Posts by Ascoli65

    As for Dr. Essen, no doubt he is capable and has done good work in the past. However, it can be said with fairness that he was too trusting of Rossi and did not ask the right questions of him.


    No, his trust was not based on Rossi.


    @ Forty-Two,


    So, was AEG one of the big winners in this affair?

    Anyone knows how much (if anything) did they pay Rossi initially for the US license?


    Here is an interview published on NyTeknik on May 6, 2011:



    They were already looking for investors:


    Quote

    Have you searched new funding?

    Cassarino: Absolutely, we are in current conversations with some very large companies here in the US and South America, some investment companies, because it’s not just a technology we’re creating in the industry here. There are a lot of pieces that really need to come together to build this matrix, lots of pieces of the puzzle that need to have some strategic thinking done, as how we transition into a new energy source. That’s what makes this very exciting. So you now there’s never enough money to make everything happen.


    They also engaged scientists with long experience in LENR:


    Quote

    When did anyone of you first see the E-cat?

    Cassarino: That was two and a half years ago, that would have been late 2008 or early 2009. Rossi invited Bob and one of our scientists that works for us at the National Labs to go to Bologna where he had his factory. Of course as you can imagine, when we started talking about this, there was lots of skepticism.

    You know, just because we’ve known Andrea for almost 15 years, we know what his capabilities are, and I knew he had been working on this, and one of the scientists that we had engaged had been working in this area, LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), for 20 years. So they were real believers, and viewing all of this and just describing the science of it, they believed he did have something.


    In the same period of the above interview (spring 2011), there were at least two long experienced LENR people who were actively looking for potential investors in the USA:


    Quote

    From http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Investigation-Index.shtml


    That is precisely the analysis of potential investor Brian Scanlan, who met Rossi and Darden at a meeting arranged by Michael Melich and Marianne Macy. (PDF) The husband-and-wife team of Melich and Macy was the first Rossi promoter in the LENR community. They strongly encouraged members of the LENR community to support Rossi and the E-Cat idea; Melich compared Rossi to inventor Nikola Tesla. Scanlan eventually saw through the smoke.


    Quote

    From http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…iECat/RossiTimeline.shtml :

    April 2011

    Brian Ahern introduces Ampenergo to philanthropist Robert King. Ampenergo, representing Rossi, offers to perform an E-Cat demonstration for King if he placed $1.5M in escrow and released it to Rossi after a successful demonstration. King agreed to the terms, but Rossi abruptly increased the ASK to $15M to avoid testing. Rossi escaped the testing. (Source: Ahern)

    Rossi IS a fraud. I am being generous to him and those still believing in him, when I say he may have some small and unreliable effect....similar to Piantelli. Even giving him that, he lied.


    Oh yes, very similar effect. I would say he have an effect identical to those of all other LENR researchers. It's impossible to make any distinction, as JR wrote (1): "You would have to make this: Rossi lies, and so do Focardi, Levi, E&K, everyone at Defkalion, and all of the others who have observed this cell and other Ni cells in operation."


    The only difference is that Rossi showed to LENR professionals how to raise the bluff level from the lab scale to the industrial one. Thanks to his PR skill, the cold fusion R&D got the largest single funding in its history.


    I really can't understand why everyone here is blaming Rossi. LENR believers should thank him for having provided the field with dozens of M$. LENR deniers should also thank Rossi for having highlighted how farcical it was a research that wasted hundreds of M$ of private and public money.


    (1) https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg48064.html

    Where on earth did you get that number?!? It could not have been more than $50 to $100 million from all sources.


    The $500 million have been estimated by Edmund Storms in "A Student’s Guide to Cold Fusion", April 2012, Table 1 at page 3 (1):

    "COLD FUSION … Has been studied for 23 years using about $0.5 B."


    Quote

    From where???? Where is this $70 million?


    The funds collected by IH for LENR research are reported in many places, as, for instance, by D.Weaver, June 6, 2016 (2):

    "… where would LENR research be today without the ongoing IH investment to date of $70M into the field?"

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

    (2) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…t/?postID=23211#post23211


    @ Shane D.,


    Looks to me like Rossi may have piggybacked on Hagelstein's TE with his own "better" TE version. Then through the link, latched onto LENR and came up again with what everyone wanted...a better, high powered LENR reactor, the Ecat. He is quite the opportunist.


    Let me understand, Shane.


    This photo has been taken in August 2008 in Washington DC, when Rossi's involvement in the field was still unknown to the public.

    iccf14.gif


    It shows about two hundred people, a good representation of the LENR scientific community. On the web, you can find dozens of similar photos taken in some of the best resorts throughout three continents, along a period of 30 years. Many of these photos show the LENR scientists at restaurant tables, where they probably were talking about how they would save the Planet. In the first 2 decades, their activity did cost not less than 500 million dollars, mainly provided by public agencies, notwithstanding the LENR rejection by the mainstream science.


    In the last decade, some of them have actively supported the reality of the Ecat performances, many others have publicly recognized the plausibility of those claims, and for a long time none of them has raised any major doubts about such incredible results. Thanks to this support (and silence) another 70 million dollars have been made available to the LENR community.


