Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from Bruce__H

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

    It is good to be skeptical. I am skeptical. This is different from being a babbler. A babbler is someone who has no doubt about their latest belief, one who keeps repeating examples, generally originated by someone else, that they think proves their case. As they are technically incompetent they often get it wrong, as shown in the recent discussion on gas turbines.


    The other problem with babblers is that they take pages to express their opinion son irrelevant things of little or no importance. This makes the thread boring and useless. Having done nothing themselves, they lack experience and don’t understand the difficulties nor the time it takes to develop something new. Not all here are babblers fortunately.


    I have no reason to change my views on Rossi that I have expressed clearly.


    Jed, if you were to write “You are a child molester” that is both an opinion and also a lie, like your other lies.



    Adrian: this answer is a rhetorical device which completely avoids the question, while diverting attention towards possible defects in others.


    Neither Bruce-H here nor I are babblers by the above definition, we have both asked you pertinent questions which you are not answering.

    Quote

    A babbler is someone who has no doubt about their latest belief, one who keeps repeating examples, generally originated by someone else, that they think proves their case.

    A good self-portrait of JONP worshippers, based on blind belief to any Rossi’s says.

    Quote from can

    Not JONP, but Hydrofusion-managed (I think) Ecat.com:


    Thanks. Anyway JR wrote "Rossi later published it on his web site." But, as already said, this is not the main point.


    Here everybody is criticizing AA for his faith in the Ecat results. But AA has a very good argument when he says that his faith is based on the declarations of the LENR scientists who supported the Ecat claims, and that were never withdrawn.


    So, it's absolutely useless keep on telling AA that Rossi is not credible. That was known from t=0, as shown by this example:


    From https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg41783.html
    Monday Update to Release Information on Self Sustain Mode
    Jed Rothwell Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:12:48 -0800


    This is important! Rossi is saying that on Monday, they will upload a report by Levi et al. describing a self-sustaining run. This is the Holy Grail of cold fusion: a self-sustaining device that produces commercially useful levels of power.


    People may have some doubts about Rossi's credibility, but I think there is no reason to doubt Levi and the others. If they say they saw the thing self-sustain, I for one will believe it. As I said before, this development is not all that surprising. There is plenty of supporting evidence from other experiments. There is no reason to doubt that a scaled up machine can be built.


    It is a little surprising that the breakthrough came with Ni-H. The temperatures and power density with Ni-H have usually been low in the past, as far as I know. Pd-D has achieved greater power density.


    - Jed


    JR is talking about a "self-sustaining run". We now know that this is the test carried out on December 16, 2010, labeled [Test 1] in the calorimetric report. We also know how the test was manipulated in order to give the appearance of self-sustain.


    Now the question is, how many people, among the many LENR experts and professors who contributed to its publication, were aware of the many misrepresentations and invented data included in that calorimetric report? How many of them did realize of these inconsistencies shortly after the publication? Why they omitted to promptly and properly inform the public, so inducing people such as AA to believe in the incredible Ecat's performances?

    Quote

    The word con is too loose perhaps

    Well, there are always some good words available to describe the man:


    if you don't like "con artist" or "confidence operator" because they are loose, are any of these Rossi descriptors tighter?


    charlatan

    crook

    hypocrite

    impostor

    rascal

    rogue

    swindler

    trickster

    bamboozler

    bluff

    chiseler

    deceiver

    decoy

    defrauder

    dodger

    double-crosser

    double-dealer

    fake

    flummoxer

    jockey

    masquerader

    pretender

    quack

    scammer

    shark

    sharper

    shyster

    conniver

    cozener


    And what he does is to be:


    misleading

    dissembling

    dissimulating

    double-crossing

    double-dealing

    equivocating

    falsifying

    fibbing

    inventing

    misrepresenting

    misstating

    prevaricating

    two-timing

    wrong

    committing perjury

    deceitful

    deceptive

    delusive

    delusory

    false

    guileful

    mendacious

    perfidious

    shifty

    treacherous

    tricky

    two-faced

    unreliable

    untruthful


    and just plain UNPLEASANT.

