People who have tried to bring thermometers to Rossi tests get chucked out. This is well attested, including at Doral. But it is tryue they thought the test was irrelevant. If rossi's devices worked they were happy to give him $100M. If they did not work, they did not imagibe he could sustain such a con.


    they paid $10M according to the Validation contract and then paid someone else money to invalidate that validation, What planet is this a fair summary of the position. They, reluctantly and unwisely, acceded to Rossi's demands: $10M for what appeared to be real LENR technology already validated short-term, with an irrelevant long-term test on which the $100M rested. They then found out that the $10M was paid on false pretences, that the devices did not work, that Rossi was not interested in helping them get them to work (after all - how could they know whether it was their mistake the results were not as Rossi and the Swedes claimed).


    If you are just not processing this stuff, and writing these things because you really cannot understand the history here, then my apologies for calling your argument here intellectually dishonest, but it is then pointless replying to you so i'll still block.

  • If the Lugano report is correct in all important details, then I can make COP 4+ reactors for less than $200, plus labour, and the fuel is unimportant (completely absent in my case) although it is interesting that isotopes might change when “fuel” is inside. (Power controller and IR equipment not included.)


    And anyone can do it too. No special fuel mix required. A bit of skill, dexterity and patience is recommended. If anyone wants to try it out, I will gladly offer advice based on problems I had to overcome.

  • KevMo - you are either very obtuse or intellectually dishonest. I'll do you the credit of assuming the latter, and block you

    ***Having seen the way you operate, this is a badge of intellectual honor to be blocked by someone like you.



    as many others have (apologies everyone else who must find my replies to KevMo tiresome). He does enliven the thread, but there is only so much well-written false logic a guy can put up with.

    ***Gee , thanks for the compliment about 'well written', but why the hell is it that you don't seem capable of answering my contentions? You downshift into insults EVERY TIME.




    Your comment, in context Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion , clearly implied that we are now saying (and did not before) that the Lugano test methodology is bust.

    ***Clearly implied? Bull$#!+. I don't need to imply anything. I'll say things directly if I have to. You, on the other hand, constantly prop up things that people DIDN'T say and argue against them. This is the classic definition of a straw argument. So , since you're claiming I implied something, I'll claim that whatever it was that got your panties in a wad was not implied if it was not explicitly stated.




    In fact you said: " A Rossi reactor which doesn't work, how much heat it generates. I know this seems simplistic this late in the game but apparently that is the hypothesis being pushed right now, that IH was so stupid that they didn't know how to test a reactor that didn't work" There have been multiple threads on this.

    ***I pay attention to Rossi whenever he generates an inductive touchpoint. The legal case was an inductive touchpoint. The demo was an inductive touchpoint. I basically have been ignoring Rossi since 2012 when he said "in mercato veritas" and there has been zero "in mercato". I've said this multiple times on these threads. I do not follow Rossi across every breathless magnificence but when I do come into a thread, what do I find? People like you using invalid arguments, classic fallacies, insults to drive away inquirers. It's enough to start thinking that a lot of folks around here are anti-SCIENCE, not just anti-ROSSI. If y'all had been just pursuing the science and using straightforwaard freshman-level critical thinking, I would have had Nothing to say.


    The first one some 4 years ago (?) - Paradigmnoia who was active on it will confirm.

    ***This is another form of tldr argumentation. Lurkers will naturally stay away from obscure threads that go nowhere.




    When you asked or facts I posted the decently written paper, properly references, that comments on the Lugano Report and explains the error. I'm not trying to blind you with science. Paradigmnoia here, or me, or even Alan, could lead you through it. Though Alan for his own reasons might not wish to do that.

    ***You call a lot of things FACTS that are mere assertions. So I pulled this supposedy decently written paper and put it into the context of how its conclusions are dubious, posted a thread for you to go ahead and get to the bottom of it instead of staying embedded in 462 pages of tldr back & forth so that you can hide behind horse puckey details -- that, whenever I dive down on them in very pedestrian fashion, those details turn out to be horse manure. And in point of fact, I asked 4 times for you to post where such information could be found, you never responded so I posted my own thread for lurkers to see for themselves , IN CONTEXT, how spurious your arguments are on this particular report.

    https://disqus.com/home/discus…_report_on_rossi_reactor/

    And lurkers will note that THH AGAIN responded with yet another tldr argumentation post devoid of worthwhile material.


    Let me just deal (for the last time) with the rest of what I believe is false indignation in the service of dishonest rhetoric in your comment

    ***Again, lurkers will note that THH AGAIN responded with yet another tldr argumentation post devoid of worthwhile material. THH is the disingenuous one here.




    they [IH] overlooked a missing heat exchanger for a whole year,

    ***Very stupid.


    They had no access to the place where Rossi claimed it existed.

