Perhaps you could address the specifics I mention? How you rationalise Tom Darden's sworn testimony about Rossi's test protocol that showed an unfuelled reactor giving the same output as a whole set of fuelled reactors?
I found the reason they used the empty reactor very interesting and believable .... the story I heard is that they used one labeled 9 instead of a 6.
...... sneaky those "thieving Russians" (satire intended) who Rossi said took the catalyst.
Perhaps you could address the specifics I mention? How you rationalise Tom Darden's sworn testimony about Rossi's test protocol that showed an unfuelled reactor giving the same output as a whole set of fuelled reactors?
I haven't attempted to rationalize Tom Darden's testimony as as I don't think IH's testimony is any more reliable than Rossi's. It didn't get argued and adjudicated in court, so is not proven. IH claimed they had researched and tested a working reactor in their recent patent. Do you believe that?
Anyway your reply that does not answer the question I asked, nor is it a quotation using my actual words.
I haven't attempted to rationalize Tom Darden's testimony as as I don't think IH's testimony is any more reliable than Rossi's.
What is that supposed to mean?!? You take every word from Rossi as the gospel truth. You believe everything he claims. You are so careful to avoid questioning him that you refuse to even look at the Penon report that he published to justify his claims. You realize it is garbage, nonsense and lies so you refuse to look at it! You are a cult fanatic who cannot face the truth.
Why do you think that Rossi's blog is more "reliable" than his court testimony? That makes zero sense.
These endless attempts to argue rationally with Adrian might mean that we babblers are the crazy ones.
Cyd - no clue what you're referencing. If your reference is from patent applications then you're not reading them accurately or are interpreting search reports incorrectly.
Best of luck in your endeavors and thx for the familiar vernacular - nothing like a blast from the past.
...
..
.
https://e-catworld.com/2018/07…des-e-cat-theory-outline/
HOLY F....K.
Quote
Standard Model:
elementary particles are tiny vibrating waves
...
..
.
Which standard model ? The current, valid standard model ? Would be new to me, that string theory is now completely qualified to be embedded into the standard model. There You have the results, when an old silly grandpa with 13 accusations of fraud and no clue in particle physics and a young sniffing kid, who just decided to drop his Phd get together and babble about physics.
Slowly I start to believe, that this Rossi farce is simply made up.
It's another pathetic attempt of alleged physics scholars affected by chronic Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
I haven't attempted to rationalize Tom Darden's testimony as as I don't think IH's testimony is any more reliable than Rossi's.
That is your rationalisation.
I haven't attempted to rationalize Tom Darden's testimony as as I don't think IH's testimony is any more reliable than Rossi's. It didn't get argued and adjudicated in court, so is not proven. IH claimed they had researched and tested a working reactor in their recent patent. Do you believe that?
Anyway your reply that does not answer the question I asked, nor is it a quotation using my actual words.
Adrian:
All parties knew when giving testimony that what they said would be tested in Court, and therefore would be careful. Where in Rossi's testimony does he contradict Darden's evidence?
But in any case - you are here traducing Tom Darden, an otherwise respectable businessman with no criminal convictions, no public evidence of having lied, by comparing his honesty with that of Rossi. Where has your fairness gone "accept what he says unless otherwise proven". Why is that standard OK for Rossi (a self-attested liar) but not for Darden - a respectable and philanthropic investor. Were I Dewey or any other personal friend of Darden I'd be outraged by this representation of Darden's character. (OK I guess Dewey has got used to it here).
As for the patent - you must remember how patents work. There was a long period (during which patents would be written and submitted ASAP) when IH believed they had tested a working reactor. Would they pull the patent just because that test later proved incorrect. I don't think so. Having done the work, paid the money, you leave it just in case anything in there can be of value later on. Whether that (erroneous) claim affects the IP protection in the patent is complex and they lose nothing by pulling it. I'm not even sure you can pull a patent once it is in the system...
You will perhaps be familiar with the way that patent applications are no validation of working product? It really does not matter, because in the case the product does not work the patent usually has no value. But sometimes a claim in a patent may affect only some of the patents clauses. In that case you keep it, even if flawed because much of it no longer valid. It costs money to change patents and the older art is better in any case.
