When the 9 was dressed up like a 6, was also the 6 dressed up as a 9?
Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion
-
-
Display More
Kevmo:Again. This is like the 3rd time this has been asserted on this thread. Go ahead and point out where this has been ... ahem.... PROVEN.... The FACT that this has been asserted without pointing to where the proof is, well, uhh, YET AGAIN it stretches credulity so far that at the very loeast RDSers should be dropping their attitude.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf
Then ask Paradigmnoia and others here to summarise the lively and combative discussion that paralleled that report here.
***Just open a thread here.
Kevmo:Again. This is like the 3rd time this has been asserted on this thread. Go ahead and point out where this has been ... ahem.... PROVEN.... The FACT that this has been asserted without pointing to where the proof is, well, uhh, YET AGAIN it stretches credulity so far that at the very loeast RDSers should be dropping their attitude.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf
***I'll check this later after responding to your tldr arguments.
-
I always like to make 0001 the blank no matter what qaqc follows.
-
I sent a message to Dewey, THH, Jed, 7 of 20 and IO. Please check. Thanks.
-
THH:
As for unprofessional: they made it appear in the report that they conducted the whole experiment. In fact Rossi was there for the critical parts, and his worker ran it, the Swedes made flying visits. What would you call that? (There are a few other instances too - I've just summarised the least technical one).
***Again, this needs its own thread. Not everyone follows this Rossi crap every day.
So mainstream rejection of the Rossi tests can be explained away as prejudice.
***They're crappy tests. People expect him to be a scientist, which he rejects.
Kevmo:Your attempts at "explaining away" just stretch credulity to the point that we should all be asking why you have such an attitude towards people who notice that stretched narrative.
RDS:That sounds good, but is devoid of evidence.
***It is NOT devoid of evidence. Just look through this thread. Y'all have an attitude, and it takes 4 times to ask you to produce evidence of what you consider to be a FACT.
Put it up, or accept this is hot air - in that you have something in common with Rossi.
***You're completely off into the weeds here.
-
THH:
of the claims and counter-claims from unprejudiced parties. Difficult to find.
You apply this meta-logic wrongly. And have an argument based on your personalisation of other commentators. Always a bad sign.
***Then POINT it OUT! You just leave it down there as a dead fish comment.
In Rossi's case - unlike the more general one of LENR - we have a lot of positive evidence of Rossi's wrong science, deceit, PR genius, etc.
***Then it should be easy to counter things if they are put forward in an unfactual manner AS YOU CLAIM.
The evaluation here does not need complex science acumen. You will remember my summary of the glaring measurement errors made and never admitted by Rossi that explain his false positive results.
***Needs its own thread.
I've noticed this strand of your argument: you take something and reply to it out of context.
***I notice that you just say it aint true and then blithely move forward to insults.
LENR is difficult to prove or disprove - does that mean Rossi's flakiness is therefore difficult to prove? Not at all.
***Why are you arguing against something I didn't say? That makes it a straw argument.
Rossi is a genius ....
Again, out of context.
***There is NOTHING out of context about it. Either he's a genius con man or a genius scientist.
Why should I see possibilities in somone who is a proven liar, and has proven good at hoodwinking people?
***Ahh, because you CLAIM it's been proven, when in reality, I point to the very LEGAL documents to counter your claim. If anything, those legal documents provide evidence that Rossi's claim has been VALDATED by way of a legal contract and that his validation was PAID.
Sure, you can admire the skill, but not the occupation.
***You don't seem to understand when you're contradicting yourself.
Apparently according to your stretched narrative viewpoint, not skeptical enough. A convicted fraudster can hoodwink a bunch of LENR scientists in a serial fashion and then slide $10M from a company called Industrial Heat by "pretending" to produce heat.
You are either not applying logic here, or not thinking.
***They're scientists aint they? Where is the logic not applied? Just because you THINK it's not logical doesn't mean logic isn't applied. Please, try to use some valid reasoning here.
Consider, Rossi's endeavours were advertised to 10s of 1000s of scientists, one way or another (perhaps more). Of those, maybe a few 100 were seriously interested enough to investigate. Of those, one or two, selected by Rossi as good marks,
***Surmision
are the ones we here from selected to write these glowing reports.
***They had their hands on the device, without Rossi even being in the ROOM.
I'd say less than 10 unskeptical out of 10,000 counts as most skeptical. Would not you?
