Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Roger,


    LENR is a passion of mine. And this whole affair is currently ground zero. New readers come here every day. The old timers constantly dredge up worn-out reasoning. I feel a duty to refute what I perceive to be faulty reasoning. At the end of the day, if LENR is to have a break-out moment, there will need to be broad support.

    IHFB, have you read anything other than on LENR websites? If not, let me be the first to tell you that history is filled with conspiracies, scams, and shady dealings that utterly dwarf anything the Rossi business entails. The argument that Rossi’s affairs are too monumental to be a scam is pathetic. I suppose you somehow think that Fabiani (some obscure Italian engineer whose only claim to fame is his association with Rossi) being in on a scam is too preposterous to be possible? Go study the Bernie Madoff case. That was an extensive and complex conspiracy. Get real.

    • Official Post
    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Of course, there are those who think Fabiani, Penon, Levi, Kullander, and the rest were all in cahoots with one another in one of the most extensive and complex conspiracies hoisted upon the world in recent memory.


    IHFB,


    I agree with you except for that part. Kullander is above reproach, and dead anyway. Levi?...can not speculate, because Alan likes him. "in cahoots"...yes IMO, they were colluding. "Most extensive and complex"...I like to think that, as it suckered me in. :)


    Since you agree that the data collection was "murky", can you also admit that Doral fails by any, and all reasonable scientific measures?

    Shane, as usual people are focused on the wrong thing. I have no clue whether any of Rossi’s merry men are in on a scam. My comment is strictly pointing out that there would be nothing remarkable about it if they were. The notion that if Rossi is a scammer he has perpetrated one of the greatest scams in history is absurd. If it is a scam (which I think we both think is the case), it is hardly one of record-breaking magnitude. And that is all I was communicating to IHFB.

    Quote

    Of course, there are those who think Fabiani, Penon, Levi, Kullander, and the rest were all in cahoots with one another in one of the most extensive and complex conspiracies hoisted upon the world in recent memory.

    First, you have not been following the case very well if you think Kullander, Essen, the Swedish scientists, Focardi and even Lewan are accused of being "in on the scam." What they are accused of is never pressing Rossi to perform calibrations which could have revealed the scam and which had been advised over and over by critics in many places. They are accused of negligence and/or incompetence in evaluating Rossi's methods. I have never heard the above mentioned people accused of collusion (to use a popular term in the US these days) with Rossi. Gullibility and an over-eagerness to see something happen go a long ways to assisting a scammer but this is not a conscious assistance.


    Alan dislikes hearing about it but certain few other people he likes, who are involved in the story, may have in fact conspired with Rossi although I know of no evidence that they did. it's just that if they didn't, they were so close to Rossi that the level of incompetence they exhibited in not questioning Rossi appropriately, is staggering.


    There is nothing either extensive nor complex about Rossi's scam. It is a simple, straightforward, classical free energy scam very reminiscent of Carl Tilley, Steorn, Howard Johnson, Mylow, Dennis Lee, and many others. What distinguishes Rossi's caper are, IMO, primarily two things: 1) His rather amazing ability to choose gullible marks (victims) to exploit and who won't fight back and 2) Rossi's blind luck that his various cheats and machinations were not uncovered. Yet. This is in part because of the constantly changing nature of his latest device (classical free energy scamming) and because Rossi always manages to degrade access to the devices for anyone who can check them out. He even goes so far as to claim such ridiculous things as that he has no working device to show, that an obviously excellent test was performed incorrectly, and even that he made the device malfunction to cheat a rival or even one of his own distributors. Amazingly, he has gotten away with this. So far.


    But extensive, complex, even clever? Not a chance.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Of course, there are those who think Fabiani, Penon, Levi, Kullander, and the rest were all in cahoots with one another in one of the most extensive and complex conspiracies hoisted upon the world in recent memory.


