Poll: Does Andrea Rossi have what he claims?

  • How about we be polite to Mats and not trash his poll? He has his reasons for wanting to know where Rossi stands with our membership, so let him find out without getting in the way. I am curious myself to see how much support Rossi still has. Aren't you?


    That said, I think the one comment about including an answer: "he never had anything" makes sense.

  • This will keep Rossi busy for some time.

    Now he not only has to download his “paper” 10 times a day from RG, he also needs to upvote the e-cats on Lewan’s poll.... ||

  • Mats, will you share the results later? I am interested in knowing, too. You might or not know that I went all the way from total and staunch Rossi suporter and follower to bitter and regretful person that would have preferred to never have heard about Rossi and his e-cat in his life, with the turning point around the publication of all the court transcripts of the "sue". I honestly wonder how many people still believe in Rossi after all his shenanigans and 0 proof. And take this from a guy that followed another high profile free energy (Steorn motor magnet) since 2006 to its bitter end around 2017, so I should have known better.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • How about we be polite to Mats and not trash his poll? He has his reasons for wanting to know where Rossi stands with our membership, so let him find out without getting in the way. I am curious myself to see how much support Rossi still has. Aren't you?


    That said, I think the one comment about including an answer: "he never had anything" makes sense.

    The third choice on Mats poll covers

    that base.

  • That said, I think the one comment about including an answer: "he never had anything" makes sense.

    I like that there is only one really negative choice. Rigged polls have multiple similar choices to split the votes among the answers the pollsters would not like to see so they can say "the highest vote was..." which is what they would like to pump.

    Imagine if he had the following poll:


    1. Rossi has something but has not yet revealed enough information to be sure.

    2. Rossi has nothing but he is sincere but has managed to fool himself.

    3. Rossi has nothing and he is a fraudster.

    4. Rossi has nothing and is a total poop-head that should banned from planet earth.


    In this case 1 gets the highest votes and validates Mats book, that Rossi has something.

  • Tried voting for a second time for the

    heck of it

    Sure, just for the heck of it. Rossi supporters are not trying to intentionally stuff the ballot boxes. That would never happen. All those paper "full reads" are real too. Everyone in the physics establishment is enthralled with the Rossi revelation and read every word.


  • IMO, you are reading too much into this. I read Mats selections again, and they cover all the options fairly well. Now, had he used your #'s 1-4, then I may agree it is "rigged". :)


    Hopefully everyone votes. As I said, I am curious myself what kind of support Rossi has nowadays. Taking this a step deeper, you might ask yourself why Lewan wants to know this?

  • “I read Mats selections again, and they cover all the options fairly well.“


    For you, perhaps. But there are many of us who would not say that Rossi may have had something legitimate at one point or another. As far as I am concerned, his big splash in 2011 was obviously a fraud and things went south from there. So if Mats actually wants to gauge the opinions of people, he needs an option that categorically states that Rossi never had anything real. I know that former believers can’t face saying that since it is embarrassing but if the shoe fits...

  • “I read Mats selections again, and they cover all the options fairly well.“


    For you, perhaps. But there are many of us who would not say that Rossi may have had something legitimate at one point or another. As far as I am concerned, his big splash in 2011 was obviously a fraud and things went south from there. So if Mats actually wants to gauge the opinions of people, he needs an option that categorically states that Rossi never had anything real. I know that former believers can’t face saying that since it is embarrassing but if the shoe fits...


    Fair enough. If he got rid of the word "maybe" in this one selection, would that make the poll more legitimate to you?



    "Never! Maybe he had some small results initially, but what what he has been claiming in the last few years is essentially fraudulent."

  • Fair enough. If he got rid of the word "maybe" in this one selection, would that make the poll more legitimate to you?



    "Never! Maybe he had some small results initially, but what what he has been claiming in the last few years is essentially fraudulent."

    No, that would be even worse. The poll is supposed to ask for people’s view of Rossi. None of the options allow for the opinion that he has never had any legitimate results and no maybes about it. You may think otherwise and therefore that option is reasonable for you. However, if Mats really wants to sample all opinions, he needs an option that Rossi is and always has been a fraud. There are plenty of people who hold that view and this poll ignores them.

  • Since I’m curious to get a picture of what the opinion is today about Andrea Rossi and his claims, I invite you to answer this poll:

    https://poll.fm/10339764

    No comments needed.


    The poll also confuses motives (fraudulent) with technology (does it work /has it ever worked). "Essentially fraudulent" is not correct if Rossi is a genuinely convinced fantasist who also habitually lies. Yes, his behavior towards business partners has been (and likely still is) fraudulent because of his deceit but he could also genuinely (as a fantasy) hold the belief that his stuff works.


    I'll accept IO's view (that he is a deliberate fully conscious deceiver) as possible, but the alternate, he is a fantasist who also habitually lies while believing he really has something, fits the facts a bit better.


    "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

    "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

    Alice in Wonderland.


    CS Lewis has it right here, except that (for dramatic effect) he gives the Red Queen a self-awareness that is not granted to many.


    I'll not answer it because as P says above there is no option that fits my views.