Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • A science experiment is designed to support or refure a theory. Rossi's show is a demonstration of a product, a black box, no theory involved, does the produce work or not: apples and oranges.

  • 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.

    Evidently Adrian must have some misdiagnosis!


    It would be amusing if not so sad, that a person tarnishes his legitimacy with childish word play and juvenile retort.


    He keeps referring to "Bob's disease" but like most everything else he states, he cannot support what it is. If you ask him for links backing up his statements... he states he is not going to look it up for you! (Since he most likely cannot find them)


    If you give him 8 definitive points to answer, he obsesses about a single word. Even when his misunderstanding was pointed out and attempts to clarify was made, he retreats to base insult!


    He ignores the factual points that have backing. Even when links are provided, he turns to insults instead of intelligence.


    He refuses to even acknowledge those points, because he cannot refute them.


    Perhaps I should coin a phrase for Adrian's fallacy! Nah... I outgrew name calling many decades ago! :thumbup:

  • Who can say that LENR gets energy from nuclear processes. It could be extracting energy from the vacuum , or from axions, or from dark energy or dark matter or from magnetic resonance.

    Nope. Those sources are ruled out. Pd-D LENR produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as D+D fusion, so it is fusion.


    If you don't believe that, you are wrong.


    I do not know whether Ni-H LENR exists, but if it does, it is likely to be H-H fusion. I do not believe there are different, unrelated reactions going on with metal hydrides. That would violate what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles.

  • 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.


    Yes, the "underdog" litmus test! This is clearly what one should use to measure legitimacy with! Forget those inconvenient things such as "actual math calculations", "many years of history", "many failed relationships", "many lies and deceits", "no validated success" and "lack of self defense". :rolleyes:

  • Yes you did. You put it in quotes,

    The rest is just waffle trying to change the subject. You should know better than to put words words in someone's mouth. particularly as they are words I don't agree with.


    I removed the quotes from something I had written when it occurred to me that they could be misconstrued as quoting you, when what I intended to do was to summarize something you were saying. If it's the same thing as what you had in mind, the quotes are no longer there.


    The rest is not waffling; it is explaining why the attitude you have recommended people adopt is unscientific. Please elaborate on how I'm trying to change the subject from the very clear statement of yours that "you assume the person is innocent until proven guilty," which is a description of inverse science. I have attempted to keep your attention focused on this statement.


    Do you agree or disagree that you wrote this?


    No, not every one of them. He sometimes gets carried away. 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. You ALWAYS assume he is guilty until proven innocent.


    (Emphasis mine.)

  • A science experiment is designed to support or refure a theory. Rossi's show is a demonstration of a product, a black box, no theory involved,

    Rossi's experiments show that his device does not work. It produces no excess heat. You have not read Rossi's Penon report, so you cannot dispute what I say here. You have no idea what he did or what he claims.

  • I removed the quotes from something I had written when it occurred to me that they could be misconstrued as quoting you,

    Look at my comment 44 minutes ago. Now you are saying it occurred to YOU?

    :

    Eric Walker wrote:

    your idiosyncratic notion of "science as innocence until guilt is proven,"


    AA wrote: 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, unlike you.


  • [Assume guilty . . .] 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,

    Well, that is dragging in a lot of external stuff. I guess it is justified in some sense, but as I have said before, we would not want to reject science done by Robert Stroud (the bird man of Alcatraz) just because he was a homicidal lunatic and an extreme liar. He did good science! His book is still in print.


    The main thing is, in science, programming, engineering or any other technical discipline, you should always assume there is a mistake until you have lots of proof that the answer is right. The result is guilty until proven innocent. The result, not the person -- although in Rossi's case based on experience it is safe to conclude that the person is also guilty. That is a judgment call.


    In the Penon report anyone can see he is wrong, and probably guilty. That is why Axil and others who worship in Rossi's personality cult refuse to look at that report. You don't even need to look at his history and his past. The report fails on its own merits.


