QuoteOn that note, hopefully we will hear from Celani soon. He, and his team were up to COP2 at last report.
They said they were up to etc. etc. -- I doubt it very much. Anyway, source of that "last" report please? Of course, if the report were to be true, the world would be very different. But it's very very very very (out to twenty individual "very's") unlikely.
Please tell me, what is the resistance of the QX "(which what you say, we all know aobut already)" ?
As I have said several times, I don't know. Rossi,who does know, says it is about the same as a conductor. ie close to zero.
The only way to know for sue us with a test of the resistance. Presumably any investor would do this, and more, before parting with his money.
This has been neaten to death many times already and it is not clear why you are bringing it up again.
As Rossi says, no experiment will convince the critics, only the sale of commercial reactors. This because he will not disclose how it works.
I criticise them too, but I think the most likely reasons for silence have a lot to do with fear of cans of worms having been opened, and little to do with arrogance.
Please, THH, examine the facts in their development over time.
A few days before the January 14, 2011, the Department of Physics releases a communication announcing that a "test will be held by a researcher of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna, and will take place before a selected public of researchers and professors of the same Department."
On January 23, a report - with the UniBo logo on its cover - is published on the internet, where - thanks to multiple misrepresentations of data – it is claimed the generation of 12 kW of heat from a tabletop device powered with 1 kW of electricity.
In Italy and elsewhere many people enthusiastically welcome this news, because they trusted the credibility of the scientific institution to which they belonged the physicists who made the calorimetric measurements, calculated the energy balance, and published the results. But in addition to all these enthusiastic followers, there were also people who raised doubts on the results and asked the academic testers for more info.
In March 2011, the director of the Department asked the website of the Italian Skeptic Society – which was hosting a debate on the Ecat - to publish the pronouncement I have already addressed to you (1). Did you translate it? Did you get its meaning? Which word other than "arrogance" can you use in English to describe the tone of that statement?
Consider that at that time the Physics Department was far from separating its responsibility from the Ecat issue, because in April 2011 the Department Council, made up by all the professors, approved a contract with Rossi for a two years research on the Ecat. If they really wanted to keep sealed "the cans of worms" they should not have approved that contract!
You summarized very well what science is expected to be: "… 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."
How much of this basic requirement has been followed by the academics involved in the Ecat affair and by their institution?
Display MorePlease, THH, examine the facts in their development over time.
A few days before the January 14, 2011, the Department of Physics releases a communication announcing that a "test will be held by a researcher of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna, and will take place before a selected public of researchers and professors of the same Department."
On January 23, a report - with the UniBo logo on its cover - is published on the internet, where - thanks to multiple misrepresentations of data – it is claimed the generation of 12 kW of heat from a tabletop device powered with 1 kW of electricity.
In Italy and elsewhere many people enthusiastically welcome this news, because they trusted the credibility of the scientific institution to which they belonged the physicists who made the calorimetric measurements, calculated the energy balance, and published the results. But in addition to all these enthusiastic followers, there were also people who raised doubts on the results and asked the academic testers for more info.
In March 2011, the director of the Department asked the website of the Italian Skeptic Society – which was hosting a debate on the Ecat - to publish the pronouncement I have already addressed to you (1). Did you translate it? Did you get its meaning? Which word other than "arrogance" can you use in English to describe the tone of that statement?
Consider that at that time the Physics Department was far from separating its responsibility from the Ecat issue, because in April 2011 the Department Council, made up by all the professors, approved a contract with Rossi for a two years research on the Ecat. If they really wanted to keep sealed "the cans of worms" they should not have approved that contract!
You summarized very well what science is expected to be: "… 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."
How much of this basic requirement has been followed by the academics involved in the Ecat affair and by their institution?
Ascoli,
“IF”, an experimenter came to an academic institution and said here is my:
1. Bill of Materials
2. Build instructions
3: Testing procedures and protocols
4. Testing equipment
5. Results
If you follow the above exactly you will get the same results and they are extraordinary.
However, this does not happen because the results of these experiments are virtually impossible to replicate, (as above).
