Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    • Official Post

    MY,


    Either your memory is terrible, or there is something wrong with you. I have been knocking that test, starting only a few months after it's completion (5 years ago), for exactly the reasons you accuse me of being too gullible now to notice. And you have read almost all of my critiques here, and on ECNs, about it! You have done this same thing all along too. This is not the first time I have pointed this out to you, yet here you go...deja vous all over again. I sometimes think you do not even recall who I am, even after reading, and replying to my posts thousands of times over the years?


    My guess is that if I post this same video tomorrow, without comment, you will forget what I am saying here, and accuse me yet again of being gullible because I swallowed the Nato Colonel bit, the 500kw generator running noisily with *no electricity* being supplied, while the 1MW (reduced to 500kw due technical difficulty) was supposedly in SSM, and all the other stuff.

    @Dewey Weaver,
    Yes, I think it was indeed a 1/2 MW generator for the 1/2 MW output of the test.
    (Purely coincidental, of course).
    In that particular demonstration, I have no idea how the output of the Plant was confirmed, so I don't know if something close to 1/2 MW actually was produced.
    I doubt the electrical resistances of the combined reactors, not all of which were working, would sum up to 1/2 MW, or even 200 kW, at that time.


    I seem to recall something like 70 kW output being reported from the generator, but that could be wrong.

    Abd: you will I'm sure forgive me making some strong comments below disagreeing with your post from a few pages ago. You'll see why I feel this strongly by the time you get to the end. Generally, while you often seem arrogant and patronising, those are never qualities that concern me (I share the semblance sometimes) and I often value your comment. But not here...


    Quote from Abd

    You could say this about any language, and it would be an error.


    I disagree. Labels, applied to specific people, are inherently reductionist and substitute prejudice for perception. If the prejudice is accurate (it is usually not) and the person is typical of the group (often not) it is still rightly hated because it shows a lack of respect. This is true for all labelling of people, not some special sensitivity of those you label pseudo-skeptic.


    Quote

    When I'm careful about "pseudoskepticism," it is about a known behavior, and some level of pseudoskeptical behavior is not uncommon for humans. I distinguish this from "genuine skepticism," which is essential to science. Pseudoskepticism masquerades as skepticism, but is founded in something much darker, typically contempt and disrespect.

    . When you are careful, this makes sense. I accept that such traits exist and are unhelpful. Further it is useful to identify them. However even when applied with care the above problems with labeling people arise.


    Quote

    I'm not sure what "pseudo-believer" means. I'd think it would have to mean someone who pretends to believe something, but doesn't. Now, this is something I have observed.


    I was making a more precise parallel. A pseudo-believer will make strong claims for their belief, be contemptuous of those more skeptical, and is characterised by a lack of interest in the details. When challenged a pseudo-believer will resort to generalities, avoid the issue, impugn the motives of the challenger with contempt, etc. Just as pseudo-skeptic is inflammatory and generally unhelpful, so a pseudo-believer is the same. You will notice that I don't often use either term here, except when quoting others.

    Quote


    Pseudoskeptics go ballistic over the word "pseudoskeptic."


    This is no doubt true, but polemic. I could as well, and with as much truth, say that pseudo-believers go ballistic over the word pseudo-believer. Wyttenbach, for example, downvoted my post where I introduced the term, though perhaps for some other reason. He seems to have a peculiar attitude towards my comments here. I've indicated above why it would be appropriate for anyone to object to such labels, even if they were applied with, as you put it, "care".


    Quote

    I have seen strident claims that it [pseudoskepticism] doesn't exist. This is all utterly unsurprising, and it is called "denial." Anyway, that is "pseudoskepticism."


    Denial is a word which carries much freight. I don't myself mind its use when accurate (ignoring the historic resonances) but many would be unable to do this. In any case your argument here is leaky. I'm now going to ignore historic resonances and use denial as a neutral term. A person might indeed deny LENR. Or, they might deny the existence of pseudoskepticism. To do the latter they'd need a clear definition of course. But the two denials are different, and in principle separate. Personally, I find it difficult to deny the existence of poorly defined concepts. Thus I cannot deny LENR or pseudo-skepticism even were I minded to do so.


    You may think this nit-picking. Actually, I think your comment above is polemic, words apparently making a rational argument but actually pushing rhetorical buttons.


    Quote

    But sometimes I call a specific person a "pseudoskeptic." That is a judgment of mine that their behavior is commonly or at the moment characterized by the traits of pseudoskepticism, commonly contempt of others and certainty as to one's own beliefs.


    Calling out such certainty in a person when it exists is proper and I'm glad you do it. And it could be directed towards or against any specific belief.


