The "believers" and "followers" completely gloss over the fact that Ecat technology has never worked independently of direct involvement of the Ecat people. And, in my opinion, it never will.
Maybe you can annually "rent a Rossi" as bundle when buying an ecat for your basement 
He will start and stop the reactor by a simple phone call and estimated travel time of 1 - 2 weeks 
Easy.
Quote
Is something very well known https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator
ele, unfortunately the QuarkX requires an input current and unknown voltage to operate. If it produced a voltage like IHFB theorises the current would be reversed or you could cut the power and it would carry on running. All sorts of Rossiphysics may happen inside the QuarkX reactor, but outside the 'Rossi Field' normal laws apply.
Now, someone like you sig, will say "ah ha!, that is part of this great world-wide scam being foisted upon us all!" I call it being resourceful.
Well, I disagree that Rossi has a "worldwide scam". It's actually just a small group of people, including a professor in the twilight of his career (Focardi, now passed) and a few buddies (Penon was a childhood friend of his wife, Fabiani and Levi).
He found Johnson when he needed to form a few LLC's and the resourceful Annesser family and rented them. When he needed a "Director of Engineering", he rented a real engineer (though retired) and had Bass create a fake business card and gave him his lines to recite (barely in time, according to Bass' anxious emails).
So I absolutely agree with you that Rossi is resourceful. In fact, on that one trait he is truly extraordinary given the volume and detail of his crude stage craft. And when you put it all together, it is quite impressive.
It's almost like Disneyworld or watching a sci-fi movie: it's fun to suspend disbelief for awhile. But when you get up close or peek behind the curtain, you find out that the Matterhorn is made of fiberglass, as are the unicorns in the hills that are animated by electric motors guided by tracks, or projected on a screen using masterful CGI.
And when the credits role and you're walking back to the parking lot it's time to settle back into reality. You start your car and pay attention to the laws of physics and the laws of man as you drive home.
And though there are amazing adventures available in Realityville, it's far more costly, time inefficient and dangerous to entertain fantasies as if they were real. If you want to increase the odds of experiencing real adventure in Realityville, it pays to work creatively with a firm grasp of it's laws and ways. And I'm not talking about kowtowing to the establishment. Anyone who knows me well knows that I have a pretty strong anti-establishment streak in me. The ivory tower community that I work in has a very abundant share of manmade crap and group-think, And it can be wearying cutting through all that crap. That's what well designed experiments can do, though: cut through the culture of 'this is how we've always done it' and advance understanding through reproducible discoveries.
I've certainly experienced a great ride so far, but not without episodes of bewilderment, heartbreak and pain, including slanderous attacks from the establishment, especially when some in the establishment had (and have) something to loose due to our findings. So I've got battle scars and war stories of my own, but I digress.
It is tragic but true that Rossi succeeds in offering up Rossiworld as if it were Realityville.
And there are casualties as a result.
Yeah! QuarkX has no resistance, but "RossiCalc" says there is a COP of 2000+ ?? COP is in his physics power out/power in. If there is R=0, something strange must happen to the power...we have a constant current by the brown resistor, so it would be fabulous to find out what formulas and electrical laws Rossi is referring to when he calculates his amazing COP...Ohm law says: P=R*I² and P=U²/R. The first would give P = 0 Watt (R=0) and the latter P = ∞ W. Both wouldn't make any sense for calculating anything useful...
Yeah! QuarkX has no resistance, but "RossiCalc" says there is a COP of 2000+ ?? COP is in his physics power out/power in. If there is R=0, something strange must happen to the power...we have a constant current by the brown resistor, so it would be fabulous to find out what formulas and electrical laws Rossi is referring to when he calculates his amazing COP...Ohm law says: P=R*I² and P=U²/R. The first would give P = 0 Watt (R=0) and the latter P = ∞ W. Both wouldn't make any sense for calculating anything useful...
measuring power into glow discharge style devices is very tricky. They can even show negative resistance.
IH and their team of top scientists
This is grotesque!
The anonymous trolls here lack logic.
