ICCF21 Thread

    • Official Post

    Yes he is his admirer and we have yet to see something confirmed from him before taking him seriously. His endorsement of Rossi maybe will gain value after that. Not sure why you are so exited about what he said now.

    There are so many exotic materials we can try to soak in heavy water and load them into reactor. Very existing, hopefully leading to confirmed replications. But if he is going to follow the path of his subject of admiration , withholding important details and using MFMP and LF as promotional vehicle he is going to end up it the freaks section like many others before him. And that is what I was trying to point him out to.

    He later dropped Steve Greer and bunch of other conspiracy theorist. I am still not sure how this was relevant to getting his results out in a verifiable way.

    When people can not talk straight it is an alarm sign.

  • Sam12,

    Please realize that someone stating Rossi is a "Great Man" is like me stating Bernie Madoff is "a Great Man" because he was successful in finance!


    For one, the ends do no justify the means. Rossi CLEARLY lied, deceived and misled MULTIPLE people. He lied to his partner Hydrofusion, per his OWN words.

    He cheated IH out millions. He lied to his OWN followers and supporters about the "Customer", "Robotic Factories" and the list goes on. He has done this continually.


    Rossi has NEVER shown ANY reactor that he HIMSELF deemed following up on! He states he is ready for production and building factories and then about the time production is to start, he comes up with a new and improved model. One that his "customer" now wants to wait for....


    He has done this time and time again.


    "Great Men" do not do this. If anyone calls Rossi a "Great Man", my opinion will drop for them considerably! Again, Bernie Madoff is NOT a great man and he succeeded FAR more realistically than Rossi ever has!

    Some of the coal and railroad barons of the early 20th century became some of the most wealthy men in history. They helped shape the fabric of this country...... unfortunately on the backs of the working poor! I would not call them "Great" either. Successful... yes... Great... no.


    Rossi is not "Great" nor is he successful in but one thing.... Not LENR but is scamming money.

    He took 11 million dollars from IH, sued for 89 million more for a eCat plant that he dropped like a hot potatoe right after he caved in the lawsuit.


    What do you think that REALLY means.....???


    Very early on I was a Rossi supporter. His OWN actions have damned him in my sight. Other than Frank Ackland, there is hardly any that keep on supporting him. They eventually fall away as they watch his deceitful ways.


    Alan Smith being one of his continued supporters and I cannot for the life of me understand why! Even if Rossi had a minor reactor or process early on with Focardi, it was Focardi or Piantelli's work and credit. I cannot see how anyone can continue to support Rossi after all the fraudulent acts and what he continues to do to this day.... "lie".


    Why cannot his supporters defend Rossi on his own works? I asked Alan Smith to report from an experienced researcher's point of view on the Stockholm event. He seemingly refuses to do so. Yet he still throws in the occasional support and even states he believes Rossi.


    Again I ask....please advise from the experienced point of view what Rossi has shown, why we should believe. Should not be that difficult if it is true.


    (Alan, I am not being an A-Hole here. It is as THH stated, the LENR field NEEDS to critique itself!

    Yet you refuse to simply report what a public demo was from a first hand point of view. Why?)

    • Official Post

    I asked Alan Smith to report from an experienced researcher's point of view on the Stockholm event. He seemingly refuses to do so. Yet he still throws in the occasional support and even states he believes Rossi.


    I never refused - but from memory said that it was a demo, and therefore not a way of proving anything. But if you care to dig up our exchange you can show how wrong my memory is.


    As for defending Rossi, why would I -he is captain of his own ship, a big boy who can look after himself. I have plenty of things to do without spending my time squabbling with (mostly) anonymous posters.

  • I would think that if you presented that argument to those at the ICCF, they would not have a problem with it. I think there is this impression that those in the field reject criticisms, and have withdrawn into their own little world where they rubber stamp each others work without question.