When the results cannot be replicated, the previous results, no matter how extraordinary, are assumed,
(maybe incorrectly so), to be anomalies,
And unworthy of academic investigation.
LENR does NOT require a theory or a blessing from academia, it requires only bulletproof replication as above, then and only then does the world change.
As I have said several times, I don't know. Rossi,who does know, says it is about the same as a conductor. ie close to zero.
The only way to know for sue us with a test of the resistance. Presumably any investor would do this, and more, before parting with his money.
This has been neaten to death many times already and it is not clear why you are bringing it up again.
As Rossi says, no experiment will convince the critics, only the sale of commercial reactors. This because he will not disclose how it works.
A final notice:
Two questions: YES or NO:
1) Dott. Rossi is a serious source of information for you?
[Yes/No] -> Yes means the resistance is close zero.
2) You believe in what Dott. Rossi/aka sockpuppets "make online" in his JONP Blog?
[Yes/No] Yes means the resistance is close zero.
Please answer!
It's important for the resistance is 800 Ohm or close zero.
It's getting boring, I know! 
Wanna get you to the point of no return aka ground zero.
Wanna get you nailed!
Google says so, as I ask for a translation from German to English for "FINAL ANSWER".
And Google knows best! It's a AI!
42!
A final notice:
Most here say they are certain that the E-Cat doesn't work.
I don't know if it does or not, but think there is a chance that it does.
Comments from anonymous critics hold little weight and will not persuade me one way of the other. I preder to wait and see.
Why so desperate to convert me? Who cares?
Most here say they are certain that the E-Cat doesn't work.
I don't know if it does or not, but think there is a chance that it does.
Comments from anonymous critics hold little weight and will not persuade me one way of the other. I preder to wait and see.
Why so desperate to convert me? Who cares?
That's your kind method of answering. Avoid the critical part.
I said" The Stockholm Demo was convincing me, in not to believe in RossiSays/MatsLewanSays".
You asked why! You avoid any serious answer to specific tech questions! You are really an engineer?!
"Why so desperate to convert me? Who cares?"
I'm not on the road to "CONVERT" you.
I would like to have an answer from an educated enigineer, zig long years in business, experiance and knowledge to some simple questions about electric engineering and schematics, circuits, layout, data and common calculations with Ohm and Kirchhoff.
Got nothing back in substantional.
Only babbling by AA. Yes, that's YOU! A Babbler! RossiSaysBabbler!
Man, you had a career in industrial workmanship. Did you loose it al?
Okay, got it, put you back on BLOCK LIST, so I don't have to read your nonsense.
It it is offensise this time, well, it's well placed and deliberate,
OVER AND OUT.
Okay, got it, put you back on BLOCK LIST,
Good. That saves me the trouble of replying.
Mats Lewan has said very little to nothing in a long time. I just looked and can't find any recent communication. I hope he breaks his silence and busts free of the Rossi cult of personality. He is too valuable to LENR
As I have said several times, I don't know. Rossi,who does know, says it is about the same as a conductor. ie close to zero.
The only way to know for sue us with a test of the resistance. Presumably any investor would do this, and more, before parting with his money.
This has been neaten to death many times already and it is not clear why you are bringing it up again.
As Rossi says, no experiment will convince the critics, only the sale of commercial reactors. This because he will not disclose how it works.
Adrian, having just marginally more patience than bang99, and the same views of the QX test, let me comment on why your views above are inconsistent with the evidence.
As I have said several times, I don't know. Rossi,who does know, says it is about the same as a conductor. ie close to zero.
I'll give you an exact analogy. An inventor says he has special type of kettle that heats water using 1/100th the normal electric energy. He demonstrates his device, plugged into the mains, heating 1 litre of water originally at 20C to boiling in a precisely measured 167 seconds. He measures the mains voltage as 240V (this is UK). He claims (without measurement) that the heating element has resistance 10,000 ohms. He then calculates the input energy as 240^2*167/10,000 Joules = 961 J. This is compared with the expected energy needed to raise this water to boiling from 20C - approximately 300,000J. His device obviously has a COP of 300, and is a vast improvement over a normal kettle. For extra certainty, he writes all the calculations on a blackboard and they are clearly correct.