    The main point of this post is that generalisation about people is inherently unhelpful. Here, it helps to label a specific action, not the person. This is 101 of how to address bad behaviour and it is obvious when you think about it, but not always easy to do in the heat of the moment. "that was pseudoskeptical behaviour" - OK. "Pseudoskeptics" - No.


    This is not an esoteric debating point. It is absolutely key to a fruitful dialog, and also key to maintaining good relations with others in situations of conflict. I don't claim I do it always: but I can aspire to doing it.

    Para, was that tongue in cheek or serious? My irony bone is worn through. Anyway, Google says: "No results found for "professor fioravanti" padova polytechnic." (or Polytech instead of Polytechnic) Either the professor or the university doesn't exist or both.


    Shane, you keep sounding like you believe Rossi. If you don't want me on your case each and every time, please write more clearly. When you cite the 2011 clownery as a "customer acceptance test," those who have not been following the story since then will be confused or will believe there really was a customer acceptance test. You could have said something like "Rossi's claim to an acceptance test" or "Rossi's non-believable acceptance test" etc. for clarity.

    Classically, discussions like this become monsters, if one response point by point. So I will resist the temptation and skip over much.


    Quote from THHuxley


    A pseudo-believer will make strong claims for their belief, be contemptuous of those more skeptical, and is characterised by a lack of interest in the details.


    THH, you invented the term and it runs contrary to linguistic conventions. A "pseudoskeptic" is so called because of an idea that the person pretends to be a skeptic, but is not, is, instead, actually a believer in their own ideas. (and not merely trying them on or using them as operating assumptions.)


    Quote

    When challenged a pseudo-believer will resort to generalities, avoid the issue, impugn the motives of the challenger with contempt, etc. Just as pseudo-skeptic is inflammatory and generally unhelpful, so a pseudo-believer is the same. You will notice that I don't often use either term here, except when quoting others.


    You are developing a parallel between a kind of believer and a pseudoskeptic. However, why "pseudo"-believer? "Believers" do what you describe. The common factor is contempt, and it characterizes a kind of believer. There are other kinds of believers who are not like that. Both, however, are acting from their own belief.


    Quote


    This is no doubt true, but polemic. I could as well, and with as much truth, say that pseudo-believers go ballistic over the word pseudo-believer.


    If I say a tail is a leg, how many legs does a dog have?


    As to what normal people familiar with the English language will read, a "pseudo-believer" would be someone who pretends to believe, but doesn't. There is a common word for this: hypocrite. And to call someone a hypocrite is generally an insult, far stronger than to call someone a pseudoskeptic. (I don't particularly mind being called pseudoskeptical, because we all may be at times.) However, you also made up the response, purely for the sake of argument, it appears. Nobody has gone "ballistic" over "pseudo-believer."


    Quote

    Wyttenbach, for example, downvoted my post where I introduced the term, though perhaps for some other reason.


    Indeed. I'm not sure what could be derived from any of Wyttenbach's reactions. However, I would not think of him as a "pseudobeliever." And so he is not, discussing this with me, an example of a "pseudo-believer" going ballistic over the word.


    Quote

    I have seen strident claims that it [pseudoskepticism] doesn't exist. This is all utterly unsurprising, and it is called "denial." Anyway, that is "pseudoskepticism."


    Quote

    Denial is a word which carries much freight. I don't myself mind its use when accurate (ignoring the historic resonances) but many would be unable to do this. In any case your argument here is leaky. I'm now going to ignore historic resonances and use denial as a neutral term. A person might indeed deny LENR. Or, they might deny the existence of pseudoskepticism.


    You are using the word denial with a different meaning than I used it. "Denial" -- in my usage -- is not about rejecting some outside idea, like LENR (or, say, global warming). It is, in the realm I have spent a great deal of time in, a term for refusing to recognize what is obvious in one's own experience, if one looks. A great deal of training is involved in discovering where one is doing this. In the end, it is something that, to be useful, a person must discover for themselves. The question is whether or not it is useful to be reminded by others. From my experience, often not, but sometimes. Ah, the power of intermittent reinforcement!


    Quote

    The main point of this post is that generalisation about people is inherently unhelpful. Here, it helps to label a specific action, not the person. This is 101 of how to address bad behaviour and it is obvious when you think about it, but not always easy to do in the heat of the moment. "that was pseudoskeptical behaviour" - OK. "Pseudoskeptics" - No.


