Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • 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.

  • TRIP To DEMO - THANK YOU ALL.


    My thanks to those members ( and lurkers) who have donated so generously (and unexpectedly) toward the cost of my trip to the Andrea Rossi show on the 24th. I am most grateful, and am now in a position to say 'no more!' The hotel and travel bill is covered - I am happy to eat at my own expense as always. The demo is (hopefully) going to be livestreamed as it happens, but whatever, I will try to file some kind of report ASAP after the show -which I guess will then segue into dinner. There is unlikely to be WiFi available to all at the venue itself so it will have to wait until I get back to my hotel. I expect to produce a more considered write-up shortly after the day.

  • From http://www.ecat-ilnuovofuoco.i…ference-con-andrea-rossi/

    Web Conference with Andrea Rossi


    Posts


    November 7, 2017 by vessinik


    0 Comments

    Hello everybody.

    I would like to thank Andrea Rossi publicly for giving me the opportunity to be a moderator for a debate in Italian that will meet him in Skype video conferencing - and exclusively for Italy - to anyone who wants to ask him questions right after the conclusion of the public test of the QuarkX reactor , to be held on November 24th.

    In order to be able to take part in the web conference, it is compulsory to subscribe to my blog newsletter by specifying First Name, Last Name, and Email Address to which you will later be contacted for residual data (Profession and Skype Contact). Alternatively, you can provide the same 5 data via email, sending them to [email protected] .

    Webcam.jpg

    Up to 24 people will be accepted, so - even receiving all the required data - we can not guarantee the inclusion of the conference call participants list. You will also be informed that the debate will be recorded.

    Hoping that the thing is welcome, I greet my readers.

    Vessela

  • "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.

  • Rossi's quote from Bob' link:

    "The 1 MW plant is a magnificence, and the preparation of the robotized line to produce the E-Cats is in schedule to start the production within Autumn and the deliveries within the next Winter, with some luck;"


    Not the same thing is it.

    You can read in what you want. Rossi's words state that the production will start within Autumn. This was written 6 months before. So you believe he was going to build a complete Robotic factory "outside his head" in six months? He then stated, which YOU left out of your sentence..... "in the worst case, within 18 months we will deliver, and we will deliver at the prices we promised. "


    I will pull IHFB's favorite demand out of the hat here. The statement CLEARLY states that the "with some luck" was applying to the "Autumn" statement, but Rossi THEN goes on to promise,... "in the worst case, within 18 months we will deliver, and we will deliver at the prices we promised". This is a very specific time frame and statement. Not "inside his head" It is certain from the past history, Rossi never had a robotic factory, much less one that would be ready in 6 months! He simply was lying as he often does.


    I challenge you this... in 15 days, if Rossi shows a reactor demo that has true substance, if he shows or allows participants to confirm setup or readings. If there is actual FACTS that are verifiable, I will applaud and "eat crow".


    However, if all that is shown is a blue light coming from some strip plumbing... if there is no inspection allowed... if all are kept at a long distance.... if no real verification is done, but just a blue light is shown.

    What will your reaction be?

  • interested observer wrote: 

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


    FTFY.


    Hmmm.... does history have any importance at all? Does contemplating repetitive history have any value at all?


    “Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it” .... Santanya


    I was a strong supporter for several years. Then Rossi's own actions starting speaking volumes. Not a single skeptic swayed me, it was Rossi himself.


    I would ask those who still believe every Rossi word to look back over his complete history. Put the events into two columns. One showing substantiated successes, the other showing subpar and suspicious events. (I am being kind here)


    To my opinion, column 1 (Success) is zero (nothing substantiated or proven) and column 2 (major disappointment on every event, serious flaws) is at least 10.


    Now, using calm and reasoned logic, looking back over Rossi's complete past, not just the eCat, should I simply forget history ?

    Which side of the fence so to speak, should I be leaning on? Does history have NO value?


    Perhaps I should still be supporting Defkalion and singing praises to their reactor. After all, it was based upon Rossi's info so it MUST work! They had the same evil protagonist that Rossi faces and are the "underdog" so they must be supported! Being an underdog is one of the highest credentials for authenticity of course!


    Perhaps I should still be supporting Steorn and the Orbo will be the planet's energy savior. The same of Rossi can be said of Steorn. So therefore, we should expect the best out of them!


