Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Any large company would be interested in cutting energy costs by 20%

That is incorrect. The people at Hydrodynamics supply heat to carpet makers in Georgia. The carpet makers can save 20% by various means, but they have other priorities that matter more. (Which Hydrodynamics can meet.) Cost is not always the first priority, and 20% savings in energy is not necessarily important. Also, would that be 20% off of gas heating, coal, solar or electricity? At what temperatures, for what purpose? Reliability, speed, safety and many other factors might trump cost.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

It is not as difficult as Jed makes out to get approval in an industrial setting.

For a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles? Are you serious? (Silly question. Of course you are.) If a 40 MW nuclear reactor went out of control, the entire city would have be evacuated. There has not been a single safety study or even a verification of this claim. The notion that the authorities would allow it is utterly preposterous. Utterly unthinkable.

Any authority who allowed this would end up serving a long sentence in prison for many reasons, not least endangering the public. He wouldn't be reprimanded or fired, he would be arrested. As I said, this would be like surreptitiously allowing regular passenger planes to fly without pilots, as drones. The difference is, drone technology exists and it would probably work for large airplanes, whereas every test done by Rossi was a fraud.

The whole idea that Rossi will sell any reactors, at any power level, for practical purposes is an outrageous lie. You don't see that, but anyone with an ounce of common sense will see it. At most he could sell a few small reactors to laboratories for testing, evaluation, verification and safety testing. By "small" I mean 100 W. I.H. allowed what was claimed to be a 1 MW reactor. I find that deeply disturbing, as I did at the time. It was irresponsible. Fortunately -- or unfortunately perhaps -- by the time the 1-year Doral test began they were 99% certain the reactor did not work. It was a last ditch effort, as I.H. said in the documents that you refuse to look at.

Quote from sam12

Well that is not the way it looks to me.

I think you are good at pointing out issues

about Rossi and his technology.

Sam, anyone with a junior high school knowledge of science and a lick of common sense would be good at pointing out issues about Rossi and his technology.

Quote from JedRothwell

That is incorrect. The people at Hydrodynamics supply heat to carpet makers in Georgia. The carpet makers can save 20% by various means, but they have other priorities that matter more. (Which Hydrodynamics can meet.) Cost is not always the first priority, and 20% savings in energy is not necessarily important. Also, would that be 20% off of gas heating, coal, solar or electricity? At what temperatures, for what purpose? Reliability, speed, safety and many other factors might trump cost.

For a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles? Are you serious? (Silly question. Of course you are.) If a 40 MW nuclear reactor went out of control, the entire city would have be evacuated. There has not been a single safety study or even a verification of this claim. The notion that the authorities would allow it is utterly preposterous. Utterly unthinkable.

Any authority who allowed this would end up serving a long sentence in prison for many reasons, not least endangering the public. He wouldn't be reprimanded or fired, he would be arrested. As I said, this would be like surreptitiously allowing regular passenger planes to fly without pilots, as drones. The difference is, drone technology exists and it would probably work for large airplanes, whereas every test done by Rossi was a fraud.

The whole idea that Rossi will sell any reactors, at any power level, for practical purposes is an outrageous lie. You don't see that, but anyone with an ounce of common sense will see it. At most he could sell a few small reactors to laboratories for testing, evaluation, verification and safety testing. By "small" I mean 100 W. I.H. allowed what was claimed to be a 1 MW reactor. I find that deeply disturbing, as I did at the time. It was irresponsible. Fortunately -- or unfortunately perhaps -- by the time the 1-year Doral test began they were 99% certain the reactor did not work. It was a last ditch effort, as I.H. said in the documents that you refuse to look at.

Display More

Jed,

You’re forgetting “Rossi says”

So it’s okay

Oh No! People here are starting to make the same mistake as on ECW. Take some ridiculous Rossi claim and project it to it's logical/illogical conclusion. The whole "plan" is nonsense and no further economic analysis is worthwhile. It reminds me of the threads where Rossi mentions food, then suddenly everyone is speculating which major food company. Or he mentions robots and ABB is suddenly his partner. Or even here, not Rossi related, when the "O day" hype was being promulgated on ECW and a thread here was created, "What does O day stand for".

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

A few corrections:

1. The babbler talking about Rossi posting questions on ECW doesn't know what he's talking about. Rossi doesn't post on ECW. I suppose he has never seen Rossi's blog.

