Do you know of evidence of fraudulent behavior and claims on the part of anyone other than Rossi? I don't but I am a very curious about the thinking of at least some of the other participants. To be well educated and so close to Rossi's "work" and not be highly suspicious and not be asking the right questions is well... very strange.
-
-
" a while longer", is better than the "soon", we have been hearing about.
I hope the best for IH. As McKubre said today; it is not a matter of who gets there first, let us just get there...or something like that.Keep in touch.
My question would be is where is the "there" and how will be know we are there? Where are the goal posts?
-
It seems to me that the real point is 3. You think the Bologna physicists are guilty of falsifying or fabricating data or some kind of professionaly fraudulant behaviour.
I would avoid the word "fraudulent", because it's too close to legal aspects in which I don't want to enter. I would rather say that they should respond of many misrepresented experimental data and some kind of other severe scientific misbehavior.
QuoteIf what happened was just a demo controlled by Rossi and no scientific papers were produced then it will be difficult for you.
In particular (but not only) I'm referring to the public demo held on January 14, 2011. I don't know when you started following the Ecat affair, but the January 2011 test is unanimously considered the starting point of the public interest in this topic.
The calorimetric results of this test have been presented in a report with the UniBo logo on the first page (1). It was first published on an Italian site on January 23, where it was presented as "official report" (2).
In essence, that document states that - during the January 14, 2011 test - the calorimetric measurements, performed under the responsibility of the Physics Department, showed the undoubted generation of 12 kW of heat coming from a device powered with about 1 kW of electricity.
Did you ever read this report? Do you realize the importance of statements it contains?
QuoteIf scientific papers were produced but they are full of errors and poor measuring then the best you can hope for is to have the authors censured for sloppy science.
The above report is full of misrepresented data, which resulted in a huge overestimation of the output heat, which otherwise would have been much lower than the input power, as normally expected for an electric heater. Despite these evident misrepresentations had been pointed out repeatedly on the internet, they have been never admitted and corrected by the professors involved in the Ecat tests, nor censured by their scientific institution or any other supervisory authority.
QuoteIf what happened was a real scientific test and papers were published with falsified data then there is a real case that you should submit to the appropriate institutions and bodies that funded the work.
Regardless of whether it could be considered a real scientific test or not, those who participated in the demo, performed the calorimetric measurements and calculations, and released the report, were real physics professors of a real well known university. The above mentioned calorimetric report, as well as the subsequent numerous public declarations released by these professors to various important Italian media, confirmed the generation of a dozen of kW of heat for about 40 minutes.
These results were taken so seriously in consideration that in the following years many Italian representatives submitted to the government various requests for funding the CF research, motivated by those results and by the reputation of the professors who claimed them
So, there is no need to inform anyone. I'm only here to participate to a public discussion on the Ecat topic, sharing my point of view with those who are not satisfied with the narrative no.1 (Rossi has the good) and no.2 (Ecat is just a Rossi's scam).
(1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf
(2) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…le-esperimento-della.html
-
The (single named-)suckpuppets change the language, not using "convincing" anymore in the common setup of their posts!
It's a premiere, after my post saying:
"I'm convinced too, by the Stockholm Demo. Convinced in the way, it did not show a reactor with power out > power in.
Because there was no measure of the input power, only BS in the slides and the setup ..."
Ada, August 27, 2018 at 1:41 AM
Dr Rossi,
-
I like the video on Youtube with the November 24 demo in Stockholm of the Ecat QX
'holm watch already attained this:
Correct spelling of the city of Stockholm, instead of Stockolm
Removing: "At the IVA in Stockolm"
What comes next?!
I feel somehow honored!
Let's see how this will go on.
And no, Adrian!
I will not respond to any comment/question from you to this issue.
BTW: You can follow all the suckpuppets on "Rossi Live Blog".
Be aware, will block your browser, needs huge amount of memory and CPU time.
-
-
I do not know of any evidence of fraudulent behaviour on behalf of any scientists who have been involved with Rossi.
I am merely discussing with Ascoli65 who feels that the behaviour of at least some the scientists involved with Rossi has been less than might be expected from such professionals.
Personally I have invested money with Neil Woodford. I increased my investment when I read that he was involved with Industrial Heat. There was a lot of excitement around Rossi in 2014 and you are right to say that the Lugano results helped to give Rossi credibility. Huw Price and Tom Darden at the time all sounded very positive. Also I went to ECat World hoping for some more information
.Gradually the truth came out, Rossi had nothing. So I have been suckered by Rossi too.
