Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Shane, in bygone years we used to try to dissuade you of your beliefs about Rossi to little avail. It was quite frustrating. Now you are experiencing the same frustration in arguing with Adrian. Perhaps some day he will also find enlightenment as you have. But it will not be a result of anything anyone says here. He will have to discover it for himself.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Good advice. But I won't forget. It is clear Walker is reluctant to provide examples so there is no point in continuing this discussion.

I think they should make you boss over the moderators Adrian.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Some here have stated, without proof, that many of the questions on Rossi's JoNP are from Rossi acting as a sock puppet. Of course that is an insult to me, suggesting that I am not a real person. But don't worry, the moderators will not admonish you unless you are supporting or defending Rossi.

Adrian,

The matter has been discussed in some depth here, and while you will not remember this, and alas I have no patience to find the thread, the evidence (from tricks of language, spelling, names, etc) for Rossi talking to himself on his blog on some occasions at least was very strong.

He uses the blog, and Q&A there, to promote whatever message he wants. This was particularly obvious during the Court case where he used questions to leak info that was supposed to be confidential. It was quite funny.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Basically, he has no reason to so. He gets too many questions to answer already.

Ahh - but if he does not get the right questions to answer he may feel compelled to manufacture them.

Quote from Tony

I sort of got the idea that questioning the behavior of any member of this forum was a terminal sin...

Tony: the mods here have this (naive you will think) idea that the point of this forum is discussion of LENR-related facts and their interpretation, not speculating on the private lives, motives, sanity, etc of participants here. I know it is easier to do the latter, but all that provokes is more of the same and a low signal to noise ratio. For example, you may think I'm in the pay of big oil, out to defame LENR, with the morals of a cuttlefish, and I may think you are a loathsome apologist contributing nothing but snide inuendo and smears. But, neither of those thoughts advance the discussion one whit except to inflame participants.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Good advice. But I won't forget. It is clear Walker is reluctant to provide examples so there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Adrian. That comment is a good example of how to annoy people. Eric has provided examples on many occasions to many people - enough that most understand what is not tolerated and why. By summarising him in this way you make it sound as though his examples would somehow discredit him. You are also saying something that is pure (and probably incorrect) speculation. How do you know it is reluctance, rather than lack of time and feeling that no number of new examples, to you, will help?

I'm not sure if you realise that it sounds as though you suspect Eric and the other mods are covering up inconsistency, when you use that language? You are allowed to express strong views different from anyone else, the line is drawn when you spend your time commenting on the behaviour of mods or forum participants.

If you believe the mods here are inconsistent you can just say that, with evidence. It won't get you very far, but better than than indirect slurs.

Quote from Tony

Well, I suppose I hypothetically might consider the humans involved (forum members or not) being of some importance to such an discussion, while you and the mods do not, or? I also take it from your example that you consider it ok to present judgments on fellow members as long as those are presented in a hypothetical manner and as an example of what not to do... I keep that in mind, although I consider it a pretty boorish way to argue...

Tony: it is not that people, and their integrity, are unimportant. It is that arguing about who has integrity is death to any substantive argument about issues, since it will never be agreed, and is corrosive to any proper examination of the facts.

If somone here is lying through their teeth you can point out factual errors. Can't you? If not, and they make valid points, the fact that they have signed a pact with the devil is not relevant to those points.

Quote from Tony

I sort of got the idea that questioning the behavior of any member of this forum was a terminal sin...

One certainly doesn't want to make a habit of it. And attempting to point out the (implied or claimed) hypocrisy/unfairness/bias of mods won't go far either. Making the discussion one about mods and moderation: bad. Turning the discussion back to one about the comments on Rossi's blog: good.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

As I wrote earlier, there is no point is continuing this discussion because people can make accusations, but unless they provide examples as evidence such accusations are unproven.

The accusations I have seen here have been accompanied by copious examples.

For example, it is pretty clear that Rossi himself wrote many messages in his blog under fake names (puppets). You dispute this.

There is no absolute proof these messages were written by him, but there is a lot of evidence based on the choice of words and the mistakes in English. You wondered how we can tell apart mistakes made by speakers of one language or another. I can often tell because I took linguistics; I do a lot of editing and translating; and I have taught English as a second language. So I recognize mistakes made by Italian speakers versus ones made by Russians or Japanese. I recognize Rossi's style. This is a picayune example, but the point is, you may not realize this is good evidence, because you might not know much about linguistics. I see this, but you don't. If the discussion is about spectroscopy or IR cameras, I would not be able to judge the evidence, because I do not have specialized knowledge of the subject.

