Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Quote

    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.


    Like a magician, Rossi never does exactly the same illusion twice to the same audience within a short time, he never allowed proper examination of the props, Rossi never permitted proper measurement with the observers' own instruments, and he never allowed anyone complete repetition of the process with them doing it under supervision from fueling on. It's all been under some sort of screen or other and the very few times measurements were done more or less correctly, including finally, at long last IH, they showed no net power out. It's been happening for 7+ years and I have no idea why a single person still thinks Rossi may have something, however improbable. You of all people, JedRothwell should know better. There is not the slightest chance that Rossi has or ever had anything. Being eaten by a shark or winning a billion dollar lottery is way more probable. There's not even a comparison to other LENR researchers, however wobbly, including Mizuno, all the former SPAWAR folks, etc. etc.


    Rossi's regular guy indeed did a runner. He was in his nineties when he worked for Rossi and died around 2013 if memory serves. Here is his toolkit with which the early ecats were assembled, memorialized by Steve Krivit. Note the high precision instruments. You could do brain surgery, calibrations for space flight, microcircuits or turbine engine repair with that set! They are perfectly suited to assembling a delicate and precise radically new nuclear fusion reactor.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…-E-Cat-Plumbers-Tools.JPG


    rossi-tools.jpg


    And yes, I know it was posted once before 8)

  • What part of 'it was only a demo, it didn't prove anything' doesn't make sense to you? That has been my position all along, something btw that Bob wilfully fails to grasp despite the fact that I have often said so, leading him to play the old game of keep asking the same question and complaining about the answer.


    Either we are having a true misunderstanding or you are "willingly" avoiding the issue as well.

    You stated before going you would report on all as honestly and detailed as you could. (I do not have time to look up the exact quote yet, but it was inferred far more than "it was a demo".)


    A) Rossi has stated that input power was measured using a 1 ohm resistor. You were there and saw the setup, the measurement and the results. Your experience and training allows you to give MUCH more about this than "it was a demo". You can shed much light on this as to whether it was even remotely a viable measurement. So "it was a demo" does not make sense. You are capable of giving a much more detailed and accurate report.

    By not doing so, you are avoiding criticizing Rossi and thus damaging the support for him. That does not make sense to me why you can only say "it was a demo" unless unduly biased for him.


    B) Rossi is stating that there was a high COP given. You were there and based upon your very long and highly recognized capability, you could give a much more detailed report than "it was a demo". Remember, Rossi is touting the COP. He posts on his JONP that it was a "convincing" test. You can give a respected and relative view as if the setup was capable of accurate measurements. It does not make sense to me that you state "it was only a demo" unless you are willingly avoiding criticizing Rossi.


    C) Yes, I keep asking because you keep giving a "thumbs up" to Rossi. While often subtle, it is always a post of support, implied confirmation or thowing shade at IH. You do this while never seeming to mind his continued rhetoric about his devices. And yet, when Johnny 5 makes some claims, there is quick doubt cast on him. So yes, I do continue this question because you make it clear that you support Rossi, either through subtle "thumbs up" or lack of holding him accountable yet, never give any factual reasons why.


    What can you not understand that "its a demo" is not a responsive report of an event that claims many outstanding results such as High COP, measured input, etc. etc.? Does "it's a demo" stand as a valid response to the many claims Rossi makes of this event? It sounds more like W's "fake facts" comment. An event widely touted, widely used as hard evidence and yes, as recent evidence even supports, sock puppeted by Rossi himself as "convincing". You have not even stated if it was a "convincing" demo! :)


    I do understand that you do not want to give a detailed report and that has been your position since the event ended.... but that is entirely different than agreeing to "it didn't prove anything" is a proper and detailed report as promised, to such a event that had several people attend, held in a public forum, with many outstanding and remarkable claims. That if the continued "thumbs up" to Rossi is based upon a belief that he has the real deal, then a proper report from his latest and greatest show should not be a problem to give?


    So actually, I grasp a lot. :/

  • Bob . A report about what exactly? The things you can see in great detail on the videos in circulation? Scientifically it wasn't proof of anything except that it wasn't proof of anything. The videos in particular make it pointless of me to spend time writing about my own impression of what the pictures show in great detai. what I did write about was the people I met there, and their approach to Rossi, and the general tenor of the crowd. That I thought was interesting.


    I have no idea about any Rossi devices after the the tests in Ferrara, Lugano, and NC. After that it gets weird.

