Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

  • I have a simple question for the Rossi supporters / wait for more "evidence" folks. I assume, and please feel free to correct me, that it would be fairly straightforward (by which I mean it would not require any technological or other breakthroughs) to measure the energy input and output of Rossi's widget without looking behind the curtain of his IP. So, if my assumption is correct, why doesn't Rossi simply allow an independent third party to take such measurements? Instead he refuses to allow anyone independent to even measure the energy input/output. If he had something, this would be the easiest way to prove it without revealing any IP. His absolute refusal to allow such a measurement, and his ridiculous excuses for avoiding it, tell me has nothing,


    I suppose he doesn't care that much about this type of validation. It seems sufficient for him that we hear about such measurements from the purported customers. There have been certain types of validation that lend some support to things even if there are incomplete aspects to them. We can revisit them as summarized here: https://e-catworld.com/may-2013-3rd-party-test/

  • Thanks Shane for the info. If you want maximum participation here I'd point out that my netiquette is that one shouldn't classify people as "Rossi-ite" or any other type of label.


    FWIW - I'd venture to say that ECW does allow skeptical polite posts so civil discussion is possible. I'm also posting here to ensure I'm seeing the most diversity of opinions.


    I do not like that either Steve, and never resort to labeling myself. I see one apology already, so maybe instead of using the heavy hand of moderation to fix the problem, we can try this way for awhile?

  • Thanks for this link. I finally went through all 3 hours. Loved the jingle at the end - seriously it was good to end on an upbeat. I have not gone through the 466 comments above me and this point may have been made - but wonder what there is to discuss? The early adaptor clients will take the risks and do the experiments for us. Either excess heat is produced - many more units will be sold - and LENR with low radiation output will be proven. Or this exercise will subside silently, quickly and terminally. All we need do is wait. What am I missing here? There is no upside to asserting "Rossi is wrong" - that is the obvious answer and conveys no credit. There is no upside to asserting "Rossi is right" - the experiment is about to happen and it may turn out that you are very wrong and lose credibility also terminally. About the only useful argument would be "Rossi is right - because... and be right in your reason". But someone with special knowledge - or inside knowledge - would surely keep quiet. I repeat: "what is there to discuss"?

  • . I repeat: "what is there to discuss"?


    I will open up another thread so we can discuss if there is anything to discuss! :) No, seriously, while I do still hold open the possibility Rossi has something, I think there are some very worthwhile things to discuss about what we learned from the presentation. For instance; the neutron detector/shielding/claim of no radiations, and the nuclear regulatory implications. Proper certification. contractual commitments imposed on the customer, the data presented (correct/incorrect), his theory and how it is/is not supported by the spectral graph provided. Much more as this threads hundreds of posts attest to.


    I think these are the very things any specialty tech forum would hash over with the introduction of any new, cutting edge, controversial product they follow. Throw in Rossi's prior history...Doral in particular, this being LENR (world changer), and iMO, it is a good topic to talk over. Yes, a little rancorous at times, but overall informative. And you never know, there may be a potential customer who may learn something from it, saving himself from making a bad investment, or maybe even deciding to invest and striking it rich .

  • mmckubre wrote:

    Quote

    There is no upside to asserting "Rossi is wrong"


    Oh but there is! The upside of listing and refreshing the evidence that Rossi has nothing and lies constantly is that it decreases the possibility that in the future, another hapless individual like Tom Darden will entangle his company into a multi-million deal with the man. Obviously, any decrease in Rossi's marketing appeal can help prevent the loss of millions of dollars which could be better spent on legitimate LENR research instead of being used to enrich a con man.


    Quote

    What am I missing here?


    That Rossi has received more than $12 million for his LENR/fusion scam and cost Industrial Heat many millions more. He also cost the DOD some $9 million that they spent because of his claim to high efficiency thermoelectric converters. And that came after the Petroldragon debacle which cost an Italian province 41 million Euros as of 2004. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroldragon


    I would think most good people, especially those familiar with LENR work, the subject matter that Rossi abuses currently, would want this sort of waste and feeding of an unpleasant sociopath to stop.


    Quote

    ... the experiment is about to happen and it may turn out that you are very wrong and lose credibility also terminally.


    What experiment? Rossi doesn't really do experiments. He does deceptive misleading demonstrations and refuses to accept the concept of calibration, blank controls, and independent verification by credible organizations. If you are referring to his latest caper, that happened already and was nothing comprehensible or meaningful, as expected by most Rossi observers, excepting only the hardest core believers.


