Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • you would still not be able to measure the strength or assurance of a given message, and the extent to which it enhanced or reduced Rossi's credibility. You would not know who read the messages or what effect it had.

    Of course I too have no way of knowing the effect of my writing was. But here is something I do know, that Mary Yugo and no one else can know. At various times over the years people have contacted me and asked me my opinion of Rossi and other researchers. My responses are in my own email, and on disk. So I can tell you --


    In every case I always said that all cold fusion research is risky, and likely to prove wrong. I never fail to say that! No one knows that better than I do. No one other than Ed Storms has as many records of failed cold fusion experiments as I do, both published and unpublished. Unlike Yugo, I actually read papers before judging them, so I know about real, documented failures, not imaginary ones such as "isoperibolic calorimeters don't work."


    I always said that Rossi is widely considered an unreliable person with a checkered past. He is someone an ordinary businessman would run from. I am sure I always said that he refused to allow me to make any measurements, so I cannot vouch for him, and furthermore that is a suspicious thing to do.


    So if ever I exerted influence over a decision (which I consider unlikely), it was in the direction of caution, wrapped in many layers of academese cotton wool to avoid breakage. Or, to put it unflattering terms, my opinions are wrapped in "plausible deniability" as Nixon used to call it. There is no chance I would ever have given Rossi -- of all people! -- an unqualified endorsement.


    I would also tell anyone who asked, as I reported here, that everyone I know who worked with Rossi came to hate his guts. An otherwise mild-mannered scientist says that if they ever meet again he will punch Rossi in the nose. I spent three days with the people from NASA at a conference in Virginia, chatting from time to time over beer. Rossi did, really, physically, put them in danger with his plugged up reactor, which he refused to check until steam began coming out from under the lid. Then he threw them out of the lab yelling, screeching and carrying on like a madman. Yes, that did happen! They have no love for him. They did not hesitate to tell me this, and I have never hesitated to relate it here or anywhere else.


    This would be hilarious stuff if Rossi had not (apparently) destroyed I.H., caused them to fire their staff, and ended most funding for cold fusion.

  • All good, Jed. Unfortunately, you also heaped scorn on those who tried to explain some of the reasons they thought Rossi was a crook and a con man. I think you just like to argue and deliberately seize on imprecise or incomplete statements of others or you rankly misquote and mis-cite and misconscrew what they have written.

  • All good, Jed. Unfortunately, you also heaped scorn on those who tried to explain some of the reasons they thought Rossi was a crook and a con man.

    No, I have not. This is your imagination, a false memory, or you are blaming me for what someone else did. Why on earth would I "heap scorn" on people for saying what I myself said from day one?!? When I repeatedly, even gleefully, reported about how Rossi refused to let me in the door, and when he almost blew up Jim Dunn and the people from NASA, why would I then criticize you for reporting similar shenanigans? That makes no sense.


    For that matter, when have I ever evinced concern for his reputation or anyone else's? I think it is pretty clear that I am not the kind of person who cares about reputations. Not even my own. Nor am I the kind of person who will refuse to change his mind, or admit mistakes. I mean, for example, that although I translated and uploaded the Nikkei article about the "Clean Planet" research project, when someone asks me about their work I respond:


    I am not impressed because when I critiqued their results using the data they presented at MIT, they threatened to sue me for revealing their corporate secrets. Corporate secrets they displayed in slides at MIT?! An analysis based on lines that I drew with a ruler is secret? Give me a break!


    Sue and be damned. I have a low opinion of scientists who threaten lawsuits because you point out errors their work. I would never countenance or cover up such sordid behavior. It would be out of character. I don't carry on about it endlessly about such people, the way you do, because I don't stay angry for more than five minutes. Life is too short. There are too many rat finks for that. A person who holds a grudge and works in cold fusion would never put that grudge down! You would get nothing done.