Adrian: let me be more direct:
I haven't attempted to rationalize Tom Darden's testimony as as I don't think IH's testimony is any more reliable than Rossi's. It didn't get argued and adjudicated in court, so is not proven.
Court testimony will be tested in Court under penalty of perjury and with cross-examination. That makes it far far more reliable than the comments on a blog from Rossi that you accept as "likely true".
Now, sticking to this gold standard of testimony, what does Rossi have that contradicts Darden's finding that not only did Rossi reactors not work, but his test setup produced 100% reliable false positives? Where does Rossi say anything which proves his device to have worked?
And think of it from Darden's POV. He could not be the only person to have observed this. Those doing the measurements would be called in under penalty of perjury to corroborate this. Compare that with Rossi's weird statements about the heat exchanger which are conveniently known only to Rossi and completely undisprovable.
Please examine your methods of evaluation? Or accept that you are choosing who you want to consider reliable here, following your preconceptions not the evidence.
I haven't attempted to rationalize Tom Darden's testimony as as I don't think IH's testimony is any more reliable than Rossi's. It didn't get argued and adjudicated in court, so is not proven. IH claimed they had researched and tested a working reactor in their recent patent. Do you believe that?
Anyway your reply that does not answer the question I asked, nor is it a quotation using my actual words.
Please give specific patent reference.
Which patent and which claim and how does that claim link to Rossi?
Could it be that it is in a patent that uses technology that is not previously claimed by Rossi?
For example, some of the patents are based on the glow discharge (20180193816 ) and clearly are different from anything Rossi has in his claimed patent.
Or is this just more babble?
? You take every word from Rossi as the gospel truth. You believe everything he claims.
you refuse to even look at the Penon report
As I have already told you both those statements are not true, I have to conclude they are deliberate lies.
Display MoreAttention: Rossi trolles...Please demonstrate your mastery of all knowledge and disprove this theory from Rossi:
- Prof July 18, 2018 at 12:03 AM
Dr Rossi:
Can you explain in few word which are the bases of your theoretical thinking about your effect?
- Andrea Rossi July 18, 2018 at 5:13 AM
Prof:
Standard Model:
elementary particles are tiny vibrating waves, quantistically defined, in a particular field.
When the temperature reaches the mass of an elementary particle, waves are formed corresponding to those elementary particles.
When the field of these elementary particles resonates with another field during their interaction, new waves can be raised in the second field corresponding to its temperature and if a third field is resonating with these two fields, further particles are raised corresponding with its temperature.
This is what I an consider to be tha base of my effect and I also am convinced that the “source field” is made by electrons, the resonating ones are of virtual e.p. and their antiparticles. Due to the fact that the source field has a T=1-2 eV, this explains why we do not have strong radiations during the thermalization process.
Carl-Oscar and I are preparing a series of heavy experimentation to prove this.
Maybe I am wrong. I think to be right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
What theory? I see nothing about LENR here. All I see is standard old quantum field theory as applied to any nuclear or electromagnetic interaction.
Where in Rossi`s description is there anything particular to LENR?
All parties knew when giving testimony that what they said would be tested in Court, and therefore would be careful. Where in Rossi's testimony does he contradict Darden's evidence?
The guilty party often lies in their initial statements and that is not brought out until it has been argued in court. Without that it is not proven.
Read Mats Lewan's interview with Rossi.
Cherokee are not as angelic as you make out. I know of at least two cases where they were taken to court for taking a lot of money to do clean up jobs but failed to do them.
As I told you already, I am not interested in rehashing this ancient history.
After your off topic piece that criticized me and started this discussion, I asked you to give examples using my actual words. You have still failed to do that. Should I assume that you can't?
Display MoreAttention: Rossi trolles...Please demonstrate your mastery of all knowledge and disprove this theory from Rossi:
- Prof July 18, 2018 at 12:03 AM
Dr Rossi:
Can you explain in few word which are the bases of your theoretical thinking about your effect?