    As I pointed out to Jed Rothwell, when it comes to weird claims purported to be LENR manifestations and other free energy scams involving things like magnet motors and noble gas engines, the skeptics have never been wrong. The possibility that after seven years of lying and cheating investors, Rossi suddenly found something worth billions or trillions is vanishingly small. To hold otherwise makes no sense. Of course, this does not apply to legitimate research done with consistent use of scientific method.

  • Either excess heat is produced - many more units will be sold - and LENR with low radiation output will be proven. Or this exercise will subside silently, quickly and terminally. All we need do is wait.


    Rossi will find ways to avoid either of these outcomes. That is what he has been doing for the past 7-8 years. I personally expect that he will announce in about a year that he has had some satisfied customers but that the product is being temporarily withdrawn so as to produce a much superior model.

  • Steve Albers

    Quote

    Are you implying that Rossi's money back guarantee for a customer will not be valid?


    I'm not implying it. I'm telling it to you straight out. Rossi did give a few distributors refunds when he decide to take away their licenses. But when Industrial Heat demonstrated, by accident but definitively, that the reactors Rossi had provided them for an $11.5 million up front fee didn't work, Rossi didn't refund their money. He sued them which cost them milions in settlement and legal costs (an estimated $15 million altogether).

  • what there is to discuss?


    About the only useful argument would be "Rossi is right - because... and be right in your reason". But someone with special knowledge - or inside knowledge - would surely keep quiet. I repeat: "what is there to discuss"?

    What I think there is to discuss is exactly this insider viewpoint that might shed light on Rossi and LENR developments. As a well known LENR researcher, you have that insight.


    For instance, Jed also has brought some of his insight to bear on Rossi, even though he isn't in the same league as a "LENR Researcher" as yourself. But he's seen plenty of demos, read lots of papers. So when Jed says that Rossi disinvited him to look at his beautiful black box due to Jed's propensity to bringing his own tools to measure stuff, it is significant. Also notice that Jed has sided with Industrial Heat since their debacle with Rossi.


    It is also significant that Jed says it's weird that Rossi would work so hard, if he's a fake. Rossi came down hard on Celani during a demo when he brought in a Geiger Counter and there was enough Gamma Rays being emitted to start getting worried. An insider such as yourself would know how to use that detector to narrow down exactly what kinds of radiation is being emitted and also perhaps even what elements are being used in the reactor. Rossi was reacting more like someone who doesn't want others to know what is being used in a nuclear reactor than someone who's simply a fraudster.


    These are touchstones. They help us lesser beings try to get an idea of what's going on.


    I'll give you an example of my own touchstone. I was supposed to meet up with KP Sinha when he was in town but I had car trouble, couldn't make it. While I was talking to him on the phone, I asked about his laser experiments (working with Muelenberg) that triggered a few LENR events. He said that he was using the laser to COOL the lattice, to take energy OUT OF the system. That was surprising to me, I had missed it.


    A few years later Ed Storms was pushing his LENR Crack theory over on Vortex-L. I pointed out to him that lasers were being used in LENR experiments to REMOVE energy from the systems, to COOL them. He got real upset, huffy and puffy, and demanded that I point out to him where this was posted in peer reviewed literature. I told him I got the info by TALKING to a well known LENR researcher. A few short weeks later, he completely signed off from all interactions at Vortex-L.


    Along similar lines on the Gamma Ray thing, the MFMP team loudly posted that they saw Gamma rays in 2013, and that Hans Biberian had "replicated" the gamma ray finding within 48 hours. Cool. Proof, right? But they immediately went dark and let that significant inquiry wither on the vine while many of them went off testing what appeared to be simple bullshit. Why?


    We would all be interested in hearing about your own touchstones.

  • Sam - again no opinion, just posting a link...

    you are expecting soon sales and feedback - why don't you help us all to get through to the truth by buying a small unit for your business if you have one or can you help finding someone who is also interested? Aftenposten is eager to following up this story:


    "If some of Aftenposten's readers try to order the heat source, we are very interested in telling about the result."

  • In my working life, I was offered 2 technologies said to be game-changers (in biology rather than in engineering)

    When I enquired about lack of controls in experiments used to generate (supporting) data, I got the "this is so good it needs no controls" schtick. When I pointed out obvious flaws in theory or practice, people got angry. When I asked to try them out in our own laboratory with our own materials, I was met in one case with outright refusal and in the other with a demand for a large non-refundable deposit.

    Cheap energy is not the only field beset from time to time by those who range from self-deluded to outright attempted fraudsters. Rossi is not the first, nor will he be the last - the only surprise to me is how he has lasted so long.

