Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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

  • 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.

    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".

  • 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!

  • 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.

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Ele said: "

    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."


    Well, I tested it. I once again suggest everyone test it.

    TC was right within a very small margin of error.


    Heat up an alumina tube to glowing, use the Lugano Protocol, and get a "COP" of around 3 to 4.


    Then stick a thermocouple on the tube, correct the IR camera or even IR "gun" emissivity function to the appropriate value, which very near 0.95, and voila, the IR camera temperature plummets, matches the thermocouple, and a COP of 1.0 (or very close to that) is the result when the math is done.


    Seriously, the replicator crowd should have made dozens of fake 3 to 4 COP devices using the Lugano Protocol and alumina tubes (even bathroom tiles) by now. No fuel needed! No special recipe, except the Lugano Protocol IR total and spectral emissivity conflation treatment.


  • There seems a lot of projection here - I note disinformation primarily in your posts on this topics which make as here bald and untrue assertions.


    Perhaps you'd like to criticise line by line the arguments in TC's paper. Paradigmnoia here (who has validated it experimentally himself) could set you right?


    TC could indeed make errors which is why he published his stuff and it has been subjected to several years of people trying (and failing) to find holes, validating experimentally, etc. For details see Paradigmnoia here and MFMP ( but noting the comments from MFMP about their breaking the Optris camera which invalidates the extrapolation they made). Or, you could yourself read TC's paper and critique it. Nothing stops you from doing this, and I'll guarantee to reply to your comments.


    Science (you really have not understood this) proceeds not through trusting perfect scientists but through openness and review.

  • Welcome back P - I think that your aforementioned protocol should be named the "Levi Protocol" to ensure that history properly records

    this particular method of creating imaginary XP. The Uppsala profs insisted that any questions or concerns about the Lugano IR camera settings / interpretation must be discussed with Levi. They wouldn't allow any further mention of the subject and were adamant about their position - Levi owns this one into perpetuity.

  • Paradigmnoia



    Brilliant! Now, why not write a brief summary paper, add a few graphs and photos and send it to Jed Rothwell and I suspect he will be only too happy to upload it to his web site. And again thank you for doing that! THAT'S science. Good experiments often do not need to be complex, expensive or intensely reliant on higher math. Simple and elegant is good. And if you have more time, perhaps submit it to arxiv.org? Great job!

  • Really? and where are the proves of? You believe to fusionists's rumors, not need proofs.

    What did you smoke? I never talked about fusionists, so you can't know my opinion about them .... but you don't need to know, you already have your truth, isn't it? I've already mentioned to you the evidence: the articles written by experts who tested the E-Cat and wrote that it works ARE EVIDENCE. But you ignore them deliberately.

    You have a strange ideas of what is a real scientific evidence and probably you also miss that Focardi paper and theory have been "not confirmed" even by Rossi himself. LOL

    Focardi has proposed a theory to explain a phenomenon and any theory can be overcome over time. Rossi continued with experiments and studies and probably what he saw over time led him to develop another explanation for the operation of his devices. But Focardi has not only written theoretical articles, has also released many interviews in which he talked about so many experimental tests performed with Rossi and described the positive results. But people like you at this point cling to the usual stupid apology by saying that Focardi was old and hence he was deceived by Rossi. Focardi was a great professor and a great experimental physicist, he was perfectly able to distinguish an object running from a scam and the words that he left us are valid for me more than all the small talks that are written on the internet.

  • 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)

    What would be the deep interest of the authors of Ferrara, Bologna and Lugano? You're talking about professors from prestigious European universities who have put their signatures on articles written by them, articles that express their views and that are the fruit of the tests they did personally on the E-Cat. And your comment seems to have said they voluntarily made mistakes because they had an interest. It's a bad accusation and totally devoid of evidence. I hope I have misunderstood your thought .....

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

    Fabiani and Rossi were present, Rossi intervened only in some moments, as was clearly written in the article about Lugano. Saying that it was he who led the test is a nonsense that does not have a foundation. The authors have written that they have independently decided how and what to measure and their word is the important one.

    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.

    A flying visit? The Ferrara experiment lasted 5 days, I don't think the Swedes went back and forth between their home and Italy for such a short test! However, once automatic data acquisition systems have been set up, it is not very useful to stare at the E-Cat for days. Maybe in Ferrara they did, but in Lugano it would be a waste of time. But in order to say that the tests were not independent you complain about everything .....


  • It is not the first time Rossi expresses this thought, he has always said it. His "faithful", as you like to call them, know that Rome wasn't built in a day and they certainly do not expect that the process of creating an industrial level product and of placing it into the market could be done quickly. With a little more objectivity you would understand it.

  • 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.

