Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • 2- IMO the Ecat affair is not a Rossi's scam mainly because I find it impossible that the JoNP, the main propaganda tool widely used to perpetrate an alleged personal world scam for 7+ years (to date), could have seen the involvement of a US department for so long (see the issues raised by Krivit in his 2 mails to Vortex immediately after the appearance of the JoNP on the web).


    (1) Single people controlling R&D budgets can push through funding for whacky ideas in large institutions. The standards for this are variable and can be much lower than needed for scientific budgets to be allocated because the decision-makers are not scientists and can back people, hunches, etc.

    (2) When such funding is allocated it will typically (to get it through large institution controls) be masked as part of a wider program.

    (3) It is in no-one's interest to declare such effort a failure. Where funding is for some high risk high return possibility a judgement will be made, after initial work, on whether results merit further funding. If they do not this is seen just as less work done. often the people involved, if committed and determined, can continue to keep the work alive without much backing - but also without funds for any new work.


    The mistake made by ascoli, and others here, for example when evaluating japanese work, is to think that low levels of industrial or governmental interest in LENR mean success. In fact, any research work that was in conventional terms successful - either to generate scientifically influential new results or to show significant prospects for commercial product - will be followed up.


    So, for example, take the Japanese work. The claims are for an effect that if optimised you would expect to be commercial. Certainly, if optimised, it would lead to lab rat type experiments that will unequivocally prove LENR a real effect. If this happens we will all be excited and happy. If it does not happen, it is an indication that most likely the skeptics were correct and the encouraging results were some combination of measurement errors.


    My skepticism about LENR, in spite of the good-sounding theoretical stories from Hagelstein etc, is that the reported effects don't seem to optimise or become much more easily measured when positive results are followed up. That is a sign of pathological science (if chased) or a non-event. Nothing is certain in science and LENR has excuses, it could be an effect that is transient (NAEs get destroyed) difficult to reproduce (NAEs require complex and badly characterised treatment to form). These excuses justify some continuing efforts, but do not prove the claimed effects are LENR or anything other than a collection of measurement artifacts (excess heat) and misinterpretations (transmutation).

  • My skepticism about LENR, in spite of the good-sounding theoretical stories from Hagelstein etc, is that the reported effects don't seem to optimise or become much more easily measured when positive results are followed up.


    I think you nailed it here.


    In a successful science, discoveries are not just replicated ,,, they are adopted, worked into the fabric of normal lab operations, and become the springboard for a new wave of research. The initial findings are therefore replicated over and over as researchers use them to explore other things. This is exactly what is missing in LENR research. I see people here producing lists of results that have been replicated, but these replications never seem to go anywhere. They are threads of research that always seem to putter out.


    This shallowness of replication doesn't seem to disturb many in the field of LENR. But it certainly lends a different feel to this branch of science than the one I am used to. And I am with you in that I think it might be the feel of pathological science.

  • While I'm sympathetic to some of the preceding analyses, they overlook a legitimate exploratory phase that precedes some major discoveries, where there are indications that there is some new phenomenon to be understood, but the problem is still barely tractable. If you include pre-science, this is even easier to see:

    • Alchemy eventually matures into chemistry. (I.e., there really was something interesting there, just not what the alchemists were looking for.)
    • Photographic film is known as early as 1858 to become exposed when placed near pitchblend, as reported by Abel Niepce de St. Victor to the French Academy of Science, decades before Roentgen and Becquerel. (Again, there was something there.)

    If there is a progression from pre-scientific exploration to full-on normal science, in Kuhn's terms, LENR seems to fall somewhere in the middle, with wide variation in the rigor of the exploration.


    When we write history in the manner of a mathematical proof, going back and arranging things so that there is a nice, tidy progression of one concept to another, we lose sight of the messiness, exploration and hiatuses that preceded the discovery and prepared the way. The scientific establishment did not home in on radioactivity until well after relevant findings were reported. There was even a connection from Niepce de St. Victor to Becquerel.