    Could you explain why Rossi is *the* opportunist?

    @ Shane D.,

    Other things of interest on there are at :35, 38:44 (remind you of IH?).


    Good catch, Shane. Yes, in some respects, ENECO reminds of IH.


    On the web, you can find other things of interest:


    - some backgrounds on the company history (there is also a *Catalyst* Investment Group): http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-court-of-appeals/1582652.html


    - an important asset was the thermal diode invented by Hagelstein: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6396191.html


    - an early contact point with Rossi dated back to 2001, as the thermal diode and another ENECO patent were cited in the patent application of TEG: http://www.google.com/patents/US6620994


    - a public award for the thermal diode (look at the address of the contracting office): http://fbodaily.com/cbd/archiv…9/27-Sep-2000/aawd003.htm


    - the thermal diode was the main asset in 2006: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…nies/ENECO/AboutENECO.pdf


    - a company "configured originally as something like a “cold fusion hedge” or as Fred Jaeger preferred a “mutual fund” into which selected cold fusion researchers placed their IP in exchange for shares — the idea being that if any one of their “mutually funded” technologies “won big,” all would share": http://www.iccf19.com/history3.html


    - a strange interpretation of the Ecat saga, which mentions ENECO and the F&P patents: https://ecatsite.wordpress.com…survive-the-greek-crisis/


    - how the company history ended (just when the Ecat's one began): http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…30-jgk39gh12f.shtml#eneco


    All these things raise a question: Does (or did) IH de facto act as another "cold fusion mutual fund"? https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…t/?postID=23211#post23211

    @ Roseland67,


    I prefer to refer to the fact that in 7 years Rossi has never ever once produced anything that anyone anywhere has ever properly tested.

    Ever, ever, never once!

    Doesn’t that set off warning alarm bells in your head?


    It is not necessary to wait years to realize that the Ecat tests have not been performed correctly. Actually, the first alarm bell rang in my mind almost immediately after the January 2011 demo (1). In a couple of months, the alarm bells became an orchestra (2).


    It took a little longer to realize that all those flaws were not involuntary mistakes, but deliberate deceptions aimed at convincing the public that the CF/LENR are real.


    What I said in my previous post is that this incredible farce was successful: many people, some main stream media, several political representatives became convinced that LENR was real and could have provided useful energy at industrial level in a few years. Eventually, thanks to the Ecat initiative, dozens of million dollars have been collected and these funds are still at disposal of the LENR community.


    The other thing I said is that, contrary to what every unbeliever (of the first or last hour) keeps saying here, nobody has been fooled by Rossi, because nobody ever believed directly in Rossi.


    For example, JR said many times that he was highly suspicious of Rossi, but he incessantly invited the people to believe in the reality of the Ecat results claimed by many LENR experts and physics professors, because this people could not have been fooled by a method so simple as the water flow calorimetry. Therefore, the entire Ecat initiative has been driven by chains of misplaced trusts, but none of them was based on Rossi credibility.


    (1) http://www.energeticambiente.i…ala-11.html#post119167978 

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

    Yes, these tests:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf


    Fairly convincing.


    We have been over this before, but briefly . . .


    You keep continue to refer to the report issued on 2013 describing the Ferrara tests on the HotCat.


    Yes, we have already been many times over this report (see for instance: Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions ), always briefly, because I've nothing to say about it, apart from reminding that 2 years earlier, on January 2011, its lead author had also signed the very first report on the Ecat performances: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf .


    Quote

    So why didn't they do that at Lugano?!?


    In light of what happened in 2011, this question has a trivial answer:

    the Ecat tests had to be "fairly convincing", as they actually and successfully have been.

    My confidence in Levi's abilities fell after the Lugano test. The mistakes he and others made there were disappointing, and inexplicable. Inexplicable, because they did a reasonably good job on the earlier tests.


    A good job in what? In setting up some *convincing* tests?


    To convince ordinary people, the Lugano and Ferrara tests were much more effective than the earlier ones. At least, in order to be debunked by those who were unaware of previous tests, they required some special skills in emissivity, thermography, and so on. But, come on, water flow "calorimetry is so simple", that it is impossible that smart guys who have worked for years, or even decades, in the LENR field, as well as professors who teach physics at University may have been fooled in this way.


    Nobody has been fooled by Rossi regarding the Ecat performances.

    Rossi also fooled Nobel winner Dr. Brian Josephson (hook, line and sinker) and no less than McKubre

    No, they have not been fooled by Rossi.


    Josephson justified his faith after the support that his academic colleagues gave to the Ecat results:


    Quote

    https://www.physicsforums.com/…84427/page-2#post-3212649

    ...

    1. on the basis of the 2nd investigation by the U. of Bologna, where 15kW was generated continuously over a period of 18 hours, I have little doubt that the Rossi reactor is real and that over the next few months everyone will have to accept this.

    ...

    Quote

    https://www.physicsforums.com/…84427/page-2#post-3213610  

    ...

    But how many of these have been checked out by university depts. as Rossi's has (and he is willing to allow further investigations)?

