Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Patterson probably failed because he never had anything that worked and was deluding himself and others.

    Dennis Cravens tested them carefully, independently of Patterson. I looked closely at his work, and I visited the experiment. As far as he & I could tell, they worked. Perhaps we were deluded but I don't think so. I do not think you can point to any technical reasons showing how and why we were deluded. If you cannot say "you were wrong for reasons A, B, C" where A, B and C are specific technical reasons, then you are merely saying it is your gut feeling we are wrong. Your gut feeling cannot be tested, proved or disproved.


    (A "gut feeling" means intuition. Intuition is often right. It is powerful, instinct-based feeling that should never be ignored. But it cannot be debated. It is never proof of anything.)

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Director - very creative re-write attempt. While there were mitigating factors, self-inflicted wounds and some bad breaks, Patterson failed mainly because he ran out of beads that worked and could never figure out how to make a working replacement batch.


    Patterson told Jed that if he couldn't have all of the marketshare he didn't want any, from what I remember. If he had been completely open from the start with potential partners or companies that would buy his tech outright, then they could have helped him produce new beads. Since he had inventors syndrome, he didn't even consider this. To get their help, he would have to have relinquished some level of ownership of IP or control of the technology.


    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Patterson probably failed because he never had anything that worked and was deluding himself and others. The Wikipedia entry notes that Patterson's company was formed around 1995 and he died in 2008. That should have left plenty of time to accomplish enough to get prototypes made and properly evaluated. According to that same Wiki, Patterson's company, CETI, provided a complete kit to Earthtech so they could replicate the work and they were unable to do so.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson_power_cell


    From what I have studied the beads did indeed work. However, when he ran out of the ones from the US government he had to start working on a new formulation. I wouldn't have put it past him to have sent Earthtech a batch with non-working beads because he felt their connections (Puthoff has associations with the CIA, DIA, and other organizations) would have made them a threat to his total domination of the market.

    Quote

    From what I have studied the beads did indeed work. However, when he ran out of the ones from the US government he had to start working on a new formulation. I wouldn't have put it past him to have sent Earthtech a batch with non-working beads because he felt their connections (Puthoff has associations with the CIA, DIA, and other organizations) would have made them a threat to his total domination of the market

    In that case why would he send them anything at all?


    Quote

    SoT - I've interviewed 4 researchers who were directly involved. The fuel cell beads that he purchased on surplus from our US Gov't worked.

    I believe you that you did but I have no idea what to do with that sort of information. Have you anything more substantial to corroborate their story?



    Quote

    Dennis Cravens tested them carefully, independently of Patterson. I looked closely at his work, and I visited the experiment. As far as he & I could tell, they worked. Perhaps we were deluded but I don't think so. I do not think you can point to any technical reasons showing how and why we were deluded. If you cannot say "you were wrong for reasons A, B, C" where A, B and C are specific technical reasons, then you are merely saying it is your gut feeling we are wrong. Your gut feeling cannot be tested, proved or disproved.


    (A "gut feeling" means intuition. Intuition is often right. It is powerful, instinct-based feeling that should never be ignored. But it cannot be debated. It is never proof of anything.

    You can be wrong and deluded about results of an experiment which on the surface has no obvious technical flaws. That is the nature of sleight of hand, deception, self-delusion and conning. It looks wonderful and passes the ordinary tests the con man chooses --it just doesn't work.


    With Patterson, I have no longitudinal observation of history and of course, I have not studied the results at all. So yeah, it's a gut feeling based on what I said above-- 8 years of experiments and not a trace remaining doesn't suggest anything worked. The thing with Rossi is more than a "gut feeling" -- much more and you consistently refuse to grasp it. It's a long period of observation as to modus operandi and applies the principle that if someone does something one way for a long time, they are likely to continue, especially when they are constantly rewarded for it. Rossi created the Petroldragon disaster, the thermoelectric converters that were Russian junk, and some ecats which were obviously mismeasured and then he lied about it all... and that is before we get to IH evidence. You expect he consistently behaved as a crook for years and years and then whoa... one or two times, the results were real?


    Did I say I am certain about Rossi? I am as certain as I can be absent hands on his rusty kludges using my own power source (which I guarantee you would be most unlike his) and my calorimetry which again would vary from his. But, no, (or yes, depending on who I'm addressing) there is always the infinitesimal chance that Rossi really has something just as, I suppose, there is the infinitesimal chance that the Earth will reverse course in its orbit tomorrow.


    There is also the principle that it is up to the claimant to prove the claim beyond reasonable doubt, not up to the critic to disprove it (Hi, Adrian). And finally, there is the principle that if there is a good demonstration of an extraordinary new physical phenomenon, and profit from it is possible, someone with money will take interest and use as much effort as they can to prove it valid. IH did that and look where it got them.


    But no, I am not absolutely certain beyond all possible doubt.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You miss the point. If you don't get that part, you cannot say it is scam. I can point to specific technical reasons showing that Doral was a scam. I cannot point to any reasons showing the first Levi report was a scam. Therefore I have no technical or scientific reasons to say it was. Neither do you, as far as I know. You can say that your gut feeling is it must be a scam. You can say that based on Rossi's history and personality it is very likely to be a scam. That's reasonable. I agree with both statements. But they cannot be debated, proved, or falsified. There is no proof. Whereas there is loads of proof that Doral was a scam.


