Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    • Official Post

    Ascoli,


    I will see if I can get a list of all those Alan is referring to. Then we can post their names here and embarrass them. :) Really, think of what you are asking for. You have already rooted out everyone who had a hand in the early Rossi testing, and now want to find out their colleagues "who believe in their reliability". Then you want to expose, and shame them for their role in giving Rossi the credibility he needed to scam an unsuspecting public.

    And the Reputation Trap is not a "meme", as you are proving with this witch hunt of yours. They *will* risk their reputations if they publicly state their belief Rossi has something, and my guess is that it would be you leading the charge.


    Even if I knew who exactly Alan is talking about (and I do not), I would not tell you. They have a right to their private opinions of Rossi.

    Quote

    I would also like to be interested how Rossi is measuring and managing his claimed temperature of ca. 20.000K in his little tiny tube filled with his secret recipe. To me another scientific mircale, as well as his newly invented high-tech materials that can withstand such a plasma temperature. The energy density must be enormous looking the volume and temperature, assuming that the reactor is not a high-pressurized closed cylinder, since he need to manage the secret sauce consumption

    Easy. The specs are all in the Home Depot garden department catalog.

    Shane,

    A couple of things to think about with your above logic.


    First I have to agree with Ascoli, that if scientist "X" is parlaying support for Rossi because scientist "Y" witnessed a Rossi controlled test (the only kind there ever has been remember! Even Lugano was conducted by Rossi and Fabiani with the profs only "dropping in" some unknown number of times) then they have nothing. Therefore, I stand by my statement that they do not really believe. They remain silent, because unlike AA, their character is that they will not put up a bunch of hand waiving, smoke screens and avoid the real questions IF someone asks them to give facts/data why they believe Rossi. All they can do is (as a certain person here states), "I know scientists that know scientist than have seen some unspecified demo, with unspecified data that convinced the unknown scientist that the eCat works." In reality, they have nothing, just like AA. But they keep silent because they realize "nothing + nothing = nothing". So rightfully, they keep silent and I do not blame them. Otherwise their reputation would indeed be damaged and become like AA's here.


    The so called second group, scientist that have actually seen a non-Rossi controlled demo/test, is not existent in my opinion. Rossi would never let that happen. So that leave the likes of Penon, Lewan and people like AA would broadcast support regardless of what the real facts are. Some people, such as Sam12 will consume their fodder without question. Again, they have absolutely nothing to base their belief on.


    This leaves the last group, which I assume Alan is referring to. Scientist that have seen a Rossi controlled demo, saw data from a Rossi controlled demo or simply believed Rossi's stories. Theses people, such as Peter Gluck, can be taken in by charismatics, blinded by the desire for the story to be true or simply have faith in mankind and have a hard time believing someone would out and out lie and conduct such an obvious fraud. So it must be true. Mr. Gluck is a prime example. An extremely well intentioned man, dedicated a lot of time to LENR, believes in people in general and has a boat load of redeeming qualities. I admire him, I truly do in many ways. That does not mean he is incapable of being deceived by Rossi. Probably the same of Focardi.


    Then we have our own Alan. He is qualified and experienced. He saw a Rossi controlled demo first hand. Yet he refuses to give an assessment or report on it. Why? Because he is of high character and he would only report the truth. He does not want to report the demo was a sham, so he stays silent. A.A then takes his silence as an endorsement of the demo! This is how the "many scientist meme" gets started. AA can now say that he knows a respected and qualified scientist who witnessed a Rossi test and believes Rossi has a working reactor! I jest not and that is why I pester Alan about giving an open report on the Nov. demo! Alan stays quiet on the Nov. demo because he knows it was a sham. If it was not a sham, he would report on it! He does not fear a reputation trap as such.


    So I therefore restate my position... if an experienced and capable scientist has conducted a proper experiment, took part in a proper experiment, has the data, has the facts, he WOULD NOT fear the "reputation trap". He would have the ammunition to become a history maker! But none of these people are doing this is clear and evident. So that means they do NOT believe the reasoning behind their belief is as strong or sustainable as Rossi being a fraud. They do not come forward because they lack any solid data, only have AA type misguided beliefs or desires.


    If they had facts and data they would come forth. They stay hidden, so by their actions their faith in their data / facts is not as strong as their skepticism of Rossi.

    Remember, there is NO one who is openly supporting Rossi now, that has any credibility at all! NONE! Rossi's OWN proven lies, actions and false claims are indisputable.


    This tells the story plain and clear.

