Quote from Eric Walker

To add back context that you omitted, Shane's comment was "If the attendees see an obvious dog and pony show set-up, their role there merely to act as stage props to lend some sorely needed legitimacy, I hope they walk out in protest." The meaning of my comment, then, was that "if the attendees see an obvious dog and pony show set-up, I hope they walk out in protest, so that they don't act as stage props to lend some sorely needed legitimacy."

There is one way in which the statement above is implied, however: there can be no doubt that it will be a dog and pony show set-up. However, I now agree with Paradigmnoia, in that I think attendees should stick around even in this case so that they can capture as many details of the setup as possible for later reference.

You obviously do not like it here. I hope you will consider seeking out another forum that is more suited to your insights and abilities. This would make life more pleasant both for yourself and for members of this forum.

Display More

I think all of the invitees will be

“Friends of the Program”, personally hand selected by Rossi to nod their heads on cue in collective agreement, ask only questions that Rossi has written for them, and to

stick to the script they have been given.

@Bob

Looks like I hit a nerve there. It sounds like you have some solid engineering experience. It takes much more than that, however, to run a business. Yes, I know a thing or two and have accomplished a few things of significance. I tend not to enumerate all things here because unnecessary. You can know me through my writings. At the end of the day, we are all just a bunch of (mostly) anonymous forum participants with no ability to show proof to any of our claims. My suggestion that the most critical of Rossi are the least experienced in real-world situations is my own opinion formed by observation of the writings of others on this forum.

IHF: “My suggestion that the most critical of Rossi are the least experienced in real-world situations is my own opinion formed by observation of the writings of others on this forum.”

And like most other opinions you express here, you are dead wrong.

I dusted off my handy-dandy notch filter nanoapp that lets one see the truth in context with autotranslate of R code - what was actually said follows:

"The 1MW is a malfeasance".

Quote from Alan Smith

I'm sure you do. However, you would be wrong.

I guess we’ll see Alan, but I suspect that if you are not given a script, your questions,

if not to Rossi’s liking, will simply not be answered

Quote from Roger

Lol? of course there is. Brillouin or Mills (even if he claims no LENR reaction) come to mind, plus all the quiet industrials who have been testing LENR-based reactions for a decade.

and don't forget me356... and Parkhomov... and Piantelli...

There was a better roboticized factory quote somewhere in 2012. There were questions about building it before the certifications were done, and changes needing to be accommodated. But Rossi said something to the effect that the cost of changes was less than that of delays in building the factory.

Rossilivecat.com/all will do the full history (but watch out for mis-matched questions and answers) combined with CTL+F or find on page to find whatever term one is looking for.

The /all addition makes for a rather large download, so be prepared for that.

Quote from maryyugo

As Jed Rothwell, said, IH could not afford to risk some $300 million on the probability that an entirely lay jury would believe corporate types and academics over a con man and a bunch of accomplished liars. Not a risk worth taking. Why would they? They did not admit wrong doing and they did not pay Rossi anything. That's a win for them and a clear loss for Rossi.

Alan purports to have invited me to attend (were you planning to fit me in your suitcase?) but in reality, Rossi already had his chance with me back in 2011. Then, I was in email communications with Jed Rothwell. I have described this before but, briefly, the idea was for Jed to put together a team to fly to Italy and test the steam ecat exactly as it was. I was prepared to meet them in Italy.

The plan was simply to collect all the steam and condense it ("sparge" it) into an insulated and instrumented water tank to measure its energy content. Voila, problem solved. Needless to say, the test would have been done without the need for Rossi to reveal any trade secret or to allow any measurement which might expose intellectual property.

Of course, Rossi never agreed to that simple and direct plan for the experiment. He also did not offer to do such a test himself or to have it done by others. That was when I became absolutely certain he was a fraud. No legitimate inventor would refuse a definitive test of their invention when it was offered without cost by a trustworthy group of experts or for that matter, by himself or anyone.

In the last 5+ years, Rossi has never allowed a single proper and independent test of his ecat. There never was a need for a hot cat. There is no need for a QuarkX. The original steam ecat which puportedly made 10kW+ from a tennis ball sized reactor sitting on a desktop in a stable and consistent manner purportedly for six months on a tiny amount of cheap fuel-- that alone was worth billions or trillions and probably a Nobel Prize. If the thing had been real, Rossi could have written his own ticket. Running a silly kludge of 50 pieces of junk in a shipping container? Absurd from the start. Why IH ever agreed to that will always be a mystery to me.

Display More

Quote from Dewey Weaver

I dusted off my handy-dandy notch filter nanoapp that lets one see the truth in context with autotranslate of R code - what was actually said follows:

"The 1MW is a malfeasance".

Dewey you are coming (ICCF-21) next year right? I need to check here. I am glad to see you still have blood in the game. I was concerned that it was just about business. And the requirement to minimize losses. Not about proving LENR beyond a shadow of a doubt. If someone took me for that kinda cash they bitter better be the IRS.