    Energia RAR should have our best support, as their cause is as Rossi's.


    And I could go on and on.....


    Why do people think we should discard and ignore Rossi's history? What has he done to change that real perception? He has promised us something we all desire and it is a worthy dream. Unfortunately, history has shown him to be unreliable and a liar. Period. Some give him credence by association. (Focardi etc.) But that can only go so far and I believe it has drained the reservoir.


    If he comes through, I will applaud. I still will not excuse his lying and deceitful ways. They were not needed.


    However, there certainly is wisdom in this "Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice shame on me!" People, how long until it becomes clear?


    Yes Alan, I would ask... what do YOU expect? If you say nothing, your posts bely that. Do you think you should completely ignore the past? Does association really override current actions?

    I support you or anyone else attending. I will be happy if it is a meaningful event. However, history demands that I be VERY skeptical about anything Rossi does! If not then "shame on me".


    Yes, true science is having an open mind, but it also is very critical thinking. Science is not about looking through Rose Colored Glasses. It is about facts, methods and results. :thumbup:

  • 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.

  • The IH doral test was a battle to thwart the theft of Rossi's IP by venture capitalist who had no intention of making good on their commitment to pay when all means were fair to use in that struggle.

    This is batty on many levels.


    First, there is no evidence that I.H. did not intend to pay. On the contrary, they did pay $11 million, which indicates they intended to pay more.


    Second, even if we assume for the sake of argument that I.H. intended to steal the product, Rossi's antics would not have prevented that. I.H. would have known from their own tests that the machine works. Rossi's fake tests, his fake customer, his imaginary Mezzanine heat exchanger, and his preposterous Penon report would not have prevented I.H. from stealing anything.


    Third, this cannot be falsified. Anything that Rossi did might fit this imaginary scenario. If doing a fake test or fraudulently representing yourself as a third-party customer would somehow prevent I.H. from stealing the technology (which it would not), he might just as well have done other unethical and illegal things, such as signing up new customers in violation of agreements with I.H., or burning down the warehouse. There is nothing he could do that would not somehow fit this imaginary scenario.

  • Thus during the pulse the ITER plasma will create more energy than it consumes.

    This is a quote from the Japanese ITER team? It is an odd thing to say. All fusion reactions below the iron limit produce more energy than they consume. They are never endothermic.


    If you take into account the energy needed to drive the equipment and the instruments, some plasma fusion reactors produce less fusion energy than the energy needed to produce the reaction. But just looking at the energy going into the plasma and coming out, the balance is always positive. Perhaps they meant that ITER will produce more plasma fusion energy than all of the inputs to the reactor during the test run.

  • Hmmm.... does history have any importance at all?


    History is definitely helpful here. It recently occurred to me that Rossi might be attempting a transition to the Blacklight fundraising model. BrLP have for years now shown DPS's (dog and pony shows) to investors and supporters on a periodic basis. To my knowledge, none of the DPS's have been rigorous and instead have just given supporters a tantalizing glimpse of BrLP apparently crossing a new milestone. Supporters continue to be devoted to BrLP. Their zeal is not dimmed by the lack of rigor of the DPS's. Nor is it dimmed by documents such as GUT-CP (Mills's masterwork), which, to someone with a basic ability in mathematics, looks like a diversion.


    BrLP have successfully pursued this fundraising strategy for decades to obtain many millions of dollars from investors.

  • @Alan: thanks for “fixing it” for me. Please enlighten me: what past successes can you cite for Rossi? Clearly he has impressed you with his accomplishments. What are they?


    A lot of people much smarter (and better physicists) than me think that Rossi has something. That is what impresses me, as well as the increasing number of commercial and other researchers looking at Ni/H as well as Pd/D.

  • This is a quote from the Japanese ITER team? It is an odd thing to say. All fusion reactions below the iron limit produce more energy than they consume. They are never endothermic.


    The text in quotes in my post is a direct cut-and-paste from the Web page that Krivit referenced. I'm not a nuclear physicist, so I can't argue directly with your assertion. However, I do know that NIF was supposedly the first fusion reactor to reach 'breakeven', i.e. fusion energy out = power put in. So in principle ITER is a significant improvement over that. I suspect there are some terms that need to be clarified here (i.e. the opposite of what Krivit does) as well as in the NIF situation. It does require a bit of study to make sure one is following the details correctly.


