Replicating an unknown effect? Certainly that has happened from the days of fire onward. But replicating an unknown apparatus is something else. If showed you a desktop computer and you go build a metal box with lights on it and USB ports, have you replicated the computer?
I don't think that this is what replication means. Replication is reserved for unknown effects.
If you want to copy an unknown device I would ask our chinese friends...
Gruber, perhaps we are having a debate about semantics. but I don't think so. My understanding of the "dog bone replications" is that people are trying to duplicate Rossi's device, not the alleged phenomenon it exploits. So either you have to assert that the physical appearance of the device is instrumental in observing the "Rossi effect", or these people have their own approaches to achieving the effect that just happen to look like Rossi's gadget.
I'll stick with my original assertion. Trying to replicate Rossi's dogbone based on what is known about it is ridiculous whether the thing actually works or not.
QuoteDisplay More
- Frank Acland August 22, 2018 at 7:51 AM
Dear Andrea,
Some questions regarding the long-awaited E-Cat production, thank you if you can answer:
1. Do you have the factory in your possession where the production will take place?
2. Do you have the machinery (hardware and software) in your possession which will make the E-Cats?
3. Do you have the employees selected who can staff the initial production line?
4. Are you waiting for the results of the next round of SK testing before you start production?
5. Will you begin by manufacturing in the USA?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
A guess...
Andrea Says
August 22, 2018 at 7:50 AM
Frank Acland:
1. Confidential
2. Premature
3. Yes
4. No
5. Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
If their results are replicable by anyone Using the same BOM, build instructions, testing procedures and protocols then their results MUST be taken into consideration,
Yes, your point is correct, but begins with a big IF which introduces a condition that until now has never been fulfilled. All the alleged positive results claimed by the CF/LENR researchers – regardless of their status - have never been "replicable by anyone".
Faced with such fleeting results, the only other element that could provide some indication to decide whether they are rubbish or, on the contrary, labile clues of a real phenomenon is the respectability of the proponents, especially if they ask for public money to ascertain the possible existence of a new phenomenon.
This is why the first act of the Rossi's adventure in the LENR field was to contact one of the two academics who first proposed the NiH way to CF, and eventually hire Focardi as his consultant and "respectable" testimonial of the alleged positive performances of his devices.
Therefore, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your following sentence:
QuoteDamn their reputations and institutions.
Huw Price, who teaches Philosophy of Science in one of the world's most prestigious university, emphasized the importance of the reputations of scientists, in writing the most important eulogy of the CF/LENR field in many years (1), which is mostly dedicated to Rossi. In fact, the web page shows a suggestive image of a 1 MW Ecat plant above the text, in which Rossi is cited 23 times, versus the 7 recurrences of Fleischmann. Price did it only because Focardi was a professor "at Bologna, [and] claimed similar effects with nickel and ordinary hydrogen", otherwise he wouldn't have risked his reputation and the ridicule by writing such a surreal paean in favor of the "lone engineer with a somewhat chequered past".
But he is not alone. Many LENR supporters are sensitive to the charm of the academic professorship. Here above, Shane D. wrote: "I absolutely do not "still think the Ecat works". I do think, and have said it many times going back to ECN's, that there is a slight chance Rossi has a small, unreliable effect in the same low power, low COP range others before him (Piantelli), and after (MFMP, SongSheng) have reported."
Leaving aside the Ecat replicators, Shane D. is confident about the effect reported by Piantelli. What is the difference between Rossi and Piantelli? It is the P-factor! Not the P of Piantelli, but the P of Professor. For many LENR believers, Piantelli deserves confidence just because he was a professor, that is, he was a member of a respectable scientific institution (a public University in his case) which is supposed to provide full assurance that its members are scientifically competent, and correct. However, the entire CF/LENR history, and in particular its latest Ecat chapter, has amply demonstrated that this is not the case.
Another example. JR just wrote: "I would not say that Rossi is the source of interest in NiH it so much as Piantelli and Arata, and more recently Takahashi, Mizuno and Beiting." All five people mentioned have (or have had) a recognizable affiliation, but the stress is on the first two, the academics, those with the P-factor, because what they say should be necessarily true.