You mention the Bologna report, which I have not read, and yes I agree it is an important piece of support for Rossi.
It is true that criticisms have been made and questions asked and no answeres supplied.
Do you know of any further research that has been done by Bologna? Any publications?
It sounds like it has all gone quiet, I think that tells us that they have no defense.
Unfortunately, short of proof of fraudulent behaviour by the scientists, I think there is no-where to go with this.
However much you wish it the Bologna scientists have no requirement to answer your questions or mine. No requirement to come into the public domain and explain themselves.
They only have a requirement to justify themselves to their peers and to their funding bodies.
You asked for my opinion in this matter.
I agree with earlier comments by THHuxleynew. I think we cannot know the reasons for their actions we can only guess. I personally think fraud is unlikely and more likely is foolishness or naïvety.
They are either poor scientists or more charitably are good scientists but were working outside their area of expertise. Jed and many others have criticised the calorimetry.
The cause of the effect is Rossi.
In truth there is no science here.
Science does not work around Rossi.
There are no independent replications because Rossi’s stuff is secret.
There are no scientific tests because Rossi only does demos.
You see a number of scientists who have apparently done something dumb or bad.
But remember, Rossi selected these scientists.
Rossi controlled the demo (as became clear afterwards).
And Rossi did this because he could make use of it to provide himself with credibility.
So yes, there was fraudulent behaviour. Rossi is indeed a maestro at conducting his followers and fans.
-
There was a lot of excitement around Rossi in 2014 and you are right to say that the Lugano results helped to give Rossi credibility.
I didn't say that. I was talking about the Bologna demo held on January 2011, the event that gave a worldwide fame to the Rossi-Focardi method based on presumed Ni-H reactions, and great credibility to the Rossi device, that has since been called Ecat.
QuoteHuw Price and Tom Darden at the time all sounded very positive.
I didn't found anything on internet that gave any clues about Price as a Rossi's advocate before his article published on Aeon in December 2015.
QuoteDo you know of any further research that has been done by Bologna? Any publications?
The Physics Department was involved in some way in all the dozen tests carried out during 2011 (1).
In January 2012, the Department announced the rescission of the research contract with Rossi. Subsequently, the cooperation continued only on a personal basis, with some of the UniBo professors, but the name of the University appeared on the test reports of Ferrara (2013) and Lugano (2014). A great emphasis was also given to the publication of the Lugano report on the UniBo digital library (2).
QuoteUnfortunately, short of proof of fraudulent behaviour by the scientists, I think there is no-where to go with this.
Contrary to many other tests, the January 2011 demo provides plenty of proofs that the experimental data, and hence the calorimetric result, have been misrepresented by the scientists who performed the measurements and calculated the energy balance. It happened because it was the first Ecat test documented on internet and it was not well understood how many side information were possible to infer from photos, videos, and other material published on internet. So, the January 2011 test provides the best evidence ever that scientists, especially in a controversial field such as LENR, can tell people any extravagant result they want and be believed only on the basis of their alleged reliability and correctness.
QuoteHowever much you wish it the Bologna scientists have no requirement to answer your questions or mine. No requirement to come into the public domain and explain themselves.
They only have a requirement to justify themselves to their peers and to their funding bodies.
Their funding body were (and is) the Italian state, and therefore the Italian citizens. The ptofessors chose to skip the normal scientific procedure that requires to submit a paper to a reputable journal and be subjected to the scrutiny of their peers. Instead, they sought easy approval from the wider public by letting publish their data and results directly on internet. So they had the duty do justify themselves for any objections raised on internet by the public, and a double duty towards any Italian citizen.
QuoteI think we cannot know the reasons for their actions we can only guess.
I'm not talking about their reasons. Whatever they were, they published misrepresented data, refused to give reasons for these wrong data, and threatened legal actions against their critics. This example demonstrates how easy it is for scientists involved in the CF/LENR, especially for those belonging to high reputable scientific institution, to disseminate wrong data without any consequence.
QuoteI personally think fraud is unlikely and more likely is foolishness or naïvety.