    Is this abstract? Who are we talking about? The first statement you make might be a claim about the behavior of a person, with whom one is conversing. One might think this could be more offensive than a general comment about pseudoskeptics or pseudoskepticism. However, what actually happens is that for some, the topic is forbidden. If someone talks about pseudoskepticism, perhaps the thinking goes, they must be a believer, on the attack, and so there is a counterattack. Yet the word came from Truzzi, a skeptic's skeptic. I was talking about the denial involved. That denial was the sign of entrenched belief, wrapped up with identity and so to be heavily defended.


    And that's enough for now.


    Quote

    This is not an esoteric debating point. It is absolutely key to a fruitful dialog, and also key to maintaining good relations with others in situations of conflict. I don't claim I do it always: but I can aspire to doing it.


    Well, thanks for caring.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    @Mary Yugo,
    I think the Professor reference can be found deep in the JoNP, and the Celani connection was somewhere else, on another LENR forum (not ECW).


    The city is Padua or Padova. However, someone has possibly become confused, searching for the wrong title in the wrong school in the wrong city. This is from E-Catworld, in 2012, apparently taken from Rossi's blog:


    Quote

    About Cures: He has been identified as Domenico Fioravanti, it appears that the data from the test made on July 16th comes from him. If it is true, it is due to an excess of enthusiasm for the results, that have been obtained in a test directed by him and by 6 Professors from two Universities. The data had to remain confidential, but he could not help to talk about this event and the remarkable results.He is making these tests as a Consultant of a military Customer of us and now probably he will have problems for the leakages, even if I do not think it has been so important: sooner or later the same data will be published. I knew Ing Fioravanti when he was a Student of the Politecnico di Torino ( the Engineering University of Turin, Italy) because he was making a research for Prof. Cesare Boffa (one of the best Engineering Prof. of the time) regarding the new technologies of Electrostatic Precipitators. It was the year 1976 and even if I was 26 years old, I was at the times considered an expert of the sector, so I gave to Domenico Fioravanti much papers I had wrote and he also visited the electrostatic precipitators I manufactured in my factory of Caponago (Milan, Italy). Then we never met again. After 35 years (!!!) I received an email from him in the blog of the Journal, in which he congratulated for the E-Cat, and for me has been a delighting surprise to hear from him again. I contacted him privately and he explained to me that he was a Colonel Engineer, expert of missiles tests. One year later, when with our Military Customer we had to choose a neutral Consultant for the test of the well known plant of 1 MW, I proposed Fioravanti, whom they knew very well, because he worked with NATO, with the Pentagon at the highest levels and always for engineering connected with thermodynamic tests ( mainly nuclear carriers’ heads tests). So we all have been glad to choose him.


    Not Padova. This is the school: Polytechnic University of Turin.
    Cesare Boffa "1975 Professore Ordinario di Fisica Tecnica al Politecnico di Torino" "1975 - ottobre 2012 • Tipo di impiego Titolare della Cattedra di Fisica Tecnica presso la Facoltà di Ingegneria del Politecnico di Torino"
    Pesn page on Fioravanti. This is mostly taken from the Rossi blog post, but has a photo of Fioravanti credited to Nyteknik. and there is a page there reporting on that test, with it appearing that Lewan did speak with Fioravanti.


    While I did not with a quick search find anything on Fioravanti that did not come from the Rossi blog, aside from the reference by Mats, I see no reason to doubt the story in round outlines. Rossi did engage with some possible military customers. Rossi also commonly presents possibilities (real or imagined) as if realized facts.

    In any case the search for "professor fioravanti" padova polytechnic." (or Polytech instead of Polytechnic) -- was way off. There is no claim I saw looking around that Fioravanti was a "professor." He was a student and I think he was given the title of "Ing." i.e., engineer. The school was not in Padova, but in Turin.


    I would not, however, have considered Fioravanti "neutral," it seems that Rossi proposed him. Bad Idea, choosing someone to validate an invention at the suggestion of the inventor. Rossi seems to have no awareness of the inadvisability of that. This isn't any kind of criticism of Fiioravanti. I do wonder how the identity of "Cures" was revealed.

    Quote from THHuxley

    This is no doubt true, but polemic. I could as well, and with as much truth, say that pseudo-believers go ballistic over the word pseudo-believer. Wyttenbach, for example, downvoted my post where I introduced the term, though perhaps for some other reason.


    @THH: I many time up-voted your posts too...


    But the one you mention, was highly repetitive and thus bad style, not expected of a technically skilled person!


    My main interest is physics, then politics of main stream physics suppressing new knowledge, for the sake of saving their rocker chair live positions...


    One expample:
    As you truly know: ITER is dead, but still consumes 1'000'000'000 $ year.., just to feed the ugly ones...