    See D. Goodstein, American Scholar, 1994, reprinted substantially unchanged is several places. See for ex. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/569/2/Goodstein.pdf


    See here for one of those reprints with an added 1st paprgraph https://www.tandfonline.com/do…573966?journalCode=gacr20


    It ended up as a chapter in the book "On Fact and Fraud" https://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fr…eywords=on+fact+and+fraud


    You might want to read it. It clearly points out that by 1994, almost all mainstream criticism had ceased. That is until 2002 when I published my main paper. Goodstein also points out that the CF community felt it was 'under siege'. Kinda hard to envision if no one was paying it any attention. In fact at that time, Douglas Morrison was perhaps the only 'active' critic left. Jed can probably correct me on that. But the early furor had died off, with the 'mainstream' concluding CF was pathological science. The impression you mention is put in writing in the article too.


    From what I have read going back to the earliest conferences, it is just the opposite. They have begged mainstream to look at what they do, and critique it. Only a few have taken them up on their offer....


    This is really what is so hilarious. From 1994 to present, please name these 'critics' (aside from me, we all know I am a critic these days) and lets discuss the CF communities reaction to them.

  • Yes he is his admirer and we have yet to see something confirmed from him before taking him seriously. His endorsement of Rossi maybe will gain value after that. Not sure why you are so exited about what he said now.

    I thought it is an interesting comment from Lion a LENR researcher about

    Rossi another LENR researcher.Here is another part of a comment Lion made

    about Rossi a couple months back.Lion just had his 60th birthday.


    Experimental work takes great patience, perserverance and fortitude, ANDREA embodies these qualities.

    If people are after instant gratification best reach for the cookie Jar.

  • I never refused - but from memory said that it was a demo, and therefore not a way of proving anything. But if you care to dig up our exchange you can show how wrong my memory is.


    As for defending Rossi, why would I -he is captain of his own ship, a big boy who can look after himself. I have plenty of things to do without spending my time squabbling with (mostly) anonymous posters.

    Alan,

    I have no desire to quibble with you.


    If you do not want to give a peer review of a reactor presentation that Rossi made, then simply state so, but I would ask why you choose not to?


    You have not given a review, you simply stated it was a demo. That is not a review. You have not given the barest analysis from an experienced researcher's view point after being there first hand.


    Some here, such as Adrian, make claims of success or at least probable validity of this "demo" from only "Rossi says".


    You were there. You can provide a review from an experienced point of view. But you refuse. Why? Is it because your review would be damning to the event as having any validity? If so, do it! This is not bad, it is what science is supposed to do!


    You do throw out the occasional thumbs up to Rossi, If he presents something as being valid and it is not, you should state that as well. He posts daily about the "Stockholm" event as being such a masterpiece. Was it or was it not?


    Otherwise, your bias is discrediting you just as many claim some uber skeptics are discredited due to their bias.


    As you have posted before I believe..... "Pot Kettle Black"!

    :thumbup:


    P.S. I do wish you the best in your experiments regardless.

    • Official Post

    sam12 whatever Lion thinks about Rossi can be true. Right now it is a product of his imagination. Does he follow Rossi around the lab to check out his lab staying power? Of course not, Rossi never lets anybody to get close to him. Good example is Matt's Lewan.

    Lion's attitude towards Rossi is based on rossysays only. Would you believe me if I say that I am typing this response to you as I am finishing my weekly 100km extreme marathon?

    • Official Post

    See D. Goodstein, American Scholar, 1994, reprinted substantially unchanged is several places. See for ex. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/569/2/Goodstein.pdf


    Kirk,


    That is a good read and I would recommend it to others. Too busy today to get to the other reads, and also address all your points. But from that one Goodstein article, I would say it appears nothing has changed since 1993. That is nothing new, as many have been saying the same thing since 1993. As back then, if today you want to believe in LENR, there is experimental evidence in support, and for those that believe it pseudoscience, there is theoretical and experimental evidence to support that view also.

  • That is a good read and I would recommend it to others.


    The others are the same article. The point is that Goodstein found it was still valid for his 2010 book.


    But from that one Goodstein article, I would say it appears nothing has changed since 1993.


