​New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)​

    Oh please. First, I am not offended by "ele" in any way and don't need to be defended about what this person writes. Second, what Zeus cites is mostly my *accurate* description of what Roger Barker did with and to Peter Gluck's blog, basically a mockery, while Gluck is extremely ill and unable to see and thus unable to defend the blog -- something Roger Barker knew and took advantage of. YOU tell me the sort of person who does that. Peter does deserve defense against Roger Barker and I helped provide it by notifying and assisting Georgina Popescu who is Peter's temporary custodian and not a tech person.


    "Negligent and incompetent" are not insults when they are applied to people and organizations which clearly discharged their obligations in that manner and when evidence for said negligence and incompetence is presented.

    Quote from Zeus46

    Why is Huxley always so concerned about how people's "arguments are advancing"?


    And despite his protestations... I don't remember him "calling out" his good buddy over any of this:


    MY has not to my knowledge done it. He/she does not personalise. The insults are related to (fraudulent or near he/she thinks) behavior.


    When somone posts stuff here which provokes response but does not carry argument it is annoying for all good people, and minimising this is a good idea.

    Quote from maryyugo

    If IH had conclusive tests with COP's of 5, you can be sure they would have paid Rossi instead of sending him packing. So no, anything conclusively proving IH got that sort of performance doesn't exist and if you claim it does, it is up to you to link it, not up to me to search for it.

    Sorry, I was wrong...... COP 11!

    214-4, page 164 JT Vaughn Deposition:

    14 Q. Okay. The second paragraph below, where it

    15 says Industrial Heat update July 2013, the document

    16 states, in the middle of that paragraph: "We tested our

    17 plant at the end of April and beginning of May for four

    18 days. During the test we operate 37 different reactors

    19 for periods ranging from 24 hours to a few hours and the

    20 results were good. Our engineer and the independent

    21 engineer operating the test reported the machines produced

    22 far more energy than they required to operate. Nearly 11

    23 times as much in some instances versus our test

    24 requirement of six times during the 24-hour test."

    25 A. Mm-hmm.

    OK then. Gosh. IH made a huge error. They should have paid Rossi and fast and run off with the IP and made trillions. Or Vaughn and his colleagues had no idea how to conduct a proper test and simply swallowed the bull from Rossi, Penon and Fabiani hook line and sinker. Guess which is more probable.


    BTW, I was not aware that Vaughn testified to that. If anyone wanted a reason to explain why IH did not go to trial and clean Rossi's clock, this sort of incompetent testimony would be it. A jury could not be expected to understand why those statements are pure nonsense or rank crookery. I am guessing they were made to persuade investors and were never based on facts. Obviously, I don't know that. But if Vaughn actually believed it, he's [redacted due to admin policy on the forum but you can guess what I was about to write]


    I suspect this is not all which is of interest in that document but I have no time to scope it out.

    Quote

    2. Do you think you will have the necessary financial backing to get your robotized factories to start producing E-Cats in 2018?

    Quote

    2- yes

    Oh oh, he is looking for a new "partner" in order to continue his "plucking chicken". Who will be the next chicken?

    Quote from Zeus46

    Did I just read that?! :D ...For real?


    Yes, you did. MY does not personalise arguments. She does wage war in what (might be seen as) a personal way against companies or people in the public sphere she thinks are scammers or something like. Whether expressing strongly such views is personalising is sort of a grey area, because these people are not here as presences arguing. What would you want somone to post about a likely scammer? Say nothing because there is some chance you might be wrong? You can disagree with both the conclusions MY reaches, and the very strong tone with which she expresses them, but that is separate from whether what she does is based on personalisation of the arguments.


    In summary: MY tends to overstate the certainty of things being fraudulent, just as Jed overstates things. That overstatement is not the same as personalisation.


    Ele, SSC, and many others (mostly but not exclusively Rossi fans) often argue here by making comments about the character etc of those with different arguments here. That is profoundly unhelpful., and trolling. They do not exlusively do this, which is why they are not banned as trolls.