Would you consider this a demonstration that increased your confidence in the inventor's claims? Does the demonstration show anything at all other than that the inventor is capable of plugging in and using a normal kettle? Would you not be suspicious of an inventor who gave this as the only evidence of his world-beating invention?
The only way to know for sure us with a test of the resistance.
The only way to know at all is with such a measurement, which would make the demo one capable (if honestly done) of determining whether the QX is a normal gas Xenon discharge tube, or something more interesting.
As Rossi says, no experiment will convince the critics, only the sale of commercial reactors. This because he will not disclose how it works.
This is false, and it is annoying that you repeat it. There are many experiments that would measure input and output power without disclosing how the device works. For example, in this case, Rossi could measure the input to the PSU (as he did in various previous tests). Or he could measure the voltage across the QX via a passive RC filter that would remove any device-specific waveform and reveal the average voltage (with a measured current known to be constant from a scope this would be safe enough).
This is the evidence that any unbiased and competent observer would take from the QX test.
Presumably any investor would do this, and more, before parting with his money.
Why? Any competent investor would do this, but all it needs is one fool with money who is willing to believe Rossi's known charismatic pitch and take a punt without evidence. Fools have been parted from their money by charlatans many times before, and presuming it cannot not happen again is just wrong.
THH
However, this does not happen because the results of these experiments are virtually impossible to replicate, (as above).
When the results cannot be replicated, the previous results, no matter how extraordinary, are assumed,
(maybe incorrectly so), to be anomalies,
And unworthy of academic investigation.
I agree. This is how legitimate science is expected to be held in universities. But, but, BUT, …
Although it developed in a scientific context, the Ecat phenomenon we are talking about is NOT science, it rather has do with sociology, psychology, philosophy, etc. (the same applies to the CF/LENR field in general). In any case, it had tangible effects on many people, and possibly (in conjunctions with the many others utopian solutions to the energy problem) on the fate of humankind.
Therefore, this topic certainly deserved the attention that a professor in Philosophy of Science, like Huw Price, dedicated to it. Price also correctly identified Rossi as the new champion of the LENR field, the man who best interpreted the deep spirit of the whole CF history.
But, at this point, he made the huge mistake of incorrectly applying the concept of "reputation trap" to the wrong direction. He erroneously attributed to this sociopsychological phenomenon the guilt of having hindered the development of an alleged real and hopefully human-saving technology, rather than analyzing how the this same feeling (that should normally function as an antidote to the abuse of the freedom of research in the academy) didn't work well in the case of the CF/LENR field, failing to prevent too many experienced academic physicists and their universities from giving credit to a controversial man like Rossi, confirming the unfounded energy performances of his devices.
Now, after such an inconceivable error, the "B. Russel" professor at Cambridge University has himself become an interesting object of scientific investigation. How is it possible that a well trained and introduced scientist like him fell in the same "reputation trap" he was warning of?
I see a couple of possible reasons. The first is large dose of naivety, trusting his peers, the academic physicists he mentioned in his articles, who had supported the reality of the Ecat. The second possible reason is … well, wishful thinking?
They said they were up to etc. etc. -- I doubt it very much. Anyway, source of that "last" report please?
It’s pointless giving you a link, as you seem to be literally incapable of reading the document in question...
First you claimed you claimed to have read it, but somehow you missed the fact that Celani was using multiple wires...
Once this was pointed out to you, you claimed to have read it again, but (due to your obvious confusion about it’s contents), it became apparent you hadn’t bothered to read it properly (despite being given the exact slide number several times) as you had become fixated on a small footnote at the end of the text, certain that this was the only mention of the topic being discussed.