  • Extremely unlikely if not impossible. Such an event would definitely be reportable and the surroundings would have been rigorously inspected for radioactive sources.

    It may have been reportable, but no one reported it. Hence, there was no inspection, rigorous or lackadaisical.


    My suspicion is that it was an instrument problem and extremely brief,

    Not likely. It showed up on two different meters, of different types. It would be a fantastic coincidence if two meters both had problems at the same time.

  • Since Rossi claimed to have radiation in or with his "product" (he stated: Gammas are thermalized!!), it would be interesting to know, if he really ever took care of the related safety regulations that are very strict for manufacturing (employees, engineers, testers, service people...) and bringing such products to market or import them.

    The FDA only (I am sure other industrial areas have similar guidance and safety regulations) has a ton of very detailed regulations and rules to follow, samples can be found here:


    https://www.fda.gov/radiation-…ucttomarket/ucm202505.htm


    "This page is intended to help manufacturers of radiation-emitting products (all nonmedical and medical) to get industry guidance, policies, procedures, and reporting documents in one place"


    Nothing about "gammas" here (yet), but that would it make even worse, if he wants to sell or register a product for industrial use that may use or is using gamma radiation to produce heat or other things...


    Rossi never showed any real evidence that his new QX and SK reactors have a corresponding safety certificate (his 5 year old Italian "certificate" is for a completely different device), which he must have, since he claims he has started robotic manufacturing. It is impossible that such a new product that generates energy out of nuclear processes, can be brought to market by passing all these safety regulations or simply say. There is no way to cover such activities by NDA's with all involved parties, agencies and authorities...


    Rossi either has a device that is working and produces gamma radiation (aka "nuclear") and if so, he must have a nation-wide approval (or at least one for the state of Florida) to go ahead with selling his heat to customers (so why not simply provide or show this?) or if not, his claims are worthless or his product is a fake. At some point in time he won't have a chance to wiesel out with his contradictory claims, statements on his blog.

    On the other side he would not be Rossi himself if he doesn't find again a nice story that helps him to continue with his fraud - without disclosing anything that would be worth to look at or allow an independent test of a reliable 3rd party.

    Time to deliver or disappear forever!

  • Here's the e-mail I sent to Rossi, no harm in being optimistic at this late stage in our unfolding drama.....


    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I am writing on behalf of our LENR members forum in regard to a proposal to carry out an independent replication of your E-Cat technology. This would be performed under strict non-disclosure agreements not to tamper or analyze the contents of your E-cats and any subsequent publication of the experimental data would be subject to your approval. A positive independent validation of your brilliant work and advances in this cold fusion field would go a long way to remove any doubts in the technology which may be delaying the production and worldwide distribution of your inventions. All that would be required would be for you to despatch one or two models of the E-cat you will be demonstrating on 31 Jan next year to reliable members of our LENR forum who could then monitor excess heat production/COP etc in their laboratories. We would intend this to 'back up' your own demonstration next year and in this way establish the veracity of your claims whilst at the same time giving you and Leonardo Corporation complete information protection.

    With Warm Regards,

    Dr Richard:)

  • We must face the fact that Rossi will never perform a single test that is totally conclusive. If he did, a hundred companies would try and replicate his technology. He will always design tests so they will be less than totally conclusive. For example, he may use a black box that could contain an alternative power source, his measurement methods could be sloppy, etc.


    The only hope we have of figuring out how he has produced high powered LENR is to try and replicate his technology. The good news is that we know a lot about how to induce the reactions to take place. If you study the work of Piantelli and Focardi, the work of other LENR researchers, the work of Black Light Power, and all the systems that Andrea Rossi has built, you will start seeing general themes. I believe that by using these themes we could build high powered devices in a short period of time.

  • Rossi has said that about every system from the beginning. I think the only reason he is saying that is to try and stop people from attempting to replicate. The fact of the matter, in my opinion, is that his systems are NOT very difficult to replicate.

  • Bob . A report about what exactly? The things you can see in great detail on the videos in circulation? Scientifically it wasn't proof of anything except that it wasn't proof of anything. The videos in particular make it pointless of me to spend time writing about my own impression of what the pictures show in great detai. what I did write about was the people I met there, and their approach to Rossi, and the general tenor of the crowd. That I thought was interesting.


    I have no idea about any Rossi devices after the the tests in Ferrara, Lugano, and NC. After that it gets weird.


