As they say in science fiction movies, Rossi's work is beyond the combined resources of all the Earth's physical science. That statement should fire up the trolls.
haa, no not at all (I presume you consider me a troll), that's the best chuckle of the day (even if only a trifle of that hyperbole was serious) !!! Thank you!
There is no comparison between a mechanical device readily interpreted and tested using simple observable experimentation, ordinary physics, and phenomenon
Actually, up to 1908, there was a lot of confusion about the nature of flight, what constitutes flight, and what the Wright brothers accomplished. The Wrights invented accurate wind tunnels, collected the best data, worked out the engineering physics of wing shapes, lift, aircraft geometry and propellers. Most important, they discovered 3-axis control, which is essential to flight. They were not the first to "fly" in the sense of getting off the ground with wings and a propeller in a heavier than air aircraft. Several others did that long before they did, notably Maxim. They were the first to conduct controlled flight that ended up level or higher than where it started. They were the first to fly for long periods (20 minutes or more) with complete control over where they went (in circles). They defined controlled flight carefully in a series of essays and diary entries, and in a presentation to Western Society of Engineers in 1901, which is pretty technical:
http://invention.psychology.ms…library/Aeronautical.html
Anyone who imagines they were "lucky" amateurs who "stumbled over" the answer should read this. Along similar lines, anyone who thinks that replicating cold fusion is easy -- or should be easy -- should read Storms. You will see for yourself what it entails, and you should be able to see approximately how difficult it is.
Display MoreNot at all! The Wright brothers never "stumbled" onto anything. They had "a low tolerance for guesswork" as one friend put it. They were superb engineers. They measured everything first, developing the best wind tunnel and data in the world. Then they worked out the physics in a series of notebooks, with advanced engineering equations that no one today would try to solve without a computer. Their analysis of wings, center of mass, and in particular propellers was brilliant. Their propeller worked within ~5% of the efficiency they predicted. They got more thrust with a 20 HP motor than others got with 50 HP.
This NASA website has an example of their data tables and graphs, from 1901, two years before they flew an airplane:
https://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/results.html
After they worked out the details in theory and hard numbers, then they built aircraft (gliders). They tested them methodically, went back and did more engineering, and finally arrived at working aircraft. If they had tried to do it any other way, they would have killed themselves.
See:
Jed, that's true as well, I wasn't discounting their engineering, nor implying the "stumbled" on their work, and their customary use of "mathematical smokescreens" and experimentation (as the Rossi Brethren say), I was just stating that the issues, skills and resources required in developing and testing atomic physics are vastly different.
Yes. I remember reading about the Wright Brothers as case studies in science and engineering methods when I was a very young student. It may be apocryphal, but they supposedly said, early in the course of their tests, "if it's right on paper, it will right when we build it." They provided more groundwork for their tests than virtually anyone else, as Jed notes.
Rossi have nearly no money, all gone to attorneys
But isn't Rossi's main attorney "a friend of the family". I'd bet he got a deal on what he actually paid. (Maybe even on contingency? Would that have to be revealed to the court?).
Wheras IH's payments to Jones Day is in real, hard cash-on-the-nail.
And there was also this guy:
QuoteSantos-Dumont is a national hero in Brazil, where it is popularly held that he preceded the Wright brothers in demonstrating a practical airplane. Countless roads, plazas, schools, monuments, and airports in Brazil are dedicated to him, and his name is inscribed on the Tancredo Neves Pantheon of the Fatherland and Freedom.
None of that matters much though.
It may be apocryphal, but they supposedly said, early in the course of their tests, "if it's right on paper, it will right when we build it."
I don't recall that. I have read many of their letters and essays. They were strongly in favor of working through the engineering before building, but their first motorized airplanes in 1903 and 1904 barely worked. They knew that. The machines kept crashing. The control surfaces were too large, so they over-controlled. A replica of the first airplane was built and flown by experts in 2003. They could not get it off the ground in the video I saw.