    ...


    As for McKubre, he said he trusted a couple of his friends:


    Quote

    From his presentation "What Happened to Cold Fusion", on Oct. 11, 2011 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3N3dWlIPUQ&t=6m )


    … people that I know and trust have stood in front of Rossi's reactor and come away convinced that it really is doing more or less what Rossi claims. This includes my ex program manager at DARPA, very, very intelligent man, a good friend of mine. This test here AmpEnerco Run 1 and Run 2 conducted on September 25, 2009, in New Hampshire was witnessed by a good friend of mine, also a very smart guy. …


    Not the only intelligent and smart guys in this story, I'd say.

    @ seven_of_twenty,


    Oh yeah. Krivit was so wrong about Rossi and Rothwell was so right. Oh, wait.


    Sure. Krivit has proven to have been right for almost every aspect of the history of Ecat. One of the most significant interpretations of the story is summarized in the cover that he put at the beginning of his report n. 3, published in July 2011: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/NET370.shtml


    NET37Cover.jpg

    The cast is not complete at all, but still gives the idea of what collective effort was the Ecat initiative: the 10 years long final chapter (in a world farce lasted 30 years) in which Rossi has only interpreted the role of front man.

    @ Louis Reed,


    ... but then you [JR] had no doubt about Rossi either.


    Oh, no! I wonder why everyone here considers the Ecat story as the initiative a single man. There were many people involved in it, and each played his specific role. JR did express a lot of doubts on Rossi, but he promoted the absolute reliability of the Ecat performances on the base of the calorimetric results proclaimed by the UniBo professors:



    ... and also on the basis of other results of previous independent tests carried out in the United States with the participation of various experts:


    @ Louis Reed,


    I am talking about the first month after the press conference. There were some physicists who were highly skeptical from the start, but they kept their peace initially. The initial reaction in the press and in mainstream science was almost entirely positive.


    Yes, exactly, and the interest of mainstream science has gone beyond the first month, as indicated some years later by a protagonist of the first hour of the CF field:

    Quote

    From: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MelichMEbacktothef.pdf (ICCF4, 1993):


    "Starting with the University of Utah press conference on 23 March 1989 through the end of 1989, scientists and their sponsoring governmental and private employers struggled to decide the validity of the claims. By November 1989 the overwhelming official and popular judgement in most of the world was that there was no validity to the FP claims."


    This is why the CF initiative has changed its strategy, giving priority to the patent criteria rather than those of science:


    Quote

    Again from: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MelichMEbacktothef.pdf (ICCF4, 1993):


    "There are two sets of criteria that have been in play from the beginning -the scientific criteria and those associated with patents. It was commonly assumed, particularly since the FPE was presented in a public press conference, that the most important criteria were those of science, yet a careful examination of what was made available in 1989 suggests that patent criteria were primary."


    The Ecat initiative seems to have been the last, boldest and even most successful (from popularity and financial aspects) implementation of this same strategy.

    Rossi however serves the useful purpose to show that most of the cold fusion community is not qualified to tell the difference between good evidence and bad evidence.


    IMO, most of the CF community is smart enough to know what evidences are required to demonstrate a production of kWs of excess heat from a tabletop device.

    @ seven_of_twenty,


    Are you suggesting that a scam which wasted more than $10M on a liar is good PR?


    I didn't say "good". I meant, the PR activity was incredibly successful considering the lack of any real basis of the product, and very effective for the LENR field. Over 80% of the many dozens of millions raised thanks the Ecat are available for other LENR experiments and for R&D in the field. Without the Ecat initiative, the LENR community would have got 100% of zero.

    @ THHuxleynew,


    It is your judgement that all that money has been wasted. Even though I don't think there is evidence for LENR, it is less clear to me that LENR money is wasted, except in retrospect.


    IMO all the money spent after the negative verdict on CF published by Nature in March 1990, ie over 90% of the total, were not scientifically justified. And now, in a very late retrospect, what is your opinion?


    Quote

    However, giving money to an operator like Rossi is clearly non-optimal (that is putting it mildly!) and so I'll answer for that money. AFAIK, this time round, none of it was public money? I know Rossi has obtained money from DoD previously for no useful deliverable (the TEG affair) but not I believe for e-cats.


    Rossi only got a small portion of the private money raised thanks to the Ecat initiative. Considering all the costs, the net amount he withheld could be considered a fair reward for a PR activity lasting more than 10 years.


    The Ecat initiative also drained public money. The many professors who have been involved in the US, Italy and Sweden in this activity have spent part of their time, along with part of the prestige of their institutions. Their prestigious support has provoked many pro-LENR parliamentary initiatives in Italy and in the United States, which in turn has provided a justification for continuing other public research on LENR in Italy and in other countries. All at a public cost.


    Quote

    Should the honest and optimistic initial supporters of Rossi be held to blame because they were wrong? I think that is tough. Rossi, from Macy's blog post http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html, was personally charismatic and very convincing to anyone except somone who like Feynman could think on their feet scientifically. There are few such people. The tests were staged and some convincing (e.g. Jed who for a long time could not see - and told Mats this - how the Samovar HAD results could have been obtained). Such convincing tests, when you see the trick, are easily explainable, but it is always so with good performers.


