Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Different lab - similar results. Nada. Capish?

Snidely Whiplash thinks he struck again.

Bob - they'll continue to create alternate realities as long as they possibly can. Fake news is real news on Planet Rossi.

Interesting Dewey, good to know.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

A self sustaining E-Cat (especially a Quark X) producing continual electrical output could power an EM Drive or other exotic propulsion technology.

Yes. So could unicorn farts.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

Of course much more work would need to be done to guarantee reliability and space worthiness,

Indeed, much more work would be needed. First, you have to actually invent the thing.

Quote from Rigel

This is why I do not feel that someone who has more knowledge is a threat to me.

To me too. Anyway what I'm talking about it's not secret, it comes from the web, and I always indicate the links to the pages where I find the information. The only difference between us is that we probably are more attentive to different aspects, so we tend to remember different details of this story.

Quote

Who or what do you refer to? What director or producers?

I'll tell you. The Ecat saga is too long and too complex to be attributed to a single person. As in a movie, the protagonist doesn't coincide usually with the director and the producers. However, I don't know who they are, but I think it's necessary to figure out who they could be in order to understand the many obscure points of this story.

In order to do that, a good starting point has been recently provided by Krivit:

Quote

Krivit, on November 2, 2016 (1):

"That is precisely the analysis of potential investor Brian Scanlan, who met Rossi and Darden at a meeting arranged by Michael Melich and Marianne Macy. (PDF) The husband-and-wife team of Melich and Macy was the first Rossi promoter in the LENR community. They strongly encouraged members of the LENR community to support Rossi and the E-Cat idea; Melich compared Rossi to inventor Nikola Tesla. Scanlan eventually saw through the smoke."

This only excerpt lists the main protagonists of this story. Krivit talks of a single meeting. In reality there have been at least 2 meetings in different times and with different people, as explained in the mail linked in the Krivit's article:

Quote

From Scanlan to CMNS on April 11, 2016 (2):

"In June 2011 I met Rossi in Miami along with his partners from Leonardo. Mike Melich and Maryanne Macy were also present. Prior to the meeting I had constructed a consortium committed to funding $15mil [...omissis...] Rossi is a character sprung from Hollywood central casting.

I met with Tom Darden only once, in February 2014 in NYC for several hours. [...]"

These quotes give rise to some other questions. Let's just consider a pair. It seems that Melich had a proactive role in finding some financing for the Ecat back in June 2011, before the breaking of the agreement with Defkalion. This attempt didn't succeed, but I wonder: did he also the same with the IH investors? In particular, is there some relationship with the following comment?

Quote

Dewey Weaver on L-F, June 26, 2016 (3):

"I spoke with another of the US Navy researchers who were involved with the Rossi investigation years back. They reached the same conclusion as IH. Rossi's mysterious sale to the US military did not go to Navy and his test / demos did not work to the satisfaction of the most respected hard science scientist in the mix."

(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Investigation-Index.shtml

(2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…/20160411ScanlanBrian.pdf

(3) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

Ascoli65 - good to see you posting in this forum.

The NRL researcher that you reference in your above quote was not Michael Melich although I have had numerous conversations with both Michael and Marianne over the past 4 years. Very good people who really do care about this sector.

We all got fooled for at least a season.

Quote from Eric Walker

This is a mischaracterization. Since 2011 Rossi has been the subject of much speculation and doubt both among long-time CF researchers and among hobbyists following the story on Vortex and other forums. At no point has a report from Levi received anything approaching unanimous endorsement, although his reports have been taken seriously.

I said "almost" unanimously. "Almost" is not a well defined adverb, but if you consider the number, and the importance (the weight) of the long-time members of Vortex community (at that time the most representative site debating on this subject) which strenuously supported the reliability of the data provided by Levi, I think its use is not a mischaracterization.

Krivit got the same impression, as expressed in this recent article:

Quote

Krivit on November 2, 2016 (1):

"Longtime LENR researchers who played the most significant roles in promoting Rossi's fraudulent E-Cat were Michael Melich (b. 1940), Edmund Storms (b. 1931), Michael McKubre (b. 1948), David Nagel (b. 1938), and Mahadeva Srinivasan (b. 1937). Among the credulous promoters was Nobel laureate Brian Josephson (b. 1940). ..."

These people are among the main protagonists of the CF/LENR hystory. In addition, Krivit forgot (?) to mention Jed Rothwell, and his overwhelming role in support of the Ecat (2).

A sensational endorsement has been provided 4 years after the Bologna demo in the special issue of the magazine Current Science entirely devoted to the LENR (3), probably the most important acknowledgment of the field in the scientific publishing of the last years. It contains two articles by Nagel talking extensively of the Ecat results since the first tests, and a Storm review on the "main experimental findings of the LENR field" citing as first reference the Lewan book, that in turns starts with the January 2011 demo. This last has been cited even in the preface:

Quote

Preface at "Corrent Science" Volume, February 25, 2015 (3):

"It is precisely at this juncture that there comes the latest twist in the LENR story. An unknown ‘outsider’, an engineer–inventor from Italy, Andrea Rossi surprised us all by announcing that he has invented a working, industrial-grade Ni–H LENR reactor. On 14 January 2011, he gave a semi-public demo of the same in the presence of an invited audience ..."