After Orville survived a particularly bad crash in 1904, he insisted they try a new fuselage geometry, and Wilbur, for once, did not argue back. They finally built somewhat safe, controlled aircraft in 1905 and 06, and filed a patent. It remained a dangerous business. In 1908, Orville was nearly killed, and his passenger was killed. In 1909, they trained several pilots, most of whom killed themselves in accidents within a year, including Charles Rolls, co-founder of Rolls-Royce.
In 1901, Wilbur told the Soc. of Western Engineers:
"If I take this piece of paper, and after placing it parallel with the ground, quickly let it fall, it will not settle steadily down as a staid, sensible piece of paper ought to do, but it insists on contravening every recognized rule of decorum, turning over and darting hither and thither in the most erratic manner, much after the style of an untrained horse. Yet this is the style of steed that men must learn to manage before flying can become an everyday sport. The bird has learned this art of equilibrium, and learned it so thoroughly that its skill is not apparent to our sight. We only learn to appreciate it when we try to imitate it. Now, there are two ways of learning to ride a fractious horse: One is to get on him and learn by actual practice how each motion and trick may be best met; the other is to sit on a fence and watch the beast a while, and then retire to the house and at leisure figure out the best way of overcoming his jumps and kicks. The latter system is the safest, but the former, on the whole, turns out the larger proportion of good riders. It is very much the same in learning to ride a flying machine; if you are looking for perfect safety, you will do well to sit on a fence and watch the birds; but if you really wish to learn, you must mount a machine and become acquainted with its tricks by actual trial."
Jed, that's true as well, I wasn't discounting their engineering, nor implying the "stumbled" on their work
[email protected] said they "stumbled." Not you.
However, you are somewhat wrong in thinking that flight was a well defined phenomenon that anyone would recognize when they saw it, back in 1903. Many people achieved uncontrolled flights which resembled being catapulted through the air. This looked impressive, and the people who did it became famous, but it did not contribute to the science of aviation. There were some important contributions before the Wrights, such as Lilienthal and Pilcher (cited by W. Wright), but most actual, effective aviation engineering was developed by the Wrights on their own between 1899 and 1906.
In 1908, there was still no one else who could fly in a controlled fashion.
Santos-Dumont contributed to lighter than air flight, as did Zeppelin, of course. By 1914, Zeppelin's company had flown more than 10,000 paying passengers, which was far beyond the capabilities of airplanes at that time. Although airplanes were beginning to catch up. Igor Sikorsky built an airplane that carried up to 16 passengers. It carried 6 passengers for 6 hours 33 minutes.
IH simply cut their losses (certainly to more legal fees), and small risk of losing.
I think IH has judged that risk differently. If they really was certain they could win, they would go ahead with the lawsuit, but they knew a jury would have been able to judge them more severely than most of you do here.
So soon you forget that it was Rossi that brought suit and a settlement or a win on the primary suit would net the same for IH. Also that it was Rossi that made the offer of the settlement to drop his suit that could potentially cost IH money in continual legal fees.
A victory would have allowed IH to keep the IP and the plant by 1MW, so it is not the same as settlement. I think that after the October demo this thing will be obvious. As for the settlement offer, how can you say it was Rossi to propose it? A settlement is not decided within few minutes, with the jury and the judge waiting while the two lawyers talk to each other. It is obvious that the agreements had been discussed earlier, probably on several occasions. As far as we know it may also have happened that IH proposed to Rossi that agreement, Rossi thought about it and the fourth (or was the fifth?) day of the trial Rossi's lawyer told the other party that he accepted the proposal . None of us can know how it went, so saying that it was Rossi to want the settlement is meaningless.
Really, you say? He sued for $90M, he received nothing on his complaint, he had to pay all (millions) of his own legal bills and in return for all this, he got back completely worthless so-called IP and a few pieces of industrial junk. That sure was brilliant business practice!
Rossi has both the money he has gained for the IP, both the IP itself, and also owns the 1MW plant. His own legal bills are certainly far inferior to those of IH, surely inferior to the value of the IP, which allows he to produce and market any E-Cat model. If QuarkX does just half of what we expect, its value is still immense. In comparison with this, do you really think that Rossi cares about the attorney's fee?