But also Focardi and his fellows at UniBo had the P-factor, when they misrepresented the experimental data of the Ecat tests performed under their responsibility. Thanks to those tests and to the related documentation made public, we now know that the P-factor doesn't assure any scientific competence or correctness. It is only a seal of old P-rivileges that still holds in the dusk of our industrial era, the privilege to be believed on their own words, thanks to the prestige of the scientific institutions to which they belong.
So, it's really a problem of reputations and institutions. In particular, the problem is that the institutions have not defended their reputation by strongly requiring their members to follow the scientific criteria of correctness and transparency, or at least by officially informing the public about their howler mistakes.
(1) https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-…ossibility-of-cold-fusion
Display MoreYes, your point is correct, but begins with a big IF which introduces a condition that until now has never been fulfilled. All the alleged positive results claimed by the CF/LENR researchers – regardless of their status - have never been "replicable by anyone".
Faced with such fleeting results, the only other element that could provide some indication to decide whether they are rubbish or, on the contrary, labile clues of a real phenomenon is the respectability of the proponents, especially if they ask for public money to ascertain the possible existence of a new phenomenon.
This is why the first act of the Rossi's adventure in the LENR field was to contact one of the two academics who first proposed the NiH way to CF, and eventually hire Focardi as his consultant and "respectable" testimonial of the alleged positive performances of his devices.
Therefore, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your following sentence:
Uwe Price, who teaches Philosophy of Science in one of the world's most prestigious university, emphasized the importance of the reputations of scientists, in writing the most important eulogy of the CF/LENR field in many years (1), which is mostly dedicated to Rossi. In fact, the web page shows a suggestive image of a 1 MW Ecat plant above the text, in which Rossi is cited 23 times, versus the 7 recurrences of Fleischmann. Price did it only because Focardi was a professor "at Bologna, [and] claimed similar effects with nickel and ordinary hydrogen", otherwise he wouldn't have risked his reputation and the ridicule by writing such a surreal paean in favor of the "lone engineer with a somewhat chequered past".
But he is not alone. Many LENR supporters are sensitive to the charm of the academic professorship. Here above, Shane D. wrote: "I absolutely do not "still think the Ecat works". I do think, and have said it many times going back to ECN's, that there is a slight chance Rossi has a small, unreliable effect in the same low power, low COP range others before him (Piantelli), and after (MFMP, SongSheng) have reported."
Leaving aside the Ecat replicators, Shane D. is confident about the effect reported by Piantelli. What is the difference between Rossi and Piantelli? It is the P-factor! Not the P of Piantelli, but the P of Professor. For many LENR believers, Piantelli deserves confidence just because he was a professor, that is, he was a member of a respectable scientific institution (a public University in his case) which is supposed to provide full assurance that its members are scientifically competent, and correct. However, the entire CF/LENR history, and in particular its latest Ecat chapter, has amply demonstrated that this is not the case.
Another example. JR just wrote: "I would not say that Rossi is the source of interest in NiH it so much as Piantelli and Arata, and more recently Takahashi, Mizuno and Beiting." All five people mentioned have (or have had) a recognizable affiliation, but the stress is on the first two, the academics, those with the P-factor, because what they say should be necessarily true.
But also Focardi and his fellows at UniBo had the P-factor, when they misrepresented the experimental data of the Ecat tests performed under their responsibility. Thanks to those tests and to the related documentation made public, we now know that the P-factor doesn't assure any scientific competence or correctness. It is only a seal of old P-rivileges that still holds in the dusk of our industrial era, the privilege to be believed on their own words, thanks to the prestige of the scientific institutions to which they belong.
So, it's really a problem of reputations and institutions. In particular, the problem is that the institutions have not defended their reputation by strongly requiring their members to follow the scientific criteria of correctness and transparency, or at least by officially informing the public about their howler mistakes.
(1) https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-…ossibility-of-cold-fusion
Ascoli,
I have some sympathy with your oft-repeated views here.
