By association - I think babbling brooks - here is a cautionary tale for all:
"Love seeketh not itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care,
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a Heaven in Hell's despair."
So sung a little Clod of Clay
Trodden with the cattle's feet,
But a Pebble of the brook
Warbled out these metres meet:
"Love seeketh only self to please,
To bind another to its delight,
Joys in another's loss of ease,
And builds a Hell in Heaven's despite."
William Blake
I do believe that some are still lurking, others alive and posting on ECW where they don't get hassled.
The [current position is that Andrea Rossi says he has:
1. The Qx, now rated at 1 kW, that has been tested for a year and develped into an industrial rector\. A video of it supplying heat to a real customer and an example of the non working reactor will be shown early in 2019.
2. The SK10, which is the same size as the QX but with a higher output thanks to a novel heat exchanger. It is running under test but not yet ready for commercialization.
3. The SK, that is ten times larger and rated at 100 kW. It too is running under test and has been used to power a gas turbine. It is still very much a prototype and not yet ready for commercialization.
4. He is building a highly automated factory to produce the QS and the SKs if they pan out, including the electronics for the controllers.
The critics here maintain t these are all lies, but have no evidence to back this claim. Their argument is entirely based on the Doral test, taking IH's claims as gospel together with fake news. These claims have been repeated 100 times without converting anybody in recent times, so it does not seem sensible to repeat them the 101th time.
Ad homs attacking Rossi or his supporters add nothing but noise.
Apart from the crackpot amateur psychology of why others can't see their faults, the latest thing is to claim there are only two who disagree with the consensus. On this site I would add Alan Smith and Axil as believers that Rossi probably has something. Of course this is nonsense. Many well known scientists and many more people than the handful of babblers here, support Rossi on other forums like ECW and JONS.
So the fact is, there is nothing to debate until more evidence surfaces.
There could be a theoretical discussion, but there are only two who venture to add hypotheses and the others don' have the background to debate them. I don't either.
Bob Greenyer suggest that any theory that will gain acceptance would have to leave out the weird stuff. He maybe right.
“The critics here maintain that these are all lies, but have no evidence to back this claim.”
What evidence do you have that any of Rossi’s claims are true?
“The critics here maintain that these are all lies, but have no evidence to back this claim.”
What evidence do you have that any of Rossi’s claims are true?
What evidence would you need to prove that the QX is what Rossi says it is?
Would a Outside testing of the QX suffice
if they showed positive results?
Would success in the market place with
the QX be proof that the QX works?
Sam, never mind proof. What evidence do you have that the QX works? I am not asking for proof. I am asking for evidence. Pretend you are an adult and answer the question.
The critics here maintain t these are all lies, but have no evidence to back this claim.
We do have evidence:
1. His claims are impossible.
2. His tests that supposedly demonstrated the most recent devices were preposterous. Anyone but you will see they were fake.
3. All of his previous claims have been lies. When someone makes ~20 claims over 10 years, and every single one of them is a blatant lie, that is good evidence that his next claim will also be a lie. When someone behaves in an a certain way over and over again, without exception, it is safe to predict he will do it again.
In short, you do have evidence, but you refuse to acknowledge it.
Bob Greenyer suggest that any theory that will gain acceptance would have to leave out the weird stuff. He maybe right.
Are we supposed to forget the "Red Pill is Coming" video from Bob Himself around a year ago.
Did you ever see that one ?
1. The Qx, now rated at 1 kW, that has been tested for a year and develped into an industrial rector\. A video of it supplying heat to a real customer and an example of the non working reactor will be shown early in 2019.
2. The SK10, which is the same size as the QX but with a higher output thanks to a novel heat exchanger. It is running under test but not yet ready for commercialization.
3. The SK, that is ten times larger and rated at 100 kW. It too is running under test and has been used to power a gas turbine. It is still very much a prototype and not yet ready for commercialization.
4. He is building a highly automated factory to produce the QS and the SKs if they pan out, including the electronics for the controllers.
The critics here maintain t these are all lies, but have no evidence to back this claim. Their argument is entirely based on the Doral test, taking IH's claims as gospel together with fake news. These claims have been repeated 100 times without converting anybody in recent times, so it does not seem sensible to repeat them the 101th time.
Ad homs attacking Rossi or his supporters add nothing but noise.
Adrian. It is helpful that you marshall your arguments in this way. I'm going to explain where you are wrong
[They have no evidnece to back their claim] See below where I describe evidence for each point in turn.
