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 militar
Close to the real picture in many ways IMHO.
Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions
-
-
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'The Rossi situation may not be a binary one, work vs. not work, it could be a gray one in which the device he has been working for on for years sort of works but has flaws that makes it difficult for it to be useful. The basic power producing mechanism has be properly exposed but has not be properly and usefully controlled. In this gray zone, it may be advisable to leave Rossi alone and give him the room to fix the problems with his invention as best that he is able. After all, what inventor produces something that cannot be improved on.
-
And they had a crack machinist who built them and engine with - for the period - an amazing power-to-weight ratio.
That they did. I have a book about him: "Charles E. Taylor: The Wright Brothers Mechanician." However, I would point out:
The Wrights designed the engine, not Taylor.
It was rudimentary and not suitable for practical use. To make it practical, they had to add weight, which they did with subsequent engines. (The first engine was smashed on the afternoon of the first flights. The whole airplane was smashed.)
Other researchers such as Langley had better engines with more power and a better horsepower to weight ratio.
-
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'Wait, does that mean I'm working on behalf of the military industrial complex? I must say, that would be a pretty weird scenario, and indeed, unbeknownst to me this whole time.
-
There are a lot of arguments on this either way. One item no one has been able to explain is why the ecat only works when the e-cat people are operating it. The extension to that is why the ecat people almost never allow an independent test of it without their involvement. My opinion on the reason for that is clear. But it does make for an interesting thought experiment.
-
The Rossi situation may not be a binary one, work vs. not work
How would you know? You haven't even read the paper.
If you read the Penon report and you know as much as a 7th grader, you will see that the situation is binary. The 1-year test was a farce that proved the thing does not work. Don't try to contradict me on this with one of your word salads: you haven't read it, you know nothing, and you have no business expressing an opinion, however convoluted.
-
@ sigmoidal,
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:
The day after, MY and I asked for some more clarifications, but we got no answer, and Krivit abandoned the thread for a while.
Well Ascoli, you asked me for my opinion. I've read all your links and I've come to this conclusion: I do not find that the evidence you have provided points to anything particularly important regarding JoNP, or that raises questions that must be answered in order to come to accurate conclusions about the Rossi saga. So from my perspective, I think that you most likley are reading WAY to much into Krivit's Vortex posts. Your post does show that Krivit thinks Melich (and his wife M. Macy) had (and might still have) some connection with Rossi. That there was some connection was obvious from Krivit's research and Macy's article about him.
Melich seemed to think that transmutation might be occurring back in 2010/11 and was excited about the possibility. Macy is not technically oriented, but she had some high powered connections that might have been helpful for Rossi in PR or funding. Once she met Rossi, she realized he didn't need PR help, because her intuition about him was that he was keenly competent regarding PR (which turned out to be correct).
But I don't really see why this is significant. Rossi obviously runs JoNP, and fills it full of fake Rossiworld stuff. Maybe Melich registered the domain and gave it to Rossi. Or maybe Rossi was the original registrant and payed the extra $10 per year (or whatever) for 'privacy protection' to avoid getting spammed by spambots scraping the whois registry. Who cares? You do, obviously. I'm sorry if this is blunt or disappointing, but I don't.
That's because JoNP is all just a boatload of Rossisays promoting Rossiworld, regardless of who owns it or who's contributing.
But again, if you really think this might be important, I would encourage you to try a bit more strenuously to contact Krivit with your questions. Here are three possible ways to do that (based on entering 'Steven Krivit LENR' into a search engine):
http://stevenbkrivit.com/contact-steven/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-b-krivit-5422a552/
http://news.newenergytimes.net/contact-new-energy-times/
If you get a response from Krivit that you can share and you think is interesting, and/or lends support to the idea that this JoNP board is an important piece of the Rossi puzzle, please let us all know what you find.
All the best,
sigmoidal
-
How would you know? You haven't even read the paper.
If you read the Penon report and you know as much as a 7th grader, you will see that the situation is binary. The 1-year test was a farce that proved the thing does not work. Don't try to contradict me on this with one of your word salads: you haven't read it, you know nothing, and you have no business expressing an opinion, however convoluted.
As it has come to pass, the entire legal process was a waste of time and the people who had followed that trial with wrapped attention have wasted a ton of time on obvious propaganda, that Penon report included. The information produced by that carnival of propaganda has no impact on the world of facts that actually exist. You are still living in a world of chicanery in which that trial conjured, lacking in any reality content. I understand you have invested a major part of your ego in this unfortunate situation and make allowances for the situation that you have subjected yourself to. I understand, like a mark who has been disillusioned by a crew of skillful con men, embittered, resentful, disappointed, angry, you need time to heal.
-
Display More
That is just false. Civil proof is a much lower bar than criminal proof. IH stood a good chance of winning the civil case of fraud.
And if they had PROOF, they would have won, hands down. They did NOT win, hands down.
Also the trial, though Civil, carries certain criminal risks. Rossi risked, giving testimony under cross-examination and in the context of contrary evidence, his deceits being judged as perjury
Exactly why he is still exposed. If what he did was fraud or perjury, the criminal authorities have PROOF. But they aren't taking it up, because they do NOT have Proof. If anything, the fact they're not taking it up is Proof that Rossi is NOT a fraud.
Whereas when the case goes away that risk vanishes.
