Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Jed, most of the heat from the 1 MW plant was carried as the latent heat of evaporation. It is relatively easy to remove this heat near100C by a dry "cooling tower," with a fan blowing over the bundle of pipes, to condense the steam.

Adrian: There was NO TOWER. There was nothing in the mezzanine. There were photos taken of it while the test was in progress, and after the test. There was no sign of any heat exchanger or cooling device of any sort. There were no electrical connections. There were no pipes going up to it. The stairs and the floor of the mezzanine were rickety, dangerous and could barely support a person, never mind equipment.

Rossi made no mention of this heat exchanger in the Penon report or anywhere else, until people began asking him how he removed the heat. He then claimed he did it with "endothermic processes." That is impossible. Such processes including baking bread. They do not remove more than a tiny fraction of the heat. After that, he suddenly claimed there was a heat exchanger, but people who visited the factory during the test and after found no sign of it.

He lied. What he claims is preposterous. Yet, you believe him. You should not.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Jed, most of the heat from the 1 MW plant was carried as the latent heat of evaporation. It is relatively easy to remove this heat near100C by a dry "cooling tower," with a fan blowing over the bundle of pipes, to condense the steam. This is all Rossi had to do.

You fail to realize that if he had only condensed the steam, without removing more heat than that, the building would have grown intolerably hot, very quickly. It was not hot. People who visited reported it was not hot, and they saw that Rossi and others were wearing sweaters in winter. If there really was 1 MW, the heat exchanger would have to remove all but 10 or 20 kW to keep the rooms tolerable, or the truck bay doors would have be left open. They were closed.

Quote from Alan Smith

We've been here before Jed. A big truck engine like a Mack 8HE is good for 500hp. That means the radiator will need to dispose of close to 1MW at times. And while it is a big radiator, it doesn't weigh as much as an automobile. Or even a Harley.

Quote from Alan Smith

We've been here before Jed. A big truck engine like a Mack 8HE is good for 500hp. That means the radiator will need to dispose of close to 1MW at times. And while it is a big radiator, it doesn't weigh as much as an automobile. Or even a Harley.

Alan,

Depends on many parameters,

U (overall heat transfer coefficient)

A (available surface area to do heat transfer)

LMDT (log mean temp difference of media)

For a Rossi type Rube Goldberg apparatus

U would not be more than 150 btu/hr/ft2°F

A would be maybe 3ft2 based on reactor

LMDT, now his could be very high based on his indicates temps, but I would have to actually have to see a real measurement to calculate.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

@ascoli

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).

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.

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

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

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?

Display More

A few thoughts, in no particular order:

First, in US criminal law, the saying is that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This emphatically only applies to criminal cases, where the prosecuting authority has the burden to prove each of the elements of the charged crime to beyond any reasonable doubt. For example (I had to address this in my first year criminal law class), larceny is defined at common law as the taking and carrying away (sometimes phrased as asportation) of the personal property of another person with the intent to permanently deprive thereof, all without the other person's consent. So, to convict a person of larceny, the prosecutor has to prove each of those elements, it was someone else's property, it was personal property, not real property or a fixture, it was taken and then carried away, there existed an intent to permanently, not temporarily, deprive the other person, etc. If the prosecution fails to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, each of the elements, the defendant should be found not guilty. They should not be found innocent, but not guilty. There are occasions where a defendant may move to be found factually innocent, but such motions are very rarely made and even more rarely granted. I suppose if one is charged with the murder of someone and that someone walks into the court to observe the trial, the defendant could move for such a verdict, but I suspect that the prosecution would move to dismiss with prejudice and that would be the end of that.

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in the civil context at all. In civil cases, one is not found guilty or not guilty, they are generally found liable or not liable. Additionally, the standard of proof is much different. To win a civil case one must show, by a preponderance of the evidence presented, that the plaintiff has satisfied each of the elements to the cause of action asserted. For example, OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial because the jury believed that the prosecutors had not proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that OJ had wrongfully killed his wife and Ron Goldman. But in the civil trial brought by Goldman's family, the plaintiff's lawyer were able to persuade a different jury, in a civil case, that each of the elements in the wrongful death cause of action had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence admitted at trial (a preponderance is essentially 50% plus 0.01%).

