Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • As an interested observer, I have a question for most of the folks here. As far as I can tell, every single demonstration of e-cat technology has been discredited by whatever efforts at real analysis have taken place. Even long-time supporters now discount pretty much anything Rossi has ever claimed. Despite that fact, it appears that 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?

    Why Rossi's reaction does something as LENR: transmutation, replication, third party verified radiation generation, $10 million paid by IH for a successful test run.


    This does not mean that the E-Cat is ready for a commercial release. IH could be within there rights to reject Rossi's claims, The court will decide.

  • 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.


    Three thoughts here.


    (1) The Internet is a big place, and unlike in the 1980's, when there were the superconductivity false starts you describe, the hangers-on nowadays have access to the same forums as everyone else. With some people, hope springs eternal, and an important difference between the 1980's and now is that the E-Cat hangers-on are more visible and accessible than the people who hung onto false claims of superconductivity in an earlier decade.


    (2) Observers of this field have by and large refrained from requiring certain proof in order to entertain various possibilities, in contrast to the mode that many scientists are in, of requiring for example that a paper make it through peer review and possibly stand up to subsequent verification before even considering a claim. Hobbyists in this field are happy if some CF claim is vaguely plausible and is slightly consistent with earlier claims, and the more reasonable observers will factor in the low likelihood of a claim in considering it. This is more the mode of thought of a police detective who is entertaining different possible explanations for a crime, which range from implausible to vaguely plausible but still half-baked. It is very different from the mode of thought of a physicist or mathematician, who might want near certainty at each step, or at a least crossing over a high bar, before continuing on to the next step.


    (3) The E-Cat has a lineage that runs from Rossi to Focardi to Piantelli, the latter two of whom are/were respected LENR researchers. By (2), above, if one takes Piantelli seriously, there's a remote question of whether Rossi ever had anything in the early days. People's motives change, and for some observers it is sufficient to shake one's head and say, "I don't know. Beats me if he ever had anything. It's bit of a conundrum, although he very well might have been acting in bad faith all along," and leave the judgement as to the earlier stuff at that.

  • People's motives change, and for some observers it is sufficient to shake one's head and say, "I don't know. Beats me if he ever had anything. It's bit of a conundrum, although he very well might have been acting in bad faith all along," and leave the judgement as to the earlier stuff at that.

    That is a good summary of my present views.

  • AR may not owe us anything per se, but he may be found to owe IH something. He could eventually be found to owe a debt to society if criminal charges are brought against him. So far, his menace has been on a smaller scale compared to what was done in Italy, but not insignificant. A lot of people have been harmed.

    I think you should dig deeper into what was "done" in Italy. You might be surprised. Start by reading Matts Lewans book "an impossible invention" and end up by discounting everything that Dewey Weaver has said.

  • 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.

    Here we go again, confusing science with invention. AR is not a scientist, he is an inventor looking to cash in on his time and effort inventing something remarkable.

  • Rionrlty,


    Dewey is real, like it or not.


    I have responded to Dewey ( who is a real person) that I would share information with him in time. He accepts that. I have already reached out to Abd. Why anyone wants to know who I am--well this is beside me. " I am no one and nothing". I make no false claims.


    So regardless of that, I look at others claims and then make up my own mind. Don't you? I think Rossi does not have the goods. This is separate from his court case. It is not a given the outcome at this point, we are just speculating here, as we call it in the South where I am at is it's just some "jaw dragging".


    I am concerned with your reference to Jack Cole. He has spent a lot of time to reproduce Rossi's device, he was not a critic by far. He is most fair and balanced.

    You do not do what he did out of his own pocket for fame and glory. He also believed in it at one time. That he is a critic means something to me. You seem to think he should read Matts book, means to me you are not aware of his background. He can read and more than that he tried to reproduce in an open experiment as others have done. Namely reproduce the patent. Not with the same COP but with any COP.


    That the MFMP has not reproduced an effect means something to me. But I am no one, but I can read and think for my self.

  • Another "newby" Planet Rossi troll shows up having "reviewed" R's promotional collateral (a tried and true tactic of his), magically sipped the Kool-Aid and concluded that everyone else is wrong, out to get Rossi and must be portrayed as the enemy. Its clear that Mats didn't dig deeply enough when writing his book.(other conclusions are plausible as well but lets not go there) Believe me - it was not that hard to find some very useful and conclusive information on this master career deceiver. Its also clear that Rossi is thriving on this as part of whatever is going on inside his head.

  • Quote

    I think you should dig deeper into what was "done" in Italy. You might be surprised. Start by reading Mats Lewans book "an impossible invention" and end up by discounting everything that Dewey Weaver has said.


    (1) Dewey is real. You should be cautious of anything anyone tells you on the internet: but whereas Rossi is a proven bare-faced liar, Dewey here has been mostly correct and never to my knowledge known to lie (though he has certainly presented the case for IH in strong and sometimes coloured terms, and sometimes been wrong).


