@ Paradigmnoia,
Any relation with what I wrote above? If so, could you please be more specific?
My comment is obliquely related to yours, but in general I was lamely attempting to explain why Rossi may be more convincing than many other people with amazing claims of new energy. (Excluded are scientists reporting on results obtained in some systematic and/or well-characterized way)
Ascoli,
I gave your post a "like" for it's creativity.
You have an ability to make nothing into something. Too bad you are not a Rossi defender. He could use someone with your talents.
Rossi has that same ability
Why do people ask Rossi questions and then give him multiple choice answers?
Is it...
a) they are worried his answer will run to 27 pages?
b) they are trying to show off (I know the answer I just want Rossi to confirm it)?
c) blog rules say students must attempt to answer homework questions before help can be given?
d) they all have stockholm syndrome?
a) they are worried his answer will run to 27 pages?
b) they are trying to show off (I know the answer I just want Rossi to confirm it)?
c) blog rules say students must attempt to answer homework questions before help can be given?
d) they all have stockholm syndrome?
a. when the robots will make the mass production
b. Sweden and the USA
c. it will blow up if they do
d. they are stable
Warm regards,
A.R.
Display Morea. when the robots will make the mass production
b. Sweden and the USA
c. it will blow up if they do
d. they are stable
Warm regards,
A.R.
a. Yes
b. No.
c. Exponentially!
d. The temperature is 1 eV, and the power is 10kW hr / parsec.
Lukewarmly,
P.R.
Maybe it is because even his fans acknowlege that Rossi is a slippery eel who won't give a straight answer.
What day is it?
A weekday (AR).
Sorry I meant what day is it?
a) Monday
b) Tuesday
c) Wednesday
d) Thursday
e) Friday
f) Saturday
g) Sunday
Yes, F8 and F9 (AR).
QuoteDisplay MoreReyes Garavelli April 5, 2018 at 7:44 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
1- Where can I find a list of the most important replications made by third parties on your Ecat?
2- Will you offer also the Ecat QX to third parties to test its performance?
3- If yes, can you anticipate the identity of such third parties?
Godspeed,
Reyes
Reyes Garavelli:
1- http://www.leonardocorporation.com
2- yes
3- our Customers
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A perfect loop gents...
Third parties? Identity?
He, he, he, by the way the only Customer is me.
Wondering when they are going to stop self-humiliating by posting questions like that.
They will never stop, even after his death.
The mother of Rossi's lovers is always pregnant.
@ Shane D.,
I appreciated your sincerity, but I don't understand the following statement:
I stayed a Rossi believer ...
In fact, from what you said, you were mostly a "professor believer", that is, you believed in the competence and correctness of the professors who tested the Ecat. But now, after being disappointed by them, you, as well as the majority here on L-F, are blaming only Rossi. Why?
Professors and public researchers are paid by citizens to do good science and properly verify the bad one. In the past 30 years, those involved in the CF/LENR have benefitted from many hundreds of millions of public funding, without being able to produce one watt of real excess power. For its part, the Ecat initiative collected only a few dozens of millions from private funding companies which were well aware of the risk of their investments, and which in turn relied on the judgments of the above professors and researchers. In addition, most of these private funds are still available to the same people that already wasted huge amounts of public money.
Who did really take advantage of the public gullibility by misusing their prestige?
In fact, from what you said, you were mostly a "professor believer", that is, you believed in the competence and correctness of the professors who tested the Ecat. But now, after being disappointed by them, you, as well as the majority here on L-F, are blaming only Rossi. Why?
You walked me right into that trap! No, I do not blame them for being suckered by Rossi. However, I do blame them for not following good science practice after Lugano. Had they done so, they would have discovered the major flaws in their methodolgy, and saved us a lot of time worshiping a con artist. They also would have saved IH a lot of money, as it was Lugano that led them into agreeing to Doral.
Professors and public researchers are paid by citizens to do good science and properly verify the bad one. In the past 30 years, those involved in the CF/LENR have benefitted from many hundreds of millions of public funding, without being able to produce one watt of real excess power.