    What was far more impressive to me than the first Levi "report" was the device that Rossi allowed him and a few others to test in an alley in Italy. You are familiar with the claims for this experiment so I won't review them again. This experiment combined with other early tests and the fact Focardi (someone who I consider to have been honest and trustworthy beyond reproach) assisted Rossi and tested many of his systems makes it clear to me that there is a near certainty that Rossi had something back then that he continued building upon. My guess is that when he started seeing glowing, bright objects in his reactors he did a review of the literature and found references to plasma based systems: many of which George Egely described at ICCF 21 and for a series of articles for Infinite Energy magazine where he is an editor. I'm guessing this information inspired him to move towards the E-Cat X, Madam Curie, QX, and SK.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    In that case why would he send them anything at all?


    Because he only wanted attention from CERTAIN parties. Remember, he did NOT want everyone in the world to believe his technology worked. That is why he did demonstrations with only barely adequate equipment. He only wanted certain parties that could give him investment money to believe his technology was a reality. If Earthtech with all their connections believed his technology worked, they would have been on the horn to countless different groups around the world. In no time at all, there would have been teams with dozens of engineers trying to reproduce his results.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Roseland67

    1. What was the medium being heated?


    2. Was the heater connected wye or delta?


    Page 6 of this paper I wrote awhile back covers the Lugano heater set-up- there is a fair bit of other information there about the relevance of magnetism to LENR (which Jed and I don't expect you to read ;))

    Yep. No one should fall for that unless they are purely open source. And then they should identify the details of the fuel mix to a dozen different parties and send them fuel tubes as well.

    Just for the record, remember the George Miley also duplicated CETI excess heat experiments.

    He also detected a wide range of transmutations from those beads as seen by neutron activation analysis.

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…80.1384&rep=rep1&type=pdf


    Oh yes, there was also a replication at French Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique (Atomic Energy Commission—A.E.C.) yielding around 0.2-0.4 mW . You might want to review ICCF 7 for additional items.

    The more I think about it the more I would HATE having an LENR technology I was trying to push commercially. There would be so many issues to consider such as who to trust, how to avoid helping competitors, when to stop improving the initial product, how to avoid over zealous government regulators that would have thrown Nikola Tesla in a deep dark hole if he'd existed in today's age, how to raise funds without losing control over the technology, fighting the impulse to share breakthroughs, deciding whether or not to go the patent route, etc. I can see how with a REALLY AMAZING LENR technology (not some puny device that produces a few watts) thinking about all these issues could drive someone to inventors syndrome and then towards manipulative/sleezy/deceptive behavior.


    The only two solutions I can come up with are:


    1) Go completely open source with the details of the technology. (You could still try to market/sell your own implementation of the technology, write books about your discovery, go on speaking tours, and do other things to obtain some modest amount of recognition or financial rewards.)


    2) Go to a big company with hundreds of engineers and billions of dollars to throw at the project. Sign a contract with them relinquishing most or all of your IP and rights in exchange for cash/royalties and a guarantee that they HAVE to mass produce the technology in some form and put it on the market within a reasonable time period or they must pay an extremely insane amount of money.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Alan Smith

    Page 6 of this paper I wrote awhile back covers the Lugano heater set-up- there is a fair bit of other information there about the relevance of magnetism to LENR (which Jed and I don't expect you to read ;))


    Somehow I missed this paper Alan, Very good, and I love how you relate celestial observations to LENR. Then bring it down home to mother earth, and starting on pg 6, tie it in with the Ecat...in which you also answer the question about: "why 3phase vs 1?".


    Good read.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    With Patterson, I have no longitudinal observation of history and of course, I have not studied the results at all. So yeah, it's a gut feeling based on what I said above-- 8 years of experiments and not a trace remaining doesn't suggest anything worked.

    That is completely wrong. I don't know where you got that, but it is nonsense. Perhaps you read that in Wikipedia? Let me advise you that getting information about cold fusion from Wikipedia is like drinking water from a sewer. (If you want to know the plot of a Japanese comic book series, Wikipedia is probably okay.)


    Regarding the Earthtech test, it was ill advised. The wrong test of the wrong effect, done by the wrong people. It was doomed from the start, in my opinion, and that is what I said at the time.

    Quote from Director

    Patterson told Jed that if he couldn't have all of the marketshare he didn't want any, from what I remember.

    Something like that. He and his grandson Redding said he wanted a "100%" market share. I think I told him he will probably get that: 100% of nothing. That's how it turned out.


    As I recall, he also helped torpedo F&P's patent. He was not a nice person.

    • Official Post

    https://www.coldfusionnow.com/podcast/Ruby-Carat-Dennis-Cravens-Cold-Fusion-Now-015.mp3


    Very recently Ruby did a Podcast interview with Dennis Cravens. The whole 20 minutes is worth a listen to, but at 18:10 he talks about Patterson, the beads, grandson. Very, very interesting, tragic, and informative. If anyone would know about that story, he is the one.


    BTW, Cravens is one of IH's researchers now. Towards the end he expresses his gratitude for the freedom they give him to pursue his research.

    My guess is that the reason Rossi left in a puff after showing the early E-Cat to the DARPA folks is EXACTLY what Tony Tether guessed: his secrets were not that complicated at all. I'm thinking at that time -- before his first public demo -- Rossi was probably using a palladium catalyst layered over the nickel powder to accelerate the absorption of hydrogen.

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.