Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Ascoli,


    If we start publicly humiliating every insider who believed in Rossi early on, LENR is going to be a very lonely place. Only one not fooled it seems was Brian Ahern. Oddly, Brian is one of the few "competitors" Rossi has praised.


    Another thing to consider is that Rossi may have had a "little" something in the beginning. It has not been ruled out. And yes, I have been reading you for years, and understand you have studied his earlier work and determined it was rigged also. But others still have some grounds to think otherwise IMO.


    Let us also keep in mind that the only one deserving of blame, and ridicule is Rossi. Blaming the victims is not the way to go.

  • Only one not fooled it seems was Brian Ahern.


    Perhaps more accurately: I gather that among LENR longtimers there were different levels of optimism, pessimism and skepticism. What optimism there was was due in part to the direct connection to Focardi and through him the indirect connection to Piantelli. There was a willingness among some to withhold judgment until adequate information was available to make an assessment, and, until then, scary tidbits that turned up here and there might be allowed as the result of possible quirks of character. The tests by Levi et al. provided additional grounds for optimism up until (but probably not including) the Lugano test, and after that, Parkhomov's and related reports.


    It was in this context that there were few who had openly expressed a clear judgment on the matter one way or another.

  • I think if you knew most of the LENR researchers, you would find most did not "support" Rossi. Most of the "closed" forums I know of had very little positive posting the first few years of Rossi. They just kept quite. In fact a sizable number have doubts about any Ni based systems.

  • Eric,


    Although I would have no knowledge of what the insiders felt about Rossi, it does make sense that there were many varying opinions among them. However, the only dissenter I really recall speaking up publicly was Brian. And man...he lets you know what he thinks of Rossi! :) He does not mince words, that is for sure.


    That is not to say those in the early days, who kept their distrust of Rossi secret were negligent in their duty to inform the public. As you remind us, there were those like Focardi, Levi and others within the UOB science faculty that Rossi cleverly used to enhance his credibility, that made it a very prudent choice to keep quiet until more information became known.


    Throw in the name of Rossi's most distinguished public supporter...a former president of the Swedish Skeptics Society, respected Nuclear Physicist Kullander, and were I an LENR player, or researcher during that time, I would have kept my mouth shut also,


  • Just one thing. Anyone sensible would view nuclear physicists as completely unqualified to determine whether Rossi had anything or not. Like asking a plumber to do roofing work. Notable that Rossi chooses nuclear physicists as validators.

  • Just one thing. Anyone sensible would view nuclear physicists as completely unqualified to determine whether Rossi had anything or not. Like asking a plumber to do roofing work


    THH,


    Now you tell me! Where were you in the spring of 2011 when I needed to hear that? Oh well, maybe it is good I did not know. At least I had 5 years of hope I never would have had.

  • Sorry Shane, It was boring enough the first time through so I have better things to do than wade through it again. Did you enjoy the video?


    Yes Adrian, and it calmed me down. Now I am upset again, because you made a strong, unsubstantiated claim in Rossi's favor, and now you won't provide a reference.


    Guess I will have to go back and watch that video again.

  • Robert Park and the Dept of Energy held at least two hearings with assembled e"experts" and concluded not to spend any money researching LENR. It was impossible to get a US Patent on cold fusion for many years.

    A couple of years ago a friend told me that when he handed a peer reviewed paper on LENR to a scientist in DOE, he let it fall to the ground rather than touch it.

  • Robert Park and the Dept of Energy held at least two hearings with assembled e"experts" and concluded not to spend any money researching LENR.

    That is wrong in many ways.


    Robert Park had nothing to do with those hearings, as far as I know. He did not participate. Perhaps he pulled strings behind the scenes but there would be no evidence for that. The experts did not conclude there should be no spending. On the contrary, several of them were in favor of spending. I uploaded the table of responses here:


    Uploaded Letters from Martin Fleischmann to Melvin Miles


    There were 18 reviewers. 10 negative, 2 undecided, 6 positive. Based on the recommendations of the panel, the DoE officially decided to support cold fusion research, saying:


    "….The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV.. . ."


    However, soon after issuing that statement, DoE officials reneged, and refused to support research.


    See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455


    A couple of years ago a friend told me that when he handed a peer reviewed paper on LENR to a scientist in DOE, he let it fall to the ground rather than touch it.

    That is what Robert Park did when I tried to give him McKubre's paper.

  • Adrian used that DOE thing to divert attention away from the fact he has not provided that reference. He has learned a thing or two from his mentor Rossi.


    I did not mean to detract from what you said Jed. It is spot on as always. I have read that DOE report a number of times. To me, if the stakes are so high as this, even if a minority of a committee agrees to some type of government funding, it should be funded. What they were talking about was almost nothing in comparison to what the US spends.


    More importantly, if they had approved, it would have given a green light for academia, and federal labs, to take LENR seriously without repercussion.

  • To me, if the stakes are so high as this, even if a minority of a committee agrees to some type of government funding, it should be funded.


    Yes indeed. And the DoE agreed with you. The 1989 ERAB panel review and 2004 review both recommended that cold fusion research be funded, albeit in a small way. The DoE officially accepted these recommendations. But the DoE managers ignored them, as I said.


    More importantly, if they had approved, it would have given a green light for academia, and federal labs, to take LENR seriously without repercussion.


    Perhaps that is why the managers ignored the recommendations. The results is -- as Mike Melich said to the DoE managers -- the DoE has put the editors of Nature magazine in charge of our national energy policy. They were not pleased to hear that.