Not at all. If someone enters perjured information or provable fraudulent details into the civil case, it is eminently available for criminal authorities to take up the reins. If you admit to murdering your wife in a civil case, the criminal courts will take that information and put you in jail, assuming you haven't been already acquitted of it.
-
If you really believe that, simply watch Rossi some more. In the next few years, there will be nothing but Rossifictions and bad demos done non-independently or if they are independent and properly done, the results will be negative-- just as EVERY Rossi project EVER has proceeded.
I stopped following what Rossisez back in 2011. I follow him by looking at what OTHERS say about him. For a while it looked positive with some of the positive stuff Darden was saying about him. Then it looked negative, then the lawsuit. There's a lot of juicy stuff in the lawsuit but I figured it wasn't worth following because it would never go to trial.
So now I'm back to ignoring Rossi on his own terms, In Mercato Veritas. If some new Darden comes along there are plenty of you folks to warn them of Rossi's shenanigans and what to look for to cheat a LENR test.
Currently the chances of Rossi coming to market are.... well, we don't know because there is no prediction market for it so that I can bet for or against him according to the odds presented. I sure would love to take those 10,000:1 odds. But my experience has been that 10,000:1 rhetoric turns into 3:1 odds when money changes hands so that's a lot of bullshit getting thrown around.
-
There is no comparison between a mechanical device readily interpreted and tested using simple observable experimentation, ordinary physics, and phenomenon, versus plasma fusion, atomic and subatomic physics theory and experimentation. That comparison is like saying that the Wright brothers could also have developed the first nuclear bomb.
There are plenty of apt comparisons between the two scientific developments. The Wright brothers came out with an Impossible Invention. It remains to be seen if Rossi is on the same level as they are, but your characterization makes it look like Rossi came up with LENR stuff all by himself. He didn't. He built upon the shoulders of giants like Pons, Fleischmann, and Focardi. Focardi said that Rossi's initial contribution to the field was to split H2 into H1 before processing the fuel and it generated much more robust results. Assuming Rossi has been looking at LENR boxes for 10 years, he has had more time on LENR than any other researcher. A lot like the Wright brothers.
-
Not 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.
If Rossi is successful in the market with a LENR box, 110 years from that time people will say he "stumbled" onto the solution.
-
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?Close to the real picture in many ways IMHO.
Makes me wonder who else intentionally is on this "progressive drama-filled disclosure" thing that is making people waste inordinate amounts of time.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0…-it-holds-the-answer.html
Interesting how an invention could become a legacy that is central to a state identity.Looks like Florida might someday finally have a claim to fame.
-
"Looks like Florida might someday finally have a claim to fame."
Sure, Neil Woodford agrees.
-
Quote
There are a lot of arguments on this either way. One item no one has been able to explain is why the ecat only works when the e-cat people are operating it. The extension to that is why the ecat people almost never allow an independent test of it without their involvement. My opinion on the reason for that is clear. But it does make for an interesting thought experiment.
The reason Rossi does not allow truly valid, independent testing, is that he knows it will show that the ecat does not work. This is what happened when the Swedish technical Institute tested the ecat. They found that Rossi was mismeasuring the input power and that, measured correctly, it gave a COP of 1 or less. See the summary at:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3535258.ece
More detail is available but I am not sure where it is. Also, read Prometeon (former Rossi distributor) in e-catworld.com to see evidence that Rossi has and had absolutely nothing.
-
Interesting end to that letter. It rather rebuts Jed's insistence that Rossi has done nothing but harm. And in the rest of it the writer mentions that they (Prometeon) have another system on development.
'...The only good thing we can say about Mr Rossi is that he has the merit of having broken the wall around LENR and that finally this important, clean and cheap energy source has started receiving the attention it deserves.
We take this opportunity to apologize publicly with all the people and companies that have contacted us over the last two years being seriously interested, for different reasons, at the E-Cat® and who didn’t get the answers they hoped to receive or couldn’t buy the E-Cats®, for other people’s responsibilities.Prometeon Srl, former E-Cat licensee for Italy.'
The managing board
Eng. Guido Parchi
Aldo Proia -
Display More
keV from #877
Proof is proof. If you hand an investigator proof of fraud, he has no problem with pursuing it even when he's busy with other cases because it is PROOF. So what you're saying is that the evidence in Rossi vs. Darden is NOT proof of fraud. If it's anything, it is proof he is NOT a fraud, and by your own admission it's not enough evidence for a busy investigator to take up in his busy caseload, so at the very least it is weak sauce.
That is just false. Civil proof is a much lower bar than criminal proof. IH stood a good chance of winning the civil case of fraud.
Also the trial, though Civil, carries certain criminal risks. Rossi risked, giving testimony under cross-examination and in the context of contrary evidence, his deceits being judged as perjury (I'm not sure what the chances of that are, but were I him what i said about the heat exchanger under oath would weigh on me).
Whereas when the case goes away that risk vanishes.
In the US, civil trials require a preponderance of the evidence or in other words it is more likely than not that you are correct. Criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt or in other words proof that would convince any ordinary reasonable person that the person is guilty and that there are no reasonable explanations that the person is innocent.
-
Quote
And in the rest of it the writer mentions that they (Prometeon) have another system on development.
Really? WHAT system? Where? Who have they shown it to? Look at the dates. How long has it been now?