Adrian, since you told us you are suffering from AMD, I will forgive your misinterpretation. As everybody here can clearly read, I was writing that Sam12 simply copies posts from Rossi’s JONP on ECW. I am reading once in a while JONP just to see what hilarious bullshit will come next from Rossi. And Sam12 is one of the very active copier of that BS on ECW.

I was searching on Rossi’s entire JONP all the way back e.g. for Rossi posting on sold MW plants and satisfied customers and found around hundred hits in the years from 2011...today. You should do such an exercise to open your eyes, but you refuse to do so since you are here. You as a native American (I guess) should easy recognize when 6...7 out of 10 posters write and ask questions in the same language and grammatical style as Rossi answers. Seems there are mostly italo-English followers on his blog, with the same problems to use proper English. I can recognize this despite my mother tongue is German. Simply by reading his posts for quite some time (since 2012). As a technically skilled person to me his heat, steam, nuclear, business and other fantasies are hilarious and meanwhile I am convinced that you probably lost your own technical and engineering expertise and analytic skills, you were helping with other companies in the past. I have no other explanation for your strong support of Rossi’s claims, unfortunately.

Andrea Rossi
August 14, 2018 at 5:44 PM

Abe Vincent:

It will be a magnificence as I can see it inside my brain. Pure Art of technology and a window with the view of the sun of the future. My life has been a series of failures and errors and resiliency, but if all the enormous work for which I spent my life will have as a result this plant, my life will have been worth to be spent.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Rossi can't be all bad...Eh?

I would love to see LENR in reality happen, for sure, and I will admit that I was wrong about Rossi all these years, and I promise to also eat my hat or my shoe as mentioned by another poster here, if this plant will be installed, goes up and running, the 1st customer will certify it works (the promised savings are known and measurable, the ratio / COP energy in vs out is clearly verified and confirmed by an "indipendent" party, it is made public (e.g. by the customer or a big news / TV company). This would be good enought for me to trust and believe what Rossi claims.

But I do expect the same old story with secrecy, NDA, IP proetction and other excuses we all know about since Rossi is manufacturing and selling E-Cats out of his robotized factories. We will see...

Couldn't resist to also C&P some stuff from JONP...

Rossi contradicts himself every other day. Or he is simply unable to do basic math (as we have seen with his Kelvin-Celsius calculation)....one day the price for his heat remains, the next day it increases...what remains is the 80% vs conventional costs, but not the amount of money the customer has to pay.

Luckily his upcoming customer is not aware of this - or does he potentially check this out on JONP?...

1. Frank Acland August 14, 2018 at 5:35 PM

   Dear Andrea,

   You have described an interesting pricing strategy. May I ask about a hypothetical example:

   A customer contracts with Leonardo to buy heat with a 5 year contract. They currently pay 100 for natural gas, and agree to pay 80 for E-Cat heat.

   Year 1-3: Natural gas is 100 in the marketplace, E-Cat heat is 80 (as agreed in the contract)

   Year 4: Natural gas is 120 in the marketplace, E-cat heat is ?

   Year 5: Natural gas is 90 in the marketplace, E-cat heat is ?

   Obviously this example is very simplified, thank you if you can answer.

   Kind regards,

   Frank Acland

2. Translate Andrea Rossi August 15, 2018 at 3:09 AM

   Frank Acland:

   Year 4 – 80% of 120

   Year 5 – 80% of 90

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

1. Frank Acland August 14, 2018 at 6:57 AM

   Dear Andrea,

   When you say that the cost of E-Cat heat will be “indexed with the variation of the market price”, do you mean:

   1. That it will always be 20 per cent less expensive than whatever the customer would normally use (e.g. natural gas)?

   2. That if the price of (for example) natural gas rises, the cost of E-Cat heat will also rise?

   Many thanks,

   Frank Acland

2. Translate Andrea Rossi August 14, 2018 at 8:58 AM

   Frank Acland:

   1- yes

   2- no

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Oh No! People here are starting to make the same mistake as on ECW. Take some ridiculous Rossi claim and project it to it's logical/illogical conclusion. The whole "plan" is nonsense and no further economic analysis is worthwhile. It reminds me of the threads where Rossi mentions food, then suddenly everyone is speculating which major food company. Or he mentions robots and ABB is suddenly his partner. Or even here, not Rossi related, when the "O day" hype was being promulgated on ECW and a thread here was created, "What does O day stand for".