But if anyone’s bored, and wishes to revisit a classic example of repeated spoon-feeding, or just revel in the wilful ignorance and shear atavistic dumbness, of an incorrigible reactionary twunt... be my guest:
Display MoreI agree. This is how legitimate science is expected to be held in universities. But, but, BUT, …
Although it developed in a scientific context, the Ecat phenomenon we are talking about is NOT science, it rather has do with sociology, psychology, philosophy, etc. (the same applies to the CF/LENR field in general). In any case, it had tangible effects on many people, and possibly (in conjunctions with the many others utopian solutions to the energy problem) on the fate of humankind.
Therefore, this topic certainly deserved the attention that a professor in Philosophy of Science, like Huw Price, dedicated to it. Price also correctly identified Rossi as the new champion of the LENR field, the man who best interpreted the deep spirit of the whole CF history.
But, at this point, he made the huge mistake of incorrectly applying the concept of "reputation trap" to the wrong direction. He erroneously attributed to this sociopsychological phenomenon the guilt of having hindered the development of an alleged real and hopefully human-saving technology, rather than analyzing how the this same feeling (that should normally function as an antidote to the abuse of the freedom of research in the academy) didn't work well in the case of the CF/LENR field, failing to prevent too many experienced academic physicists and their universities from giving credit to a controversial man like Rossi, confirming the unfounded energy performances of his devices.
Now, after such an inconceivable error, the "B. Russel" professor at Cambridge University has himself become an interesting object of scientific investigation. How is it possible that a well trained and introduced scientist like him fell in the same "reputation trap" he was warning of?
I see a couple of possible reasons. The first is large dose of naivety, trusting his peers, the academic physicists he mentioned in his articles, who had supported the reality of the Ecat. The second possible reason is … well, wishful thinking?
Ascoli,
If Hugh Price truly believes that “Rossi is the new champion of LENR”, then Hugh Orice was also conned.
Andrea Rossi is a fraud
Would you consider this a demonstration that increased your confidence in the inventor's claims? Does the demonstration show anything at all other than that the inventor is capable of plugging in and using a normal kettle? Would you not be suspicious of an inventor who gave this as the only evidence of his world-beating invention?
It was a demo to show the properties of the QX. Whether it was correct relies on believing what Rossi said. A short plasma probably is of low resistance and the current was measured. You have no more proof that he lied than there is that he didn't. When in doubt waiting for confirmation is better than jumping to a conclusions that fit your bias.
As Rossi says, no experiment will convince the critics, only the sale of commercial reactors. This because he will not disclose how it works.
This is false, and it is annoying that you repeat it. There are many experiments that would measure input and output power without disclosing how the device works.
Pons & Fleischmann have been replicated (>100 times according to Jed), yet academia still does not accept LENR as real. The critics are good at making up ways that show any test could be fraudulent.
If Hugh Price truly believes that “Rossi is the new champion of LENR”, then Hugh Orice was also conned.
I don't know if Huw Price truly believed in what he wrote. His first Aeon article ended with this note: "The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of TWCF." Have you some doubts to this respect?
Anyway, these are some of the 23 overall citations of Rossi in the same first article on Aeon:
| From https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-…ossibility-of-cold-fusion - December 21, 2015 - … Andrea Rossi, an engineer from Bologna, who claimed to have a cold fusion reactor producing commercially useful amounts of heat. - … I favoured Rossi, on grounds of the physics. … all Rossi needed was a previously unnoticed channel to a reservoir of energy whose existence is not in doubt. … - Rossi, however, has been going from strength to strength. … - … LENR. The field never entirely went away, nor vanished from the laboratories of respected institutions. (Rossi’s own background is not in these laboratories, but he acknowledges that his methods owe much to those who are, or were – especially to the late Sergio Focardi, one of the pioneers of the field.)
