Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Well, it beats me. The Rossi claims to have a partner already, and he must have the experimental data to support his "five sigma" claim.


    So why the blue blazes does he need the dog'n'pony show? With all due respect to all concerned, can any attendees credibly be described as opinion leaders or influencers? Why does he not simply go full throttle for a Magnificence of automated production instead of faffing about?


    Looks like an ego trip to me

  • This may be like the common law courts, but it is the opposite of science. It is a kind of inverse science.

    AH, so you assume every peer reviewed, published paper is wrong. You are not far wrong according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csvsy8

    The AGW fanatics claim anyone questioning their IPCC dogma should be brought to trial.

    Science is currently in a very pathetic state. So climate scientists can't be scientists, right?


    You have a very strange view of science. Normally it works by someone making a hypothesis: they work on that to make it a theory: if over time no objections are found it becomes a law.

  • AH, so you assume every peer reviewed, published paper is wrong. You are not far wrong according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csvsy8

    The AGW fanatics claim anyone questioning their IPCC dogma should be brought to trial.

    Science is currently in a very pathetic state. So climate scientists can't be scientists, right?

    Rubbish. Science always abounds with controversy; but science today is also remarkably productive.

  • I'm not going to do your homework for you.

    Rossi said he was using oil for the liquid and then using a heat exchanger for the oil to heat flowing water

    If he is using that to measure the heat (as opposed to possibly just using it to cool it) Then why do we have a picture of him in front of the whiteboard using Wien's law to derived a claimed output power? What you said above does not give any indication that the oil (what ever kind it is) is used for heat measurement.


    It gets worse if he is using Wien's law at an assumed peak in the emission spectrum if it was measure through some unknown oil with absorption bands. That would drastically change the peaks of a spectrum. Also that raises question about the heat raise of the fluids due to turbulent flow or pump energies applied and how the pump's energy is measured. We know that in the past he was very "sloppy" with thermocouple placement on flow systems and had no mixing up stream of the sensor.


    So you don't want to reveal your sources. It is unclear from your statement how the heat is measured: spectrum, change in oil temperature, change in water temperature,...... or just a non attributed Rossi says..

  • Adrian seems determined to establish himself as the ultimate inverse scientist. Good progress so far.


    At least Axil doesn’t simply parrot Rossi’s outlandish claims. He embellishes them.

    This is true. Rossi is extremely humble and meek about his stupendous accomplishments. He will just put his creation out there for all to see: "look at this dude"

  • If he is using that to measure the heat (as opposed to possibly just using it to cool it) Then why do we have a picture of him in front of the whiteboard using Wien's law to derived a claimed output power? What you said above does not give any indication that the oil (what ever kind it is) is used for heat measurement.


    It gets worse if he is using Wien's law at an assumed peak in the emission spectrum if it was measure through some unknown oil with absorption bands. That would drastically change the peaks of a spectrum. Also that raises question about the heat raise of the fluids due to turbulent flow or pump energies applied and how the pump's energy is measured. We know that in the past he was very "sloppy" with thermocouple placement on flow systems and had no mixing up stream of the sensor.


    So you don't want to reveal your sources. It is unclear from your statement how the heat is measured: spectrum, change in oil temperature, change in water temperature,...... or just a non attributed Rossi says..

    Power in, heat out.

  • http://www.newsweek.com/how-sa…-misery-takes-over-709403


    HOW TO SAVE HUMANITY: 15,000 SCIENTISTS URGE ACTION BEFORE 'VAST HUMAN MISERY' TAKES OVER


    Quote

    More than 15,000 scientists signed a warning letter to humanity. Its namesake? "A Second Notice." These experts are warning humanity for the second time against catastrophic biodiversity loss and widespread misery for humans, in a cautionary message for humans to make major changes.


    The open letter, signed by 15,364 scientists from 184 countries, was published on Monday in BioScience. The massive group of scientists, led by William J. Ripple of Oregon State University, is pleading for humans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, phase out fossil fuels, reduce deforestation, and reverse the trend of collapsing biodiversity.


    “Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out,” the authors concluded. “We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home.”

    It is providential that LENR is good to go today.

  • Power in, heat out.

    I don't understand you point.


    Notice by the way that heat is not power but energy. A ratio of heat out over power in is a unit of time.


    But the bottom line for me is that it is not clear how the output energy measured. I think that the input power measure is not done correctly. I do like the idea of swapping out the 1 ohm power resister with a 1/8 W one to estimate a limit.


