Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    @ Eric Walker,

    I will continue to answer you on this subject, telling you frankly why I do not believe in the reality of CF, until you tell me it's too annoying for the public here. As already mentioned, I am not trying to change anyone's opinion on this point.


    Quote from Eric Walker

    Cold fusion/LENR is above all an experimental phenomenon.


    I agree with the experimental nature of CF/LENR, but IMO after a year from the first F&P press conference it ceased to be a chemical-physical phenomenon and became a socio-psychological one.


    Quote

    One can safely conclude that protons are not fusing with nickel nuclei and still have the problem of explaining the results of palladium deuteride experiments of the kind Fleischmann and Pons and Miles investigated. One can go even further and say that, in one's own assessment, it seems unlikely that there is any fusion at all and still face that challenge — what is the source of the significant excess heat and other findings in the experimental phenomenon of LENR?


    For the stories I followed more closely, the Ecat devices and the Celani cells provide a large set of examples of what is the source of this alleged excess heat. Going back to the initial Pd-D experiments, I can pick up a paper (1) that has been pointed out to me last week (2) as one of the most representative of the functioning of the Patterson cells, which in turn was presented to me as one of the most promising CF device.


    Well, you can see at a glance, just looking at the Figure 3, that the absolute value of the excess heat comes out from miscalibration of the experimental set-up. The Figure 4 is even worse because it clearly shows that the relative value of the excess heat derives from a wrong offset. The best conclusion I can draw from that paper is that the authors didn't know what they were doing. The worst one is that they were well aware of what they were doing. The same applies IMO to all the people who accepted that paper at the ICCF, praised it, spread it, and so on.


    Quote

    This is the heart of empiricism — you go where the experiments lead you rather than relying solely on theoretical arguments.


    Speaking of "going", it reminds me of what McKubre has told in his ICCF history:


    Quote

    From: http://www.iccf19.com/history1.html


    It was Debra who proposed the continental rotation, the idea that the conference should rotate from the Americas to Europe to Asia in a cycle.


    IMO this decision helped the LENR community a lot in overcoming the theoretical arguments, pointing to the more manageable experimental ones. In this case, their experimental results led the CF/LENR researchers all over the world.


    (1) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGexcessheat.pdf

    (2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    @ Erik Walker & interested observer,

    Quote from Eric Walker

    IO, I think the suggestion went the other way: the 20+ professors and experts were not deceived; he was suggesting they were deceivers.


    No, I can only say that IMO they have not been deceived by Rossi.


    With this regard, I totally believe what has been said by JR (1,2). He was informed about many aspects of the Bologna demo, as well as of the results of some previous tests held in the USA, information that he can't reveal to us now, so he was in the best position for estimating the likelihood that Rossi may have deceived the professors.


    (1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…0eskimo.com/msg38063.html

    (2) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=29406#post29406

    Quote from Ascoli65

    No, I can only say that IMO they have not been deceived by Rossi.


    Ok, Ascoli, here is what you said several posts up:


    Quote from Ascoli65

    But in such hypothetical case, it would be no more possible to decline the verb "to deceive" in the passive way.


    The verb here is "to deceive." The passive is "to be deceived": He was deceived by so-and-so. If it's not possible to conjugate it in the passive, I guess you just meant the 25+ professors and specialists have not been deceived by Rossi. E.g., Brian Josephson was not deceived by Rossi. (How?)


    By contrast, we should not have inferred that you were suggesting the verb "to deceive" should be conjugated in the active form: so-and-so deceived so-and-so. E.g., Brian Josephson deceived so-and-so. It must be acknowledged that your use of language is subtle and nuanced.

    @ Eric Walker,

    Quote from Eric Walker

    The verb here is "to deceive." The passive is "to be deceived": [...]


    By contrast, we should not have inferred that you were suggesting the verb "to deceive" should be conjugated in the active form: so-and-so deceived so-and-so. [...]


    You have interpreted correctly the active/passive allusion, but you have incorrectly applied it to the case we are talking about.


    I was replying to a IO comment which was general and not specific of the Ecat case. That's why in my response I put "generally speaking" at the beginning of the first sentence, and "hypothetical" in the second one. And I was joking (see the emoticon).


    The deceptive aspect is very delicate, and the conclusions should be left to the discernment of each individual reader. We can only try to better clarify some facts.

    • Official Post

    Back to the question of competence in testing, few points.


    F&P fiasco show that the huge error of academics was to declare physicists were concerned by LENR validity as it was nuclear.... it was calorimetry, electrochemistry, not nuclear science (except for neutrons and gamma, but so few )


    Choosing physicist for an experiment where Boeing experts in reactor's walls calorimetry, or Pechiney engineers in metal melting, would do the job 100x better, was a mismatch.


    choosing a water flowmeter below it's minimum capacity, with an uncontrolled phase mix, was also a mismatch.

    Choosing a circuit without anti-feedback valve was also a mistake (for Doral, and for DGT/Milano).


    it can also be a perfect match if you want to have artefact instead of measurements.