    Feynman? Come on, we're talking about water flow calorimetry, not rocket science!


    All physicists could have immediately understood what happened in the first demo held in Bologna on January 14, 2011. The next day, Ahern wrote on the Krivit's blog (1): "Converting water to wet steam versus dry steam can account for a factor of ten in the input:output ratios." With reference to this criticism, JR replied (2): "I am confident that you cannot fake boiling water, and there is no way a power supply can draw 10 kW, so Rossi's credibility is irrelevant." Shortly thereafter, he was more specific (3): "This tells us that various professors at the university have been involved for some time, and they designed and implemented the calorimetry. I do not think there is any way Rossi could "fool" these people. I think that would be physically impossible."


    Well, they were both right!


    Quote

    those who supported Rossi were in a position where they honestly believed commercial LENR was a distinct and highly desirable possibility.


    Everyone believes that a clean, cheap, safe and abundant source of energy is highly desirable, but academics are well paid to apply their high expertise to correctly discern the real possibilities from impossible dreams.


    Quote

    Rossi, even if himself a crook, had inherited possibly valuable expertise from Focardi. They would naturally be enthusiastic even though also unsure.


    This is a fairy tale. Rossi met Focardi in summer 2007 (I do not know the exact date). On October 16, 2007, they claimed to have successfully performed a test on a device capable of heating a factory for the following winter. Guess what precious experience could have been inherited in a couple of months!


    Quote

    Personally I view the behaviour of the Lugano testers as most unhelpful. In many ways we now know that the report they wrote was unprofessional and misleading, as well as being scientifically plain wrong. I forgive the scientific mistake - though not the fact that it has never been acknowledged. There remains the various ways in which the report was misleading: specifically the appearance given that these tests were independent of Rossi when in fact Rossi or his employee were present running the test the whole time, and the Profs made flying visits. That is my understanding from the info to emerge from the Court case: and it surprised even me.


    If you had better studied the January 2011 demo, you would have ignored the Lugano report after reading the name of the lead author, without waiting for the Court's case.


    Quote

    Otherwise the initial support of Levi and (some others?) at UoB was obviously unhelpful but I'm more inclined to blame this on cock-up or (lack of) competence rather than conspiracy. Of course, I do not know, and from the public information no-one can be sure that, for example, Levi has not conspired with Rossi to distort test results in addition to being clearly incompetent and biased in his interpretation of them.


    It seems to me that you don't want to know. Forget the conspiracy, and focus on the facts. The January 2011 demo is the best documented Ecat test and alone reveals the role of many protagonists of the Ecat saga. I already invited you to better look at it (4-7), I can only renew my invitation.


    Quote

    For the latter strong statement I refer you to what we know of the thermography science, and Mats's reporting of Levi's continued justification of the report conclusions a year after it was out.


    If you talk about thermography, you're keeping to look at the wrong tests.


    Quote

    Sould Rossi be blamed? Absolutely. His behaviour has been clearly untransparent (different from all other LENR researchers) in a manner that, combined with his charisma, could take advantage of people's hopes. The analogy with a fake medium taking advantage of a person's grief because of a loved one who has died is exact in more than one way!


    The trend of people's hopes on LENR is well represented by the curve provided by Google Trends (8). It grew in 2011, from the January demo to the recession of UniBo from the contract with Rossi. It shows that people believed in the competence of professors, not in Rossi's charisma. He acted only as a skilled PR-man able to publicize some incredible experimental results measured, calculated, and verified by the professors.


    (1) http://aenforum.org/index.php?showtopic=1982

    (2) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…0eskimo.com/msg41322.html

    (3) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…0eskimo.com/msg41324.html

    (4) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=32603#post32603

    (5) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

    (6) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

    (7) How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?
    (8) https://trends.google.it/trend…ore?date=all&q=%22lenr%22

    @ THHuxleynew,


    The mistake made by ascoli, and others here, for example when evaluating japanese work, is to think that low levels of industrial or governmental interest in LENR mean success.


    Let's leave the Japanese aside, please, we are talking about the Ecat affair, and I speak for myself, not for the others here.


    I previously wrote that the Ecat initiative could be considered a success from a propagandistic and financial point of view. The quote of mine, you cited, speculates that this success has been obtained with some support coming from inside the DoD. Your subsequent 3 interesting points seem to confirm the possibility of this support, while providing some justifications for this. Did I get it right?


    If so, who should be considered the most responsible for all public and private money wasted in the CF/LENR research: the public scientists who pushed through funding for their whacky ideas producing "a collection of measurement artifacts (excess heat) and misinterpretations (transmutation)", or the scientifically incompetent decision-makers who allocated the CF/LENR budgets, or an outsider like Rossi?

    @ interested observer,


    The most specious part of Ascoli’s years of pleading his case is the notion that one maverick Navy employee being associated with Rossi implies that “a U.S. Deparment” is involved.


    As I said many times, I just stick on what Krivit wrote in March 2010 on his first mail to Vortex (1): "And can someone please explain why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly representing the entire "DoD", is involved with this?"


