Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Today Rossi gave some details of his plans. Apart from some smaller plants for other customers he is talking to a major customer to provide them with a 40 MW plant.


    He says he has not yet decided whether it will be powered by the QX or the SK (both are about the same size) but hopes it will be the SK. That he has hired an engineer to get planning permission for it in that State. That the customer will save 20% of his present cost. That he expects to start building it this year.


    This should provide fodder for several pages of babble.

  • AA, you claim to be an experienced engineer and believe blindly Rossi’s fictions 40 MW plant installation, where he has no idea yet what kind of reactor he is going to use? He has not even a QX product shown publicly, manufactured,or sold, but wants to use probably new prototype reactors in his latest industry project? What an unbelievable BS. Do you know what this sounds like to me ? - the marvelous QX reactor will be outdated soon and no one will buy this stuff anymore, but everybody will line up for the new toy. Doesn’t that sound familiar?

  • You have a screw loose somewhere if you can't see that what Rossi states is evidence.

    Do you not understand that we don't believe Rossi, because he has lied repeatedly? We think this is not evidence because we think it must be more lies. A lie is not evidence for anything. Obviously, you disagree with us. But it seems you do not even understand the concept that a person who lies repeatedly has no credibility and what he says cannot be trusted.


    I assume you think he can be trusted, which -- I suppose -- means you still believe his previous claims. Correct?

  • I think AA may be right, that there ARE other opinions. There's AA and Sam12's. That's one. There's Axil's. That's undefined. And then there's everybody

    Axil divides by zero on a daily basis.

    There is another set of opinions though, those that might be just too embarrassed to admit they were wrong and try to avoid stating a clear opinion and are hoping for a miracle. Perhaps Mats Lewan and Alan Smith are in that vein?

  • Quote

    I assume you think he can be trusted, which -- I suppose -- means you still believe his previous claims. Correct?


    Believing his previous claims would work but it isn't necessary for believers. They are uniquely able to conceive of a world where Rossi has lied deeply and at length but his latest wonderment is the truth. Look, maybe Rossi lied to prevent loss of IP. Maybe he lied to get a contract. We know he lied to get rid of a nuisance distributor (Whaaaat?!) Maybe he lied because it was Tuesday. Doesn't matter. His latest iterations of reactors are real and they work. Because Rossi says so. And because the nasty pathological skeptics have no proof that it doesn't work!


    Making excuses for lies and/or assuming that there are "alternative facts" is also a current political tactic, some (but not me) might say for both sides.


    With Adrian's logic, all sorts of fanciful things become credible (like the time-worn unicorns, flying pigs, alien abductions, bigfoot, crop circles, black ops against LENR, and so on)


    I could have mentioned alien anal probes but I didn't want to get Zeus all aroused.

  • Look, maybe Rossi lied to prevent loss of IP. Maybe he lied to get a contract. We know he lied to get rid of a nuisance distributor (Whaaaat?!) Maybe he lied because it was Tuesday. Doesn't matter. His latest iterations of reactors are real and they work. Because Rossi says so.

    Good point. That would be a version of Charlie Brown's belief that this time Lucy will not pull away the football. This time it will be different!

  • s_o_20: Believing his previous claims would work but it isn't necessary for believers. They are uniquely able to conceive of a world where Rossi has lied deeply and at length but his latest wonderment is the truth.


    While that is mostly true in fact AA is missing another point. Rossi's claims 1,2,3,4 as cited by AA are typical Rossi PR. They misdirect the hearer into thinking either his stuff works, or Rossi lies. But Rossi is good at this. Even if the claims are true (in the same Rossi twisty way that his claims for a customer for IH were true) they actually do not show Rossi's stuff works. Rossi has done this over and over again in the past with the IH "customer" being a classic example. Rossi is still charismatic and he will be able to get new people on board for a while. Such help becomes amplified by Rossi into long stories of gainful activity.


    Rossi claims of this type are amorphous. A lock-up garage with a scope in it, for Rossi, can be a factory.


    AA is doubly wrong here. He believes the RossiSays. And he thinks that if the RossiSays are true they mean what they would likely mean if anyone else said the same things.


