Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    Quote

    I asked for a technical reason. You said there are obvious scientific errors. What you just gave are not technical or scientific errors. Those are reasons why a person might feel suspicious about the work, but they are not technical in any sense.


    Instead of trying to understand what someone is attempting to express with imprecise language, you twist and turn it, looking for a mistake. Rossi never allowed a truly independent test and never gave up control of the input power to the system and to the method of measuring output power. Most of his experiments were poorly calibrated or uncalibrated. Those are indeed technical errors and errors in scientific method. But yes, what I meant is that I am suspicious (LOL) about Rossi. Very extremely suspicious. What IH should have been. Obviously, I wasn't there, do not have access to his actual equipment or trustworthy access to raw data so I can not say FOR CERTAIN what happened.


    Quote
    • Clarke was wrong. The temperature was confirmed with a thermocouple to within a degree. There was no error in the temperature measurements. Again, you & Clarke have not found an error, so you should stop saying you found one.


    I am not going over that experiment again (EVER again) but best I recall, there may have been a few point temperature measurements. That alone would not necessarily guarantee the thermal camera measurement. And again IIRC, that experiment had problems on the input power measurement side. And of course, as we have said ad nauseam, IH was never able to replicate it.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I asked for a technical reason. You said there are obvious scientific errors. What you just gave are not technical or scientific errors. Those are reasons why a person might feel suspicious about the work, but they are not technical in any sense.

    Clarke was wrong. The temperature was confirmed with a thermocouple to within a degree. There was no error in the temperature measurements. Again, you & Clarke have not found an error, so you should stop saying you found one.


    Jed, I'm not sure which part of the TC paper you disagree with here? That referred to the Lugano test. Maybe you are saying that the Ferrara test (done by Levi on Rossi's premises with no oversight or checking from the rest of the team) test had such measurements?

    Quote from Jack Cole

    Indeed. AR is nobody's puppet. He is the puppet master organizing his own scams/shows supported by sock puppetry, ventriloquism, clownerie, and magic tricks.

    The idea that everyone supporting Rossi is a "sock puppet" is out of any reality and is the last refuge of those who can not understand being wrong and unable to accept the ideas of others.

    Quote from maryyugo

    Rossi never allowed a truly independent test and never gave up control of the input power to the system and to the method of measuring output power.

    That is absolutely not true. Should I remind you (again and again because you seem to ignore this fact) that IH has done it's own test before signing the contract and paying 11 M$ ?

    In all reports I have read input and output were measured by the group doing the analysis ..... maybe you have read nothing of them.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Maybe you are saying that the Ferrara test (done by Levi on Rossi's premises with no oversight or checking from the rest of the team)

    Why Levi should be oversight ? Is he a baby ?

    In any team members can do different activities independently and then put together the results. If the rest of the team accepted the result of Levi mean they trust him and his professional behavior.

    But I see that here an Insult a day keep the scientist away.

    (And btw the TC paper is just disinformation rubbish......)

    Quote from ele

    Why Levi should be oversight ? Is he a baby ?

    In any team members can do different activities independently and then put together the results. If the rest of the team accepted the result of Levi mean they trust him and his professional behavior.

    But I see that here an Insult a day keep the scientist away.

    (And btw the TC paper is just disinformation rubbish......)


    Perhaps, Ele, you could engage with the details of the TC paper, quoting specific arguments, if you disagree with it? I'll happily, to the best of my ability, comment.


    Oversight is because the test is not independent, and one person, even if independent, liable to make mistakes. Were Levi the archangel Gabriel it would still not be proper to accept his unsupported efforts on such a matter. That other scientists trust somone is not the point. Science is about data, checking, and critiques, not trust. For the good reason that people are fallible especially when they have a deep interest in the results (as is often the case, and particularly so here).

    Quote from ele

    That is absolutely not true. Should I remind you (again and again because you seem to ignore this fact) that IH has done it's own test before signing the contract and paying 11 M$ ?

    In all reports I have read input and output were measured by the group doing the analysis ..... maybe you have read nothing of them.


    Which reports had measurements made by the group conducting the analysis.


    The only experiments with group analysis were Ferrara and Lugano.


    Lugano (we now know) was conducted by Fabioni and Rossi with flying visits from the group


    Ferrara was conducted by Levi and Rossi with (for the second experiment only) a flying visit from the others. I'm less sure about Ferrara but somone will correct me if I'm wrong no doubt.

    • Official Post
    Quote from SSC

    Rossi had a biomass plant, this business worked fine and that's why they blocked him .... obviously he bothered someone. But it was not a scientific test, it was a job, so what would he have to prove? What experts would have to test his job? The false accusations that struck him prevented him from defending his belongings: when he was acquitted, all his properties had been already confiscated, and certainly this thing had nothing to do with the fact that he had to demonstrate the operation of his technology.Shane, I think you are a bit confused...........