    Alan, in your case it is mostly implication. You imply that the Lugano tested device was not weird . Really? With that test so minutely adjusted to deliver false positives? And Levi still swearing to Mats two years later that Optris cameras deliver temperatures based on total not band emissivity, even though they are single spectrum instruments with an IR band limited bolometer. you do not have to say anything personally offensive to note that such statements are plain wrong and that the Lugano reactor, as far as can be determined from those not very accurate detailed measurements, was an electric heater.


    Rossi's QX test proves nothing except that it proves nothing? Really? It shows that Rossi's demos are grossly incompetent, in specific ways that are guaranteed to allow false positives. That is surely more than just "not proving anything".


    Instead, you highlighted your subjective impression that guys around rossi seemed very interested in his stuff. I believe you. i do not however follow your apparent conclusions (that Rossi's stuff sort-of or partly works). I conclude that Rossi has charisma and is still capable of leading many different people way down the garden path: as it has been documented he has done before.


    THH

  • Rossi has said that about every system from the beginning. I think the only reason he is saying that is to try and stop people from attempting to replicate. The fact of the matter, in my opinion, is that his systems are NOT very difficult to replicate.

    I think you all should try to replicate the SK. Should be straightforward other than the fact that we know absolutely nothing about it.

  • Bob . A report about what exactly? The things you can see in great detail on the videos in circulation? Scientifically it wasn't proof of anything except that it wasn't proof of anything. The videos in particular make it pointless of me to spend time writing about my own impression of what the pictures show in great detai. what I did write about was the people I met there, and their approach to Rossi, and the general tenor of the crowd. That I thought was interesting.


    I have no idea about any Rossi devices after the the tests in Ferrara, Lugano, and NC. After that it gets weird.

    Thank you for your polite response. I do appreciate the endeavor.

    Perhaps we will simply have to agree to disagree.


    Even not having the advanced formal scientific training nor the experimental experience as yourself, I can indeed see that the Stochholm event was a joke. Given that, I can and do say it was a joke! Not that it proved nothing, but that it proved Rossi's methods are not only lacking, but intentionally misleading. That the event did not only "not prove anything" but that it cannot and should not be used in the same sentence as "very convincing" or "high COP" or "valid evidence that Rossi has a working reactor". I can say that the event could have been setup to prove MUCH more without IP disclosure and made meaningful, but it was not. This therefore, sheds much doubt as to the credibility of the events intentions. ESPECIALLY after several years of suggested improvements have all be willfully disregarded.


    I say this not because I am a Rossi hater, but because the event is being used to support and further Rossi's fraudulent proceedings! Therefore, it would be somewhat recalcitrant for me not to speak up about this! As someone with training, experience and "stature" in the LENR field, I would think you would hold that responsibility to help guard the field's reputation even greater,


    Thank you for at least sharing some of your basis. I strongly disagree about Lugano. Several people have provided the math, Optris camera tests and

    other facts that refute it. The fact that Rossi ran the test himself, with the professors only dropping in some unknown number of times itself, makes the test completely null, based upon Rossi's history. The Lugano profs silence also speaks volumes in that they do not follow standard academic protocol to defend their results.


    The North Carolina tests have been fully repudiated by IH. There is a mountain of evidence to believe IH over Rossi. I have followed this story and read the court depositions. IH gave Rossi every opportunity to succeed and he only hung himself. It is another prime example of Rossi's lies and fraud. Nothing has been revealed that supported Rossi in any manner. Empty reactors showing high COP and all.


    I cannot speak much about Ferrara. I believe Mr. Rothwell thinks the test showed merit, but it was unconfirmed nor replicated. That while no obvious issues are known, there was plenty of room for error or fraud. The Lugano is a prime example. When first released, the data seemed to show a major break through. We now know it to be null. Rossi himself gave up on it remember! So based upon Rossi's history... nothing is as it first seems to be... Ferrara was very likely null as well.


    So if those are the three reasons you believe in Rossi, I am very confident that two of those reasons have been completely dispelled. (NC and Lugano) Ferrara less so, but so much is unknown about it, that it is not a fully justified positive test. Certainly not enough to excuse all of Rossi's actions over the past years.


    So Rossi does not need anyone's (yours or mine included) support …. he should not need anyone's "protection" either! So reporting on an event such as Stockholm in it's clearest and most accurate form is should not be an issue. The reason the subject of judgement came up is that if in your judgement, "only a demo" is a proper, indepth, scientific and accurate report on what the Stockholm event was, it casts a shadow on your judgement of the Androcles project as well. Both are projects strongly desired to be real and successful..... can bias blind the observer?