Yes, interesting point (on the psychology of Rossi's fans).

Rossi makes claims which are preposterous in many, many different ways. All these different ways get commented upon.

However, Rossi fans will look at the comments, ignore criticisms that are solid, and pick the (probably true but unprovable) criticisms, so controlling the debate.

It appears that there is actually a genuine debate about whether Rossi's stuff might work, whereas in reality it is a genuine debate about whether one of the (less convincing) reasons for it not working is in fact correct.

THH

Quote from zorud

Couldn't resist to also C&P some stuff from JONP...

Rossi contradicts himself every other day. Or he is simply unable to do basic math (as we have seen with his Kelvin-Celsius calculation)....one day the price for his heat remains, the next day it increases...what remains is the 80% vs conventional costs, but not the amount of money the customer has to pay.

Luckily his upcoming customer is not aware of this - or does he potentially check this out on JONP?...

1. Frank Acland August 14, 2018 at 5:35 PM

   Dear Andrea,

   You have described an interesting pricing strategy. May I ask about a hypothetical example:

   A customer contracts with Leonardo to buy heat with a 5 year contract. They currently pay 100 for natural gas, and agree to pay 80 for E-Cat heat.

   Year 1-3: Natural gas is 100 in the marketplace, E-Cat heat is 80 (as agreed in the contract)

   Year 4: Natural gas is 120 in the marketplace, E-cat heat is ?

   Year 5: Natural gas is 90 in the marketplace, E-cat heat is ?

   Obviously this example is very simplified, thank you if you can answer.

   Kind regards,

   Frank Acland

2. Translate Andrea Rossi August 15, 2018 at 3:09 AM

   Frank Acland:

   Year 4 – 80% of 120

   Year 5 – 80% of 90

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

1. Frank Acland August 14, 2018 at 6:57 AM

   Dear Andrea,

   When you say that the cost of E-Cat heat will be “indexed with the variation of the market price”, do you mean:

   1. That it will always be 20 per cent less expensive than whatever the customer would normally use (e.g. natural gas)?

   2. That if the price of (for example) natural gas rises, the cost of E-Cat heat will also rise?

   Many thanks,

   Frank Acland

2. Translate Andrea Rossi August 14, 2018 at 8:58 AM

   Frank Acland:

   1- yes

   2- no

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

Display More

So - this is an example of my above post, where discussing the economics of Rossi fables somehow might be seen to validate the fable.

Nevertheless it is fun to do this because it shows at every level how absurd Rossi's comments are.

In this case the pricing model is sort of interesting because - extraordinarily - Rossi will expect customers to contract for a fixed maximum power draw (say 40MW) and then pay 80% of the going rate for 40MW of power throughout the contract whatever their power demand actually is.

No-one has fixed power requirements: at very least there is down time. So it is unclear to me that any typical users of power would actually benefit from this. The rate used for comparison is for power drawn on demand, and much higher than the real cost of fixed rate power.

That Rossi is inconsistent about this does not matter, because the whole 40MW power fantasy is a paper exercise to energise Rossi and his followers thinking about something other than the non-working e-cats.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Oh No! People here are starting to make the same mistake as on ECW.

...and a thread here was created, "What does O day stand for".

The mistake is going on ECW in the first place. Have you really got nothing better to do? ”Saaad...”

PS. The O-day question is a valid one - and I still haven’t received a good answer!

Quote from Director

You are a great example of our currently risk adverse society.

Not me. This is how society is. The public demands safety. It will not allow Rossi to operate a 40 MW nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles and that has not been extensively tested for safety by many experts, and certified safe. This is the 21st century, not 1600.

I agree with the need for testing. Frankly, if you would allow Rossi to operate such a large machine without safety testing, I think you are crazy.

Certification and safety checks are not new. We have always been risk-adverse, for good reasons. A barn built in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in 1790 had to meet building codes, or the builder would lose his license. (I happen to know about this in some detail because I own the barn, and it had to be repaired.) In the 19th century, boilers and other heavy equipment required certification and periodic inspection and testing.

