Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    I think your heels are firmly dug in also

    R67.

    I'm trying to avoid adding to the babble by pointing out errors, but this new piece of weird babbler logic was funny enough to post.


    Apparently Roseland thinks I "was conned by Ross" even though I don't think his reactors have been proven to work and I don't believe his claims without proof. How have I been conned? Should I check my check book?


    edited typo

    Quote from sam12

    You are probably right about the Penon report Jed.But when Rossi is succesful with

    the QX and SK in the market who will care

    about the report.

    When he is successful? Given Rossi's history, shouldn't you at least say "if Rossi is successful"? I think you lack all caution, objectivity, and healthy skepticism to say "when" -- as if it were a given. I think your attitude that it is a given shows how disconnected you are from reality.

    Children, children, children calm down. There is no use in attempting a rational discussion with AA or applying logic or facts. RossiWorld has its own logic, its own structure, its own everything, which IMO can be boiled down to a few elements. First, you must believe in the one Rossi, second, what the Rossi says is true and correct, and third, if the Rossi says something that may be contradicted by something the Rossi previously said (or said later) or by "facts" not originating in RossiWorld, then you did not correctly understand the one Rossi and you are not worthy to be an acolyte of the one Rossi.


    Now, let's move on to something more useful and productive -- what excuse(s) will Rossi and his acolytes have for not having the QX doing whatever it is supposed to do in January 19.


    I will start with "the dog ate all of the calculations, we had a hard drive back up, but that overheated and so we have to rely solely on our memories, and, as you know I have some health problems that makes my memory unreliable (except for when I need it to be perfect).


    I am sure most everyone here can come up with a better excuse, e.g., aliens, the deep state, the scientific establishment, the russsians broke in and stole everything, etc.

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    Apparently Roseland thinks I "was conned by Ross" even though I don't think his reactors have been proven to work and I don't believe his claims without proof. Hoe have I been conned?

    You say that you don't believe his claims, but every statement you make indicates that you do believe them. The fact that you give him any credence at all, and the fact that you cannot bring yourself to comment on the Penon report, shows that you believe him far too much. You have not been conned; you have conned yourself.

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    Apparently Roseland thinks I "was conned by Ross" even though I don't think his reactors have been proven to work and I don't believe his claims without proof.


    From your Delco times articles:


    AA: “This tiny reactor, about 1 cm long by 0.6 cm in diameter, was shown to produce 20 Watts of heat from a negligible input of power. The Coefficient of Performance (COP) was over 500. That is to say it produced more than 500 times the power required to run it. It can also be switched on and off instantaneously, something no other reactor has been capable of, and can operate at a temperature of 2300 C.”


    AA: Parts of the reactor are secret so it was difficult to display everything. The measurements made were adequate to show the properties of the E-Cat QX. To ensure there was no trickery some other proprietary measurements must be made."


    http://www.delcotimes.com/opin…touted-as-energy-solution

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    I'm trying to avoid adding to the babble by pointing out errors, but this new piece of weird babbler logic was funny enough to post.


    Apparently Roseland thinks I "was conned by Ross" even though I don't think his reactors have been proven to work and I don't believe his claims without proof. How have I been conned? Should I check my check book?


    edited typo


    Adrian - you seem to believe his claims enough to prefer them to Darden's sworn statement taken under conditions when he knew it would be challenged by cross-exam. You have not given one jot of evidence for Rossi's "my stuff works" claims other than Rossi's blog statements. You have not even found any statements made in Rossi's deposition that provide evidence his devices work.


    The word con is too loose perhaps since as far as I know you have not parted with any money. But, had you approached Rossi as in interested and superlatively uncritical person with a few $10,000,000 or more to spare, that would probably change.


    THH


    Perhaps you could be clear here Adrian. You imply in this passage that either the QX works or there is "trickery". But that is being unfair (though frankly he probably merits it) to Rossi. Rossi has shown himself repeatedly to have stated that tests which are not adequate to determine whether his stuff works are in fact correct, and refused ever to correct these statements when challenged. Four such examples:

    • Average meters on spiky waveform to measure input power
    • Setups without control where mis-placed TCs could deliver false positives
    • IR setups (without control) to estimate radiative power assuming emissivity is constant across spectrum.
    • Input power measured under assumption that discharge tube voltage stays same under different operating conditions. (Actually, in the initial QX test, it was worse than this. it was input power estimated by measuring power across a shunt resistor!).


    Given this, without trickery, but with typical Rossi incompetence, the QX test results could very easily be a false positive. There is even strong circumstantial evidence this is true (the beefy PSU). Therefore your implication above, which assumes Rossi would realise if his tests were rubbish, is contrary to repeated known facts.


    Many here think in fact Rossi does realise his tests are rubbish, and is cheating everyone, but I know you, like me, prefer generosity. In that spirit you must surely make allowance for Rossi's publicly revealed incompetence at measurement?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    When he is successful? Given Rossi's history, shouldn't you at least say "if Rossi is successful"? I think you lack all caution, objectivity, and healthy skepticism to say "when" -- as if it were a given. I think your attitude that it is a given shows how disconnected you are from reality.

