Peter - your confusion is palpable - who are you quoting? You couldn't remember who a confidential email came from last Spring after you specifically agreed to a private discussion under those terms? I am going to assume you were telling the truth on that matter - what is happening with you?
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
TD has huge guts and a overwhelming drive to see if the status quo can be nudged into change Zeph. Its called running the run.
-
Dewey, to me it's "investing in the future". I only wish there were more with the same vision and financial muscle.
Although I hope lessons as to due diligence have been learned!
-
Imagine there is a team with an exciting new invention that can make a big difference. They are approached by funders, accept a round of initial funding and put in hard, unromantic work to establish the validity and promise of their technology for the next round of funding. They operate in stealth mode, applying for patents for every novel process their technology introduces. They proceed systematically to apply solid science to measure and refine the technology, using careful protocols, controls, and state of the art measurement techniques. The data they collect are numerous, impressive and unimpeachable.
The people on the team have street addresses, and you see them in cafes. They have profiles on LinkedIn demonstrating some amount of relevant experience, whether direct or indirect, and connections to others in related fields.
This description of how innovation starts out and of the people behind it is not a rarity; it happens many times a year in Silicon Valley and other parts of the world. Some groups are successful and many are not. But in either case the description is very different in important respects from the approach of Rossi and co. over the past few years. What we are witnessing is better a study in the psychology the people watching him from a distance, who hold onto a hope in a set of claims without requiring much in the way of evidence, and their willingness to enable and explain away bad behavior as a result, come hell or high water. Hope trumps every last shred of common sense, and we are left with an endless series of arguments to the effect that "well, you don't know for sure that such and such [insert implausible claim] isn't true." This episode tells us nothing about LENR but everything about the psychology of ungrounded hope.
-
Dear Dewey
it was not a private (confidential) e-mail it was by you on a forum and you have repeated the same fairy tale in many places- a proof that NOT Rossi has started the slander campaign but IH's friends.
You have old tha he started it and this was ot true, what verb describes the situation/act?
And now you are systenatically speaking away,
not answering, changing the subject.
As tactic it is good, as strategy is a disaster.
It seems you IH really have only factoids not facts.
I wonder with what wise irrelevancy can you answer? If?
peter
-
Nigel - well said and duly-noted. I do have to say that due diligence said walk away from Rossi but TD's hunch was that something else could come from this even if Rossi didn't work out. Nobody bargained for getting wrapped around the axle for a season but that is all part of getting dirty when you try to effect change.
Eric - Very well said. The study of the "Rossi Effect" is going to be helpful for the balance of LENR story as it unfolds and for future promising technologies as well.
Peter - I am sorry but I can not longer engage you and wish you the best.
-
"engage" must be a polysemantic verb, and as far I remember' you have never engaged me.
Perhaps it is too early for you to surrender, because you do not have proofs, however it is wise to learn how to do it. You will need to know how to do it.
I know it too- from ages.
peter
-
The Planet Rossi chapter will be closing in the not-too-distant future and, fortunately, the real work has continued, sadly with no Ni-H in the present experimental mix.
Glad to hear the real work has continued and without NiH. At one time, it seemed promising, but now seems to be waiting for a convincing demonstration that it can ever generate excess heat. With Celani refuted by the work at Mizzou, Piantelli's unverified claims, Brillouin's potentially mismeasured input power, DGT's scam, AR's scam, and scores (probably hundreds) of negative research outcomes, there is little reason to think NiH has anything to offer. Maybe it offers something in co-deposition with Pd. It remains to be seen.
-
Quote from Jack Cole
Glad to hear the real work has continued and without NiH
Brillouin Energy Closes $7.75 Million Series Investment Round
Maybe not quite dead yet...
-
I think from the get go something like Rossi splits people.
So many will think it is too good to be true, whereas many will wish and hope very strongly that it is true. I guess that comes from the mindset you bring.