Either you believe what Rossi says about the E-Cat QX, that the resistance of the reactor is close to zero. In which case you can calculate the applied voltage from the current flowing through the 1 ohm resistor, or, you don't believe what Rossi says, in which case you are wasting time with endless speculations that can never have resolution. If you are a troll, presumably you find just writing insults amusing.
@ sigmoidal,
Who cares if he owns or rents the URL?
Sorry, I disagree. If someone says that a web site is used to perpetrate (MY's word) a scam, disseminating false information on the web, he should also care about whoever owns/registered the site.
QuoteWho else would so brazenly name a 'journal' this way but with content that clearly shows that it is not a journal at all, but rather a blog.
That's exactly the question raised by Krivit in his second mail to Vortex in 2010, and which remains unanswered, apart Krivit's allusions.
QuoteThe conclusions about the Ecat is obvious to anyone who has any technical competence and to most others who don't: Rossi has no LENR reaction.
I agree. Rossi can't have what doesn't exist in nature.
QuoteHe's a fraud. He's a conman. RvD was extremely helpful in establishing that to a high degree of confidence.
I strongly disagree. With reference to the Ecat, the RvD conclusion entails that he cannot be called a fraud, or a conmen.
QuoteThe constant provable stream of lies that he emits on JoNP are highly supportive of his fraudulent behavior.
I disagree, again. This only supports that he is a smart and well trained PR man, as anybody knew since the beginning.
QuoteWhat does anything about the Ecat have to do with URL ownership?
Everything. Since March 2010, the Ecat story coincides essentially with the JoNP. Almost every other thing passed away: devices, methods, theories, people, customers, … Only words remain, and (as you correctly said) the JoNP is the main tool to disseminate them. How can you say that its ownership has nothing to do with the Ecat affair?
QuotePerhaps you believe there is some more complex relationship, and that pro-Rossi commenters here are involved in some collusion with Rossi and a behind-the-scenes JoNP owner?
I were not referring to the pro-Rossi commenters, nor here neither elsewhere.
QuoteOn the other hand, he did get 10.5M for crude stage craft, as I've stated.
You should recognize that that sum, all inclusive, is quite fair for a worldwide PR activity lasted for a decade.
QuoteAs a reviewer for peer reviewed publications, I can tell you based on my experience that I have no problem at all believing that Rossi has fooled a lot of Ph.D. scientists. Peer review is not at all like an engineering quality review. Peer review mostly addresses issues regarding the organization and content of the article in order to improve it for publication....
Congratulations for your activity as reviewer, but I can't see any connection with the Ecat situation, unless, in order to better understand the attitudes and intentions of the authors of the papers under review, you usually host them at your home and travel all together with your families throughout the Europe and the USA: http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html
QuoteAnd RvD has provided boatloads of evidence to the research community that his reputation stinks.
I doubt that he has been ever considered a peer in the research community. Any credibility of his devices is based on the reputation of some professors that declared to have measured enormous amount of excess heat, or that let the people believe it, by using other more sophisticated allusive sentences.
Regarding my previous links:
Quote1) I don't believe there is anything 'funky' about JoNP other than that it is a blatant fraud created by Rossi himself.
Your belief doesn't match with what has been alluded by Krivit in his two mail to Vortex. Have you some reasons to doubt his information on this specific point?
Quote2) This paper has nothing to do with Rossi. The only connection I see is that Michael Melich, an early supporter of Rossi is the final author. Do you think it has additional relevance?
This link provides a hint for a possible interpretation of the allusions made by Krivit in his second mail to Vortex.
Quote3) I read this article by Krivit about 6 months after he wrote it, and find it to be a helpful summary.
I agree, except for a few sentences, including the one I quoted in my previous comment to you.
Quote4) Broken link
Sorry. This link is OK: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf
Ascoli deserves credit for dogged determination. He has been endlessly posting this same diatribe for years on multiple websites. Despite the fact that not a single person has become sympathetic to his unique analysis of the Rossi affair after literally hundreds of attempts, he soldiers on.
Perhaps we should create a dedicated thread to the subject of Mike Melich that only Ascoli would post to. It would be pointless, of course, but it would make the man happy.
The anonymous trolls here lack logic.
