Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • I think it's hilarious that the Rossi'ites are just lapping up the E-Cat SK. We all knew he was just going to come up with a "better" E-Cat instead of actually producing the supposed masterpiece of the QX.

    1. Kandra Harrel May 16, 2018 at 8:52 AM

      Dear Dr Rossi,

      Is the Ecat SK founded on the bases of the Ecat QX we watched in the video of youtube “Ecat QX demonstration of November 24 2017 in Stockholm”?

    2. Translate Andrea Rossi May 16, 2018 at 3:34 PM

      Kandra Harrel:

      Yes

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

  • You are talking about Doral. For the umpteenth time; show me where in the Penon Final Report, these "reliability/control problems" show up in the data. Or point out where in Rossi's depositions, or motions, Rossisays he had these kind of issues.

    I was talking about the whole history of E-Cats, not Doral in particular. Even there Rossi had to spend half his life keeping them going and they were shot after a year.

    Should you really be interested Doral see Rosss's interview with Matts Lewan and explain why Smith read the pump capacity as "maxi,um" when the manual said "minimum capavity."

  • All this talk about replications exposes the problem that in the context of this community, the term means nothing like it does in the mainstream scientific world.

    Right, Nothing like. In the medical world, particularly psychiatry, something like 80% of the results reported in peer reviewed papers can't be replicated. Perhaps you would be less critical if LENR results were published in such respected journals.

  • All this talk about replications exposes the problem that in the context of this community, the term means nothing like it does in the mainstream scientific world.

    That is incorrect. It means the same thing as it does in the mainstream scientific world because the researchers were all from the mainstream scientific world. Indeed, most were distinguished experts and leaders of their fields. They had to be, or they would never have gotten funding. A junior professor would never be allowed to do cold fusion in 1989 -- or any time after that. Any junior prof. who asked for funding or even talked about cold fusion would be destroyed in a few months. His career would be over. If he were not a citizen, he would be threatened with deportation -- which is what happened to several people. But a Fellow of the Royal Society, or a Fellow of China Lake; or the author of the most important textbook on electrochemistry; the person who was in charge of making India's atomic bomb; a commissioner in the French Atomic Energy Commission, or the chairman of the Indian AEC; or the person who designed the world's leading tritium lab could get funding. Those people did get funding. But they were also attacked and in some cases driven out of their institutions.


    They also published in the leading journals of their fields. In some cases they had an unfair advantage because they were the editors. No one could get a paper about cold fusion into any journal, leading or otherwise, unless he had clout.


    In other words, you have the story backwards. You imagine that cold fusion researchers were from outside the establishment. They were, in fact, consummate insiders. The most important and best people in the field. Despite that, their reputations were trashed and their careers destroyed by academic rivals, and by people like you, who make up bullshit about experiments you know nothing about, and attack the reputations of people you know nothing about.


    You have to understand that academic politics are vicious. No holds are barred. Scientists use any tactic, including character assassination and spreading lies in the mass media. They do things that programmers, bankers and people in other walks of life would never do, in my experience. After years of dealing with major scientists and publishers at places like the Scientific American I can say that I have never encountered such stinking reprobates. They resemble the worst politicians in Washington, DC. Many of them are politicians in all but name.

  • Quote

    Right, Nothing like. In the medical world, particularly psychiatry, something like 80% of the results reported in peer reviewed papers can't be replicated.

    If true, that indicts psychiatry. It does not make LENR work any more credible.


    Quote

    After years of dealing with major scientists and publishers at places like the Scientific American I can say that I have never encountered such stinking reprobates.

    Scientific American = "reprobates"?  Did you ever think maybe it's you who is out of tune?

  • Totally predictable reaction, Jed. It is my ignirance and bad attitude that is the problem.


    I said nothing about the skills, credentials, or reputations of anybody. I am just asking for a meaningful definition of replication.


    Again, all I want to hear about is one CF experiment for which a second researcher tried to do the same experiment in the same way to the best of his ability and obtained the same results. Is that asking for too much?

  • Again, all I want to hear about is one CF experiment for which a second researcher tried to do the same experiment in the same way to the best of his ability and obtained the same results. Is that asking for too much?

    I suggest you read the literature, or watch my video, or look at the data from the video. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618


    But please, stop with the "asking too much" routine. The concern trolling. You are not fooling anyone. You do not want to see any of this, and you will not read it, no matter how many times I point you to it. If you wanted to see it, you could have looked years ago.

  • How about his"green fuel" electric generators? He sold the company for ~$1 million that funded his early work on LENR.