    Finally, in case anyone argues that I'm personalising, my comments are charactersing the specific posts we see here. I'm not saying SSC, Ele have any specific character, or agenda, nor generalising from how they behave here to elsewhere.

    • Official Post

    THHuxleynew

    +1

    No personal arguments... Disagree on the arguments, on the values behind position, on strategies of analysis...


    If you disagree so much that you think someone is unfair, stupid, incompetent... we can judge from flat arguments, and if we cannot, stating it won't make us change our opinion.


    Another general point, is : don't try to convince your opponents in discussion. Try to convince the audience, by the quality of your argumentation, the fairness of your behaviors, the rigor of your language, in a respectful concision.

    And like on many battles, know when you have to throw the towel, and let the audience judge who is right.

    Quote from AlainCo

    And like on many battles, know when you have to throw the towel, and let the audience judge who is right.


    Sorry Alain but throwing the towel implies something else at least for most of the sports activities I know. For me it means to give up.

    If you wanna stay in that metaphor maybe is better to say "Trade blows till the 12th round is over and let the audience judge who is right." ?

    Quote from Henry

    Oh oh, he is looking for a new "partner" in order to continue his "plucking chicken". Who will be the next chicken?

    Here the only chicken seems to be you, who spends your days reading the blog of a person in which you don't believe. Don't you have best things to do?

    Rossi's new partner will make the deal of his life, if he can be just less sneaky and more competent than the previous one.

    ,,

    Quote from SSC

    Here the only chicken seems to be you, who spends your days reading the blog of a person in which you don't believe. Don't you have best things to do?

    Rossi's new partner will make the deal of his life, if he can be just less sneaky and more competent than the previous one.

    Much more competent and no where near as gullible as Industrial Heat

    Quote from SSC

    Here the only chicken seems to be you, who spends your days reading the blog of a person in which you don't believe. Don't you have best things to do?

    Rossi's new partner will make the deal of his life, if he can be just less sneaky and more competent than the previous one.


    It's so funny and free of charge, I read jonp blog in order to observe at what hoaxes his supporters (like you) are believing.

    The new chicken (from US or Sweden or ...) will be deeply plucked exactly like all the previous.

    @Henry

    The interesting aspect of this to me, and the most amazing, is that people tend not to change their method of observation and their criteria when they are shown to be spectacularly wrong as in the cases of Steorn, Defkalion and Rossi. At the very least, I'd expect Lewan to admit that Rossi fooled him. But he never has. Steorn's most ardent supporters including Frank Acland and Craig Brown (self styled as "007" on forums) have never repudiated their belief in the claims. And Jed seems to be no more cautious about claims since he lost faith in Rossi and Defkalion. Checking Josephson's history, he has attended to one scam or fraud after another and he, an obviously extremely intelligent and insightful individual, has not corrected his views. He is probably ripe for the next free energy or similar scam which will come around. It's very odd. This trait has obvious survival value though in the evolutionary scheme of things. Expanding on that would be off topic for this forum.

    Quote from maryyugo

    The interesting aspect of this to me, and the most amazing, is that people tend not to change their method of observation and their criteria when they are shown to be spectacularly wrong as in the cases of Steorn, Defkalion and Rossi. At the very least, I'd expect Lewan to admit that Rossi fooled him. . . . And Jed seems to be no more cautious about claims since he lost faith in Rossi and Defkalion.

    Which claims should I be less cautious about? What incautious claims have I made lately?


    More to the point, when have I not wrapped my evaluations in layers of academic-style cotton-wool caution with multiple escape clauses? Such as "if verified" or "assuming this is correct." If you review my assertions I think you will see that I am cautious. If you do not see this, perhaps the problem is on your end. You tend not to notice subtlety.


    To take a recent example of my mealymouthed approach, I wrote:


    "From the chronology of events I am sure [Murray's test] did not include the improvements described in Appendix A. (That is not to say I am sure those improvements actually improve things.)"


    I am not sure of anything about the pre-print, since I only got the spreadsheets last week. I asked Mizuno many questions. Unfortunately, he has not answered them yet, and he has not given me the calibration spreadsheets showing no heat, so I cannot draw any conclusions yet. As you see in the spreadsheet version I uploaded, I included lots of [?] in Row 8, meaning "I don't understand this." That means I am cautious.

