Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • most people here - regardless of their opinion of Rossi - believe that at least some version of the e-cat actually does produce excess energy. Can anyone explain why they think so?

    That's easy to answer. Since the early 90s peer reviewed papers have claimed anomalous heat in the Ni/H system. In contrast, Rossi doesn't have a single peer reviewed paper to his name and has not permitted any successful independent validation the Ecat technology.

  • I was the first in the IH network to communicate with Michael and Marianne starting back at ICCF-18.

    OK, thank you.

    There still remains the problem of who was the first phone caller who gave rise to the establishment of the IH company. At this point we could think at whoever other person along the command line, up to nearly the top.


    I've learned a lot about the early US E-Cat demonstrations and several of the Navy folks believed that they witnessed at least one credible demonstration back in the early days.

    That's also very interesting. So in the middle of 2013 (at ICCF-18) you got firsthand information on the early Ecat tests coming from "several" Navy folks operating in the field.

    You also said that all of these folks are very smart. I believe it. They are for sure first class scientists. Most of them have REAL PhD obtained in the US universities, which boast the highest world ratings. Moreover, they worked for many years in the most famous scientific and technological laboratories of the world.

    But after being present at some demonstrations of the most incredible object you can imagine, held by an Italian philosopher, with an "engineer" degree released by a US diploma mill - "a person who has an almost 40 year history of deceiving people" (your words) – the only thing they said is: "at least one [was] credible".

    You may easily understand that there is something that doesn't fit! Unless .. Unless for them, the word "credible" means "which has some chances to be believed by somebody else".


    No one was ever able to dig into the setup / experiment details […] We're still working on those forensics and may have the answer to how everyone was fooled.

    Probably, there was no need to dig very deep INTO the setup, they had just to see what was in front of them, if they really wanted it.

    Look at the following slide (sorry, I already post it in the past (1), but I need to be sure that you are in front of the right one). How long you take to realize that the probe "B" is different from the probe "C"?


    Got it? Fine.

    The "C" probe, the one cited in the Levi report, was (should have been) the most important instrument in the most important public demo of the CF/LENR history, but it wasn't there! At its place there was the very different probe "B". Many videos and pictures show this probe. It was just in the middle of the lab, on top of the Ecat. With its long stem and the bright yellow cable, it was one of the most visible object in that room. Do you think that Rothwell and Melich were not aware, since the beginning, of this glaring inconsistency in the experimental setup?

    It happened in January 2011! Well before the IH engagement in this affair.


  • @Dewey,

    I misread what you said then, I apologize for that. I am a person that believes what a person tells me about themselves, until I have reason to believe otherwise. Hence I don't give a f*&^k who they are in real life.

    You have been throwing everything at everyone, even those that are sympathetic to your cause. You may view me as a threat. I am not. Just that I maybe ugly honest. Anyway I made a promise and will keep it.

    To restate my purpose here at LENR-F is to learn. I have a very time consuming habit of drilling down on ideas and the history and evolution of them. Rossi is not worth the time or your dime.


  • @Ascoli65,

    To you this maybe obvious but to me it, is one of the most well thought out and documented questions, I have seen. I may be joking but I am in <3. I will hazard to guess that this is new information and will need to be validated.

    So if so this will take some time, do not expect an answer.

    But outstanding job sir. If this has been brought up before I missed it. Any by your references it was there all along, it is a very good question but your premise may not be true, It maybe based on unknown information at this point.

  • Well, so far the responses to my question have not been very illuminating. Of course wanting the e-cat to be real is a powerful inducement to thinking it is real. And of course already being convinced that Ni/H anomalous heat is a real phenomenon helps. However, if one looks at an analogous situation for superconductivity, one can see the fallacy in that way of thinking. Superconductivity is a well-established phenomenon with over 100 years of rock-solid experimental (and practical) verification. Nevertheless, back in the late 80's and early 90's, there were plenty of badly-mistaken as well as totally fraudulent reports of breakthroughs in it around the world. Once those were discredited, nobody took them seriously any more. However, I get the impression that no matter how discredited Rossi may become, plenty of people will still hold on to the belief that he really has something. I was hoping that somebody who still thinks the e-cat is real could explain why they think so - assuming they have a rational basis for their belief.

  • If this has been brought up before I missed it. Any by your references it was there all along, it is a very good question but your premise may not be true, It maybe based on unknown information at this point.

    You can take advantage of the exchange I had last summer with Abd-Ul Rahman Lomax, starting from the link (1) in my comment above, and concluded on August 4 with the following comment of mine, which remained unanswered.…D/?postID=31022#post31022

  • interested observer,

    Okay I will respond. Ack if you get this and welcome. The Rossi saga background can be found on Kivrits website. Google it. Here a user we call T.C. a while ago who did a review which is available on the website. Look for Thomas Clarke. Then read it very carefully. Then you will get up to speed.

    I am personally open minded but skeptical of NiH based CF, not that it does not seem possible or that it works but that if it does it does not provide a useful way to get any out of band CF. In a word why COE. But this is my opinion only and I have been wrong before so please get a grain of salt.