    As I have pointed out previously, you may be wrong to say he has never done an adequate test of the e-cat. See:


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


    You have not found a technical error in this paper. It is reasonable to reject it in view of what followed, but that is not a technical error. It is a judgment call. You tend to reject papers for no reason, such as every paper written by McKubre, Fleischmann, Miles and several hundred other researchers. Papers you say you have not even read. So your judgement calls are flawed, to say the least. Since you accept or dismiss evidence you have not looked at, I would say you have more in common with Axil than with me.

  • What I said was I don't automatically assume the man is wrong until the facts are in, unlike you.

    Ah, but you should automatically assume that. That is how science is done. Assume the man and the answer are wrong until they are proven right. That's the whole point others are making here, which you seem to be oblivious to. You are violating the scientific method and common sense, and you are ignoring the lessons of history.


    That is also how programming, engineering and other technical disciplines are done. If they were not, programs and airplanes would crash all around us, and self-driving cars would always drive themselves into ditches or stop at shadows, which is what they did for the first several years of development. Things always start off drastically wrong, and gradually become a little right, and then a little more.


    In Rossi's case, the Penon report shows that he is drastically wrong, to such an extent I am sure it was deliberate. I have never seen such outrageous nonsense, and with all the papers I have edited, I have seen a lot of nonsense!

  • Eric Walker wrote:

    your idiosyncratic notion of "science as innocence until guilt is proven,"


    AA wrote: 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, unlike you.


    Ok — your clarification makes sense. My apologies for misconstruing your original position. I was not intending to quote you literally, but I see also that it was confusing in this regard and that my summary was not what you intended.


    Which does not bear directly on my valid point that you are advising people to adopt an inverse scientific attitude in approaching Rossi.


    You also wrote, "You [Eric] 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." This does not rescue your inverse scientific position, as I have explained above, nor do you explain why I have a strange view of science. I would be grateful if you could do so.

  • Don't worry, this is all gone. :-)

    Rossi stated meanwhile he has reached SIgma 5 (that includes btw millions of real and simulated equivalent test procedures, so fails / safety problems can be excluded with more than 99% probability...). I think we cannot expect to see this kind of stuff on Nov. 24th, more a product that shall be ready to go to his robotized lines, if he is right with his claims....

    That's too bad. It reminds me of Tony Stark (Iron Man) building his reactor in a cave with some scrap parts.



  • 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.


    You need to go back to some of the earlier interviews to hear about miss-steps and meltdowns. I have no links to hand (sadly) but they have been mentioned.

  • Quoting AA: "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."

    That is theoretical science, not experimental science. In experimental science people do experiments and make observations. The observations often turn out to be inaccurate or incomplete at best, or flat out wrong at worst. As Stan Pons says, if we are right half the time we are doing a great job.


    I think that description of experimental science with the smooth progression from hypothesis to theory to law is romanticized. There is a lot more blundering. There are more reversals and mistakes. Most theories turn out to be incomplete or wrong. Sooner or later they are replaced, or at least modified.


    In engineering, you must "plan to throw one [version] away" and you must assume that you will take "two steps forward and one step back." Those are chapter titles in Frederick Brooks book, The Mythical Man Month. That is about programming. Programs, as first written by skilled people, are mostly wrong and a little right, as I said. The Obamacare rollout was an example of a program written by unskilled people. It was a first version that they had to throw away.

  • Science is not about dismissing out of hand. Science is not about running an experiment, getting one or a few failures, and forthwith declaring that a phenomena is non-existent. This is what the scientific establishment largely did with cold fusion in the years following the P&F era. There are a small band of us that refuse to let that happen in the NiH era. We will inspect every possibility. We will support the MFMP in their attempts to replicate and verify. We will inform others about what is happening in the space. We will refute pathological skepticism. We will post on forums across the Internet. We will be early purchasers and adopters of any products that come to market. We will battle regulators on ideological fronts: because we have the moral higher ground. We will not give up.