(1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Investigation-Index.shtml

(2) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=29406#post29406

(3) http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/toc.php?vol=108&issue=04

Quote from Dewey Weaver

The NRL researcher that you reference in your above quote was not Michael Melich

Ok, thank you.

May I ask you some more info about the timing? I mean.

How long ago was this NRL researcher "involved with the Rossi investigation"?

And, if possible, how many NRL researchers were involved in this investigation?

When did he "reached the same conclusion as IH"?

When did he inform you about this conclusion?

What do you mean with "a season"? About 3 months or a longer period, for instance a few years?

Thank you for your attention.

Hi Ascoli, let's just skip to the good stuff.... If your thesis is correct, who (or what) was ultimately behind the hoax, and what benefit did/do they derive from it?

Quote from Eric Walker

(1) Ascoli65 assumes that Rossi is either misled/deluded or is a bit player in a larger scheme. (2) Ascoli65 draws special attention to the role that Jed and other people played in championing Rossi in 2011 and on in forums such as Vortex. (3) Ascoli65 suggests that the University of Bologna and similarly reputable institutions bear a heavy responsibility for having let things get this far by allowing their name to be used in connection with Levi's endorsements. (4) And (the radical suggestion that loosely ties the others together somehow) he hints that there might be agencies such as the US Department of Defence that had a hand in orchestrating things behind the scenes for ulterior purposes. Asocli65, please correct me if I have misstated anything.

In (1), I would exclude the first option.

For the rest, it is a quite good summary and description of my position. Thank you for doing that with such a fairness. In particular, I appreciate in (4) the wording "he hints that there might be ...". It sounds to me (and I hope it is) you mean that I propose to take into serious consideration also this possibility, only as an hypothesis. Of course I have no means to demonstrate it, and therefore I'm not going to sustain it with any certainty. But I think that, for those who want to give reason of the many inconsistencies of this weird story, it's worth to debate all the many clues which point in this direction.

Ascoli65, I'm glad that I did not mangle your suggestion too much. I find (4) somewhat improbable, because there would have to be a lot of collusion/collaboration between different parties to pull it off, some of which would have been done by people I get the impression are pretty innocent (e.g., Melich). And I also do not see a big payoff for the US DoD and other agencies, representatives of which I have worked with in the past in the context of software standards deliberations. That is not to say that US agencies have not done some pretty sketchy things over the years; just that this doesn't ring true in this particular case. Also, a general impression I take away from your thesis is that you seem to want to get the University of Bologna in trouble for getting caught up in all of this, but my own impression is that its role seems to have been as an unwitting and largely innocent bystander.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

We all got fooled for at least a season.

Me too. Certainly.

Ascoli65 - Seasons are relative and I do not plan to share details around NRL related conversations that I have been having since ICCF-18. I was initially concerned about CF suppression by DoD scientist but was able to eventually resolve that they are good hard science folks who mainly want/wanted to get to the bottom of things. In retrospect, I never picked up on any living trail of collusion or conspiracy for or against CF from any Gov't related entity. I've learned that more than one of the surviving elders who were so strongly opposed to the CF sector in the early days are now wondering if they will end up on the wrong side of history. Speaking of the wrong side of history, Rossi saw the CF sector as ripe for his skills and soiree'd right on into the mix with his patented methodology and business model. He is truly one of the best at what he does and may this cycle be his last regarding his ability to take advantage of well-meaning people.

I do believe that one individual in particular at Bologna U should have to answer some questions about his long term relationship with the Rossi. There are just too many questionable events that he was deeply involved in. If I was you - I'd hunt there for some truth and justice. We're in the process of getting things taken care of things on this side of the pond.

Quote from Ascoli65

In addition, Krivit forgot (?) to mention Jed Rothwell, and his overwhelming role in support of the Ecat (2).

That's a bit unfair. The quote from me at the end of Lewan's book is not what you would call overwhelming. As I often say, it was wrapped in layers of academic-style plausible deniability. I have seen too many claims come and go in this field to give full-throated support to one that has not been independently replicated. Also, I have no influence. I can't even persuade researchers to use the correct SI units in their papers.

I certainly agree that I thought, on balance, some of Rossi's claims were true. I still think some of them may be. The first study by Levi still seems valid to me:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

There are some weaknesses here, but it seems pretty good to me.

The second study by Levi et al. (Lugano) has many more problems than the first one. That is disconcerting. Usually, a follow-up study is better, not worse.

The 1-year test was a travesty. The worst I have seen, and I have seen a lot of bad research. In other words, Rossi went from okay, to bad, to dreadful.

His earlier tests were inconclusive. Even before the first Levi study, Rossi had several strikes against him, in my opinion. I have described them many times:

• When Rossi & I become acquainted, his first act was refuse to let me visit and measure the flow rate and temperatures with my own instruments. That's a bad sign!
• The events described in the letter from Scanlan disturbed me. I was aware of that as it happened. I talked to Scanlan that day.
• His tests have been gratuitously sloppy on many levels, such as when he neglected to put an SD card in the thermocouple. It is almost as if he wants to get the wrong answer. Ya' think?
• He almost blew up the good people from NASA. Yikes! They told me about it months later, when we were at a meeting for a couple of days. Dewey described here how Rossi sometimes pretends there is danger in a ploy to call off a test or distract attention. In this case, there was actual danger but he refused admit it. That's crazy.