    Krivit's question implies that, after having read that "Prof. Michael Melich (DOD – USA)" is in the "Board of Advisers" of that "bogus Web site that is masquerading as some sort of Journal", anyone gets the impression that he is there for "representing the entire "DoD"". Since then, his question still awaits an answer.


    Quote

    I understand that Ascoli is not an American and may have rather strange ideas of how things work in this country.


    Krivit is an American and knows how things work in both the US and LENR field


    Quote

    However, the fact is that the tens of thousands of people working at various government labs come in all stripes and predilections and there are plenty of flakes and crackpots pursuing all manner of things. None of it implies any sort of governmental approval or acceptance.


    This is reasonable explanation for most of these flaky initiatives, but not for CF/LENR. Over the years this field has attracted the attention of many MSMs, and several hundreds millions of public and private funding. In 2009, it was the subject of a DIA investigation, whose report was the basis in 2016 for a request from the US House of Representatives to the US Secretary of Defense. How many other flaky initiatives got the same attention at these levels?


    Quote

    It is, as they say, a free country.


    Sorry, I don't understand. Are you implying that people working at government labs are free to support global initiatives aimed at fooling people and deceiving investors?


    Quote

    But accepting that obvious truth is beyond Ascoli’s reach because, as Anne Elk would say, he has a theory which is his and belongs to him.


    Which theory are you talking about? Can you post a link to such a theory of mine? Something similar, for example, to what AlainCo wrote in 2014 (2)?


    (1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg38052.html

    (2) http://www.lenrnews.eu/dod-dar…ing-to-save-usa-industry/

    @ Shane D.,


    Before, you were saying that Rossi told the truth to Passerini and Celani about his working with Ahern.


    I never said it. Please check my posts.


    Quote

    I see it as an impossible task to guess what is the lie, and what is the truth,


    Really difficult indeed. Sometimes the most significant part is the one omitted.


    In his 2011 comment (1), Passerini said that cooperation with Ahern took place in contexts where nothing can be boasted. In the first part of his comment, Passerini spoke about TEG and DoD. Maybe Rossi got in touch with DoD people working in the LENR field while he was testing his TEG devices for the DoE/DoD. Rossi read the comment on 22passi, but he has not denied having worked in those contexts. So a possible explanation of his answer is that he actually worked in those contexts before coming to Italy in 2007, but he doesn't remember if Ahern was among the many people he met there.


    Quote

    we have Ahern on the record saying he never worked with Rossi, …


    Which record? I lost it.


    Quote

    and we know we can trust his word.


    Why? He has the right to keep his secrets.


    Quote

    Leaving me to conclude there is nothing to your conspiracy theory.


    Of course, since there is no such theory at all.


    (1) https://22passi.blogspot.it/20…ge=6#c2331040848267627155

    @ can,


    Do lay out your so-called puzzle pieces of this story into a well-structured document summarizing and referencing clearly why in your opinion there is no working E-Cat and why at the same time the E-Cat is not a Rossi's scam, filling the gaps left by other skeptics in documenting what happened so far.


    No well-structured document is needed to briefly summarize and justify these 2 opinions:


    1 - I'm convinced that there is no working Ecat because: a – CF/LENR phenomena have been denied by mainstream science since 1989 (see wikipedia), b – the theoretical probability of a Ni-H nuclear reaction was deemed impossible by Focardi, who said that the evidences of large energy production were only experimental (see Rossi-Focardi paper), c – the large energy productions claimed in all the Ecat tests in 2011 can be trivially explained (agree?).


    2- IMO the Ecat affair is not a Rossi's scam mainly because I find it impossible that the JoNP, the main propaganda tool widely used to perpetrate an alleged personal world scam for 7+ years (to date), could have seen the involvement of a US department for so long (see the issues raised by Krivit in his 2 mails to Vortex immediately after the appearance of the JoNP on the web).


    Quote

    ... the multitude of comments you've left on blogs and forums alike over the years.


    Let me quantify this multitude. I posted less than 280 comments on L-F, one third of yours, less than one tenth of many other contributors. Almost all are replies to comments addressed to me, very few were new interventions. For instance, in these last weeks, I posted almost 70 messages, all but one are answers to various replies or objections to my previous comments. My first and only new intervention was a short comment posted on March 18, just to suggest a couple of links to oldguy, and it was my second comment in 6 months.


    Over the years, I usually posted on one forum at a time. As for the English sites, I was posting on ecatnews, when it closed, and I migrated on animpossibleinvention. But this blog has been also shut off, so I came here on L-F. For a while, I also posted on coldfusioncommunity, when I was banned from L-F.


    Quote

    What is honestly disappointing is that despite the efforts you've clearly put towards collecting all the information so far, your efforts in linking it together don't appear to be too well thought-out, and they are likely misguided by a series of incorrect personal assumptions.


    I have already told you that it is impossible to link together all the valid information collected so far, as it is impossible to form a continuous skeleton across a puzzle with only a fraction of the pieces. It's only possible forming local clusters of apparently coherent pieces, but their position, and often even their orientation, remains undefined.