As to this, I will leave it for others to answer.
@ Paradigmnoia,
My comment is obliquely related to yours, but in general I was lamely attempting to explain why Rossi may be more convincing than many other people with amazing claims of new energy.
I see, thanks. May I ask you from when you are following the Ecat, if you ever been convinced for a while of its functioning, and in this case who gave you this confidence, or at least the feeling that it was something worth to be interested about?
I think most "believers" in Rossi did so because they wanted to believe more than because they were "convinced" by another. It reminds me of the scene from "the Saint":
@ oldguy,
I think most "believers" in Rossi did so because they wanted to believe more than because they were "convinced" by another. It reminds me of the scene from "the Saint":
Yes, the desire to believe in some miraculous solution of energy problems is for sure the terrain in which the seeds of deceptions are scattered. But in order to let them take root they should be dispersed by credible sowers. The protagonist of "The Saint" is a scientist of a prestigious university, and the scene at the beginning of your clip reminds more the scientist below rather than Rossi.
Ascoli65, you appear to have conveniently passed over the cold fusion literature entirely. Your apparent conclusion, that cold fusion has no scientific basis, assuming that is your conclusion (it can be hard to know for sure what your conclusions are), remains to be given support. What you need to do to advance this particular prong of your thesis is to show that all of the cold fusion experiments are flawed in some way. There are many such experiments over the previous 30 years to take a look at, so you will be engaged for a while, of course, helpfully answering questions at each step.
If, alternatively, cold fusion might have a scientific basis, or if it does have a scientific basis, the notion that seeds of deception might have been sowed by credible sowers such as Martin Fleischmann is altogether inapplicable.
The flaw in Ascoli’s persistent theory that he has been adamantly espousing for years is that he completely ignores the possibility that people with advanced degrees, prestigious positions, or important connections are incapable of being fooled by a talented con man. That is a naive and foolish position to take.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/qz…s-of-human-stupidity/amp/
Law 2: The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
You walked me right into that trap!
As to this, I will leave it for others to answer.
Shane,
It doesn’t bother me at all that IH was conned for $10 million by Rossi, it was
100% their fault for failing to do proper due Diligence. They got what they deserved.
The professors, IF, they truly believed Rossi should’ve been defrocked for not insisting on proper energy measurements.
Be careful now. I know them all, and none of them wear frocks. Well, never in public.
@ Shane D.,
No, I do not blame them for being suckered by Rossi.
I'd have a couple of objections.
First. Are you sure that the professors have been suckered by Rossi? Did they ever said this? Some of them were still in Stockholm last November! Don't you think that the firsts to admit this should be the professors themselves?
Second. Supposing they admit it, is it acceptable that many longtime physics professors may have been fooled that way by a controversial man with a degree in philosophy?
QuoteI do blame them for not following good science practice after Lugano.
Sorry, I don't understand. Why should good science practice be followed by the professors only after the Lugano test? This test took place in March 2014, more than 3 years after the first public demo in Bologna and more than 6 years after the first contacts with the LENR professionals.
QuoteHad they done so, they would have discovered the major flaws in their methodolgy, and saved us a lot of time worshiping a con artist. They also would have saved IH a lot of money, as it was Lugano that led them into agreeing to Doral.
There is some confusion with the timeline. IH gave 11.5 M$ to Rossi the year before Lugano. Subsequently, during the Doral test, they got 50 M$ from WF, in addition to monthly payments for the alleged energy produced by the 1 MW plant.
Moreover the Ecat units used at Doral were completely different from those tested in Lugano.
QuoteMe: In the past 30 years, those involved in the CF/LENR have benefitted from many hundreds of millions of public funding, without being able to produce one watt of real excess power.
You: As to this, I will leave it for others to answer.
OK. This is an answer from an insider:
QuoteDisplay MoreFrom: http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…eskimo.com/msg114895.html
Brian Ahern Mon, 17 Jul 2017 06:45:57 -0700
Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental evidence.
There is none.
Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a witch doctor to lead the discussion.
The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.