    I thought after I posted and back on the road driving I should have said IF.

    So I did Edit post and back in reality.

    Some Rossi faithful have periodically asked why "skeptics" (in Adrian's case "babblers") follow the Rossi drama at all, if they do not believe in him.

    I responded that for me and probably for others, it was similar to "Gawkers Delay" on the interstate. People cannot help but to slow down and look

    at the tragic accident on the other side of the highway. This Rossi drama is certainly tragic.


    However, over the past few days, I believe there is another major factor in why I and possibly others follow this story so closely versus Steorn, BLP

    or the multitude of other "free energy" scams. (Or at least ones with very questionable reality)


    It is because of the likes of Adrian. It fascinates most of us to no end how one can be so gullible, blind and closed to reality. How some have attached their

    own identity to Rossi, they defend him to the utmost. They cannot question or critique him, because they then question themselves! They state they are

    unbiased, but in reality are the most biased at all. It is their religion.


    Many of these, after a long while, simply disappear. Such as IHFanboy. Once one has so immersed themselves in Rossi's defense and they finally realize how

    bad he has lied to them, they disappear. A very few others hang on such as Adrian and to some extent Alan Smith. (Which still baffles me by the way)


    I believe it is this phenomena that keeps many watching this drama. Like some weird reality TV show, it is so surreal that some cannot break the fascination

    by it. Adrian is so far from the logical thinking that most experienced and educated professionals are, that it seems impossible for someone to be so blind.

    Yet here it is.


    So why do people continue....? some due to "Gawkers Delay" and some due to "Reality TV Syndrome". We just cannot wait to see what foolishness the

    next die hard believer is going to present. "When Rossi brings the SKat Cat to market.....you will see!"


    The Skat Cat now reaches 20,000 degrees! Really? Adrian, how come Rossi always makes extravagant claims but never posts any recorded data showing these

    claims? Oh right, a chart showing measurement values will "give away the secret IP"! Just like the Stockholm demo could not make certain measurements without

    giving away IP! :rolleyes: Of course Adrian will not answer with specific reasoning to specific hard questions because he cannot. He will simply resort to name calling and

    hand waiving.


    I bet if Adrian asked Rossi a question on how he contained this 20,000 degree reaction, "did you create new materials?" Rossi would answer "yes, because none were

    commercially available"! How many times have we heard this? :/ Note that you would need to supply the answer in your question so Rossi could simply affirm.


    Perhaps he is going the hot fusion way and containing it in a magnetic bubble?! That might explain why the Stockholm demo's power supply was over heating! It had

    to build a super strong magnetic field to contain the super high temperature! Surely that was it!8o


    Adrian claims to have much experience in industrial glass manufacture. If so, he should have experience in high temperature. Adrian, please tell me that you would

    have NO issues containing 20,0000 degree heat and that we should simply accept this claim without any doubts. You seem too:!: Might you tell us how this is done.

    Again, specific questions deserve a specific answer... how will you answer? I believe everyone knows....


    We continue to watch the "UNREAL" reality show! ^^

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    Apparently Roseland thinks I "was conned by Ross" even though I don't think his reactors have been proven to work ...


    The case is stronger than this. One of Rossi`s reactors has been been proven not to work even as Rossi is asserting that it is functioning as usual. This is the one caught on video by Steven Krivit in 2011. The one where the steam coming out of the output hose is plainly at least an order of magnitude too small to be functioning as Rossi claims. I recall that you too have expressed doubts that the ecat works as claimed in this instance.


    I can see from your activity on this thread that you are concerned about the proper use of exact language when expressing one`s positions. So, I wonder if you believe that your statement "... I don`t think his reactors have been proven to work..." adequately expresses the situation. You make it sound as though you have never encountered anything that raises doubts about Rossi`s ecats and that the only thing missing is actual positive proof that they work. That doesn`t seem to be the case, however.


    Would you care to change your wording to more precisely express what you think?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Rossi later published it on his web site. Before the lawsuit, he delivered it to I.H. as proof of his claims. So, what I say is true. Perhaps you were not aware of the facts.


    Could you please provide the link to the JoNP page where the Penon report was published? I haven't found it.


    Anyway, the main point is that the calorimetric report of the 1-year test at Doral is by no means the only, or even the best, evidence of the inconsistencies of the Ecat performances, as you keep on saying in your effort to postpone their appearance after the big fundraising.


    The best evidences came immediately after the first public test in Bologna on January 2011, when it was clear to many people – just looking at the videos - that there was something strange in that obvious farce (1), but it wasn't for you (2), even if you were in close touch with the testers.


    Now, it is funny that you criticize AA who is using (3-4) exactly the same arguments you widely used in 2011 to support the credibility in the Ecat. Why don't you explain him why those competent and respected scientists (LENR experts and professors) were not credible from the beginning?


    (1) https://www.mail-archive.com/v…0eskimo.com/msg41440.html

    (2) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…0eskimo.com/msg41446.html

    (3) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (4) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

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.