    Quote

    Such assumptions define the narrative you're trying to expose:


    Apart that a graduate in philosophy can't fool a physics professor on water flow calorimetry, what other assumptions of mine are you referring to?


    Quote

    Ascoli65's narrative.


    Until now, only two narratives of the Ecat story have been exposed: JR1 (professors + Edison + Wrights = genius) and JR2 (Doral + Penon + mezzanine = fraudster). But, as reported by well informed people, I think that the main protagonist acted as a PR-man, but I have no specific narrative on this story.


    Quote

    That might still end up being an interesting read, but you can't expect people to wade through hundreds of scattered comments to truly understand it.


    Sorry, that reading doesn't exist. I understand the difficulty of gathering all the scattered information. The best I can suggest is to look at the coldfusioncommunity page where I had a close confrontation with Abd UlRahman Lomax (1), where almost all the topics I dealt with were discussed. Unfortunately the sequence of the comments is not linear (the first comments of mine were posted by Cimpy, because I was not able to post directly), but in only one page you can find the links to a large part of the original documents (the pieces of the puzzle) that I kept on my table.


    (1) http://coldfusioncommunity.net/low-down-on-lie-bull/

    @ Shane D.,


    How you can deduce from that, what you did is beyond me. He clearly says, the only Ahern he has ever worked with was a manager at Home Depot. Probably lied about that also. Really weakens your case IMO.


    Rossi knew very well who Brian Ahern was. In his Ecat timeline (1), Krivit reports that Ahern acted as the liaison between Rossi and a possible investor, just in April 2011. Rossi had all the possibilities to remember if he had ever worked in the past with that famous LENR researcher. Therefore the wording he used to deny ("I do not remember to have worked with my very good colleague Brian Ahern.") is too weak, because it doesn't rule out that he did it, as confirmed by the subsequent "it is not impossible".


    If he wanted to be more resolute, he would have used the same wording of a few weeks later: "I never met him, I never spoke with him, I never worked with him, directly or indirectly."


    Quote

    And no to your: "In any case, if someone here on L-F is contact with Celani, he can ask directly if he wants to provide some clarification on this point.". Celani is a respected member here, and he has probably already read your posts, and answered you with his silence.


    A confirmation silence, I suppose.

    (1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…iECat/RossiTimeline.shtml

    @ can,


    After actually investing some time reading old documents, Ascoli65's scenario now appears to me even less likely than it previously was. I urge him once again to put together a well-structured and well-sourced coherent document about his hypothesis, as I suspect it has been built on loose foundations. The process of writing such document might also help him seeing where the holes are.


    So disappointing.


    I'm so sorry, but you will remain disappointed, simply because such a scenario doesn't exist.


    I'll already told you why, but I'll try again with other words.


    It does exist only one "true scenario". Moreover, there are endless "conceivable scenarios", that is, all those you can imagine with your fantasy. From this large set, each of us cuts out his subset of "plausible scenarios" within which we deem that the "true scenario" resides. Each personal subset of "plausible scenarios" are delimited by a personal set of plausibility criteria. I already told you what my criteria are: 1 – there is no working Ecat, 2 – the Ecat initiative is not a Rossi's scam. These two criteria define an area of plausibility that still contains an infinite subset of scenarios, within which I think there is the true one. So you will never find any Ascoli65's scenario, because this single scenario doesn't exist.

    @ can,


    Reading earlydocumentation from Krivit'stimeline of Rossi events for the 2009-2011 period, it's clear that nobodyhas ever had the opportunity to conclusivelytest an E-Cat and especially test one without Rossi around. Some tests havebeen performed in front of government officials (documented examples exist forthe latter, like thisone from Tony Tether, former head of DARPA, referring to tests made with the NRL), but this is far from sayingthat Rossi worked for this or thatdepartment of the US government or worked withthis or that person.


    Krivit's chronology is very useful, but it has a lot of big holes, especially before 2009. It probably has not been updated for a long time. For example, it does not contain all the information revealed by Macy in April 2016 (1).


    By her words we know that:


    Quote

    From: http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html

    […] The rules of the United States Government, which in 2009 Michael Melich had been an employee of since 1976,

    […]

    Michael Melich and I probably spent more time with Andrea Rossi than most people in the LENR field, certainly in the U.S. He stayed at our home. We traveled with him. We got to know his inner circle, wife, even his mother-in-law (adorable.) We were with him in Rome, Washington, Greece, New York, and many other places. If Andrea Rossi had a working LENR technology, a lot of people were trying to help him get it out there.

    […]


    From the sequence of the above sentences, it seems that these travels would have helped Rossi to have a working technology. In that case they were business travels, at least in part. I wonder who paid for them.


    As for the test witnessed by the former head of DARPA, I find it surreal that he wrote on Rossi's device "that it definitely was working", and at the same time a DOD employee was in the board of a Journal aimed to promote and sell the Rossi patent in all the world. Especially for anyone who was aware that:


    Quote

    From: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…9/2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf

    […]

    If nuclear reactions in LENR experiments are real and controllable, DIA assesses that whoever produces the first commercialized LENR power source could revolutionize energy production and storage for the future. […] And since the U.S. military is the largest user of liquid fuel for transportation, LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power.