    Quote

    Classically, discussions like this become monsters


    Yes, it looks like we are hitting strongly held ideas where we disagree.


    Quote

    A "pseudoskeptic" is so called because of an idea that the person pretends to be a skeptic, but is not, is, instead, actually a believer in their own ideas. (and not merely trying them on or using them as operating assumptions.)


    And I'm making (with pseudobeliever) a similar distinction between someone whose belief is based on evidence, and therefore changeable with new evidence, and someone whose belief is a fixed point which will not change.


    I think you should not be so ready to think there is pretence involved here. There is, as you point out, contrary belief. Why suppose people consciously dishonest when far more common is the error we are all susceptible to unconscious bias? In some cases this can affect specific scientific points, like evaluating the evidence for LENR. And in some cases it can be difficult to change:

    Quote

    That denial was the sign of entrenched belief, wrapped up with identity and so to be heavily defended.


    Quote from Abd

    "Denial" -- in my usage -- is not about rejecting some outside idea, like LENR (or, say, global warming). It is, in the realm I have spent a great deal of time in, a term for refusing to recognize what is obvious in one's own experience, if one looks. A great deal of training is involved in discovering where one is doing this. In the end, it is something that, to be useful, a person must discover for themselves.


    So: strongly defended positions (in a psychological sense) can indeed be as you say. It is the height of arrogance to imagine you know whether somone else's belief, or lack of it, is due to such a specific internal state. Maybe it is just that their judgement, or their experience on which judgement is made, is different from yours.


    More importantly: when such issues exist, precisely which areas of intellectual dialog they affect is variable and no way can you precisely scope them from the outside evidence you have. By assuming that your colocuter suffers a fixed inability to reason, and addressing them as such a person, you can be sure to reinforce your assumption. When, had you allowed in your dialog the possibility of chnage, and addressed matters more indirectly, allowing space for reflection without conflict, your assumption might turn out all wrong.


    As a monster topic I'm not sure much more can be said. And the disagreement between us (if there is such) probably lies outside the issue of LENR, so perhaps not relevant here.




    So

    Quote from THHuxley

    And I'm making (with pseudobeliever) a similar distinction between someone whose belief is based on evidence, and therefore changeable with new evidence, and someone whose belief is a fixed point which will not change.


    I think you should not be so ready to think there is pretence involved here.


    This is strange about this discussion. Whether or not there is pretense would be a condition of an individual situation. My training makes me suspect all "ready" conclusions. Especially my own. I was -- and we were -- talking about the general case, of classes of people -- and you appear to deny the utility of that, but, in my experience, it can be useful, and that is obvious. It's normal human behavior, and such does not exist without utility.


    Such behavior can also be very dangerous. We would agree on that point, I think.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    @Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax,
    Yes Turin in the school I meant. I was going from memory. It was quite sone time ago that I was looking into that part of the story.
    I do believe that Fioravanti was referred to as a Professor at some point, but not of the Turin technical school.


    Edit: re Professor; http://journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=5#comment-56084


    Nice find. However, I'm suspecting that this was a response to the original contact that was later mentioned. Is it? The Cures comment is a set of detailed -- and excellent -- suggestions. So, the appearance may be that Cures posted to JONP. How did Rossi know this was Fioravanti? I don't know, but Rossi outed him here. So if Cures later wrote about a test he witnessed, which seems to be the story (I have not followed this in detail), he would presumably have known that the identity was not private, and thus if there were a security risk, he took it on himself. If this was the original contact, then the usage of "Prof." by Rossi could merely be a mark of politeness and respect, not some definitive claim. The actual post shows signs of depth as an engineer, even more than might be expected from a "professor."


    CURious, I googled Cures and site:[JONP link]. This is what I got, filtering out irrelevant hits:


    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=19#comment-41129 Cures, May 25, 2011 at 8:11 AM gives personal details and apparently sound advice.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=19#comment-41136 Rossi, May 25, 2011 at 9:03 AM responds, shows no recognition.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=19#comment-41281 Rossi: "Now I remember well..." May 25, 2011 at 11:48 PM. Mentions no name, but email, and gives details on Cures.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=19#comment-41333 Cures: May 26, 2011 at 6:51 AM
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=20#comment-43343 Cures June 3, 2011 at 9:08 AM
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497&cpage=9#comment-47519 Cures, June 21, 2011 at 1:15 AM
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=20#comment-43344 Rossi June 3, 2011 at 9:21 AM
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=5#comment-55989 Cures, July 23, 2011 at 6:25 PM
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=5#comment-56084 Rossi addresses CURES as "Prof. Fioravanti."July 24, 2011
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=629&cpage=1#comment-233042 Cures: May 15, 2012 at 4:20 PM


    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=1#comment-301447 Neri B refers to leaked picture from Cures. August 13, 2012
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=876&cpage=5#comment-1071002 Hank Mills, in 2015, mentions Cures and the Cobraf Forum.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=100#comment-1176170 Hank Mills, April 23, 2016 at 1:50 AM .... I find stuff when I'm looking for something else. I will cover this below.


