Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • 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.