    We need more HVAC experts in LENR, at least for QC.

    ascoli,


    You can recite all of the psychological mumbo jumbo and make up all of the inane excuses to support your argument, HOWEVER,

    There is simply no excuse, none,

    for the failure Of the physicists to not properly measure energy in and energy out.


    @ Shane D.,

    Quote from Shane D.

    Ferrara was the first time the Swedes and Levi, physically got their hands on an Ecat in what was advertised as a truly independent test.


    This is the new narrative that someone is trying to enforce here on L-F. Google Trends clearly shows that the popularity of the LENR field received its boost with the January 2011 demo, that was presented as an independent test in the Press Release:



    Furthermore, after the test, Levi declared:


    Quote

    From: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf


    [...] we spent two weeks of the water that flowing through the system to be certain of our calibration. After this calibration period I have checked that the pump was not touched and when we brought it here for the experiment it was giving the same quantity of water during all the experiment.


    Therefore he and someone else (he said "we") have been in possession of the "system" for two weeks just before the test, at different site from the test one (he said "we brought it here for the experiment"). So probably the whole system, including the Ecat, was available to the UniBo physicists at the Physics Department for at least a couple of weeks.


    As shown by Google Trends what happened after 2011, that is after the rescission of the contract with UniBo, had little influence on the interest of the public.


    Quote

    The fact Ferrara/Lugano were done with a Hotcat vs Ecat (LT), means nothing. The fuel was the same, it was just the operating temperature range that differed. Joshua Cude made a great observation of that back on ECNs at the time.


    Sorry, I don't agree. Yes, the fuel was the same (we can argue that in all the Ecat models it was electricity), but the professors were engaged only in measuring the heat generated by this fuel, and in this sense the difference between Hotcat and LT Ecat is essential for establishing methodology and calculations.


    For what I remember, JC was talking about the two temperature ranges (boiling level and liquid state) used in the two tests performed in January and February 2011, both with the same LT model.

    @ Roseland67,


    Quote from Roseland67

    There is simply no excuse, none,

    for the failure Of the physicists to not properly measure energy in and energy out.


    I totally agree with you. I also add that at this point there is no excuse for their institutions for not publicly clarify what happened.


    In the meantime, waiting for clarifications and possible apologies, I would like to better understand while they didn't release the right results. I don't think that the reason is that they have been fooled by Rossi.

    @ THHuxleynew,


    sorry, I do not agree with most of your comment. Your following statement allows me to explain the reasons for my dissent.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    3. The expertise required to validate practical Rossi test setups can be very surprising and variable


    You have the tendency, like many others here, to forget that the public hystory of the Ecat began in January 2011 with a very simple test setup. The simplest you can ever imagine. The Brief Technical Description (1) contains three different verifications in just one and half page. The calculations are elementary, at the secondary school level. There is no possibility that a physics professor, whatever his specialization, can passively accept those astonishingly results without carefully verifying by himself the physical assumptions and the math from which they come. Any physics professors in the world has the competence to perform this simple verification, and in our case we are talking about the professors of the highest ranked Physics Department in Italy, who were publicly involved in an initiative potentially capable to determine the destiny of our society.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbrieftechn.pdf

    Quote from Ascoli65

    to forget that the public hystory of the Ecat began in January 2011 with a very simple test setup.

    I think it dates back much earlier: for example, He demoed the Energy Catalyzer in Bedford, New Hampshire, to the Department of Defense in Nov 09 and claimed on his blog (he had a public web presence) in April 2010 of running his system to heat a factory for 2 years.

    • Official Post

    Ascoli,


    You seem hell bent on punishing all of the professors that associated with Rossi, going all the way back to 2010. I do not see a need for it. They saw something and did their scientific duty to investigate. What would you have done?


    They may have not done a good job of it, but none deserve being "outed", and then raked over the coals for it. Most of this anyways, was done "in house" as sort of an internal vetting process at your UOB. You could see that when Krivit's interviewed Levi. Krivit was trying to hold him accountable to a higher scientific standard than he (Levi), wanted to be held to. I felt sorry for the man after watching. Still do, after hearing he is still affected by all this.


    And also, we really do not know yet if this story is over, and the final chapter written. There has always been this alternative theory that Rossi had, or has something, that is not so robust and reliable as he claims. It could actually explain the story, and fill in many of the missing blanks, much better than his having what he has peddled. There are after all, prominent members of the LENR community who, while denouncing Rossi in public, will confess in private that they believe he has working systems. That is a fact. In addition. the Swedes still stand by him. And look how many attended the Stockholm QX DPS.


    There is actually some good info out there....some even in the court documents, that could make a case for this alternative theory. I would be tempted to take on the task myself, but fear Dewey's wrath when he comes back after he realizes he was wrong.

    @ can,

    Quote from can

    So, basically you're saying as follows:


    Quotes box [Ascoli65 wrote:

    Andrea Rossi colluded with university professors and researchers to mislead the public about the reality of LENR.]


