Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Director, your clarification makes it even clearer that Parkhomov's experiment is not a replication, nor have any experimentors replicated Rossi. A replication is not speculating what someone might have done. It is following a protocol and generating equivalent results. Rossi's replication of Steorn's Orbo is a better analogy. The strategy of bilking investors is nearly identical.

    There are lots of different types of vehicles that transport humans: boats, airplanes, trains, trucks, cars, motorcycles, helicopters, hover craft, gyrocopters, dune buggies, and others. For the sake of this analogy, I'll say that any LENR reaction that primarily utilizes nickel and hydrogen is a specifically a car. However, there are many different types of cars that have many differences. One car can be a blue four door sedan with a puny four cylinder engine while another can be a red four door sports coup with a 500HP engine. But they are both fundamentally cars even though there are differences. Anyone can recognize that they are not airplanes (plasma-electrolysis), boats (palladium-deuterium electrolytic cells), motorcycles (Unified Gravity Corporation's Li-H technology), or trains (BLP's hydrino tech). If someone builds a Ni-H system that produces high power (in the kilowatts like Rossi) and reasonable COP (not something like 1.1 or 1.2 that can be argued about as measurement error) then I might not call it a strict replication, but they did in fact build a car. I'd say Focardi and Piantelli built a car as well long before Rossi came along. After Rossi came along, other teams built nickel-hydrogen systems with smaller proportions of other elements such as lithium. They were also cars. Interestingly, Andrea Rossi built a bunch of different cars that used nickel-hydrogen but with added components and enhanced features. To go through the changes that were made from system to system could take up an entire essay. However, he built enough cars to have a decent used car lot. And, of course, like any used car lot, although most will run half decent for a while and a few are really good diamonds in the rough, there are also a couple lemons. What I'm trying to say here is that even though what Parkhomov has done is not a STRICT replication of a specific system Rossi built, I am not going to be critical and negative if someone calls it a replication.


    The truth is that any powerful Ni-H system is going to be compared to Rossi's E-Cats. I think this is appropriate. The fact some people can't seem to tolerate a positive Ni-H result being compared to Rossi is sickening. I understand why a bunch of people are irritated with him due to his very poor behavior, bad business practices, and manipulations. However, Parkhomov's experiment adds evidence that Ni-H is capable of high powered operation even when poorly optimized. This makes it even more likely that Andrea Rossi's technology did indeed work (even if specific devices may not have operated as he described). This is not a bad thing but a very good thing.

    Here we go again. The attitude of so many people on this forum is to totally trash and bash Rossi without separating his behavior from his technology. If his technology worked -- and there is more and more evidence that it did -- then comparing the tests of other scientists to the E-Cat is not discrediting anyone. The level of hate seems to be so high on this forum that if by some miracle Andrea Rossi announced a deal with a MAJOR company and their CEO came out with a hundred scientists who had personally verified that a specific version of the E-Cat worked, many users would rather see the technology destroyed than commercialized.

    I am sure that probably everybody here on this forum will admit to be completely wrong on Rossi and forgive everything he wrote or thought on this “inventor”, if really happens what you claim = he presents a working product with a major industrial partner. I for myself would eat my hat and will vote for him to get the Nobel price in physics.

    But there is simply to much proof of the opposite, we won’t witness such a miracle...

    Quote from Director

    Here we go again. The attitude of so many people on this forum is to totally trash and bash Rossi without separating his behavior from his technology. If his technology worked -- and there is more and more evidence that it did -- then comparing the tests of other scientists to the E-Cat is not discrediting anyone. The level of hate seems to be so high on this forum that if by some miracle Andrea Rossi announced a deal with a MAJOR company and their CEO came out with a hundred scientists who had personally verified that a specific version of the E-Cat worked, many users would rather see the technology destroyed than commercialized.


    Director: I understand your sentiment. Perhaps what will help you to understand the others is what I have highlighted in bold above. Most people would say exactly the opposite.