***I would count the chair of the Swedish Skeptics Society as a.... get this: a SKEPTIC. Would not YOU?
The rest follows from what I've said.
***That's just it. It does NOT follow. You can't put two sentences together without committing a logical fallacy. Try to use smaller sentences or stick to just one subject.
-
THH:
That then allows Rossi leeway that would not be given him in any other field except perhaps a religious cult.
Leeway. You go from a stretched narrative where everyone should have been highly tuned to errors and frauds to somehow they're all giving leeway. Yet AGAIN, this shows how far the RDS narrative is stretched and that you folks need to drop the attitude.
The same lack of context.
***NONSENSE.
Mainstream science is pretty skeptical - many here would say too much so. But Rossi has never subjected his devices to evaluation by mainstream anyone.
***He is not a scientist , he is a business man who says to judge his efforts on his phrase, "in mercato veritas". There is no mercato so there is no veritas.
His evaluators are carefully picked Rossi sympathisers.
***Interesting thesis, and so full of horse manure that you can smell it from 3 miles away. You'll want to DEVELOP this argument rather than just assert it as if it were a fact.
IH was, for Rossi, an aberration where he had to ante up the goods to get that large amount of money.
***Or , it was the next phase of someone trying to keep control of his technology while there are vultures surrounding him trying to steal it, like how the Wright brothers had to deal with such lookiloo thieves.
Do you not remember what happened when NASA offered to validate his early stuff?
***Yup. He blew chunks. So why didn't NASA move in and prove he was a fraud? The Wright brothers had a demo day go bad also, invited the press over and couldn't get their airplanes to start. It turned out to be useful for them because then they just started practicing their flights OUT in the OPEN after that, with the press just ignoring them. I doubt the Wrights intended for their demo to go wrong that day but it served useful for their continued efforts.
Apologies to those who have blocked KevMo. He has this thing about RDS - no idea what this means but it sure looms large in his thought processes.
***That's because you don't read. RDS is Rossi Derangement Syndrome. You got it real bad.
-
I rest my case.
Good. Then maybe , such as in a court of law, the other side can begin to proceed without your horse manure nonsense interruptions.
-
Why would IH still be looking for IP that was contractually required to be delivered to IH after the $10 million was in place? Years later. Fred Flintstone is not a recognized participant in the contract.
Why would IH still be looking for IP that was contractually required to be delivered to IH after the $10 million was in place?
***Because in the next phase of the $89M development of technology, more of Rossi's IP:would be required. Also, let's say Rossi didn't deliver all the IP stipulated in the contract and IH paid him $10M anyways. Why would they want even one more jot or tittle of IP they said was worthless? They stayed stuck on this stupid for over a year.
Years later. Fred Flintstone is not a recognized participant in the contract.
***Sometimes, jokes just go right over yer head, don't they?
-
There was no IP to transfer, so returning it was as easy as yawning.
The rest of the quote is true.
Then why did they pay $10M at ALL? And why did they request his IP as part of the countersuit if his IP was so worthless?
-
Display More
Advice:
Seek for medical attention!
You need help!
The "Clearance" thread will not solve it.
I will not respond any further.
I made my point clear.
Advice:
Physician, heal thyself.
-
Nothing has been shunted to Clearance since the unwritten rules about Rossi threads being free-for-all-zones..up to a point, were explained to you.
***My definition of skeptopath was moved over there, but your point is noted. I have been trying to respond in kind.
Something else to keep in mind, is that "Rossi Derangement Syndrome (RDS) insults", are not an attack on you. They are against Rossi.
***I know.
You can reply in kind in his defense, but that is not a requirement. Now, personal attacks on you...that is a different story.
***RDS is not a personal insult, is it? I was calling them skeptopaths, but the definition doesn't quite fit for some, and some of those posts got moved...
And as to the "unhealthiness of the debate on this forum" you seem to enjoy doing your part to make it that way.
***I don't start it. Like in MIB, "Don't start nuthin' , won't be nuthin'. Answering classical fallacies IS healthy debate. I can't help it that this is a target rich environment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
I figured out what I should call them , since they like to throw around the word Rossiphile and it's not all that bothersome of a loaded definition...