    With respect.

    -Bob

  • The fact that Rossi ran the test himself, with the professors only dropping in some unknown number of times itself, makes the test completely null, based upon Rossi's history. The Lugano profs silence also speaks volumes in that they do not follow standard academic protocol to defend their results.


    No you are not a Rossi hater: You just simply reproduce fake news because you never ever did read any original documents as many other Rossi haters too.


    This is from the original report and states what Rossi did.


    The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.


    As long as you continue to post your invented nonsense you must not be surprised that we call you a troll.

  • So Rossi does not need anyone's (yours or mine included) support …. he should not need anyone's "protection" either! So reporting on an event such as Stockholm in it's clearest and most accurate form is should not be an issue. The reason the subject of judgement came up is that if in your judgement, "only a demo" is a proper, indepth, scientific and accurate report on what the Stockholm event was, it casts a shadow on your judgement of the Androcles project as well. Both are projects strongly desired to be real and successful..... can bias blind the observer?


    With respect.

    -Bob


    Bob. you are suffering from a total failure of logic, but I'm not going to wet nurse you until you see sense. In brief, did bias make me claim the SK or the QX produces excess hear? Not ever. Did bias make me suggest that Stockholm proved the SK worked? Not ever. You don't want a scientific report, you just want an excuse for asking the same weary old questions. Buy a new violin please, the old one is broken. And be very careful about any more ad-homs.

    1. Ruby November 8, 2018 at 8:20 AM

      Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,

      Will you make other validation tests on the Ecats?

      All the best,

      Ruby

    2. Andrea Rossi November 8, 2018 at 8:26 AM

      Ruby:

      No, because now we are at the industrialization phase. The “validation” is made by the Customers. This said, our R&D activity obviously will continue, as it happens for any industrial product, as well as we will continue our strong effort in the theoretical field related to our technology.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

  • Quote

    It may have been reportable, but no one reported it. Hence, there was no inspection, rigorous or lackadaisical.

    JedRothwell

    I didn't make the point well. Any radiation exposure which could have "become lethal in a short time" could and probably would have health consequences to the exposed people. Your post suggested that the exposure was so great that it could easily have been fatal if it had been continued. You implied that because the radiation was not continued, it had no adverse effects. It doesn't work like that. The effect is related to the intensity and time of exposure and the type of radiation, in this case, supposedly gamma and there is probably no threshold level of safety except by convention. A high dose rate to the point where death was a possibility would have had health consequences either immediately if the dose was high or within a week or two if it was more moderate. To see what would have been expected, Google "radiation sickness".


    I suspect this is just another anecdote. Nobody will ever know what they measured.


    This is the same issue there is with the claims of LeClaire and his side kick having been made extremely sick from radiation. They had nothing whatever to prove it. No medical records, in particular. They were challenged on the point on a forum or the comments to an article (Forbes, maybe?) article some years ago and their response was entirely tangential insults. The whole story was very improbable and so, IMHO, is this one unless Rossi used highly radioactive materials to fake it. That is, of course, remotely possible but it doesn't seem that even Rossi would be so unconcerned about his life and the lives of others to do that. Plus it would have been logistically difficult due to the heavy materials required to conceal intense sources of gamma radiation.

  • Your post suggested that the exposure was so great that it could easily have been fatal if it had been continued.

    That is what Celani said. It was not speculation on my part.

    You implied that because the radiation was not continued, it had no adverse effects. It doesn't work like that.

    Of course it works like that. Otherwise medical x-rays and cosmic rays would kill us. Medical x-rays are mostly harmless because they stop. When x-rays were just discovered, doctors accidentally killed a patient with them by overexposing him.


  • W,

    You may accuse me of fake news, but it is you that is spreading it now.


    The Lugano report had the above statement indeed. But then during the depositions of the trial, it came out that Rossi and Fabiani ran the Lugano test in its entirety. The Lugano Profs only dropped in at times. This is fact. If you need, I will take the time to look up the actual facts for you, but you should be able to do so yourself.


    Shane and others here can corroborate this as well as fact, not "invented" trollism.


    No I am not a Rossi hater... I am a person who pursues the truth. The truth is the Lugano test was ran by Rossi and Fabiani. You may not want to believe that but it is correct. Not invented, but factual. I guess you should get your facts straight.

