Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • The English definition of factory is a building where products are made mainly by machine. Rossi never built a factory to make the four Tiger Cat in Doral, but had something that was more of a workshop.


    We were talking of a highly automated factory to mass produce a product.

    Try again.


    Adrian,


    • My example is a correct example of Rossi claiming industrial production (in this case, of platinum sponge) when there is just his own tinkering.
    • Bob has given another example of Rossi's loose use of the word factory.
    • Others have pointed to (& zorud referenced above) the famous past Rossi factories for e-cats which have apparently made them, if you believe Rossi's blog, but not if you believe his Court sworn testimony.


    These all answer your question. Rossi announces factories at the drop of a hat, none of which have ever generated product of any use except for Rossi's PR purposes.


    Your argument is I think that a factory indicates completed R&D, working production prototypes, and soon emergence of real production. That would normally be the case. These examples show why, when it is Rossi saying he has a factory, this is not the case. The jump to robotic mass production from flaky hand-produced prototype that when demonstrated does not appear to work (not well enough for Rossi to dare measuring the input power) is typical. When you note these jumps, and that there is nothing in between, such as major industrial interest, external reviews of working prototypes, press interest, you can smell a fish. can't you?


    It would be helpful for you to acknowledge or rebut the merit of our points rather than deflect discussion. What makes this RossiSays any different from previous?


    Best wishes, THH

  • So I see. it is because Essen and friends are also replicators.

    I am afraid I do not understand your response.


    1)Are you saying that Dr. Essen has not come forth with responses to valid questions because he is in the middle of replicating Rossi and does not want to give out IP?


    or


    2)Are you saying that my point about him not answering legitimate questions is somehow invalid because he is in the process of replicating Rossi?


    or


    3)That I stated "I know nothing about Dr. Essen" and you are indicating because Dr. Essen evidently believes Rossi, that I have spent no time in discovering his background, qualifications or stature?


    or


    4) Essen (or academics in general) owe no one any explanation or response to published reports.



    My statement was that the entire situation with the entire Lugano professors group is odd. They stated they would answer questions and then completely ignored all. It is normal for authors to respond to legitimate critique from legitimate peer review. For them not to do so from an academic point, is not proper.


    If they have made a defense or even general comments about the Lugano test, I am unaware of it. This is very odd from the academic world.


    So to clarify, which of the above is the basis of your response? (If any)


    I would think 2, 3 or 4 would have no bearing on the matter and number 1 only if he was commercially (not academically) pursuing replication.


    Thank you for the clarification.

  • My statement was that the entire situation with the entire Lugano professors group is odd. They stated they would answer questions and then completely ignored all. It is normal for authors to respond to legitimate critique from legitimate peer review. For them not to do so from an academic point, is not proper.


    We can safely understand that academic don't respond to a mass of critics in a very controversial and irrational debate...

    It happened wit F&P and after answering kindly, they flee from the crowd and insults.

    Same for Ferrara where attacks were quite personal.


    However for Lugano, beside some very nasty critics assuming ridiculous errors, or fraud (academic may safely ignore such insults), the debate on emissivity is serious, and focused on simple question that stands on one line.

    "is it ok to use global emissivity and not band emissivity for the IR cam".


    Reason not to answer are multiple, but depressing.


    About COP being 2 instead of 6, if it was such, with a new paper showing a new explained computation, emissivity explained, convection explained, conduction explained, as in initial paper, I would applaud first , then hear from reviewers about their opinion.


    Afterward the bigger hint is Doral which make prediction quite sad, and will make me skeptic of any statement from Rossi, from e-cat COP up to what is the weather outside.


    Some states they have elements to think e-cat was reproduced independently.


    Sure NiH LENR in dry hot cells is among possibilities, but nothing today seems as solid as what we have to prove PdD LENR (Miley, Thermacore, may be exceptions but they predate E-cat).


    Is it because it is not observed, because discoverers hide results, because they are not equipped well enough...:/

    Sure we need more budget, and more communications.


    I hope someone will soon prove NiH LENR publicly, allowing replications, but I wont bet a cent on e-cat.


    Is it harder to admit you have been fooled by a smart guy, than to admit chemists may be right where physicists may be wrong?;(

  • I will take nothing for granted until someone will pony up some genuine evidence for various vague claims. There could be artifact; there could incorrect conclusions derived from working outside of one's area of knowledge; there could be doubts that lead to a revisiting of earlier results; there could be failed controls; there could be a telephone game of details that degrade in quality from one person to the next.


    It will interesting indeed if there has been a solid replication. But without specific details, I will not assume there has in fact been one. Nullius in verba, as the saying goes.


    Krivit may have more of the temperament of a lawyer than a journalist, but there are some relevant details in that transcript, such as the fact that Essen had little exposure to calculating things related to steam and steam quality. As Essen says, "I’m new at steam, unfortunately."

  • The resistor that failed in the Twin Resistor experiment had the calibrated resistance wire wrapped around a hollow glass tube in the core of the resistor. The glass in the center of the resistor core melted, pooling on the downward side of the core, leaving the central upward part (roughly 2 cm in length) of the heating wire coil exposed to an air void, where it could not conduct heat well and melted.

