Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Yes, I am familiar with the 2011 demo. That was a long time ago,


    BTW, in characterizing my thinking back then, I am merely reporting earnestly what my perspective was regarding what I considered to be the most likely explanation for the "Rossi Effect". I am certainly capable of making mistakes and having an incorrect perspective (then and now).


    But I have to say, if I am incorrect in some way, I'd really be shocked if the truth came out that this "Rossi Effect" is explained by a 'Big Conspiracy'. There are so many other much more plausible explanations, in my mind.

  • Dear THH,


    It was about the slandering campaign. You can easily see this today, if somebody puts in doubt IH's narrative instantly becomes some inferior being from the Rossi Planet.


    Say IH is absolutely right- then why on the Earth should it attack so wildly the opponents. This is horrible prestige management for IH.

    Say we two good friends for 4 years, than i sue you for not paying me according to a valid contrct nd not breaking contract in time, you immediately debunking my mafioso past. So, then you had such a friend?


    Est modus in rebus, a style, elegance- are compulsory.

    We are not rowdies (is this word still used?)

    And some people tried to scare, intimidate me- what i dislike.


    peter

  • Sorry, but also in this case I think you are kidding. Assuming that you are talking about the CF/LENR researchers and that this role applies to Rossi, it's very hard to believe that you consider him "one researcher out of thousands". Thousands are the comments you wrote to support the Ecat claims, or the number of replies reached by this only thread, one of the dozens dedicated to this very special "CF researcher".

    I would like to know if sigmoidal believes you also in this case.


    What I believe is that you really seem obsessed and highly motivated to find some "gotcha" against Jed.


    I can earnestly say that I find Jed's perspective to be very compelling. And no, I do not see any "gotcha's" in any of the areas that you seem to. None at all. If one thing stands out, in my estimation from reading Jed, it's that he is earnest. And sometimes blunt. Jed also has spent a lot of time looking at LENR generally, and has found compelling evidence that it might work.


    Does it not make sense to you that the E-Cat mechanism of action being LENR was part of the equation? What I mean by that is that some people disregard LENR out of hand, and some of the attacks that Jed was defending against were "throw the LENR baby out with the bath water" attacks against the E-Cat. Which he strenuously objected to.


    Perhaps if you ponder that, you might get closer to understanding where Jed was coming from at the time.

  • Say IH is absolutely right- then why on the Earth should it attack so wildly the opponents.


    IH are attacking and have attacked no one. They've been admirably discreet and vague about Rossi over a period of years and continuing into the lawsuit that was started against them with their own money. This discretion on their part has been turned around into fault for their not making a fuss in public earlier. The "attacks" you must be referring to would perhaps be Dewey Weaver's efforts to set the record straight on behalf of IH, his friends and business partners, when he's clarified, and they've clarified, that only IH speak for IH.

  • THHuxleynew , with respect spoofing is very different than, the meter under performing or over performing. I'm not talking about a quarter full pipe giving over or under readings her. Spoofing the meter would require that somehow you are able to get it to read 36000 liter/day with 1/4 of that as actual water circuit flow when the plant is in full capacity operation and 27000 liter per day when the plant is operating at 3/4 capacity. All with a flow in the gravity return pipe such that it is at most a few % full with a very different flow velocity to what the meter would expect for that flow rate. This assumes a slope equivalent 1 to 5cm drop over 10m a Realistic slope in a gravity return pipe would be even more than this which would be even shallower and faster. This also takes into account pipe friction by the way.


    That would require some pretty artful placement even if possible which I would think that is clearly unlikely. It seems much more likely to me in this case that its placed correctly and reading the correct flow.

  • People focus on the meter reading volume larger than reality. But the question I have is how and who read the meters. How were they recorded? Was it wired into some kind of computer record- i.e. was this one equipped with a transmitter.? Who read the meter and entered the value if it was just a visual display or were the readings continuous, by the minute, hour?

  • THHuxleynew , with respect spoofing is very different than, the meter under performing or over performing. I'm not talking about a quarter full pipe giving over or under readings her. Spoofing the meter would require that somehow you are able to get it to read 36000 liter/day with 1/4 of that as actual water circuit flow when the plant is in full capacity operation and 27000 liter per day when the plant is operating at 3/4 capacity. All with a flow in the gravity return pipe such that it is at most a few % full with a very different flow velocity to what the meter would expect for that flow rate. This assumes a slope equivalent 1 to 5cm drop over 10m a Realistic slope in a gravity return pipe would be even more than this which would be even shallower and faster. This also takes into account pipe friction by the way.


    That would require some pretty artful placement even if possible which I would think that is clearly unlikely. It seems much more likely to me in this case that its placed correctly and reading the correct flow.

    Steven - I'm not understanding your point here. Do we agree that the meter can over-read by some difficult to calculate, except empirically, large amount in this mostly empty pipe scenario? What is your disagreement with this?

  • First: I agree that Rossi getting support from UoB academics was a great PR coup. He has repeated this, with other academics, a number of times. It is a real strength of "the Rossi effect".


    Do you also know that this PR attitude of him was well known by the people who first met him at the beginning of his last adventure?

    Quote

    From: http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html


    It was impossible to ignore Rossi. Even several years later when he had not yet produced a demonstration of his technology that was universally proclaimed to produce excess heat, he was acknowledged to have attracted attention to the cold fusion field in proportions it hadn’t seen for years.


