Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


  • A sample of the fuel was taken before the test as the fuel was being loaded. The assay of that fuel was shown to be comprised of a normal nickel isotopic mix. All the nickel fuel particles were covered with lithium 7 enriched to 94%.


    The ash sample was melted onto the inside of the reactor and gad to be peeled off with a pick. How could Rossi melt that ash sample that was far bigger than 100 microns, when the fuel contained nickel particles that were all below 100 microns as shown by the analysis to the fuel after the test,. The nickel ash was pure but was covered with lithium 6 at 56% concentration.

    I like these sort of hinge issues. If it was true that the ash sample was melted and had to be pried off, then it goes towards the possibility that Rossi didn't fraudulently add Nickel to the ash. But we are probably not likely to know the truth, even after this trial because that's not the sort of thing lawyers focus on. And we don't have verifiable evidence that this was the case.


    The evidence doesn't favor either conclusion, that Rossi is an ingenious fraud nor that he's a genius businessman inventor. The evidence favors that he's a tragic inventor who regularly cuts corners in business and this is likely to be his downfall. He will probably die like Patterson and his data will die with him. In mercato bullshitas.

  • It [The lugano experiment] was never intended to be a scientific independent replication, it was intended to be a demo. Rossi is not a scientist, he views scientists as thieves. He got IH to agree to Logano or whoever it was that administered the 3rd party test and write up the report.


    Now THAT's a world class scam artist, who is able to get a company to agree to an independent 3rd party monitor the demo and write the independent ERV report, all the while having access to the demo over a year or so. Rossi was able to hoodwink Piantelli and Levi and Focardi and Swedish Skeptics Society and a dozen others. He is the most amazing scam artist in history.


    That is an extraordinary view, given the write-up as an independent scientific experiment by 6 scientists and Rossi's continual quoting of it when asked for proof that his devices work (in patents, legal deposition, etc).


    OK: let us just agree that Rossi never intended this as a scientific test. I can agree with that. Rossi has always categorically refused scientific tests (Lugano was we now know controlled by Rossi). He has alo categorically refused to let his device be black-box tested by independent groups wanting to discover whether it works or no. Note the strong distinction here from the estimable (in this respect) me356.


    IH did not have unrestricted access to the demo. Rossi had a list of allowed personel to visit, none of whom were technically competent. He was happy to add any number of untechnical people to the list, but refused competent technical guys.


    What does that tell you?

  • I then went on to state that a reasonable alternate explanation to the Ni62 ash being from LENR reactions was that it was simply tampered with by Rossi.


    sigmoidal : I explained it to you once before and you repeat your FUD again. The Ni62 was found on the surface of a grain. In many LENR experiments you see surface hot spots of transmutations.

    Other physical explanations for accumulation exist too! Like fractionation under magnet fields. For me your's & PGM's similar claim is just an indication of desperation. Did you ever see a fool playing a year long magic trick??

    Thus, don't be foolish, because after we once know the real story, may be the wrong claims will point at you.

  • OMG, wytt.

    Total digestion analysis (dissolved in nitric acid) showed 99.3% Ni62. (Lugano report page 53).

    To summarize, the particles tested contained almost 100% Ni62, outside, in the center, and in between.

    The other nickel isotopes were nearly entirely absent. (0.3% Ni58, 0.3% Ni60).

  • FACTS


    A sample of the fuel was taken before the test as the fuel was being loaded. The assay of that fuel was shown to be comprised of a normal nickel isotopic mix. All the nickel fuel particles were covered with lithium 7 enriched to 94%.


    The ash sample was melted onto the inside of the reactor and gad to be peeled off with a pick. How could Rossi melt that ash sample that was far bigger than 100 microns, when the fuel contained nickel particles that were all below 100 microns as shown by the analysis to the fuel after the test,. The nickel ash was pure but was covered with lithium 6 at 56% concentration.


    Explanations


    • Rossi swapped the reactor with another
    • Rossi's friend Levi taught him some prestidigitation and he palmed the sampled fuel substituting some Ni-62 fuel
    • The reactor already contained some Ni-62 fuel - e.g in one of its two ends.
    • The Ni-62 measured was as expected from bought Ni-62
    • The Li-7 was as expected from bought Li-7
  • Substantially the same, considering the lesser accuracy and use of surface methods.


    Or... 6 grains selected at random from 1000's were substantially Ni62 while the rest were not....


    But making any statements about untested particles is a waste of everyone's time. They could have been the same, or dustpan scrapings, or exfoliated skin particles from someone's pillow case for all we know.

    However, if the particles were selected at random, the odds of all of them having about the same Ni62 content, outside and in, while much of the rest did not, are low.

    Unless some sort of chicanery was involved.

  • sigmoidal : I explained it to you once before and you repeat your FUD again. The Ni62 was found on the surface of a grain. In many LENR experiments you see surface hot spots of transmutations.

