Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


  • You missed one improtant point. LENR distroys all matter that encloses it. Rossi has come up with a system that produces energy and keeps from falling apart. This has taken a huge amount of effort and time to come up with. Yes, anyone can come up with a system that melts down but to keep going for a year or more takes much time and effort to come up with.

  • Ruby-Carat-Dennis-Cravens-Cold-Fusion-Now-015


  • 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.

    At 2:00 Cravens talks about the real problem for LENR developers. When run hard, "the reactor tears itself up". It took Rossi 10 years to solve that problem.

  • 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.

    Rossi is not concerned about market share. He needs to go very slowly to keep himself away from the bone saw.

  • I could be that Rossi when with step #2, but the company turned out to be a patent troll.


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

  • Director - you seem to be more involved in attempting to shape this story that you've been willing to let on. Dubious is the word that comes to mind at present.

    If the R'ster was so concerned about security at that demo then perhaps he should not have left the fueled reactor behind. Sort of along the same vein as shipping the blue container reactor across the ocean and thru US customs with fully loaded reactors fully exposed and unsecured ON TOP of the container. He was busted and lazy - not paranoid.

  • I have no idea.


    Think about all the different ways you can connect three heating coils to three phases available

    (No, you don't have to connect all phases all the time)

    And think about what this can do for the magnetic fields.

    Also think about the fact that changing the connection configuration between dummy and active run can explain the large resistance drop between dummy and active runs.

  • You missed one improtant point. LENR distroys all matter that encloses it. Rossi has come up with a system that produces energy and keeps from falling apart. This has taken a huge amount of effort and time to come up with. Yes, anyone can come up with a system that melts down but to keep going for a year or more takes much time and effort to come up with.

    Axil,


    If he has, (which I don’t believe), he deserves all of the accolades humanity can thrust upon him.

    If he hasn’t, (and it turns out he never has),

    in your opinion what does he deserve?

  • Earlier this year I was prepared to bet that Rossi would produce something that worked and got no takers.

    I don't think the critics are any more certain now, despite what they write.


    I will bet $100 against $1000 if you lose (as you are certain and I am not) that Rossi demonstrates a working SK reactor, with a COP >20, within six months. If there is not proof one way or the other the bet is off.


    Any takers? Or should I assume you are not as certain as you make out?


    Edit, Added COP

  • Adrian, you apparently are not versed in certain elements of logic. Out of curiosity, what would you consider to be proof that the e-cat does not work? I am sure many of us as well as numerous long-dead philosophers would be keen to hear your explanation of a negative existence proof.

  • Quote

    I will bet $100 against $1000 if you lose (as you are certain and I am not) that Rossi demonstrates a working SK reactor, with a COP >20, within six months. If there is not proof one way or the other the bet is off.


    I'll happily take your money but there is one small issue: exactly how do we decide who wins the bet?

  • No you didn’t Adrian,

    You bet that he would build a plant.


    Again,

    What exactly is a “Working SK reactor”?


    Some sock puppet saying it works and he’s making money?

  • interested observer & seven_of_twenty,


    If a third party reports the SK is working in their plant, or a reputable newspaper/journal reports that it is, I win.

    If either of the above reports it doesn't work, yo win.

    If there are no reports the bet is off.


    Even though you are certain the SK doesn't work and therefore cannot lose unless you are wrong, no one will take the bet because you are getting cold feet. You will always come up with a clause to avoid betting.

  • If either of the above reports it doesn't work, yo win.

    If there are no reports the bet is off.

    Why would a reputable newspaper or journal publish a story that something that is universally believed to not work doesn't work, as expected?

    It is like Astronomy magazine reporting that despite flat-earther claims, they have shown the earth is not flat.

    But even beyond that, Rossi will never give them enough data to prove or disprove anything.

    That is what he is best at, avoiding any traceable evidence. Why do you think he says this demo is not to show it works, but to show "industrialization" (which means nothing).

    This bet has only one final possibility, that the bet is off due to no evidence, it is a waste of time.

  • That is a mind knumbingly stupid bet,

    and nothing different from your last one you proposed that no one took because you can’t lose.

    The 3rd party is some Rossi Sock puppet and you know it.


    The only way this works is that if a reputable laboratory, (Fermi, Argonne, Los Alamos, NASA, etc), does testing and determines

    Energy Out > Energy In

    that is in quantities that eliminate chemical energy.