    Rossi not only didn’t wait for the ICCFs; he didn’t attend them. He gave demonstrations of his technology, put videos on the internet, ran his own website, and worked ceaselessly to get what he was doing out there. He knew PR. At one point when he was just starting to get up a head of steam and his ECat technology had not yet been named, I attended a meeting with him in the offices of a major public relations firm in offices above Grand Central Station. The firm leader was a colleague of a brilliant executive who had guided media for the company I’d worked with years earlier. Rossi was looking for financial support at the time and I thought he could use the introduction. He ended up describing to the public relations professionals how he had successfully hired writers to produce books about him and get them distributed in all the bookstores, making him “the biggest environmental hero in Italy” before events had turned his story in the opposite direction. He described the publishing costs, decided on the message he wanted to convey, hired writers, got the books written and designed, even told us how to get them into the bookstores. My friend who had arranged the meeting had worked for one of the largest PR firms in the U.S. and then been the public information director of a multimillion dollar corporation. “Rossi has a very sophisticated sense of this business,” he surmised. “He’s a really personable, charming, likeable guy.” The firm, upon instruction, sent a proposal on their services. Rossi sent a warm but noncommittal reply. If there was one thing Andrea Rossi didn’t need, it was a public relations firm. He knew how to do it himself.


    Ask yourself why they didn't meet at MIT, or CalTec, or any other scientific laboratory, but in a PR office. What could they expect from him since the beginning: an exceptional scientific invention, or a great PR coup?



    Quote


    Second: I don't agree that it would have been physically impossible for them to get these tests wrong.


    I don't know what does it mean "get" in your sentence, but if you mean that the people involved in the writing out of the January 2011 report could have been unintentionally wrong, you need to read better the comment of mine you are replying to, including the links. In particular, you should wonder how it was possible that make, type and model of a missing RH probe, that should have been the most important instrument of that demo, had been unintentionally mentioned in a report written and checked by the UoB physicists.

  • Ask yourself why they didn't meet at MIT, or CalTec, or any other scientific laboratory, but in a PR office. What could they expect from him since the beginning: an exceptional scientific invention, or a great PR coup?


    Because, as you should know from the quote you posted, in this part of Marianne Macy's story regarding Rossi, he was looking for money. She was likely using her wealthy connections to help him out. She didn't have connections at MIT or CalTech. She had some wealthy connections in New York. She's the one telling the story. He may have been looking for support at MIT (in fact there is evidence he was in Boston). But she wasn't, and this is her story about what she knows about Rossi. She was there.


    Do you really consider anything in Macy's story to be evidence of a conspiracy? I read it shortly after she posted it. For me, it seemed to confirm Rossi's extraordinary ability to deceive people. How does that fit in a 'Big Conspiracy'?


    In her article, Macy states that Lewan, immediately after the lawsuit, hinted at a conspiracy (but with his own warnings to 'be careful' regarding conspiracy stories). I'm not hearing any talk about conspiracies from Lewan, who has gotten pretty silent over the past half year,


    Maybe Lewan's silence is part of the Big Conspiracy.


    To me, your line of thought is moving toward tin foil hat territory.

  • It beggars reality that any one is capable of the long term deception with which you credit Rossi. It would take a team of con-men to pull it off. You've been watching too much television or too many movies.

  • IH are attacking and have attacked no one. They've been admirably discreet and vague about Rossi over a period of years and continuing into the lawsuit that was started against them with their own money. This discretion on their part has been turned around into fault for their not making a fuss in public earlier. The "attacks" you must be referring to would perhaps be Dewey Weaver's efforts to set the record straight on behalf of IH, his friends and business partners, when he's clarified, and they've clarified, that only IH speak for IH.

    Why should they when the have such as Dewey and Jed to do it for them?

  • Dewey is here for opinion management.

    The stuff he writes reminds me of that lecture I had about the old egyptians.

    They had this very sophisticated hieroglyph script they used to describe their way of life and their epic battles against other civilizations on the outside of their buildings.

    It's one of the reasons we still know quite a lot about them.

    Alas they had this tendency to write about the battles before they were actually taking place.

    So all of the battles they were describing in their hieroglyphs were epic wins for Egypt.

    I think the moral here is to be careful with the description of devastating victories before the actual slaughter has taken place ;)

  • It beggars reality that any one is capable of the long term deception with which you credit Rossi. It would take a team of con-men to pull it off.


    Well, he wasn't alone. There's Penon and Fabiani (where are they BTW?). There's Johnson (who I imagine is not too happy he ever met Rossi at this point). And Bass, poor chap.


    But I don't think that Rossi is merely a con man. He must be a delusional con man. Because only a delusional con man would have preemptively sued IH.


    Think about Marianne Macy, or even Jed at one time. These are people trying to help make the world a better place, who unknowingly played into Rossi's delusional con.


    Darden had the bucks to call Rossi's bluff. So Rossi, in the Masterpiece of all masterpieces, uses Darden's money to sue him for another $89 mil.


    Here we are, waiting for the cards to be laid down in a Florida courtroom.


    I suppose until then there's still hope for your story, whatever it is. Or Ascoli65's Big Conspiracy theory.


    But the clock is ticking.

  • Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was zero and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose.

    Abd thought I made error here, and the flow rate was never zero. Gamberale stated it was zero at times. Quote:


    “One can get an erroneous measurement of flow as large as 1 lt/min (close to the flow rate measurement obtained by SA during demonstrations of the reaction) while having the upstream valve completely closed (thus corresponding to a null real flow) and this has been actually observed by us.”


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