    If you take into account the energy needed to drive the equipment and the instruments, some plasma fusion reactors produce less fusion energy than the energy needed to produce the reaction. But just looking at the energy going into the plasma and coming out, the balance is always positive. Perhaps they meant that ITER will produce more plasma fusion energy than all of the inputs to the reactor during the test run.


    The Japanese say what they meant, and they say essentially what you just did. During the actual burn, they are above breakeven. But ITER is not currently envisioned as a continuous burn reactor, thus it is overall at or below breakeven. They want to get to continuous operation, but are unsure how to do that or even if they can given ITER's design. The next gen reactor is supposed to do that though.

  • I have a full-page ad from Life magazine from the 1950s featuring 16 medical doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking Camel cigarettes. These doctors knew MUCH more about medical matters than you and I do. Nevertheless, they were idiots. It is quite easy to find smart people who believe stupid things. It is especially useful when the stupid things they believe are what you yourself want to believe.

  • I wish you Alan Smith to find the definitive answer.


    Instead of predicting what will happen, could we just define, ex-ante, what we consider as :


    1- a successful evidence it works

    2- a definitive evidence Rossi have nothing

    3- an impossibility to conclude


    this is what should be done in science before you start a study... (at least in epidemiology&al to avoid p-hacking, or moving target)...


    Anything like a demo for me is 3, and given past story, a 2.


    real independence of measurement, freedom to touch and install independent instruments, with multiple converging measurement method, open the possibility of 1.


    i still remember of Defkalion Milano show, and the trick that Luca found, while indeed freedom to measure the electric power was real, but the flow measurement was totally under control.


    Time to redisplay the Milano show and cry.

  • However, I do know that NIF was supposedly the first fusion reactor to reach 'breakeven', i.e. fusion energy out = power put in.

    Ah. That is another definition. The term is a little slippery.


    "Breakeven" might also refer to:


    The ability to self-sustain. That is, outputting enough energy at high enough Carnot efficiency to convert the energy to electricity and keep the reactor going.


    Commercial breakeven. Outputting enough energy to power a significant number of buildings, not just the power plant.


    Economic breakeven. Outputting power at a cost that is reasonably competitive with other sources of energy. I doubt that plasma fusion will ever cross this line, although with some breakthroughs, I suppose it might.


    The Ivanpha Solar Power Facility in California is an example of a technology that will probably not cross this line. It was too late. By the time they built it, solar PV was much cheaper. If they had built it 20 years earlier the cost might have started to fall and it might be competitive.


    The Vogtle fission generator now being constructed in Georgia will not cross this line. I predict that no more fission reactors will be built.


    I doubt that plasma fusion will ever be cost effective, safe or practical. See this study from Los Alamos for details:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf

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

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


    FTFY.


    Rossi's genius is that he so orchestrates things that a demo that does not prove anything, but is so circumscribed that it cannot be shown bogus - obviously neither triumph nor disaster - will be seen as a triumph.


    All he has to do is avoid very obvious errors. After 10 such triumphs some people on this blog and more on ECW are convinced his stuff must work.


    THH

  • I don't think a demo will prove anything definitive. Test driving a new Ferrari is great fun but it doesn't prove it won't overheat in traffic or reliably start on a cold wet morning. But how could somebody from this place not go to see what's cooking- this is LENR-Forum after all.

  • I don't think a demo will prove anything definitive. Test driving a new Ferrari is great fun but it doesn't prove it won't overheat in traffic or reliably start on a cold wet morning. But how could somebody from this place not go to see what's cooking- this is LENR-Forum after all.


    I certainly support people attending. I wish I could myself. I am sure I would get kicked out because I would ask some fundamental and appropriate questions!


    I think why many people are "frustrated" with this event is the very reason WHY it is being given. Rossi will not be performing a true test, it will be a "dog and pony" show as Eric describes. I think EVERYIONE is agreeing this will be the case. No independent measurements, checks or even close inspection of the setup.


    So then WHY the demo? Eric probably hit it square on the head. Rossi is trying to obtain more money from someone!

    Now a true and honest person would prove that his device actually works. At least Brillioun is seemingly going down that road to some extent. But inviting some hand selected people to attend a demo that proves absolutely nothing, is in reality a very negative event. It is the same as Steorn and others.


    So one must also ask WHY is Rossi doing this? What attitude SHOULD I have going into it?