Personally I tried to start from 50/50 and see what came out, but it seemed that Rossi had so much noise around him, Smart people looking at his wonderful invention, Smart investors giving him money. Commentators like Matts who were convinced it was real. Surely this must amount to something one might think. And yet there is much noise and not many facts.
A big factor is the environment. Look at some new breaking news, how it is discussed on a pro Rossi forum or an anti-Rossi forum to see how differently it is interpreted.
At least LENR Forum still has people willing to pitch for both sides of the argument, otherwise this becomes just another echo chamber.
While Jed and some with professional knowledge are convinced of the falseness of the data to most of us lay people we want a simple but conclusive answer, yes or no.
That would involve either an independent test of the technology; or selling actual devices to market; or a court case.
I am now 99% convinced Rossi is fake but the court case will be conclusive for me.
I find it fascinating how many are suspicious and do not trust the scientific evidence for climate change and yet accept Rossi based on what he says.
There was a famous psychological study years ago about a cult that announced a great flood. The believers gathered in a room at the appointed time.
When the calamity did not happen they just modified their belief but never acknowledged they were wrong.
http://www.slate.com/articles/…011/05/prophecy_fail.html
I suppose even after the court case some will choose not to accept it.
We learn all the time. None of use are truly safe from being fooled.
-
Imagine there is a team with an exciting new invention that can make a big difference. They are approached by funders, accept a round of initial funding and put in hard, unromantic work to establish the validity and promise of their technology for the next round of funding. They operate in stealth mode, applying for patents for every novel process their technology introduces. They proceed systematically to apply solid science to measure and refine the technology, using careful protocols, controls, and state of the art measurement techniques. The data they collect are numerous, impressive and unimpeachable.
The people on the team have street addresses, and you see them in cafes. They have profiles on LinkedIn demonstrating some amount of relevant experience, whether direct or indirect, and connections to others in related fields.
This description of how innovation starts out and of the people behind it is not a rarity; it happens many times a year in Silicon Valley and other parts of the world. Some groups are successful and many are not. But in either case the description is very different in important respects from Rossi and co. and the manner in which they have proceeded over the past few years. What we are witnessing is better a study in the psychology the people watching him from a distance, who hold onto a hope in a set of claims without requiring much in the way of evidence, and their willingness to enable and explain away bad behavior as a result, come hell or high water. Hope trumps every last shred of common sense, and we are left with an endless series of arguments to the effect that "well, you don't know for sure that such and such [insert implausible claim] isn't true." This episode tells us nothing about LENR but everything about the psychology of ungrounded hope.
I think it is that there is a team as you describe working on LENR and that IH or other fund them. I hope that Rossi has not destroyed the field for the slow hard working researchers. The ones that have risked their professional careers and at financial loss working on "cold fusion" and LENR for years.
-
Glad to hear the real work has continued and without NiH. At one time, it seemed promising, but now seems to be waiting for a convincing demonstration that it can ever generate excess heat. With Celani refuted by the work at Mizzou, Piantelli's unverified claims, Brillouin's potentially mismeasured input power, DGT's scam, AR's scam, and scores (probably hundreds) of negative research outcomes, there is little reason to think NiH has anything to offer. Maybe it offers something in co-deposition with Pd. It remains to be seen.
You are likely correct. Ni does not dissociate H2 on its surface and it does not diffuse well unless it is at high temperatures. Pd does dissociate and diffuse H2 and D2 well at reasonable temperatures. There are some that are working on the use of Pd on Ni surfaces to add in dissociation. Celani uses Cu in the Ni to help with dissociation. But I cannot get a reasonable theory to show how H2 can give the levels of energy as in Rossi's experiment. Perhaps D2 but not H2. I know that some like Ed S. and Brillouin think that H2 may be made to work but I just don't see the nuclear pathways.
-
When the calamity did not happen they just modified their belief but never acknowledged they were wrong.
I suppose even after the court case some will choose not to accept it.