If the Rossi/IH litigation had continued, each party would have had to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, each of the elements of their different causes of action, e.g., breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, etc. However, and this where I think AA really misses the boat, I suspect much of Rossi's history of bad/fraudulent acts, his lying, etc. would have been admitted at trial, for at a minimum to impeach Rossi's credibility as a witness and to demonstrate his modus operandi in his transactions and actions with his counter-parties. Jones Day would, I suspect, have had many opportunities to question Rossi about his past statements, e.g., regarding how he lied to fool previous co-venturers in order to get out of a contract. Rossi's statements about that are a matter of record. When Jones Day asks Rossi about that, specifically asking Rossi whether he had lied to fool his co-venturer into dropping the project, Rossi does not have AA's option to say that was all past history and is irrelevant (there may be other objections possible, but I believe the court would have allowed this line of questioning), Rossi has to answer. He can say that he was just telling a story, but that it wasn't true, which would give Jones Day an opening to ask the classic question "so if you were lying then, why should we believe you now?" If Rossi says yes, I lied then to get a business advantage, then Jones Day gets to ask pretty much the same question, "if you lied then to get a business advantage, why should anyone believe you now?"

Maybe not all of Rossi's history of fraudulent business dealings or his lies, etc., gets admitted, but I believe that enough would have been admitted for the jury to not believe anything Rossi said and he loses on his causes of action. Now I know that several people will once again claim that I am changing my story about IH's chances at trial, so let me address IH's cross-complaint. As I have previously said, I believe that Rossi would have lost on his complaint. But juries are strange, in addition to deciding that Rossi is a lying, cheating, thieving con man, they might also decide that the don't like IH, or they may feel that IH didn't do adequate due diligence, but regardless of the rationale, they might decide that IH doesn't deserve to win on the cross-complaint. The jury splits the baby, each side wins as a defendant and they each lose as a plaintiff. Which is exactly the result reached with the settlement.

I am not a scientist, an engineer or anything like that, so I can't opine on what the assumptions and the burden of proof is for scientific/engineering purposes. But I can assure you of one simple fact: if Rossi had an actual functioning ecat, all he would have had to do was to walk into court and make an offer of proof to have the unit demonstrated to the court to show that it worked. It wouldn't need to be a polished finished prototype and certainly not a ready for sale unit, just a valid functioning unit. If he had, IH would have gladly paid the additional millions and if they didn't have the money, the jury would have found for Rossi in a heartbeat. But Rossi didn't make an offer of proof, he didn't offer to show the court a functioning unit, etc. So the question is why not?

If Rossi had a functioning ecal, he wins the case easily. No one would have cared about past failures or anything else. All he had to do was show a functioning unit and he wins. His failure to do so tells me that he did not have the goods. So he needed to settle. The reason I went on this detour about Rossi not showing the goods is very simple. By his failure to publicly show a functioning unit, whether it be an ecat, a QX and/or any other collection of letters and his failure to show that it works, Rossi is as much as admitting to his fans, his supporters, potential investors, co-venturers, critics, etc. that Rossi doesn't have the goods. Instead of putting out a functioning unit to prove his claims, Rossi instead relies on his old standby excuses, "we are so amazed by all of our incredible results that, instead of releasing something that works, we will put it on the shelf and go off to never-never land and start developing an even more impressive, but never to be publicly released widget."

And yes AA, that is why Rossi's history is both relevant and necessary to know and understand. Rossi is akin to the boy who cried wolf, with the major distinction being that with Rossi, he is the wolf.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Hundreds? You are exaggerating.

AA, as you have stated, on numerous occasions, that you have not read any of the documents filed in the Rossi/IH litigation, I cannot see your basis for claiming that hundreds is an exaggeration. I have read the documents and, although I have not counted, I would not be at all surprised if there were hundreds of instances of lies, misrepresentations and evasive non-answers.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Really THH?

