Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

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

    Quote

    maryyugo wrote:

    [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,


    Jed wrote: Well, that is dragging in a lot of external stuff. I guess it is justified in some sense,



    It is better by far to assume Rossi is wrong because most people are wrong, most of the time. I mean in experimental science

    Assume he maybe wrong, but don't assume he is and keep calling him a liar. In this case, wait for the demo and see what happens.

  • 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.

    PP fusion cannot produce any appreciable energy level at room temperature. You are wrong.

  • So I should assume you are lying, right? Or is it just Rossi should be considered a liar?


    If there was a long history of me saying patently misleading things and sometimes getting caught lying, and I say something that sounds potentially misleading, assuredly, you should assume I am lying.


    But that is not the point I was making. The point I was making was that if we are to take a scientific approach, we should assume that Rossi is at minimum mistaken. Until he provides scientific reason to believe otherwise which stands up to scrutiny. We can still keep an open mind and allow the possibility that this assumption will prove mistaken later on, and wait for the demo. But that will not change the basic stance.

  • Assume he maybe wrong, but don't assume he is and keep calling him a liar.

    There are two separate claims here: 1. Being wrong and 2. Being a liar. Let us not confuse them. They have different kinds of proof.


    1. I assume he is wrong now, because I know he was wrong about the 1-MW 1-year test. Anyone can see that in the Penon report. (Again, you refuse to look at the report so you cannot dispute what I say.) His technical judgement is deeply flawed.


    2. I assume he is lying now, because I know he is a notorious liar. Anyone can see that in the lawsuit docket files. He lies again, and again, and again. He lies in bold ways, and in gratuitous small ways for no benefit. He brags about how he lied! Okay, that is not the same kind of technical proof that shows the 1-MW test is garbage. It is not based on the laws of thermodynamics. But it is a very good reason to assume he is lying now.


    In some cases, a person who is a notorious pathological liar such as Robert Stroud does excellent scientific work and never lies about technical issues. However, in Rossi's case, the Penon report, his invisible mezzanine heat exchanger, and many of his other claims are extravagant lies about technical issues. So we know we cannot trust him about technical issues any more than we can trust his claims about his business.

  • 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.

    Great stuff. I admire the structure of this rhetoric style greatly. Such works whip me into a frenzy. Let us grab our helmets and our guns and head toward the beaches.


    We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Winston Churchill


  • But people who had committed unthinkable crimes were also called heroes; Oedipus and Medea


    Let's not get too hung up on Freud's still-up-at-dawn paranoid psychobabble:


    The proper story is that whilst a grueling journey of self-sacrifice, in which he solves the riddle of the sphinx, and saves half of humanity from destruction, the unfortunate mother/father incidents were merely unintentional accidents.



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


    There's a heap of Nigerians who would love to have your email address.

  • [Regarding the Penon report] We will see about all this soon enough.

    We have seen it already. Rossi published the report in the law suit docket and on his web page. You have not seen it because you refuse to look, but that doesn't count.


    Of course we have not seen the upcoming demo yet, so I cannot be sure it will be wrong. I am saying he was wrong in the past, so it is likely he will be wrong in this demo as well. That is a reasonable prediction. You have no reason to predict he will be right, given his track record.

  • https://www.politico.eu/articl…e-of-law-hurts-all-of-eu/


    Italy’s disrespect for rule of law hurts all of EU

  • But the Rossi IS a liar. A self-admitted liar - just see the court papers. It may be he sometimes tells the truth, but how are we to know?

    Yes, well, as I said, in some instances, with some people, they lie about personal issues, or their business, but they tell the truth about science. But not Rossi.


    As you say, the court docket papers prove that Rossi lies about technical issues as well. Even if he does tell the truth in the future we would have no way of knowing it. We would have no reason to think it is true. The only way to confirm his claims is with an independent test, as Mary Yugo correctly points out.

  • That is not he point, Eric says, according the Royal Society motto, everybody should be assumed to be lying.


    This comes as news to me, and it will come as a surprise to the members of the Royal Society.