    And I write as one who was at first intrigued and inclined to believe in the ecat, until I took the trouble to re-educate myself in physics and engineering. (The lack of well-constructed experiments with controls was always a big red flag, though)

  • As I pointed out to Jed Rothwell, when it comes to weird claims purported to be LENR manifestations and other free energy scams involving things like magnet motors and noble gas engines, the skeptics have never been wrong.


    I do not think it is reasonable to lump together "LENR manifestations" with magnet motors. Proof of one tells you nothing about the other. The skeptics have certainly been wrong about LENR. It is unclear what you mean by "manifestation." Would that include Ohmori's claims of cold fusion from gold? Or the burst of neutrons reported by Yamaguchi? If so, the skeptics have said nothing about it, and I do not think anyone can judge whether it is right or wrong. If manifestations include the boil off experiments and heat after death, then the skeptics have been far wrong.

  • I tried composing all photospectrometer screengrabs from the SK demo video into a video showing them all consecutively and quickly.



    Commands used to produce the video (I deleted manually the frames not containing spectrometer images between the first and second command):

    Shell-Script
    1. ffmpeg -i Ecat\ SK\ demonstration-ckWuUdgqG3w.mp4 -filter:v "crop=391:253:7:200" -an -r 1/4 out%06d.jpg
    2. ffmpeg -framerate 15 -pattern_type glob -i 'out*.jpg' -vf curves=preset=strong_contrast -vf colorlevels=rimax=0.6:gimax=0.6:bimax=0.6 -vcodec libx264 -pix_fmt yuv420p spectrogram_anim.mp4
  • Jed, you frequently point out distinctions among various elements of the “LENR community”. They are quite valid. But most often you refer to experts and practitioners in the field, a group that has relatively little presence on this forum. Instead, this forum primarily interacts with - for want of a better term - LENR fans, generally individuals with limited or no scientific training or experience but a great deal of enthusiasm. Many have even taken on theoretical physics as a hobby, a dubious enterprise indeed. It is pretty clear that SOT mostly talks about those people in making statements that lump together disparate topics with LENR. And I think that is a valid observation given that many of these individuals appear to embrace virtually every so-callled free energy technology with equal enthusiasm. If even a small fraction of the “technologies “ they think are real actually were, we’d be swimming in viable new devices by now. This is the tribal mentality I was talking about the other day. Rossi, Papp, heck even Joe Newman. All heroic figures to some folks.

  • Jed, you frequently point out distinctions among various elements of the “LENR community”. They are quite valid. But most often you refer to experts and practitioners in the field, a group that has relatively little presence on this forum.


    Yup. Those are the people I talk about. I ignore most people who have not published a paper. Because I am a snob but mostly because I have no way of knowing what they claim, or judging whether it is right.



    Instead, this forum primarily interacts with - for want of a better term - LENR fans, generally individuals with limited or no scientific training or experience but a great deal of enthusiasm. Many have even taken on theoretical physics as a hobby, a dubious enterprise indeed. It is pretty clear that SOT mostly talks about those people in making statements that lump together disparate topics with LENR.


    That's true. But what these people say has no bearing on what cold fusion researchers say, or believe. If the amateurs are wrong, that does not mean the researchers are. For that matter, if Researcher A wrong, that does not draw into question results reported by Researcher B, unless B cites A as proof of the claim.



    And I think that is a valid observation given that many of these individuals appear to embrace virtually every so-callled free energy technology with equal enthusiasm. If even a small fraction of the “technologies “ they think are real actually were, we’d be swimming in viable new devices by now.


    I'll take your word for that. I don't follow these other claims. I know little about them. I don't see what that has to do with cold fusion. It does not detract from the claims, although many skeptics who lump cold fusion in with these other claims seem to think it does. I guess it is understandable that people would feel this way. When the Wright brothers reported they had flown, many experts and the editors of the Scientific American assumed they were frauds because other people had been trying to fly for decades before that, without success. Cold fusion does appear to violate the known laws of physics, so it is reasonable that experts are wary of it and don't believe it. But it not so logical to say that magnetic motors don't work so that means cold fusion does not work.


    It would also be unreasonable to dismiss the findings of professional scientists because enthusiastic amateur supporters misrepresent their work, or claim it has more promise than it does, or it is closer to commercialization than it is. You cannot hold Prof. X responsible for what Mr. Y says, when the professor has never heard of Mr. Y and never said anything like what Mr. Y claims. Some people outside the field of artificial intelligence claim that we may be only a few years away from awesome robots and computers with super-human intelligence. A few AI scientists believe that. But most of them do not. If super-human intelligence does not emerge, it would not be fair to hold the researchers responsible for the predictions made by people outside the field. (See the book "Architects of Intelligence: The truth about AI from the people building it" by Martin Ford for details.)