    That is a straw man. For Rossi's device not to work, all you need is Rossi being Rossi, plus Fabiani totally supportive. Then Levi, Kullander, etc need to be academics very out of their depth assessing Rossi's demos (as we know from Lugano, where the multiple mistakes are certain) and blinded by a charismatic inventor with an story that would have life and world transforming qualities if true. Stories like that have staying power, and academics are no more immune to it than others.


    Rossi does not need a typical academic to fall for his fluff. Remember, the friends of Rossi here are self-selected as people willing to believe. Those more skeptical (the vast majority, I suggest, or else Rossi would find getting big funding a doddle) will go no where near this story. Skeptical voices who do go near get called snakes by Rossi and kept away.

    @THH,


    I'm skeptical of the status quo. I'm skeptical of pathological skeptics. Now with results from Alan F. showing that the same model pump used by Rossi is capable of a pump rate nearly reaching what is necessary for a 1MW heat output, you've lost one more ill-supported accusation. The sand is beginning to shift beneath your feet. What are you going to do?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    That is a straw man. For Rossi's device not to work, all you need is Rossi being Rossi, plus Fabiani totally supportive. Then Levi, Kullander, etc need to be academics very out of their depth assessing Rossi's demos (as we know from Lugano, where the multiple mistakes are certain) and blinded by a charismatic inventor with an story that would have life and world transforming qualities if true. Stories like that have staying power, and academics are no more immune to it than others.


    Rossi does not need a typical academic to fall for his fluff. Remember, the friends of Rossi here are self-selected as people willing to believe. Those more skeptical (the vast majority, I suggest, or else Rossi would find getting big funding a doddle) will go no where near this story. Skeptical voices who do go near get called snakes by Rossi and kept away.


    Well, I'm extremely sceptical about people spending a lot of time inventing fraud scenarios involving people they do not know and have never met and analyzing everything from a distance, even using attending an experiment - doing an actual analysis on site, as an argument against the conclusions from those that have... I have no problem calling these kind of despicable people "snakes" as Rossi do. Actually I know of other words as well.

    It's even worse that some of these people claim to have some kind of altruistic motivation for their actions when it is obvious they either have skin in the game themselves or are merely lobbyists for organizations that have. The idea that this forum is arguing between "Rossi fans" and science/scientists/sceptical rationalists/etc, and that there are no entities with other objectives involved is idiotic. Of course they are., It is in their interest. (hot fusionistas being a prime example)


    Eric arguing that discussions about the members objectives should not be tolerated is proof enough of this... At the same time THH and MY have no problem using people being "Rossi fans" as an argument in every other post (Levi,Lewan, Kullander,Fabiani, etc). Hmm.

    Found this quote by Ed Storms from an earlier thread: Self-Interest and LENR (Edmund Storms)


    Quote from Ed Storms

    I watched how the attitude toward LENR changed at LANL. I watched as tolerance changed to hostility. The change was not based on lack of reproducibility. I and many other people were able to cause the effect. Besides, many phenomenon are initially difficult to control and are not rejected for this reason. The rejectors only used this claim as a fig leaf to hide another reason. I believe the rejection had a more sinter reason. The real reason was simply protection of self interest, initially by people funded by the hot fusion program.


    In 1989, hot fusion was in trouble because Congress was getting increasingly impatient with the slow progress. I believe certain very powerful people realized that LENR would siphon funds away from hot fusion and eventually kill it. They could not make this fear public so they set about convincing the public that LENR was bad science, which was easy to do. This was power politics at its worst. This worked because Fleischmann and the rest of us were playing the honest game of understanding nature for everyone’s benefit. In contrast, a few powerful people were only protecting themselves using any dishonest tool they could find. We and they were not playing by the same rules and we still aren’t.


    We see this process unfolding every day in Congress and being applied to a range of issues. Facts and what is real do not count in government these days. Self-interest rules. We in LENR have not created a self-interest for anyone of importance outside of a few groups having special needs, such as NASA. Even these groups have to hide their work to avoid being tarred by the bad science claim. In short, no one of importance needs LENR. Once the need is demonstrated, the attitude will change instantly. Perhaps Rossi will show that need or perhaps another country will create the need for the US to take an interest. We have to wait and see where the need is revealed before we can expect acceptance.