MisanthRossi
from Greek misanthropos, from misein ‘to hate’ + anthropos ‘man’.
from Greek miso- ‘hating’ + aner, andr- ‘man’, on the pattern of misogyny .
Basic meaning:
Hating (the) man Rossi
mis·an·thrope
Dictionary result for misanthrope
Origin
mid 16th century: from Greek misanthropos, from misein ‘to hate’ + anthropos ‘man’.
mis·an·dry
Dictionary result for misandry
Origin
late 19th century: from Greek miso- ‘hating’ + aner, andr- ‘man’, on the pattern of misogyny
-
Display More
Kevmo:Again. This is like the 3rd time this has been asserted on this thread. Go ahead and point out where this has been ... ahem.... PROVEN.... The FACT that this has been asserted without pointing to where the proof is, well, uhh, YET AGAIN it stretches credulity so far that at the very loeast RDSers should be dropping their attitude.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf
***I'll check this later after responding to your tldr arguments.
We went over this obscure report once before.
[email protected]
MemberQuoteYour claim is that there is indisputable measurement error. I see plenty of dispute and lots of obfuscation. If you have to dig through obscure reports and look at findings at just the right angle to catch the sunburst brilliance, you're not dealing with the indisputable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example of Clarke's skeptopathic approach
https://e-catworld.com/2015/04…p-and-lenr-thomas-clarke/
-
I apologize for my dissonance. I did not realize you were from the universe where everything happens within the same moment of time. You already... ah, know the rest...., of course...
-
-
Anyways, IH is out of Rossi. Done. Water under the bridge. Rossi Archaeology.
What commendable actions has Rossi done lately?
Well, he seems to be reinventing himself as the producer and funder of comic puppet shows. I'm not a judge myself of artistic merit but his fans seem well enough enthused.
-
seems to be a new record... nine in a row... are we getting close to a finish line ??
-
Plasma temperature
For a dense plasma, the temperature of the plasma can be calculated by using the upper cutt-off frequency of the intensity versus frequency profile.
The relationship is : ν = 2.8E10 x T
For the temperaure of 8111 degree K which was used for the SK the upper frequency would have been
ν = 2.8E10 x 8111 = 2.27E14 Hz
The corresponding wavelength is then λ = 3E8/2.27E14 = 1.32E-6 or 1.32 uMeter
This wave length is in the near infrared region.
The rest of the dense spectrum should then have been at lower wavelengths, likely most of the infrared region.
If the plasma temperature was derived in the way described above, then if the plasma would for the given temperature instead have followed Planck's law, the peak value would following Wien's displacement law have been at a frequency of
λ = b/T
b = 2,897 77 × 10−3 K·m
or
λ= 2,897 77 × 10−3 / 8111 = 357.3E-9 (357.3 nanometer)
But as Bruce__H has shown in the pictures he posted, the spectrum is clearly not following the Planck curve and does not have a peak at 357.3 nanometer.
So why did Rossi state that the spectrum peaked at 357.3 nanometer.
Maybe because in that way he could refer to Wiens displacement law and the Stefan-Bolzmann formula for a black body instead of having to refer to a more complex plasma theory ?
Or is he by not showing the spectrum in the infrared region trying to hide information on the working of the SK ?
As usual we are not much learning from the information that was presented and it was for us not very convincing.
-
Well, he seems to be reinventing himself as the producer and funder of comic puppet shows. I'm not a judge myself of artistic merit but his fans seem well enough enthused.
He's generated a new Derangement Syndrome for the medical psychiatric profession. So there's that....
-
KevMO: Your claim is that there is indisputable measurement error. I see plenty of dispute and lots of obfuscation. If you have to dig through obscure reports and look at findings at just the right angle to catch the sunburst brilliance, you're not dealing with the indisputable.
Extraordinary how context changes things.
About that report on the measurement error: it has been extensively discussed here including (again) on the thread that you link. Nowhere has its conclusions been denied, and every technical summary here, from people who have read all the relevant published material - or worked it out for themselves - agrees that the calorimetry method used was flawed as described in that paper, and flawed in a way that would exactly provide the two anomalies noted by the Lugano authors; higher output power than input, and "acceleration" in COP ratio at higher temperatures. Also the lack of any answer, privately or publicly, from the Lugano authors speaks volumes at to its correctness.
I agree there has been a lot of obfuscation on this issue. Your post is a classic example of that.