  • Quote

    Of course it works like that. Otherwise medical x-rays and cosmic rays would kill us. Medical x-rays are mostly harmless because they stop. When x-rays were just discovered, doctors accidentally killed a patient with them by overexposing him

    Semantics. You implied the spectators to Rossi's scam were nearly killed. That's nonsense. Scientifically, the issue is the dose received usually expressed in standard units: https://hps.org/publicinformat…/faqs/radiationdoses.html


    You implied a brief burst at a high rate. That would require a powerful source. Since it is clear that Rossi has never provided a working anything, much less a reactor, the only possible source for an intense burst of gamma would have been an intensely radioactive substance. Or some issue with the instruments. I am not aware of the alleged second experiment which supposedly created radiation. My argument is that there is no way Rossi could shield such a potent source of gamma radiation enough to bring it into the lecture room (or wherever this was done) safely shielded and then arrange a brief burst without someone seeing some part of the apparatus for this.


    Thanks for helping me express it better. It is really important in these discussions to remember that Rossi has never shown power out/power in >1 in any credible and reliable way ever. What you're looking for is tricks and subterfuges.

    1. Can you tell us if the E-CAT assembly of your first customer has started? If not, can you tell us when the assembly will begin?
      All my support for your work and long live E-CAT
      Best regards

      Raffaele

    2. Andrea Rossi November 8, 2018 at 10:43 AM

      Raffaele Bongo:

      Thank you for your kind support.

      The assembly will start at the beginning of the year 2019.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.


    Rossisaid in August, this January's demo would signal start of the customers production/assembly line. Looks like that is still good. Brings up the phase though "if a tree falls in the woods with no one around, does it make a sound?". If a customer takes delivery of an 1MW SK plant in his factory in middle of the woods, and no one is around...

  • I say this not because I am a Rossi hater, but because the event is being used to support and further Rossi's fraudulent proceedings! Therefore, it would be somewhat recalcitrant for me not to speak up about this! As someone with training, experience and "stature" in the LENR field, I would think you would hold that responsibility to help guard the field's reputation even greater,


    Hopefully this is the last time we see Alan and Stockholm mentioned in the same breath. You made your point on this many times, and continuing to harp on it will only turn this into something personal. We have enough of that around here as is.

  • Adrian,

    How about....


    James Santigo

    May 30, 2016 at 6:31 AM

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi: Tomorrow you start a new important validation test with your new Partner, is it confirmed ?
    James


    Andrea Rossi

    May 30, 2016 at 8:42 AM

    James Santigo: Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.


    OR


    Frank Acland June 7, 2016 at 6:31 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    Without going into specific data (F8), how would you describe the reactions so far of your testing partners to what they are seeing in the E-Cat QuarkX testing?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi June 7, 2016 at 7:48 AM

    Frank Acland:

    Optimistic.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.



    and I could go on but my search engine bogged down because there were so many references on Rossi's blog to customer test and validation test1


    What makes you think this one will be any different? No customer, no real tests! :/

  • Hopefully this is the last time we see Alan and Stockholm mentioned in the same breath. You made your point on this many times, and continuing to harp on it will only turn this into something personal. We have enough of that around here as is.

    Personal? Lets see...


    I have been called a troll several times above by W, when I most certainly am not. (I post my REAL name by the way!)


    I have been accused of spreading "fake news" by W when what I have stated is backed by fact and the "fake news" accuser is indeed wrong!


    It has been stated certain people would talk to my dog before they would me!


    My posts are not personally derogatory in that I do not call others "Babblers" every other sentence and deride them as Adrian does.


    I attempt to explain my points in a non-personal method by giving as clear thoughts as I can. Admittedly they are pointed, but not personal.

    I keep my posts pretty much free from derogatory wording.


    If I have said anything that is not factual or is completely illogical, then I am very willing and ready to listen to counsel instructing me point by point.

    If W simply espouses "Fake news", then I do not retaliate in derogatory language, but will stand my ground. I will listen to reason, when backed by fact and substance. So far, "it was a demo" is not.


    If there is anything I have said about Stockholm and Alan's promise of a detailed report that is not correct, then please address that. I will stand corrected. After all, do you think the "Stockhom Event" was a very convincing demo! It sure is being used as such by many, almost every day on JONP. Should this continue unabated?


    But to slap my wrist and not Adrian or others for far worse, makes me think this is becoming ECW, where if you do not fall in line, you get kicked off!

    I hope not. :thumbup:

  • Bob,


    You have not said anything wrong, but when it comes to Alan and Stockholm, you have said enough. You have made your opinion known many times, that you are unhappy with his role there, and afterwards. Time to move on. We have plenty of other things to talk about.