Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Rossi threw Cassarino out of his life once the Doral test started. Rossi banished him from coming to visit and commanded him to not contact him ever again.

Cassarino's deposition describes at least one tour through the Doral site in the Spring of 2015. He may have been banished after that though.

In the same deposition (taken in Feb 2017) Cassarino says the last time he spoke with Rossi was after the visit but before the lawsuit was launched. In that time, though, Cassarino continued to send emails to Rossi about personal items (i.e., Cassarino's son, Christmas greetings) and Rossi responded appropriately.

Quote from [email protected]

Well, there was Focardi and Celani. They had high reps in the LENR community.

...

There are some people in this sordid story who had strong reputations. That kinda knocks down your argument.

Even big shots can make mistakes. A good example is Focardi's inability to recognize that the steam being emitted by Rossi's Ecat was wet (i.e., containing large amounts of unevaporated water) and that the instrument being used to assess this was unsuited to the job (it could only measure evaporated moisture, not unevaporated water droplets) . That led to a huge overestimate of the amount of heat being generated.

So no ... it doesn't kinda knock down the argument.

Levi's promotion of weak wet steam was valuable.

Booking travel to Sweden.

Quote from [email protected]

Now what's being said is "Even big shots can make mistakes." Before it was said they were all little shots. For an inept con man, Rossi sure seemed to maneuver around plenty of big shots and little shots.

Focardi was a good researcher in his time. Levi is a little shot. Looking at his CV I don't really understand how he attained tenure and after 20 years on faculty he is still at the lowest rank of assistant professor. His research is unimpressive and he does not seem to supervise any graduate students. He has value as a teacher, but not in his own department.

Rossi is a con man, but not inept. He is good at it.

Impressive work, kev. A quote out of context from August 2017 that is supposed to somehow negate whatever I have ever said. And the same quote used to somehow respond to my demonstration that you are fabricating my view of Rossi’s place in LENR.

By the way, how do your comments here “move the science”?

And Shane says you have worthwhile things to say. Still waiting.

Quote from [email protected]

There is no reason to listen to what you have to say when it comes to scientific matters... by your own words.

Other than the obvious fact that I have never said anything about scientific matters in my little exchanges with you, you are completely in your rights to ignore them. In fact, feel free to ignore anything I say. That’s pretty much what you do anyway as you pursue your mysterious agenda.

Quote from [email protected]

It was a Flintstone episode where Fred lost his job but the company was forced to rehire him because he had wired up his earthmover dinosaur in such a way that he was the only one who could operate it.

Thanks.

I thought maybe it had to do with the Flintstones happily celebrating Christmas or watching the Jetsons on TV a few million years early....

Although a meme of the Doral gang happily sliding down the Dino-crane tail after work on Fridays, excited about the weekend off, more easily comes to mind.

Quote from JedRothwell

Just block him. Hover over the name and click on the "Block" icon.

Blocked him around a week ago, pretty sure I am not missing anything substantive.

Quote

Even big shots can make mistakes. A good example is Focardi's inability to recognize that the steam being emitted by Rossi's Ecat was wet (i.e., containing large amounts of unevaporated water) and that the instrument being used to assess this was unsuited to the job (it could only measure evaporated moisture, not unevaporated water droplets) . That led to a huge overestimate of the amount of heat being generated.

Actually that was not the mistake. The major incomprehensible error by everyone who looked at Rossi's claims early on (Focardi, Levi, Lewan, Kullander, Essen, etc. etc.) was a failure to obtain or require adequate blank or so-called "dummy" runs and calibrations. And yeah, the people who did not demand such controls were indeed dummies. Calibration and blank runs are fundamental principles of any scientific measurement. Apparently, whoever evaluated ecats or hotcats for Darden and IH before they bought in, made the same error or for some other reason did piss poor calorimetry. Expensively piss poor as we now know. Attention to calibration/blanking would have revealed any errors in the output power measurements regardless of method used to measure. This was extensively discussed by many in several forums therefore failure to comply was inexcusable and incredibly incompetent.

BTW, I could be wrong but I don't recall Alan Fletcher being much concerned with proper calibration of Rossi's devices. IIRC, he was delving into doubtfully relevant minutia, all of which could have been circumvented with one good calibration run done by someone other than Rossi using other than Rossi equipment and methods. If I'm wrong, I am sure he will set the record straight. Early on, a lot of loud voices were extolling Rossi's prowess and accomplishments and insulting and banning anyone who disagreed in anything like a persuasive or assertive manner. While skeptics can't stop a working device from succeeding, acolytes who suppress skeptical expression can promote scams and that is exactly what happened with Rossi.

Quote from interested observer

There is actually no evidence of this. The information about him online is underwhelming to say the least. What has he done to distinguish himself apart from his role in the Rossi saga?

There is evidence that Levi and the others are competent scientists. See the first Levi report:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

I have not found any major errors in this, and I doubt that you or anyone else has either. If you know of some errors, what are they? Be specific.

The Lugano study was incompetent. I do not know why they did a reasonably good study followed by an inept one. Dewey tells us that Levi was corrupt in some sense. Fraudulent. I do not know what proof Dewey has, but if this is true, it might explain why Lugano was so bad. Then again, what would be the point? Why publish an unconvincing report that looks incompetent? How would that aid an attempt to defraud people? I don't understand how that would work.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Actually that was not the mistake. The major incomprehensible error by everyone who looked at Rossi's claims early on (Focardi, Levi, Lewan, Kullander, Essen, etc. etc.) was a failure to obtain or require adequate blank or so-called "dummy" runs and calibrations.

Actually, that would be a mistake. But you are incorrect. They did do calibrations. See:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

"The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input."

I suggest you read the literature more carefully before commenting on it.

I am certainly not going to reread a several year old report of an incompetent and negligent experiment, designed by a liar and a criminal. However what I recall from discussions is that the errors in that experiment involved the input power rather than the output. Apparently, Rossi screwed around with unnecessary three phase power. There would be no reason to do that except to cheat. And cheat he probably did (from other people's remarks about errors in wiring and calculations of power readings.) Remember, sleight of hand can'r be repeated the same way for the same audience. Most of the time early on, Rossi messed with the steam output end. Later on he found other ways.

You are right about one thing. Input cheating won't be caught by output measurement calibration!

Quote from seven_of_twenty

I am certainly not going to reread a several year old report of an incompetent and negligent experiment, designed by a liar and a criminal.

You claimed they did not calibrate, so I doubt you read it in the first place. In any case, if you are not going to read it, I suggest you refrain from commenting on it. How can you even tell if there are lies or any indication of criminality if you don't even read it? When there are lies in a report of this nature, such as the Penon report, they are usually obvious.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

However what I recall from discussions is that the errors in that experiment involved the input power rather than the output.

I doubt that. High bandwidth three-phase power analyzers are pretty reliable in my experience. The on-off cycles were not extreme and could easily be measured with this kind of instrument. I do not see how the heat balance would have been zero if the input power was measured incorrectly.

You cannot challenge me on this, because you refuse to read the paper. You will have to take my word for it, won't you? That's the disadvantage of your strategy toward cold fusion evidence, which is to cover your ears and yell out "Nanny-nanny boo boo! I can't hear you!!!" That does not convince other people.

Quote from JedRothwell

...High bandwidth three-phase power analyzers are pretty reliable in my experience. The on-off cycles were not extreme and could easily be measured with this kind of instrument. I do not see how the heat balance would have been zero if the input power was measured incorrectly.

AndreaS examined the waveforms shown in the report, and found them wanting.

There was even supplied a phase angle spreadsheet that the inverted clamp theory could be tested in.