Posts by Ascoli65

    I can't exclude those involved in this willfully not reporting errors they recognised: indeed my statement implicitly includes that as a possibility.


    So why do you keep saying that it was Rossi who misused instruments in order to deliberately spoof the profs? It didn't happen for the 1st academic report (Bologna) and there is no reason to think that it happened for the 2nd (Ferrara) or 3rd (Lugano) reports.

    For example, to take recent ones we know about:


    The December Ferrara tests were signed off by Levi and 5 other academics. They contained an error in how you measure input power with a 3 phase measurement instrument.
    The Lugano tests were signe doff - with detailed scrutiny - by Levi and 5 other academics. they contained an error in how temperature was estimated using IT thermography.


    These errors survived inspection by scientists.


    Really? Which kind of inspection these errors survived? Perhaps it was just for being sure that they were as hidden as possible. How can you exclude that?


    The tests you mentioned were reported in the 2nd and 3rd reports issued by Levi & Co. It's wrong to make reference to them. Even Rothwell has finally recognized that the 1st academic report was the one issued on January 2011, reporting the results of the Bologna demo, and has admitted that it was wrong (1). There is no reason to look at the subsequent Ferrara and Lugano reports unless their lead author admits and thoroughly justifies the errors contained in the Bologna report. Do you know? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice (or more), shame on me!


    Quote

    time: I'll give you that - I do not know a case when Rossi has spoofed time measurement. but never say never...


    Here it is (2). In the calorimetric report of the Bologna demo (3), it was reported that the max output power lasted for 40 minutes, more than twice the real duration of boiling. But this value was not spoofed by Rossi. There is no way in which the people who wrote, checked, approved and issued the calorimetric report could have been deceived by Rossi for the boiling duration. The video (4) and the photos (5) showing the computer screen - which would have allowed, even a student, to easily estimate the correct time lengths - were published on the internet within the day after the January 14, 2011 demo, much before the calorimetric report, which was issued more than a week later.


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (2) http://i.imgur.com/kaHK3GV.jpg

    (3) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

    (4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdXpSUDRlw

    (5) http://22passi.blogspot.com/20…naca-test-fusione_14.html

    Taking a snapshot of the system at around 35 minutes
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…rossi-20110114-test2-png/

    5633-rossi-20110114-test2-png


    The orange curve in your graph shows that the water has remained at boiling temperature for less than 20 minutes. The UniBo report (1) says "In [Test 2] the power measured was 12686 +/- 211 W for about 40 min", ie it reports a value which is twice the real duration of boiling conditions. You don't need anything else to conclude that that test was faked.


    In addition, the available images show that the fake probe which was inserted at the top of the Ecat, instead of the missing "HP474AC probe" mentioned in the report, was never removed during this 20 minutes period.


    Finally, within days from the demo, Levi's stated (2): "we spent two weeks of the water that flowing through the system to be certain of our calibration", then he added: "After this calibration period I have checked that the pump was not touched and when we brought it here for the experiment it was giving the same quantity of water during all the experiment." If true, it means that he had calibrated the pump for delivering a flow (17.6 L/h), which was almost 50% greater than its nominal maximum capacity (12 L/h). Do you really think it was a wise choice for a pump that should have cooled an alleged nuclear reactor? Is it a credible statement? No, of course.


    Nothing is credible in that demo and in that report. The same applies to all other reports issued by the same people.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

    (2) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf

    1a : Although the meter used was not qualified for steam, the fact that water was NOT overflowing indicates that steam quality was at least 80% (and probably 85%)


    In the January 14, 2011 demo, the most serious issue concerning the first flaw (1) is that the experimenters reported on the calorimetric paper that they had used an instrument that actually was not there!


    As for the absence of water overflow, how can you say so? I would make you notice that, contrary to the previous test held on December 2010, when the water hoses were transparent, the outflow water hose used in the January 2011 demo was a black opaque one (1a). Wonder why.