  • Quote

    Since you accept or dismiss evidence you have not looked at, I would say you have more in common with Axil than with me

    When it comes to an approach to extraordinary claims, I have little in common with either of you.


    Quote

    In passing Rossi was acquitted completely for the Petrodraggon affair. (You accepted the bad info from MY.)


    Geez, Adrian, you keep believing the guy! You pay no attention to Krivit who is fluent in Italian and researched all of this in Italian newspaper and by interviews. Who do you think created the billion dollar disaster of Petroldragon? Oh I know, the Mafia. Yah shoore.


    You would believe a bank robber caught in the act simply because he said he was innocent? It's a good analogy.

  • That is all fine and well. But it bears upon MFMP, who take a scientific approach and provide evidence. It does not bear upon Rossi, whose supporters seem to ask us to ignore science and suspend disbelief. MFMP are very different from Rossi in that regard. As I said, it's good and desirable to ask "where's the beef?" Indeed, this is exactly what MFMP have done.


    Given what we know, there's lot of (scientific) reason to believe that Rossi is mistaken or worse. There is some (scientific) reason to believe that he has something (e.g., Levi et al.), but this work is quite controversial and contested. In a normal scientific context, I can only guess that it would not make the cut. In order to give Rossi the benefit of the doubt, one must take a leap of faith unknown in other contexts (except perhaps religion) to assume he has something. Assuming he is mistaken or worse is different than dismissing his claims out of hand.

  • No, You assume he might have made a mistake. That is quite different from assuming he is wrong.

    I strongly disagree. People who do science, engineering or programming your way end up creating stuff like the Obamacare roll-out, which was a programming nightmare. A once-in-a-generation-scale nightmare, caused by people who assumed there were no mistakes.


    It is better by far to assume Rossi is wrong because most people are wrong, most of the time. I mean in experimental science or when writing new programs. Not in work-a-day things such as building a house. People usually get that right. On the other hand, if it were not for building inspectors who find mistakes during construction, many houses would fall down or burn down. Sewage and rainwater would be flooding everywhere. That is the situation with a house under construction a few houses down from mine.


    In passing Rossi was acquitted completely for the Petrodraggon affair. (You accepted the bad info from MY.)

    I have said nothing about the Petrodraggon affair, and I know nothing about it. Perhaps you confused me with someone else.

  • You posted the link yourself that showed you misquoted Rossi.

    Adrian,

    I did not misquote Rossi and your stubbornness on obsessing over one word is quite sad! Because you do not seem to know how to look up links, let me repost for you the REAL questions at hand that

    you somehow refuse to not only answer, but cannot seem to even acknowledge! You have stated multiple times that I have some "disease"! I am challenging you to a simple and intellectual request to answer these points below with your logic and facts. Remember now... no hand waiving them off!


    Here is the link (again)

    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


    Here are the questions (again for the third time)

    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! What we now know as a lie.


    2) Rossi himself has often boasted on JONP, that he has or is building "robotic factories" that ARE a  and that at least one 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. (Since Adrian cannot get past a couple of words here, I have modified them so he can move on to substance! Here is the link where Rossi calls the factory a magnificence. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…10&cpage=2#comment-734612 Not that it will alter the substance of this discourse one iota. But now Adrian cannot obsess about it any more. )


    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.



    Now Adrian, let's show our true colors here. I have made no name calling or derogatory remarks to you, but a challenge to answer the above with logic and fact. Remember, the above is from Rossi's own words, so we do not have to argue inconvenient math, circuit diagrams or other things shrouded in obscuration. We can look at what Rossi said himself. Is this a trust worthy person or not when compared to the years of deceit?


    What will answer be? ...probably more hand waiving and possible juvenile insults! :rolleyes: Hopefully he will prove me wrong.



  • I seem to remember that it was the mafia guy (some kind of politician with waste management connections...) that set Rossi up on the Petroldragon dealon regulation issues who went to jail recently on corruption.