    Other physical explanations for accumulation exist too! Like fractionation under magnet fields. For me your's & PGM's similar claim is just an indication of desperation. Did you ever see a fool playing a year long magic trick??

    Thus, don't be foolish, because after we once know the real story, may be the wrong claims will point at you.


    Wyttenbach,


    I'm sorry that you share some of Axil's deficiencies. It's very hard to have a 'conversation' with you for the same reasons: 1) you rarely contribute anything useful and 2) you have a hard time learning from others. (Remember your clueless statements about how important the 'new' information regarding arbitration in Rossi vs. Darden, when in fact it was six months old and you had 'discovered' this 'new information' even though you were citing the fourth amended response?) I suggest it might go better for you generally if you 'tone it down' a bit regarding phrases like 'desperation' and 'magic tricks' and 'dilettantes', given your track record of provable miscomprehnsion.


    But I'll give it another try (this time):


    Your claim that the Uppsala investigators only analyzed the surface morphology using Mass Spectroscopy is untrue. In the manuscript, the authors describe that they used both surface methods (SIMS) and whole sample (ICP-MS) methods (in addition to non-MS surface and whole sample methods, but those other methods do not identify isotopic composition).


    As I stated awhile ago, the 'spent fuel' analysis showed ~99% Ni62 using both surface and whole sample methods.


    Again, your assertion that they only looked at surface morphology contradicts their descriptions in the manuscript.


    Here's the exact wording, from the manuscript:


    p.28:

    Both XPS and SIMS give information on which elements are present at the surface of a sample granule down to a depth of a few nanometers. The ICP-MS is an
    integrating method giving the average isotopic composition of the whole fuel/ash sample being analyzed.


    p. 29:

    ...the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%).


    So, in summary, to be absolutely clear: Uppsala Ash Ni62 analysis results: Surface method -> 98.7% Whole sample method -> 99.3% (In other words, the same result within a percent).


    But, as mentioned in my post, these facts about ash composition (that you miscomprehended) are irrelevant to the main point, which is that Rossi is extraordinarily deceptive, and therefore an entirely reasonable alternate explanation for the ash analysis results is that he tampered with the ash, vs. transmutation.


    And repeating your same error over and over again does not help your case, not only because it is objectively wrong, but also because it is irrelevant to the point being made.

  • Personally, I find that the FUEL sample tested by Pettersson (who also did the Lugano analyses), received from Rossi on May 11, 2016, that contained 78.5% Ni62 and 86.5% Li6 far more interesting.


    He concludes: "Note that these numbers are preliminary, but the final numbers can only deviate by a few percent.

    The isotope composition of the Rossi sample is qualitatively the same as the ash from the Lugano experiment."


  • I'm sure there's a rational explanation that would explain why some people spend a good part of their waking hours on a niche internet forum, repeating over and over that there's a conman who's been identified as a conman for decades, and whose invention is an unfunctional gadget, as it always has been. Surely if they were convinced it has been true for years, they would not spend so much time repeating it? ha, the mysteries of life.

  • I'm sure there's a rational explanation that would explain why some people spend a good part of their waking hours on a niche internet forum, repeating over and over that there's a conman who's been identified as a conman for decades, and whose invention is an unfunctional gadget, as it always has been. Surely if they were convinced it has been true for years, they would not spend so much time repeating it? ha, the mysteries of life.


    Hey Roger, for people like me who care about research methods (because I am a methodologist) and who have experience designing robust technical solutions and debugging problems (as an engineer) and perhaps for lawyers, Rossi is interesting because he is such an enigma,


    Also, for me, it is interesting because I have a very bright friend who bought into Rossi's crap a couple of years ago and wasted much time and money with the false hope that Rossi actually was on the verge of LENR+. (He bought a kiln, a camera, etc.)


    What's your interest in casting doubt on the motivations of people who don't hold your view?

  • Now we know for certain that it wasn't carried out independently (despite Rossi's claim that it was), that it wasn't a controlled experiment (no unfuelled comparison trial using identical measurement). And even at the time, the Lugano investigators (correctly) described it as a 'demonstration', not a fully independent replication.

    Lugano was carried out independently: all this story of the non-independence of the test emerged only when Darden said that Rossi was present every day of the test while the scientists interchanged each others. So what? Rossi was indispensable for some operations, since they were secret and scientists could not know them (for example, about the trigger of the reaction). In the Lugano report it is clearly stated in which operations Rossi was involved but it is not said at all that during those operations Rossi was all alone! Scientists have supervised his actions and I do not think it would be so easy to deceive them. The experiment was checked since a comparative dummy was used and there is no point in speaking about replication, since scientists have tested a Rossi's reactor (built by IH!) and not its own reactor.