    Quote from Director

    There are lots of different types of vehicles that transport humans: boats, airplanes, trains, trucks, cars, motorcycles, helicopters, hover craft, gyrocopters, dune buggies, and others. For the sake of this analogy, I'll say that any LENR reaction that primarily utilizes nickel and hydrogen is a specifically a car. However, there are many different types of cars that have many differences. One car can be a blue four door sedan with a puny four cylinder engine while another can be a red four door sports coup with a 500HP engine. But they are both fundamentally cars even though there are differences. Anyone can recognize that they are not airplanes (plasma-electrolysis), boats (palladium-deuterium electrolytic cells), motorcycles (Unified Gravity Corporation's Li-H technology), or trains (BLP's hydrino tech). If someone builds a Ni-H system that produces high power (in the kilowatts like Rossi) and reasonable COP (not something like 1.1 or 1.2 that can be argued about as measurement error) then I might not call it a strict replication, but they did in fact build a car. I'd say Focardi and Piantelli built a car as well long before Rossi came along. After Rossi came along, other teams built nickel-hydrogen systems with smaller proportions of other elements such as lithium. They were also cars. Interestingly, Andrea Rossi built a bunch of different cars that used nickel-hydrogen but with added components and enhanced features. To go through the changes that were made from system to system could take up an entire essay. However, he built enough cars to have a decent used car lot. And, of course, like any used car lot, although most will run half decent for a while and a few are really good diamonds in the rough, there are also a couple lemons. What I'm trying to say here is that even though what Parkhomov has done is not a STRICT replication of a specific system Rossi built, I am not going to be critical and negative if someone calls it a replication.


    The truth is that any powerful Ni-H system is going to be compared to Rossi's E-Cats. I think this is appropriate. The fact some people can't seem to tolerate a positive Ni-H result being compared to Rossi is sickening. I understand why a bunch of people are irritated with him due to his very poor behavior, bad business practices, and manipulations. However, Parkhomov's experiment adds evidence that Ni-H is capable of high powered operation even when poorly optimized. This makes it even more likely that Andrea Rossi's technology did indeed work (even if specific devices may not have operated as he described). This is not a bad thing but a very good thing.

    Director,


    I would “tolerate” a positive Ni-H result of excess heat if it was replicated by trusted sources, in fact I would welcome and celebrate it.

    However, FYI, moving forward:


    To replicate:

    Use the same bill of materials

    Use the same build instructions

    Use the same testing procedure/protocols

    Get the same results


    There have been many claims of excess heat by many different experimenters, however,

    when pushed, these people cannot even reliably replicate their own experiments let alone train someone else do it.


    As before, this is not politics, religion or philosophy, it is not a high school debate class, it is science, there is an answer,

    it must be found.

    Quote from Director

    bash Rossi without separating his behavior from his technology. If his technology worked -- and there is more and more evidence that it did

    Director,


    I hope you would consider looking at two issues from a different point of view:


    1) I do not think anyone here is against LENR. If it comes to fruition, we will all benefit. The claim by many (possibly you) that we are trying to subvert LENR is simply not the case. No more so than me exposing Maddoff as a conman and thief is me stating that all investors are frauds and thieves and that no one should invest money. Most here do not hate Rossi, we simply are not turning a blind eye to the MOUNTAINS of evidence that he is a fraud, liar and deceiver. That he has NEVER presented anything to be working and has often been caught red handed lying and cheating.


    So please reconsider your view about "us" not being able to separate his technology from his behavior. His ONLY "technology" has CAME from his behavior.... frauding and cheating. He has NEVER shown any working technology. Period. Please provide ANY test, demo or data set that has been confirmed as real, not manipulated nor entirely controlled by Rossi. There is none. How can you say his technology works when there has been zero fact that it does. Zero. I beg you give specific reports, published documents or authorized accounts (not Rossi says) that publicly give support. I doubt that even Focardi, like so many others, was simply going off Rossi supplied data.


    2) "there is more and more evidence that it did". Please. If you (or other Rossi supporters) want to be taken seriously, you will have to back these statements up with hard, documented facts. I have followed this saga closely. I have seen ZERO supporting evidence and MOUNTAINS that state Rossi has deceived at every test.

    Do you think the Stockholm "Event" showed anything? If so, please ask Alan Smith to report what it showed. He was there.

    What is this "more and more" evidence you speak of? Parkamov? Parkamov has not been proved by anymeans, and even if he did, he does not have Rossi secrets. Androlcles? Not a Rossi replication and it has not been verified yet either.


    These types of "wishful thinking" logic is what draws such criticism. It is very much like the lottery system in America. I know of several people who play the lottery several times a week. They spend large amounts of money on it, more than they can afford, because they "know" they are going to win. Someone "told" them of a surefire formula to generate the winning numbers. Or they have a "feeling" that they are going to win. The facts are their chances of winning is one in many millions. Wishful thinking will NOT change that.


