Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • 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?


    We'll have to see. I'm sure that in the (admittedly unlikely) event of this being a perfectly open, transparent and comprehensive demo of the Q-X that proves it works, then there will be those who will think of a totally novel reason why it is all nonsense. I'm well aware that whatever I say - good or bad -I'm on a hiding to nothing. So be it, that's the way it rolls sometimes.

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

    The converse is that if the November demo proves that the E-Cat QX works, it is a good bet that some of the previous E-Cats did too. It is unlikely that Rossi would have worked as long and a hard as he has if he had never obtained positive results.

  • 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).

    Mallove's death had nothing to do with technology, politics, or his involvement with cold fusion.

  • Some people say Rossi didn't lie about his robotic factories. So what is this below? (my emphasis) from the misnamed blog JONP?



    That was 2012 for cripes' sake. Wow. those certificators are slower than the rob-sots! Competent authorities gave a green light? What authorities? Is this anything other than a complete, total, unmitigated bunch of fabricated lies?

  • Quote

    It is unlikely that Rossi would have worked as long and a hard as he has if he had never obtained positive results.

    No it's not. Con men work too! As long as they see that they may be paid.


    Quote

    You stated Rossi had OFTEN claimed the FACTORY was a magnificence.

    He never said that. You are simply wrong. Not a question of interpretation.

    Hey Adrian Ashfield , see above post for what Rossi for sure wrote which is a pack of misleading lies about a "robotic" factory and "certificators" (WTF are those anyway? Any idea?) and "competent authorities"?) If the authorities were truly competent, Rossi would be in prison. AGAIN.

  • You stated Rossi had OFTEN claimed the FACTORY was a magnificence.

    He never said that. You are simply wrong. Not a question of interpretation.

    Alas Adrian, we can waive hands all you like.


    On post 1300 I made 8 very distinct points, and asked that you provide your logic on how you support Rossi on all of them.

    So far your only counter is that I was making a mistake on one point, that Rossi called his Robotic factory a magnficense. I posted several direct links to Rossi's own blog where he is bragging about or stating that his factories not only exist, but will be producing eCats within a short period of time. Not only stating but promising! Some of these claims going back to 2011.


    Now you are only pointing to that one of these posts have the exact working that Rossi called the robotic factory a "magnificence". That is your only counter point? That is what you base your trust in Rossi on?

    That is incredulous. You pick at one very minor word (which is still true by the way) and ignore the forest of real issues!


    However, Rossi DID call his robotic factory a magnificence at one time, and I will try to search it out for you since you do not seem to remember. But what difference will it make? Your counter argument is meaningless and off the point. I gave several direct statements from Rossi himself. No words from critics, Not accusations from big oil. Not derives comments from academia. But words and promises from Rossi himself. Yet you refuse to consider those and as a defense, make a feeble attempt side step the real issue by stating I misquoted a single word.


    Please make a point by point rebuttal of the direct issues I listed about Rossi's own statements. Either you have evidence that they are incorrect or your logic towards Rossi is flawed. Remember, all of those points are backed up either by Rossi's own sworn testimony in the court proceedings or by his own posts on JONP. I am not relying on any skeptics or other source, but Rossi's own words.


    I ask what do you base your firm support for Rossi upon?

  • Quote

    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?

    axil Strange that Rossi and Levi and the Swedish scientists NEVER responded to all those very probable allegations, don't you think, Axil? In fact they never responded to any critique of their work at all. That is confidence inspiring to you perhaps?

  • Quote

    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.

    Alan Smith Classical believer argument, Alan. Sort of like the silly arguments comparing Rossi and the ecats with the Wright Brothers and their airplanes. You can get into a Ferrari, start it, drive it, watch the speedometer wind up, hear the engine roar, and you know it is a real car-- a working transportation device. All that has ever been seen about ecats is a bunch of data, collected under highly suspicious conditions, by mostly incompetent or indiscriminate people who badly wanted to believe Rossi. Also Rossi was deeply involved in each such experiment. The proper parallel is if you believed the specs about a Ferrari from a bunch of test reports Ferrari gave you and you had never seen the car run, much less driven it or had a ride in one. And the Ferrari people had lied to you for years, had never allowed the car to be tested by, for example, Car and Driver or Edmunds, and it had never actually been seen to have been driven on a road by anyone other than Ferrari staff and their friends.