Either you believe what Rossi says about the E-Cat QX, that the resistance of the reactor is close to zero. In which case you can calculate the applied voltage from the current flowing through the 1 ohm resistor, or, you don't believe what Rossi says, in which case you are wasting time with endless speculations that can never have resolution. If you are a troll, presumably you find just writing insults amusing.
@AA - may I point out that you here are writing insults. You don't sound as though it is amusing you though. I'd suggest that sticking to the facts and ignoring motivations of posters is best. At least if you include me in your anonymous troll list I don't believe the insults are accurate even if insulting people is helpful (which it is not).
Your argument here, as I understand it, is that either you accept as Gospel what Rossi says, or you should avoid comment on his experiments, presumably because in that case they can have no significance.
You maybe have not followed the details here. Rossi is fascinating because he has a record (over technical matters) of being pretty truthful. The errors in his analysis are of interpretation, not direct lies. These are so flagrant that it seems to many that he is a bare-faced liar but the record does not show this, over technical matters, as long as you allow him to be very incompetent. I will give a documented example (from Mats - a staunch Rossi supporter) which shows how much Rossi's comments can be relied upon.
Rossi was noted by Mats, during a test for investor Hydrofusion, mis-measuring input power using average meters. Because his waveform was spiky this always leads to underestimate of input power. In this case Rossi measured it such as to obtain COP = 2, the correct measurement done by Hydrofusion engineers with RMS meters led to COP = 1. What did Rossi say?
(1) Rossi continued to argue with Mats that his measurements were correct, and did not accept the RMS vs average explanation.
(2) Some time after, Rossi claimed that this device had not worked (presumably at that point accepting that RMS measurements were needed).
(3) In an e-mail to IH Rossi boasted that he had failed the Hydrofusion test on purpose in order to free him from any hydrofusion commitments and allow the IH relationship.
Now, it is indisputably true that Rossi is a liar in this episode. Either he is lying to Hydrofusion, or to IH, or possibly both. I think most people would reckon the most likely explanation here is:
(a) Rossi took a device which he knew showed COP=2 when measured with average meters to Hydrofusion. He expected they would accept the COP=2
(b) In fact the device did not work (it was an electric heater with COP=1).
We cannot say whether Rossi realised that he was mis-measuring input power. I'm inclined to think he genuinely did not realise the problem. Any normal engineer would detect such blatant mismeasurement but remember Rossi avoids controls and other checks in his measurements. Given such a focussed approach on the headline result without any checking it is possible for blatant errors to persist in his in-house testing. Rossi has many times showed himself not to tolerate anyone inclined to question technical matters - this is consistent with his whole technical approach having embedded errors.
Even so Rossi was lying. But perhaps not about technical matters.
So my view would be that we can generally trust what Rossi says about technical matters as long as we realise that what he does may be technically very wrong (but he does not realise this). There are many many examples of this.
There is a lot of heat here over the matter of whether perhaps Rossi does in fact realise the errors, and is therefore deliberately deceiving people. from my POV there is no strong evidence, he could easily be genuinely deceiving himself, and as the result is the same I don't care.
That is why, for me, decoding Rossi's technical statements is fascinating. I give him more credit than you would. Even though he certainly has lied, he tends to misrepresent things innocently by strongly asserting incorrect interpretations. anyone can do such a thing, for example Levi mistaken over the way that IR cameras can be used and obstinately persisting in this misconception even when challenged.
Scientists generally admit mistakes as soon as they realise them, and Levi has to my knowledge not yet done this, but to be fair the circumstances are unusual and his avoidance of normal public response to refutations (e.g. TC's paper) might be due to instructions from his university etc. It would be highly irregular for any University to restrict academic free speech, but you can imagine them saying he should only reply via peer-reviewed publication. That would be difficult. This last paragraph is speculative of course. perhaps there are constraints on Levi I do not know about.
I strongly disagree. With reference to the Ecat, the RvD conclusion entails that he cannot be called a fraud, or a conmen.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I find that the support you provide for the above statement is convoluted and flimsy vs the overwhelming evidence from RvD that he is clearly a fraudulent con man.