    Your wishful thinking that Rossi has something will NOT change the fact that he is a liar, fraudster and deceiver. Your logic that we cannot separate his "technology" from his behavior is flawed. His TECHNOLOGY IS HIS DECEIVING and FRAUDULENT METHODS. The Stockholm event is a prime example. He showed NOTHING yet claims high COP and that it was a "Very Convincing Demo". It was not. It actually showed how blatant he is.


    Only those who do not want to see this cannot. They have blinded themselves by their wishful thinking.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Director: I understand your sentiment. Perhaps what will help you to understand the others is what I have highlighted in bold above. Most people would say exactly the opposite.


    Exactly. The evidence clearly shows that Rossi has no technology.


    @Director, If you were an experienced engineer or research scientist this would be obvious to you. Not because of his fraudulent behavior, but because of his utterly incompetent scientific research behavior and even worse engineering behavior.


    Engineers work overtime to test things, often to the point of breaking them to find their strengths and weaknesses.


    Scientists work overtime to find fault with their theories and design rigorous and repeatable tests that can provide stronger evidence of their hypotheses to their knowledgeable peers.


    Rossi, ever the attention seeker, spends hours daily blogging a lot of inconsistent and self-contradictory fantasies to titillate some slice of his ignorant but hopeful audience, uses shoddy stagecraft to create meaningless demonstrations that provide no evidence to support his extraordinary claims, and gets angry and belligerent when others identify faults with his "reactors" (e.g unfueled reactor with "high COP" by Darden in NC).


    But please provide a description of Rossi's technology that should be recognized on it's own merits independent of Rossi's behavior. This would be helpful in supporting your assertion, as I have not been able to identify any such technology, as an accomplished engineer and research scientist.


    Quote from Director

    The truth is that any powerful Ni-H system is going to be compared to Rossi's E-Cats.


    I find this assertion to be self-evidently absurd. I am confident that were anyone able to actually devise a powerful Ni-H system, the last thing they would want is to be compared to or associated with Rossi's E-Cats.

    Director, thank you for your comments on page 241


    As you can see, logic s not a strong point for the babblers. I don’t think they even try. They just use any new post as an excuse to bash Rossi or anyone supporting him. Perhaps it is because they never do anything themselves and have an inferiority complex, that can’t stand the thought of Rossi succeeding.


    Woodworker takes me to task for comparing Rossi with Edison. He completely misses the point that was the importance of his degree. If he has such a problem parsing a paragraph he must have found being a lawyer difficult.


    Roseland67 posts the definition of replication -for the third time. Apparently he thinks if someone dropped an anvil from the Tower of London and measured how long it took to reach the ground, this would not be confirmation of Garibaldi’s experiment. He simply cannot understand that the various experiments showing heat from Ni/H confirm Rossi’s discovery. Just how well his reactors worked ar Doral is far from clear. No wonder to read America has fallen so far behind the rest of the world in education.


    Zorud writes: “I am sure that probably everybody here on this forum will admit to be completely wrong on Rossi and forgive everything he wrote or thought on this “inventor,””

    But why should we forgive those that libeled Rossi so many years and those that halted progress through their disbelief in LENR? Stopping grants and blackballing academics who try to work in the field.?


    The babbler nonsense is endless. They don’t seem to know how industry works and nothing will change until next year with more information.

    Quote from Adrian Ashfield

    They don’t seem to know how industry works and nothing will change until next year with more information.


    For those not familiar with American baseball, the Chicago cubs went 100+ years before winning a Word Series. For almost 100 years the fans had a famous saying when the Cubs would futilely lose every year..... "Oh well..... there is always next year!" It became a running joke within baseball.


    "wait until next year" has become the Rossi faithful anthem. Every year, "next year" will be the robotic factory. "Next year" the eCat will be commercialized. "Next year" the customer will be identifified. "Next year them darn babblers will see!" ;)


    A.A. You constantly state we do not know how industry works or that our logic is flawed! Unfortunately, you need to look into a mirror.

    I have more recent industry experience and knowledge than you probably ever did, based upon your posts. You are clueless about regulations, corporate liability and your logic of how science works is appalling. Or you simply are arrogant in the face of facts.


    Challenged often, you cannot present any facts other than "Rossi says" to support your claims. When Rossi contradicts himself, you simply "forget" what he says and only spew his current statements. When factual proof of his lying or deceit is provided, you ignore it and turn a blind eye. When challenged, your "I do not want to rehash old history" is laughable. Your "old history" is being made every year! You have already forgotten that Rossi was to be in production this last spring. Yes indeed, wait until next year...…...