Yes - people give what academics say undue credence. There is not that much understandng that when scientists come to conclusions those are always conditional, fallible, subject to contradiction or validation by others replicating in different ways. And the issue for LENR is that while many people have reported apparent excess heat in hydride systems the replicable results remain tantalising within the range of possible calibration and other errors. Were they a genuine effect you would expect by now replication at higher (less questionable) levels. Such as what rossi claimed, but did not provide.
As for institutions requiring profs to admit to mistakes: academic freedom makes such difficult, and who judges what is a mistake? Anyone capable, reading the public record can tell whether work is a one-off, not properly replicated, or whether it is the start of something new and interesting. It is that, not the personal statements of individuals, that is convincing. I realise that the public can be convinced by bad one-off endorsements. So it has always been, and not just in science.
In some cases (people here would argue LENR is such a case) the jury stays out on whether reported evidence amounts to some real but not properly understood or identified effect, or whether it amounts to self-delusion and wishful thinking. It is not easy to separate the two unless the effect gets validated. So we have a whole load of things which are fringe phenomena - cannot be ruled out - but don't seem likely. It is good that these way out ideas have their proponents, since occasionally they pan out. It is good that they are not taken very seriously (since nearly always they amount to nothing). There are enough people around with a casual interest in weird things who will look further should new interesting evidence emerge.
Rossi posions this imperfect but largely working model by feeling popular free energy hopes under the guise of scientific credentials. He has been good at persuading academics - we know the aspects of has character and education that make him persuasive, also people are susceptible to stories of scientific miracles.
I don't think this is much to do with institutions, nor do I see many academics with real reputations who have publicly supported Rossi.
The only issues for me here are:
Levi: who does not have much of a reputation nor skills relevant, but has contributed to many poor quality Rossi test results
The whole Lugano team, who seem to defer mostly to Levi particularly over the aspects of Lugano that are clearly incorrect.
It is also notable that Levi has a long relationship with Rossi and has allowed Rossi involvement in the so-called "independent" tests.
The fact that there has been no correction of the plainly wrong Lugano methodology from its authors is damning, and most regrettable. There may be reasons for this, but they are not scientific reasons, since science flourishes from opennness and the willingness of academics to publish ideas, accept criticism, and reply to it, all in the open so that anyone can judge who is right.
Jed,
This is from ICCF19:
"In related work, the SKINR group sought to replicate
results reported by Celani at previous ICCFs. They did sensitive
mass flow calorimetry on eight Cu-Ni-Mn wires, six from
Celani and two others from Mathieu Valet. The group
employed a stainless steel cell, in contrast to the glass cell of
Celani, in order to be able to perform the calorimetry. But,
they followed closely the set-up, operation and heating protocols
that earlier gave excess heat for the Celani group.
Beyond the initial protocol, they tried pulsed and highlymodulated
(SuperWave) driving voltages. Neither the original
nor the new protocols gave excess heat during about 200 days
of testing, with a calorimetric sensitivity of less than 10 mW"
I don't think this is much to do with institutions, nor do I see many academics with real reputations who have publicly supported Rossi.
That was my point. They exist, but will not speak. And BTW I am not talking about any of the Lugano testers, or indeed anybody who has been publicly associated with Rossi.
I find it interesting that people somehow think Ni was first proposed and used by Rossi when it has been around a long time.
for example the patent app from F and P-
https://patents.google.com/pat…=~patent%2fWO1990010935A1
claim 10
I have some sympathy with your oft-repeated views here. [...] Were they a genuine effect you would expect by now replication at higher (less questionable) levels. Such as what rossi claimed, but did not provide.
Not Rossi, please, the profs!
I appreciate your sympathy, but even if - as you reminded - I oft-repeat that those who claimed the high excess heat levels were the academics, you continue to put the name of Rossi in the forefront. Why? Did you ever believe Rossi?
QuoteAs for institutions requiring profs to admit to mistakes: academic freedom makes such difficult, and who judges what is a mistake?