Someone should make a call to the Florida Dept. of Revenue, and IRS, (they have anonymous tip lines, and are worse to deal with than the court-system) just to make sure that Rossi, Leonardo, JM Products, et.al. are paying their fair share of that $11M in taxes to the fine state of Florida and citizens of the US, since everyone knows that Rossi is scrupulous business person, and would never try to evade taxes, he has nothing to be concerned with.
The same person should also contact the SEC and warn it that Cherokee has lied in its March statement, because at the question : "You are actively engaged in business as a real estate broker, dealer, or agent." they answer : “ none “, despite all the related companies engaged in real estate activity (brownfields are by definition a real estate activity in so far they are not just remediation but also revitalization by building and selling housing and commercial centers). Moreover at the question "Are you actively engaged in any other business not listed in Item 6.A ( that is other than giving investment advice)?" they answer: “no”, which is an omission, because Cherokee had to declare that it is actively engaged in another business with IH and others. Finally at the question "Has any domestic or foreign court in the past ten years, enjoined you or any advisory affiliate in connection with any investment-related activity?" they answer : “ no”, making an omission because they did not declare the story of Ashley II of Charleston LLC , an affiliate which had some trouble with the Law.
It should be noted that any omission may constitute a federal criminal violation. If you want to be a good citizen, scrupulous and attentive to all the wrongdoings committed by your neighbors, you have to worry both about who lives on the left side and who is on the right side of your home.
Why did Rossi settle? Please explain.
He said it himself, because if he had won, he would have collected a remarkable amount but would not obtain the IP. For Rossi, the IP is worth more than the amount he could get because it gives him the right to sell QuarkX all over the world.
The case for the IP not in any sane world being important to Rossi is simply that even without it he is free to find marks licensees throughout Europe. No partner, looking at the US restriction, would worry if they seriously felt that nevertheless they could exploit European disruptive energy technology.
Rossi explained this in his interview with Mats Lewan:
"There were two clauses in the license agreement that were extremely dangerous to us—the right of first choice [if you plan to make any agreement outside of the licensee’s territory, you first have to offer the licensee the possibility to make an agreement for that new territory] and the rights also to all subsequent inventions. These clauses would have made any further development very complex."
In any event, the IH territories were not limited to the United States alone and I do not see why Rossi should be happy to see his enemies enrich themselves with the fruit of his efforts, though only in a slice of the world.
It is fascinating to hear how impressed with and confident about the QuarkX the faithful are considering that they themselves readily admit that nobody knows anything about it. I guess it is an example of ignorance is bliss.
Of course, if one actually considers the list of properties Rossi has attributed to the QuarkX, one would conclude that maryyugo's invisible flying pink unicorns are more likely to exist.
Rossi explained this in his interview with Mats Lewan:
"There were two clauses in the license agreement that were extremely dangerous to us—the right of first choice [if you plan to make any agreement outside of the licensee’s territory, you first have to offer the licensee the possibility to make an agreement for that new territory] and the rights also to all subsequent inventions. These clauses would have made any further development very complex."
In any event, the IH territories were not limited to the United States alone and I do not see why Rossi should be happy to see his enemies enrich themselves with the fruit of his efforts, though only in a slice of the world.
Why would Rossi care about that? If IH choose to match the terms of his licensees then that is just as good for him... better, in fact, he does not need more erroneous demos to entice new licensees...
The Wrights invented accurate wind tunnels, collected the best data, worked out the engineering physics of wing shapes, lift, aircraft geometry and propellers.
And they had a crack machinist who built them and engine with - for the period - an amazing power-to-weight ratio.
@ sigmoidal,
He had no evidence, he was just speculating - he was trying to rule out some bigger plot to harm LENR credibility generally, and doing so to alert the community of LENR support to a possible concern.
In his emails to Vortex, Krivit feared that it was an initiative against the Ni-H approach only, not against the LENR in general, because he was a strong supporter of Piantelli. So it appears as an internal dispute inside the LENR field between the PdD and NiH approaches, or even more restricted to the Focardi and Piantelli groups.