    (2) Mats' book is a good read. He is convincing because he listens to all sides, and has enough technical knowledge to challenge obvious errors. That however does not mean that he is an unbiassed reporter. Mats invested a lot in the Rossi story, and like so many others very much hoped it was true. Had it been so Mats would be seen now as a heroic and important journalist. The evidence presented in "an impossible invention" - particularly the two (for me and I think Mats most convincing) tests:


    • The "Ottoman reactor" long "self-sustained mode" test - many credible observers
    • The "Lugano test" - many credible observers


    Is very incomplete. Mats leaves out subsequent analysis that when considered shows (in both cases neatly - because the numbers add up) how these apparently definite tests in fact have mundane solutions. In both cases the solutions are surprising, and somewhat counterintuitive. That does not surprise me. I have found in a long experience of doing things that the real world twists theory in surprising ways. So surprising that it is easy to be convinced something impossible is happening, when in fact the eventual solution reveals itself to be very possible but never considered, or dismissed initially as not true on soft evidence.

  • Another "newby" Planet Rossi troll shows up having "reviewed" R's promotional collateral (a tried and true tactic of his), magically sipped the Kool-Aid and concluded that everyone else is wrong, out to get Rossi and must be portrayed as the enemy. Its clear that Mats didn't dig deeply enough when writing his book.(other conclusions are plausible as well but lets not go there) Believe me - it was not that hard to find some very useful and conclusive information on this master career deceiver. Its also clear that Rossi is thriving on this as part of whatever is going on inside his head.

    You sound just a little like the never Trumpers before the election and you can see where it got them. This is the same kind of caca that took down Fleischmann and Pons in the early 90's, but with the internet I don't think it will work this time.

  • If one was to use only 20kW I suppose only about 25 - 30kg kg of saturated steam or so would be produced an hour. This would be about About 0.008 kg/s. that's about half a tablespoon a second. is this right?


    Would this very low flow rate of water in the condensation pipe be sufficient to even turn the flow meter in a DN80 gravity return pipe?


    I'm not sure what it's minimum requirement is.

    Edited once, last by StephenC ().

  • Rionrity - you've shown your colors and are here to troll. Please try a little harder and post something intelligent - make engaging you worth the keystrokes.

    Tell littleFrankie WTF hello when you see him. Best to Rossibit as well.

  • Hi THH,


    Thanks for replying. No previous post. Sorry for that. And no presumptions on my side either. I'm curious about what was possible.


    Its probably over simplistic on my side but I was just curious if we assumed all the reported power used by the E-cat was used for producing steam with out Extra heating by LENR, what the flowrate of the steam and eventual condensate would be and if this flow rate could even be detected by the water flow meter reported as being on the return pipe.

  • OK. The first info we had about this test was that Rossi told the ERV not to include the water deltaT in energy calculations because he would discount this. That was a dead giveaway as to the big assumption made here - which is that all the flowed water carried enthalpy from phase change - which of course by far dominates in deltaT energy. I also thought that it might be because more precise details would reveal more of the setup than Rossi wanted revealed.

  • Thanks THH.


    Understood but even if we assume all the heat from 20kW goes into steam wouldn't this amount to 1/2 tablespoon of condensate flow per second in a 3inch pipe? This seams very low to me do probably I am wrong in my estimate also if it's real I have no idea if it's viable or not for the flow meter.

  • Here we go again, confusing science with invention. AR is not a scientist, he is an inventor looking to cash in on his time and effort inventing something remarkable.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. AR has invented almost nothing original - he has merely taken Piantelli's technology via Focardi and applied it (with scale up). Because he doesn't understand the science, he is unable to apply it effectively and reliably. AR is looking to "cash in" on the work of others without creating any new IP himself which others can use. The remarkable things about AR's technology were the absurd claims made and the extraordinary delays before people realized!


    My point, which you have ignored, was to show why people believe in the Ni/H system without having coinfidence in Rossi. Any distinction between science and invention is irrelevant.

  • I have been lurking on this forum for a couple of months and there is something that has bothered me about the pictures of the conex holding the e-cat. First though, some information about my background. I am not a scientist or an engineer. I do have 16 years as an industrial pipefitter including new construction, revamps, and maintenance. The pictures show a bronze body ball valve hook up out of the conex. There has been a lot of discussion about the size of the valve. Theoretically, the valve could have been up to 4 inch diameter but the apparent size of the valve from the picture looks to me to be a 2 or 2 1/2 inch valve. My problem though is the fact that it is a two part bronze body valve. Even though you can get them rated for up to 450 degrees F, bronze body is not standard for steam. You would typically use iron for steam. Because the piping looked to be galvanized piping, the only connection that would work is a threaded connection. Bronze expands and shrinks with heat at a greater rate than iron. With a threaded connection, leaks will occur at a greater rate than using welded construction. Because steam quickly cuts even hardened metal, you only have at most two days before you have to replace the valve to stop the leak. The internal workings of the valve also has a problem. The internal seals in the valve are teflon. The warmer the system, the softer the Teflon gets. One of the plants I worked in used three part ball valves for their steam heating system. The valves would last 1-2 months before the valves stopped working and the inner workings would have to be replaced. The key issue is that ball valves are not reliable in steam service. In order to replace the valves you have to shut down the entire system because the valves will not longer shut off. Is it reasonable that you design a system this way? Steam systems should have welded or flanged connections and gate valves on either side of the ball valves. For the above reasons, I believe that the system shown in the picture is designed for water operation. This does not preclude the e-cat providing needed heat, but it does limit its use in industrial or testing settings.

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.