Rossi: The final chapter

    Quote from Walter Pegeto

    Please let's use elementary logic.

    Even if only 10% of what he says was true, it would be the most revolutionary scientific discovery in the field of LENR, and would be presented as a breaking news by all mainstream media!

    Compare this with a non peer-reviewed paper with zero citations!

    Yes, the case of the dog that did not bark: https://brieflywriting.com/201…bsence-of-expected-facts/


    The absence of something is often the strongest evidence.

    People have said Rossi could not have written this because the English is too good. You should realize that he could have a native speaker revise it. I do that a lot. But not in this case! It wasn't me!


    There is a company that does this for a fee, https://www.writersservices.com/. I read a scientific book that they prepared, "The Twilight of the Scientific Age" by Martin Corredoira. They seemed to do a good job. The English is excellent. Very readable and natural.


    Neither Industrial Heat, nor Woodford, were responsible for the decision to increase the valuation of the holding. Link Fund Solutions made the decision to increase the valuation. They did not do so arbitrarily or without cause. Industrial Heat raised a new round of funding at a higher valuation. As a consequence, Link wrote up the value of the Woodford holding so as to keep it in line with the latest activity in the shares.


    That is completely normal. There is no fraud or impropriety here.


    Industrial Heat has no say in how others value their shares, and there are very strict accounting rules about how third parties value stakes in illiquid holdings.

    Rossi upbeat today.


    1. Frank Acland November 19, 2019 at 5:35 PM

      Dear Andrea,

      Can you say anything more about recent activities in your R&D program? And how is your team feeling about what is going on?

      Many thanks,

      Frank Acland

    2. Andrea Rossi November 19, 2019 at 6:33 PM

      Frank Acland:

      The work of our team is proceeding vrery well and it is not impossible that by the end of this week we reach our goal. We are very advanced.I am here, in the lab, working with my Team.We all hope that by the end of this week we will uncork a bottle of Dom Perignon. I think that if it will not be the end of this week it will not be far. We made enormous progress during these last 10 days.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.


    Maybe this thread should then be renamed next week to "A new beginning"

    Quote from axil

    Maybe this thread should then be renamed next week to "A new beginning"

    “Dawn of a New Error” is what to expect.

    The high of anticipating world-saving technology being delivered by Rossi ‘almost any day now’ will wear off, and the inevitable low will set in as another disappointment is handed out by the master of obfuscation, misdirection, and outright lies.

    Sure. There's a big chance that a elderly con man with a long record of nothing but failures, imprisonment, felonies, fraud and faked demonstrations is now going to reveal a device which will make energy on the cheap. Dawn of a New Fraud probably. Or not even that! Most likely, Dawn of a New Fizzle.

    Quote from orsova

    Link Fund Solutions made the decision to increase the valuation. They did not do so arbitrarily or without cause. Industrial Heat raised a new round of funding at a higher valuation.

    Hi orsova,


    Exactly.


    And if you would be so kind to check how big that next round was you would be of great help. I suspect it was a relative small round. Fluffing illiquid holdings is easy. Moreover, Link did not turn out to be very good at their job, now did they?


    Cheers,


    JB

    Quote from oldguy

    Yes, the case of the dog that did not bark: https://brieflywriting.com/201…bsence-of-expected-facts/

    The absence of something is often the strongest evidence.

    Exactly! There is absolutely no trace of Rossi neither in scientific journals (arXiv and researchgate are not journals) nor in mainstream media. Only conspiracy theorists can believe that the media, in democratic countries, can be so tightly controlled:

    https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_mediacontrol.htm

    Quote from JedRothwell

    People have said Rossi could not have written this because the English is too good. You should realize that he could have a native speaker revise it. I do that a lot. But not in this case! It wasn't me!


    There is a company that does this for a fee, https://www.writersservices.com/. I read a scientific book that they prepared, "The Twilight of the Scientific Age" by Martin Corredoira. They seemed to do a good job. The English is excellent. Very readable and natural.


    I do realize that Rossi could have had an original draft of his paper revised to improve its English, but I don't think this happened. And, in fact, sections 5 and 6 of the paper are not written in excellent English. They are written in awkward, broken English. For instance in section 5 we are told "The E-cat SK has been put in a position to allow the lens of a spectrometer to exactly view the plasma in a dark room". And later, when describing connections within the SK, we get "... from the control panel start the two cables connected with the plasma electrodes". Phrases like these do not sound like a native writer of English and certainly do not resemble the clear English style of the earlier sections of the paper. I think the Rossi wrote sections 5 and 6.


    Beyond this, the very ideas in sections 5 and 6 are awkward and broken. Themes are introduced then not followed up, the logic meanders, and a substantial conceptual blunder occupies most of section 6. In comparison, the author (or authors) of sections 1-4 is a coherent thinker with a clear English style.


    In my opinion, many parts of sections 1-4 are consistent with the writings of Norman Cook. Maybe this paper emerged from another collaboration between Rossi and Cook subsequent to their 2015 one. But then why is Rossi taking full credit for it? What was Norman Cook's situation in January of 2019 when the reaearchgate paper came out? Cook died after a length battle with cancer 5 months later, would he have been in a position to see it and object if he didn't see his name on it?

    Quote from sam12

    [a elderly con man with a long record of nothing but failures, imprisonment, felonies, fraud . . .]


