Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Adrian, by what standard is the stuff that Rossi says considered to be “information”?

    Why the hell you ask him something about Rossi says, credibilaty in it, logic or anything?

    He already made clear statements here in LF and in other places.

    You already know the answers, don't you ? :)

    We are just anon babblers interfering with the AA universe ...

  • So, little over three months before we get much new information. I forecast the babblers will turn and run in 2019 probably saying they knew all along..


    Ok Adrian,

    3 months. I will save this quote and see who is "running". My real question is what will you do in 3 months? When Rossi has nothing, will you continue your babbling insults?


    Here is my forecast for you and the other 1 or two remaining faithful Rossi believers.


    1)Rossi will provide nothing. He will state new, important findings has made the SK obsolete. He will not have shown anything on the SK, at least nothing more than what he showed at the self proclaimed, important Stockholm event. An event that showed absolutely nothing. Remember, ask Alan Smith if you disagree.


    2)Rossi will state that robotic factories are now being built (again... for the third or fourth time acutally) to make this new version of the "xxxx"Cat. They are secret and cannot be disclosed of course!


    3) A major company will be now actively partnering with him on the new "xxxx" Cat. No word will ever be said of the current customer, or the 4 other previous customers he states he has had. No word will be said of the Quark, SKat, Hot Cat, or other models either. They will have evaporated.


    4) And production will be said in 2019 to surely start in 2020.


    5) Last but not leaset, you will still be calling others babblers and throwing insults and still "waiting to see".


    My reasoning on the above... this is EXACTLY WHAT ROSSI has done continuously for the past 7 years. He has a proven track record on this.

    Your facts as to why it will be different? Why "Rossi says" of course.


    Yes, I will try to save your post above and revisit it in 3 months to see who is correct. ;)

  • Rossi says he thinks he will decide on whether to use the QX or the SK next week, following the current trials of the SK.


    He state the January demo will mark the start of production. I don't expect news about a commercial system until mid 2019.


    So, little over three months before we get much new information. I forecast the babblers will turn and run in 2019 probably saying they knew all along..

    I forecast the skeptics will soon be saying

    Holy Cats.

    Definition of holy cats

    —used as an exclamation of surprise, amazement, or bewilderment

  • Sam @Adrian

    Keep on posting your homage for Rossi...


    At least there is something good about it:


    With every post you make, the former overzealous Rossi supporters, the ones who posted, twittered etc. 100 times a week in favor for Rossi and his e-cat farce, the ones who belittled sceptics of beeing “closed minded”, they should recognize themselves now as the Adrians and Sams of 2011, 2012, 2013, ... and experience how nuts they have appeared at that time in the eyes of all the ones with a shred of common sense.

  • A couple of days ago I wrote a response to one of the denizens of Ecat World who had expressed some triumphalist sentiments along the lines we are currently seeing Adrian Ashley. That post was spiked by Frank Acland, the moderator/owner of site. I thank Adrian Ashfield for giving me the opportunity to refashion my rejected post for use here instead. Minor thanks also go out to sam12


    Adrian thinks that Rossi skeptics are going to turn and run after Rossi's January demonstration. But I think that this tells us more about how he sees the world than what Rossi skeptics might do. It tells us that Adrian is a controversialist and polemicist. He is not really interested in what is true and how the world works, he just wants his guy to win. It's sort of a political thing. He thinks everyone is like this, hence his post. In contrast, though, I claim that many of the Rossi skeptics are constituted differently. I know I am. I just want to know what is true and what isn't. That's it. If Rossi has the goods then that is fine with me.


    As proof of my claims, here is a little thought experiment to try out.


    Let's suppose that tomorrow Rossi drops all the secrecy regarding his machines, tells everyone exactly how they work, and pulls off a really convincing demonstration that is replicated by an independent party. How would the skeptics react? Well I would be tickled pink! And curious! So would a lot of others I think. After all this would be convincing proof that something new and valuable has entered the scene. I might wonder why Rossi acted like a con man when he wasn't, but I certainly wouldn't run. Basically I would be happy and curious.