A. The critics here maintain t these are all lies
No, this critic at least does not maintain those 1,2,3,4 are all lies. You have little (no?) evidence they are true, but in any case it is cast iron certain that Rossi pretends to have serious validation for his devices by lying. The Doral "customer" was an example of this almost identical to 1. If you believed the RossiSays about a customer this would be a PR magnificence (Rossi's words) and also genuine evidence that Rossi's stuff was working. Why therefore you do assume that 1,2,3,4 => Rossi's stuff works? Rossi has very recent form in this area.
So your argument falls at its first (incorrect) assumption. That 1,2,3,4, from RossiSays and some fakable external evidence, make it likely that Rossi has what he claims.
B. Their argument is entirely based on the Doral test, taking IH's claims as gospel together with fake news.
This is incorrect. Critics here do not take IH claims as gospel. Rather, we rely on the high quality (because under oath and to be tested in Court) deposition evidence, from both Rossi and IH. The previous point, which demolishes your first assumption, comes entirely from Rossi and third party depositions and contemporaneous e-mails. Also, many of the arguments here come from other evidence, such as the Lugano test setup proven to deliver false positives of the same magnitude as the claimed effect (and having the same "acceleration" charactersitics).
C. Ad homs attacking Rossi or his supporters add nothing but noise. Let us consider what is an ad hom:
From wikipedia on ad hominem:
QuoteDisplay MoreAd hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] The terms ad mulierem[3] and ad feminam[4] have been used when the person receiving the criticism is a woman.
Non-fallacious reasoning
When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.[10]
Criticism as a fallacy
Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[11] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.
The attacks on Rossi here have been provable statements that:
(1) He repeatedly lies about his e-cat operations and tests
(2) He has a history of making grandiose technical claims that are not even remotely satisfied. Thus, the high performance TEG: no high performance TEG ever emerged from this, even as a prototype. Petroldragon: no commercial scale processing was ever done, and lakes of unprocessed oil accumulated.
(3) He was imprisoned for criminal tax evasion
Now, (2) is historical and therefore less relevant, and also less certain. Maybe Rossi's excuses for these two enterprizes have some merit. (3), given this was Italy, is also less certain. Still to be imprisoned is a serious matter and this speaks to a pattern of lying about matters relating to government regulation that we have seen in his e-cat work. For example, Rossi claimed that his Florida factory had no nuclear devices (to the Florida NRA). (1) However is what we on this thread have been reminding you about, it is directly relevant, and since the only evidence for Rossi having what he claims is RossiSays it is an example of non-fallacious reasoning to argue from evidence that Rossi lies about his e-cats to supposing that he does not now have working product.
Finally there is the "blinding obvious to all here except you and Sam" elephant in the room. Had Rossi what he claims, he could either sell if for $100M +, keeping lots of involvement, or publicise the science for a Nobel Prize possibility (which BTW he has shown he strongly covets) or both. That has been the case for 5 ears or more. It has not happened, and after so much time the only explanation that makes sense is that Rossi does not have what he claims. The RossiSays evidence, in the form of claimed tests, is now LESS GOOD than it was at the start. With less clear measurement at tests. So looked at as a historical progression it is pretty clear where Rossi is not going.
In summary: I've given a detailed rebuttal to each of your substantive points above A,B,C. In addition I've noted the error in your implicit assumption: 1,2,3,4 => Rossi has working product. Finally I've noted the "elephant in the room" argument which you ignore and which makes it difficult for anyone but you to take this thread seriously. Though, as you can see, in this post I'm making a herculean effort to do that.
What evidence would you need to prove that the QX is what Rossi says it is?
Would a Outside testing of the QX suffice
if they showed positive results?
Yes, any independent and competent external test of any Rossi device with the claimed results (positive far beyond any possible error). It is very notable that Rossi has never allowed such a test except by IH, where the devices failed independent testing, though many have offered to do it.
Would success in the market place with
the QX be proof that the QX works?
Yes, if bought as a heating device shown to work, rather than something for hobbyists to play with and hope works. Easy to distinguish the two but some vapourware companies have sold kits for experimenters (I'm not here talking about Alan's efforts) and even if they make good money doing that it offers no validation of anything working.
Sam, never mind proof. What evidence do you have that the QX works? I am not asking for proof. I am asking for evidence. Pretend you are an adult and answer the question.
What evidence do you have that the QX does not work?
1. His claims are impossible.
With proof like that, the debate is over. We can all go home now.
