Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from Zeus46

    My overriding memory of the previous reading was amusement at the fact you later made/still make such a song and dance about the other authors ignoring your arguments, despite having done exactly the same in your response to them. You are right that they do ignore parts - but that's no excuse for hypocrisy.


    They most important thing about the paper that Marwan, McKubre, Tanzella, Hagelstein, Miles, Swartz, Storms, Iwamura, Mosier-Boss, and Forsley wrote is that it demonstrates they have no argument of any kind to counter my CCS/ATER proposed cause of CF excess heat results. Their continued promotion of the idea they 'rebutted' my proposal shows they are pseudoscientists. And yes, whenever they or their supporters denigrate me and my idea, I may take the opportunity to respond. You certainly do when your ideas are challenged. Why do you think I don't have the same right as you?


    P.S. As I already said, I didn't ignore any of their arguments.

    Quote from Bob

    I have made several posts with links to Rossi's own words about Robotic factories. Not misconstrued. I suppose you need all the links again showing Rossi's own words about Robotic factories.


    Yes, please provide the links. Because within the context of all of Rossi's statements on the matter, it is quite clear that he is referring to a future time.


    Quote

    I have not made many, many posts about missing widow panes (when the heat exchanger mathematically was shown not to be sufficient by THH) that did not matter. IHFB misconstrues.


    I just point out the obvious. The photo is there for everyone to see. Even an eight year old child could (literally as quizzed) instantly recognized that window panes were missing.


    Quote

    I have not made many, many posts about pipe sizes where the reams of evidence show that it did not matter in the least. IHFB misconstrues.



    Of course the pipe sizes mattered. Jed kept insisting it was of a smaller size (based on Murray's memo) and therefore allegedly proved the 1MB plant did not work. It turns out, the pipe size was larger than originally claimed by Murray in the memo (which Murray made as a statement, not a question).


    Quote

    I have not made huge assumptions in electrical circuitry (QuarkX) where multiple, educated posters have proven that the power measurement and COP calculations are simply wrong. IHFB misconstrues.


    Neither have I made huge assumptions in electrical circuitry. Whoever pontificates about the QuarkX is simply guessing at this point. How can IHFB misconstrue anything here? Doth protest too much me thinks.


    Quote

    I have not made the continual "statement" that the pump could provide the flow stated by Rossi, when all testing by AF has given more indication that it could not! Agreed to by almost everyone here but IHFB who continues to have faith. IHFB misconstrues.


    The testing by AF is inconclusive because it has not been completed. Your assumption that "almost everyone here" agrees with you is not accurate. Para had to go back and read the thread when I made some assertions about the tests so far, and he came back and agreed with me.


    Quote

    I have not made the continual accusations against IH about "preventing the test". They offered to test in NC in short order. ROSSI REFUSED. Then Rossi much later and AFTER Ampenergo refused to sign on, brought up the Doral Sale of Heat.


    Read the emails. Please provide evidence for "in short order." You might be right: I just don't remember that being the case.


    Quote

    IHFB states this deception by Rossi was all fine, moral and understandable and due to because of IH! IHFB misconstrues and misconstrues greatly here!


    Why do you resort to false statements? Please provide a link to back up your assertion.


    Quote

    I have not posted many posts on how "Murray deceived the public and LENR supporters" with his memo to Penon. That memo was a private request for CLARIFICATION of facts to PENON, who was paid by IH.

    It was not to the public, it did not mislead anyone. It was asking questions that were NEVER answered. Yet IHFB says this proves nefarious intent! IHFB misconstrues.


    Again, why are you resorting to false accusations? Murray made a statement (not a question) in that memo that turned out to be provably false. Jed and others seemed to stake their reputation on that memo. It was kind of sad to see the evidence come to light later on that contradicted the memo.


    Quote

    And I could go on.


    Please do.

    Quote from AlainCo

    I hope Alan will bring back some evidence, even if the data available make me predict it will be hard.