    Photographic film would no doubt reliably become exposed with pitchblend, providing a lab rat for anyone who wanted to look into the matter further, while there are no lab rat experiments in LENR that I am aware of at this time, so that is an important difference. But hopefully people will agree that sometimes there is a kind of messy investigation that precedes the more systematic one, possibly for years or decades.

  • @ Shane D.,


    Before, you were saying that Rossi told the truth to Passerini and Celani about his working with Ahern.


    I never said it. Please check my posts.


    Quote

    I see it as an impossible task to guess what is the lie, and what is the truth,


    Really difficult indeed. Sometimes the most significant part is the one omitted.


    In his 2011 comment (1), Passerini said that cooperation with Ahern took place in contexts where nothing can be boasted. In the first part of his comment, Passerini spoke about TEG and DoD. Maybe Rossi got in touch with DoD people working in the LENR field while he was testing his TEG devices for the DoE/DoD. Rossi read the comment on 22passi, but he has not denied having worked in those contexts. So a possible explanation of his answer is that he actually worked in those contexts before coming to Italy in 2007, but he doesn't remember if Ahern was among the many people he met there.


    Quote

    we have Ahern on the record saying he never worked with Rossi, …


    Which record? I lost it.


    Quote

    and we know we can trust his word.


    Why? He has the right to keep his secrets.


    Quote

    Leaving me to conclude there is nothing to your conspiracy theory.


    Of course, since there is no such theory at all.


    (1) https://22passi.blogspot.it/20…ge=6#c2331040848267627155

  • @ interested observer,


    The most specious part of Ascoli’s years of pleading his case is the notion that one maverick Navy employee being associated with Rossi implies that “a U.S. Deparment” is involved.


    As I said many times, I just stick on what Krivit wrote in March 2010 on his first mail to Vortex (1): "And can someone please explain why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly representing the entire "DoD", is involved with this?"


    Krivit's question implies that, after having read that "Prof. Michael Melich (DOD – USA)" is in the "Board of Advisers" of that "bogus Web site that is masquerading as some sort of Journal", anyone gets the impression that he is there for "representing the entire "DoD"". Since then, his question still awaits an answer.


    Quote

    I understand that Ascoli is not an American and may have rather strange ideas of how things work in this country.


    Krivit is an American and knows how things work in both the US and LENR field


    Quote

    However, the fact is that the tens of thousands of people working at various government labs come in all stripes and predilections and there are plenty of flakes and crackpots pursuing all manner of things. None of it implies any sort of governmental approval or acceptance.


    This is reasonable explanation for most of these flaky initiatives, but not for CF/LENR. Over the years this field has attracted the attention of many MSMs, and several hundreds millions of public and private funding. In 2009, it was the subject of a DIA investigation, whose report was the basis in 2016 for a request from the US House of Representatives to the US Secretary of Defense. How many other flaky initiatives got the same attention at these levels?


    Quote

    It is, as they say, a free country.


    Sorry, I don't understand. Are you implying that people working at government labs are free to support global initiatives aimed at fooling people and deceiving investors?


    Quote

    But accepting that obvious truth is beyond Ascoli’s reach because, as Anne Elk would say, he has a theory which is his and belongs to him.


    Which theory are you talking about? Can you post a link to such a theory of mine? Something similar, for example, to what AlainCo wrote in 2014 (2)?


    (1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg38052.html

    (2) http://www.lenrnews.eu/dod-dar…ing-to-save-usa-industry/

  • @ THHuxleynew,


    The mistake made by ascoli, and others here, for example when evaluating japanese work, is to think that low levels of industrial or governmental interest in LENR mean success.


    Let's leave the Japanese aside, please, we are talking about the Ecat affair, and I speak for myself, not for the others here.


    I previously wrote that the Ecat initiative could be considered a success from a propagandistic and financial point of view. The quote of mine, you cited, speculates that this success has been obtained with some support coming from inside the DoD. Your subsequent 3 interesting points seem to confirm the possibility of this support, while providing some justifications for this. Did I get it right?


    If so, who should be considered the most responsible for all public and private money wasted in the CF/LENR research: the public scientists who pushed through funding for their whacky ideas producing "a collection of measurement artifacts (excess heat) and misinterpretations (transmutation)", or the scientifically incompetent decision-makers who allocated the CF/LENR budgets, or an outsider like Rossi?


