Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


    I was discussing the Lugano report, but referred to the "indication of ...." paper to show that Rossi did use two phase operation before. Thus it is possible in Lugano two phase operation could also have been used during the actual runs. That two phase operation was not used at the Lugano dummy run, but instead three phase operation is clear,.

    If two phase operation was used during the actual runs it explains that Rossi was right about the divisions of the currents for that case and also explains in large part that the calculations of the heater coils resistances showed a very large decrease from dummy run to the actual runs.

    Concerning your remark about the spreadsheets of Andrea S, I know them, have them and analyzed them (even found an error in it which he corrected). For my own analysis I prefer using an electronic circuit simulation program which can for all type of wave forms can calculate the correct amount of dissipated energy/power.

    LDM ,


    OK, I get your meaning.


    If the Lugano device was changed from 3 phase to single phase, then that omission would be grievous.

    As it is, I suspect the wiring was changed from a wye to a delta, from dummy to active, which fits the math perfectly. The resistances remain constant that way, and input power remains as reported.


    I don't see how the amperage required to obtain ~ 900 W with the low resistance coil(s) used in Lugano could be achieved. Neither the Compact Fusion controller nor the amp clamps used for the PCE could handle it.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    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.

    By which credible accounts? Does that conflict at all with the fact that financial acumen and/or inherited family wealth and a bright father with great legal expertise may have been Gates' main assets? Gates was young and possibly a dedicated hobbyist surely with access to commercial and/or homebrew 8-bit based machines, along with many other other hobbyists at the time (say 1976)-- well before he and fellow investors saw fit to purchase Gary Kildahl's code which was the basis for PC DOS, at least as I understand it. Not a particularly strong basis for anything other than the correct attribution of the "hammer" of elimination of competition.


    When it represents perhaps one tenth of one percent of one's wealth, an investment of 6 million dollars towards fundamental and empirical investigations is completely painless, a worthy wager, and may also generate a precisely balanced tax write-off as a bonus. And perhaps another chance to hit the nail and once again mop up the competition.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Longview

    Does that conflict at all with the fact that financial acumen and/or inherited family wealth and a bright father with great legal expertise may have been Gates' main assets?


    It does not conflict at all, the things you mention are incredibly helpful. But for every few million people with similar assets, you will only find one Bill Gates. This reminds me of an old saying. 'If you're so smart, why have you got holes in your shoes?'

    Quote from Longview

    assets? Gates was young and possibly a dedicated hobbyist surely with access to commercial and/or homebrew 8-bit based machines, along with many other other hobbyists at the time (say 1976)--

    He had access to timeshare IBM mainframes. So did I, at the same time. (He & I are the same age.) There were no homebrew or minicomputers. Both of us spent many hours programming, but even by the standards of a 1960s computer geek, he was extraordinary. He spent thousands of hours programming. He would go to computer centers in the dead of night to get time. Before he turned 18 he had more experience, skill and actual time running programs than most adult computer programmers in their 30s had back then.


    People I know who worked with him say he was and remains an extraordinarily gifted programmer. That's not something you can fake. If you lack that ability, all the financial acumen and family wealth in the world will not make up for it. People with financial acumen and venture capital wealth wrote hundreds of failed commercial programs during that era. Today, there are somewhat fewer failing applications programs because programming has become easier, more of a science and less of an art. Today, the most advanced programs in things like AI at Google require far greater resources, knowledge and professional skill than any program did in 1975. The entire operating system for a minicomputer was small compared to something like Google's translation program. I used to know every function call in the minicomputer I worked with. There was a list of about a hundred of them. Things like "dispatch new job" (start a process; "create event" in Microsoft-speak), "convert date to Julian format." A function call is known as an "API" in Windows. There must be hundreds of them. I have no idea how many. Some have many parameters. Here is a list for Window 8:


    https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-…op/dn933214(v=vs.85).aspx


    In many other ways modern software is far more complex.

    Quote

    All the problems you listed are pathoskeptic quibbles, in the true and tried tradition of pathoskepticism, which exploits whatever uncertainty about whatever exploitable issue to cast doubt upon the general picture (80 COP in that case)


    If an energy producing machine has a "COP" of 80, it has, for all intents and purposes, a COP of infinity. To make it self-sustaining, all you need to do is somehow manage to route just 1/80 of it's output back to the input in a controlled manner. Alternatively, you can convert such a generous output to electricity. Heat is heat. You can convert it with themoelectric devices, a modern Stirling engine or some other means, depending on the temperature at which the output is provided. The point is that there is no reason for a device with appreciable output and a COP of 80 to require input heating. The alternative is that the COP was mismeasured and isn't anywhere near 80 but most likely a bit below 1.0.


    "Pathoskeptic" isn't a word except in communities who essentially nobody believes like psychics and telepaths and other purveyors of "woowoo."