    And even here THH was arguing (in length/flooding mode, ad nauseum, as always) against the obvious first hand observations made by Ed Storms... even using the troll-conspiracy-meme against Storms ... and using the argument that the successful suppression made by the hot fusionistas (using the word scientists here) is and evidence against LENR per se... Hmmm.


    Quote from THH

    It is not credible that science that is openly described could be suppressed for so long, if it worked. This conspiracy theory is Storms making excuses for the fact that LENR evidence is weak and therefore not taken seriously by scientists.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    I followed your disqus link and it seems to only show a picture of the mezzanine with a giant rectangular marking on the floor. I don't see a suggested layout of the heat exchanger or your red lines. You mentioned that you used Google Maps to do some proportional measurements. Put together a cogent story and perhaps you will persuade me. Right now all I see is evidence that something large once sat upon the floor of the mezzanine.


    Below is the material that I originally posted on Ecat World in August. It was posted in response to one of Engineer48's posts. In it, the bottom image is Engineer48's. The thin yellow lines show his approximate position of inner walls. The red marks are ones I put there.

    _______________________________________________________________________________________


    Here is Wong's picture of the 2nd storey at the Doral site.


    Thumbnail


    Of interest are the square-shaped marks on the floor. I have done my best to indicate the position (in red) of the dark linear marks on your proposed heat-exchanger layout. You may disagree with my exact positioning for the linear marks but I think I have got the position and proportion generally correct.


    Thumbnail


    I don't see how the marks left in that approximately 11m x 11m room can in any way correspond to a 10m x 6 .5 m heat exhanger. There is no way I can position or orient the exchanger to fit the marks. Can you do it?

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________


    That ends the material I previously posted on Ecat World. Engineer48 never responded. That was par for the course for him in that he often selectively refused to answer when he realized that the answer would reveal he had been wrong about something.


    Now, for your benefit, here is a screen grab from Google Earth of the same roof. The horizontal yellow line is 10.85 metres according to the dialog box you see. The vertical yellow line is one I drew of the same length.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Please provide your calculations.


    This is in respect to Krivit's video.


    At about 11:30 in the video Rossi holds up a hose that is attached to the output from a single Ecat. You can see steam coming out. I generously estimate the velocity of that current of steam as 1 m/s (I think it is actually about a third of that but I want to err on the side of giving Mr Rossi the benefit of the doubt).


    The hose itself is marked "Parker ITR" as you can see in the video (at 10:15). And Rossi comments that it is a special type of hose for carrying steam. This makes it 1 of 3 types of hose made by the Italian subsidiary of Parker Hannifin: the Vapore 164, the Vigore 1, or the Vigore 2. On consulting the catalogue (http://www.parker.com/parkerimages/euro_hpd/CAT_4401UK.pdf) I see that it is possible to estimate the inner diameter of these hoses by their bend radii. I will do so. Krivit's video at many points (e.g., near 3:05) shows the hose as it comes horizontally out of the Ecat and then curves and drops to the floor. I generously estimate the bend radius of this curve at something like 250mm (again I am trying to err in favour of Rossi, I think that the actual minimum bend radius would be smaller if you really torqued the hose around). In the Parker catalogue all the steam-carrying hoses list 25mm as the corresponding inner diameter. As a common sense chack on this I note that in the video it looks as though Mr Rossi would be able to stick his thumb in the end of the hose and the fit would be about right. A 25mm i.d. is about right for this.


    So now we have a 25mm hose carrying gas at 1 m/s. The cross sectional area of the hose is therefore [pi*0.00025m^2]/4 = 0.000196 m^2 which i shall round up (generously) to 0.0002 m^2 (i.e. 2 cm^2). A 1 m/s current in the hose means it is emitting 0.0002 m^3 of gas per second or 0.72 m^3 per hour.