The "die hard" Rossi supporters here will not accept it. That is a given. After the court case will come the accusations of "the court is not scientific", "the lawsuit was not if the eCat worked or not, but if it was the GPT" (which actually is true), "the courts where forced by MIB to reject Rossi", "Big oil paid off all the jury members", "the judge was in the pocket of Exxon" and on and on. Their statements about the court being corrupt will be as often and ridiculous as they have been stating about the evidence we now have.
I have said before.. this has become a religion to some. They cannot abandon their faith. You mentioned cults and it is sad to say how deluded cult members can become. To the point of suicide. Remember the 39 people of the Heavens Gate cult who committed suicide when the comet did not turn out to be aliens to take them away? Over 900 people in Jonestown, following Jim Jones, died because of misplaced faith.
Most people look at these type of events and say :
"How could they do that? How could they be so blind, that in the face of all the evidence, of all the reasoning of family members, of all the signs of fraud, of all the signs of mental instability, of all the ...... could they still believe those leaders" AND to the point they would kill themselves!?!?!
There are some following Rossi who will not change their faith regardless of the court outcome. They will simply accuse the court of corruption. They will follow him until the end. Just like there are some who still state that Defkalion was legit and had the "real deal". That they were put under by conspiracy. There will be some who support Rossi regardless.
An interesting study in human psychology for sure!
-
It's been quite convincingly shown that, no matter how swampy and unstable the foundations of a faith are, attempts to convince the faithful that they may be wrong merely serve to reinforce their convictions.
It's the same sort of thing as the "trump-has-to-be-rightism" displayed by Trump and many of his followers
-
I have a feeling that Trump is just getting started. Pelosi, Schumer, the Podesta boys, et all have yet to realize the bitch-slappin that is taking place.
First the Clintons now the CIA and next the industrial media-democrat complex. Somebody is playing serious hardball and people are going to dethroned with some of them going to prison.
-
OK, I mentioned Hair Twitler first, but only to illustrate a point. Let's leave it out of this thread, OK?
-
Following your lead Goebbelite.
-
"engage" must be a polysemantic verb, and as far I remember' you have never engaged me.
Perhaps it is too early for you to surrender, because you do not have proofs, however it is wise to learn how to do it. You will need to know how to do it.
I know it too- from ages.
peter
-
[Because Rossi knew that IH had no plans to pay.] YES, YES, YES and YES!
As I said, that is not a valid business reason to withhold information. Even when you are sure a customer has no intention of paying, you should provide all of the information he asks for. This puts you in a stronger position to sue the customer. It demonstrates that you are acting in good faith, and the customer is not. So, this "YES, YES, YES and YES!" makes no sense. The correct answer is just the opposite.
In a dispute, you should provide more information, not less. You should send registered, return-receipt letters to the customer that state all of the facts clearly, in detail. You need these letters as proof that you gave the customer the facts. Rossi did not respond at all, which is the worst thing he could do.
This is Business 101 level knowledge.
-
Okay Dewey. If you can show that there was no phase change and that the flow meter was installed on a gravity fed return pipe on a downward grade without a U-joint, and that the flow meter was significantly overstating the flow (enough to account for all of the excess heat that would otherwise be apparent even in a no-phase-change scenario), then you will have successfully proven that Rossi's device produces no excess heat.
That is a tall order. But if IH can show this, even your most ardent skeptics will have very little left to go by.
This is not a tall order. A few photos could easily prove all of this. More to the point, if all of this were wrong -- if there was a U, for example -- Rossi could have proved this easily. He could have provided a few photos last year before he filed the lawsuit. He would probably have been paid $89 million for doing that. Or if he had not been paid, he would be in a far stronger position to win the lawsuit. For that matter, if he would provide some photos now he would be in a stronger position. Assertions that he cannot or should not provide photos now make no sense. I.H. uploaded photos proving there is not sufficient ventilation to allow a 1 MW heat release.
You cannot explain why Rossi did not provide any proof, or indeed any response. There is only one explanation: the facts are as described. There was no excess heat. That was obvious to me after a cursory look at the data.