I quite honestly hate travelling, I know we joke here, but if I can, I want to do it. I hope Jed and many others come. I am not sure why we are still talking about the "magnificence" after all this. But I do not mess with people that think differently than I do. We now think similar so I can mess with you.

I notice (catching up) that Mary had a quite poignant response a few pages ago about why IH cut losses. Also I hope you are still working with IH and LENR regardless.

I certainly did not want this result to happen and wanted it to come to an end.

Da..le as they say in Miami

http://www.miami.com/funny-sto…-miamian-must-know-20023/

"pathoskeptic technofascism" - wow, is that a thing? Or is it just nonsense?

In fact most people here started off believing in Rossi (Jed, Shane, myself and many others).

Others at least had an open mind and wanted to investigate.

So why all the criticism against Rossi?

You can blame mystery shills paid by IH (how is that still working now the court case is settled)?

You can blame secret government black ops (not very successful are they)?

You can blame space aliens.

The real answer is much simpler and closer to home.

It is Rossi that has changed minds with his actions and lack of actions.

For those who are scientifically able the data produced by Rossi and the lack of replication is damning.

For many others it is simply his actions and behaviour. His dishonesty and ability to take the money and provide nothing in return speaks volumes.

As Adrian says - it is true that the fact he has not produced a product to market does not prove he does not have one. But it does not prove anything, it is not proof of any kind.

So obviously, at this point, we cannot know 100% for sure Rossi does not have what he claims.

Guesses on 1% or 0.1% chance. I and others would be amazed and embarrassed but also delighted.

Of course we want LENR, which is why we are here.

So those who expect nothing from the November demo and those who expect a triumph, who will be correct? Either way it is interesting to watch the Rossi show.

Good luck to Alan.

My only prediction about the November demo: those who expect a triumph will claim to have seen one, regardless of what actually happens.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

According to Krivit, ITER only has a COP of 1.6 at best - and possibly <1. Hot fusion scientists told Congress the COP was 10, but they only counted a small fraction of the total power used to run it. The objective is apparentlye to operate for 10 minutes in ~20 years time at a cost of $25 billion.

I wrote DOE asking them if Krivit's figures were correct and have never received an answer.

I wonder why the critics here don't understand how much time it takes to develop new technology and yet never complain about ITER

Actually reading Krivit's article and the background info he cites reveals why one can't trust Krivit. He starts off with all these quotes about ITER making 500 MW with 50 MW input for a COP of 10, and then makes claims about how these are lies. He then cites a Japanese ITER team's Web page as 'proof', but if you look at what they actually say, i.e.

"ITER will produce about 500 MW of fusion power in nominal operation, for pulses of 400 seconds and longer. Typical plasma heating levels duriung the pulse are expected to be about 50 MW, so power amplification (Q) is 10. Thus during the pulse the ITER plasma will create more energy than it consumes.

The efficiency of the heating systems is ~40%. Other site power requirements lead to a total steady power consumption af about 200 MW during the pulse. Now the fusion power of ITER is enhanced by about 20% due to exothermic nuclear reactions in the surrounding materials. If this total thermal power were then converted to electricity at 33% (well within reach of commercial steam turbines), about 200 MW of electrical power would be generated.

Thus ITER is about equivalent to a zero (net) power reactor, when the plasma is burning. Not very useful, but the minimum required for a convincing proof of principle. In ITER the conversion to electricity will not be made: the production of fusion power by the ITER experiment is too spasmodic for commercial use, and the ITER reactor can be designed with low temperature coolants which ease safety and licensing conditions with today's nuclear-licensed austenitic steels, and money can be saved on relatively well-known engineering.

This also explains ITER's interest in extending pulses to steady state. A reactor operating for only 7 minutes every 30 minutes is not attractive, since little electricity can be produced during much of the "dwell" time, but some plant power is nevertheless consumed then.

ITER will carry out tests of electricity production from fusion on a small scale. Some test blanket modules being used to develop power reactor blankets will include a complete steam-raising cycle and turbine in the port cell, allowing the generation of some electrical power even on ITER. The electric power delivered from such a small section of the ITER blanket will be ~ 1 MW. "

one can see clearly that the 500/50 numbers relate to the figures during actual burn time, which is only a fraction of the total run time. The Japanese folks go on to explain this in detail, and include the other statement that Krivit chose to quote about the ITER device only running at breakeven. Krivit leaves out the fact that this is all clearly presented, instead attempting to create another sensationalistic news story out of thin air. He used this same tactic on me, as I documented here

Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132

Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132

Miles-Fleischmann-Szpak-Mossier-Boss Article in IE132

Thus I repeat, it isn't a good idea to quote Krivit uncritically.

As a person who has been peripherally involved in *one* ITER-related project, and as a person whose colleagues have been involved, are involved, and will be involved in ITER-related projects, I can assure you ITER was never billed as a COP 10 reactor. It was always billed to us as running at net zero gain, but as necessary to develop technology for the next generation machine which *is* supposed to be an actual power reactor.