Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Any tiny little piece of evidence other than the writing on JONP? Do you take this all serious?

Quote

Can we deduct any reasons for this ? Is he mentally sick ? Multiple personalities ? Or does he simply want to make his "blog" the more interesting the more "people" are posting ?

What Rossi's psychopathology is, if any, is a matter for conjecture. Short of an actual examination and mental status exam, it's pure guesswork. He doesn't act grossly insane. Best guess for me is that he is a low grade con man of the Nigerian scammer type except for the modest technology sophistication. His persistence after he got IH's $11.5M is hard to explain unless he spent much of it on legal fees. Or perhaps he is deluding himself that he is in actuality a good con man. He's not.

Rossi obviously enjoys what he's doing, the thrills and spills of a crazy inventor and if nothing works he fiddles it to make it all look like it works - his charisma and ego know no bounds - and I still maintain he may end up being the first to actually produce a working LENR reactor to market just with his drive, cunning and sheer bloody-mindedness.

Quote from Dr Richard

Rossi obviously enjoys what he's doing, the thrills and spills of a crazy inventor and if nothing works he fiddles it to make it all look like it works - his charisma and ego know no bounds - and I still maintain he may end up being the first to actually produce a working LENR reactor to market just with his drive, cunning and sheer bloody-mindedness.

I have not noticed these qualities applied to any engineering he has shown: it has always been shoddy: badly presented with analysis which is just wrong. That makes him about the worst person actually to exploit some Holy Grail LENR if it existed.

However, reflect on his blogging activities. he is, in the Q&A format, past master at titillating his fans with apparent information without ever saying anything that can be proved/disproved:

1. Nils Fryklund May 8, 2019 at 1:08 PM

   Dear Andrea!

   1. Can E-catSK, which have been running since 19/11 -18, still give

   full effect?

   2. Are you installing E-catSK in secret in companys, without the

   subordinated staffs knowledge?

   3. Have you in person been flying to customers and fixed unexpected

   problems (that appears in all new installations)?

   4. You mentioned earlier that E-cat should be manufactured in

   southern Sweden, is that still the plan?

   Best regards

   Nils Fryklund

2. Andrea Rossi May 8, 2019 at 1:26 PM

   Nils Fryklund:

   1- yes

   2- n.a.

   3- yes

   4- yes

   Warm Regards,

The quality on evidence here is slipperiness, as cultivated by a superlative liar.

I totally agree - but all of this goes out the window if he is the first to market a successful LENR reactor - none of his transgressions will matter if he produces cheap, CO2-free clean energy. Highly improbable but always possible. My money's on Atom Ecology at the moment with their systematic inscrutable scientific approach - it wouldn't be the first time us Brits beat the multi-million dollar funded competition to the post.

Quote from Alan Smith

I must point out that the Maestro in this orchestra is an American

The atomic score has a Mendeleevian flavour.. plenty of isotopes and isomers....

maybe even Ytterbium and Scandium will have melodies.

Well the original F&P work was an Anglo-American collaboration after all - so it would be fitting if AE meets with huge success. Further work on Zuppero's theories on heavy electrons is needed, his chemical theories suggesting all the energy from a fusion reaction can be carried away by the trapped electron (or muon) are intriguing, and further, could remove the theoretical necessity of proposing ultra dense hydrogen or hydrino formation (which every theoretical physicist has trouble coming to terms with!).

Quite simply, the ultra dense or hydrino state would only occur between two protons or deuterons when they are pulled together by the trapped heavy electron or muon! Holmlid only proposed the UDH state to theoretically account for LENR, and it is correct but would only occur between electron-trapped protons, not en masse as he proposed. The KFeO2 he uses just catalyses the initial Rydberg matter state (proposed in Zuppero's theory too). Further, the muons he is claiming are released by low-power laser stimulation could possibly in fact be high energy 'heavy electrons' released by D fusion reactions (every other muon factory and cosmic rays use atom-smashing energies).

So what happens to the 'heavy electrons' released into the metallic lattice (carrying the e=mc2 mass difference energy)? They would catalyse more fusion reactions some of which would presumably release neutrons and protons, forming tritium and He3, leading to transmutations and excess heat. Thus the actual mass of the reactor core becomes a critical factor (as in fission), too low a mass would allow too many muonic heavy electrons and other particles to escape without achieving the critical density required to propagate fusion.

Does this resolve a few issues - any suggestions/discussion?

inscrutable scientific approach

That is a contradiction! In fact inscrutable => not scientific

Some academics do not believe this, thinking that if no-one can understand your work except you - therefore it proves you are brilliant.

Unfortunately in that case all it proves is that you are a bad communicator, and most likely you are 100% wrong.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Some academics do not believe this, thinking that if no-one can understand your work except you - therefore it proves you are brilliant.

Unfortunately in that case all it proves is that you are a bad communicator, and most likely you are 100% wrong.

I think this is usually the case, but there are instances in the history of science in which concepts very difficult to explain or understand turned out to be true. Especially quantum physics:

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - attr. Feynman

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." - Bohr

This is prone to happen when the new concept overturns existing theory, or when it is completely unexpected. It seems inexplicable at first. People who grow up with it no longer find it so mystifying. They take it for granted. Special relativity is an example. I suppose quantum computers will be, if they become common. Even programmers who do not understand the physics will get used to them. They will shrug their shoulders and say "well, that's how it works."

(Quantum computers are quite different from earlier breakthroughs such as parallel processors, which any computer designer or programmer understood in 1970. They thought such computers would be difficult to program, which was the case, but conceptually the machines were easy to understand.)

Seemed like an apt description to me, impossible to understand ie inscrutable until it is fully published.

Quote from JedRothwell

I think this is usually the case, but there are instances in the history of science in which concepts very difficult to explain or understand turned out to be true. Especially quantum physics:

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - attr. Feynman

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." - Bohr

This is prone to happen when the new concept overturns existing theory, or when it is completely unexpected. It seems inexplicable at first. People who grow up with it no longer find it so mystifying. They take it for granted. Special relativity is an example. I suppose quantum computers will be, if they become common. Even programmers who do not understand the physics will get used to them. They will shrug their shoulders and say "well, that's how it works."

(Quantum computers are quite different from earlier breakthroughs such as parallel processors, which any computer designer or programmer understood in 1970. They thought such computers would be difficult to program, which was the case, but conceptually the machines were easy to understand.)

Display More

Agreed - and string theory now would be like that. But in that case there are a whole load of people who can understand and critique it - just they need all to be specialists who have learnt a lot of maths.

Quote from Dr Richard

Seemed like an apt description to me, impossible to understand ie inscrutable until it is fully published.

I agree, which makes my point that writing stuff up is needed to understand it!

https://skepticalinquirer.org/…comments-on-e-cat-claims/

the "final question":

"The final question is whether the 100 degrees C output of E-Cat has any value for industrial processes. In our experience with 300 industrial customers, this low-quality energy has very little value"

...

Who cares if it has industrial use when a simple 100 degree C heater would sell billions of units for home use? If the ecat worked, of course, but it very clearly does not.