    Alan is facing a problem here that arises from a fundamental asymmetry in the structure of scientific research. It was Karl Popper's fundamental insight regarding empirical research that it is logically impossible to "prove" a statement about the reality of some natural principle but it is perfectly possible to disprove it. Thus, seeing many, many white swans cannot logically prove the truth of the statement "All swans are white" but seeing a single black swan can disprove it.


    This has consequences for Rossi's upcoming demo. I can't imagine a circumstance in which any live demonstration extending over only a couple of hours would convincingly demonstrate the reality of excess heat in his system. A convincing demonstration would require a much more intensive examination of the system with the possibility of the examiners having repeated access to the system under completely known conditions. That could (and should!) take months. Since I don't anticipate Alan or any of the attendees having anything like this sort of access to the system, our expectations should be adjusted accordingly.


    On the other hand, there is a possibility that Alan or someone else attending the demo might make an observation that could totally falsify Mr Rossi's claims. That would happen if Alan spots a black swan! An instance of the sort of thing I have in mind is seen in the videos (which I am sure many here have seen ) that Steven Krivit took when he visited Rossi's facility 5 years ago or so. At about 11:30 in the video linked to below one can see plainly that the amount of steam emerging from the hose is about an order of magnitude smaller than the 7 kg/hour that Rossi is claiming. I encourage everyone here to listen to Mr Rossi on the video, make their own calculations, and then compare them to their observations. The mismatch between what Rossi claims and what is seen is a black swan!


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    So we can't expect Alan to come back from the demo with anything that would convince a reasonable person about the reality of excess heat in the QX. But it is possible he may bring back evidence of its unreality. To assert all this isn't saying anything about Mr Rossi in particular ... it is just saying something about the nature of scientific enquiry.

    Quote from woodworker

    AA: If you disagree with the points that Bob, MY or I have made, surely you should be able to provide some evidence to support your position. These arguments are not ad hominem attacks. Rather you are asserting that the naysayers should trust Rossi and give him the benefit of the doubt. Why should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt when Rossi, by his own words and actions, demonstrates that he is a serial fabulist.

    I do disagree with many of the "points" you all have made. Mainly they are rude and just opinion, not proven facts. I have had extensive experience in judging things like this and concluded that it is not yet possible to prove the case one way or the other.


    You claim you are certain that Rossi is a fraud and various other things, that make me doubt you are a lawyer as you say. ("I am one of the lawyers who said") Yes it has all been said before, many times. If you had read all my comments you would, perhaps, understand why I judge it foolish to be so certain at this point.


    I would appreciate it if you wouldn't drag me into this pointless debate unless you have something new to say.

    Quote from Bruce__H
     

    I can't imagine a circumstance in which any live demonstration extending over only a couple of hours would convincingly demonstrate the reality of excess heat in his system.


    Indeed. I mean, it's not because there's excess heat, that there's excess heat, right?

    Way too hard to compare energy in / energy out. Ah well, time to move on, folks. Anyone feeling sleepy? all this pseudo-science is so tiresome... zzz

    Quote from Bruce__H

    It was Karl Popper's fundamental insight regarding empirical research that it is logically impossible to "prove" a statement about the reality of some natural principle but it is perfectly possible to disprove it. Thus, seeing many, many white swans cannot logically prove the truth of the statement "All swans are white" but seeing a single black swan can disprove it.


    While you eloquently convey this logical principal, it is also quite interesting and true that it is difficult (nigh impossible) to prove that "All swans are not white." The anti-cold fusion movement tends to forget this simple truth. Because if you want to prove that "swans are not black," you would need to visit every continent, every clime, and observe every flock on earth, and you still might see all white swans and miss the hiding black swan.


    The problem space is too large--infinite really because even if there were no black swans on Earth, black swans might exist on other habitable planets in the universe, and therefore you would need to visit every habitable planet in the universe to be able to safely conclude that "swans are not black."


    The analogy to cold fusion is that the critics gleefully proclaim "a ha" that smart and capable person was unable to replicate a cold fusion experiment, therefore cold fusion must not work. However, the problem space is large, the experimental parameters are many and varied, and therefore, it is difficult or impossible to disprove the existence of a cold fusion reaction.