    Quote

    1b : Water flow : the diaphragm pump used has the same properties as the Prominent -- at very low head the actual output is much greater than the rated output. They measured the ACTUAL flow.


    The main issue, for this second flaw (2), is that the value of the maximum flow rate of the pump was not specified in the calorimetric report. This is absolutely not correct for a scientific document and it is highly suspicious.


    As already explained (2a), the testers were well aware that the water flow declared in the report (17.6 L/h) was higher than the maximum capacity of the pump (12 L/h).


    Quote

    (I'm not sure about the test duration ... )


    Just look at the jpeg (3) and the mentioned video (3a).


    (1) http://i.imgur.com/YC4W0Ax.jpg

    (1a) https://i.imgur.com/TTyZLdi.jpg

    (2) http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg

    (2a) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

    (3) http://i.imgur.com/kaHK3GV.jpg

    (3a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdXpSUDRlw

    I agree that the first Levi paper was mistaken. I think the second Levi paper might have merit, but the third one went back to being wrong.


    Hallelujah! Finally, after many years (1), you have listed the three Levi's reports in the correct order:

    1 - 2011 (LT Ecat, Bologna),

    2 - 2013 (HotCat, Ferrara) and

    3 - 2014 (HotCat, Lugano).


    Quote

    An author can be wrong the first time, and right the second time.


    Yes, it can happen and it's much more likely than the other way round, but in science it's not enough. On the contrary, it is expected that before or during the issuance of the second (hopefully) right paper, the authors recognize that the first paper was wrong and explain the reasons in a way so convincing as to dispel any doubts about a possible intentionality of the misrepresentations contained in the first report. In the absence of this recognition and explanation, no further report issued by the persons involved in a first wrong paper should have been taken into consideration.


    (1) Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    You can start another F&P thread if you wish, but unless you have made any new discoveries I doubt anyone would be interested. But off-topic foamgate posts in other threads (like this one) are headed for clearance. As are the ones above and this one. So don't do it any more.


    OK, thanks. I hope this time will be allowed to fade away by its own as any other thread.

    I don't remember exactly when, but I do remember having to retreat to my safe space. So it must have happened.


    You are misremembering, I never shamed you (singular and plural) for believing in LENR (or for any other reason).


    I checked all my comments on L-F. The word "shame" appears only in two comments of yours in which you accused me to shame some LENR researchers (not the believers) for their role in the Ecat affair. In any case, in my replies (1-2), I explained you that this was not my intention.


    The only time I invited someone to be ashamed, it was not for his believing in LENR (3).


    Anyway, Shane, consider that you are always at risk of an unlucky typo! :)


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

    You have repeatedly accused people of intellectual dishonesty. As I recall, you also accused some of us of actual dishonesty, and you repeatedly accused F&P of knowing they were wrong. Which is to say, you accused them of perpetrating a fraud. That is way, WAY over the line. It is one thing to say "they did not realize they were making a mistake." It is entirely different to say "they knew, and they did it to take money from Toyota."


    Please, cite references.

    Your permanently off-topic posts are a PITA. They have (as above) zero to do with Rossi's blog posts which are the subject of this thread.


    I started posting here yesterday (1) and all my comments were more or less explicitly related to the Ecat. It was Rossi, who said that he was "inspired by Pons and Fleischmann".


    Quote

    In future such deviations back towards your groundless obsession with foamgate will be moved into 'Clearance Items' whenever they appear in an inappropriate place.


    Are you saying that I'm allowed to cite F&P only into the "Clearance Items" thread? I was there when you directed me to start a new thread on my own to talk about F&P experiments (2). I did it (3) and in a few weeks you decided to close it down (4).


    Or are you meaning that it is forbidden to criticize the F&P results, unless using the same weak and/or wrong arguments used for years by other skeptics and that JR and oystla were/are able to easily refute?