    Goodstein missed my contributions, so there was at least '1' thing that changed.


    As back then, if today you want to believe in LENR, there is experimental evidence in support, and believe it pseudoscience, there is theoretical and experimental evidence to support that view also.


    Not really. If what I published in 2002 is substantiated, then there has been no valid excess heat determination in F&P-type cells. I do not directly address other experimental configurations, but the same concerns could be present there as well (think Lugano...). Having no valid excess heat signals from F&P cells means the bulk of the experimental work from 1989 to whenever the gas-loading experiments started to get prominent means there was little reason to believe any of the claims. The CF community always says that each individual set of experiments is justified by the existence of the other 'reproduced' experiments. But there isn't any of those...

  • some quotes from elsewhere in this site relevant to the exchange above.


    ...I shall certainly attempt to be as comprehensive and accurate when reporting as I can be. No point in going otherwise


    ...I will try to file some kind of report ASAP after the show


    ...I expect to produce a more considered write-up shortly after the day.


    ...I will certainly report everything I observe as fully as possible.


    ...But whatever happens to that plan, I will write my visit up as fully as possible and post it in here.


    ...considering the primary purpose of this forum is to discuss and investigate claims and counter-claims about LENR, it is important that somebody makes the effort to attend and report on what is seen?


    ...And I am told that I can take photographs

  • sam12 whatever Lion thinks about Rossi can be true. Right now it is a product of his imagination. Does he follow Rossi around the lab to check out his lab staying power? Of course not, Rossi never lets anybody to get close to him. Good example is Matt's Lewan.

    Lion's attitude towards Rossi is based on rossysays only. Would you believe me if I say that I am typing this response to you as I am finishing my weekly 100km extreme marathon?

    Off topic but is good Audio book

    on marathons that is not well know.

    Ametures and Profesional runners

    competing.

    Reminds me of the Lenr race that

    few are aware of.


    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1548868.Bunion_Derby

  • Dan21 : Such comments, bare of any knowledge, are very displaced. Oxygen, usually the most active/energetic combustion partner does not deliver any extra energy. People usually calculate the energy content based on a full oxidation of the base material.

    It's easy to explain with a thought experiment. Consider the design of a rocket upper stage, operating above the atmosphere. The energy needed to produce thrust is obtained by the combustion of fuel and oxidizer. The hot gas is expanded through a converging/diverging nozzle to maximize the exhaust velocity of the resultant hot gas. Without oxidizer, the fuel is just a cold inert liquid (solid fuel rocket motors are rarely used in upper stages). Maximum velocity is a function of mass ratio; that is the masses of the loaded stage and the empty stage. The mass of oxidizer is frequently over half the total loaded vehicle mass. (Even though most rockets run on the rich side of stoichiometric, the O/F mass ratio is still above 1 and usually between 4 and 7 for most rocket fuels)


    As for: "People usually calculate the energy content based on a full oxidation of the base material.", that's the difference between the higher heating value and the lower heating value given for a fuel. The higher heating value assumes the water generated condenses to liquid and the lower heating value assumes the water remains a gas.


    I'll repeat my comment: When comparing the energy released by nuclear reactions to chemical reactions, the mass of both fuel and oxidizer needs to be included. The fact that most terrestrial chemical reactions get free oxygen from the ambient air does not mean the oxygen used in the reaction is massless.

  • I was unable to attend the last two days of ICCF, but wish I could have stayed. A nearly every break, lunch or poster session I had interesting conversations with people who had done interesting work in the past, are now doing their own experiments, are working on new theories, or were just open-minded people there to learn and evaluate the field firsthand.


    Many of their experiments and theories will not pan out, but even when my initial reaction was negative, those conversations were challenging and stimulating. In face-to-face conversations, people are more respectful and withhold judgement long enough to learn about what is being proposed instead of immediately dismissing the results and insulting the person presenting new ideas.


    It was hard to return to this group, where after posting my notes on the interesting results of Beiting, the thread quickly returned to the endless arguments about Rossi and other topics unrelated to ICCF