- Andrea Rossi July 18, 2018 at 5:13 AM
Prof:
Standard Model:
elementary particles are tiny vibrating waves, quantistically defined, in a particular field.
When the temperature reaches the mass of an elementary particle, waves are formed corresponding to those elementary particles.
When the field of these elementary particles resonates with another field during their interaction, new waves can be raised in the second field corresponding to its temperature and if a third field is resonating with these two fields, further particles are raised corresponding with its temperature.
This is what I an consider to be tha base of my effect and I also am convinced that the “source field” is made by electrons, the resonating ones are of virtual e.p. and their antiparticles. Due to the fact that the source field has a T=1-2 eV, this explains why we do not have strong radiations during the thermalization process.
Carl-Oscar and I are preparing a series of heavy experimentation to prove this.
Maybe I am wrong. I think to be right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil, a theory is a precisely defined set of propositions (usually mathematical) from which definite scientific predictions can be made. Crucially the theory needs to be simpler than the entire collection of observations that can be derived from it, and the predictions need to be different from those predicted by standard theory. For example a theory that the first 100 names in the phone book are what in fact they are would make correct predictions, but have no merit because it just a restatement of the results it predicts. A theory that replicates QM (for many world interpretation) is not satisfactory scientifically because it provides no experiment that can disprove it or indeed distinguish it from copenhagen interpretation.
It is unusual for blog comments to be theories, or say anything meaningful about them. This shows why:
(1) it uses many undefined terms: tiny, quantistical, field, particle in a field.
(2) it makes no definite predictions, therefore cannot, as you have asked, be disproven.
(3) It is imprecise
If it did make predictions (different from those predicted by standard physics) these could be stated, in published work, and the "heavy experiments" would then be able to disprove it, or provide evidence for it by aligning with the predictions. Whether any experiments Rossi conducted could be viewed as reliable evidence is a separate issue of course.
There are many papers on the internet claiming new theories with more meat than this - though very few of them have merit. If you find such a paper claimed by Rossi to relate to his activities we could review it.
Please give specific patent reference.
The one that has just been issued, linked and discussed on the previous pages.
Axil, a theory is a precisely defined set of propositions (usually mathematical) from which definite scientific predictions can be made.
It was interesting to see how Rossi thinks it works. You are missing the point. Axil's comment suggested that the babblers were not expert enough to comment on on fundamentals like this.
Very few know about or understand the all the exotic discoveries like electron clusters (I don't) that may be needed to explain LENR. I would be happy to see a basic theory that explained it well enough to believe. None of theories I have seen have (yet) been proven to be right. Listing what theories should do was not particularly helpful.
The one that has just been issued, linked and discussed on the previous pages.
Stop the babble and misdirection. Give specific references. A lot of patents have been mentioned. You seem to whan people to give exact quotes and references but you never do. You said "in a recent patent"- which one. There are at least 5 "recent" one (apps).
I see no claims by IH that say they have excess heat using any of Rossi's patent claims.
I do see where they claim heat by using electrical stimulation by discharge but that is not in any Rossi issued patents that I see.
for example 9,115,913 Rossi uses a wafer and heats via :" induction heater, an electrical resistor, a heater that relies on natural gas combustion, and a heater that relies on combustion of fuel". [see his claim 17 for resistor] There does not seem to be any mention of electrical discharge to a material. By patent law, that must be his "best embodiment" at the date of its filing. That appears to be the one covering technology during the court case
Again: to which Rossi patent and claims and which IH patent and claims do you refer?
Your question was "do you believe it". Yes I do: see the ICCF 21 talk by Letts and Cravens, and Letts and Higgins. That seems to be the one in the recent app 20180193816 but it is glow discharge so it could not be what you are referring to.
It’s only waste of breath.
As I have already told you both those statements are not true, I have to conclude they are deliberate lies.
Mistakes perhaps. If you have looked at the Penon report then I have confused you with Axil or some other Rossi supporter who refuses to look. If you have looked, what do you make of it? Do you consider the claims and data in this report credible? In my opinion, this report is the most damning evidence against Rossi, especially because it comes from him and no Rossi supporter can claim it is a distortion of what claims.