    If it is still possible, here on L-F, to discuss about the F&P experiments, may I suggest to reopen the thread dedicated to this subject? I just saw that, after 2 weeks from its closure, it surfaced again among the top five "Hot Threads" (5), scoring almost hundred visits a day. It probably means that there are many members and guests who are much more interested in the arguments treated in "F&P experiments – 30 years after the CF announcement", rather than in the many other threads started in the meanwhile.


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (2) Clearance Items

    (3) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

    (4) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

    (5) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/

    We welcome skeptics for their constructive criticisms...emphasis on the word "constructive". They are not invited here to provoke and shame us for believing LENR exists, as Ascoli is increasingly resorting to doing.


    Where did I "shame" you for believing in LENR? My previous post to you was explicitly referring to specific contradictions present in a specific F&P document, as JR urged the skeptics to do (1). Which other way has a skeptic to contribute constructively to this forum? Should I rise only unsounded criticisms so that JR can easily refute them?


    Quote

    Show respect for our opinions, and we will do the same in return.


    I'm criticizing what I found wrong in the LENR literature, not your opinions and, contrary to some L-F members, I'm do it respectfully.


    (1) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

    Let me reiterate this has NOTHING TO DO with the technical aspects of Ascoli65's technical claims. Whether he is right or wrong about F&P is irrelevant to the point I make here.


    I am saying that he should not accuse people of intellectual dishonesty. That is what he does when he demands we "admit" we are wrong. That has to mean we secretly agree with him and we don't want to say so. That is off base. Ascoli65 should be censured for that. I wouldn't ban him, but if I were a moderator I would warn him to stop that because it is rude and it violates the norms of academic discussions.


    This is not the first time he has done this. Many of his other messages are similar violations of academic norms, and the norms of polite discussion. There is a world of difference between saying "you are wrong" and "you actually agree with me and you are lying about your own views." He has also accused people of dishonesty in various other ways, in other messages, without any evidence for dishonesty.


    I took the verb "admit" from the Shane D. quote I was referring to and the contradictions in the F&P paper on the 1992 boil-off experiment are evident, as I have largely explained in the closed threads. All the rest are your assumptions: I didn't use neither the word "lying", nor "dishonest".


    Let me reiterate this has NOTHING TO DO with the technical aspects of Ascoli65's technical claims. Whether he is right or wrong about F&P is irrelevant to the point I make here.


    I am saying that he should not accuse people of intellectual dishonesty. That is what he does when he demands we "admit" we are wrong. That has to mean we secretly agree with him and we don't want to say so. That is off base. Ascoli65 should be censured for that. I wouldn't ban him, but if I were a moderator I would warn him to stop that because it is rude and it violates the norms of academic discussions.


    This is not the first time he has done this. Many of his other messages are similar violations of academic norms, and the norms of polite discussion. There is a world of difference between saying "you are wrong" and "you actually agree with me and you are lying about your own views." He has also accused people of dishonesty in various other ways, in other messages, without any evidence for dishonesty.


    Evidently, the closing of my threads it's not enough for you.

    Stop right there. If you have not come up with an assessment of the Penon report, then you have no business commenting on Rossi. You have no right to any opinion. You should only say: "I have not evaluated Rossi's report so I don't know."


    I have read the report, and I have evaluated it. I say it is garbage. You have no business disagreeing with me.


    You are completely wrong. It was way clear that it was garbage after the Levi's first report on the January 14, 2011 (1) demo, where it was claimed - thanks to the misrepresentation of the steam dryness, the water flow and the test duration (2) - the production of 12 kW of excess heat coming from a tabletop device fed with 1 kW of input power.


    No need to read and evaluate any other Ecat paper issued after 2011.


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

    (2) http://www.physicsforums.com/s…hp?p=3219628&postcount=83

    Rossi inspired some legitimate research with his Ecat type systems, but unfortunately some others decided to copy his lying.


    In turn, Rossi was "inspired by Pons and Fleischmann", he said (1).