    The demos are not intended to "prove anything definite" but good demos will strongly suggest that the device really works and is being properly tested. And if flaws in the method of testing in the demo are discovered, legitimate inventors will redo the demo with the flaws corrected. And the device will eventually find its way to a testing organization that the public can rely upon which is well known for testing that type of device. NONE of this has happened in more than SIX years of Rossi's lies, games, fiascos and charades.


    Don't get me wrong, I am happy you are going, Alan, though I would have preferred someone with a bit more of a critical approach-- the sort of person Rossi (wisely for him) never invites.

  • You stated Rossi had OFTEN claimed the FACTORY was a magnificence.

    He never said that. You are simply wrong. Not a question of interpretation.

    Ok Adrian, my memory is fairly good and I do not lie down easily. :)


    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…10&cpage=2#comment-734612


    "The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence)," Rossi's own words, you can check it yourself and JONP link!


    I was not wrong. You are correct however, it is not a question of interpretation!


    Should I search for more?


    Still waiting for your point by point response of the original list! :thumbup:

  • Yeah, I was going to cite that one too, Bob. I have dozens of misleading quotes from Rossi in a text file and many are simply outrageous lies. And how quickly people forget that Rossi's customer for the IH test was him and his attorney and that the company he suggested was Johnson Matthey (JM) was a shell he set up to promote his lies. What about that, believers in Rossi? Did any of you follow the deposition transcripts in the case Rossi vs IH?

  • Classical believer argument, Alan.


    That is not an argument Mary, and nothing to do with belief. it is a simple statement of fact about the impossibility of knowing all about something (or someone) on the basis of a short acquaintance, like a blind date, a test drive or a demo lasting a few hours and as it now seems there will be as many 70 people * in attendance, quite crowded.



    * So much for nobody wanting to go;).

  • No it's not. Con men work too! As long as they see that they may be paid.

    Years ago I read somewhere that some low level hoods and drug dealers work long hours at what turns out to be minimum wage or less. Crime doesn't always pay. The wages of sin are low.


    Generally speaking, low level hoodlums and frauds are stupid. If they were smarter or better educated, they would probably have honest jobs. There are also highly successful criminals. There are well educated ones running Wall Street investment firms, banks, and other large institutions. Theodore Roosevelt described them:


    "A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad."

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

    It does look like ITER is what Dr. Bussard described as a "Cathedral to Science." Lifelong employment for some hundred(s) of scientists to build something that may produce as much energy as it takes to run it. Meanwhile not leaving enough money to fund small cheaper alternatives like the Polywell or indeed LENR.

  • I am hoping the demo won't have obvious flaws such as:


    - questions about quality of the steam

    - voltage being measured on a resistance and not on the reactor


    A good demo is one where, assuming Rossi is honest, we are mostly satisfied by the setup and intrigued enough by the results.


    I am moderately hopeful, because Rossi has said that he won't be using steam this time. I am however concerned that we will have something similar to the latest paper, where we had to assume that voltage(reactor)~0

  • Ok Adrian, my memory is fairly good and I do not lie down easily.

    My mistake. I see I did misquote you. Your actual quotation was ""robotic factories" that ARE a "magnificence."

    Of course, Rossi did not say that either. I was sufficiently tired of the topic I just paraphrased it and didn't bother look it up.

    Not that even altering the meaning of a quote seems to mean much to you.

  • a good demo of a self sustaining device is to put it on a glass table totally disconnected from anything. But my bet is it will never happen. It will likely have wires to some mystery box, or fluid flow from somewhere else, some wires claimed to control it and require some Rossi intervention,.....

    Learn from the ITER COP claims- you have to include everything.


    If it is truly self sustaining, then just disconnect it from anything else and put it on a glass table under the "great dome" of MIT's rotunda for a few months. You would get all the info/reviews you needed and if it was successful, Rossi would get all the business offers he would ever need.

  • 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.


    Looks like we have at least one investor interested:


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


    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 participate 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 be contacted later for the Residual Data (Profession and Skype Contact). Alternatively, you can provide the same 5 data via email, sending them to [email protected] .