    ***Pretty damned stupid


    Nor did they think Rossi would rig the test measurement as he did (that was stupid I agree, past history would tell them of his capability)

    ***And right in line with my Fred Flintstone theory.


    and therefore they might need to prove it did not work. How does it make sense for you to say this?

    ***Let's see, we're on a thread with more than 400 pages, you're trying to steer me to 4 year old threads that you never once before have given links to and I generate a 1 paragraph summary that you are trying to deflect attention away from with tldr argumentation AGAIN. Lurkers will note that by this time THH still has not posted any links to where this set of "indisputable" facts supposedly exist.




    they blindly accepted pure nonsense from Rossi. No, as we have told you,

    ***Allowing him to dictate access to the testing place that they OWN is a real good example of blindly accepting pure nonsense.


    they blindly accepted what seemed a decent set of multiple reports from the Lugano testers,

    ***Which are not quite yet dismantled scientifically...


    and positive results from their own testing using the method validated (wrongly) by those testers.

    ***Again, stupidity that stretches incredulity. And it stretches it so far as to beg the question of why y'all have such an attitude about it.


    They did not trust Rossi an inch, they just underestimated his ability to make a sow's ear look like a silk purse.

    ***That makes Rossi look like a very wily and smart con man, rather than a hack 3rd rate con man as some have been saying 'round here.




    they never thought to bring a thermometer to any test, People who have tried to bring thermometers to Rossi tests get chucked out.

    ***Blindly accepting nonsense from Rossi.


    This is well attested, including at Doral.

    ***Blindly accepting nonsense from Rossi.


    But it is tryue they thought the test was irrelevant. If rossi's devices worked they were happy to give him $100M. If they did not work, they did not imagibe he could sustain such a con.

    ***Pretty damned stupid, either way.




    they paid $10M according to the Validation contract and then paid someone else money to invalidate that validation, What planet is this a fair summary of the position.

    ***The one where the contract is part of the court documents and that contract is straightforward about a VALIDATION before a $10M payout, which WAS paid.


    They, reluctantly and unwisely, acceded to Rossi's demands: $10M for what appeared to be real LENR technology already validated short-term,

    ***And yet you ask, "What planet is this a fair summary of the position." Are you even reading what you write?



    with an irrelevant long-term test on which the $100M rested. They then found out that the $10M was paid on false pretences, that the devices did not work,

    ***Pretty damned stupid. Stretching incredulity AGAIN.


    that Rossi was not interested in helping them get them to work (after all - how could they know whether it was their mistake the results were not as Rossi and the Swedes claimed).

    ***Or, they were simply trying to steal the IP.




    If you are just not processing this stuff, and writing these things because you really cannot understand the history here,

    ***Straw argument that basically attempts to shape the discussion into "if you don't agree with us then you're stupid." Lurkers can see my response to such approaches on the thread I posted.


    then my apologies for calling your argument here intellectually dishonest,

    ***In context, your invective-laden apology is extremely disingenuine to the point of being, oh clutch my pearls!, intellectually dishonest.


    but it is then pointless replying to you so i'll still block.

    ***Well, we're at the end of another tldr argumentation post from THH, full of his invective, no links to the supposedly obvious material he wants lurkers to head towards, just a lot of intellectual hiding.

  • @THH, by joining the ranks of those who have shut off the toxic leaky faucet, you have brought him ever closer to having two sites on the Internet where he can talk to himself without being interrupted, presumably his goal in life.


    And what would be YOUR goal, IO, since Jed keyed up on you for 2 threads so far about your anti-science approach?



    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?


    JedRothwell

    Verified User

    Likes Received6,288

    Aug 18th 2017

    +2

    #461


    interested observer wrote:

    I can assure you that my comments on this forum are not moving science in any direction, nor are they intended to, nor could they.


    Then why do you make these comments? What is the point? This is a science-oriented forum. If you comments contribute nothing to science, and if -- as you say -- you have not read the papers and you know nothing about the subject, why do you muddy the waters with ignorant, baseless assertions?




    Suppose you were to visit a forum devoted to Italian Opera. Imagine you express strong opinions about a performance of La Traviata. Following that, you say: "By the way, I have never seen this performance. Actually, I have never seen any Italian opera I don't speak a word of Italian and I have no interest in music." That would be inappropriate, wouldn't it? It would be idiotic. The people at the forum would say: "Then what are you doing here?!? Why do you have an opinion about something you know nothing about?"