I did not say he was naturally polite, or correct.

If it would produce a particle stream - as nuclear devices usually send out some kind of particels or radiation when in use - then you could be fair and think at least of a kind of thrust / propulsion...

But we also know from Rossi, that he is claims there is/was no kind of radiation involved in his Ecats. Otherwise he will have to overcome quite some obstacles to certify and sell such a product, esp. with the common mindset of todays very critical people. Everything related to the word or description "nuclear" is suspicious and needs special marketing and awareness...

Apart from the fact that Rossi's version would have collapsed the mezzanine floor.

There is also no proof that ghosts, vampires, werewolves, Bigfoot, unicorns, angels, fairies, elves, UFOs, alien abductions, and zombies don’t exist. Most of them are probably no more unlikely to exist than the e-cat. The prudent thing to is to wait and see. Or perhaps ask Andrea Rossi, since he is a bastion of truth.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

A cooling tower is the generic name for such devices and come in all manner of shapes and sizes.

There are two stories about what was there. Your opinion and the one described by Rossi, who built it. There is no proof which is correct.

You are wrong. The court documents and other documents showed photos of the ceiling, the mezzanine, and the windows at the front of the building. There were photos taken during the test and after the test. They showed NO EQUIPMENT in the mezzanine. No pipes going up to it, no electrical connections in it, and nothing installed in the windows. There were photos from I.H., from Google, and from Rossi himself showing this. It is ironclad proof that Rossi was lying.

You cannot dispute this, because you refuse to look at the court documents and the photos in them. You cannot make assertions about evidence that you refuse to look at.

This is not a matter of opinion. I.H. presented photographic proof, and also expert witnesses who examined the mezzanine and concluded that it would be impossible to install a heat exchanger in it. Or a microwave oven, for that matter, because there were no electrical connections, and no sign there has ever been any electrical connections or pipes. Rossi did not dispute any of this. He did not submit any photos, documents, receipts, or other evidence backing up his claim.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

A cooling tower is the generic name for such devices and come in all manner of shapes and sizes.

There are two stories about what was there. Your opinion and the one described by Rossi, who built it. There is no proof which is correct.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I didn't need a wall of solid text. You are not being paid by the word count. Despite your efforts to disprove it, even in a civil case you are not considered guilty before the trial starts.

No I haven't.

In my previous response to you I answered your five questions. Questions that you implied I couldn't answer. You also stated you would respond if I did. You haven't.

Adrian:

A cooling tower is the generic name for such devices and come in all manner of shapes and sizes.

Rossi claimed a very specific design using specific pipework which he claims he bought (with no evidence) and then re-purposed. Analysing this design (easy) shows the airflow needed to dissipate 1MW would be very very high. Given the large size (or Rosii's design) and relative power inefficiency the power needed to blow air at the required speed over the tubes is > the max power ever drawn from F L &C utility during the test. Would you like to go through the calculations?

There are two stories about what was there. Your opinion and the one described by Rossi, who built it.

That is illogical. The question at issue is whether Rossi built it, or lied about it. You cannot therefore claim better information for Rossi than anyone else when answering this question. Further there is ample public information of Rossi's technical incompetence when describing his own tests.

There is no proof which is correct.

There is proof that Rossi was incorrect based on analysis of the power needed to blow air at the required speed over the stated structure. There is also as Jed as stated plentiful photographic evidence that this claimed large and very obvious structure never existed.

Your posts here on almost any tech issue seem to be "Rossi said this, you cannot prove he is lying". As IO and othrs have noted, that argument can be applied to anyone making unprovable statements about ghosts, UFOs Bigfoot, etc. And most of those have unimpeached records of past honesty, unlike Rossi. Why do you give Rossi this privileged treatment? Perhaps in some weird sort of "fairness" you reckon he must be given the benefit of the doubt because of his record of lying that would otherwise make him less believed? But you go further, you believe him over others when his statements are inconsistent and there is no reasonable doubt.