Off-topic posts moved from ICFC-22 threads

  • I've not read enough to satisfy JedRothwellapparently, but I have followed Rossi for coming up on 9 years, in meticulous detail.

    I was not discussing your evaluation of Rossi. I said you have not found technical errors in any major cold fusion study. I mean a study published in a journal or ICCF proceedings. Rossi never published anywhere. Do you think you have found a technical problem, or any problem in any study other than Rossi and Defkalion? If so, which study, and (if you recall) what problem?


    Finding out that Rossi is a fraud is quite different from discovering an error in tritium detection or calorimetry. It calls for a different skill set. You have to know the difference between input electricity and noise, which you do not know. I am not being sarcastic or insulting here: I am stating as a fact that you do not understand this, as shown in your many comments here. You ended up dismissing my attempts to explain this, so it is clear you still don't get it. The maximum electric power input in the Mizuno experiments cannot cause as much noise as the ambient temperature changes. They are 4 times lower. So, improving the COP by lowering input power would not improve the s/n ratio or improve confidence in the result. You do not grasp that, so your evaluation of the experiment is totally off base.


    The problem was that with a little effort, Rossi was able to bamboozle dozens of LENR specialists and others such as the Swedish scientists who tested the hot cats with him.

    "Dozens" of specialists and scientists did not test the hot cats. Only a few did. They were convinced because their own instruments showed excess heat. Rossi did not interfere as far as I know. I do not know of any major technical reasons to doubt their conclusions:


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


    I do not think that you know any technical reasons to doubt this either. I doubt it because of subsequent events, and Rossi's obvious fraud, and the Penon report. I suppose you agree with me. Those are value judgements, not technical reasons. They are valid but we can't debate them in scientific terms. Only in terms of history, politics, human nature, like any news story.


    Dozens of specialists probably did give Rossi some credit based on the Levi report. That's reasonable. There is no harm in that. I gave him some credit. But if IH had asked me, "should we fund this at $10 million?" I would have said: "Let's see some more tests first. Start with less funding than that." They never asked me.

  • Dozens of specialists probably did give Rossi some credit based on the Levi report. That's reasonable.

    Here is something else I think Seven_of_twenty does not appreciate. Scientists often talk as if they believe a claim. During a conference they will ask the author questions as if they agree. But, when you talk to them later they may say, "I doubt it" or even "I think it is a bunch of crap."


    They also sometimes take a result as real for the sake of argument, to think about what ramifications it might have if it were true. That does not mean they actually think it is true.


    Regarding Rossi, I know many scientists who visited a Rossi demonstration, including Celani who measured a burst of radiation when the machine turned on, using two portable meters. (This greatly upset Rossi.) That is pretty good evidence that some anomalous nuclear event occurred. Seven_of_twenty thinks that Rossi is some sort of clever, sleight of hand magician. I would like to see Seven_of_twenty demonstrate how to peg two battery operated digital radiation meters. That would be the most astounding trick in the history of stage magic. Yet when I asked Celani later, "do you think it actually worked" he said: "Who knows?" He said we don't have enough data and it hasn't been replicated.


    I am aware of dozens of cold fusion experiments that have some support, done by competent people, that have not been replicated. I do not believe them, but I do not disbelieve them either. I am in a quantum state like the cat. It seems such indecision is anathema to Seven_of_twenty, as it is to most conformists. They want a clear, black and white answer to every question. An example of an undecided experiment would be the Au results from Ohmori. I visited his lab and saw the equipment and the used Au cathodes. He was a superb electrochemist. I could not tell the difference between used and unused cathodes. Used ones were not a bit tarnished, which is very surprising. I cannot judge whether these results are real or not. But, as a working assumption -- or for the sake of argument -- I assume they are.

  • I would like to see Seven_of_twenty demonstrate how to peg two battery operated digital radiation meters. That would be the most astounding trick in the history of stage magic.

    Before anyone says, "you could do this by briefly exposing a source of radiation" let me point out that at the distances involved, and the radiation levels of the meters, you would kill everyone in the room in the time it takes to expose it manually. Plus you would have to rob a nuclear reactor to get a source that powerful.

  • Quote

    I do not know of any major technical reasons to doubt their conclusions:

    Of course there are. Lewan is the poster child for these and the Swedes are not far behind. Most of the tests were actually done by Rossi. He or Levi were directly involved in all. Where is Levi these days by the way, and why is he not a billionaire? None of the early tests were properly blanked and calibrated. Rossi steadfastly refused on idiotic pretexts to do so. Is that technical enough for you? Tests of power output of a purported free energy device, conducted without an appropriate blank and without calibration can read whatever the inventor wants them to and usually do. Consider Steorn, Dennis Lee, Howard Johnson, Carl Tilley, Papp, etc. etc.


    Engaging you in such discussions is simply a waste of time. You wouldn't know an obvious scam like Rossi's if it landed on your head and announced itself.

  • Quote

    I would like to see Seven_of_twenty demonstrate how to peg two battery operated digital radiation meters. That would be the most astounding trick in the history of stage magic.

    If you're talking about Celani's report at a 2011 Rossi demo, it was anecdotal and just as worthless and useless as Mizuno's water bucket anecdote. It was never reproduced, far as I know, and nobody but Celani reported it, and I don't recall it was two meters. I sort of remember it was one. Celani also wanted to run a spectrum analyzer of some sort (again from memory) but Rossi told him no. If you want to dig out Celani's report have at it. Maybe it was Bianchini (sp?) rather than Celani but I think it is Celani you are referring to.


