Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Magician is a perfect description. All his demos are performed along the lines of a stage act. Nearly all magicians have an engineer to invent the illusion and manufacture the props. However the last demo with the plastic plumbing parts suggests his regular guy done a runner.

Quote from Bruce__H

[...]

Of course the Convinced are really nothing but Rossi sending congratulations to himself while posing as someone else. This is proof. Rossi was especially active on Christmas day when he sent himself 2 messages of support and congratulations. A special present! That is both manipulative and sad.

Thanks for the work, Bruce.

Please correct me someone, I've lost the source, but:

IMHO on Rossis's blog, the (non-Rossi) messages do not appear in "realtime", they are put on queue, sorted out by AR, made online (or get deleted) and then are answered.

This may lead to false correlations (time stamps).

But for Rossi (himself) and sockpuppets-posts the correlations are very interessting.

BTW: It must not always be Rossi himself as a sockpuppet, it is also possible that we read his wife Maddalena Pascucci or someone from his "italien/english speaking inner circle".

Just my two cents ....

I agree, ca. 8 out of 10 comments are in “italo-english “, with same grammar and same wrong-spelling of words...there is a real Italian relatives crowd it seems... 😄

Quote from bang99

IMHO on Rossis's blog, the (non-Rossi) messages do not appear in "realtime", they are put on queue, sorted out by AR, made online (or get deleted) and then are answered.

I had the same thought. That is why I displayed Frank Acland's message times. We know that Frank is a real person. If you look at his posts their pattern does not shift when Rossi travels to Europe. I conclude that the timestamps of messages from real people are assigned when the system receives them and have not, so far, been under Rossi's control. Of course anything could happen in the future.

Quote from interested observer

So you have no opinion whatsoever. Is that it?

Do you speak language? I clearly stated my opinion. Let me repeat: The Levi experiment was not replicated so we have no way of knowing if it was real or not.

That is to say, we have no scientific or technical basis for judging whether it is real. A person might judge based on Rossi's personality and his actions, in which case most people would bet the results are wrong, or fraudulent. But that is not falsifiable. It is not debatable. It is just an intuitive hunch.

Quote from Alan Smith

And if AR could solve the energy problem, and has a technology which he was suddenly happy to give away that capable of doing so,

There would be no need to give anything away.

Quote from Alan Smith

No peer reviewed papers, no independent confirmations?

I meant there are ways to sell technology while protecting intellectual property (I.P.) , with things like patents. Peer-reviewed papers and independent confirmations need not interfere with getting a patent. For example, a confirmation can be made without revealing the inner nature of the device, in a black box test. People have often pointed that out.

Granted, the confirmation would stir up interest and trigger competition, but it would also enhance the likelihood of success in various ways, such as by attracting powerful allies. I mean wealthy people who want a piece of the action, and who will pay for for a first-rate patent attorney. I.H. was an ideal example of such people. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Rossi's claims were real, and that he was capable of demonstrating the effect. In that case, he threw away a golden opportunity by refusing to demonstrate the effect, and by alienating and then filing suit against I.H. If the effect is real, the was the stupidest thing he could have done.

I am saying it is possible for some people to protect I.P. while publishing peer-reviewed papers and allowing independent confirmations. I am not saying that Rossi is capable of doing this. He isn't inclined to do it. Again, assuming for the sake of argument the effect is real, he is terribly self-destructive. He must have thrown away billions of dollars in potential income by now.

I think there is little chance his claims are true. That's my hunch, based on his behavior. Although as I said, I know of no compelling technical reasons to doubt the first Levi test. There are some reasons to doubt it, of course. I was hoping a better test would be done. I made several suggestions to Levi for a better test, all of which he ignored. The second test, at Lugano, was an abomination instead of an improvement. Again, that gives me a feeling the first test was botched. "A feeling" is not proof of anything in science, but there it is. You should not ignore your own intuition.

Quote from JedRothwell

Do you speak language? I clearly stated my opinion. Let me repeat: The Levi experiment was not replicated so we have no way of knowing if it was real or not.