    Quote

    And we also know quite a few posters here have written thousands of posts about Rossi, who in their analysis is a master conman hypnotist, able to mentally dominate investors and scientists alike for nearly 10 years, even though dutiful citizens like Maryyugo and others have contacted congressmen, senators, cult watchlists etc to warn them about the dangers of this sorcerous scammer


    You keep twisting the facts! Very few if any called Rossi a master at anything. What he's good at is choosing his marks (targets, victims, patsies, bamboozlees). He's at best a third rate con man. Lewan and Essen could have ended Rossi's charade simply by insisting on an adequate CALIBRATED test of the original ecat-- a test in which they provided the power supply and they decided how to measure the output power. Rossi would have either failed or refused. Either way would have ended most of his chances. But they negligently failed to do that. IH failed to vet Rossi and his device properly before giving him an unGodly amount of money from which they got nothing but an expensive lawsuit. They were weak marks too. Rossi doesn't fool people who are not exceedingly careless or gullible and he never will. As to the con itself and the details, he's absolutely laughable-- comical! And that includes Petroldragon and the silliness with the thermoelectric converters that nobody ever saw work but that he got paid a lot for.


    While perhaps the oil and nuclear industries might see LENR as threatening, innumerable "indipendent" wealthy people and companies would see it as the opportunity of a lifetime, if only it were really possible at useful levels and that could be clearly demonstrated.


    BTW, I did not contact anyone in Congress. There never was any need to nor a suitable Congressperson to contact. I don't know what a cult watchlist is so you're wrong again about that. "etc" is limited to writing in a few forums and emails with like-minded people. The only exceptions involving wider contact in my case were occasional attempts to get people who should know better to see the light, for example emails to Dr. Brian Josephson and Tom Whipple and the one time I really could make a real different, when billionaire Dick Smith asked me how to best test claims by Defkalion in which he was considering a million dollar or larger investment. I told him how, he demanded it, Defkalion refused (naturally) and he didn't invest.


    Quote

    From conspiracy theorist to conspiracy theorist, your theory makes no sense, while mine merely describes standard practices from industrial/financial interests when the technologies they profit upon, are threatened by a scientific breakthrough that will usher in a new paradigm and sweeping technological changes.


    Complete nonsense, as usual from you.

    Bill Gates was definitely a key visionary during the 80's and 90's. I have the upmost respect for his abilities since he was the top technical leader as I grew up. However, his company Microsoft includes many decision makers not named Bill Gates. The following two links shows what has happened to the desktop PC market over the years:


    https://www.theinquirer.net/in…nd-windows-10-is-to-blame


    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-23251285


    The people who anticipated that consumers would want smaller, mobile devices with less than the top computing power to do calls, internet, and social media rather than bulky desktops with super processing power seemed to have guessed correctly.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    He had access to timeshare IBM mainframes. So did I, at the same time. (He & I are the same age.) There were no homebrew or minicomputers. Both of us spent many hours programming, but even by the standards of a 1960s computer geek, he was extraordinary.

    I'm about decade older than you or Gates, and had access to IBM 1600 then 360 mainframes at U of Oregon mid to late 60s. You two may have had great privilege working with mainframes when you were teens. There were likely hundreds of such teens, usually in cities or towns with mainframe infrastructure, often associated with universities. I did room and study in Palo Alto with geeks, some of whom were building definite "homebrew" systems of comparatively immense power, but that was the mid 70s. The DEC PDP series begins "minicomputer" evolution in ~1960.


    As an aside: In Palo Alto in 1977, there were rumors of the "smartest person we ever met", in retrospect it may have been Jobs himself.

    Quote from Longview

    As an aside: In Palo Alto in 1977, there were rumors of the "smartest person we ever met", in retrospect it may have been Jobs himself.

    Probably not Jobs. He had no technical or programming skills. Wozniak did the early engineering at Apple. Jobs was good at knowing what the customers wanted. At times he sensed that technology could be pushed farther than it had been, although he often misjudged that and tried to go too far. He was brilliant at marketing. But he did not invent anything in the technical sense.


    He made vital contributions but they were not of a technical nature.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Probably not Jobs. He had no technical or programming skills.

    Yes, that is easy... although perhaps an exaggeration. The smartest person we ever met is not likely to have also been an accomplished programmer--- although suitably defined, surely there are a few at the Boolean intersection of "very smart" and "accomplished programmer"--- IMHO neither Jobs nor Gates gets the nod on both accounts. BTW, that attribution of "smartest" was by a youngster in my group, a Palo Alto high schooler of great ability who likely was not referring to programming at all but to some genius in a garage nearby my rental, both a few blocks off Page Mill Road. Programmer supreme or programmer mediocre, the survival and prosperity of Gates' or Job' successful offspring is not a simple story (eg. Gates rescuing Apple for Jobs in the early 1990s, IIRC) and does often involve a particular a vision, an overview of and access to the technology, access to the right technical personnel, and vitally today, if not then, sufficient startup capital moderated by venture advice from the right "private placement". It is not an accident that Page MIll Road is still an axis of "Silicon Valley" or that Bellevue / Medina / Redmond are close to Boeing and U of Washington. And others can surely describe the favorable locality influences for Cambridge (UK and Massachusetts), Berlin, Mumbai, Shanghai and so on. The irony today may be that extremely constrained sourcing of information by web vending and "vetting" of information may be having less than salutary effects on innovators and hence on deep innovation.

    Quote from bocijn

    Lenr forum does not appear to be an


    "extremely constrained sourcing of information"


    and some campers are absolutely unrestrained

    Fortunately. And, agreed, little web vending or vetting or is noted here at LF, thanks to all including founder, most participants, admins and moderators. The more serious information blinkering is well known at the usual online "never to be trusted on controversial issues" encyclopedia, and perhaps other sources aimed at the general reading public.

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.