    Quote

    so there is still the possibility that all skeptics are wrong and that Rossi in the end conjures a real rabbit out of his hat. I think that makes the appeal of this discussion. ;)

    He's actually more likely to conjure a flying pig than a working ecat.


    Quote

    Jed, if you were to write “You are a child molester” that is both an opinion and also a lie, like your other lies.

    I have no idea of any connection between this and the current discussion. It seems to be a total non sequitur. Be that as it may, addressed in print to someone who is not a legally proven child molester, and for whom there is not compelling evidence of child molesting, that is an example of clear cut libel as I am sure our resident L.E. (legal eagle) would be quick to agree.


    Quote

    Having done nothing themselves, they lack experience and don’t understand the difficulties nor the time it takes to develop something new. Not all here are babblers fortunately.

    @Adrian Ashfield How in hell do you know what people who comment here have done? In some case one can know. For example, Kirk Shanahan has an important job involving safety, chemistry and nuclear physics with an important work group. But others have distinguished educational, research and work history too and it is something you know nothing about. Like you seem to know nothing about Rossi's lifelong pattern of lying, criminal activity and no accomplishments.


    Quote from JedRothwell apparently around late 2010?

    Quote

    People may have some doubts about Rossi's credibility, but I think there is no reason to doubt Levi and the others. If they say they saw the thing self-sustain, I for one will believe it. As I said before, this development is not all that surprising. There is plenty of supporting evidence from other experiments. There is no reason to doubt that a scaled up machine can be built.

    There may be no reason to doubt Levi and the others' truthfulness but there are plenty of other reasons to doubt. Honest people can be fooled and obviously, Levi and the others were fooled by Rossi and many people still are.


    How about Rossifiction - essentially anything non-trivial that Rossi says or writes


    Sorry Seven, the use of the "child molester" language, although tasteless, tacky, etc., is IMHO not libelous because he is clearly not accusing anyone of being a child molester, but is using it as a rhetorical example. MikeDunford, if he is still around here, may want to weigh in on this -- I think he is more up on this than I am.

    AA:

    I have just read the DelcoTimes letter you wrote and I have a few comments and questions:


    1. For someone who professes to have not actually decided that Rossi’s widgets work, instead claiming that you are keeping an open mind and giving him the benefit of the doubt, that letter was as close to a tongue bath as I have ever seen.


    2. Unless the letter contained, in very, very small type, qualifying language, e.g., “apparently,” “it appears,” “it suggests,” etc., that letter is a complete statement of faith in Rossi’s widgets.


    3. You have attacked, and yes I use that word deliberately, many posters here for not quoting your exact language when they disagree with you. You have also attacked many posters as babblers because they get something wrong. So, here is your exact language from that letter:


    “. . . but IH refused to pay the $900 million called for by the contract.”


    My question to you is very simple, WHERE IN HELL DOES THE CONTRACT CALL FOR A PAYMENT OF $900 MILLION? I can’t find that, and I looked. But I am confident that, with your extensive experience in building and supervising the building of large plants, and your expert knowledge of how these types of agreements are structured, and the fact that I am a mere babbler, that you will immediately solve this mystery for me. All you have to do is provide a page number, or cut and paste the section from the contract.


    4. But continuing with the DelcoTimes letter, you said:


    “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.”


    There are a number of factual assertions made by you, none of which are qualified in any way. First, you assert that the “tiny reactor” is about 1 cm long by 0.6 cm in diameter (which coincidentally is about ½ the size of my kidney stones). Did you measure the size yourself or is this a case of “Rossi Says?”


    Second, you assert that it was “shown to produce 20 Watts of heat from a negligible input of power.” Now, I have made it clear that I don’t understand the physics, or any of the science, relating to this. But after watching the videos from Stockholm, and reading pretty much everything said by you, Axil and Sam12 on this thread, I don’t recall anyone explaining how that 20 watts of heat was measured. If I am wrong, please cite to the relevant section or post or whatever and I will read, and if wrong, will apologize. However, if I am not wrong, what is your basis for making this factual assertion. You also state in this clause, as a unqualified factual assertion, that this 20 watts of heat was derived from a “negligible input of power.” What is your basis, your empirical evidence if you will, for this factual assertion? Did you personally examine or measure the amount of power input to the “reactor?” Did anyone than Rossi or a member of his team, say one of the “crowd of 70 professors, scientists and business people” measure the power input to the reactor, or for that matter, the amount of heat generated? Is the only evidentiary basis for your factual assertion “Rossi Says?”