As I have already told you, it's not my business to speculate about fraud. The only discriminator is if they were aware that the data they published were not right. The documents available on internet demonstrates that it was impossible not being aware of this. In any case the Italian state doesn't spend a lot of money to prepare hundreds of PhD in physics, choose the bests for teaching at the universities, and let them be fooled by a controversial philosopher.
QuoteJed and many others have criticised the calorimetry.
Let me say, that you are continuing to confuse the Bologna demo on the LT Ecat whit the successive Ferrara and Lugano tests on the hotcat. This is the same position JR tries to enforce, postponing the starting of the Ecat story to these later tests (3).
Btw, this is what JR wrote about the January 2011 calorimetry:
Feb7, 2013 - http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg76434.html
"Rossi and the people who have tested his device independently use conventional, off-the-shelve HVAC tools, such as a shielded thermocouple and the kind of mechanical flow meter in millions of houses worldwide. Because Rossi gets so much heat, with such small input power, these instruments and techniques are perfect." [bold added]QuoteYou see a number of scientists who have apparently done something dumb or bad.
But remember, Rossi selected these scientists.
Please, remember that I'm talking about university professors. Well-trained people, whose formation did cost the collectivity a lot, and that, before being selected by Rossi, were already selected by the state to prepare other physicists, carry out valuable and real researches complying with the scientific procedures, and – last but not least – identify and denounce charlatans.
QuoteRossi controlled the demo (as became clear afterwards).
You should look more closely at the documentation available on the Bologna demo.
QuoteRossi is indeed a maestro at conducting his followers and fans.
I didn't paid Rossi, nor invested in his funders, but, as Italian taxpayer, I 'm paying who should have warned the collectivity against those like Rossi.
(1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion
(2) http://www.e-catworld.com/2014…ams-acta-digital-library/
-
Display More
Ascoli65
Scientists are human and can be foolish or even fraudulent.
Science runs on money and reputation, these things distort and corrupt science from its ideals.
I agree that it was the input from certain scientists that encouraged IH to press on with supporting and funding Rossi, and cost them time and money, but the responsibility is with IH to do the due diligence for their investors.
So in the specific case of the scientists that gave support to Rossi is it;
1. They were just taking a look (which is what scientists should be doing).
2. That they actively provided support for Rossi (but in good faith).
3. That they are guilty of falsifying or fabricating data.
If you choose 2. and think they actively provided support to Rossi then boo hoo so did Defkalion, Industrial Heat, Fabiani, Penon, Matts Lewin, Frank Ackland, Sifferkol and many others.
At some point the scientists must have felt confidence that Rossi had something because it was the science rumour mill that got Huw Price excited enough to write his article.
In this case I am sure those scientists will have had their reputations questioned by their colleagues.
It seems to me that the real point is 3. You think the Bologna physicists are guilty of falsifying or fabricating data or some kind of professionaly fraudulant behaviour.
Now that is a major charge which scientific institutions and funding bodies need to take seriously.
If what happened was just a demo controlled by Rossi and no scientific papers were produced then it will be difficult for you.
If scientific papers were produced but they are full of errors and poor measuring then the best you can hope for is to have the authors censured for sloppy science.
If what happened was a real scientific test and papers were published with falsified data then there is a real case that you should submit to the appropriate institutions and bodies that funded the work.
Good luck.
Zeno
Zeno,
That’s a pretty road brush you’re painting with there amigo.
“Science runs on money and reputation”?
All politicians are corrupt,
All policeman are crooked,
All financial planners are scam artists,
All Italians are in the mafia
Where does it stop?
-
My question would be is where is the "there" and how will be know we are there? Where are the goal posts?
old guy,
Rossi’s Goal posts are where they have always been:
MOVING
-
old guy,
Rossi’s Goal posts are where they have always been:
MOVING
I don't think that McKubre was talking about Rossi.
-
I don't think that McKubre was talking about Rossi.
OG,
This new thread Where is the LENR goal line, and how best do we get there? was inspired today, because of your question. Care to comment...there, not here?
-
Fortunately then I did not say "all politicians are corrupt" or "all Italians are in the mafia".
But yes a pretty broand brush discussion of scientific culture to try to provide some context to the Bologna events that Ascoli65 is interested in.
It would be more accurate, but long winded, to say that how science is supposed to work and how it actually works are different things. [At which point a long debate about Popper and Kuhn opens up but lets not go there].