  • His game is choosing the most polite, gullible, and desirous marks. And in Levi, Focardi, Lewan, and the Swedish scientists who examined the so-called hot cats, he found ideal marks/victims. All Rossi had to do was present these people with things like misplaced thermocouples, miscomputed thermal radiation, mismeasured input power, constantly changing conditions (improvements which never improved) and of course, never, NOT ONE, not a single proper calibration performed by credible people using their own equipment! Also, Rossi was lucky and those who worked with him were way overly polite to avoid his put on irritability and anger.

    Do you really think it's possible that Rossi has been able to cheat so many people, even experts, in so many years? Or is it easier to think that you are following an agenda, since you have been persecute him for years in any forum, blog, and space you can find on the web? You are not credible, you have never been.

  • Lugano was carried out independently: all this story of the non-independence of the test emerged only when Darden said that Rossi was present every day of the test while the scientists interchanged each others. So what? Rossi was indispensable for some operations, since they were secret and scientists could not know them (for example, about the trigger of the reaction). In the Lugano report it is clearly stated in which operations Rossi was involved but it is not said at all that during those operations Rossi was all alone! Scientists have supervised his actions and I do not think it would be so easy to deceive them. The experiment was checked since a comparative dummy was used and there is no point in speaking about replication, since scientists have tested a Rossi's reactor (built by IH!) and not its own reactor.


    Are you perhaps Levi? You think like him on this matter and such blatant disregard for facts is unusual. You do not of course have to answer: I'm not concerned with your precise identity but it remains interesting to note this meme.


    Darden said that the Swedes visited occasionally, leaving Fulvio and Rossi in charge of running the test. Nobody other than you or the Lugano team would call that an independent test.


    The dummy test - surprisingly - was cut short at low temperatures for no good reason. Dewey here has claimed that Rossi pulled the plug on it suddenly. Whether so or no, it cannot provide useful data on the errors in the IR calorimetry because it was run at a much lower temperature where those errors were inherently smaller and also compensated by rewriting the book emissivity table! You can check this from the report?

  • p.7

    ...

    The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually
    brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the
    following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and
    powder charge extraction.

    Sigmoidal, you cited this extract to prove that the Lugano test was not independent. Why should these phrases should prove it? Scientists have said that Rossi intervened in those operations, but they did not add that they were in the bar at that time to take a coffee.....

  • Lugano was carried out independently: all this story of the non-independence of the test emerged only when Darden said that Rossi was present every day of the test while the scientists interchanged each others. So what? Rossi was indispensable for some operations, since they were secret and scientists could not know them (for example, about the trigger of the reaction). In the Lugano report it is clearly stated in which operations Rossi was involved but it is not said at all that during those operations Rossi was all alone! Scientists have supervised his actions and I do not think it would be so easy to deceive them. The experiment was checked since a comparative dummy was used and there is no point in speaking about replication, since scientists have tested a Rossi's reactor (built by IH!) and not its own reactor.


    SSC, you're definition of 'carried out independently' is not at all consistent with it's use in scientific research.


    Now that we know for sure that Rossi is extraordinarily deceptive (based on non-disputed evidence filed in federal court), we also know that a reasonable alternate explanation for positive Lugano results was Rossi's deception.


    That's the answer to 'so what?'.


    So, in order to advance the debate, can you provide evidence as to why Rossi deception is an unreasonable explanation for the E-Cat results?


    In order for Rossi to provide evidence that the E-Cat works, he needs to either provide a means to eliminate this reasonable alternative explanation (for example, by facilitating a truly independent trial) or by selling his stuff to a truly independent customer who can vouch for the benefit of his IP.


    He has done neither, and because his multiple deceptions have been exposed, the level of evidence needed to demonstrate that his stuff does not work has been greatly increased.

  • Rossi is extraordinarily deceptive, and therefore an entirely reasonable alternate explanation for the ash analysis results is that he tampered with the ash, vs. transmutation.

    There were cameras that have always record every action of the people present in the test, and Rossi did not perform the fuel loading and the ash extraction on its own (or do you believe he did it? If you are convinced he was alone, prove it). The reactor used in Lugano was built by IH and was used in the presence of scientists: your allegations about a possible fraud of Rossi do not make sense.

  • Sigmoidal, you cited this extract to prove that the Lugano test was not independent. Why should these phrases should prove it? Scientists have said that Rossi intervened in those operations, but they did not add that they were in the bar at that time to take a coffee.....


    SSC you seem to be very confused regarding what scientists mean when they say that they have 'independently replicated or verified' someone else's research.


    The Lugano team did not/does not assert that Lugano was an independent replication - it was a demonstration, not independent replication.


    Those are two very different levels of evidence.


    In general, that doesn't automatically mean that a demonstration is worthless, but now that we know Rossi is extraordinarily deceptive, and that he was substantially involved in the demonstration, it greatly reduces the credibility of the findings of his demonstration.