Anyway when I say "Krivit's allusions" I'm not referring the speculative allusions you mentioned, but to factual allusions, ie allusions to facts, not intentions. It's an evident fact that since the JoNP appeared on the web, in March 2010, the site had a link to a Board of Advisers (BoA), aimed to give it a certain level of scientific credibility. It's another evident fact the second adviser in the list was a professor of the DoD, and that this affiliation was explicitly exhibited.
In addition to these two evident facts, Krivit alluded to two other facts. In the first mail to Vortex he alluded that the DoD member in the BoA could have represented the position of the entire Department. The second and more important factual allusion, at the end of the second mail to Vortex, is that the site of JoNP could have been registered by this same DoD representative. If true, this fact has huge consequences on the interpretation of the entire Ecat story.
QuoteThe best evidence that this was just a passing idea for him is from Krivit himself in the 2016 summary he wrote (which you cited), which says nothing about some conspiratorial plot by others (like the DoD or anyone else) to discredit LENR,
As already said, this was not his real concern in March 2010. Anyway, the previous factual allusions of him were not passing ideas. He substantially confirmed them in January 2011, in the post titled "Rossi and Focardi Energy Amplifier: Reality or Scam?".
QuoteBut I have a suggestion for you if you haven't already done this: write Krivit and ask him …
I already did it, last year, on ecatnews.com. Unfortunately this site is no more available on internet, so I have to post the following jpeg with the screenshots of a few comments taken from an old page: http://i.imgur.com/yoshHoI.jpg
In April 2016, Krivit was regularly commenting on ecatnews. When MY posted the link to the last Macy's article, I replied posing a couple of questions. After a few minutes Krivit posted this comment:
QuoteDisplay MoreFrom http://ecatnews.com/?p=2686&cpage=4#comments [no more available on the web]
Steven B. Krivit
April 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm
Melich’s name appears 11 times here. Marianne is here too.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…iECat/RossiTimeline.shtml
It may answer some questions.
The day after, MY and I asked for some more clarifications, but we got no answer, and Krivit abandoned the thread for a while.
Quote… your notion, based on his email rant, regarding some covert 'board of directors' of JoNP exists and is coordinating some sort of nefarious plot where Rossi is a mere tool for their ultimate aim to tarnish LENR research.
This is not my notion. I'm not talking about a "covert" board of directors, but about the "manifest" Board of Advisers. Nor I think that the Ecat affair was aimed to tarnish LENR research. Maybe the opposite, as its developments suggest.
QuoteAs a PR 'genius', Rossi knows he has a credibility problem, so he's doing what he can to try to increase his credibility. And given the depths of his credibility problem, this is not an easy task! I'm having difficulty understanding why this isn't obvious to you, …
Why you say this? It's glaring obvious also to me. I showed you that it was obvious also for the people who were in close touch with him, and that, as alluded by Krivit, could have registered the site of the JoNP.
Quotewhy you are fixated on Krivit's speculative rant made over 7 years ago. Krivit isn't fixated on it at all, so does it really make sense for you to be?
Everybody here has his own position. Mine is that it's not possible to draw any conclusion on the nature of this saga until the questions raised by Krivit about the JoNP remain unanswered. Why my position should be considered a fixation? Only because it doesn't fit with the bipolar debate pro/cons Rossi/IH which dominates here?
As for Krivit, he considered since 2010 the 2nd BoA member of the JoNP a key player in this story. He confirmed this "fixation", as you call it, throughout the years up to his recent November 2016 post, we already mentioned, where he underlined his role in promoting in every way the Ecat initiative.
Nor I think that the Ecat affair was aimed to tarnish LENR research. Maybe the opposite, as its developments suggest.
So one of the hypothesis for this whole affair, would be that Rossi is the main actor in the progressive, drama-filled disclosure of a technology that's probably been used by the military for quite a while?
For all the ludicrousness some might find in it, it's certainly much more rational than 'Rossi has nothing and is a master conman/hypnotist'