  • It is your judgement that all that money has been wasted. Even though I don't think there is evidence for LENR, it is less clear to me that LENR money is wasted, except in retrospect. However, giving money to an operator like Rossi is clearly non-optimal (that is putting it mildly!) and so I'll answer for that money. AFAIK, this time round, none of it was public money? I know Rossi has obtained money from DoD previously for no useful deliverable (the TEG affair) but not I believe for e-cats.


    Should the honest and optimistic initial supporters of Rossi be held to blame because they were wrong? I think that is tough. Rossi, from Macy's blog post http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html, was personally charismatic and very convincing to anyone except somone who like Feynman could think on their feet scientifically. There are few such people. The tests were staged and some convincing (e.g. Jed who for a long time could not see - and told Mats this - how the Samovar HAD results could have been obtained). Such convincing tests, when you see the trick, are easily explainable, but it is always so with good performers. those who supported Rossi were in a position where they honestly believed commercial LENR was a distinct and highly desirable possibility. Rossi, even if himself a crook, had inherited possibly valuable expertise from Focardi. They would naturally be enthusiastic even though also unsure.


    Mostly, the private money that was given to Rossi was because private people did insufficient DD.


    Personally I view the behaviour of the Lugano testers as most unhelpful. In many ways we now know that the report they wrote was unprofessional and misleading, as well as being scientifically plain wrong. I forgive the scientific mistake - though not the fact that it has never been acknowledged. There remains the various ways in which the report was misleading: specifically the appearance given that these tests were independent of Rossi when in fact Rossi or his employee were present running the test the whole time, and the Profs made flying visits. That is my understanding from the info to emerge from the Court case: and it surprised even me.


    Otherwise the initial support of Levi and (some others?) at UoB was obviously unhelpful but I'm more inclined to blame this on cock-up or (lack of) competence rather than conspiracy. Of course, I do not know, and from the public information no-one can be sure that, for example, Levi has not conspired with Rossi to distort test results in addition to being clearly incompetent and biased in his interpretation of them. For the latter strong statement I refer you to what we know of the thermography science, and Mats's reporting of Levi's continued justification of the report conclusions a year after it was out.


    Sould Rossi be blamed? Absolutely. His behaviour has been clearly untransparent (different from all other LENR researchers) in a manner that, combined with his charisma, could take advantage of people's hopes. The analogy with a fake medium taking advantage of a person's grief because of a loved one who has died is exact in more than one way!

  • @ THHuxleynew,


    It is your judgement that all that money has been wasted. Even though I don't think there is evidence for LENR, it is less clear to me that LENR money is wasted, except in retrospect.


    IMO all the money spent after the negative verdict on CF published by Nature in March 1990, ie over 90% of the total, were not scientifically justified. And now, in a very late retrospect, what is your opinion?


    Quote

    However, giving money to an operator like Rossi is clearly non-optimal (that is putting it mildly!) and so I'll answer for that money. AFAIK, this time round, none of it was public money? I know Rossi has obtained money from DoD previously for no useful deliverable (the TEG affair) but not I believe for e-cats.


    Rossi only got a small portion of the private money raised thanks to the Ecat initiative. Considering all the costs, the net amount he withheld could be considered a fair reward for a PR activity lasting more than 10 years.


    The Ecat initiative also drained public money. The many professors who have been involved in the US, Italy and Sweden in this activity have spent part of their time, along with part of the prestige of their institutions. Their prestigious support has provoked many pro-LENR parliamentary initiatives in Italy and in the United States, which in turn has provided a justification for continuing other public research on LENR in Italy and in other countries. All at a public cost.


    Quote

    Should the honest and optimistic initial supporters of Rossi be held to blame because they were wrong? I think that is tough. Rossi, from Macy's blog post http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html, was personally charismatic and very convincing to anyone except somone who like Feynman could think on their feet scientifically. There are few such people. The tests were staged and some convincing (e.g. Jed who for a long time could not see - and told Mats this - how the Samovar HAD results could have been obtained). Such convincing tests, when you see the trick, are easily explainable, but it is always so with good performers.