    Now let's reverse things. Let's suppose that tomorrow Rossi announces that it has all been a scam and that he has had a wonderful time fooling everyone. How would the Rossi acolytes behave. I think it would be shock and depression. Probably some degree of nonacceptance too ('He is just lying to throw his enemies off the scent'). I don't think there would be much in the way of 'at least we now know what is the truth of the matter. This is a qualitatively different way of thinking about evidence.


    I invite anyone to play this game. Imagine each scenario and try to figure out what your response would be, Could be revealing.

  • My forecast is that others will make it to the LENR market place and sale items long before Rossi ever has an independent (no touch by Rossi and by no one who has worked with him) verification. And of course Rossi will stand on the side lines claiming the Russians stole his fuel and others stole his Tech but never getting his own to work.

  • Popped here after longish pause and amazed that there are still people using their time on speculating on Rossi.


    It is most convenient and healthiest to simply ignore his promises until he brings real hippo on stage.


    Just sit on fence and look for other technologies meanwhile. If Rossi happens to have something, good for the world and we will surely hear about it without constantly hitting refresh button. if/because he does not have anything, you have not waisted your time on fairytales.


    I haven't even read his latest promises after QX . 'SK' what a is that again anyway? Name changes, but story keeps evolving and always 6 months away.

  • My forecast is that it may be a very long time before we get a definitive answer about the suitability of LENR for any useful power generation. It may be just as long before we get evidence good enough about the very existence of LENR that it will be accepted and examined by "main line" science. IMHO, that may never happen. My forecast is that Rossi will keep spouting nonsense, lies, contradictions, etc. until he dies or goes to prison (again) and that his enthusiasts will continue to believe him until (and probably past) the very end.


    An aside, someone emailed me that the Annesser & Chaiken website ( http://aclaw-firm.com/ ) returns "suspended." Not sure what that means but this was Rossi's law firm during the Rossi vs IH case.


    Adrian Ashfield

    Quote

    They [critics and skeptics] will turn after news of the commercial operation later in the year.

    If Rossi really had the goods, the rights to develop and market the resulting products would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars. And any entrepreneur worth that label would help him protect and get the patents. Of course, the proof of concept demos would be done with a lab model and in a secret setting. It would be completely asinine to make a few kludges and use them to sell a comparatively modest amount of heat. Only a crook would minimize the value of the invention to try selling it to dummies. It's a classic part of high energy scams which has always surprised me. It can only be a part of the "Nigerian Scammer Email Strategy" which is to make the emails so idiotic that only really gullible people will believe them.

  • Just to be clear about my forecast. I expect the critics to be in full babble mode after the Jan 2019 demo. They will turn after news of the commercial operation later in the year.


    Let us then be clear.


    1. In Jan 2019 you expect more of the same: another demo which critics will note demonstrates nothing.
    2. "Later in the year" you expect news of commercial operation, at which point critics will be confounded.


    Care to put some maximum date on when this (independently announced) commercial operation will be? At which point you will be able to join critics?


    My prediction is that you will stay in wait and see mode for as long as Rossi and Frank stay positive and Rossi stays alive and out of prison.

  • It may be just as long before we get evidence good enough about the very existence of LENR that it will be accepted and examined by "main line" science.

    The evidence for cold fusion was definitive by late 1990. Mainline science rejected it for purely political reasons. Similar evidence for any other claim would be instantly accepted by every scientist on earth. High sigma data replicated thousands of time in hundreds of labs is definitive by definition. There is no other standard of proof in experimental science. If you don't accept such data, you are not doing science.

  • Similar evidence for any other claim would be instantly accepted by every scientist on earth. High sigma data replicated thousands of time in hundreds of labs is definitive by definition. There is no other standard of proof in experimental science. If you don't accept such data, you are not doing science.


    I'm afraid I can't agree here. Scientists accept experimental anomalies when they seem compellingly problematic (under existing theory) or when they cohere with some hypothesised alt theory.


    In the case of LENR there is no alt theory that coheres. If there were, the historical indications would be of more interest.


    Equally, if the historical indications were more compelling they would remain high priority for explanation without any coherent theory. In that case, as with the FTL neutrinos, a lot of people would jump in trying to make coherent theories.

  • I'm afraid I can't agree here.

    You are wrong, and Schwinger, Fleischmann and all the others are right.