    5. Next up we have “[T]he Coefficient of Performance (COP) was over 500. That is to say it produced more than 500 times the power required to run it.” Same questions as above, what is/are the bases for your unqualified factual assertions?


    6. “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.” Three unqualified factual assertions, (a) it can be turned on and off instantaneously, (b) something no other reactor has been capable of, and (c) can operate at 2300 C.


    As to the ability to turn on and off instantaneously, how do you know? I doubt that you tried as it is pretty clear from the video that Rossi doesn’t like anyone else to have contact with his widget if he can avoid it, and I didn’t see you, or anyone else, attempting to go through several successful cycles of on/off operation. So I am assuming that is a “Rossi Says.”


    As to other reactors being capable of instant on/off, I cannot see how you can make this assertion. Have you personally seen/tested ALL of the other reactors out there? I don’t think so, which means this is either a “Rossi Says” or an “Adrian Claims,” neither of which however is supported by any empirical evidence.


    And lastly, how do you know Rossi’s widget can operate at 2300 C? Same questions as above, did you see it personally, did you measure or is this another case of “Rossi Says?”


    Now, I am sure you will respond to this, in part, by saying, look at what I said later in the letter, where I said:

    “It is important to recognize the Nov. 24 demonstration was to provide people with the characteristics of the E-Cat QX and was not a scientific experiment whose results would allow others to replicate it.


    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. This would be simple for a potential investor to do, so there is no logical reason to doubt the results The QX still needs some engineering development to make it commercial and an automated factory to mass produce them will take another year.”


    And I would answer, so what? Nothing in those two paragraphs qualifies all of your previous assertions, rather instead you double down by saying “. . . so there is no logical reason to doubt the results.” Your letter was, IMHO, an amazing piece propaganda, tailor made for Rossi to use to show to potential marks – “see, here is an accomplished scientist, engineer, etc., and he states that not only have I discovered the holy grail, but it would sacrilege to doubt my claims.”


    And despite this letter you still profess and claim that you are not biased, you are keeping an open mind, you have no desire to review the history and past work of this modern day Da Vinci, but instead you merely claim that you are giving him the benefit of the doubt.


    If you can do all that with a straight face and no qualms, then I salute you Gunga Din, you are a better man than I.

    May I make a request of the moderators to not ban anyone based on any posts on this thread, nor remove any posts on this thread. Not only do I enjoy this banter but I am getting tired of censorship of different ideas on "social media". This country used to be about free speech. We the LENR passionates are already not considered mainstream. AA's ideas are in my mind incorrect however a fascinating insight into the human psyche.

    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    May I make a request of the moderators to not ban anyone based on any posts on this thread, nor remove any posts on this thread. Not only do I enjoy this banter but I am getting tired of censorship of different ideas on "social media". This country used to be about free speech. We the LENR passionates are already not considered mainstream. AA's ideas are in my mind incorrect however a fascinating insight into the human psyche.


    Trolling is becoming a way to project power, both militarily, financially and socially. Trolling is now a well compensated and recognized profession practiced by experts with long years of experience. But where does a budding trollor go to practice his trade when the inexperienced troll is just starting out? There must be threads set aside where a troll can experiment with various trolling methods, to find his own style and flair, and to learn from more experienced trolls so that these experts in the trolling arts can pass on their tried and true methods to those who are willing and eager to work hard and learn. And then there are the drooling and bloodthirsty spectators of the trolling arts who long for a brutal and cutthroat no holds bared to the death contest who enjoy the every minute of the savage and gut wrenching spectacle. Such inexpressible joy is had in being immersed up to the ears in a explosion of trolling in a pugilistic wonderland.

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.