    But my guess is that Rossi will not make the measurement and methods unquestionably clear much less demonstrate that there could not be things like hidden wires or ground current connections.

  • So why the blue blazes does he need the dog'n'pony show? With all due respect to all concerned, can any attendees credibly be described as opinion leaders or influencers? Why does he not simply go full throttle for a Magnificence of automated production instead of faffing about?


    Looks like an ego trip to me

    Earlier I wrote:

    "The real puzzle is why he is holding the demo at all. I suspect it is partly to offset the bad publicity from the Dorral affair and also to start marketing. There would not be much point in developing an automated plant if there are not ready customers for the output."

  • He might use a lithium battery to heat a 100 gallon tank to boiling.

  • How certain is he / are we on these 20W? Is it just by definition? Just heat? A mixture of light, electricity and heat (or thrust in addition?) Not easy to measure electrical power if there is zero resistance at 2700°. At this temperature you hardly find suitable probes to measure by contact, and what IR thermometers / pyrometers can do under such conditions we have learned...simple little errors can multiply up to magnitudes, so the COP can vary tremendously...I am really curious to see what Rossi is really showcasing to his carefully selected audience.

  • Quote

    Rather like in court you assume the person is innocent until proven guilty. You ALWAYS assume he is guilty until proven innocent.

    That is because Rossi was found guilty of causing the Petroldragon disaster, several other crimes in Italy, he obviously and clearly defrauded CERL/DOD with claims to high efficiency thermoelectric converters, he never did a single adequate test/demo of the ecat, and he lied again and again to IH and then tried to rip off hundreds of millions of dollars from them with an idiotic and futile law suit, as evidenced by copious depositions by obviously honest and reliable people. Other than THAT, yup, we should believe him!

  • You have a very strange view of science. Normally it works by someone making a hypothesis: they work on that to make it a theory: if over time no objections are found it becomes a law.


    What you have omitted, which is important, and inconsistent with your idiosyncratic notion of science as innocence until guilt is proven, is that a theory (or an explanation) is established only after the community of scientists bangs on it for a while and comes to a broad consensus that the explanation is useful and accurate. An account of something can have no concrete objections but not be found to be a law.


    But to bring your attention back to the motto of the Royal Society, which more than backs up what I said: "nullius in verba," or "take no one's word for it." Which is the opposite of assuming innocence until guilt is proven (to stretch the metaphor).

  • Look at the link I gave. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csvsy8 Science is currently broken


    I think this attitude of yours gets to the heart of the difference between the fringe of enthusiastic Rossi supporters and everyone else. You have lost faith in science and are proceeding without it. Whereas everyone else, including a subset that maintain some curiosity about whether Rossi has something, continue to place some trust in the scientific enterprise, despite its warts (incl. the treatment of LENR researchers).

  • Quote

    The only information we have is what Rossi said. Take it ot leave it.

    Goodness Adrian. Aren't humans supposed to learn from experience? And we certainly have plenty of it with Rossi. And it is entirely and completely negative. More than six years' worth of nothing but lies and meaningless demonstrations and not a single success of any sort. And that evidently tells you nothing.

  • Enclosing it in oil and measuring temperature rise is fine I guess, but as oldguy says. One need to know more details about the setup to exclude mistakes.

    Also I would like to add that in order to verify the setup one needs to know for sure that no hidden source of energy goes in to the system. When I analyze

    the hole story I tend to picture a tinkerer that tinker until a results appear and for these features most most certainly there should be mistakes done in the

    past. It is damning that we don't know a iota of an admitted mistakes. An honest researcher that enter fields where his expertise is lacking should by all logic

    fall into a trap from time to time. There is a lot of argument that this has been the case earlier by none admitted is admitted by Rossi. Still there might have been a strong

    obvious effect in the past that orginates all effort. Perhaps it is now tamed. But we shall probably not know after the test. My best hope is that we will know for sure

    that either it 's fake or an effect after the test. Also something I would like to know is how the effects deteriorates. A mistake will generate an effect for eternity and

    having proof that the effect diminishes with time is a good indicator of a true effect.

  • You are suffering from Bob's disease. I never sad that. What I said was I don't automatically assume the man is wrong until the facts are in, unblike you.