    SSC,


    Where do you get that: "Rossi had a biomass plant, this business worked fine"? This is what I found:


    Luigi Acerbi, the mayor of Lacchiarelli, Milan, Italy, however, in a May 5, 2011, Italian state television broadcast on RAI News 24, tells a different story about Rossi's Petroldragon.

    "In the years when [Rossi] was working here," Acerbi said, "he didn't produce a single drop of oil, as far as we know. What he did was creating just a media event. He was able to persuade — in a way that I cannot explain — a good portion of public opinion, and that's exactly what is hard for me to explain. He persuaded technicians in the field, scientists and important institutions, [inaudible] the region of Lombardia that he was able to do magic."


    According to a 1989 news story in La Repubblica, a newspaper with the second largest circulation in Italy, Italy's Guardia di Finanza, the financial police, conducted an investigation into the waste.

    "After chemical analysis," La Repubblica wrote, "it turns out that the substance is a mix of untreated toxic waste which contain highly dangerous chemical solvents with high presence of chlorine and sulphuric acid. In sum, a true bomb, highly dangerous. It seems that there is more. In at least one of the deposits, there appear to have been found traces of dioxin, the very dangerous poison of the Seveso tragedy."


    Looks to me that his biomass plant's did not work *fine* at all. In fact, they simply did not work. Oh yeah, they apparently produced enough "gold and silver", that Rossi claimed on his AndreaRossi.com to have opened a jewelry store to sell it. So the way I see it operating, is you put a bunch of toxic goop in one end of his bioreactors, and out the other end comes gold/silver, and, well...toxic goop. Do you think the gold/silver comes out already processed into ingots, or do you think they come out in raw form? :)

    • Official Post
    Quote from ele

    Did you really know that ? Show the proofs !

    Should I remind you that the Doral test was perfectly ok for IH during all the year and that Darden had invited investors and rose money from it ?


    And again Rossi was found innocent. No crimes. So all your post is a complete nonsense and a false reasoning.


    Ele,


    The only thing keeping the Rossi hoax alive is that one can not prove a negative. We can't prove that the dummy corporation Rossi set-up (JMP) never produced a product. We can not prove the mezzazine heat exchanger never existed. We can not prove the pumps could not output 94l/hr (or did AF do that?). We can never prove Fabiani/Penon/Rossi destroyed data and emails for nefarious reasons. And we can not prove Rossi destroyed plumbing to hide something. So we can never fully prove Doral was not "perfectly OK" as you claim.


    All I can say, is that there are levels of believing, and those like yourself that are still standing by Rossi after all that has been revealed about him, represent the most extreme end on the believer scale. There is almost nothing the man can do that will shake your faith at this point it appears. Or is there?


    Fine by me though, as it is entertaining to watch you contort yourselves into pretzels in order to keep the Rossi faith going.

    • Official Post

    Ele/SSC,


    Rossi's motto is "mercato veritas" (in the market is truth). How many years into the future do you think this Rossisays from yesterday just pushed that day of reckoning when the market proves his QX?



    "September 2, 2017 at 9:00 AM


    Frank Acland:


    Premature to answer.


    Sharks are around ( especially the most vociferous competitors, whose vociferity is inversally proportional to their capacity to make something real by themselves, otherwise they’d have not time to vociferate ) waiting for the availability of our products to copy them. It is true that our patents cover our IP, but litigations have a huge cost. The best protection will be our economy scale. This makes unlikely that we will put for sale our mass products before we will have completed the industrialization of the manufacturing, to put for sale the E-Cat at a price able to restrain the competition from the beginning. We will continue to sell only big industrial plants, directly managed by us until we will be ready to put in commerce our E-Cats at a price for which the competition will not be encouraged, or able, to proceed against us.


    Warm Regards,

    A.R."


    By the sounds of this, I would say Rossi is subtly telling his faithful that they have a long, long wait ahead. Not his fault though...it is those "sharks around". :) I just love Rossi. I hope he never leaves the LENR scene, and if he does...hopefully he will go on to another scheme I can follow him on.

    Rossi recycles lies. This is typical. All the way back to the thermoelectric scam around 2002, he was claiming he would build robotized plants. He never has. Remember the "factory" he was buying in Scandinavia? Sweden maybe? He never did. He used this same economy of scale argument against competition to his ORIGINAL ecat SIX YEARS AGO. No commercial version was ever built. There are no customers. He does not sell industrial plans. No such plant COULD be operated in the US without all sorts of special tests and permits Rossi has never gotten. All he has is his pitiful "self certification" of safety from years back. He's had "certificators" (whatever the hell THAT is) working for years. Where are the certificates? No customers, no plants sold, no competition, nothing at all but silly lies, specious claims and recycled nonsense. But I do love his gift of indipendently massacring English, like for example "vociferity". But he could have gone one better and called it "vociferocity." Still, it is a new Rossispeak and we have not had a new one in some time, so there is progress in Rossi City.