    Quote

    Good liars can go a long way. Get caught in one lie, just cover with another. Never admit the contradictions that pile up. Works remarkably well. I think we LENR believers are especially susceptible. Maybe that is a good reason we welcome critics here.


    So, why do you LENR believers not admit the contradictions in the F&P paper on their 1992 boil-off experiment, which have been revealed and demonstrated (2)?


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (2) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

    E.g From where does the info come, that Siemens is working (“silently”) on LENR?

    If I told you that I would have to kill you. Besides, this is a 'work in progress.'


    On the same tune:

    From FP's experiments discussion
    […]

    Many researchers at the big (and secret) weapons research facilities who have access to huge budgets and impeccable diagnostics are well aware of the reality of cold fusion. They don't talk about it because they cannot, however, they do attend conferences like the ones organised by ICCF, not to attack but (sometimes) to present papers - using the names of non-military public institutions they are 'attached'' to as cover - or to ask questions that might cast light on their own work. […]

    I do not think an * with the word "controversial" besides Rossi's name, will be enough to protect us from the negative PR of his being recognized as a "Who's Who of LENR". Yes, as Adrian and Ascoli say, he has brought much attention to the field, and I give him credit for that, but that is far outweighed IMO with what his questionable behavior has done to LENR's reputation.


    I didn't mention Rossi. I was referring to the Ecat. Its performances were measured, documented, verified, affirmed, recognized and supported by a couple dozens of legitimate academicians, including a Nobel laureate (1). This is the reason why people still believe in the Ecat (2,3).


    The Ecat initiative didn't bring only attention to the field. Actually it became almost a synonym of LENR, presented as its most promising implementation (4) and, finally, it also brought much more tangible benefits (5).


    Quote

    Honoring him alongside the likes of a McKubre, Mills, Miley, Duncan, Godes, Mills would be a disservice to those who have done legitimate scientific work, and have never been in trouble with the law in the many ways Rossi has. I just do not see any good coming from this. I say we compromise between the two camps, and keep Rossi's "accomplishments" quietly within our community, and give the public honors to those we *all* can proudly stand behind.


    In a "Who's who of LENR", as well as in any other document describing the history and/or the status of CF/LENR, the Ecat deserves as a minimum an entire dedicated section.


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (2) https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4645-rossi-blog-comment-discussion/?postID=89378#post8

    (3) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (4) http://lenrproof.com/slide_01.html

    (5) http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…woodford-taking-the-blow/

    Except for the fact that it does not actually work.


    As a possible FaS strategy (1), it worked beautifully.


    As I have said, the first Levi report might indicate he has a real result, but the evidence against that overwhelms that report, in my opinion.


    IMO, the actual first Levi report (2) might indicate that the demo held on January 14, 2001 was a real implementation of a FaS strategy.


    (1) Fake&Succeed strategy in R&D. What about CF?

    (2) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

    I am trying to recall - didn't Rossi try to say his method was not LENR or cold fusion?


    Did he even claim he was system was based on LENR?


    From Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion


    - 2:47:01 when you started working on this? in Manchester in 1996. this is also why it's LeonardoCorp1996, inspired by Pons and Fleischmann. The Ecat came in 2005-2006 however. In 1996 started working in LENR as a side project.


    The Ecat method is by far the best and most successful implementation of the CF/LENR strategy.

    The only question is: is that Ascoli65 from fusionfredda the same as the Ascoli65 on this forum?

    Yes or No ? Da or Nyet?


    Has that Ascoli65 been hijacked ?


    The only answer is that this shor lived thread has been hijacked by quanto-maniacs, who have not understood the topic under discussion, as well as the real nature of CF/LENR.

    ...

    You'd need to discuss in detail why the methods used there do not in your opinion work - no doubt you could publish any contribution to state of art.


    My best compliments THH. Your last posts on QxD have just provided a remarkable example of the reasons why mainstream science has not been able in 30 years to demonstrate the unsoundness of the CF claims.


    Skeptics like you are precious to believers.