Never knew yo had added nuclear physics to your skill of mind reading.
What evidence do you have that the QX does not work?
The same evidence I have that there are no leprechauns, Yetis, and vampires. No definitive proof but good enough for me. Apparently, you need to keep studying your 6th grade science. Actually, your 1st grade knowledge of the world. But you won't do that. It might ruin your day realizing that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny don't exist. Instead, I recommend you join a group that believes in pink flying unicorns. There is no evidence that they don't exist.
It is laughable that AA complains that people have not proof that X does not exist or does not work when he offers no evidence that X even exists in reality and offers no evidence that it work.
If AA wants people to accept his claims then it is for him to offer evidence, data, ... and then defend the evidence instead of attacking others.
I am even still waiting AA's proof that IH's patent he cited shows where IH did the testing and research on a working cell and not referring to just research in the LENR field in general as showing other systems were tested by others to show an LENR effect.
AA- where is the evidence of all these claims of Rossi's current working device. Is it just Rossi says on some blog without data or confirmation by verifiable researchers? But I expect you will never show any evidence your history shows you will not do so.
QuoteIt is very notable that Rossi has never allowed such a test except by IH, where the devices failed independent testing, though many have offered to do it.
Rossi has only allowed testing where he assumed the restrictions he imposed and the trickery he employed would not be detected because 1) the testers were not sharp and critical enough and 2) the testers were too afraid to be excluded in future tests if they were more critical or skeptical. In other words, Rossi only allowed people to be involved in testing if he thought he could fool them. He was pretty good at that sort of selection and setup. It worked fine on some of the Swedish folks who examined his claims. It worked until he foolishly contracted to a long test with a company who had invested millions of dollars in him. And yet, even then, he managed to keep up the charade for a year! Hail to Rossi!
So your argument falls at its first (incorrect) assumption. That 1,2,3,4, from RossiSays and some fakable external evidence, make it likely that Rossi has what he claims.
How can I be wrong? I simply reported what Rossi claims. Did I misquote him?
The evidence for them is that they are what Rossi says, and he is in a better position than anybody else to know. They can't be verified without further evidence.
You say they are lies based on his previous behavior but have no proof that they are. You then take advantage of the opportunity to repeat your claims for the 101th time.
Rossi has made enough money to retire. Why would he work the long hours that he apparently does and risk being discovered cheating on something that doesn't work? Who is he defrauding? It seems more likely that he has discovered something that is important enough to drive him. Please don't reply with the 102th time.
Adrian appears to have a complete misunderstanding of how liars and con men operate. In fact, they almost never have "enough" and you can not believe any of the lies they tell. For example, unless you follow him around all the time, you can have no idea of how many hours Rossi works. There is no reason to believe him when he tells you because he is a proven liar. Adrian seems to lack an understanding of prediction and continuity when it involves liars-- the sort of understand that allows most folks to realize, once they reach the age of 12, that liars keep on lying. What Rossi says is no more evidence for what really is true than what Bernie Madoff said before he was caught, for example.
How can I be wrong? I simply reported what Rossi claims. Did I misquote him?
(1) You are wrong because you believe extravagant RossiSays, when given the history no normal person would.
(2) You infer from Rossi claims 1,2,3,4 (supposing they are true) that Rossi has working product. That might be true for most people but Rossi has a long history of making similar claims without working product. Fake customers, fake industrial processes, fake requests for invoices, etc, etc.
Remember those pink unicorns?
AA: The evidence for them is that they are what Rossi says, and he is in a better position than anybody else to know.
OK, I can't resist this addition.
Rossi is on record as making repeated statements about how to test his stuff (to see if it works) that are just plain technically wrong, and obviously so. Using average meters to determine power of spiky signals, never conducting control tests, etc.
Rossi is quite consistent, his tests over the years have embodied these mistakes and not surprisingly therefore given false results.
Therefore Rossi is actually in a worse position than any half-way competent technical person to know whether his stuff works. That is if he is not lying through his teeth about the whole thing.
AA: do you need me to remind you of the recorded specifics here?
This public lack of technical capability was always for me the one guiding truth in the Rossi affair, even before the plentiful info from the IH Court case.
Advice for the ages: believe anything a liar says because the liar is a better position to know whether what he says is the truth than anyone else.
That may qualify as the most inane piece of reasoning ever uttered outside of an Ionesco play.
QuoteThat is if he is not lying through his teeth about the whole thing.
"If?" Seriously?