Occam's razor (in the extreme) explains Rossi's charade quite elegantly and simply: Rossi is a highly resourceful, talented PR guy, but delusional, self-aggrandizing, and a con man with a lot of 'chutzpah'. He has shown a limited ability to recruit and lead a small number of people into helping him stage elaborate, grandiose, but rather crude scams. One part of this stage craft is JoNP. He created it. He manages it. He has plenty of time to do that while sitting inside a shipping container that doesn't produce excess heat, monitoring it for a substantial portion of the time that it produces nothing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks per year.
He is so good at creating these self-proclaimed 'masterpieces' that he now owns several million dollars worth of Florida condos.
So you might be inclined to give him props for that.
And I have to say, I think the tangential and conflicting scant sources you site to try to postulate that there is any significance to ownership of the JoNP URL or fake 'journal' other than Rossi as creator and manager is bizarre, since it is obvious to everyone that this is just Rossi's Rossiworld echo chamber and sock puppet theatre. Simple. See?
QuoteFocardi and Rossi prepared a paper describing their early results, and surprise surprise, the fraidy-cat journals wouldn't touch it. Too controversial.
It wasn't published because it was crap. The materials and methods section of the paper was mostly absent. There was not enough information to replicate. And the results varied all over the place, both in terms of power and in terms of "COP". Nobody has ever replicated that work which should tell you something about the silly paper. Rossi probably simply moved the output temperature sensor near the huge heater his early devices featured prominently-- for example the band heater around the whole kludge-- a heater which could only heat... wait for this... THE COOLING WATER.
Quoteele, unfortunately the QuarkX requires an input current and unknown voltage to operate. If it produced a voltage like IHFB theorises the current would be reversed or you could cut the power and it would carry on running. All sorts of Rossiphysics may happen inside the QuarkX reactor, but outside the 'Rossi Field' normal laws apply.
According to Rossi, the QuarkQX makes electricity which begs the question of why Rossi doesn't use that electricity to run it. Why it requires electricity at all. Of course, I am pretty sure Rossi will never show the claimed pencil size device with the blue glow that makes light, heat and electricity at your option. Instead, if he ever shows anything, it will be clumsy piece of plumbing trash like he showed in the past.
Display MoreThanks for the info. These news were also pointed out in a devoted thread:
News from FOIA, briefing about LENR (Department of Defense)
I already saw them, and that's why I wrote that the DoD didn't answer.
The request from the US House of Representatives begins with these words:
"The committee is aware of recent positive developments in developing low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which produce ultra- clean, low-cost renewable energy that have strong national security implications. …"
The Committee issued this text on May 4, 2016. Which could have been the "recent positive developments" they were referring to?
Everyone, who followed the LENR public debate from 2010 onwards, knows very well that it has been almost completely focused on the Ecat. This has also been the interpretation given by a quite widespread magazine such as Popular Mechanics (1), which moreover mentioned some effective endorsements and presumed supports that the Ecat received from the DoD along the years. So the people, and presumably the members of the Committee as well, were waiting for some clarification on the issues raised by the magazine, ie an informed and update position of the DoD on the Ecat developments.
Were the DoD people in charge of preparing the briefing for the Committee aware of these expectancies? Yes they were, as shown by the internal "E-Mails regarding the LENR Briefing" (2). But they chose not to answer: "No applause please!" they wrote each others.
Instead they prepared a dull presentation, addressing only a couple of old LENR research areas: the muon-cathalized fusion (uncontroversial, but impractical for energy purposes), and the electrolytic cells (discredited). This stuff, that you can mostly find also on Wikipedia, has nothing to do with the purported "recent positive developments etc. etc..", so the DoD chose to answer only formally, but not substantially, to the Committee.
(1) http://www.popularmechanics.co…874/us-house-cold-fusion/
(2) http://documents.theblackvault…%20DOC_01_LENR_Emails.pdf
I agree with you, but probably for different reasons.
IH and their team of top scientists had exclusive access to all of the Ecat IP for years. They also had assistance from the Ecat people. They were never able to make the Ecat work independently as claimed. The "believers" and "followers" completely gloss over the fact that Ecat technology has never worked independently of direct involvement of the Ecat people. And, in my opinion, it never will.
From what I understand, it's tough to get the E-Cat technology to work when Darden purposely inserts the wrong fuel mix.