    Unless the statement "If it is a hoax, it is a damn good one" has to be interpreted literally.


    Finally, as regards the lack of tests without Rossi around, I remind you that JR has said many times that there have been a test carried out in the United States while Rossi was in Europe (1).

    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    @ can,


    This being said,Rossi claimedto have lived in Boston for a period, to have friends at MIT (which close to Boston, butMIT is a pretty large institution), and once referred to Brian Ahern as being locatedin Boston. Reportedly he also got the idea for his company LeonardoCorporation whenhe arrived at the airport in Boston years ago. It seems he owes much tothis city, inhis own words.


    On the other hand,if his company ended up being located in New Hampshire, Milan-Boston flightswould probably be the quickest way to reach there from Italy.


    Does this mean heworked together with Brian Ahern in thesame laboratory? It's plausible that they had common friends and that onoccasions E-Cats have been tested in a few locations in Massachusetts and NewHampshire. But working side to side with him? I don't think so.


    As you wish. Anyway thanks for the interesting links.


    I also propose you other links. The first revelation about this rumor came from Passerini in August 2011:


    Quote

    From: https://22passi.blogspot.com.e…-cimby.html?commentPage=6


    @tutti

    Colgo l'occasione per rivelare a tutti che prima di tornare in Italia nel 2007 e contattare Focardi, Rossi ha lavorato insieme a Brian Ahern in contesti in cui non si può millantare un bel niente: contano solo i fatti. Non posso rivelare la mia fonte, ma vi assicuro che è più che attendibile. Unite i pezzi e avrete la visione d'insieme.

    29 agosto 2011 19:05


    You are able to make good translations from Italian (1), maybe you can do the same on this occasion.


    Two days later, after being informed of this revelation, Rossi wrote:



    So, he didn't ruled out having worked with Ahern, he simply didn't remember. But he remembered to have met an homonym 14 years before. Quite strange, considering that he already had presented Ahern as his first competitor:



    So, I find that this rumor is plausible. In any case, if someone here on L-F is contact with Celani, he can ask directly if he wants to provide some clarification on this point.


    (1) Francesco Celani: LENR: esiti sperimentali e ricerche teoriche.

    @ can,

    Don't you have a working document with the known pieces, with direct references and/or quotes? I'm assuming you already have something similar for personal reference, otherwise you wouldn't be able to retrieve what you and others have written in the past as quickly as you've often shown. What about making a public version of that in the form of a informally published paper (or Google document, etc)?

    As long as all the information is scattered around, you're only adding confusion to this matter.


    Good questions. I'll try to reduce the confusion.


    Since March 2010 (first JoNP article) tons of documents (articles, reports, patents, pictures, videos, comments, etc.) have appeared on the web. Think, for example, at the ca. 400 documents (plus exhibits) of the Rossi-vs-Darden dispute. You need dozens of large working documents to track only a small part of them. To do this, the first step is to correctly select this small portion to take into account. It's not an easy task, because since the beginning the amount of false info has largely overwhelmed the valid ones. A preliminary step is to classify the reliability of the many sources.


    My personal starting point was that the public demo of January 2011 appeared from the beginning like a magic show, where the attention of the public is diverted from the real tricks, concentrating the suspicions on some possible wrong explanation of the magic. In the case of the Bologna demo this diversion was the combustion of hydrogen as a possible fake source of excess heat. Leaving aside the dangerousness of this expedient, any reasonable physicist understand that it's impossible to burn hydrogen inside that device. But incredibly such a silly hypothesis was suggested to the public by the Press Release of the Department of Physics which announced the demo:


    Quote

    From: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…1-Levi-PressRelease.shtml :


    Besides the energy produced, the consumption of hydrogen will also be measured, in order to exclude all chemical combustion processes;


    Once you realize that the first public demo was likely a blatant farce, you change the way you look at the whole story. Your attention moves from the central scene to the surrounding details, and when the characters on the board invite you to look to the left, you scan carefully the right side.


    This is the way I have selected my pieces. It saved me a lot of time by not examining all the tests carried out after 2011, ie those relating to the HotCat (Ferrara, and Lugano), the Doral test, and the latest demo held in Stockholm. It also spared me a lot of effort for imagining how the testers could have been fooled.


    These pieces are already on the web, in a couple of forums, embedded in the original documents whose links are usually listed at the end of many of my comments. On L-F forums, these comments are currently 274. Unfortunately they are dispersed on many pages, but from my user page on L-F you can get the chronologic sequence of all the comments I posted.


    Well, not all of them: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/low-down-on-lie-bull/


    Quote

    EDIT: by the way, why would Ahern's supposed collaboration with Rossi be important to this story? (assuming this isn't incorrect information due to Celani believing at the time that the US DOE - which Ahern has been indirectly associated with - and the DOD are the same thing).