    I will look into winding my own resistor, with better heat distribution, and encasing the entire coil in alumina. I may have Kanthal wire fine enough for the job. (Essentially I have already done this with the Durapot Slab, which has cast-in thermocouples.) A small cylinder, instead of a rectangular solid, seems to be a good idea also. I haven't had much success with two-part alumina assemblies staying together at high heat. (One can see the rib part I cast as part of a Slab experiment in the upper RH of the rig set up image. It popped off at about 500 C, even though the main Slab heater was cast onto the still-wet rib portion.)

  • My example is a correct example of Rossi claiming industrial production (in this case, of platinum sponge) when there is just his own tinkering.
    Bob has given another example of Rossi's loose use of the word factory.
    Others have pointed to (& zorud referenced above) the famous past Rossi factories for e-cats which have apparently made them, if you believe Rossi's blog, but not if you believe his Court sworn testimony.


    These all answer your question. Rossi announces factories at the drop of a hat, none of which have ever generated product of any use except for Rossi's PR purposes.

    Your argument is I think that a factory indicates completed R&D, working production prototypes, and soon emergence of real production. That would normally be the case. These examples show why, when it is Rossi saying he has a factory, this is not the case. The jump to robotic mass production from flaky hand-produced prototype that when demonstrated does not appear to work (not well enough for Rossi to dare measuring the input power) is typical. When you note these jumps, and that there is nothing in between, such as major industrial interest, external reviews of working prototypes, press interest, you can smell a fish. can't you?


    It would be helpful for you to acknowledge or rebut the merit of our points rather than deflect discussion. What makes this RossiSays any different from previous?

    THH, This does not answer my question. You, not me, are playing switcheroo here with previous examples that have nothing to do with my point.

    You wrote: "Whether or no Rossi is building a new factory is not relevant to any sane judgement of whether he has any working product."


    What we a re talking about is a highly automated factory to mass produce a product. If this does materialize it is not logical to infer that it could be built without a product to make. I have built or designed a number of factories and can tell you it would be impossible to design a production line without knowing what you are going to make. Hence, if Rossi is building such a plant he must have developed product. Further, I can't imagine his backers supplying the money for a factory without being confident that he does.


    Going on about Rossi's poor use of the word factory has nothing to do with it.

    No outsider knows for sure he has started building it and we will have to wait an see. The information I have suggests he has started and indeed he would have to if he hopes to begin production this year, about which he is sounding optimistic.


    I don't buy the critics who assume everything Rossi says is a lie and like Zorud arrogantly run down others even Dr. Essen. He must be a real expert - in the game Zorud.

  • Adrian Ashfield


    The factory problem is that the reasoning is circular. Rossi says he is building a factory and you conclude from that that he has a product. But Rossi is a well proven serial liar. Yes, if he is building a factory, he probably has a product. But there is no reason at all for believing he is building a factory. The only evidence which is public about this is what Rossi said. And we all know, except maybe Adrien and one or two others, how reliable that is. And Adrien says he has his own mysterious sources. People have said that about Rossi a lot in the past, for example Jed Rothwell. But the real sources about Rossi are the extensive news stories and other reports which Krivit assembled and the huge collection of documents and depositions in the court case Rossi vs IH.


    As for Dr. Essen, no doubt he is capable and has done good work in the past. However, it can be said with fairness that he was too trusting of Rossi and did not ask the right questions of him. Krivit, on the other hand, did ask those questions. It is not unusual for scientists to be scammed by con men because they are trusting and do not expect scams in scientific matters.

  • What we a re talking about is a highly automated factory to mass produce a product. If this does materialize it is not logical to infer that it could be built without a product to make. I have built or designed a number of factories and can tell you it would be impossible to design a production line without knowing what you are going to make. Hence, if Rossi is building such a plant he must have developed product. Further, I can't imagine his backers supplying the money for a factory without being confident that he does.


    Going on about Rossi's poor use of the word factory has nothing to do with it.

    No outsider knows for sure he has started building it and we will have to wait an see. The information I have suggests he has started and indeed he would have to if he hopes to begin production this year, about which he is sounding optimistic.

    Then, by inverting your reasoning (if I understand your point), if Rossi does not build a factory (highly automated) within a reasonable timeline, then he does not currently have a product?

  • Adrian Ashfield


    I suppose I agree with that narrow point but even that would not be certain, hence the "probably." Thing is, I strongly disagree with you that Rossi is building anything other than assembling crappy fake machines out of stuff he buys very cheaply from ordinary retail outlets. If he ever builds a factory and makes LENR machines which are sold to the public or even to industry, I will happily eat my hat. Will you eat yours if he doesn't in say... 2 years?


    Quote

    Then, by inverting your reasoning (if I understand your point), if Rossi does not build a factory (highly automated) within a reasonable timeline, then he does not currently have a product?

    Heh! :-) That doesn't make sense. It is true that if Rossi builds a factory, he probably has a product. Or he could be doing another trick to make money by swindling investors like he did IH and many before IH. But even if he had a product that worked, which is highly unlikely, he doesn't need to build a factory to prove it. Logic please!

  • To the Rossi faithful, I am not talking about him answering to this forum. But to those qualified and experienced individuals such as Dr. Mckubre. To my knowledge, none of the professors responded to ANY one, even after they stated they would.


    Strange indeed.

    Yes. None of the professors responded to a single question, as far as I know. That's conduct unbecoming of an academic scientist. As you say, since they said they would answer, it is strange.


    After months of waiting, I figured they would never respond, and my opinion of them plummeted.