    The interchange brings something to mind for me. Rossi managed to impress many scientists and engineers. There is a cartoon story of Rossi that dismisses all this as those people being stupid, not seeing the obvious, that he is a "convicted fraud." (Which is not exactly true, apparently, though I don't know that anyone has done complete historical reporting on this. Reporters are sometimes interested in the scandal, the quick conclusion, and not in depth. After all, many readers don't like "complicated stories." They want the dirt!


    And there there were others who could see the obvious obvious -- Rossi was possibly paranoid and possibly imbalanced in some way, and his agenda somewhat looked like he wanted people to see him as a fraud -- this is mentioned in An Impossible Invention -- but some knew that reality sometimes does not match appearances.


    The impression I get from this evidence is that Fioravanti is real, actually an engineer. No details from Rossi can be trusted, to be sure. However, it seems unlikely the account he gives is a lie. What happened later with Cures is unclear to me, I have not researched Cobraf and how it came to be known publically that Cures was Fioravanti. It could have been from hints given by Cures and Rossi in that exchange, though. When did Cures write on Cobraf? If it was after that "Prof. Fioravanti" comment by Rossi, then that comment was the "leak." Someone who cares sufficiently may research all this, looking at post timings, etc. I have only scratched the surface.


    When I look at what Rossi did, unmistakeably, it's impressive. As that DIA director who witnessed an early demonstration noted, if this is fraud, it's a remarkable one. (not his exact words, this is reported on NET and has been recently covered, because Planet Rossi accused Krivit of deleting it, which apparently did not happen.)


    The full story will certainly merit a book. My friend thinks this is a movie, and the script could make millions. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction....


    The time to write the book, my opinion, is "not yet." We may know much more within a year. I write about the story as it is unfolding, to learn and to assist those who want to watch. I have not written and do not know the conclusion, the full plot summary.

    The fact that there was a 450 kW generator isn't quite as interesting as other facets of the October 2011 demo.


    The Plant was reported to be in self-sustain mode (almost no input, pumps and control circuits only) for 5.5 hours.
    66 kWh was reported consumed over 5.5 hours, while the Plant reportedly produced 2635 kWh.


    Notwithstanding the genset capacity, it should have been fairly easy to confirm if the Plant was almost un-powered.
    The genset running at full output would almost certainly have been very noticeable.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    zeus46 wrote:
    Evidence, please.


    Here's the generator label:

    This is one of the funniest posts I've seen on lenr-forum. I think the capacity of that generator was fairly common knowledge, but, indeed, brevity is the soul of wit. This is follow-up. The image shown is at https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…-2011-Genset-450-kVA-jpg/, and the important point is that the label states "KVA 450."


    My, my, what a coincidence! The generator capacity is close to the reported performance of the plant! This demonstration involved "self-sustain mode" after a period of set-up. How long was the setup period? What was the generator output during that period, was it measured? Faking a test like this would basically be almost trivial. Most frauds, however, would be visible to a careful engineer. Still, an engineer, disposed to friendliness, might not think of some of the modes. Suppose that container, the plant, contained modules containing thermite -- ignited by control, and designed to be contained. As well, if the units contain hot metal (which they do, probably), that metal could be heated up in the setup phase and would then release heat gradually, as controlled by the operator (i.e,. the modules are insulated and then release of heat is controlled by the rate of flow of water.)


    Thermite would, of course, clearly be deliberate fraud. The heat storage issue, though, might not be. In addition, there are all the issues about how Rossi measured power, which could bristle with fraud or artifact.


    And none of this was actually necessary. Building megawatt power plants from individual manufactured units before making and selling those units themselves was a basically insane business plan, created on the idea, I think, that Rossi wanted a completely amazing "magnificence" to overwhelm opposition. And all this was known in 2011, widely discussed. Rossi technology could have been widely available for engineering and licensing, easily by 2013. If he had been able to show IH how to make devices, he'd have arranged a GPT with their consent -- and if they would not consent to a reasonable test, he'd have gotten a court order for specific performance --, or, even better, they would have waived that test, substituting a payment arrangement that would keep more money free for development of a product. By now? He'd be rolling in cash.


    If the technology was real and practical for building megawatt power plants.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.