Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Quote

    A question for you. Which one of the above has not put some money into LENR Research?


    I've heard that Gates did but this is a supposition based on some believers thinking they read his signature on a mostly obscured copy of a contract. I have no idea whether the other two did. And if any of the three contributed money, I've seen nothing to suggest that the effort was successful. I seriously doubt that any seriously wealthy person other than Darden contributed to the Rossi and Defkalion fiascos.

  • You don't know it at all, because nobody would tell you anything.


    IO above has a point. While MY will always seem impolite on this topic, due to strongly held views along one axis, any skeptic not willing to accept what is being proposed will quickly be branded a skeptopath and similarly insulted, certainly shunned.


    The problem is that one person's skeptic is another's skeptopath. Shunning such is not helpful.

  • I guess it all makes sense. While Musk is out there touting missions to Mars and Hyperloops traveling 600 mph in underground tubes, his REAL adventurous stuff is in LENR. He undoubtedly tells his minions "It is ok to let Axil and IHFanboy know about this but make sure maryyugo doesn't find out about it."

  • Musk, Bezos, Gates build their business around sometimes decades old proven tech. What makes you to believe they are going to invest into lenr?

    Give me at least one example of these guys inventing something.

    They are good businessman nevertheless.

  • Musk, Bezos, Gates build their business around sometimes decades old proven tech. What makes you to believe they are going to invest into lenr?

    Give me at least one example of these guys inventing something.

    By all accounts, Gates is a superb programmer. One example will do. He wrote the BASIC compiler for the MITS computer without having access to a MITS computer. He put it on paper tape. It executed correctly the first time.


    Gates' programs were conservative. They were often rehashes of decades-old technology, but at the time he wrote them that was a good strategy. I was writing similar programs, migrating mainframe and minicomputer applications PCs. There were big differences in the hardware so you had to be creative and you had to know a lot about computers to make a PC into something like an IBM mainframe. That is what the customers wanted. They also wanted personalized software that did things no mainframe could do, such as spreadsheets. Gates recognized this early on, and met that demand.


    Microsoft products are often criticized unfairly. In the early days they had to work on a wide range of different computers that were supposed to be compatible but were not. Later they had to be backward compatible, or the customers would go elsewhere. In the mid-1990s they had to work in a tremendous range of different markets, in different languages. I was very impressed when I saw the U.S. versions of Microsoft Word and other apps could work on a U.S. computerin Japanese. They worked as well as any software package designed in Japan exclusively for that market. That is an incredible accomplishment. I do not think the previous market leaders such as IBM could have pulled it off. Granted, it was easier with giant RAM and disk space, but it still called for a level of organization and coordination that few corporations could have achieved in the 1990s.

  • By all accounts, Gates is a superb programmer. One example will do. He wrote the BASIC compiler for the MITS computer without having access to a MITS computer. He put it on paper tape. It executed correctly the first time.


    Gates' programs were conservative. They were often rehashes of decades-old technology, but at the time he wrote them that was a good strategy. I was writing similar programs, migrating mainframe and minicomputer applications PCs. There were big differences in the hardware so you had to be creative and you had to know a lot about computers to make a PC into something like an IBM mainframe. That is what the customers wanted. They also wanted personalized software that did things no mainframe could do, such as spreadsheets. Gates recognized this early on, and met that demand.


    Microsoft products are often criticized unfairly. In the early days they had to work on a wide range of different computers that were supposed to be compatible but were not. Later they had to be backward compatible, or the customers would go elsewhere. In the mid-1990s they had to work in a tremendous range of different markets, in different languages. I was very impressed when I saw the U.S. versions of Microsoft Word and other apps could work on a U.S. computerin Japanese. They worked as well as any software package designed in Japan exclusively for that market. That is an incredible accomplishment. I do not think the previous market leaders such as IBM could have pulled it off. Granted, it was easier with giant RAM and disk space, but it still called for a level of organization and coordination that few corporations could have achieved in the 1990s.

    Yes, Microsoft was a leader 20 years ago. The reason Microsoft fell behind and the reason so many other companies that were leaders in the 90's are no longer in business is that they didn't embrace new technology fast enough. The internet, smartphones, AI and social media are the techs that are in the drivers seat at the moment it seems. Apple recognized this 10 years ago and came out with the Iphone. Facebook, Google, and Amazon also jumped on the bandwagon fairly early, too. Using old tech is fine as long as there is no competition. New tech always beats old tech, but it's possible to catch up if one wants to. For example, I learned to program on a computer with 32k of 8 bit RAM and a clock speed of less than 1Mhz. I can now write apps and games for smartphones using the latest software and design principles. I can also design and train neural nets at a level about halfway between beginner and intermediate, although I'm fairly new to it. If people are starting to use tractors and cars, trying to make an argument for horses and mules is probably not best practice.

  • Amazing stuff.... and more amazing that people believe this! 8|

    From eCat World, my first visit back in some time....

    (Comments mine)


    Darrin

    October 11, 2017 at 5:33 AM


    Dr Andrea Rossi:

    Still about the replication made by the Professors of Uppsala: you said you can’t comment before they publish a report, but do you know the results of their trial to replicate the results of Lugano by themselves in a laboratory of the University of Uppsala?


    Thank you if you can answer

    Andrea Rossi

    (Amazing how "Darrin" knows that Rossi knows of the replication, the results etc. Yet has not posted before! Another puppet most likely!)