    • Official Post

    @Bob On the topic of the Stockholm Demo and my opinion of it you are veering towards telling porkies. I have said to you directly quite a few times in response to your often repeated demands 'it was just a demo, not proof of anything;' yet still you seem to want more. I'm afraid if you keep badgering by asking the same question and expecting a different answer you are going to be re-labelled (by me) as merely a troll, when you could be better than that. And we all know where trolls end up.

    Great minds think alike,

    But you were always better at putting it into words,


    Thanks uncle Bob

    Quote from Alan Smith

    @Bob On the topic of the Stockholm Demo and my opinion of it you are veering towards telling porkies. I have said to you directly quite a few times in response to your often repeated demands 'it was just a demo, not proof of anything;' yet still you seem to want more. I'm afraid if you keep badgering by asking the same question and expecting a different answer you are going to be re-labelled (by me) as merely a troll, when you could be better than that. And we all know where trolls end up.

    Alan,


    If it was only a demo, knowing that it

    was not, could not and probably would not prove a thing, why did you waste the time and go?

    There must be something driving your curiosity here, no?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    If your position is that you want to believe Rossi regardless of evidence that is fine. You mislead readers when you post:

    Why do you make things up? Where have I said somethingoither than the QX requires further measurements to prove that it works?


    I said I don't know what the resistance is , that 1 ohm looks reasonable and that this what it is according to the man that knows.


    You want to prove he is a liar, but you don't know the resistance either. To compare the QX with a 2' fluorescent tube is ludicrous.

    News to me that a fluorescent tube is a lenr reaction & runs at 20,00K with a wall temperature of >2600C. So far my house has not burnt down.


    If you don't believe there is a possibility of a lenr reaction going on, why are you even discussing it? You can't know without more data.


    edited typo

    “It was just a demo”...


    Again a nosense sentence, a demo that it doesn’t demonstrate anything.

    It seems at same level of those babblers at Far West time.




    Quote from Shane D.

    Really, think of what you are asking for. You have already rooted out everyone who had a hand in the early Rossi testing, and now want to find out their colleagues "who believe in their reliability".


    Shane, you are wrong, sorry. I'm not asking for those names. Knowing the names of the scientists in the second group, the endorsers, has no use. The only names that must be known are those of the scientists of the first group, the direct witnesses, and they are already known.


    Quote

    Then you want to expose, and shame them …


    No, it's not my purpose. I don't care about the individual scientists who misrepresented the data from the Ecat tests. IMO, the main responsibilities lie upon the scientific Institutions to which they belong, for not having officially and publicly disavowed these false statements.


    Quote

    … for their role in giving Rossi the credibility he needed to scam an unsuspecting public.


    As you know, I don't think this is a Rossi's scam, and the impressive article that professor Price dedicated to this incredible endeavor goes in this direction.


    Quote

    And the Reputation Trap is not a "meme"...


    Why not? This concept has been widely used in the LENR community after the issuing of the Price article, in order to justify the lack of interest of the mainstream scientific community towards their field..


    Quote

    … as you are proving with this witch hunt of yours.


    Come on, Shane. You are a careful reader of my comments. You know that my purpose is to reconstruct the facts on the basis of the infos available on internet. These facts necessarily entail the people who made them.


    I'm just doing since the beginning what Price recommended to his readers for not being affected by the symptoms of the reputation trap. He wrote "At last I can explain what I meant earlier, when I asked you to hold on to the thought that I must be a bit flaky myself, if that was your reaction to my willingness to take cold fusion seriously. If you do think that – at least, if you think it without having studied the evidence for yourself – then your reaction is a symptom of the reputation trap." [bold added]


    Well, I did study the evidence for myself, so I can think that he is either a lot flaky, ... or very artful.


    Quote

    They *will* risk their reputations if they publicly state their belief Rossi has something, and my guess is that it would be you leading the charge.


    Are you serious? If it's me who leads the charge, they don't risk anything. Do you really think that people like Huw Price (the Bertrand Russell Professor in the Cambridge Faculty of Philosophy), or his fellow Brian Josephson (the youngest Nobel laureate in Physics) should be worried about a nobody that can barely write in English?


    Quote

    Even if I knew who exactly Alan is talking about (and I do not), I would not tell you. They have a right to their private opinions of Rossi.


    I agree, and don't ask for their names. Those who need to be known, already presented themselves as supporters or believers in the Ecat.


    Let me repeat what my position is. The "many scientists who still believe Rossi" can be subdivided in two groups: the first group includes those who wrongly reported that the Ecat produced excess heat, the second group includes those who wrongly deem that those in the first group are reliable. No need to know who these last are.

    Quote from Bob

    First I have to agree with Ascoli, that if scientist "X" is parlaying support for Rossi because scientist "Y" witnessed a Rossi controlled test (the only kind there ever has been remember! Even Lugano was conducted by Rossi and Fabiani with the profs only "dropping in" some unknown number of times) then they have nothing. [...]