    Quote

    I may be weird in my fascination on this topic, but I think that makes you just as weird as me.

    Perhaps but that is not what I said. I did not say you were weird for your fascination with the topic. I said your were weird, or more accurately, your CONCLUSIONS and method of thinking about Rossi were weird because you seem to see all the facts and you then twist them to support your fervent desire that the ecat works and that Rossi is honest.. To me, that is very weird and I don't understand it. Alan, at least, has been non-committal if I understand him correctly... or perhaps just circumspect. He says very little about what he believes. But you are way out there.

    Quote

    So we can't expect Alan to come back from the demo with anything that would convince a reasonable person about the reality of excess heat in the QX. But it is possible he may bring back evidence of its unreality. To assert all this isn't saying anything about Mr Rossi in particular ... it is just saying something about the nature of scientific enquiry


    Based on past experience, that is true. I would add that if the ecat were real, as other have said, Rossi could do a full court press of a demonstration, with all the bells and whistles and all the clarity such a claim needs. But as we know from ALL the EXTENSIVE past experience with Rossi, that is as improbable as my unicorns being harnessed for energy. As for evidence of unreality, it will not be conclusive to believers. One can not prove a general negative, for example, all ecats don't work. One can prove a specific negative, for example, THIS ecat doesn't work. But to do that, you have to be able to test that specific ecat properly. And Alan will not be able to do that. At least the probability of his doing so is extremely small. I am reasonably sure that Adrian, Axil and IHF and several of the usual believers won't be convinced that Rossi is a crook, no matter what happens (barring a confession and maybe not even then) during this demo. And I am pretty sure Alan won't give a clear statement of his position on Rossi and/or Levi either. I hope I am wrong about that.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    it is difficult (nigh impossible) to prove that "All swans are not white."


    You have missed the central argument. Physical laws generally assert that under such and such conditions something always happens (e.g., water always boils at 100C under certain conditions). They wouldn't be called physical laws otherwise. The point is that it is just easier to disconfirm such a universal statement with empirical evidence than to confirm it. It is just due to the asymmetry of proof versus disproof for a universal. For instance, I assert that Rossi has a mountain of explanations to make following the events depicted in the video that Krivit released. Do you not agree that something is wrong there? I am asserting that just this one video is convincing that there are serious errors in Rossi's claims whereas a single video with no visible problems would be much less convincing that his claims are real.


    I ask you to do some calculations regarding Rossi's claims in the video and then compare them with what you see. I have never had anyone I ask this of come back and tell me that what Rossi is claiming in the video is true. Some say that they see what I mean whereas most just stop replying ... I think because they realize that something is wrong.

    AlainCo


    Quote

    First I've been fooled by Defkalion, who probably fooled themselves, then their boss, then their partner, then Mats Lewan, and all of us.


    The evidence presented for the sort of "error" made by Defkalion strongly suggests that their manipulations of flow measurements were not an innocent mistake and that, far from fooling themselves, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing. If not, they would have apologized and explained instead of simply disappearing without a trace like some mongrel dogs after an ambush attack. Hadjichristos' management of Defkalion's lie filled, arrogant, censored and unpleasant forum is also evidence that they knew exactly what they were doing. Perhaps they honestly "hoped" to recreate what they imagined (in error) that Rossi had. But what they presented to their investors, "distributors, and the public was clearly willful fraud. For sure, their "offer" on Peter Gluck's blog to have their device tested by me and my colleagues was a fraud. When I sent someone ( a senior university physicist ) to their Canada office to make arrangements, they were conveniently not there and did not answer their phones. They were FRAUDS -- Within the usual tiny margin of error such statements always have absent confessions.


    Defkalion did not fool "all of us." I and many others knew almost from their start that they were phonies from their evasiveness, tangentiality, inappropriate arrogance, and exorbitant claims that never materialized.