The belief that scientists are all about money and reputation is no more accurate than the belief that they are all about open investigation and getting to the truth.
Science has its own culture, with all the pros and cons that come with that and as far as I can see, when politicians, or other scientists want to control individuals or even an entire field, the levers of choice are money (in the form of funding) and reputation (as in attacks on).
Hopefully that is not too controversial.
-
Scientists are also people, with all the same good traits and bad traits found in every other trade or profession.
-
It would be more accurate, but long winded, to say that how science is supposed to work and how it actually works are different things. [At which point a long debate about Popper and Kuhn opens up but lets not go there].
The belief that scientists are all about money and reputation is no more accurate than the belief that they are all about open investigation and getting to the truth.
Science has its own culture, with all the pros and cons that come with that and as far as I can see, when politicians, or other scientists want to control individuals or even an entire field, the levers of choice are money (in the form of funding) and reputation (as in attacks on).
Hopefully that is not too controversial.
The question here is not the integrity of individual scientists (variable, as with all humans) but the nature of the system.
The triumph of modern science has been that a process of peer-reviewed open publication and debate has proven a good way to compare and contrast different ideas, and push further the ones that work. It is not perfect - nothing is - but over time work that leads to useful further work will triumph.
The LENR community tends to have a less positive view of this process than most: but whether you see the merits or the problems, the key thing to remember here is that we have a process that achieves a better overall outcome than is possible from individual academics, warts and all, with their biases, prejudices, fallibilities.
-
Display More
Ascoli65
Scientists are human and can be foolish or even fraudulent.
Science runs on money and reputation, these things distort and corrupt science from its ideals.
I agree that it was the input from certain scientists that encouraged IH to press on with supporting and funding Rossi, and cost them time and money, but the responsibility is with IH to do the due diligence for their investors.
So in the specific case of the scientists that gave support to Rossi is it;
1. They were just taking a look (which is what scientists should be doing).
2. That they actively provided support for Rossi (but in good faith).
3. That they are guilty of falsifying or fabricating data.
If you choose 2. and think they actively provided support to Rossi then boo hoo so did Defkalion, Industrial Heat, Fabiani, Penon, Matts Lewin, Frank Ackland, Sifferkol and many others.
At some point the scientists must have felt confidence that Rossi had something because it was the science rumour mill that got Huw Price excited enough to write his article.
In this case I am sure those scientists will have had their reputations questioned by their colleagues.
It seems to me that the real point is 3. You think the Bologna physicists are guilty of falsifying or fabricating data or some kind of professionaly fraudulant behaviour.
Now that is a major charge which scientific institutions and funding bodies need to take seriously.
If what happened was just a demo controlled by Rossi and no scientific papers were produced then it will be difficult for you.
If scientific papers were produced but they are full of errors and poor measuring then the best you can hope for is to have the authors censured for sloppy science.
If what happened was a real scientific test and papers were published with falsified data then there is a real case that you should submit to the appropriate institutions and bodies that funded the work.
Good luck.
Zeno
Its'important to remember at this points that the Italian parliament has never fully answered to many parliamentary questions on this subject, even after a huge number of formal solicitations. Notable exception an elusive answer from Dino Piero Giarda (Ministro per i rapporti con il parlamento)
-
Scientists are also people, with all the same good traits and bad traits found in every other trade or profession.
I think some trades attract more bad actors than others. For example, programmers and engineers may be somewhat antisocial but they are usually honest about technical issues because you can't lie to a computer. As Rudyard Kipling put it, machines "are not built to comprehend a lie." Politicians and entertainers tend to be outgoing, or even exhibitionist. Gangsters are, of course, violent and bullying. They wouldn't last long otherwise.
In my experience, academic scientists tend to be low-lifes. They tend to plagiarize, publish fake data, attack other scientists for bogus reasons, and so on. They publish papers full of mistakes that no one reads. Many professors and research scientists have told me stories about behavior that, in other professions, would get you fired. Or you would lose your license to practice, or even be arrested. In academic science, nothing bad happens to them. They are not held accountable.
They also tend to be bullies and stick-in-the-mud conservatives to an extent I find mind-boggling. They will not look at new ideas. They make up excuse after excuse to dismiss cold fusion and other anomalies. If programmers were like this, we would still be using COBOL. Anyone who steps out of line and tries something new or innovative gets his ass kicked. You can see this in Townes' autobiography and many other sources. Years ago, I thought the way they treated cold fusion was an anomaly, and they normally follow the rules, but I now think this kind of dirty politics is the norm.
