Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Scientists are often fooled by con men.

But not so many, not for so long, not by a so controversial and discredited man.

Quote

Scientists are not usually looking for deception.

But they are usually looking for funds and celebrity.

Quote

If, for example, a report says the input power was measured by a particular method and yielded a specific result, scientists will tend to take this as valid on its face and not suspect deliberate deception and cheating.

What you says is applicable only to some Swedish professors with respect to the results of the 3 tests held in December 2010, and in January and February 2011:

On the contrary, what you said is not applicable to the professors who have claimed to have independently measured the input and output power, as reported by Essen in the above interview.

Quote

I agree with that. I am still waiting for Levi, Lewan, Essen, the Swedish professors, Josephson and others who should have known and done better to admit publicly that Rossi is a crook and that they were wrong. I am not holding my breath until they do!

OK. But until they don't do it, you should admit that common people like AA has some valid arguments to believe that the Ecat is capable to produce excess heat.

Quote

On the other hand, far as I know, none is actively endorsing Rossi or defending his/their prior results any more.

Unfortunately that's enough to keep the validity and effectiveness of their previous statements:

Quote from hunter

A rare isotope of Rossionium.

0 protons in Rossionium, all hot air

Quote from hunter

Summarizing:

Rossionium is a new element, it shields gamma rays and neutrons very well.

Heat exchangers made by Rossionium can work up to 20000 K.

Atomic structure of Rossionium is a pair (or more) of antimatter electrons orbiting around a core composed by a special virtual particel called “jonp-says”.

Interesting insights, but don't forget the old style "RossioNium secret"

post89483

post89484

post89519

AA: 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

So I've already pointed out that the implication here of trickery or working product is logically wrong: we can have a test setup with a false positive which Rossi through incompetence does not realise.

There is another more important logical error. Adrian argues that because it would be simple for a potential investor to check the results, and Rossi knows this, therefore there is reason to expect such a test to be positive.

This is quite a common meme. The idea is that to back Rossi (if he is a vapourware merchant) you would have to be an idiot, therefore he is not a vapourware merchant.

Rossi, if he sticks to form, would not let potential investors perform such a check. He would have excuses. Those investors who are skeptical, and do not accept excuses, will obviously not get past first base. Rossi however has in the past found investors willing to give him money without proper testing. There is logically no reason to think that will not remain true. But suppose Rossi thinks that unlikely. Unless he thinks it is impossible, he will still conduct this type of "no validation" test in the hope of more money. It is his best chance to snare new investors, and even if he does not manage that he has money and he keeps his fan base on ECW energised.

Even with no hope of investment Rossi would conduct this test. It is clear that one element of Rossi's motivation for his actions is that he craves admiration, and to keep uncritical admirers the QX demo works well. True, a few of the more critical ones melt away, but as we have seen here new admirers can always be found.

AA's above is arguing that Rossi would not have conducted this test if the further tests (probably done by a possible investor before parting with money) showed the device not working. More experienced Rossi-watchers will understand why that is incorrect, and there is as laid out here a good logical reason to doubt Rossi's results.

Quote from THHuxleynew

AA: 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

So I've already pointed out that the implication here of trickery or working product is logically wrong: we can have a test setup with a false positive which Rossi through incompetence does not realise.

THH, to be sure that it was a trickery product it suffices to positively demonstrate the occurring of a deliberate tricksty action. The test carried out on December 16, 2010, the first Ecat test which has been documented, provides the evidence that, in the middle of the test, the water flow has stopped (1). This fact requires a deliberate action by at least one of the people who were present at the test. This is a positive evidence of the awareness that the product was unable to produce excess heat.

(1) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

Quote from THHuxleynew

Those investors who are skeptical, and do not accept excuses, will obviously not get past first base. Rossi however has in the past found investors willing to give him money without proper testing. There is logically no reason to think that will not remain true.

[…]

Even with no hope of investment Rossi would conduct this test. It is clear that one element of Rossi's motivation for his actions is that he craves admiration, and to keep uncritical admirers the QX demo works well. True, a few of the more critical ones melt away, but as we have seen here new admirers can always be found.

One of Rossi’s proverb is: “The mother of the imbecibles is always pregnant”.

And he knows well that one can take advantage of this fact.

Alan Smith

Quote

I can also see no reason to believe he has nothing, in fact just the opposite.

That is concerning. So all the talk of military customers, robotic factories, heating an entire factory in 2007 yet producing nothing that works for IH, the volume of evidence of criminal activity for decades provided by Krivit, the failed multimillion dollar contract to provide efficient thermoelectric devices for DOD, and much much more, you see no reason to believe Rossi has nothing? And his constant failed promises and claims provide you with the opposite view? When you obviously know how to put appropriate tests together and Rossi has essentially done the opposite for years? And you still believe that what he says is plausible or better? Puzzling.

@ascoli

Quote

But not so many [fooled], not for so long, not by a so controversial and discredited man.

Yes. That is what is so interesting about all this. How Rossi fooled so many smart people so easily and completely and so long. Most are, however, no longer fooled. A few, mysteriously, still are! I have seen nothing to suggest malice or some nefarious conspiracy among those folks. They are simply the sort of people whose brains are wired to believe and trust without adequate evidence and that, for reasons beyond the scope of this forum, comprises the majority of humanity (for example: religion).

Quote

NyT: What was your first thought when you read about this?

Essén: What struck me were the differences compared with the past. There have been many failures in the context of fusion. It started with Pons and Fleischmann (a famous experiment in 1989 which could not be repeated) and more recently we’ve had bubble fusion, which also was connected with irregularities (in the scientific methods).

So this area is very affected by such events. But what appeared to be different this time was that another physicist, Giuseppe Levi, was allowed to test the process independently, measuring input and output power.