That is to say, we have no scientific or technical basis for judging whether it is real. A person might judge based on Rossi's personality and his actions, in which case most people would bet the results are wrong, or fraudulent. But that is not falsifiable. It is not debatable. It is just an intuitive hunch.

I asked for your opinion of the reality of the Levi experiment, not the scientific analysis of it. I didn't ask if you knew whether it was real. I asked whether you thought it was real. I guess that you view yourself as a Vulcan whose thoughts and opinions are not colored by such things as emotions and other external factors. So perhaps I should not have pushed. As Adrian is fond of pointing out, if you don't take sides, you can't be on the wrong side. Of course, he is the worst example ever of not taking sides, but that's another story.

Quote from interested observer

I asked for your opinion of the reality of the Levi experiment, not the scientific analysis of it.

My opinion is that it is impossible to judge the reality of the Levi experiment by a scientific standard. If you wish to judge it by some other standard, go ahead. Feel free. In this case, you are going by your gut feeling, or intuition, and by your experience in life that untrustworthy people often lie. There is no harm in judging things by such standards but it ain't science. As I said, other people cannot falsify your hunch, or debate whether you are right or wrong. Someone else might have a different life experience that leads them to reach a different conclusion. Someone who has spent a lot of time working with academic scientists will know that they are often eccentric, and that trying to judge their claims based on their personalities may be problematic.

I described my own non-scientific hunch above:

"I think there is little chance his claims are true. That's my hunch, based on his behavior. Although as I said, I know of no compelling technical reasons to doubt the first Levi test. There are some reasons to doubt it, of course. I was hoping a better test would be done. I made several suggestions to Levi for a better test, all of which he ignored. The second test, at Lugano, was an abomination instead of an improvement. Again, that gives me a feeling the first test was botched. 'A feeling' is not proof of anything in science, but there it is. You should not ignore your own intuition."

Quote from interested observer

I didn't ask if you knew whether it was real. I asked whether you thought it was real.

I think I cannot tell. Does that bother you? You seem to dislike ambiguity. I sense you feel uncomfortable in a state of not knowing, or a state of withholding or suspending judgment. In science you must often suspend judgement for years, or for a lifetime. Most questions are never answered. Many answers turn out to be wrong. The more you learn, the less you know. In my experience that's even more true when it comes to raising children.

That is true to lesser a extent with technical fields such as programming. There is never a perfectly right answer or a best method in programming. It is always a matter of degree. What were good methods in 1990 are obsolete or even impossible to implement today. It is a mixture of art and science. Art can never be definitely defined, known, or judged right or wrong.

Quote from Bob

But oh the "I have confirmation" trumps all! No it does not.

This is the destiny of nameless forum trolls: They will never meet people that are friends, partners of the people they comment on. Alan or myself would certainly tell your dog but no you ...

Since getting my PhD some 36 years ago I have had the pleasure of working and interacting with a great many scientists in many disciplines. My experience has been that very few refused to make judgments about various matters simply because they did not have access to all possibly useful data. They would still form provisional opinions. Most were equally willing to change their minds if new data was presented that refuted their previous conclusions. But apparently you know far more about how science works than I do and apparently I am simply mistaken.

I might point out that there are dozens or perhaps hundreds of free energy claims that have never been formally refuted. I would say that one can safely assume that they are all nonsense based on the fact that they quickly vanished into obscurity along with their authors. I guess you would say that one cannot have an opinion about them because that isn’t how science works. I guess you’re the expert.

Quote from interested observer

My experience has been that very few refused to make judgments about various matters simply because they did not have access to all possibly useful data.

No one can ever have access to all possible useful data. The life of the universe is not long enough for that. However, any scientific judgement of the Levi experiment must be based on some useful data. Your judgement appears to be based on your opinion of Rossi, which is not scientific data at all.

Quote from interested observer

They would still form provisional opinions.