    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

    2 comments


    (Name edited out) November 8, 201714:07Reply

    I would like to attend the conference as a consultant for an investment company

  • Economic breakeven. Outputting power at a cost that is reasonably competitive with other sources of energy.

    This is a VERY complicated issue. Beware of jumping to conclusions or mass-media simplifications. You cannot just look at the cost per megawatt-hour of electricity to compare technologies. Other issues include:


    Availability. In Crozet, VA, the power company has a 1-MW Diesel generator in the middle of nowhere. I asked the power company about it. Based on the fuel costs and specs., anyone can see that costs more than other power company generators. However, it is used to meet peak demand a few hours at a time. It is quite cost effective for that purpose, because the equipment is so cheap.


    Scale. The most expensive sources of electricity are pacemaker and hearing aid batteries. I suppose they must cost millions of dollars per megawatt hour, but people are happy to pay that much.


    Expenses not accounted for; externalities. Smoke from coal fired power plants kills roughly 20,000 Americans per year, and makes life miserable for millions. I drove near a power plant in Georgia during an inversion a few years ago. It was like a thick fog, only it stank. I had to turn on the headlights. It enveloped towns, farms and schools for mile after mile. This smoke could easily be eliminated with scrubbers, but that would raise the cost of electricity by a few cents per kilowatt hour, and make coal uncompetitive.


    Nothing will be done about this, because the people being killed and the children choking in the schools are poor, rural, conservative people who do not file lawsuits, and who seldom vote. Or they vote for the GOP, which advocates coal. They are voting to ruin their families' health and end their lives prematurely, with no benefit to themselves, because no coal is mined in Georgia.


    If the airline industry were to crash airplanes killing 20,000 middle class people, or if MacDonald's were to kill 20,000 customers with food poisoning, these companies would be put out of business within days. But the power companies are careful to kill only poor people, and have been doing this since the 19th century, so they will not be held accountable.

  • axil Strange that Rossi and Levi and the Swedish scientists NEVER responded to all those very probable allegations, don't you think, Axil? In fact they never responded to any critique of their work at all. That is confidence inspiring to you perhaps?

    There is a number of ways and reasons why criticism is produced. One is constructive criticism where the critic intends to help the experimenter, and then there is the kind of "got ya" criticism that you produce intended to destroy the experimenter. Over the years experience has shown that responding to this got ya criticism is a waste of time; a no win situation. So it is understandable why cooperation involving that type of criticism is not now or ever to be expected. This also includes responding to your posts. I strongly suspect that this response is a waste of time.

  • Anyone know if this "demo" will be live streamed and if so how to view it?


    1. Albert Ellul November 8, 2017 at 7:46 AM

      DEar Andrea Rossi,

      Congratulations on your achievements so far.

      Is there a link available for viewing the demo online and in real time when the demo is in progress?

    2. Andrea Rossi November 8, 2017 at 8:16 AM

      Albert Ellul:


      No, the streaming will be delayed several hours.


      Thank you for your attention to our work,


      Warm Regards,


      A.R.

  • I am hoping the demo won't have obvious flaws such as:


    - questions about quality of the steam

    - voltage being measured on a resistance and not on the reactor

    What flaws?

    If you had been following the subject you would know the calorimetry does not involve steam.

    What is wrong with measuring the voltage across a known resistor? Apparently the reactor has close to zero resistance. Measuring the power going into the controller would be a good idea, but that's not what you said.

  • My mistake. I see I did misquote you. Your actual quotation was ""robotic factories" that ARE a "magnificence."

    Of course, Rossi did not say that either. I was sufficiently tired of the topic I just paraphrased it and didn't bother look it up.

    Not that even altering the meaning of a quote seems to mean much to you.

    Again, really?

    Your best defense is to remain on whether Rossi used the term robotic for his factory or not? What point are you trying to make?


    Let me refresh your memory of my original post that started this.

    Post 1300

    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


    This is the meat of that post:


    "So with that in mind, please answer the following:


    1)Rossi himself has stated over the years that he has sold 13 1mw plants to satisfied customers, including the military and private concerns. As late as 2016, after the lawsuit he stated he sold 3 more to the satisfied Doral customer! Which we all know as a lie.