If it produced a voltage like IHFB theorises the current would be reversed or you could cut the power and it would carry on running. All sorts of Rossiphysics may happen inside the QuarkX reactor, but outside the 'Rossi Field' normal laws apply.
I don't know why you assume the current would be reversed, particularly since we don't know what potential the e-Cat generates, nor its polarity within the circuit. So it seems we are dealing with MalcolmMadeUp physics rather than Rossiphysics.
I've certainly experienced a great ride so far, but not without episodes of bewilderment, heartbreak and pain, including slanderous attacks from the establishment, especially when some in the establishment had (and have) something to loose due to our findings. So I've got battle scars and war stories of my own, but I digress.
Then of all people, you should have the empathy and understanding for Rossi that is so missing from this story.
Yeah! QuarkX has no resistance, but "RossiCalc" says there is a COP of 2000+ ?? COP is in his physics power out/power in. If there is R=0, something strange must happen to the power...we have a constant current by the brown resistor, so it would be fabulous to find out what formulas and electrical laws Rossi is referring to when he calculates his amazing COP...Ohm law says: P=R*I² and P=U²/R. The first would give P = 0 Watt (R=0) and the latter P = ∞ W. Both wouldn't make any sense for calculating anything useful...
z.,
You're missing some important things.
There is a lot of heat here over the matter of whether perhaps Rossi does in fact realise the errors, and is therefore deliberately deceiving people. from my POV there is no strong evidence, he could easily be genuinely deceiving himself, and as the result is the same I don't care.
That is why, for me, decoding Rossi's technical statements is fascinating. I give him more credit than you would. Even though he certainly has lied, he tends to misrepresent things innocently by strongly asserting incorrect interpretations. anyone can do such a thing, for example Levi mistaken over the way that IR cameras can be used and obstinately persisting in this misconception even when challenged.
THH, I have great respect for you. And I share your admiration for the work of TC, which was highly influential for me in sorting out the Rossi saga many years ago. 
But I think you have too thoroughly deconstructed Rossi in this response to AA. That Rossi knowingly lies is not just regarding potential customers or business contracts. We know that all his bluster on JoNP was false too. In Mercato Veritas was his rallying cry (he adopted and promoted this in 2014), but we now know (according to Rossi) that he was 'selling nothing to himself'. Who does that and promotes and brags about it when he knows he's created the illusion of a fair market through stage craft?
So I am not persuaded that it is reasonable to separate Rossi the JoNP editor, JMP Director, Leonardo Owner, fake robotic factory proclaimer, fake certification laboratory submitter, fraudulent diploma receiver, etc., etc., from Rossi the technologist.
I agree that he has demonstrated both technical incompetence and some sophistication, but I think a better explanation is that he has a history of earnestly seeking to gain technical understanding, but with the goal of achieving both attention and credibility for higher quality plausible deniability in ever-more-elaborate schemes, for targeting his 'marks' (aka, audience). This explains for me why he so tenaciously holds to wrong technical concepts (e.g. "AC isn't polar - it's AC after all"). When it's supportive of his (delusional or knowingly fraudulent?) schemes, he tenaciously and belligerently holds on until he's in trouble. Then, when things get desperate, POOF, there's a magic heat exchanger, or an endothermic customer material process, or a misreading of the dosimetric pump spec, or... (fill in the very wide blank).
Now there is some indication from RvD that he simply is belligerent when being told he is wrong - for example when Bass told him there is no material with dielectric strength capable of building 5MV transformers. So this is where I think the (self) delusional aspect comes into play as well.
And though this is how I see it, I agree that the difference in this explanation vs. your more charitable one regarding technology is relatively unimportant, since both explanations have a common endpoint: that Rossi's stuff doesn't work and he is a proven liar.
But I think it is unlikely that someone who we now know is intentionally deceptive across a broad spectrum of circumstances would somehow be immune from intentional deception regarding technical issues.
sigmoidal, THHuxleynew, @maryyugo,
Guys, is this some short of shark frenzy? Do you get excited when you see your buddies bashing?
Or is Rossi gaining traction and you desperately try to influence things.
Cheers,
JB