    Feynman? Come on, we're talking about water flow calorimetry, not rocket science!


    All physicists could have immediately understood what happened in the first demo held in Bologna on January 14, 2011. The next day, Ahern wrote on the Krivit's blog (1): "Converting water to wet steam versus dry steam can account for a factor of ten in the input:output ratios." With reference to this criticism, JR replied (2): "I am confident that you cannot fake boiling water, and there is no way a power supply can draw 10 kW, so Rossi's credibility is irrelevant." Shortly thereafter, he was more specific (3): "This tells us that various professors at the university have been involved for some time, and they designed and implemented the calorimetry. I do not think there is any way Rossi could "fool" these people. I think that would be physically impossible."


    Well, they were both right!


    Quote

    those who supported Rossi were in a position where they honestly believed commercial LENR was a distinct and highly desirable possibility.


    Everyone believes that a clean, cheap, safe and abundant source of energy is highly desirable, but academics are well paid to apply their high expertise to correctly discern the real possibilities from impossible dreams.


    Quote

    Rossi, even if himself a crook, had inherited possibly valuable expertise from Focardi. They would naturally be enthusiastic even though also unsure.


    This is a fairy tale. Rossi met Focardi in summer 2007 (I do not know the exact date). On October 16, 2007, they claimed to have successfully performed a test on a device capable of heating a factory for the following winter. Guess what precious experience could have been inherited in a couple of months!


    Quote

    Personally I view the behaviour of the Lugano testers as most unhelpful. In many ways we now know that the report they wrote was unprofessional and misleading, as well as being scientifically plain wrong. I forgive the scientific mistake - though not the fact that it has never been acknowledged. There remains the various ways in which the report was misleading: specifically the appearance given that these tests were independent of Rossi when in fact Rossi or his employee were present running the test the whole time, and the Profs made flying visits. That is my understanding from the info to emerge from the Court case: and it surprised even me.


    If you had better studied the January 2011 demo, you would have ignored the Lugano report after reading the name of the lead author, without waiting for the Court's case.


    Quote

    Otherwise the initial support of Levi and (some others?) at UoB was obviously unhelpful but I'm more inclined to blame this on cock-up or (lack of) competence rather than conspiracy. Of course, I do not know, and from the public information no-one can be sure that, for example, Levi has not conspired with Rossi to distort test results in addition to being clearly incompetent and biased in his interpretation of them.


    It seems to me that you don't want to know. Forget the conspiracy, and focus on the facts. The January 2011 demo is the best documented Ecat test and alone reveals the role of many protagonists of the Ecat saga. I already invited you to better look at it (4-7), I can only renew my invitation.


    Quote

    For the latter strong statement I refer you to what we know of the thermography science, and Mats's reporting of Levi's continued justification of the report conclusions a year after it was out.


    If you talk about thermography, you're keeping to look at the wrong tests.


    Quote

    Sould Rossi be blamed? Absolutely. His behaviour has been clearly untransparent (different from all other LENR researchers) in a manner that, combined with his charisma, could take advantage of people's hopes. The analogy with a fake medium taking advantage of a person's grief because of a loved one who has died is exact in more than one way!


    The trend of people's hopes on LENR is well represented by the curve provided by Google Trends (8). It grew in 2011, from the January demo to the recession of UniBo from the contract with Rossi. It shows that people believed in the competence of professors, not in Rossi's charisma. He acted only as a skilled PR-man able to publicize some incredible experimental results measured, calculated, and verified by the professors.


    (1) http://aenforum.org/index.php?showtopic=1982

    (2) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…0eskimo.com/msg41322.html

    (3) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…0eskimo.com/msg41324.html

    (4) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=32603#post32603

    (5) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

    (6) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

    (7) How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?
    (8) https://trends.google.it/trend…ore?date=all&q=%22lenr%22

  • Abd mentioned in his: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast that funding was drying up for LENR research due to Rossi. No one wanted to fund something that might only produce watts, when he was producing kWs. That IH was interested in LENR as a whole, but figured first thing on their agenda was to determine if Rossi were real.