Academic freedom allows the professors, which – remember – have been selected among the most competent PhD, to investigate any idea that they deem can widened the horizons of the science. However, it doesn't allow them to misrepresent the data, fooling the taxpayers which support their scientific institutions. Every PhD in physics could have seen after a normal due diligence examination of the experimental data released after the January 2011 demo, that those data were false.
QuoteAnyone capable, reading the public record can tell whether work is a one-off, not properly replicated, or whether it is the start of something new and interesting.
Are you sure? The article by Huw Price demonstrates that even a Cambridge's professor in science did not realize that the Ecat results were junk. How can you expect that "anyone capable [of] reading the public record" can reach by himself this conclusion?
QuoteIn some cases (people here would argue LENR is such a case) the jury stays out on whether reported evidence amounts to some real but not properly understood or identified effect, or whether it amounts to self-delusion and wishful thinking. It is not easy to separate the two unless the effect gets validated.
We are talking about 12 kW in output with only 1 kW in input. No way they can be attributed either to self-delusion or to wishful thinking. On the contrary, it is either a supernatural miracle or, more prosaicly, the result of multiple deliberate misrepresentations of experimental data.
QuoteRossi posions this imperfect but largely working model by feeling popular free energy hopes under the guise of scientific credentials. He has been good at persuading academics - we know the aspects of has character and education that make him persuasive, also people are susceptible to stories of scientific miracles.
I disagree. Rossi has the big merit to have uncovered a long time poisoned environment in which too many people took advantage of their privileged position to acquire even more unjustified fame and undue benefits. Rossi provided the king and the royal family of the invisible clothes they yearned for, so that now everybody can easily realize that their majesties are naked.
QuoteI don't think this is much to do with institutions, nor do I see many academics with real reputations who have publicly supported Rossi.
How many institutions and academics should endorse a scientific discovery before it has to be taken into consideration? The Ecat got the support of the oldest university of the Western world, and of many professors from two other famous academic institutions in Sweden, with some connections to the most prestigious scientific prize in the world. Then it received the support of academics as Brian Josephson, the youngest Nobel laureate in physics, and Huw Price, the B.Russel professor in Cambridge. Isn't it enough?
QuoteThere may be reasons for this, but they are not scientific reasons, since science flourishes from opennness and the willingness of academics to publish ideas, accept criticism, and reply to it, all in the open so that anyone can judge who is right.
Exactly! The Ecat story clearly shows how this fundamental requirements of science have been disregarded by the academic people and institutions involved.
The January 2011 demo took place in the presence of the highest representatives of the physics department. Since the UniBo physicists decided to use the web to directly announce to the world the exceptional generation of 12 kW of heat by a device fed with 1 kW of electricity, the director of the department should have required his colleagues to give to the same internet audience all the asked clarifications on this epochal achievement. On the contrary, this is what he asked to be published on the web site of CICAP, the Italian Skeptical Society, where people were discussing the data released by his fellows:
| http://www.queryonline.it/2011…ment-page-7/#comment-2172 Postato marzo 11, 2011 alle 22:29 Il direttore del Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università di Bologna, informato della discussione in corso, risponde: Il Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Alma Mater Studiorum, Università di Fatto salvo l’inesorabile e puntuale ricorso alla denuncia alle |
Please, translate by yourself. Essentially he said that the Department will not answer any objection to the test results raised on that site, and threatened the critics to inexorably denounce them to the judiciary authority.
This is the openness of the institution and people that were involved in the Ecat saga, and their willing "to accept criticism, and reply to it, all in the open so that anyone can judge who is right".
Display MoreA guess...
Andrea Says
August 22, 2018 at 7:50 AM
Frank Acland:
1. Confidential
2. Premature
3. Yes
4. No
5. Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Some questions regarding the long-awaited E-Cat production, thank you if you can answer:
1. Do you have the factory in your possession where the production will take place?
2. Do you have the machinery (hardware and software) in your possession which will make the E-Cats?
3. Do you have the employees selected who can staff the initial production line?
4. Are you waiting for the results of the next round of SK testing before you start production?
5. Will you begin by manufacturing in the USA?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Frank Acland:
1,2,3 in preparation
4 yes
5 yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi.