    Schwinger quoted someone else: “It should not be necessary, however, to understand the mechanism before embracing the concept. If a proven track record can be established . . . you have to believe it.”

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf


    Scientists accept experimental anomalies when they seem compellingly problematic (under existing theory) or when they cohere with some hypothesised alt theory.

    That turns the scientific method upside-down. If that were the standard, no unexplained evidence, and no evidence contradicting theory would be accepted. Consequently, no theory would be challenged, changed or overthrown, and no progress would occur. In science, when theory and replicated experiments conflict, the experiments always win. Theory always loses. No exceptions granted, ever. That is the bedrock basis of the scientific method. It is the one unalterable rule.


    The experiment is not the gold standard of truth. It is the only standard. There is no other way to determine what is true and what is false.


    People who put theory ahead of experiment, and reject results because they cannot be explained, are practicing a perverse form of religion, not science.

  • JedRothwell

    Quote

    Mainline science rejected it for purely political reasons.

    I'm not even sure what that means. Can you expand on it? Do you mean preserving old methods, like the cases of the horse and buggy, or steam locomotives when they became obsolete? Do you mean universities, big companies, entrepreneurs, and the military would not explore a promising energy technology because they hate change so much? Of course, all of that is complete nonsense.


    I am pretty sure that what is compelling evidence to you and a very tiny group of physicists and chemist is simply not all that compelling to the people who make decisions on where money goes. Nobody and no company turns down promising billion dollar propositions.


    And if you claim hot fusion is the guilty party, how do they influence private capital? The Musks, Gates, Bezos, Zuckerbergs, Kochs and the like? They don't give a rat's ass for hot fusion. They are not investing in it. They do not consider cold fusion competition. And very few of the very rich have invested anything substantial in cold fusion. It's not for lack of trying. Obviously Kimmel is interested and disappointed. And Dick Smith was interested in Rossi et al way back when and so was Elforsk and National Instruments and not to forget NASA and several small companies like Quantum (Australia) but we know how that all ended. But the way it ended was that the claims were not credible. It was never for a lack of interest or politics, whatever that means.


    So what do you mean "political?"

  • That turns the scientific method upside-down. If that were the standard, no unexplained evidence, and no evidence contradicting theory would be accepted.


    Based on my post above there are two cases in either one of which change happens:


    (1) in spite of no alt hypothesis, there is some anomaly that becomes compelling as it is replicated. Typically indications that are marginal initially are found in some replicable experiment to be strong. It can take some time for that to happen, but when it does more people jump onto the experiments and theoreticians try to find alt theories.


    (2) Even though the experimental evidence is weak an alt theory has been proposed and those mavericks advocating this (which science encourages) propose new and more definitive experiments. This lives or dies by the subsequent results.


    That seems about right to me.

  • JedRothwell

    Quote

    Consequently, no theory would be challenged, changed or overthrown, and no progress would occur. In science, when theory and replicated experiments conflict, the experiments always win. Theory always loses.

    Yah shoore. When the experiment is solid, impressive and reproducible by many people in its exact original form. You think that criterion is met for cold fusion. Many disagree and apparently, those who have or control money are, with rare exceptions, included in that group.

  • (1) in spite of no alt hypothesis, there is some anomaly that becomes compelling as it is replicated.

    Many cold fusion replications were compelling, such as:


    Any reaction producing multiple watts. Such power levels were measured by with 100% confidence in 1780 by Lavoisier. There is not the slightest chance they are mistaken.


    Any reaction producing tritium at high levels, such as 50 times background, or 10^14 background.


    Reactions producing 100 W of heat after death, lasting for hours, repeated hundreds of times.


    Replicated boil-off experiments. You claimed you found reasons to doubt these, but Fleischmann and Pons anticipated all of your objections and disproved them. You have not found any error in those experiments, or in McKubre's, or any other major experiment. Neither has anyone else.


    If there were errors in every single one of the thousands of positive tests, that would be totally unprecedented in the history of science. Nothing remotely like that has ever happened. No group of distinguished experts, including people who designed nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants (the ones who replicated the boil-off tests), has ever en mass made thousands of mistakes in techniques developed in the 18th century and perfected by J. P. Joule by 1840.