    It does not matter that you did not say it. I am not saying you said it, and you are unlikely to acknowledge it, for it sounds a little embarrassing. But I do not need you to acknowledge it. I am saying that your attitude and what you would encourage others with regard to how to approach Rossi is a kind of inverse science. And it is obvious to all (and possibly to you as well) that I am correct on this point.


    That is something entirely apart from the importance of waiting until all of the facts are available or assuming that Rossi is wrong, which doesn't bear upon your statement that "As time has passed he has learned more and I accept his present claims unless they are proved wrong. Rather like in court you assume the person is innocent until proven guilty."

  • Andrea Rossi

    November 13, 2017 at 10:55 AM


    Gian Luca and All Readers:

    The streaming of the demonstration of the E-Cat QX will start around noon (12 P.M.) of November 24th, Miami time.

    It will be available on


    http://www.ecat.com


    Warm Regards,

    A.R.


    Well, there we have it! A noon showing.

    Here will be some of the conclusions after the broadcast:


    One believer will state "It seems to me that everything Rossi has shown is possible and likely true. After all underdogs are a great litmus test for truth."

    One believer will state "Rossi says the out put power is 20w/whr so it must be so. Innocent until proven guilty! er...."

    One believer will state "The world has now been shown it's salvation"


    One skeptic will give concrete math, using supplied numbers showing how the output is in severe question if even possible.

    One skeptic will discuss how the equipment, using manufacturer specs and product use, will show how measurements were most likely in gross error.

    One skeptic will use Rossi's own contradictions showing he is not to be trusted.


    Desires versus evidence.


    This will all be from a demo that will change nothing as Rossi will be sure do disappoint! He ALWAYS disappoints.


    And the believers will keep believing, but no reactor will go to market. They will dream up excuses and see missing window panes and heat exchangers. They will refuse to consider Rossi's past nefarious actions or continue outlandish claims to support him. Yet, then another advancement will obsolete the QuarkX. This customer will vanish as has so many others. "5 sigma" will be forgotten just as the "certifications" have been. The story goes on and on..... Next year we will be in the same place. I made this statement two years ago, a year ago and am making it again.


    So this boils down my real curiosity about this demo to...


    What will Alan Smith say!

    There is no doubt that he strongly leans towards supporting Rossi. Certainly his choice.

    There is no doubt that he is educated and experienced in the skills needed to conduct a proper LENR experiment.

    There is no doubt that he will be at the demo and now see FIRST hand, not only the QuarkX but Rossi in action.


    Will there be doubt on what he reports? If he sees a meaningless DPS that has no real proof anything, even to the point the demo is truly bad, will he report it as a meaningless DPS that proved absolutely nothing and paints that picture even if very unfavorable to Rossi .....

    or

    will he report that while nothing was proved, nothing was disproved either, keeping up his basic positive support of Rossi without any criticism at all? Knowing such as Ackland and Lewans, that any criticism

    will mean being cut off and becoming a "snake or puppet"?


    I will admit that the above reflects my belief that there will be absolutely no real value of this demo on proving the QuarkX real or even likely to be real. No more so than last year's publishing of a fuzzy blue light.

    If this happens, I would expect a negative report in that the very reason for a public demo is to provide proof that the unit works. Otherwise why have it? I could have a demo holding a piece of blue paper over my flashlight and claiming excess heat. It would certainly not prove excess heat, but it would not disprove it either. If all that is given is "Rossi says" and absolutely no corroborating evidence, then how could a positive or even neutral report be given?


    If Alan comes back with supportive and factual data, I will recant and "eat crow". Will Alan call a spade a spade though? (Kind of putting Alan on the spot here! :thumbup:)

  • I am saying that your attitude and what you would encourage others with regard to how to approach Rossi is one of inverse science. And it is obvious to all (and possibly to you as well) that I am correct on this point.


    I'll have to defend AA a little here. Science is about the scientific method. AA has never dissed on that. He is dissing on the scientific establishment NOT strictly following the scientific method. AA has said wait and see what Rossi has. Wait and see what the experiments bear out. At least that is how I understand his position. And I can fully get behind that.

  • If onlookers such as ourselves adopt an attitude of "you assume the person is innocent until proven guilty," it is we who are being antiscientific. I get that some people are ok with that. It's just an observation (and kind of a damning one).


    One can assume that Rossi is mistaken or worse and still allow for other outcomes. It is good and desirable to ask, "where's the beef?"