    Here is something you may not recognize because of the decibel level of your discourse. I said that Levi's refusal to answer McKubre's questions about the Lugano atrocity was "academically unethical" and "unseemly." That's sarcasm. Okay? It hardly registers as sarcasm the way you talk, but I am making fun of a professor, using cup-of-tea in the faculty lounge language. If he were in another line of work, I would say he is a damned impudent weasel, not to be trusted.


    (Please note -- yet again! -- that I was unable to form that opinion about him two years before he refused to answer McKubre. You may be clairvoyant but I am not.)

  • Anyway I want an exit, whatever it is. Something clear have to emerge in 2017, or else I'm pessimistic on LENR future in next decade. I hope the demo will answer, clearly.

    Jail or throne, I want a conclusion.


    As much as I can relate to your sentiment, it 'aint gonna happen. No demo could provide such finality. I'm firm in my belief that only the market can ultimately decide this one. And for those who claim it can be decided by a respected university or two, no it can't. First off, most research scientists are scaredy cats when it comes to LENR and won't touch it with a 100 foot pole. Some would rather drop a peer-reviewed LENR paper on the floor rather than physically touch it (as has been witnessed by some on this forum). For the two brave (and renowned) universities in Europe who have permitted their scientists to entertain the possibility that Rossi has something: kuddos for their courage, but they have paid the price for it.

  • Quote

    Maryyugo wrote:

    "The report said ONE HUNDRED and thirty-five kiloWatts. Enough to fry the people in the room and blow up the device. Which is one reason it had to be wrong."

    That does seem to be a rather extraordinary amount of heat to transfer to the water from such a device, and ultimately into a garden hose.

    How much surface area should be needed to do that without simply boiling all the water in contact with whatever the heat exchanger was inside that thing? (The boiling preventing the effective exchange of heat, let alone blowing the thing up).

  • I find Prof. Levi's 18 hour test in 2011, using water calorimetry, that he said produced as much as 35 kW, harder to explain than the imagination of an anonymous troll.

    MY,

    I am not interested in spending the time required to rehash history. The older E-Cats are apparently outdated anyway. Wait for the test later this month, that you said would never happen.

    AA has the right attitude with respect to Rossi. As long as your long-term memory is less than a couple of months, the man is a genius. Longer than that, he is a low-grade con man. Congratulations on your limited powers of recall. They clearly provide you much comfort.


    AA here is honest enough in his arguments. It is his problem: historic anecdotal experiments, never repeated, are all Rossi has. And at that, these are anecdotes told by highly partial parties (Levi). It would be reasonable not to rehash history, as AA suggests, and give Rossi a chance...


    Except that he was given $10M worth of a chance by IH, with another $90M for success, and since IH made that decision both the latest, best, test (Lugano) proved for complex technical reasons to be totally wrong, and Rossi's "real customer" PR magnificence proved to be Rossi talking about himself in the third person. And before that fiasco Rossi has a sequence of high profile demos all problematic. For example, the time he brought non-working device to a Hydrofusion test on which serious funding and collaboration rested only for Mats (of all people) to discover Rossi was measuring it wrong. Luckily the HF testers were competent and understood the need for RMS measurement of voltage and current to obtain power in a resistive load.


    You get this sort of stuff in the denouement of a soap opera where the evil mastermind is unmasked. In this case Rossi is neither evil, nor a mastermind, but the history exists. Wise people do not forget history when there is so much of it directly relevant to the question at hand.

  • You would think so right? Unfortunately, the scientific establishment has erected a large barricade for LENR. It's called the reputation trap. And it is very effective.


    It is much argued on this site, I know. However you will find here much evidence that this is just not true. i'd argue that it is poor quality LENR papers that don't get published, and that besmirch reputations (in the sense that publishing poor quality stuff will).


    For example, Bocjin contributed here by posting a (same work properly published, no-one's reputation besmirched) LENR paper suggesting that electron shielding might be enough to enable D-D fusion at low temperatures.


    Personally I found that paper, quantitative and well-referenced, thought-provoking and exciting. It actually provoked me to read all round the subject of electron shielding in lattices, as well as (more complex) how shielding varies with temperature in solid-state plasmas, how such systems can be analysed.