Quote from Director

I don't think all of these are total lies. Actually, although I desire for third party tests for further verification, I think the QX probably works. However, we have to look at Rossi's track record when it comes timetables, exaggerations, and the telling of faslehoods. Basically, Rossi's above statements should be taken cautiously. I don't doubt for a moment that Rossi desires to build such a factory to build these units and that they probably produce some level of excess energy (virtually all plasma-spheromak generators do). But we have no evidence he has the resources or backing or partners to accomplish any of the above within the time frame he provides. Also, without third parties performing their own testing and reporting results, we really can't verify these units produce the COP or total output he claims. However, I think there is reason to be hopeful that eventually he will release more information and perhaps find some sort of partner. But I think any such partner would want extreme verification of the tech after what happened at

Quote from axil

Andrea Rossi
August 14, 2018 at 5:44 PM

Abe Vincent:

It will be a magnificence as I can see it inside my brain. Pure Art of technology and a window with the view of the sun of the future. My life has been a series of failures and errors and resiliency, but if all the enormous work for which I spent my life will have as a result this plant, my life will have been worth to be spent.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Rossi can't be all bad...Eh?

Display More

Axil,

This is typical from Rossi.

He references nothing, all philosophical, flowery, rainbows and unicorns poetic subjective bs.

Energy In > Energy Out? Nothing

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

AA. Any large company would be interested in cutting energy costs by 20%

Any company will do projects that have an ROI (return on investment) of >40% Rossi's proposal has a higher ROI than that.

It doesn't look like you have any industrial experience and don't understand how corporations work.

AA. It is not as difficult as Jed makes out to get approval in an industrial setting

Comparing cold fusion to conventional fission and fusion is silly. It is the sort of thing daft environmentalists might do.

I have built glass melting furnaces that hold hundreds of tone f molten glass @ ~1550C. They sometimes leak molten glass near the end of a campaign. They don't come with a UL sticker. The only thing the government was interested in was the amount emissions to the air.

How do yo u think LENR will compare in that regard?

D o you really think a bunch of tiny cold fusion reactors are more dangerous that a glass furnace the size of a house?

Display More

Oh I dunno,

Gas/electric furnaces are completely understood, have been functioning safely for years.

I would wager that the vast majority of components used in these furnaces do in fact have UL/CSA safety labels and have been thoroughly tested and vetted in their applications.

A supposedly unknown and never before witnesses remotely controlled nuclear heating reaction by an Italian philosopher of questionable reputation?

Yeah Adrian, I do think the local AHJ will have a lot to say before anything gets installed and turned on, specifically,

“Absolutely no”.

@Director

Quote

I don't think all of these are total lies.

Why not? What major proven success at anything has Rossi ever had to persuade you he has ever told the truth about any technological claims?

AA:

Any company will do projects that have an ROI (return on investment) of >40% Rossi's proposal has a higher ROI than that.

It doesn't look like you have any industrial experience and don't understand how corporations work.

This proposal is essentially a fixed term commitment to buy power at a fixed price for a year in the future regardless of what is used. The purchase price cost is 80% of other methods (we are told). Apparent 20% savings.

So if we consider this as an investment it is an up-front contracted outlay of the whole (say 1 year) cost, with a return on this of 20% only if the contracted power is used 100% of the time.

If the power usage is unknown; for example there is the possibility of the factory scaling down production for periods due to changing demand the return is less than 20% and could even be negative.

Of course there is the very significant (around 100%) investment risk that Rossi is given the up-front money and for one reason or another the promised power does not materialise. Given Rossi's Florida residence and tangled web of companies the chnaces of extracting money from a Rossi company defaulting on a contract are probably low.

AA. It is not as difficult as Jed makes out to get approval in an industrial setting

JedRothwell wrote:

For a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles? Are you serious?

AA. Comparing cold fusion to conventional fission and fusion is silly. It is the sort of thing daft environmentalists might do.

Do you really think a bunch of tiny cold fusion reactors are more dangerous that a glass furnace the size of a house?

The answer must be, of course, I DON'T KNOW. It is impossible for this to be known when 'cold fusion reactors' of the type Rossi claims have never been characterised nor have any well understood theory of operation, but ARE supposed to engender nuclear reactions.

No regulatory body in the universe could certify such a completely new and unknown, but billed as doing nuclear reactions, device safe without enormous amounts of work. The question has never come up - because no-one has given a regulatory body a working LENR reactor to certify. Should such a device generate 40MW you can be 100% sure that this question would become big news (as well as the reality of essentially free power).