    The demo must still be done but you already know all these things? Or are you a seer or are you so biased that you are not even able to wait for the events to come for judge them. I suspect it is the second case ....

  • Looks to me that his biomass plant's did not work *fine* at all. In fact, they simply did not work.

    Shane, it's a matter of sources. You read only what supports your thesis. If you want a different version, you can read Rossi's biography written by Vessela Nikolova or simply argue that if a trial has been made and Rossi has been acquitted, it means that what was said by people like the one you mentioned was considered false. Rossi has annoyed a lot of people with his business and these people used every means to get rid of their obstacles. But in the end the judges of all the trials have said that Rossi was right: there is nothing to add.

  • What did you smoke? I never talked about fusionists, so you can't know my opinion about them .... but you don't need to know, you already have your truth, isn't it? I've already mentioned to you the evidence: the articles written by experts who tested the E-Cat and wrote that it works ARE EVIDENCE. But you ignore them deliberately.


    What did you drink? A very strong drink it seems :D

    What "your experts" wrote (sorry wrote not on Nature) are not scientific evidences that it works like claimed, it proves only that who tested that stuff committed a lot of "mistakes".

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • Oh, OK, Jed. You convinced me. LENR power is just around the corner.

    Who the hell said that??? If that were a bigger strawman argument, you would be crushed by falling bails of straw, like when a hay wagon tips over. (That actually happened to me decades ago -- but no one was hurt.)


    You do not seem to understand the concept of logical fallacies. I never said anything remotely like "LENR power is just around the corner" yet you ascribe that statement to me. If that is supposed to be sarcasm if fails on many levels.

  • Just feeding you a small dose of your own medicine, Jed.

    No, you are not. Your comment was an extreme logical fallacy. It was just plain weird.


    It is not a clever riposte when you claim I said X, when I have repeatedly said the opposite of X, and we all agree there is no evidence for X. That is not clever, and not impressive. It gives the impression you have no idea what I have said. Or you are just blathering and searching for an insult.


    An insult that misses the mark this much is no insult at all.

  • Focardi has proposed a theory to explain a phenomenon and any theory can be overcome over time. Rossi continued with experiments and studies and probably what he saw over time led him to develop another explanation for the operation of his devices. But Focardi has not only written theoretical articles, has also released many interviews in which he talked about so many experimental tests performed with Rossi and described the positive results. But people like you at this point cling to the usual stupid apology by saying that Focardi was old and hence he was deceived by Rossi. Focardi was a great professor and a great experimental physicist, he was perfectly able to distinguish an object running from a scam and the words that he left us are valid for me more than all the small talks that are written on the internet.


    Focardi simply wrote a "theory" devoid of any scientific basis and he never tested any E-Cat independently from Rossi.

    He was a dreamer that was already convinted about CF, Rossi used him to get some "scientific credit" and in order to cover his hoax.

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • Quote

    It is not a clever riposte when you claim I said X, when I have repeatedly said the opposite of X, and we all agree there is no evidence for X. That is not clever, and not impressive. It gives the impression you have no idea what I have said. Or you are just blathering and searching for an insult.


    I am not trying to insult you. I have considerable respect for you. I am simply trying to show you how it feels when you constantly misstate my motives and intentions, misquote me, pretend that I don't pay attention, pretend that I don't read any papers, hate LENR and want it to fail and so on.

  • I am simply trying to show you how it feels when you constantly misstate my motives and intentions, misquote me,

    I never misquote you, or anyone else. I use the copy and paste feature shown here. I do not think I misstate your motives, but that is a matter of opinion, so perhaps I do.

    Look, sarcasm aside, something is seriously amiss with this field. Else, it would not be so controversial almost three decades after the supposedly definitive experiments for it were performed and allegedly replicated.

    Something is seriously amiss with the scientific establishment, the DoE and with journals such as Scientific American. Nothing is wrong with cold fusion. Read the history of science, technology and commerce and you will see that similar situations have often arisen. Many legitimate discoveries have been rejected because of academic politics, sometimes for years, sometimes for decades. They usually do not last this long, or become this extreme, but they are common.


    If there were anything wrong with cold fusion, you or some other skeptic would have found it by now. Yet the only technical papers any of you have published are by Morrison and Shanahan, and neither has any technical merit, to put it politely.

    Part of the problem is that enthusiasts often simply don't understand what the skeptics are saying or asking for.

    I understand them quite well! Better than you do.

    For example, I don't know anything about Parks but I've been reading what Shanahan has written here in discussion and to me, nothing about it says "crackpot."

    Okay, so you also believe that a bucket of water can magically evaporate overnight at room temperature? And you don't see any difference between these Delta T temperature curves, which were taken with the same input power, under the same calorimetric conditions:






    Got it. You agree with Shanahan about these things, and about his crackpot theories. That means you too are a crackpot.