    PS: I never thought I'd agree to this extent with ShaneD!

    Quote from SSC

    There are scientific evidence, the first dates back to the years of the collaboration with Focardi, then there were the tests of Ferrara, Bologna and Lugano, and the first IH (positive) tests, and there are the Swedish professors who are doing a replication of the E-Cat. How many tests do you need to understand that his technology works? Probably they will never be enough because the only fact that there is an industrial secret that covers some aspects of those devices is enough for you to say that not everything is demonstrable and therefore it is not possible to confirm that the E-Cat works. That's why I think it's useless to continue testing, people like you will always find some criticism to do and will not be satisfied with the results. When Rossi will succeed in transforming his invention into a commercial product, you will have nothing to cling to for keep on talking this way. So vent out now!


    My answer to Jed re the Ferrara tests (the best of the bunch) got put on the clearance thread because i was replying to debate there: worth linking here because it was a proper post and because it answers (again, but with additional detail) Ele/SSc refarin here that rossi's stuff has been validated by scientists.


    Clearance Items

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Oversight is because the test is not independent, and one person, even if independent, liable to make mistakes. Were Levi the archangel Gabriel it would still not be proper to accept his unsupported efforts on such a matter. That other scientists trust somone is not the point.

    I see that you have no idea on how thing go on in Science now. Science now days is done by the collaboration of very large groups of people. Data, Analysis SW, reports and ideas are continuously shared among the group in a common trust basis. But common trust does not mean that there are no internal checks and that each member of the group does not verify the work of the others. If you exclude the desire to show false data. then is unlikely that trivial errors will be not revealed in this process.

    When a group of co authors signs a paper is the whole group that takes responsibility.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    For the good reason that people are fallible especially when they have a deep interest in the results (as is often the case, and particularly so here).

    The only interest of Levi and the group of co authors was to make a good measure. They were not trying to prove their own theory or test their own reactor in order to claim the paternity of the results or to fill their own patent. So I don't see how any anxiety could have been "error prone".

    • Official Post
    Quote from ele

    Science now days is done by the collaboration of very large groups of people. Data, Analysis SW, reports and ideas are continuously shared among the group in a common trust basis. But common trust does not mean that there are no internal checks and that each member of the group does not verify the work of the others. If you exclude the desire to show false data. then is unlikely that trivial errors will be not revealed in this process.


    Ele,


    OK, great, so "collaboration of large groups" is the name of the game in science nowadays. That may come as a shock to those from the "Golden Age of Physics" over 100 years ago, but I am just here to learn...so what do I know? :) So how does Rossi measure compared to "nowadays"? His data "analytics", "reports", does he "share his ideas among the group in a common trust basis"? Does he have "internal checks"?


    This is so fun. Rossi, if you read this...do not ever leave us!

    Quote from maryyugo

    For openers, it was done with Rossi. And Levi supervised it. Thomas Clarke documented the infelicities of the assumptions used in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. IIRC, others remarked about possible irregularities in the method of measuring input power.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Lugano (we now know) was conducted by Fabioni and Rossi with flying visits from the group


    Ferrara was conducted by Levi and Rossi with (for the second experiment only) a flying visit from the others.


    All this statements are false and pure disinformation. None of the test was done by Rossi.

    Rossi was present just to operate the reactor, but all the measurement apparatus was under the full control of the Authors.

    As in a previous example is like that in F1 race (Mercedes is Great this year !) you make confusion among the pilot and eventually his team, with race commissars who measure time, performances.

    Regarding TC all of you repeat the story about the emissivity.... etc...... but that was only a fantasy and a false information diffused only by TC, and also the others critics in what you call his paper were ridiculous.

    And BTW who was supervising TC ? You say that even an Angel could do errors why not TC ?

    You seem to take his words like a dogma, or an absolute truth.

    Quote from Shane D.

    So how does Rossi measure compared to "nowadays"? His data "analytics", "reports", does he "share his ideas among the group in a common trust basis"? Does he have "internal checks"?

    Shane we were discussing of reports written by a group Authors. Nothing coming from Rossi, but the Reports, Ferrara in particular.

    Try to understand the contest before answering.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Rossi's motto is "mercato veritas" (in the market is truth). How many years into the future do you think this Rossisays from yesterday just pushed that day of reckoning when the market proves his QX?

    As far as we know that there will be some kind of technology demonstration at the end of October. Maybe you was not knowing that.

    • Official Post
    Quote from ele

    As far as we know that there will be some kind of technology demonstration at the end of October. Maybe you was not knowing that.


    Yes Ele, I knew that. However, the upcoming demo...which IMO will most likely take place, will not be real science, not truly independent, and will lead to more questions than answers. About like all of the other Rossi demos. Nor will it get us anywhere closer to his "mercato veritas" than we are now. In other words; same old same old.

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.