    Quote

    Then I've been fooled by Rossi (despite negative prejudivce), who started by fooling us with copper tricks and probably even excess heat, then proudly fooled Swedish partner, then Darden, Mats lewan, all ECW and me.

    Yup. Glad you are not being fooled any longer. Or are you? Excess heat? Rossi has no excess heat and never did unless you count the heat generated by his silly jaw bone.

    Quote from maryyugo

    Perhaps but that is not what I said. I did not say you were weird for your fascination with the topic. I said your were weird, or more accurately, your CONCLUSIONS and method of thinking about Rossi were weird because you seem to see all the facts and you then twist them to support your fervent desire that the ecat works and that Rossi is honest.. To me, that is very weird and I don't understand it. Alan, at least, has been non-committal if I understand him correctly... or perhaps just circumspect. He says very little about what he believes. But you are way out there.


    It was a rhetorical statement, but I guessed you would still probably respond, because well, it seems you can't help yourself. ;)

    Quote from Bruce__H

    You have missed the central argument.


    To the contrary, I acknowledged your central argument up-front in quite a friendly way. You, on the other hand, dismiss (or don't even address) mine, which is that while you place an emphasis on disproving a positive statement, which of course is possible, my point is that the Rossi haters proclaim with glee that the e-Cat does not work no matter the problem space involved, and despite there being some evidence that it does. You are in a much more tenuous position--from a pure logic standpoint--than me.

    Quote

    It was a rhetorical statement, but I guessed you would still probably respond, because well, it seems you can't help yourself.


    No it was not. Here is a rhetorical question: How strange is it that some people don't know how "rhetorical" is properly used?

    Calling someone weird is not a rhetorical statement. And it still isn't one by using an urban dictionary definition. But you are not worth arguing such things with so after this, I won't waste the space.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    To the contrary, I acknowledged your central argument up-front in quite a friendly way. You, on the other hand, dismiss (or don't even address) mine, which is that while you place an emphasis on disproving a positive statement, which of course is possible, my point is that the Rossi haters proclaim with glee that the e-Cat does not work no matter the problem space involved, and despite there being some evidence that it does. You are in a much more tenuous position--from a pure logic standpoint--than me.


    I see the logical asymmetry here as derived from the universal nature of physical laws ... not from whether they are phrased positively or negatively. A positive universal is just as hard to confirm as a negative universal whereas both can be strongly disconfirmed by a single observation. Personally, I am not proclaiming that the ECat can never work, I am just saying 'show me!'. I want the usual sort of evidence that would be required for any fundamental discovery. Meanwhile I think there are substantial problems with some of Rossi's previous demonstrations and because of the asymmetry of the logic of proof and disproof I think these are particularly telling. I would like you to look at that video I linked to and see what you think.

    Alan: " There will be no more discussion of GW or accusations of insanity in this forum. It is neither a Climate Change or Mental Health discussion space. interested observer should take particular note of this, since while not the only transgressor, IO is too often the initiator of such comments. Sanctions will be used if there is any more of this nonsense."


    I was pondering this comment. If you look back at the lively exchange from yesterday, you will note that at no point did I mention Climate Change in anything I said. So saying I am too often the initiator of such comments seems like using me as a scapegoat so you didn't have to criticize someone else. The subject did appear in the thread, but not in any of my comments. As for the accusations of insanity, I plead guilty to making one. While I did not explicitly call anyone in particular insane, I thought the comment was both appropriate and rather restrained as a response to "The unmitigated evil that the enemies of LENR bring to the world requires a unmitigated negative and maximal reaction to that evil; and that evil is just beginning to be marshaled."


    Meanwhile, I was the target of multiple overt insults by several posters, which apparently did not trouble you at all, presumably since for the most part they were not about climate change or mental health. I suppose you will claim that I instigated these comment by calling Rossi supporters "vitriolic and ill-tempered". Thank goodness I didn't call them homicidal maniacs.


    But you have the last say. This is your sandbox and you get to set the rules, whatever they might be.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.