    2) Rossi himself has often boasted on JONP, that he has or is building "robotic factories" that ARE a "magnificence"! We know this is untrue and that the only facilities he has was a small facility in Italy and the small Doral facility. No robotics. Not 11 years ago and none now.


    3) Rossi has stated that he had received safety certifications on the 1mw plant. This was not true. The certification granted was a self submitted application for electrical controls that had nothing to do with the reactor. The certification itself stated that it was not for commercial use nor for any production certification. However, Rossi presented it as such.


    4) Rossi himself stated that the "Lugano test" was completely independent and that he had no involvement except starting it up. Court documents now prove that actually he and Fabiani ran the entire test and the professors only stopped by on rare occasion.


    5) About the "customer" for the 1 year test:

    a) There was no customer, it was Rossi and Rossi's lawyer

    b)Rossi stated the customer had long been in production and need heat. JMP had NO prior production and no need for heat all according to court documents.

    c) Rossi "presented" a "chief engineer" to several visitors. This turned out to be a software consultant, simply hired by Rossi.

    d) Rossi himself, stated on JONP to you and other loyal followers, that the customer was well satisified, making production AND purchased 3 more plants. Not was going to but DID purchase.

    6) Rossi stated in May 2016, that he had a new partner and new customer for the QuarkX. This turned out according to HIS sworn deposition to be a lie. There was none.


    7) Rossi presented in June 2016, a fuzzy blue photo to HIS followers, that this was the test by the new customer and partner. This was a lie as there was no new customer. Remember, these are

    posts to YOU and his other supporters! He lied to all of you!


    8 ) Rossi presented a paper written by Gullstrom. It was clearly indicated that Gullstrom took part in the QuarkX test / measurements. Mats Lewan himself now has confirmed that Gullstrom was

    not present nor has seen the QuarkX himself. "


    ------


    And now all you are doing is dwelling on a two word phrase while dodging the real core of the subject. The central point. Let me make it easier.....


    I will modify my point #2 to read :

    2) Rossi himself has often boasted on JONP, that he has or is building "robotic factories" that ARE a and that at least ONE TIME HE STATED A FACTORY WAS A "magnificence"! We know this is untrue and that the only facilities he has was a small facility in Italy and the small Doral facility. No robotics. Not 11 years ago and none now.


    Is that better? Does that really change the subject matter? Does that really defend Rossi or your logic in supporting him? Hopefully we can progress past that point now!


    So back to the real issue, please provide your point by point logic in how you ignore or account for Rossi's actions listed above. How these can be construed as from an honest person and not deceiving or disingenuous. How one should put faith and support to a person who has done these action above?


    If you cannot make logical and direct answers to the above, we are done. I have no desire to have a facsimile debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge facts, answer with facts and simply tries to "hand waive" away the hard questions with silly word claims! In the real word, if I answered my boss with that type of response, I would be fired! You often pronounce your real world history and experience... apply it here!

  • What flaws?

    If you had been following the subject you would know the calorimetry does not involve steam.

    What is wrong with measuring the voltage across a known resistor? Apparently the reactor has close to zero resistance. Measuring the power going into the controller would be a good idea, but that's not what you said.

    Do you what is the nature of its output - electrical power, light, heat, mechanical?

    You speak of resistance of the device and a controller- since he claims the device is self sustaining, how is the output converted for their inputs to keep it running without external input of power?

  • More old Rossifiction for Adrian, Axil and other believers with obviously poor memories:


    Quote

    Andrea Rossi
    April 18th, 2013 at 5:46 AM

    Dear Paul:

    Commercial priority: we are developing with our USA Partner a robotized line for the reactors even for the industrial plants. We will have also to continue to manufacture plants for heat production. Technological priority is electric power production.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.


    I assume the USA partner (was there ever any other partner?) is IH and I bet Darden never heard of any "robotized lines" except maybe lines of bullsh*t.


    Quote

    Andrea Rossi
    February 10th, 2013 at 9:39 AM

    Dear Frank Acland:

    1- the Hot Cats can be driven either by electric power or gas, but also a hybrid system is doable

    2- with the outsourcing network already organized, if necessary we can manufacture thousands per day, if necessary ...


    Outsourcing network? You mean three old guys in a shipping container?