You said that the presentation in January 2019 is a presentation of the beginning of production.
There is no doubt that demand for E-Cat will significantly exceed supply.
Can you answer how much MW of capacity Leonardo plans to produce in 2019?
And excuse me, I’m always interested in the prospects of home installations (10kW?), You plan in 2019. obtaining certificates for their production.
Thank you.
Yuriy Isaev
Engineer
Tyumen, Russia
Yrka:
We will be able to produce all the plants to satisfy the request. About the certification of the domestic series, I am not able to answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Display MoreYes, your point is correct, but begins with a big IF which introduces a condition that until now has never been fulfilled. All the alleged positive results claimed by the CF/LENR researchers – regardless of their status - have never been "replicable by anyone".
Faced with such fleeting results, the only other element that could provide some indication to decide whether they are rubbish or, on the contrary, labile clues of a real phenomenon is the respectability of the proponents, especially if they ask for public money to ascertain the possible existence of a new phenomenon.
This is why the first act of the Rossi's adventure in the LENR field was to contact one of the two academics who first proposed the NiH way to CF, and eventually hire Focardi as his consultant and "respectable" testimonial of the alleged positive performances of his devices.
Therefore, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your following sentence:
Huw Price, who teaches Philosophy of Science in one of the world's most prestigious university, emphasized the importance of the reputations of scientists, in writing the most important eulogy of the CF/LENR field in many years (1), which is mostly dedicated to Rossi. In fact, the web page shows a suggestive image of a 1 MW Ecat plant above the text, in which Rossi is cited 23 times, versus the 7 recurrences of Fleischmann. Price did it only because Focardi was a professor "at Bologna, [and] claimed similar effects with nickel and ordinary hydrogen", otherwise he wouldn't have risked his reputation and the ridicule by writing such a surreal paean in favor of the "lone engineer with a somewhat chequered past".
But he is not alone. Many LENR supporters are sensitive to the charm of the academic professorship. Here above, Shane D. wrote: "I absolutely do not "still think the Ecat works". I do think, and have said it many times going back to ECN's, that there is a slight chance Rossi has a small, unreliable effect in the same low power, low COP range others before him (Piantelli), and after (MFMP, SongSheng) have reported."
Leaving aside the Ecat replicators, Shane D. is confident about the effect reported by Piantelli. What is the difference between Rossi and Piantelli? It is the P-factor! Not the P of Piantelli, but the P of Professor. For many LENR believers, Piantelli deserves confidence just because he was a professor, that is, he was a member of a respectable scientific institution (a public University in his case) which is supposed to provide full assurance that its members are scientifically competent, and correct. However, the entire CF/LENR history, and in particular its latest Ecat chapter, has amply demonstrated that this is not the case.
Another example. JR just wrote: "I would not say that Rossi is the source of interest in NiH it so much as Piantelli and Arata, and more recently Takahashi, Mizuno and Beiting." All five people mentioned have (or have had) a recognizable affiliation, but the stress is on the first two, the academics, those with the P-factor, because what they say should be necessarily true.
But also Focardi and his fellows at UniBo had the P-factor, when they misrepresented the experimental data of the Ecat tests performed under their responsibility. Thanks to those tests and to the related documentation made public, we now know that the P-factor doesn't assure any scientific competence or correctness. It is only a seal of old P-rivileges that still holds in the dusk of our industrial era, the privilege to be believed on their own words, thanks to the prestige of the scientific institutions to which they belong.
So, it's really a problem of reputations and institutions. In particular, the problem is that the institutions have not defended their reputation by strongly requiring their members to follow the scientific criteria of correctness and transparency, or at least by officially informing the public about their howler mistakes.
(1) https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-…ossibility-of-cold-fusion
ascoli,
Agreed,
That is why the “IF” is always capitalized in my statements.
Replication is the key, screw the theory
Ascoli, my comment was: Anyone capable, reading the public record
Not as you summarise: anyone capable [of] reading the public record
Specifically, what is needed is an understanding of both basic physics and engineering commonsense, together with a modicum of experimental technique. Many leaving High School will have that, but also many academics do not have it. Price being a good example: but to be fair he was not making any independent judgement of the science, but commenting on the endorsements of others.
