Dewey Weaver, (1) Please don't use this forum for veiled legal threats. (2) If that person really is here, give us your evidence offline, and if the evidence is adequate, he's gone.
-
-
Noted Eric - for the record, I don't think that a legal threat was made - just a reminder that slander and libel are criminal offenses that are taken seriously in Sweden.
-
Just a point. I read that some people want to establish a bet.
The problem is who will declare the reality.
Alain, the difference is the bet is on Rossi building a production line to mass produce reactors. Also, that the proof will be commercial reactors sold. It has been clear for a while, as Rossi forecast, that no experiment will convince the skeptics, only sales of working equipment.
For me, the point of the bet is to show the true feelings of the skeptics who write with such certainty that Rossi has nothing. So far it looks to me that most think there is a better than 10% chance that he does, no matter what they write.
It seems very unlikely to me that Rossi would build a production line if he were not convinced the E-Cat worked. If he does do that, much will get written about it and the answer should be clear. Time will tell.
-
Quote
It seems very unlikely to me that Rossi would build a production line if he were not convinced the E-Cat worked
This is already on question - or does anybody outside Rossi's inner crowd (or himself) have any clue where he is currently programming his robots from ABB and setting up his mass production? He must be quite done, if he still wants to be on time with his industrial product in 2018? Any other proof that this is true?
Adrian already bets now on mid 2019...so it seems we are getting back to the old days where everything is always at least one year ahead....and we never saw/see a product (not a prototype or anything that worked) in time as claimed. This should open eyes and minds.
-
You viewed the demo in October as significant, and thought it would quite likely support Rossi's case.
At that time I thought it more likely than it turned out to be. As I already answered Bob, I don't know whether it worked and think it pointless to speculate with the evidence available. Keep in mind that it was Rossi who took the case to court.
-
AA - and it was Rossi who took the case out of court in a last minute cowardly panic.
-
Alain, the difference is the bet is on Rossi building a production line to mass produce reactors. Also, that the proof will be commercial reactors sold. It has been clear for a while, as Rossi forecast, that no experiment will convince the skeptics, only sales of working equipment.
For me, the point of the bet is to show the true feelings of the skeptics who write with such certainty that Rossi has nothing. So far it looks to me that most think there is a better than 10% chance that he does, no matter what they write.
It seems very unlikely to me that Rossi would build a production line if he were not convinced the E-Cat worked. If he does do that, much will get written about it and the answer should be clear. Time will tell.
Adrian,
I don’t really care if Rossi builds a factory and has “robitized” production lines by any date etc. Under these terms he could be making electric toasters.
As I suggested before,
Rossi’s contraption, whatever it is called and wherever it is built MUST be proven to produce Energy Out > Energy In,
by your agreed to factor of 6.0 for an uninterrupted agreed to time frame, say 100 hours non stop, (I am open to discussion here though).
This is to be measured, validated and replicated by multiple trusted sources. These sources must include UL & various other US based National laboratories, that get the same results.
The results must be printed in a peer reviewed journal that is open to criticisms and, if requested due to errors found in any kind of testing/measuring protocols used,
be run again.
-
Yes, that is why I have not bet (also a 10% return in one year is not great investment given the hassle and exchange issues etc). It would perhaps be worth it with $100K staked, $10K return. But, then, i'd worry that the payment would hurt the person i was betting with. i never bet unless sure both sides are doing it for sport and prepared to lose their stake.
THH, Your calculation is suspect. The cost to you if you won would only be that of the postage sending a check to Alan Smith. I said I would accept a regular check to avoid tying up your money and would take Sterling or US dollars.
The only exception was for Woodworker who displayed his lack of trust by insisted on a cashier;s check.
Yes, such a bet should be minor and for sport, or to show what people really think. I'd like to see the skeptics put their money where their mouths are.
-
AA - and it was Rossi who took the case out of court in a last minute cowardly panic.
Wow, If Rossi panicked the way you describe, why didn't the expensive IH team go for the big kill the way you've been marketing it for many months prior to the settlement?
-
It has been clear for a while, as Rossi forecast, that no experiment will convince the skeptics, only sales of working equipment.
I think that the shoe is on the other foot. It turns out that there is a historical record showing that Rossi skeptics can be convinced by empirical demonstrations. It is just that they have been convinced an the opposite direction than you prefer.
I am talking about the tour of Rossi's premises and his then-current ecat model that Rossi that Steven Krivit recorded on video. It is obvious even to nonexperts like me that the claim that Rossi makes in the video that 7kg/hr of water is being converted into steam and then exiting the ecat is wrong. According to my own calculations the amount of steam visibly emanating from the outlet hose of Rossi's ecat is more than an order of magnitude too small to account for that 7kg/hr.
And this is what the experts say too. When Krivit posted the video of Rossi's demonstration, he received many responses from scientists, engineers, and others outlining their observations that what Rossi is saying and what can actually be seen in the video do not match and that the discrepancy is enormous. Many of Krivit's respondent sent him their analyses. You can see them gathered together in the appendices to a report ("Report #3") that Krivit has posted here...
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/NET370.shtml
So experts have been persuaded by empirical evidence. Just not, as I mentioned, in the direction you wish. I hoope you will agree that all of these people are responding directly to the physical evidence which is what I think you are wanting people to do (and which you claim the skeptics don't do).
And now my question to you is this ... you are an engineer and I expect quite capable of making the calculations required. So would you undertake to try and reconcile Rossi's claims with the amount of steam coming from his ecat device? The case seems to me straightforward and would be a contribution towards adopting an evidence-based view of Rossi's claims which I gather you think are lacking. I would be interested in your results and in what you would conclude about Rossi's ecat devices.