    Rossi claims in the video (at about 12:20) that his Ecat is vapourizing 7 Kg of water per hour. This is the same as 7 L/h of water and using an expansion factor of 1700 yields 11,900 L/h of steam. Converting to m^3 (1 L = 0.001 m^3) gives 11.9 m^3 of gas that should be escaping from the hose per hour.


    So here is the contrast. According to Rossi's claims the hose he holds up should be spurting out 11.9 m^3/hr whereas according to conservative calculations it is visibly emitting about 0.72 m^3/hr. That is a disparity of about 16x and I don't see how this can be explained away by minor adjustments such as condensation in the line. The steam really should be rocketing out of the hose at a speed of at least 16 m/s, not 1 m/s. And recall that my 1 m/s estimate of gas velocity was intentionally on the high side. I really think that the true gas velocity seen coming out of the hose is about 1/3 of 1 m/s so the disparity is really about a factor of about 45.

    It boggles the mind that after a year of this nonsense during which it was firmly established that the Doral test comprised a fictitious customer performing a fictitious industrial process at a phony company site and the reported data makes no sense whatsoever, people are still debating whether there were missing window panes. Talk about grasping at straws!

    Quote

    So here is the contrast. According to Rossi's claims the hose he holds up should be spurting out 11.9 m^3/hr whereas according to conservative calculations it is visibly emitting about 0.72 m^3/hr. That is a disparity of about 16x and I don't see how this can be explained away by minor adjustments such as condensation in the line. The steam really should be rocketing out of the hose at a speed of at least 16 m/s, not 1 m/s. And recall that my 1 m/s estimate of gas velocity was intentionally on the high side. I really think that the true gas velocity seen coming out of the hose is about 1/3 of 1 m/s so the disparity is really about a factor of about 45.

    Good call. As I recall, Grabowski et. al. recalculated enthalpy in one Rossi run with the steam ecat, assuming steam was wet rather than dry as Rossi claimed. That alone would account for a COP up to 6, as per that report. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf -- next to last slide, IIRC.


    Also, there is a theory that Rossi located the thermocouple right on the internal heater, especially in the ecat which gave Levi's NyTeknik-reported spectacular result. Who could know either way about that since Rossi and Levi did not do or permit calibrations? A simple calibration with the two large Joule heaters in the ecat would have settled that issue but of course, in SIX YEARS, none of the geniuses working with Rossi nor the redoubtable Rossi himself has thought to do that! It is known that the so-called Ottoman ecat (derisively named that by NASA people) did, in fact, have a misplaced thermocouple, a misplacement which seemed to be calculated and deliberate. Again, this would have been easily corrected had a simple calibration been done and again, nobody did one. Not ONE flippin' calibration.


    That was much better. You still left out a citation/link to Dr. Wong's claim about the container. For the benefit of the readers, here is a link to Dr. Wong's expert disclosure, where he provides the materials and dimensions of the heat exchanger box: "Encasement: wood panel insulated with rock wool shaped for thermal and acoustic insulation; Dimensions: Aprox. I m (length) X 6.5 m (width) X I m (height)"


    You contend that "There is no way I can position or orient the exchanger to fit the marks." Consider, however, that the container has small enough dimensions such that it fits in either length-wise or width-wise fashion within the mezzanine. It is about the size of a heat exchanger encasement that one would expect to be built within that space. Also take note that there ARE large right-angled markings on the floor of the mezzanine. It seems that your underlying assumption is that the corners of the markings must correspond directly to the corners of the encasement. It would be normal, however, to set the encasement on support beams so that air could flow beneath the heat exchanger encasement. The support beams could quite easily correspond to the markings on the floor.


    Here is the problem. You and your like take a set of circumstances and twist it like a wax nose to fit your preconceived notions. You may accuse me of doing that (in fact you and others have, essentially). But that is just another version of the story about the glass buildings, pot/kettle, etc.


    You seem to have made out a good case here. Will have to check your calculations later, because Thanksgiving.

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.