For me, relying on such endorsements would never be enough, but i am not Price. To be fair i think he just wanted to make a philosophical point and saw this as a possible example.
Ascoli: We are talking about 12 kW in output with only 1 kW in input. No way they can be attributed either to self-delusion or to wishful thinking. On the contrary, it is either a supernatural miracle or, more prosaicly, the result of multiple deliberate misrepresentations of experimental data.
People (including you here) underestimate the human capacity for self-delusion. It knows no bounds. Which is not to argue that in this case Rossi is self-deluded, there is other evidence that points more in the direction of deliberate fabrication. I'm just arguing that based on his statements about physics and the demos he could be so.
Regards, THH
Replication is the key, screw the theory
OK, this scheme applies to legitimate science, but in the case of CF/LENR the scheme is a bit different: "Replication is the key, screw the fake data". This is what happened in the Ecat case.
The replication race to the so called Rossi effect began in October 2014, immediately after the release of the Lugano report. It was launched by this article on PESN:
| http://pesn.com/2014/10/10/960…n_of_Andrea-Rossis_E-Cat/ October 10, 2014
Lithium Iron Nickel Hydrogen Not only did the recent report show clear and credible evidence of anomalous heat as well as isotopic ratio changes, proving that Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer is a clean nuclear process, with no externally measurable radioactivity involved, but it also divulged some important information that may enable replication. […]
|
The purpose of this invitation to replicate is clear, as was anticipated three years earlier on Vortex:
| https://www.mail-archive.com/v…0eskimo.com/msg45587.html
Jed Rothwell […] The only way to be certain Levi et al. are not make a mistake is to have many other people repeat the experiments, with many different instrument types. Or to sell many reactors and have customers confirm that they work. That amounts to the same thing. This is why replication is so important in many fields of science. Note that the principle of independent replication is less important in chemistry, and nonexistent in engineering. […] |
At the time, replications were not the preferred way to publicly support the Ecat reality and – as shown in the mail above - the appeal to academic authority was considered the most effective way to convince the public. But toward the end of 2014 there was a sudden change in the propaganda strategy.
The first and best known result of this strategy were the Parkhomov replications appeared on internet since December 2014 (1).
On April 2015, a post on ECW provided further reflections on this race.
| http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…lections-on-replications/ Reflections on Replications Posted on April 4, 2015 by Frank Acland […] The Rossi Effect seems to have generated in some an almost insatiable curiosity and drive to discover the secrets of LENR. The Lugano report has been a catalyst to encourage replicators, and Alexander Parkhomov’s work has been a further catalyst. The motivation to replicate is not hard to understand since we are dealing with what could turn out to be one of the most important discoveries in the history of science. […] Andrea Rossi has blazed his own trail in this field and seems to have mastered many of the problems that replicators are now experiencing. It’s as if he is ahead in a race to a top of a mountain looking down at the crowd of replicators who are also trying to reach the summit, but who are taking wrong paths, getting lost in the forest, falling over rocks — yet being persistent in their efforts to find their way and catch the leader. […] |
This is how the replication race should appear to the public: a crowd of replicators who is trying to catch the leader running toward the top of the mountain. More specifically, they are trying to replicate the results reported in a 2014 article, whose lead author had misrepresented the results of the Ecat tests performed in 2011. In other words, on the top of the mountain there is nothing but a dogbone in the trash.
But statistically speaking - thanks to the positive bias of the people who are invited to join this race - the replication strategy did work. The balance after one year from its launch was quite good (2) and Rossi can conclude (3): "Thank you, very useful collection. It must be said that about the 35% of them has been successful already", leaving his fans deduce that the remaining 65% has not still understood how to replicate his effect (... actually because most of them even don't know which effect is on stake).