    • Official Post
    Quote from maryyugo

    The interesting aspect of this to me, and the most amazing, is that people tend not to change their method of observation and their criteria when they are shown to be spectacularly wrong...

    Interesting point.


    I'm amazed like you that given the mass of replication, the CV of the replicators, the pathetic CV of the "reference experiment" (Caltech, MIT), the clear debunking of their debunking, the variety of calorimetry, of transmutations observed, the correlation...

    the mass of peer reviewed papers, their lack of paper (beside epistemologically non pertinent : theory and failures)...

    the clear impossible to defend theory of fraud of Gary Taubes...

    The whistleblowing of the MIT editor.


    that they did not just admit... we screw up, and why not hang a scapegoat like Lewis Morrison or Huizenga...


    You are right, it is amazing how people can be locked in their beliefs.

    Quote from ele

    Wait and see,,,,,, Have you ever thought that Lewan could have more information than you think?

    He did have more information than I had. But the court docket has hundreds of pages of information that proves he was wrong. Especially the Penon report. That document alone destroyed Rossi's credibility. However much information Lewan had, or now has, the claims about the big reactor are dead. Okay, some of the earlier claims may be in limbo. But the 1-year test was such outrageous fraud -- as revealed by Rossi and Penon's own document! -- that I do not think any previous result has any credibility.

    Yay Jed! Except that the only thing in limbo about Rossi is whether or not the Florida authorities will seek indictments. As for Lewan, he was a fool because he never required Rossi to perform a single experiment correctly. Instead, he simply believed the BS he was told. Worse yet, he STILL does.

    • Official Post
    Quote from ele

    Have you ever thought that Lewan could have more information than you think?


    Of course he does, and as a science reporter he should fulfill his obligation to pass along that information. Unfortunately he prefers to keep it to himself, where it sure is not doing humanity, or the sciences any good.


    Lewan has on several occasions promised to get back to us on certain Rossi related developments, yet never did. When the Lugano controversy erupted, he passed on to us that the Swedes had sent a sample of the alumina to get the real emissivity value. He also said after the law suit was filed -when he was in his "I am looking for the truth where ever that takes me" mode, that he was going to have some experts look at the Lugano report, and get back to us.


    And how is it that he "has it on good information" the Ecat was bought by a military concern as he said some time ago? He said that before the facts of Doral were known, and I wonder if he still stands by that? Lewan also said recently that he is "more confident than ever of Rossi's technology"...why? Since he still stands by Rossi, I would think answering these questions would be doing Rossi a huge favor. It may go a good ways towards rehabilitating his tarnished image, and maybe free up some investor money for him....which he hints at struggling with (for good reason).


    I wish Lewan would start talking. If he does not, he is part of the "secrecy" problem that plagues the NiH side, and not a solution to unraveling the LENR's mysteries. If you ask me, had Lewan not written "An Impossible Invention" he would be much more forthright. Once sales and money entered the picture though, the journalist side was corrupted.

    Quote
    • Barry August 29, 2017 at 3:15 PM

      Dr Andrea Rossi,


      In the Gullstrom-Rossi paper the measurements of the voltage were made by a couple of voltmeters, but recently you said here that now you are using an oscilloscope. Why this modification of the measurement system?


    Quote
    • Andrea Rossi August 29, 2017 at 5:31 PM

      Barry:


      The oscilloscope gives us more information about the nature of the electric energy that arrives to the E-Cat QX from the control box.


      Warm Regards,


      A.R.


    Really LOL,

    the nature of the electric energy that arrives to the E-Cat QX from the control box


    this nature is so "sophisticate" that to evaluate and verify correctly the electric energy that arrives to the E-Cat QX from the control box an oscillospe needed but to give evidence in the last "paper" about how much input electric energy has been consumed, a simple DC voltmeter (less than 50 USD) and a 1 ohm resistor have been ued.

    An hilarious comedy... :D :D :D

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.