As far as I am concerned, Rossi walked away from trillions when he abandoned the 1MW with the Big Frankies. I know that one move on his part has been swept under the rug, but it does lay to waste the argument Rossi has something. Last Paradigmnoia checked, the discarded shells on those plants were in the parking lot of the Doral warehouse.
After that, my guess is that Dewey or Darden are not worried at all about any lost investment opportunity.
If a team got serious I suspect we could have a working example of a QX in a month or two at the most.
My guess is that if you don't mind the electrode burning out rather quickly, the QX is a fairly forgiving design.
Yea but its the same stuff everyone has bin tinkering with.
As far as I am concerned, Rossi walked away from trillions when he abandoned the 1MW with the Big Frankies. I know that one move on his part has been swept under the rug, but it does lay to waste the argument Rossi has something. Last Paradigmnoia checked, the discarded shells on those plants were in the parking lot of the Doral warehouse.
After that, my guess is that Dewey or Darden are not worried at all about any lost investment opportunity.
Shane,
The term “Has something” is just as subjective as everything else from Rossi.
Does this mean that you believe that Rossi actually has some process that delivers
Energy Out > Energy In?
Is that what “ Has something” means?
Display MoreShane,
The term “Has something” is just as subjective as everything else from Rossi.
Does this mean that you believe that Rossi actually has some process that delivers
Energy Out > Energy In?
Is that what “ Has something” means?
I believe it is better left undefined. That way everyone is right when they say he might have something.
Rossi spiced it up a bit tonight, by answering he has invited a potential business client to the demo. Thankfully Acland will be there to witness if this client attends, and if so, is he a crony/friend, or a legitimate businessman.
I guess your whishfull thinking that Rossi might have at least “something”, again makes you blind and read “Rossi say” wrongly.
(Sad to see this forum going to the same low level as e-catworld.com, where everyone - including Mod - makes wild fetched assumptions instead of sticking to facts.)
Rossi answered “Yes, we did” to this question :
QuoteDisplay MoreObro
November 4, 2018 at 1:30 PM
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Congratulations on the success of your Energy Catalyser!
Since there’s not going to be a live audience on the January presentation,have you personally invited any potential business clients to watch it on the Net? I’m sure a lot of your admirers will be watching it,but if there are not any tentative clients among them, I’m afraid the presentation will be pointless.
I wholeheartedly wish you success!
Regards,
Obro
42,
I have to stop going by what those guys on ECW say and read the Rossiblogreader myself! So it will most likely be Acland only. Too bad. Like I said, this demo means nothing to me, other than some entertainment value. All I want to know is who the partner is. That will tell me most of what I need to know. Good chance though, that we will never find out.
And why does everyone seem to think I have relapsed back into being a Rossi believer? I have been sober now since the Rossi depositions were made public, and I intend to stay that way.
The ultimate benefit of solving the fusion problem is socio-political and economic freedom-without a revolution in the energy field we're all basically screwed. So stop messing around, Rossi, we're out of time, if you really do have a viable solution with the e-cat then send out models to our LENR forum members for independent validation and then we'll publish all the data. If you refuse this challenge then we all know you've just been wasting everyone's time and none of us need to seriously consider any of your work in the future. Simple answer, yes or no?
And why does everyone seem to think I have relapsed back into being a Rossi believer?
Because you refuse to say that Rossi has never produced a new energy device and has always been nothing but a fraud. Your current position appears to be that some version if the e-cat actually worked but the more recent ones don’t. If that is not your view, then perhaps you should clarify it. If that is your view, then you are still some sort of Rossi believer.
Because you refuse to say that Rossi has never produced a new energy device and has always been nothing but a fraud.
I refuse to say that is absolutely certain, because I do not know of any major errors in this report:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf
Do you know of any? If you don't, how can you be so certain? Absolute certainty with no technical basis is not science. It is the opposite of science.
Also, can you explain the burst or radiation measured by Celani during one of Rossi's early demonstrations? I can think of some ways that might have been done deliberately, but they are far-fetched.
So stop messing around, Rossi, we're out of time, if you really do have a viable solution with the e-cat then send out models to our LENR forum members for independent validation and then we'll publish all the data. If you refuse this challenge then we all know you've just been wasting everyone's time and none of us need to seriously consider any of your work in the future. Simple answer, yes or no?
That is hopelessly naive. Rossi is moving as fast as possible. Building reactors with a large industrial company would be far faster than the route you propose.
Rossi doesn't read this shutrossidown thread. If you want to contact him use his JONP blog. It would help to be more polite if you did.
It is absolutely certain that none of the e-cats have ever worked? No. Absolute certainty is not a requirement for making scientific assertions. However, using logic and reasoning goes a long way. If Rossi had an over-unity device in his hot little hands in 2011, why the hell did he drop it like a hot potato for a series of increasingly ludicrous frauds? Your answer it that Rossi is just an odd duck but since the content of a paper was not refuted, one has to still think the work is valid. There were plenty of very convincing criticisms of the old Levi work and it really is quite irrelevant whether somebody published a paper refuting it. Reality is not determined by the Citation Index. My answer is that the original work is just as fraudent as the later work. Why? Because it stands to reason.
There were plenty of very convincing criticisms of the old Levi work
Was there? Where was it published?
My answer is that the original work is just as fraudent as the later work. Why? Because it stands to reason.
This is experimental science. Nothing "stands to reason." Any claim stands or falls by experiment only. There are no other standards. You have to have technical reasons to justify your assertion or you have nothing.
The Levi experiment was not replicated so we have no way of knowing if it was real or not, but just saying "it stands to reason" without listing technical reasons is not science. It is your unsupported opinion. It is also not debatable or falsifiable. How would anyone show you are wrong? If it cannot be falsified, it isn't science. The same goes for THH's claim that there might be an as-yet undiscovered error in Fleischmann's experiment. That's true, and it applies equally well to every experiment in history. There might be undetected errors in experiments done by Galileo or Newton, but it is exceedingly unlikely. While it is true there might be an undetected error in Fleischmann's work, you cannot make that claim in a scientific discussion because it cannot be either proved true or false. THH has to point a specific error and show evidence for it. A negative view does not get a free pass. He, and you, have to support your assertions with as much rigor and as many facts as anyone making a positive assertion does.
That is hopelessly naive. Rossi is moving as fast as possible. Building reactors with a large industrial company would be far faster than the route you propose.
Rossi doesn't read this shutrossidown thread. If you want to contact him use his JONP blog. It would help to be more polite if you did.
Adrian,
How will you react when Rossi has passed and the Ecat and all of its variants has not been released as an Over unity device?
Ok Jed. Based on your response, you accept the Levi results in the absence of a refutation. Ergo, you are a Rossi believer. Wear it with pride.
Ok Jed. Based on your response, you accept the Levi results in the absence of a refutation.
No, I do not. I said: "The Levi experiment was not replicated so we have no way of knowing if it was real or not."
No, I do not. I said: "The Levi experiment was not replicated so we have no way of knowing if it was real or not."
So you have no opinion whatsoever. Is that it?
Is that what “ Has something” means?
I think we all can agree that Rossi has "testicoli" (or "cajones", for english speakers here) 
I think we all can agree that Rossi has "testicoli" (or "cajones", for english speakers here)
He does have brass, I’ll give him that
And why does everyone seem to think I have relapsed back into being a Rossi believer? I have been sober now since the Rossi depositions were made public, and I intend to stay that way.
Maybe it is because you are doing a good job as a moderator and being
fair to all members whatever there
opinion is on Rossi and his Ecat.
...being fair to all members whatever there opinion is...
And that is a great part of it.