    Why do you think it is okay to do that there?


    [email protected] and padam73 like this.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?




    interested observer wrote:

    How's the air up on that high horse?



    Jed:

    I suggest you address the issue. Why are you expressing strong opinions about a technical subject you know nothing about? You agree that you know nothing, and you are contributing nothing. You just said that!




    What are you trying to accomplish? Are you hoping to impress people?




    ....




    But, when the discussion turns to a technical issue in a specific experiment described in a particular paper, such as the role of the resistance heater in McKubre's calorimeter, if you have not read that paper, and you have no idea what that that resistance heater is for, then you should not express an opinion. You should certainly not make bold, general assertions about the entire field. Anyone who has read the literature can see you have no idea what you are talking about. For example, this statement of yours is completely off the wall:

    "I think the existence of LENR - to extent that there is even a well-formed definition of the phenomenon - is still an open question."




    As I said, I could give a 20-minute lecture off the top of my head describing the well-formed definition of cold fusion. Anyone who has read the literature can do this. This is not an open question at all. Granted, the experts do not all agree on every aspect of their well-formed definitions, but there is a lot of common ground.




    If you were to say: "I do not agree with the well-formed definition" then we would ask: "Why not? What aspects of it do you disagree with? What experimental evidence do you point to?" You are saying there isn't any definition. That's chaotic nonsense. Mind-boggling nonsense. It is like saying there is no theory of special relativity, so Einstein was wrong.


    ....


    Your recent comments dissed & dismissed yourself more effectively than I can. You yourself boldly told us that you know nothing and you contribute nothing. You said that your comments, "are not moving science in any direction, nor are they intended to, nor could they." Yes! Right. We agree. So, naturally, you should shut up. Right?




    Why do you continue to comment about technical issues? Why on earth do you say things about the "well-formed definition of cold fusion" when you have no clue what that definition is, and no interest in learning about it?


    AlainCo, [email protected] and Shane D. like this.

  • Then why do you have such a hostile attitude? Some people accept that the Chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society is... well,.. a skeptic.

  • Kevmo:

    Without disclosing to Boeing that it wasn't the correct fuel mix? Getting more strange.



    THH:

    Again, not getting more strange. Think about it from their POV. they hyad inconsistent results: Rossi's tests (and tester guy) say all is good. .... Roundabout argument snipped....

    ***Notably missing from THH's response is an actual response to the actual situation. It would be real strange for IH to attempt a baseline by sending a reactor to Boeing without the correct fuel mix AND even more stranger, by not telling Boeing about it. THH goes round and round without addressing that issue, and then browbeats about Bayesian theory that no one has enough inductive nor deductive information enough to apply. But at least elsewhere on the thread it appears this was addressed, that IH supposedly DID tell Boeing that it wasn't the correct fuel mix.

  • Quote

    Yes, from that excerpt, I stand corrected in writing "fake". It is not clear whether it was intentional to rule out some placebo effect, or simply the "material supply issue".

    Of course someone could simply ask Darden and if he responded, you would know. Except, he wouldn't respond- either then or now. The only way any worthwhile information about Rossi's claims and cheats came out was in preparation for court.


    One of the unreal aspects of this whole Rossi farce is that the seemingly confident principals and observer scientists have never been willing to defend their views and respond to polite questions. If they had wanted secrecy, they could have simply gone about their business without any publicity. But they didn't do that. What they did gave the whole Rossi thing an obvious scam flavor from Rossi and a gross incompetent and negligence flavor from the other participants.

  • If the Lugano report is correct in all important details, then I can make COP 4+ reactors for less than $200, plus labour, and the fuel is unimportant (completely absent in my case) although it is interesting that isotopes might change when “fuel” is inside. (Power controller and IR equipment not included.)


    And anyone can do it too. No special fuel mix required. A bit of skill, dexterity and patience is recommended. If anyone wants to try it out, I will gladly offer advice based on problems I had to overcome.

    I think you should open your own thread right here on LENR-Forum with exactly that premise.

  • Quote

    As such I was wondering if his nickel powder came from there.

    Which nickel powder? The powder which had the natural isotope distribution or the pure and expensive unusual isotope (pure 62Ni if memory serves) which Rossi bought and used to salt the "ash" and game the analysis results?

  • I think you should open your own thread right here on LENR-Forum with exactly that premise.

    Oh, it’s in the Rossi technical thread, and a bit spread around on some other threads.

    Photos of construction details, etc.

    The results of the wonderful object even has received an unpublished validation by one of the Lugano Professors.

    I also know a few details important to maximize the ‘COP’.