    Were the numbers different, that paper would be good theory suggesting LENR. As it is, not so good because:

    (1) the experimental data on which it rests indicating much higher than expected shielding has been (nearly) shown wrong - though it is still not settled and well worth watching

    (2) the assumptions made in that paper are over-optimistic


    But, that does not make it bad science. And does not prevent its publication. Just as many LENR papers are published. Also, if you accept it, it provides a definite mechanism for LENR along with many disprovable predictions. It won't fit all, or even most, of the LENR data, but then we know not all of this data is solid. No-one should reject a possible LENR mechanism just because it expalins only some of the claimed LENR results. Though, you might reckon that the LENR results, oin that case, provide poor support. This idea does not need support from LENR results, it rests or falls on independent experiment and theory.


    It is always possible to claim that an area of science receives less attention than it deserves because of sociological factors. Or the reverse. LENR is so very attractive a possibility that we can see when a fraud (I use this word because in my judgement the Court evidence proved fraudulent behaviour from Rossi towards IH) makes grandiose claims many people, both scientists and those in industry, take notice and are willing to back even a small chance of success.


  • Personally, I loved misconscrew and am not sure whether from MY it was intentional or a serendipitous Freudian slip.


    Lots of misconscrewing goes on here.


    but from the rest of your list (misshanahan) I wonder if you are making veiled personal attacks?

  • No its neither a personal attack or a mispersona attack.


    Its an indication to the visitors and new members to the forum that one member Kirk Shanahan chooses to operate another account which is called Maryyugo.


    I guess it adds some kind of color or gender to the forum perhaps LGBT ... ..perhaps the Bugis fifth gender.


    Who am I to judge..I am not from North Carolina.


    http://theconversation.com/wha…gnizes-five-genders-60775

  • As much as I can relate to your sentiment, it 'aint gonna happen. No demo could provide such finality. I'm firm in my belief that only the market can ultimately decide this one. And for those who claim it can be decided by a respected university or two, no it can't. First off, most research scientists are scaredy cats when it comes to LENR and won't touch it with a 100 foot pole. Some would rather drop a peer-reviewed LENR paper on the floor rather than physically touch it (as has been witnessed by some on this forum). For the two brave (and renowned) universities in Europe who have permitted their scientists to entertain the possibility that Rossi has something: kuddos for their courage, but they have paid the price for it.

    scaredy cats?

    Industry term fanboy?


    I would think every university would jump at the chance to put Rossi’s Ecat thru a vetting process and prove it doesn’t work,

    “IF”, in fact, it does work, what does Rossi have to lose?

  • “IF”, in fact, it does work, what does Rossi have to lose?


    The King of Hoax has a lot to lose, he has a lot of fear of real independent tests because nothing of his stuff works as he said over these 10 years..

  • Kirk Shanahan chooses to operate another account which is called Maryyugo.

    A heinous insult. (To Shanahan)

    Have a click on what Mary has to say on the matter:


    Keieueue and Sifferkoll are perfect example of this type of believer. Jed, Mats and the Swedish professors are not. I only wish Jed had his act together earlier (not sure he completely does about Rossi even now) and I wish that Mats and the professors would relook ALL the evidence that Rossi is a scammer and a f__d. I also wish that they would argue against the idiots who think honest and cautious skeptics are paid shills or somehow want LENR to fail. I can not understand how they let morons like Sarah Vaughter ( http://ownshrink.com/skeptopat…yptodenialism-rossi-ecat/ ) write the inane drivel that they do unopposed, all the while stalking participants in forums. It does not speak well for the field of LENR research that they do.



    The flow rate was 1 L/s.

    So ~120.5 W/cm2 would do it?

    1L per second, through what cross-section?

    ~115W/cm2 is the critical heat flux of still water, ie when convective currents (from bubbling) maximise heat transfer (Larger bubbles also act as an insulator when forming).


    ...and threw computers out the windows into the parking lot.


    Love a good Rossi anecdote, but not heard that one before...

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.