In another example, in the lawsuit depositions there is a mountain of evidence that Rossi lied, and that the 1-year test was a fraud. For example, the testimony from Murray shows this. That's what I think, and what many people here think. Evidently, you disagree. Fair enough -- you have a right to your opinion. However, you should not say we failed to provide evidence for our views. Don't say: "you showed nothing to support your assertions." Say instead: "I don't agree that what you showed proves your point."

(If you are like Axil and you refuse to look at the evidence, then you should say: "I have not looked but I am sure you are wrong." That is what Robert Park says about cold fusion. It is not a good argument, but if you, Axil and Park think you can judge a situation you know nothing about, you should say so. Be bold!)

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

It is not clear because I have not told you. It is clear to me, but not to you. What is your point?

My point refers to the few suggestions you provided on the old test on which you mostly based until recently your high confidence in the Rossi devices, which then allowed you to vehemently defend in thousands of comments posted from 2011 onwards the absolute reliability of the results claimed by the professors who tested the Ecat.

Specifically you wrote:

Quote from JedRothwell

That was before Rossi thought of the name "E-cat". He was still working with Focardi.

In a video Focardi once discussed a similar machine. It was space heater installed in a factory. Photos of it have circulated, and it was mentioned in a patent. He said it it worked. I have no details and no idea why he thought it worked, or what sort of calorimetry was applied. Really, it is just a rumor. Anyway, I have somewhat more info. on the other tests, and the machine looks about the same size and vintage to me.

These hints are not sufficient to clearly identify which test are you referring to.

You said it was something similar to those mentioned by Focardi in a video. You are probably referring to the TEDx conference held in Bologna on October 15, 2011 (1). But it happened a few months after the mails of June 2011 to Vortex, in which you claimed to have unpublished info on some old tests.

During his speech, at t=3:14, Focardi showed a photo (see image 1) of a device placed in an industrial space (presumably the Bondeno factory) which has the "vintage" look you mentioned. In any case, the short circuit placed on the Fuchs tank, is evidently too small to be considered the space heater cited in his patent, where he claimed: "A practical embodiment of the inventive apparatus, installed on October 16, 2007, is at present perfectly operating 24 hours per day, and provides an amount of heat sufficient to heat the factory of the Company EON of via Carlo Ragazzi 18, at Bondeno" (my emphasis). So I wonder which photos are you talking of. Surely not the ones presented by Focardi in his TEDx conference.

As for the other tests for which you said to be in possession of "somewhat more info", I wonder if they refer to the larger loop shown by Focardi a little later, at t=4:01 of the same video (see image 2). This "machine" shares the same "vintage" look with the Bondeno loop, but this time it was placed in an American-style room. So it seems that the info you mentioned on the June 2011 mails to Vortex could refers to one (or more) test held in the USA on this larger loop. Now, it is natural to wonder who could have been the testers who performed those tests, whose results had been so convincing to a long-time expert in the field like you. To be able to convince you to such a point, they should have been very trustworthy people with a great skill in CF/LENR calorimetry. In a previous comment you said: "I wish they would publish it, but they still will not". It means that they were people who normally publish their works, probably some of the long-standing protagonists of the CF/LENR field.

Now, after almost a decade, you say; "I guess by now after all that happened to I.H. and in Florida, those old results are no longer credible." This is an astonishingly statement, because it affects the credibility of the people who performed those measurements, from which the whole Ecat saga originated, a soap opera which characterized the last decade of the LENR history. It's my opinion that anyone who wish to understand the rationale of this incredible story should ask you who they were.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmgTo2Kw1U

image 1: https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/696-app2-b-jpg/

image 2: https://a.disquscdn.com/upload…/766/original.jpg?w=800&h

PS to the mods: I'm keeping answering to JR on this thread. I realize that since the beginning of this dialogue our comments deal more with the "Ecat early tests" rather than the "Rossi Blog Comment Discussion". From my side, please feel free to move all them in a more suitable context.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

It seems my effort to get the subject back on track failed. No discussion on the news I listed from JoNP.

It's almost as if nobody believes it is going to happen is it not?

Quote from Ascoli65

My point refers to the few suggestions you provided on the old test on which you mostly based until recently your high confidence in the Rossi devices, which then allowed you to vehemently defend in thousands of comments posted from 2011 onwards the absolute reliability of the results claimed by the professors who tested the Ecat.

I think that is an large exaggeration. Especially because I tend to wrap assertions in layers of academic deniability. "Absolute reliability" is not the sort of expression I would use, except perhaps in reference to a mercury thermometer.

Quote from Ascoli65

These hints are not sufficient to clearly identify which test are you referring to.

Again you make this strange comment!

Yes. The tests are secret. I do not want you to identify them.