    To address does CF exist? Yes it does, you need to learn about it so that you get the "bug" goto the database above then wikipedia each and every one of these topics.

    sonofusion, muon catalyzed fusion, pyroelectric fusion. This is mainstream so you can google it to death and then choose to believe for yourself. As was once said "Make up your own GD mind". I have and will debate it.

    Does this give you a beginning? We are debating Rossi and his methods in this thread, not if CF works. Just that he has borked data. Both sides are slowing coming to the same conclusion. This thread is just about the case and what has been presented.

    Hope this helps.

  • OK, it looks like the weekly surges are typical power requirements you would expect to heat a large warehouse, looks like Rossi takes the weekend off. If you remove that periodic change it closely matches the water temperature.

    Perhap subtracting the supply and temperature ???

  • @Malcolm,

    Those are more or less my ideas as well. Warehouse lights, A/C.

    I'm fiddling with ways to drop the cyclic load so that the base load can be looked at better, in a way that won't be too cherry-picked or controversial.

  • @Ascoli65, Okay I have looked and then re-read your point.I see which test, I am not sure why you are doing this (this being you stating that this was known back in 2011) but if I understand the single lead on the TC had to be incorrect as it was single signal poled. And to get steam you need the different TC? I hope this is correct. May ask if you are in the CMNS locked group?

    Also, I needed a good chuckle today, your "I could not respond by xmas" was very helpful as I struggle to understand this mess .

    I am plainly spoken, and you are somewhat nuanced. I still do not understand your references to top level directors. How do you think Rossi is just a lieutenant? I will say it this way, is it because of the possible perceived money flows from exterior sources?

  • Rigel,

    Thanks for responding. I don't need to come up to speed on all of this stuff. I've been watching the circus for a long time. I am not looking for the arguments for or against CF. It is still a faith-based subject and there is not much point in arguing about such things. If there is a smoking gun, I haven't seen it. I am quite aware of the Rossi saga and its manifestations including the obsessive deconstruction of the ongoing lawsuit. I guess being on Team Rossi or Team IH is almost as much fun as Team Edward or Team Jacob - both are obsessions with essentially fictional characters. Like I said, I am just trying to understand why anyone still thinks that the e-cat is something real, regardless of their opinions about CF. There is not a single aspect of the e-cat story that stands up to any critical analysis and yet it appears that most people here still think that there is a pony under that barnful of... well, pony stuff. One just has to wonder why.

  • Interested Observer, well you are in the right thread to learn that so welcome. I did not know you were up to speed. I originally believed in Rossi, but this is do to my nature to trust people until proven otherwise. He still has advocates, I try to respect them. But now I am firm in my belief that he both salted the reactor (though it could have been contaminated) and he is very confused or manipulative to put it kindly.

    But this is about the case, he regardless has shown tenacity. This is about the law, not if the e-cat works. We have some very good people like Para and Malcolm working to make it simple and visual to understand. But to be fair, we have others who are quite articulate in their defense of Rossi's technology.

  • (this being you stating that this was known back in 2011)

    The first time I posted the above slide was at the end of March 2011, in the quite popular Physics Forum (1). It was the first of 3 slides attached to a comment addressed to Brian Josephson, that in an earlier message asked to put in evidence at least one flaw in the previous Levi tests. After the short Josephson's reply to my comment the thread was immediately closed. At that time that thread was quite famous in the LENR community due to the presence, as guest speaker, of the Nobel laureate, therefore I presume that many LENR folks did look at that slide. In addition, Rothwell and Melich had some more reasons to be aware of the problem of the missing RH probe since the first days after the demo.


    if I understand the single lead on the TC had to be incorrect as it was single signal poled.

    That was only one of the many clues that would warn whoever physicist with a little laboratory experience, that the one shown in the pictures was not the RH probe claimed to be used in the Levi's report.


    And to get steam you need the different TC? I hope this is correct.

    No, the main problem with the missing RH probe is related to credibility. In this specific case you can't believe that they measured the dryness of the steam. And, moreover, you can't believe anything else will be stated by those people, until they correct themselves about these earliest incongruities. But they never did it.


    May ask if you are in the CMNS locked group?

    No, I don't.


    How do you think Rossi is just a lieutenant?

    It seems obvious to me. Anyway this will be more clear when the two questions posed by Krivit on Vortex nearly 7 years ago (2) will find their answers.



  • I do suspect too that there are several "poker players" in the LENR field.

    It seems to me that the table on which this poker game is played, is much wider than the LENR field.


    As for their motive, however, I'm not sure. Are they trying to divert attention from something else? Or perhaps hoping that by making skilled people focus on the subject someone will eventually come out with a truly working LENR reactor? Or are they just playing a confidence game for their own personal benefit?

    What's your take?

    "They"? I guess that the game involves a lot of players, and, if we look carefully, we might find ourselves among them.

    Anyway, speaking about the LENR card dealers only, I don't know which kind of bluff they play, and, as for their motives, I don't know either, but I would exclude the second one.

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.