-
Tony - I do wish you would ask the same questions of your boy. Its seems that your curiosity is singularly lopsided.
Regarding Doral, the risk of a split baby decision with a local jury in a complex case makes a walkaway settlement an easy decision if one is offered.
The WCS was convinced that IH would offer him a check to settle and was stunned when this didn't happen. He had no choice but to bail out.
Capisce?
-
Adrian already bets now on mid 2019
Having built several plants, that is how long I estimate it would take to do it. As I said earlier, I have independent information that Rossi has commuted to do so, but this was dismissed by someone here, saying I was not a reliable source.
Rossi is more optimistic and hopes to be ready this year.
I think it would be unwise for the skeptics to take the bet.
-
Tony - I do wish you would ask the same questions of your boy. Its seems that your curiosity is singularly lopsided.
Regarding Doral, the risk of a split baby decision with a local jury in a complex case makes a walkaway settlement an easy decision if one is offered.
The WCS was convinced that IH would offer him a check to settle and was stunned when this didn't happen. He had no choice but to bail out.
Capisce?
So you are saying that Darden was offered a walkaway by Rossi? And that Darden agreed because of the risk involved with a jury? I'm happy we sorted that out...
Not really the same though as Rossi panicking and agreeing to a last minute offer ...
And it really doesn't rhyme that well with your engagements up until that point either? Or afterwards.
-
it was Rossi who took the case out of court in a last minute cowardly panic.
So much for the truce. Looks like you just can't help yourself.
-
Tony and AA - it is now clear how you reach your deluded conclusions.....and also clear that you will continue to troll the field.
-
@ Eric Walker,
a year or three ago I went to the effort of verifying with you, yourself, on this site, what the outlines of your suggestion were. Shall I dig up the thread? You are good at this kind of thing; perhaps you will be kind enough to do the honors.
You're probably referring to this: https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=30357#post30357
QuoteOr perhaps your position has not changed since that exchange, and you can point out what in the description above I got wrong in comparison to the previous attempt?
My position has not changed since then. What you got mostly wrong in your description above is turning "A hypothesis" into "THE premise". This last wording implies a fixed starting point. On the contrary, a hypothesis is only one possibility among others.
In 2016, I wrote you that the hypotheses expressed in YOUR summary of a possible MY position "ha[d] to be carefully verified, and hopefully confirmed by the proper level, in the proper site." At that time, I was thinking about the pending House of Representative's request for a DoD briefing on the latest developments in the LENR field. Meanwhile, the response from DoD has inexplicably ignored the Ecat issue, and the subsequent trial in Miami ended with a settlement. So there will be no official explanation of the Ecat affair. I can't fill this gap, of course.
From my POV, I can only say that the Rossi's scam hypothesis doesn't conform with many specific facts or rumors, such as those raised by Krivit on his 2010 mails to Vortex cited at the end of my 2016 comment.
QuoteIn your sleuthing, you are studiously ignoring the most obvious and straightforward alternative hypothesis. Namely that things are what they seem.
May I ask you to explicit this hypothesis?
-
Thank you for the clarification, Ascoli65.
May I ask you to explicit this hypothesis?
The straightforward account is something like this: (1) When Jed Rothwell was advocating for Rossi a few years ago, it was a sincere advocacy that was due to his being aware of test results that were promising and due to his being in contact with people he trusted who were closer to Rossi's activities and who were also enthusiastic. That (2) Rossi was not an agent of the DoD or a similar agency, but rather an independent actor who had gained attention in various quarters with his claims. And that (3) any activity vaguely traceable back to the DoD and other government agencies was presumably due to genuine interest and not, e.g., their masterminding a revival of interest in LENR for underhanded purposes unrelated to LENR.
Hopefully this reading will seem like the straightforward reading to you as well?
-
THH,
I should have added that if Rossi has nothing, as the skeptics believe, come 6/1/2019 nothing will be written about it, unless it is negative. So you would be home dry.
If has does have something, builds a production line and sells reactors, I'm pretty sure the skeptics will say it's not true and quibble for years. They will claim the users don't know if they are getting the promised heat because they are incapable of measuring it. That is where the risk is. My money would remain tied up.
So there is no risk to the skeptics if they are right. If you believe otherwise it shows you really think Rossi might have something. QED.
-
Actually no. I am talking about the late 60s and early 70s, when IBM was at the height of its monopoly power.
Jed, sorry I missed your reply the first time through. I'm not saying you were wrong about IBM. In the early 70s I persuaded our Director of Finance (who controlled the IT dept,) to cancel our order for a new IBM mainframe. This was in the days when "nobody ever lost their job though ordering an IBM."
The IBM rep said this was the first cancellation he had ever seen.
-
If has does have something, builds a production line and sells reactors, I'm pretty sure the skeptics will say it's not true and quibble for years. They will claim the users don't know if they are getting the promised heat because they are incapable of measuring it. That is where the risk is
Adrian,
Rossi's Petroldragon started up in 1978. It took a full 10 years before word started to get out, and articles written, that something was not quite right. By then he already had a book published about him being a hero of the environment. Had bets been placed in 1977 for and against, they would already have paid out to those betting on Rossi. It was not until the early 1990's before Petroldragon collapsed, after investigations revealed it produced nothing other than toxic waste sites.
This is not as simple as it seems. Nothing is with Rossi. Keep looking though, maybe you can find a solution that will work.