And it seems repeatable. And there is a device. And now it has been tested for a longer time. That’s a big difference that seems crucial.

This and the rest of the quotes you provided are simply evidence of appeal to authority and reliance on other people's opinions rather than facts, observations, and replication of the experiment independently.

Quote

OK. But until they don't do it [repudiate Rossi], you should admit that common people like AA has some valid arguments to believe that the Ecat is capable to produce excess heat.

Sure. But they are very weak arguments, inasmuch as they are based on opinion rather than replication and they ignore Rossi's consistent lying, cheating, failure to perform, impossible claims, and much more evidence that he has nothing.

@Adrian Ashfield

Quote

AA: 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 result

Not sure what you mean by "proprietary measurement." How are measurements proprietary? You mean secret perhaps? That has been true from the start. Yet, apparently Lewan, Levi and Focardi did nothing to rule out sleight of hand and trickery by Rossi because, in their view, they had no reason to suspect it. Same with the Swedish professors from start to end. And while it may be simple, in your view, to catch a thief and a crook, IH and Darden had plenty of opportunity to do so. They could have read dozens of comments and articles on the internet on exactly how to make sure Rossi was truthful. But for whatever reason, they neglected to do it and sorry to have to rub your nose in it over and over again, they lost $11 million or more and thousands of man-hours of administrative and legal people (more millions of dollars) because of this neglect. What is your guarantee that Rossi will not find similar investors in the future?

@Adrian Ashfield

Quote

You start with the un-American position that Rossi is guilty until proved innocent.

First, WW can correct me if this is wrong, but I am pretty sure presumption of innocence applies to criminal charges, not making false claims in a blog or during a demo. More important, Rossi was indeed found guilty of many serious crimes as Krivit's bibliography composed of contemporary Italian newspaper articles, amply proved. These crimes had serious consequences for the region. I know Rossi denies it all but how much is denial of a crime by a convicted criminal worth?

Finally, about the high temperature plasma inside Rossi assemblage of garden supply props. I admit I know little about that field. But does anyone really think Rossi had the gear to generate and contain such a plasma inside the taped up trash he showed in Stockholm? And even if he did, to what end?

Quote from seven_of_twenty

First, WW can correct me if this is wrong, but I am pretty sure presumption of innocence applies to criminal charges, not making false claims in a blog or during a demo.

It does not apply to science or technology. Your claim is considered wrong until you prove it is right. Even after you prove it, you are still not-right (if not quite "wrong") until it is independently replicated. A claim is never taken at face value or assumed to be right until it is tested. On the other hand, a claim should not be rejected out of hand.

The standards of science and technology have no connection to those of the law. A. A.'s suggestion that the "presumption of innocence" somehow applies is bizarre.

Also, the presumption of innocence only applies in a court of law. A person outside the court is free to assume someone is guilty regardless of any court judgement. For example, many people are convinced that O. J. Simpson is guilty.

AA:

You start with the fallacy that it is a logical error. It is not. Either opinion could be correct but it will take time and more evidence to see which is right. You start with the un-American position that Rossi is guilty until proved innocent. I start with the traditional assumption he is innocent until proved guilty

On Wednesday, you wrote a whole comment on my supposed failings. I then asked the following. (3 times)

"If you have specific examples, using my actual words, of where I hav been wrong logically or theoretically, please give them, so we can debate them."

Your response was to ask me questions and you did not answer mine. If you have a question and ask it in a clear fashion, not buried in convoluted waffle, I will attempt to answer it.

Adrian, I am a bit surprised at this. Your statement, which I quoted in full, 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 was invoking logic. I demonstrated, logically, why it was false.

You come back and say:

(a) It was not a logical statement because only opinion.

(b) My response to you is to ask questions, not make statements. As a logical device I will often follow what you say, demonstrate an inconsistency, and ask you to clarify that. If you would prefer me not to give you that courtesy I could just point out why what you say is logically wrong without asking for clarification? But I don't see any substantive difference.

You can hide behind nothing you say having any relationship to the truth, I guess. Everything we write is an opinion in the sense that certainty is hard to come by in the real world. That does not prevent opinions from being logically sound, or illogical. Yours here was illogical for the reasons I gave (specifically, I explained a logical reason that you said did not exist) and that also answers your request that I provide text from you quoted and demonstrate a logical error.

If you'd like me to let you off this perhaps you could highlight every statement you make which should not be subjected to any tests of logical consistency because it is only opinion? I will then ignore such statements as having no worth. If you so highlight all of your posts you will likely hear much less from me.

It is fun having somone to argue Rossi's case. But, if you do it here, you will face not just polemic but testing of the logic of your views.

THH

PS: glossary to AA's post above. "convoluted waffle" = connected logical argument

First, WW can correct me if this is wrong, but I am pretty sure presumption of innocence applies to criminal charges, not making false claims in a blog or during a demo.

The disputes here have a civil Law burden of proof between two or more parties: as would be needed (WW will correct me if wrong) to show fraudulent inducement relating to a contract. Distinct from, and easier to prove than, criminal fraud, for which a higher bar of proof is required. Nothing to stop Rossi's behaviour satisfying both of course.

It is quite common for people found innocent in a criminal Trial to be sued by the alleged victim and lose. It does not make them criminals, but does tarnish their reputation.

The appeal to authority defense for Rossi’s nonsense is especially ridiculous because it is almost always based upon affiliation rather than reputation. Take for example Levi. What do Rossi worshippers know about Levi other than the fact that he works at U Bologna? Can they discuss his accomplishments other than his work with Rossi? On what basis should he be considered an expert on anything? Yet, his involvement with the e-cat is regularly cited as evidence that the thing works. The same goes for most of the other band of Italians and Swedes considered to be Rossi’s braintrust. Like I said: ridiculous.