    As I'll clarify once more: assuming Rossi is lying was not the point I was making (although it may also be wise). If we follow the motto of the Royal Society, "nullia in verba" (take nobody's word for it), then we must demand (scientific) evidence, rather than taking someone's (Rossi's) word for his claims. He may not be lying, but he could well be mistaken. And we should not just take his word for it that he's seeing a COP of 1777.


    It's a pretty simple idea, really.

  • Oh? why not?

    For one thing, although Pennon's paper was a bit sloppy in adding missing data, overall I doubt Pennon would be fooled. He is a bright person and would have nothing to gain by falsifying the report and a lot to lose.


    There were many other cases where there were two aides to each claim. Possibly it would have been clarified in court but you know what happened. If IH had truly had certain, positive proof I don't think they would have folded. Yes I know others have a different opinion. Not proven one way or the other.


    .

  • For one thing, although Pennon's paper was a bit sloppy in adding missing data, overall I doubt Pennon would be fooled. He is a bright person and would have nothing to gain by falsifying the report and a lot to lose.


    There were many other cases where there were two aides to each claim. Possibly it would have been clarified in court but you know what happened. If IH had truly had certain, positive proof I don't think they would have folded. Yes I know others have a different opinion. Not proven one way or the other.


    .

    Rossi brought the initial suit against IH. IH had nothing much (compared to expected legal expenses) to gain even if they won. It is Rossi that folded and he lost 89M + If he had what he claimed he would had much to gain.

  • Great stuff. I admire the structure of this rhetoric style greatly. Such works whip me into a frenzy. Let us grab our helmets and our guns and head toward the beaches.


    We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Winston Churchill



    Churchill was made of great stuff.

  • What do you think politicians do? See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csvsy8

    As I've said before you have no idea of the difficulties Rossi was facing.

    Difficulties are not an excuse for lying and wrong doing.

    And because someone else does wrong does not excuse another's actions.

    Your view point says a lot about your character.


    I would not trust most politicians to make good scientific judgments.

  • The theory put forth in the Gullstrom & Rossi report was not supported by any experiment that I saw. The report simply estimated the COP that the reactor puts out.

    Actually, the COP was not estimated in the report. It was left to the imagination.


    The output was estimated by radiant power in one demonstration, whereas the oil demonstration seems to have measured heat.


    The input power in both demonstrations was hinted at by demonstrating the calculated power dissipated by a resistor in series with the reactor. Even the resistor being in series is hinted at, but not actually explained in the report. We are left to fill in some blanks in the supplied information by examining a blurry photo posted on Facebook by someone with a name closely resembling that of a professional hockey player (a meme which perhaps incidentally frequently occurs on JoNP).

  • Rossi brought the initial suit against IH. IH had nothing much (compared to expected legal expenses) to gain even if they won. It is Rossi that folded and he lost 89M + If he had what he claimed he would had much to gain.


    And yet he marches on. He apparently has a new partner. He is on the cusp of revealing the improved e-Cat to the world. He has the world of LENR talking about him. He has you here watching every day.


    And who was that other group that was involved at one point? Industrial something...?

  • Rossi brought the initial suit against IH. IH had nothing much (compared to expected legal expenses) to gain even if they won. It is Rossi that folded and he lost 89M + If he had what he claimed he would had much to gain.

    At the time, Rossi new about the E-Cat QX. Getting his IP and sales territory back was worth a lot more than 900 million. If he had won IH would have declared bankruptcy and had little money in the bank. He would never have got his 900 million + damages. I'm sure he grieved about the legal fees that he could not spend on R & D,

  • At the time, Rossi new about the E-Cat QX. Getting his IP and sales territory back was worth a lot more than 900 million. If he had won IH would have declared bankruptcy and had little money in the bank. He would never have got his 900 million + damages. I'm sure he grieved about the legal fees that he could not spend on R & D,

    The "IP" is completely worthless, if you mean that silly patent.

  • Difficulties are not an excuse for lying and wrong doing.

    And because someone else does wrong does not excuse another's actions.

    Your view point says a lot about your character.


    I would not trust most politicians to make good scientific judgments.


    Think of business as a good game. Lots of competition and a minimum of rules. You keep score with money.

    Bill Gates