    When pink unicorn spotters tell you they have hired stables to house unicorns you take it with a pinch of salt - even if the hire agreement is real.

  • THH, misdirection-


    Yes, even the items AA says that Rossi says such as

    "...rated at 1 kW, that has been tested"

    "....same size as the QX but with a higher output.."

    "...ten times larger and rated at 100"


    does not address the issue of if the devices produce output heat> input energy.

    I have a device in the bathroom that is ""...rated at 1 kW, that has been tested" - it is an electric room heater.

    I also have another device the same size with higher output.... it is just another higher rated room heater.


    Even if the statements were true, the are not evidence of over unity heat production.

  • I gather A.A. and others do not consider an evaluation of Rossi's credibility to be "evidence." It is not evidence in the same sense that a temperature graph or some other physical, experimental data would be. Perhaps it is less conclusive. Or more subjective, because it is based on our judgement of a personality, and our experience with people. I may be particularly biased against liars because I have been hurt by one, whereas A. A. may have known a liar who finally told the truth one day, so A. A. has more faith in humanity. He feels that a stopped clock is right twice a day. He thinks this time Lucy will not snatch away the football. Yes, that is always possible. Predicting Rossi behavior (or any human behavior) is not as sure as predicting a temperature decline based on Newton's law of cooling.


    However, just because one kind of evidence is less conclusive than another, or somewhat more subjective, it is still evidence. In your daily life, if someone repeatedly beat you up and took your lunch money, you would be crazy to trust that person, or to assume he will not do it again. Because Rossi repeatedly lied and defrauded people in the past, that is a valid reason to assume he is doing it again. It may not be mathematically certain "evidence" in the engineering or scientific sense. It seems A. A. thinks that is the only kind of evidence there is. This is a mistake.


    Sam12's demand that we prove a negative is simpler logical fallacy. You cannot prove a negative. It is always possible this time will be different, and this time Rossi will tell the truth. Sam12 fails to understand you don't need absolute proof to have strong doubts. Pretty good evidence is sufficient. When Rossi lies again and again, that does not prove that he must, absolutely, without fail lie again. Human nature is never perfectly predictable. Rossi is not a robot. The worst liar can reform and begin telling the truth. But that outcome is exceedingly unlikely. Don't bet on it.

  • Well, according to your rules, what you state is evidence as well.

    To be fair to A. A., I think what he has in mind is the conventional, academic science or engineering definition of "evidence." What a researcher reports about the project is considered evidence. For example, the slides in an ICCF21 presentation are "evidence." What you or I think of that those slides is an opinion, or an evaluation. "Professor X says she has achieved average loading of 83% which resulted in excess heat of 0.6 W." That may or may not be true, but it is called "evidence." Whereas if I say, "that's not predicted by McKubre's graph of loading versus heat" that would be an evaluation.


    If a slide from Prof. X is wrong, we assume it is a mistake, not a lie.


    Needless to say, Rossi does not play by the genteel rules of academic science. You cannot compare his outrageous lies, fraud, and pie-in-the-sky claims of invisible heat exchangers to the slides in a conference. That would be ridiculous. So I do not think what he says should count as evidence.

  • Yup. That interpretation of "evidence") is why academics are so easily fooled by con schemes. They are too trusting.


    Of course Rossi's past lies, his extensive old criminal history and his record of never having properly tested the ecat though it is quite simply to do so --- those things are very much evidence. If you doubt it, ask Thomas Darden. Or any of the so-called ecat distributors Rossi mislead and swindled in the last seven years,

  • AA evidence- ? I see where you say that Rossi claims to have a device and have tested a device,

    quoting you:

    "...rated at 1 kW, that has been tested"

    "....same size as the QX but with a higher output.."

    "...ten times larger and rated at 100"


    Makes me wonder what the test was and did it pass or did it fail. From that the test could be anything- perhaps that it weighed less than 100 pounds, or it fall when dropped......


    But I see no evidence that even Rossi claims that the new devices are over unity (that is COP>1).

    He seems to still be avoiding the question about inputs into the device.

    I must have missed any "evidence" to that effect.


    I await your "farther evidence".