    October 11, 2017 at 6:57 AM


    Darrin:

    Obviously I know the results, I have been informed about them by the Professors under NDA, but I cannot talk of them before they will publish a report, if ever, since they worked with the funding of a third party that wanted to know if the Rossi Effect exists beyond any doubt. (NDA's abound with Rossi! HIs best tool. Cannot talk about them? What is he doing in the post?!?! LOL! Another Third Party! JMP perhaps) ^^


    For this reason, they reproduced the reactor in the laboratories of the Uppsala University and followed the instructions contained in my patent. They wanted to avoid the complications generated by the infrared temperature measurement and measured the energy produced by simple calorimetry, by means of a heat exchanger and with liquid water.

     (The patent contains all information needed! Hmmmm. no one else has been successful with it. The patent seemingly does not contain any real secret information. Seems like MFMP could have replicated but we know what happened. Do we really think Uppsala is involved? Or is someone just using a spare room during the weekend? We should be able to find this out, no? No cameras and admitting complications! hmmm... simple calorimetry... well there really is not such a thing as simple calorimetry but....) :/


    I know the measurements have been very conservative, always considering only the lower values of the margin of error of the instrumentation. (Heard this one before! A FAN favorite!) :rolleyes:


    I think I can say all this, because obvious. (What is obvious? That he is making it all up? Where is ANY of this obvious?) :?:


    I cannot absolutely add any further information. I will be able to comment the results only after such results will have been made public.

    (So, if the test is positive, certain scientists will not publish possibly NOBEL prize winning data, but Rossi will be able to continue on stating that the results were positive! What complete B.S. )


    Warm Regards,


    A.R.


    It is soooo funny when these "posters", who have not posted before, post inside information as if it had been widely known and then Rossi answers as if it was simply common knowledge. What is sad, is that several people on a certain site accept this with no contemplation at all, or simply do not care that Rossi is a puppet master. They simply figure it is "his way" to communicate. I can only shake my head in wonderment.

  • I won't waste time going through Bob's whole ad hominem spiel, I'll just point out in his first mistake, Darin didn't "know," he ASKED if Rossi knew.


    For that matter, how do you know all these things you write about with such certainty? Why are you so sure the Uppsala U. profs have not replicated Rossi's reactor?

    You say you have not been following it "for some time" so are clueless.

  • The Professors should have been able to replicate the Conflated Total and Spectral Emissivity Psuedo-power Muliplier Effect with a flat slab of heated alumina by now.

    Having achieved that, attempting a replication of the Pseudo-boiling, Pseudo Water Flow, Pseudo-power Multiplier Effect is only logical.

  • Some here are in contact with the Swedes, so if Rossi made this up, I would think it would get back to them. At that point, maybe they would break their silence to comment?


    If there is some truth to this, it would probably be in line with what many of us have speculated on in the past -that Rossi may have stumbled onto the same small, fleeting effect others like MFMP, BEC, Piantelli, and possibly IH/Parkomov have seen. If so,and the Swedes go public, it may attract some attention among the LENR crowd, but unlikely to make a dent in the mainstreams perception. If they choose to stay quiet instead, then it did not happen.

  • Some here are in contact with the Swedes, so if Rossi made this up, I would think it would get back to them. At that point, maybe they would break their silence to comment?


    I doubt they would, very much. But there is actually nothing that I know of that is incorrect in Rossi's statement. He could have been clearer but it's all essentially correct.

    3rd party paying for Upsalla tests. Correct.

    NDA (between Swedes and 3rd party funder.) Correct and actually precludes them telling anybody anything, including in theory at least, Rossi..

    It's another dogbone as described in Rossi's patents. Correct.

    They have abandoned thermography. Correct.

  • I doubt they would, very much. But there is actually nothing that I know of that is incorrect in Rossi's statement. He could have been clearer but it's all essentially correct.

    3rd party paying for Upsalla tests. Correct.

    NDA (between Swedes and 3rd party funder.) Correct and actually precludes them telling anybody anything, including in theory at least, Rossi..

    It's another dogbone as described in Rossi's patents. Correct.

    They have abandoned thermography. Correct.

    Sad.

    This is the problem with these rumors. This is why I give the thumbs up to Bob Higgins and MFMP, at least for the most part.

    I am glad you can say "Correct", but evidently with as much authority as I can say "unproven rumor". Perhaps you have an NDA, perhaps not. At this point is all unproven rumor.


    It has been 4 years since Lugano and the team has not supported their results. They have not answered reasonable questions from qualified, non-anonymous scientists. Their University has

    not supported them and if I remember correctly, publicly distanced the University from Rossi, the Lugano test and any connections between the University name. All of this is odd at least and certainly does not lend credence to "internet rumor".


    It does not have to be this way.


    I have followed Rossi since 2011. I have learned one thing from experience. Rossi always disappoints and you cannot believe what he says. As you state, "it's all essentially correct" is Rossi's mode of

    operendi. Yes, there was a "Factory", it turned out to be the Doral facility. Certainly not what the painted picture was. Yes, technically there was a customer..... "Rossi himself". Yes there was an engineer... a software consultant that Rossi hired.... Yes, there was a satisfied customer.... Rossi himself after getting $11.5 million dollars from IH!


    Alan, I will say I respect your intentions, your business and even more so, you apparent intelligence and experimental capability. Why you and a few others continue to believe in Rossi, I cannot understand for the life of me. It would be so easy for Rossi to put all the doubt to rest, but he does not. There is a good reason for this and it is NOT "protecting his IP"! Surely after the past 6 years, it is plain, the repetitive mode of operendi, the excuses, the lies, the mis-directions and yes.... even the "essentially correct" statements that are in reality false.


    It has been plain that you support Rossi while throwing the occasional barb at IH. I cannot see the reason for that. What has IH done, other than give Rossi $11.5 million and received nothing from it but headache? What has Rossi EVER done that warrants such loyalty to him? As I have said before, at one time I wanted the eCat to be real so badly that it clouded my judgment. Rossi's own actions has made the picture clear.


    But, to each their own!