    They found out the expensive way, he was not.

    Rossi still looks real with the EcatQX.

  • Rossi still looks real with the EcatQX.


    Mr Rossi is doing exactly the same things with the EcatQX as he did when he introduced the ECat. He is undertaking demos, talking about collaborations with unnamed large commercial partners, saying he has to wait for certification, claiming roboticized manufacturing plants are being built, and maintaining strict secrecy


    However Rossi looks, it is exactly as he looked with the ECat.

  • Mr Rossi is doing exactly the same things with the EcatQX as he did when he introduced the ECat. He is undertaking demos, talking about collaborations with unnamed large commercial partners, saying he has to wait for certification, claiming roboticized manufacturing plants are being built, and maintaining strict secrecy


    However Rossi looks, it is exactly as he looked with the ECat.


    With the addition (not that its needed) of having abandoned a previous technology which he claims has been working - reliably - for 7 years (remember that factory heater?) and which would be much more applicable to his target market of industrial use - because higher power per unit.


    Even taking every word Rossi says as literally true, it makes no sense.


    But then many people realised a long time ago that taking any words Rossi utters as literally true is most unwise.

  • Rossi still looks real with the EcatQX.

    Sam,


    What exactly do you mean?

    It has been over 7 years now.


    Elon Musk has built entire robitized factories, multiple electric car models, global energy storage systems, recoverable rocket ships, Hyperloop transportation systems, tunnel boring machines etc.

    In the same time frame, Rossi has not been able to cobble together $150 of plumbing and electrical parts into anything remotely saleable.

    At some time, even the most fanatical of the Rossi zealots must realize that they were conned.

  • I don't agree the money is drying up - that only holds true of you look at the traditional sources of finance (who were never that keen anyway). There is a new group of wealthy millenials who are very interested in 'new paradigm' research who are actually quite keen to invest - in the right kind of research. The hard part is figuring out what that is.

  • Alan Smith

    Quote

    ...the right kind of research. The hard part is figuring out what that is.

    Not so hard maybe. It's the kind of research which shows that the concept is sound and the test rigs actually work when tested by people who really know what they are doing and are allowed to test without the inventor's hands on the experiment. The exact opposite of what IH did to vet Rossi.

  • @ seven_of_twenty,


    Are you suggesting that a scam which wasted more than $10M on a liar is good PR?


    I didn't say "good". I meant, the PR activity was incredibly successful considering the lack of any real basis of the product, and very effective for the LENR field. Over 80% of the many dozens of millions raised thanks the Ecat are available for other LENR experiments and for R&D in the field. Without the Ecat initiative, the LENR community would have got 100% of zero.

  • Over 80% of the many dozens of millions raised thanks the Ecat are available for other LENR experiments and for R&D in the field.

    Dozens of millions of dollars have not been raised for cold fusion. Not even millions. The money that has been made available, from places like the Japanese government, had nothing to do with Rossi. (That money ran out last year.)

  • It is amazing what Elon Musk has done with Goverment money compared to Rossi working with a few million private money.But I still take Rossi

    over Musk.


    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi…overnment-support-already

  • Mr Rossi is doing exactly the same things with the EcatQX as he did when he introduced the ECat. He is undertaking demos, talking about collaborations with unnamed large commercial partners, saying he has to wait for certification, claiming roboticized manufacturing plants are being built, and maintaining strict secrecy


    However Rossi looks, it is exactly as he looked with the ECat.

    I have to agree with what you say Bruce H.

    The one thing I do see that is different is the high Confidence Rossi

    has in the EcatQX product compared to the not so confident he had in the

    Ecat.

  • R.I.P.


    That was Rossi's European patent filed in 2008, and it was only an application. Never was approved from what I can see. Even on his "Ecat.com" (actually Hydrofusion's site) there is no link to the patent....like he did not want to draw attention to it. Good reason, as he lists Ni, pressurized H gas, and copper linings to thermalize the radiations, being the process. So passe...as he has since contradicted his own wording for that patent in so many ways, and is on to smaller and better things.


    He still though has his Italian patent, which he has not done a damn thing with.