  • Eric Walker

    It makes a pleasant exception for someone to admit a mistake.


    You still misunderstand my view when you are talking about inverse science. I was not talking about experiments here but just claims made. W don't have sufficient information to judge the claims because we don't have enough detail about the experiments.

    I am saying it is wrong to automatically assume the man is a liar. wait for the demo and look at the facts.

  • I am saying it is wrong to automatically assume the man is a liar. wait for the demo and look at the facts.


    Not everyone is assuming that Rossi is automatically lying, although we have good reason to believe that he has lied in the past. One can stand back and say, "we don't have enough information to say, scientifically, one way or the other, whether Rossi is correct in his claims, for he will not provide adequate evidence to support them. And there are lots of reasons to assume he is, at minimum, mistaken." This is what the motto of the Royal Society, "nullia in verba," implies. It is a good motto. To ignore this motto would be to take a faith-based approach rather than a scientific one.

  • When it comes to an approach to extraordinary claims, I have little in common with either of you.

    You are probably unfamiliar with my approach to so-called extraordinary claims. It is quite different from yours, and also from Axil's. I don't believe in them. That is to say, I don't make a distinction between ordinary and extraordinary, because I consider that distinction a state of mind of the observer (me, in this case), rather than a fact of nature. It is subjective, as I describe in the last paragraph, below.


    Therefore, all claims, ordinary or extraordinary, must treated the same way, with the same level of rigor. This is an old-fashioned. It is very different from the New Age method practiced by you and Robert Park, which is to categorically reject every new claim without reading it. As I have often said, you are usually right because new claims are usually wrong. But your method takes no more thought, analysis or intelligence than a Magic 8 Ball possesses.


    Quoting Melich and me:


    Claim 1.5 [in the 2004 DoE review]. “As many have said, extraordinary results require extraordinary proof. Such proof is lacking.”


    This is not a principle of science. It was coined by Carl Sagan for the 1980 “Cosmos” television series. Conventional scientific standards dictate that extraordinary claims are best supported with ordinary evidence from off-the-shelf instruments and standard techniques. All mainstream cold fusion papers present this kind of evidence.


    Conventional standards also dictate that all claims and arguments must be held to the same standards of rigor. This includes skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion, which have been notably lacking in rigor.


    Laplace asserted that “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” “Weight of evidence” is a measure of how much evidence you have, not how extraordinary it is. There is more evidence for cold fusion than for previously disputed effects. . . .


    Finally, the quality of being “extraordinary” is subjective. What seems extraordinary to one person seems ordinary to another. Many scientific phenomena that experts take for granted, such as quantum effects, seemed extraordinary when they were discovered, and still seem extraordinary to non-scientists.

  • @IHF: refuting pathological skepticism sounds like a worthwhile activity. Do you honestly believe that defending uncorroborated outlandish claims using nothing more than the fact that a serial liar said them in his little blog achieves that goal? Perhaps you should look up the word “refute”.

  • It is possible as deminstated by the referenced post that Henry is incompetent to mount a argument based on the science that he purports to defends and Henry must descend to follow in the easy path, the lazy path of personal recrimination where fact don't matter. Let us raise the level of discourse to the arena of facts and not stroke ego with attacks on the person.

  • One can stand back and say, "we don't have enough information to say, scientifically, one way or the other, whether Rossi is correct in his claims, for he will not provide adequate evidence to support them. And there are lots of reasons to assume he is, at minimum, mistaken."

    Actually, for the 1-MW 1-year test, he inadvertently supplied definitive proof that it did not work, in the Penon report. This is one example of Rossi providing adequate support for a claim. Negative support.


    This is what the motto of the Royal Society, "nullia in verba," implies. It is a good motto. To ignore this motto would be to take a faith-based approach rather than a scientific one.

    Amen!


    (A most inappropriate word! Faith-based. But it is in the right spirit. After all, there must be some degree of faith in science too, that the universe is explicable. The goal is to reduce faith to the absolute minimum.)