    ETA: OK, thanks to Krivit's carefully indexed records of the whole Rossi debacle, this was easy to find:


    Quote

    I brought my own gamma detector, a battery-operated 1.25″ NaI(Tl) with an energy range=25keV-2000keV. I measured some increase of counts near the reactor (about 50-100%) during operation, in an erratic (unstable) way, with respect to background.

    I decided to change the gamma detector from “counts” to “spectra” mode. After a few minutes, Rossi realized that I was trying to identify something secret inside the reactor. I was forced to stop the measurements.


    http://news.newenergytimes.net…enr-device-celani-report/


    That is the only report of any radiation connected to Rossi's demonstrations that I know of and it is the one I remembered (badly). If you, JedRothwell , were thinking of a different one, I know nothing about it. If you are thinking about the Celani test above, your memory of it is wildly incorrect. No meters were pegged and there were not two meters. Well hell, just read it.


    This, BTW, is hilarious inasmuch as it is you who accuse me of not reading!

    (edited once more, only for typos)

  • Thanks gdaigle for your interest and also for 176 persons who uploaded this file.

    During poster's session so few people saw this poster because first the room was very long and I was put in the back...why ?

    We must also understand now that Rossi is really blacklisted from all discussions.

    So few people i have had but distinguished visitors as Celani or Takahashi who came to ask many questions.

    I also saw Dewey's reappearance just before poster's session who came back to check.

    ICCF remains a particular interesting carousel that must be seen to understand who is XXXXX with whom.





    Edited for profanity. Shane

  • Sorry to hear your poster was not as visited as you spected Cydonia . I think it was a good proposal, but seems few people remain interested in the unmentionable Italian. Anyway, if you had the interest from Celani and Takahashi, I'd count that as a great success.

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

  • Quote

    We must also understand now that Rossi is really blacklisted from all discussions.

    How is that accomplished? What do you mean? If I were there and wanted to talk about Rossi, would I be arrested by the thought police?


    BTW: any idea why after 9 years of promoting his alleged technology, Il Dottore Rossi has not seen fit to submit a presentation to ICCF's? Or perhaps a demo of one or more incarnations of his invention?


  • Collis was nice enough to let you attend this ICCF (at Alan's request) at the last moment. I am not sure, but that may be why you were put in the back. As to Rossi; you knew beforehand how the field has been trying (rightfully so) to distance themselves from him, yet still decided to base your poster on the older version "Hotcat/cat/mouse". Still though, it was allowed...which you should be thankful for, but apparently are not. Not surprisingly, few gave it much attention, and even more surprising to me is that you are outraged at what little interest it attracted. What did you expect?


    IMO, your anger is misdirected. If Rossi has what he has claimed, it was/is *his* responsibility to prove it. You need to blame him. He has had 10 years or more to do so, and he has failed...miserably. Even worse, he has defrauded, mislead, deceived, lied, to IH, and many others along the way. To this day, he runs a deceitful blog where he speaks to himself only for selfish reasons. It is his fault he is a pariah in the field, not anyone else's.


    The LENR community has moved on. IMO, those who want to hang on to a lost cause, will not play much of a role going forward.

  • Hi Cydonia ,


    Compliments for your approach. It takes a certain level of independence. It is clear that the collective hate, partially fuelled by a paid IH effort, has reached its highest watermark yet.


    I will be fascinating to see what happens when Rossi will announce a new presentation. Interesting times.


    Cheers,


    JB

  • you're going too far guys, there is no question of anger on my part. I just did a reporting of what I thought with my style.

    Again, no idea of revenge from my part, I don't care about Rossi.. again.

    However, I was probably the only one who did a great job of engineering to understand what he did.

    I'm not afraid of anyone and I don't need to be pleasant anyway, I don't care in fact.

    Regarding the conference, congratulations to Slobodan's work who referred to Kervran and the forgotten Ohsawa.

    It's 2 names that I already tried to add to the friendly Alan Goldwater's file but xxxxx doesn't go to daring and visionary.

    Bill Collis did a great organization, even hotel's mattresses are excellent, I hope this could have alleviated Bob Greenyer's back problems.

    To finish by remaining more respectable, it's funny to see alliances, improbable sometimes.


    I will do a more complete and respectable reporting a little later.

    Please stop talking about anger or revenge about me, I can seem to speak abruptly but it remains very factual actually.

  • A Russian came to see me this morning so that I spend time to explain to her, another team would like to replicate.

    However I had a good laugh yesterday to see how the IH gang turned away skillfully from this poster :).


    Cydonia

    Is there somewhere I can see your poster on line? I looked in the abstracts but perhaps not in the right place or the right key words.

  • "I do not know of any major technical reasons to doubt their conclusions:"


    Of course there are. Lewan is the poster child for these and the Swedes are not far behind


    Those are not technical reasons. A technical reason would be something specific about the instruments or techniques, not the people or their reputations.


    Your suspicions based on personality are valid, but they are not technical.


    This is not a complicated distinction. Unless you can point to a physics textbook to validate your critique, it is not technical. It may be valid, but we cannot debate it based on the laws of physics.



    Most of the tests were actually done by Rossi. He or Levi were directly involved in all.


    That is not what Levi wrote. He says he and his co-workers set up the experiment, with their own instruments, and there was a video camera pointed to the experiment the entire time which they used to confirm that Rossi never touched anything. That's what they said. If you believe Levi, and you assume that is correct, it means Rossi was not directly or indirectly involved.