    I don't understand why some members here are so eager to jump into somebody's else conclusion, instead of helping to improve the knowledge on the facts we are discussing.


    In any case, I never said the words you attributed to me in the quotes box you put in your comment. This is a very incorrect way of doing. Please, would you be so kind to remove that box, and use another way to express your opinion?

    @ oldguy,


    Quote from oldguy

    I think it dates back much earlier: for example, He demoed the Energy Catalyzer in Bedford, New Hampshire, to the Department of Defense in Nov 09 and claimed on his blog (he had a public web presence) in April 2010 of running his system to heat a factory for 2 years.


    It's true that the first appearance on the web of Rossi's activity in the CF field dates back to March 2010 when JoNP published the Rossi-Focardi paper and the Rossi's patent, but the name Ecat appeared in the public demo held in Bologna in January 2011. This event, as Google Trends demonstrates, has been the real beginning of the public propaganda phase of the Ecat initiative. Many people here on L-F started to follw the LENR field and the Ecat saga thanks to this sensational event.


    As for the very beginning of Rossi involvement in the CF field, it goes back well before November 2009. Leaving aside the "Rossi says" about its interest in CF in the early '90, the first certain involvement dates back to 2007 when he returned to Italy from the USA to meet Focardi (Krivit said that he approached first Piantelli (1), though). But informed sources (Celani and Passerini) reported that Rossi collaborated with Ahern in a US government lab, before coming back to Italy (2).


    Another info on the very first contacts between Rossi and the LENR community comes from a Macy's article:


    Quote

    From: http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html

    [...]

    I heard how Mike became involved in starting to explore what he was doing. Rossi claimed to be closing in on producing a working LENR technology. He had American partners who had worked with the U.S. Navy and were familiar with the continuing interest of the Navy in energy technology. In late 2007 the company requested someone with technical interest and competence to view a demonstration. It took until summer 2009 before the promised demonstration was nearly ready.

    [...]


    Some more hints on the American partners mentioned above, on the first tests in the USA and to their timing are provided in the deposition of Cassarino (Ampenergo) contained in the Document 326 of the Miami trial:



    (1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Investigation-Index.shtml

    (2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Ascoli65

    You might skirt around the subject like you wish, but that is what you're alluding to.


    Actual quotes from you from the previous discussion:


    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from Ascoli65

    [...] in 2007 the popularity of LENR was fading away [...] It needed a shock. Due to the fact, let me say, that the underlying phenomena don't exist, it needed big bluffs and someone capable to sustain them for long periods.


    Quote from Ascoli65

    Rossi had all the requisites for being the LENR renaissance man. Being Italian, it was easier for him to contact one of the fathers of the Ni-H method. [...]


    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from Ascoli65

    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.


    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from Ascoli65

    [...] the professors (including Josephson) have not been fooled by Rossi


    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from Ascoli65

    I would like to better understand while they didn't release the right results. I don't think that the reason is that they have been fooled by Rossi.


    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from Ascoli65

    The calculations are elementary, at the secondary school level. There is no possibility that a physics professor, whatever his specialization, can passively accept those astonishingly results without carefully verifying by himself the physical assumptions and the math from which they come. Any physics professors in the world has the competence to perform this simple verification


    Then, paraphrasing:


    Quote

    After 30 years of failures - as the underlying phenomena don't exist - the LENR field needed a shock. Rossi was the right man for this. Tests occurred in Bologna and the professors, including Nobel prizes, gave their assurance that the phenomenon was real. They didn't release the right results, but they have not been fooled by Rossi and they didn't make mistakes in their reports due to sloppiness either.


    Do you really want your readers to believe that you still haven't made up your mind yet even though you're answering your questions in your own posts? Just admit that you simply don't want to take any responsibility for what you've been slyly suggesting for the past 7 years or so. You cannot have it both ways, though.

    • Official Post

    Ascoli,


    The further back in the Rossi timeline you go, the more you make the point about this alternative theory of Rossi having had something at one point. Yes, I know that is not your intent, but that is the effect it is having on me. With Rossi's later years in the public record now, we know what he is capable of, but was he that good, where he could fool so many in the beginning?


    Those were the days he was working elbow to elbow (close proximity), in the same room with Focardi and others. There was no aura around him then, and surely everyone was highly skeptical of this man with a bad history walking in the door claiming he had a high power LENR device. They would not let just anyone in the door, and once they did, he would be subjected to the utmost scrutiny. Only after satisfying themselves, would they bring in other colleagues, and then they would have to be convinced, and so on. Any step along the way, could have been his last.


    Maybe we could get you to switch sides and become pro-Rossi? :) Like I, Ahlfors and many others have said, there is some good info out there (some which you just posted) to make a reasonable case, and you know where to find it and how to use it. After losing IHFB, all it seems we can attract here are the lazy Rossi defenders, who don't know the history, and won't do the research.

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.