|
And these are some of the 15 citations from his second article published 3 months later:
| From https://aeon.co/opinions/is-th…fusion-egg-about-to-hatch - March 24, 2016 - One of the key figures in this story is Andrea Rossi, a controversial Italian engineer who has claimed for more than five years to have an LENR reactor producing commercially useful amounts of heat. Skeptics are convinced that Rossi’s ‘E Cat’ is a scam. … - … there have been several new claims of successful replications of Rossi-style devices, using versions derived from the public report of a Swedish-Italian team who tested one of Rossi’s reactors in 2014. - … What do you think you know that Industrial Heat does not (or is pretending that it does not)? We can ask the same question with regard to anyone else who seems to be taking LENR seriously, including scientists such as Francesco Piantelli and the late Sergio Focardi, Rossi’s early collaborator. … |
Now, even assuming that a Cambridge professor like Huw Price - with all his contacts with world class physicists - could have been conned on such an extravagant claim, ie that some amateur devices could generate kWs of excess heat from some undefined nuclear reactions, who and what misleaded him? Rossi and his Rossi-says?
You started following the Ecat topic on 2011, didn't you? Tell me, please, did you get interested because a controversial self-proclaimed engineer claimed to have invented a commercial grade cold fusion device, or for some other more convincing reason?
QuoteAndrea Rossi is a fraud
This is not the point in discussion here. But I have no problem agreeing that the Rossi effect (intended as a physical effect) does not exist, and therefore the Ecat devices (intended as energy generators) do not work at all.
. Whether it was correct relies on believing what Rossi said. A short plasma probably is of low resistance and the current was measured. You have no more proof that he lied than there is that he didn't. When in doubt waiting for confirmation is better than jumping to a conclusions that fit your bias.
Pons & Fleischmann have been replicated (>100 times according to Jed), yet academia still does not accept LENR as real. The critics are good at making up ways that show any test could be fraudulent.
It was a demo to show the properties of the QX Except it did not show the only important property (power out > power in) which was what everyone was interested in.
A short plasma probably is of low resistance. You have no basis for this since my quantitative estimate shows it clearly untrue by 3 OOM, and you have not put forward anything else. You have zero evidence on which to think this probable.
You have no more proof that he lied than there is that he didn't. Personalising this matter does not help. And lying is deliberately deceiving. Do you assume that if Rossi is not lying then his claims must be correct? Why? He has shown no competence in making these measurements and strong lack of competence. So this comment is a distraction.
The critics are good at making up ways that show any test could be fraudulent. That may or may not be true - but in this case no critic is needed. The test did not test what was claimed. You cannot deny that, so this comment is a distraction and irrelevant.
Pons & Fleischmann have been replicated (>100 times according to Jed), yet academia still does not accept LENR as real. P&F did not have prototype commercial power production. The best replications of P&F showed typical 20%or so excess heat from a complex system that could only be determined with calibration, etc, all of which required a 20 page paper to describe and determine correctness, and this can be argued. This again is a distraction - Rossi's claims are so different from P&F claims, and validation so much easier, there is no comparison.
-----------------------------
I think that is about it: a bit repetitive but good to have Adrian's thought processes, and their level of connection with reality, made clear.
The reason Dottre refused to let input power form tested was that it will immediately becomes obvious how reactor functions which in a matter of month turned into a device absolutely impossible to reverse engineer.
I will add that whatever Rossi critics say is a fake news. The only and only truth comes from Dottore, rember that.
I think that is about it: a bit repetitive but good to have Adrian's thought processes,
You left out the bit where I said:
"When in doubt waiting for confirmation is better than jumping to a conclusions that fit your bias."
In the interests of historical accuracy, I should point out that the correct order of names is F&P, not P&F. It doesn't trip off the tongue so easily, but if you want to find their work it is best to have it correct. *
* Possibly I should get out more.
In the interests of historical accuracy, I should point out that the correct order of names is F&P, not P&F. It doesn't trip off the tongue so easily, but if you want to find their work it is best to have it correct. *
* Possibly I should get out more.
well to be historically accurate it should be F, P and H. Don't forget Hawkins. F and P stated in the errata that Marvin was accidentally left off. Fleischmann, Martin and Pons, Stanley, "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium" Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 261, Issue 2, Part 1, p. 301-308 (April 10, 1989) and errata (with Marvin Hawkins) in Vol. 263, p. 187-188, (1989)
and I get out even less.