    Yes, I have heard that. I do not know anything about it and I cannot vouch for it, but several people told me that. It wasn't exactly a generator. He invented a Diesel engine that works on biofuel. I have heard that is a major accomplishment, but I wouldn't know.

  • All this talk about replications exposes the problem that in the context of this community, the term means nothing like it does in the mainstream scientific world. As far as I can tell, an LENR replication means that an experiment that bears some vague resemblance to another produced some but not all similar results in kind although probably not quantitatively equivalent. On this basis, pretty much every positive result of any sort is considered to be a replication.


    I know Jed will blow a gasket at this, but all he needs to do is cite an example of an actual replication as understood by... well, pretty much any scientist worth his salt.

    IO,


    Been saying that for years, but there are so many people that want this to be true that they believe what they are told to believe.


    Replication:

    Use same Bill of Materials

    Use same build instructions

    Use same testing procedures and methods

    Get same results


    Not, kinda, almost, sorta close to the same results, that is NOT replication.


    Here is no one on the planet that I am aware of that has replicated anything showing Energy Out > Energy In,

    Especially Rossi, he hasn’t replicated any of his OWN work, always something new.

  • Here is no one on the planet that I am aware of that has replicated anything showing Energy Out > Energy In,

    You are not "aware" of it because you refuse to read the literature. That's willful ignorance. Either that, or you never mastered object permanence, and you think that anything you don't see at the moment does not exist.

  • I said nothing about the skills, credentials, or reputations of anybody.

    LOL. Have you forgotten what you have written about Rossi?


    Few critics have done anything significant in their lives and being without experience of hat or even much engineering or industrial experience, demonstrate their ignorance wit their questions.


    You don't fool anyone with your questions that are always worded to imply fault wit someone. If you were really interested you would have read up on the subject.

  • Yes, I have heard that. I do not know anything about it and I cannot vouch for it, but several people told me that. It wasn't exactly a generator. He invented a Diesel engine that works on biofuel. I have heard that is a major accomplishment, but I wouldn't know.


    The very first diesel engine produced in 1900 ran on peanut oil.

  • LOL. Have you forgotten what you have written about Rossi?


    Few critics have done anything significant in their lives and being without experience of hat or even much engineering or industrial experience, demonstrate their ignorance wit their questions.


    You don't fool anyone with your questions that are always worded to imply fault wit someone. If you were really interested you would have read up on the subject.


    Rossi's documented utter lack of ability to measure electrical power correctly is well known. What type of experience do you think that implies?

  • Replication:

    Use same Bill of Materials

    Use same build instructions

    Use same testing procedures and methods

    Get same results


    A mistake can also be replicated


    We assume that these results differ from what we would expect according to standard physics. We may be on to something. But it is too early for hurrahs. Most likely the reason for anomalous results is a systematic error in the procedure. When the experimenter and three wise men can't find an error in setup or evaluation it is time to elaborate on the experiment and attack the problem from different angles in order to find out exactly what is going on.

  • Adrian, you are the master of the straw man argument. I did not say that I have never said negative things about anyone - especially Rossi. I have no shortage of negative things to say about him and if that upsets you, I suggest not reading them. The statement you are attacking was with respect to my previous comment about replications. You seem to be reasonably literate, so I assume you are capable of understanding what is written. Obviously, like every other comment you make, it reflects willful ignorance, deflection, and pointless belligerance. Presumably, this behavior gives you some form of gratification. At least, I hope it does.

  • Roseland,

    Every once in a while, I tangle with Jed for the hell of it. The results are always the same. I ask for a single example of a specific experiment that was replicated in the sense you described and am immediately sent to a compendum of various research projects and lists of institutions. I am then castigated for not reading them (which I do, of course. They just don’t actually answer my question.) Jed’s way of defending cold fusion is the technique lawyers oftn use to thwart the opposition: drown them in paper to obfuscate the issue. Of course, if one asks Jed for the best example of something that supports his position, he says he won’t “spoon-feed” you. In other words, he can’t provide one. Instead, it’s always go read a ten-year-old McKubre review article. There must be a pony in there somewhere. It is rather sad, actually. Jed is the most vocal and persistent advocate for cold fusion but his main strategy is to hide behind piles of unsorted data and immediately jump to personal attacks on anyone who even questions his orthodoxy. Why even bother?


    I am actually agnostic about this stuff, but even that is not permitted under the gospel according to Jed. Since I have not read hundreds of papers, I am not even entitled to have NO opinion. I have to be silent on all matters LENR and if I say anything at all, I am clearly an enemy with a nefarious agenda. It is precarious to tiptoe around a cult. But it is interesting to observe.