    The so called second group, scientist that have actually seen a non-Rossi controlled demo/test, is not existent in my opinion. Rossi would never let that happen.


    Thanks for agreeing with me, but you probably didn't read my comments carefully, or they were not quite understandable.


    Leaving aside that you switched the two groups of scientists, making it more difficult for the readers to make a comparison with what I said, you - as most people here – continue to explain the misrepresentation of the experimental data reported by the scientists involved in the various Ecat tests with the presence of Rossi. This is not my position. What happened in the Ecat tests carried out in 2011 clearly shows that the responsibility of the data released by the academics depends entirely on them.


    Anyway, I fully agree with you when you say that the risk of reputation trap can't be invoked by any responsible scientist in order to avoid to publicly manifest his belief in the Ecat performances, if he really deem that these performances are real.

    • Official Post

    Bob ,

    Quote from Ascoli65

    Let me repeat what my position is. The "many scientists who still believe Rossi" can be subdivided in two groups: the first group includes those who wrongly reported that the Ecat produced excess heat, the second group includes those who wrongly deem that those in the first group are reliable. No need to know who these last are.


    Ascoli,


    Thank you for clarifying your position. Those in your second category are probably breathing a sigh of relief now. :)


    I really do not know how many categories we can cram them into, but one particular category no one has mentioned yet, is the Dogbone replicator community. Rossi is the one who inspired the movement, with the likes of MFMP, Parkhomov, Songsheng, and LFH taking up the challenge to replicate. It is almost like a cottage industry of garage tinkerers, and most are anonymous. Maybe for good reason, as the 2 whom did come forward turned out to have nothing.


    I do not know how many there are in total, but they do talk with each other, and many feel they have seen something. That may make them more sympathetic to the idea Rossi has something. It would also make it easier, and convenient, to ignore how damning to Rossi the Doral court documents are, and maybe even tempt them to place blame on IH instead.


    Other than their own experimental results they feel supports the Dogbone style NiH systems, I do not think they know anything more than we do. If there were conclusive evidence somewhere, we would all have heard about it by now. Rossi would be bragging about it on JONP, and reference it on his Ecat.com website. Probably would have brought it up in the depositions also. The scientists in your Cat 2 would be anonymously posting about it in their defense.

    Shane, with regard to dogbone “replications”: what does that even mean? What is actually known about Rossi’s supposed device apart from what it looks like? The innards and operational principles are a bigger secret than the Manhattan Project. As I understand the concept of replicating a scientific result, it takes more than building something that resembles the original thing when you look at it. So what exactly is this cottage industry actually doing?

    • Official Post
    Quote from interested observer

    Shane, with regard to dogbone “replications”: what does that even mean? What is actually known about Rossi’s supposed device apart from what it looks like? The innards and operational principles are a bigger secret than the Manhattan Project. As I understand the concept of replicating a scientific result, it takes more than building something that resembles the original thing when you look at it. So what exactly is this cottage industry actually doing?


    IO,


    Those were rhetorical questions, so I will let you answer. :)

    Quote from Alan Smith

    @Bob On the topic of the Stockholm Demo and my opinion of it you are veering towards telling porkies. I have said to you directly quite a few times in response to your often repeated demands 'it was just a demo, not proof of anything;' yet still you seem to want more. I'm afraid if you keep badgering by asking the same question and expecting a different answer you are going to be re-labelled (by me) as merely a troll, when you could be better than that. And we all know where trolls end up

    OK, I will try to make this my last post on the subject. YOU state it was "just a demo" but Rossi states it was much more! He gave COP and other numbers. Such that it gives AA the reasoning to give the event as direct "evidence" that the QX workd.


    Now I simply ask is was there ANYTHING about the event that gives ANY credibility?

    You are experienced enough to determine this.


    So to put it as plain as I can, if Johhny5 would have put that very same demo on and made claims of COP > 1, would you simply have said "it was a demo"?


    What I am dwelling on is that Rossi states it was more than a demo and that conclusive facts were presented. You call it a demo and thus allow false faith by others. So that is why I ask for an expert opinion. Was the ohm measurement method valid? Etc. Saying it was a demo and proved nothing is not the same as saying Rossi's claims were unfounded nor even possible.


    Unless you are willing to state that Rossi's claims about the event were reasonable or likely. Otherwise, "it proved nothing" is kin to Rossi saying F8 F9. I.E. I am non-committal.


    Hopefully that clears my intentions. I do not aim to troll. I simply want facts and the truth.


    Thanks.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.