A provisional opinion is like a like verbal agreement; it isn't worth the paper it's written on (Samuel Goldwyn). Anyone can have an opinion about anything. Unless you can list specific technical reasons to doubt the Levi paper, your opinion has no technical merit and I, for one, will ignore it. Okay, I will agree that Rossi's personality casts doubt on the results. But that's not proof of anything. It is a shrug of the shoulders. It is putting the question aside, indefinitely.

Quote from interested observer

I might point out that there are dozens or perhaps hundreds of free energy claims that have never been formally refuted. I would say that one can safely assume that they are all nonsense based on the fact that they quickly vanished into obscurity along with their authors.

I would not assume that at all. Lots of things vanish into obscurity along with their authors. Many good programming techniques from the 1970s have vanished, which is why some modern programs are unreliable, slow, or infuriating. I do not believe free energy claims because they violate the laws of thermodynamics. Also because some free energy experiments I looked at were wrong. Those, I am sure of.

It is possible some of the free energy claims I have not examined were right. It seems unlikely, but I cannot tell. Again, I don't mind suspending judgment. It does not bother me to admit I do not know. It seems to bother you. I do not understand your state of mind, but I know that many people share it. People don't like mysteries. They don't like to admit they don't know the answer. I suppose that is why they make up explanations for things and then cling to them despite evidence to the contrary. I have never felt an urge to do that. I couldn't care less whether I personally understand something or not. I have spent decades trying to grapple with things that I barely understand, and things like cold fusion that no one understands.

Thank you Jed for not going down your usual path of insults in your response. Mysteries are great. The world is full of them and exploring any one of which can provide a career. Based on the totality of the Rossi saga, I don’t see much reason to expect his early demonstrations to be any different from his later ones. But if it turned out that the first e-cats actually worked but he then went down the road we have witnessed, that would be a true mystery to solve... but for a psychologist, not a physicist.

Quote from Bob

Unfortunately, Acland being there will make no difference.

There was truly a qualified and capable witness at the Stockholm event and look what came from it.... absolutely nothing. No report, no list of who was there. No scientific evaluation of the presentation. Nada. Yes, it was said "many" prospective business entities were there but nary a peep of who they might be. Acland is not nearly as qualified as the Stockholm visitor, so why would we expect anything?

We will hear nothing from this demo from Acland of import or detail. He will either have to sign a NDA that prohibits him from saying anything or he will not know who is in attendance anyway. (I doubt they will be wearing name tags with company names on them!)

Remember, Acland went to Doral at one time. He reported seeing "convincing" evidence, but was not allowed to publish anything of value or proof.

This will likely be the same.

Interesting about a "prospective business client". Rossi has been espousing that he has a new partner for a long time. One that has "fire power".

Hmm... has he "lost" this new partner now? It is doubtful that if a partner, who is building and helping design the reactor, would allow a potential competitor to come to the demo. While some might say, oh it is a customer looking to purchase heat etc., do you think this January demo is the best forum a real and legitimate industrial company would put on for a potential customer.

This is another blatant example of how naïve Rossi and some of his followers are. He stated the Stockhold event was a demo for potential investors. It was a joke! Any real company, with real engineers, with real "firepower" would never put that up to a potential multi-million dollar customer. That is simply beyond belief. That demo was an absolute joke! (Of course I would certainly entertain a formal report showing that it was not! )

Let's see what the Jan. demo is like. If it is another "Stockholm event" , you can rest assured that any new partner is not one of major "firepower" or experience in industrial sales/service.

Still waiting for the believer's response with some details on what they expect to see in January. A working, ready for industrial use, viable piece of equipment ….. or some Home Depot sprinkler parts? Come on guys, you believe in Rossi, he has said "industrialized" and you believe what Rossi says is to be believed. What is your expectation of industrialized SKCat?

Surely you believe enough in Rossi to give us an opinion.... otherwise your lack of conviction is telling that you in truth know you cannot believe what Rossi says! Can you believe him or not?

Display More

I suspect that Rossi has moved up/down/sideways from Home Depot to Lowes, or maybe he is getting his precision parts from OSH at a discount because of they closing up business. Maybe AA, Axil or Sam has some insider information re: that.