(1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…issue120/russian.html#top
(2) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…&cpage=11#comment-1125778
(3) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…&cpage=11#comment-1125793
People (including you here) underestimate the human capacity for self-delusion. It knows no bounds. Which is not to argue that in this case Rossi is self-deluded, there is other evidence that points more in the direction of deliberate fabrication. I'm just arguing that based on his statements about physics and the demos he could be so.
People here (including you) are continuously missing the target. It's not Rossi. Among all the protagonists of the Ecat saga, he is one of the few that could really invoke being self-deluded - at least initially - on the performances of his method, and then deluded by the LENR experts and physics academics who have examined and evaluated his devices.
The results of the 2011 tests carried out under the responsibility of the professors can't be attributed to self-delusion or to Rossi's manipulations, as was reported by someone who was very well informed about the facts:
| From JR mail to Vortex, April 27, 2011 - https://www.mail-archive.com/v…0eskimo.com/msg45587.html In my opinion, the Rossi demonstrations are closer to engineering than basic science, so there is little reason to doubt they are real. The only way they could be fraudulent would be if Levi and E&K and the others have agreed to go along with the scam. Or, as I said, if it turns out they are incredibly stupid people. |
Anyway, self-delusion can't excuse the arrogance of professors to refuse any public confrontation on the data that they chose to divulge directly through internet, thus contravening to the normal academic procedure of submitting a scientific publication and coping with the examination of their peers. They called the public as judges of their measurements, and when some of them asked further clarifications, they tried to intimidate them by threatening legal actions.
Even Price - not a normal man, but someone who can daily meet some of the most authoritative physicists in the world - has been an indirect victim of this arrogance. Thanks to the support given to Rossi by some irresponsible colleagues of him, he dedicated two long articles (1-2) to the "reputation trap", taking as example the Ecat episode and citing Rossi dozens of times in both his pieces. Now, after more than two years, it's time that he completes his trilogy dedicating a third article to the "arrogance trap" in which he himself fell.
(1) https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-…ossibility-of-cold-fusion
(2) https://aeon.co/ideas/is-the-cold-fusion-egg-about-to-hatch
People here (including you) are continuously missing the target. It's not Rossi.
We get that part Ascoli.
Display More
- Frank Acland August 22, 2018 at 7:51 AM
Dear Andrea,
Some questions regarding the long-awaited E-Cat production, thank you if you can answer:
1. Do you have the factory in your possession where the production will take place?
2. Do you have the machinery (hardware and software) in your possession which will make the E-Cats?
3. Do you have the employees selected who can staff the initial production line?
4. Are you waiting for the results of the next round of SK testing before you start production?
5. Will you begin by manufacturing in the USA?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
- Translate Andrea Rossi August 22, 2018 at 11:39 AM
Frank Acland:
1,2,3 in preparation
4 yes
5 yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
- Yrka August 21, 2018 at 8:41 PM
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi.
You said that the presentation in January 2019 is a presentation of the beginning of production.
There is no doubt that demand for E-Cat will significantly exceed supply.
Can you answer how much MW of capacity Leonardo plans to produce in 2019?
And excuse me, I’m always interested in the prospects of home installations (10kW?), You plan in 2019. obtaining certificates for their production.
Thank you.
Yuriy Isaev
Engineer
Tyumen, Russia
- Andrea Rossi August 22, 2018 at 7:26 AM
Yrka:
We will be able to produce all the plants to satisfy the request. About the certification of the domestic series, I am not able to answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Adrian,
Not baiting you, but this confuses me. What do you think it means, and does it fit into your timeline?
Adrian,
Not baiting you, but this confuses me. What do you think it means, and does it fit into your timeline?
Shane,
It means the timeline will be pushed out another year or so and then it will be redefined as a new product needing more development, certification etc etc etc.
Shane,
It means the timeline will be pushed out another year or so and then it will be redefined as a new product needing more development, certification etc etc etc.
Roseland,
That may be the case, but Rossi usually does carry through on these things, when he commits the way he has done recently. Both Adrian and I agree with that. Where I and AA disagree, is that I think Rossi always disappoints. In other words; what he leads us to expect, never materializes. We are always left disappointed, and confused.