They go around saying they love new ideas, and they celebrate when someone defies authority, but it happens so seldom that you hear the same stories about the same people told over and over again, because there are so few examples. T. H. Huxley famously said one of his own papers was wrong. Everyone cites him because he is probably the only major scientist to do this since 1860.
Partly, the freedom granted to jerks is price we pay for academic freedom, but unfortunately academic freedom has largely been eroded by bullying tactics and politics, if it ever existed at all. You can be a lying thieving jerk in science, but you better not try to study cold fusion or anything else the majority hates, or they will kick you out.
-
... the Bologna events that Ascoli65 is interested in.
Not just me. The Bologna events are those that have led to all the following developments in the LENR field, not just regarding the Ecat.
On February 25, 2015, the Indian scientific journal "Current Science" dedicated a special issue on the LENR theme, a 170-page collection of 34 cold fusion papers written by many of the stalwarts in the field (1). This special issue was greeted with enthusiasm by the LENR community because it was an initiative of a peer-reviewed journal (2).
Here below, you find an excerpt from the Preface (3):
"It is precisely at this juncture that there comes the latest twist in the LENR story. An unknown ‘outsider’, an engineer–inventor from Italy, Andrea Rossi surprised us all by announcing that he has invented a working, industrial-grade Ni–H LENR reactor. On 14 January 2011, he gave a semi-public demo of the same in the presence of an invited audience and later in the year he followed it up with a demo of a 1 MWth (Megawatt thermal) reactor (composed of over a hundred of the basic 10 KWth modules connected in a series/parallel fashion). Now this ‘development’ (some would say that, in the absence of a peer reviewed publication, we should treat it merely as an ‘unproven’ claim) has revived immense worldwide interest in the whole field of LENR. Dozens of websites have cropped up to follow Rossi’s Ecat." [bold added]
Well, consider that the "revived immense worldwide interest in the whole field of LENR" has been triggered by a test, whose surprising results were based on experimental data misrepresented by scientists who had publicly taken the burden of ensuring the correctness of the calorimetric measurements.
(1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…s/pdfs/CurrentScience.pdf
(2) https://e-catworld.com/2015/02…dian-academy-of-sciences/
-
Quote
Personally I have invested money with Neil Woodford. I increased my investment when I read that he was involved with Industrial Heat. There was a lot of excitement around Rossi in 2014 and you are right to say that the Lugano results helped to give Rossi credibility. Huw Price and Tom Darden at the time all sounded very positive. Also I went to ECat World hoping for some more information ;(.
Gradually the truth came out, Rossi had nothing. So I have been suckered by Rossi too.
Yes, apparently you were suckered by Rossi but be sure to include IH and Woodford and their lack of proper vetting of Rossi in that pronouncement.
https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/sh…capital-trust-ord-gbp0.01
WOODFORD PATIENT CAPITAL TRUST PLC (WPCT) :
-
All politicians are corrupt,
All policeman are crooked,
Should you be interested in the theory behind this, I suggest you listen to the ten 1+ hour lectures by Hans-Hermann Hoppe here. At least they are more entertaining than the babble.
-
Quote
Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Hans-Hermann Hoppe (/ˈhɒpə/; German: [ˈhɔpə]; born September 2, 1949) is a German-born American Austrian School economist, and paleolibertarian anarcho-capitalist philosopher.
Wow. Interesting credentials. Can you say: "conspiracy theories?"
-
As I have already told you, it's not my business to speculate about fraud. The only discriminator is if they were aware that the data they published were not right. The documents available on internet demonstrates that it was impossible not being aware of this. In any case the Italian state doesn't spend a lot of money to prepare hundreds of PhD in physics, choose the bests for teaching at the universities, and let them be fooled by a controversial philosopher.
Ascoli,
But you strongly imply fraud, and that is just as bad as saying it. It is obvious to everyone where you are going with this. If you will, please stop with the insinuations about sinister motives. That includes all involved, from the UOB professors, to Prof. Price. Yes, it smacks of censorship, but even more important to us is to protect respected scientists reputations from destructive speculation.
I do not mean to dissuade you from critiquing their testing methods, or results...that is fair game as part of the peer review process. Just stay away from the personal stuff.