    He might become known as

    The ECat Man of Alcatraz. [Robert Stroud]


    Robert Stroud was nothing like that. He was never accused of fraud. He was an expert, acknowledged by other experts. He published, and he was widely read and cited. One of his books published in 1933 is still in print:


    https://www.amazon.com/Disease…roud-ebook/dp/B004SB0A5W/


    He was also imprisoned for life, a homicidal lunatic, and very dangerous in person. But that has no bearing on his expertise in ornithology. People should make a distinction between the person and that person's scientific accomplishments. People such as Galileo and Newton were jerks. Misfits. Terrible people. But they were scientific geniuses, and their personality faults do not detract from their accomplishments. In the modern era, with so-called "cancel culture" people seem to have trouble separating personality from accomplishment. The situation is more fraught when it comes to artistic accomplishments, but I think people go too far when they suggest, for example, that we should downgrade or stop showing paintings by Gauguin. He was a notorious jerk but a brilliant artist. See:

    Is It Time Gauguin Got Canceled?

    Museums are reassessing the legacy of an artist who had sex with teenage girls and called the Polynesian people he painted “savages.”


    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/1…ional-gallery-london.html


    The part about getting upset because he called them "savages" is ridiculous. Everyone called them savages back then, and they probably called us "savages." The Japanese certainly did. Supposedly, a reporter onced asked Gandhi: "What do you think of Western civilization?" He responded: "I think it would be a good idea."

    Quote from interested observer

    Rossi will never throw in the towel. Why should he? He doesn’t actually have to do anything but post drivel on his blog and people like you eat it up like candy. And the Italian Jesus? You really need help.

    Hi interested observer,


    Jesus threw in the towel when he died. But don't criticise me for being gay when Rossi rises again. And we all need help now and then. That's what friends are for. Thank you for being around.


    Cheers,


    JB

    Quote from Bruce__H

    Sections 5 and 6 suffer from far more severe problems that style, however. For instance, section 5 begins "The plausibility of these hypotheses is supported by a series of experiments ...". This is exciting because section 4 has just finished predicting that the SK should have line at 437 nm and it would be fun to see this prediction checked out. It is not to be, however, there no search for a spectral line at this position. Instead, section 6 launches a calculation of SK power based on a peak in black-body radiation that is supposedly emitted from the glowing plasma of the SK. It is claimed that this bb peak is at 357.5 nm. Rossi uses the Wien equation to first turn this wavelength into a temperature and then turns the temperature into a calculation of SK radiative power. The problem here, though, is not so much the mismatch between the 437 nm predicted line and the 357.5 nm observed bb peak as is is that Rossi does not seem to realize that a spectral emission line has nothing to do with black-body radiation. I think he is treating a discrete spectral line as a "peak" in the blackbody spectrum but this is totally, totally wrong. It is an undergraduate-level error in understanding. Not very suitable for someone who considers himself a potential Nobel-winning genius! And, more to the point, not as informed as whoever wrote the first 4 sections.


    OK. So I don't buy that Rossi wrote sections 1-4. He doesn't have the writing skill and his physical knowledge isn't good enough either. But now that that point is made here is something I wonder about how he wrote up sections 5 and 6. If Rossi is faking all of his SK results, why does he claim observe (in section 6) a peak 357.5 nm instead of the theoretically meaningful 437 nm? If he wants to claim that his E-cat SK experiments are producing empirical support for some of the theories in the early sections of the paper, why not just pretend to find a peak at 437 nm? Well here, I think, is why. If you follow through with the calculations of section 6 for a bb peak of 437 nm you will find a predicted SK power of a little under 10kW. This isn't enough to heat the room that Rossi claims he is heating. Instead of 10kW you need around 20kW. This drives the need for a peak at 357 nm or so and (ta da!) that is what Rossi says he sees.


    But, maddeningly, what Rossi says he sees in the SK spectrum is not what we actually see in the January 31, 2019 SK demo! Even though the data in the researchgate paper are supposed to be from the same system. During the demo Rossi showed a spectrum. And in tat spectrum one cannot find peaks at either 357.5 nm or 437 nm!. Nor is the spectrum in the demo a black body spectrum. So everything falls apart in many dimensions all at once! I suspect what has happened is that that Rossi, who appears to be battling cancer and underwent surgery in the summer of 2018, was not at the peak of his powers in January 2019 when the paper and the demo came out. It must be rough on him and I think he simply doesn't have the energy to keep all the fakery internally consistent.


    No fakery as far as I can tell. Rossi's mind and energy seemed remarkably good to me, especially given that he was in recovery.


    The alleged 437 nm line (little peak) has nothing to do with the alleged 357 nm peak. The former is a proposed signature for a proposed emission from a proposed electron and proton interaction as described in Rossi's paper. The latter (357 nm) has to do with an attempt to derive the temperature of the plasma.


    An odd thing is that the 437 little peak is often not even there. Only occasionally does it appear in the live spectrum feed. That may spell trouble for the mechanism proposed in the paper. Or not. It may be dependent on the particular signal the plasma is receiving from the controller box.

    Another odd thing is there is no mention of how the 357 nm peak power was determined. I assume the power spectrum was somehow averaged to 357nm, but this was not mentioned.


    You are right, it is not a blackbody spectrum, although Rossi restricting the spectral feed to come from the densest inner part of the ballerina makes it closer, at least, to a blackbody.

    Assuming blackbody he could then use the Wein equation to determine temperature, which is then used in the Boltzmann equation to determine power. If I were doing it, I would have avoided going the Wein and Boltzmann route and just done the calorimetry. No biggie though. The important thing is that the calorimetry - involving temperature change of cooling air flow using two different setups - has the SK producing about 20kW, which happily is close to the spectrum power calculation. All calculations were significant underestimates too. (Rossi is that modest.)

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.