    You have NO facts, NO logic and quite clearly NO clue to how real industry / science works. I state this from a person with 30+ years that is STILL in industry.

    It is quite arrogant of you to continually call others with far more education, experience and sound logic than you "babblers".


    You sir, are the biggest babbler on this forum! One year from now, you will still be babbling "wait until next year!", just like the Cub fans did for 100 years!:rolleyes:

    AA: Woodworker takes me to task for comparing Rossi with Edison. He completely misses the point that was the importance of his degree. If he has such a problem parsing a paragraph he must have found being a lawyer difficult.


    Glad you agree Rossi's BEng equivalent degree (in philosophy) has no relationship to engineering. So where, then, has Rossi shown even the tiniest grain of engineering sense? Edison was a real engineer, no doubt, focussed on making things work. Rossi's only notable focus is in cultivating his blog, and he is on record as making novice-level engineering mistakes time and again. Somehow they are all in the direction of generating false positives in his demos.



    AA: Roseland67 posts the definition of replication -for the third time. Apparently he thinks if someone dropped an anvil from the Tower of London and measured how long it took to reach the ground, this would not be confirmation of Garibaldi’s experiment. He simply cannot understand that the various experiments showing heat from Ni/H confirm Rossi’s discovery.


    MFMP set up shop with the mission of getting definitive evidence of excess heat. They have looked at all these post-Rossi Ni-H claims, and replicated the most promising, as well as their own best effort Rossi-clone. Those experiments have NOT led to evidence of excess heat - if they had, the world would be a different place by now. The comparison is an anvil dropped from the Tower of London that zooms upwards and hits a passing A320. Rossi's talent is in blogging, and extracting money from unwary marks, not engineering.

    • Official Post

    @Roseland67

    For a good experiment, I would prefer that

    - each result is based on two different methods, even if one is rough

    - a replication with a different measurement method would be even better


    as long as all is not understood asking for same results while materials may be different for an unknwn reason, is not honest.


    I'm more convinced by the fact that different teams show that same factors have similar effects.

    A way I am convinced that LENR is real is that some factors seems to have effect (impurities, metal batch), and this does not looks like artifact, but clearly material science.


    a great experiment would be to find what can kill the reaction to show this factors cannot kill an artifact.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    MFMP set up shop with the mission of getting definitive evidence of excess heat. They have looked at all these post-Rossi Ni-H claims, and replicated the most promising, as well as their own best effort Rossi-clone. Those experiments have NOT led to evidence of excess heat - if they had, the world would be a different place by now. ...


    My main regret with the Dogbone experiments is that MFMP did not take the un-fueled verification test all the way.

    By that I mean after doing the multi-method temperature-emissivity checks, ignoring that info temporarily, doing the Lugano re-iterative IR method, using the total emissivity for the Optris as done in Lugano (Bob H made a great table of the values), calculating the apparent COP using the same heat calculations as in the Lugano report, use the known measured input power, and calculating the apparent COP using the Lugano methodology as closely as possible. That would have laid that episode to rest much more completely than leaving it for the crowd to fuss over for months (years) after.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    All LENR effects have been historically small,

    Except for the ones which were big, such as 20 to 100 W reactions, some of them continuing for months. You claim they don't exist but that does not actually make them not exist.


    "Big" is a relative term. They were big in the sense that they were easy to measure and irrefutable, and they produced thousands of times more energy than the biggest plasma fusion reaction on record, albeit less power. "Irrefutable" in the sense that no actual scientific arguments have been made to refute them, but only hand-waving and impossible physics.

    Alain,


    I guess in Roseland67 world, if you don’t get the same results, you haven’t replicated anything, all you’ve done is another experiment and gotten different results.


    It is science, there is an answer why you didn’t get the same results, it is up to science to find out why.


    Continue experimenting, continue eliminating all of the variables until you do get the same results, time and time again.

    Then the theory of what is happening can begin to shape additional experimenting to improve in the results.

    Adrian,


    All of the anvils would make a loud noise & leave a big hole in the ground, (read ALL).


    Not ALL of the Ni-H experiments result in excess heat do they? (Why not)?

    In fact the overwhelming majority of them do not and never have.

    In the very rare odd case, a Ni-H experiment does result in some amount of excess heat, but when run exactly the same again, there is no hole in the ground, again why?

    Because something in the experiment changed, it is up to the experimenter to find out what, and so far, nada

Subscribe to our newsletter

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

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

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

Our Partners

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