    I believe he is giving this demo for two reasons:

    1) Perhaps mainly, he is a obsessed with attention and praise. His early statements about giving to kids with cancer, then a period about God and then the snakes and puppets. His language was always one that

    attempted to garner sympathy and praise. His continual posting on his own blog, where he censors everything but positive posts is indicative he may be addicted to attention.


    2) He is attempting to obtain another investor, who he wants to give him money without real due diligence. Just as Eric has stated, it has worked with BLP... hey, why reinvent the wheel so to speak.


    What real benefit will a demo be, given to hand selected people who already sing his praises and have proven to be supporters? What really is will the accomplish? Will it be the world changer Axil has stated?

    Hardly! Will it disprove anything for Mary Y? No. So what is the purpose?


    I can only hope that Alan and others will attend and perhaps observe something that is solid and conclusive. If not, in my opinion, they should report exactly what they found... that this demo was nothing of substance and that it's purpose was surely for something other than showing the QuarkX worked in any manner. This in itself would not be a positive outcome.

  • If the technology is real, convincing people will be hard unless a really independent test, with cross instrumentation, is organized.

    In that case , there great question will be why the Doral fiasco was organized, and if it can be considered as a fraud to convince a partner to flee (as it was presented for the Swedish team, "a magnificence").


    If there is nothing to see, given the Doral clear fiasco, that could never be credible to witnesses, there is a possibility the pony show will be ridiculous, so ridiculous that it will be clear and definitive.


    I expect none of the two conclusions, and I'm worried in advance. I can be wrong, and I will be happy to be.

  • I have a full-page ad from Life magazine from the 1950s featuring 16 medical doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking Camel cigarettes. These doctors knew MUCH more about medical matters than you and I do. Nevertheless, they were idiots. It is quite easy to find smart people who believe stupid things. It is especially useful when the stupid things they believe are what you yourself want to believe.

    The measure of intelligence is not made by IQ tests, university degrees, and professional titles, but what one does with their knowledge and abilities.

  • kirkshanahan wrote:

    However, I do know that NIF was supposedly the first fusion reactor to reach 'breakeven', i.e. fusion energy out = power put in.



    http://www.sciencemag.org/news…through-nif-uh-not-really


    The COP on this best run was 0.0077


    In response to a post that I produced in support of NIF, I personally talked to a NIF worker who confronted Moses about the fraud that he was perpetrating. This person was fired as a result of his negative attitude. I also talked to Per Peterson who also worked on the NIF about this and he did not deny it. Per was too politically astute to tell the whole truth though but he did not deny the assertion.


    https://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/people/per_peterson


    Anyone concerned about fraud in nuclear energy development should consider the NIF where the fraud level runs into the billions and counting.

  • can only hope that Alan and others will attend and perhaps observe something that is solid and conclusive. If not, in my opinion, they should report exactly what they found... that this demo was nothing of substance and that it's purpose was surely for something other than showing the QuarkX worked in any manner. This in itself would not be a positive outcome.


    I shall certainly attempt to be as comprehensive and accurate when reporting as I can be. No point in going otherwise. As for hard questions, I have some to ask, but cannot of course guarantee they will be answered.

  • I don't think a demo will prove anything definitive. Test driving a new Ferrari is great fun but it doesn't prove it won't overheat in traffic or reliably start on a cold wet morning. But how could somebody from this place not go to see what's cooking- this is LENR-Forum after all.


    There will be a ton of accusations about such things as wet steam, hidden wires, wireless power transfer, high frequency power determination, and so on after the demo is completed. Will your attention to these type SCAM issues be such that you can assure the public that the detractors of this demo will be properly countered or supported?

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


    From your fellow "skeptic":


    I have a full-page ad from Life magazine from the 1950s featuring 16 medical doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking Camel cigarettes.


    Technofascism is exactly what it sounds like: entrenched industrial and financial interests profiteering from commercialized products, who socially engineer the dominance and ongoing commercialization of their products, and prevent the emergence of competition, through coercion (hence the "pathoskepticism"). Most of the time, it's stealthy ("you don't want to lose your lab budget, do you?"), but sometimes people die (eg. Eugene Mallove). Between the "respected scientific types" who laugh at the idea of LENR, and the hitman taking out a way too vocal activist, there's all kinds of stuff, such as astroturfing.