    Personally, I would find bizarre, to say the least, that a controversial outsider was allowed in a US government lab to collaborate on a potentially world-changing technology with a public researcher who had been studying that technology for a long time, and then he was allowed to go overseas, develop a greatly improved method of the same technology with a local university, and eventually patent this method on his behalf in that foreign country. Unless the US people who were aware of this story were also well sure that the method was nothing but a pretty convincing magic show.

    @ can,

    Maybe that people are trying to have a clear and honest discussion, and not playing puzzle games with you?

    [...]

    It's hard to believe that a smart person like you isn't able to expose his thesis more directly without wasting so many comments on the topic.


    I'm not asking you to play puzzle with me. My "clear and honest discussion" is devoted to collect as many pieces as possible, and check the compatibility of those already on the table. Anyone can assemble his puzzle by himself.


    Let me explain better how I see the situation. The Ecat history can be considered like a picture. There is only one real picture, it doesn't depend on us, but most of us want to know it. No authoritative entity will reveal the real picture, we can only imagine what it could be, putting together the pieces of information we have gathered, like in a jigsaw puzzle.


    The Ecat puzzle is much more harder than usual, because we have been given a lot of fake pieces in order to make us imagine the wrong picture. Moreover, most of the real pieces are still, and will remain, purposely hidden. Fortunately, among the given pieces there were also some real ones, which didn't fit well with the others, and they allow to get rid of many fake information.


    After this selection, the remaining valid pieces are much less of those needed to fill the entire frame. Let's say one tenth. So there is a lot of large voids inside the frame. The available pieces only allow to put together separate parts of the whole picture, but it's impossible to put these parts in the right position, with the exact orientation.


    This is the current situation. So the priority is to collect many more pieces. They can emerge from the huge documentation available on internet, or from some new revelation from the insiders. For example, during the last weeks, 3 pieces emerged by chance among the L-F posts.


    a) the retrieval from the web of the Celani revelations (1) about a hypothetical collaboration between Rossi and Ahern in 2007, before Rossi returned to Italy to meet Focardi;


    b) the revelation of JR (2) about his phone call with Scanlan on the same day of June 2011, when Scanlan met Rossi for a possible investment on the Ecat;


    c) the info from DW (3) that one of the 3 consecutive CF phone calls to Darden specifically referenced Rossi.


    The above are 3 new pieces of the Ecat puzzle. They might be useful or not to connect two or more parts of the puzzle, depending on how you interpret them. But their interpretation is not easy because around each of them there are many missing pieces. For instance:


    a) who informed Celani about the collaboration between Rossi and Ahern, and, if the rumor is confirmed, when they met for the first time, where, for which purpose, what did Rossi learn from Ahern (or vice versa), etc.


    b) who has called who in the phone call between JR and Scanlan, when it happened (before, during or after the meeting), for which purpose, etc.


    c) who called Darden, when it happened, what other CF initiatives were referenced in the other 2 calls, why they were so convincing to make him risk many millions just to see what would happen, etc.


    It's very likely that all these questions will remain unanswered, which means that as many pieces of the Ecat puzzle will not be on the table.


    I am not so smart (thanks, anyway) to complete the picture with so many missing pieces. My thesis is that when, and if, there will be enough valid pieces on the table, everyone will be able to assemble a quite realistic picture by himself.


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (3) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    @ Shane D.,

    The further back in the Rossi timeline you go, the more you make the point about this alternative theory of Rossi having had something at one point. Yes, I know that is not your intent, but that is the effect it is having on me.


    No problem. The important thing is that the you have found these info interesting. I hope you too deem it useful to spotlight the furthest past.


    Quote

    With Rossi's later years in the public record now, we know what he is capable of, but was he that good, where he could fool so many in the beginning?


    It depends on how you see the facts. After so many years, you should have realized that everything you read could be the mirror image of the reality. For example, are you sure that Rossi has been capable to "fool so many in the beginning"? From which parts of the deposition do you deduce it?


    Quote

    Those were the days he was working elbow to elbow (close proximity), in the same room with Focardi and others.


    Which days? Do we have an exact timeline of those days? We only know that the first experiment with Focardi took place on October 16, 2007 (1), during the week of Oct. 13, 2007 when an international conference on LENR was taking place in Italy (2).


    Quote

    There was no aura around him then, and surely everyone was highly skeptical of this man with a bad history walking in the door claiming he had a high power LENR device. They would not let just anyone in the door, and once they did, he would be subjected to the utmost scrutiny.


    To say the least!


    Quote

    Only after satisfying themselves, would they bring in other colleagues, and then they would have to be convinced, and so on.


    Any more specific idea on how they could have been satisfied or convinced?


    Quote

    Maybe we could get you to switch sides and become pro-Rossi? :)


    Very hard. I'm not even anti-Rossi. :)


    (1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Investigation-Index.shtml

    (2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…1/36/3616ideologies.shtml

    @ can,

    a "quote" is a repeat or copy out (words from a text or speech written or spoken by another person).


    Previously you used a quote box (with the script "Ascoli65 wrote") to attribute to me a text I didn't wrote, and in your last comment another quote box to arbitrarily assemble parts of my real quotes. I wonder if this use of the quotation tool can be considered acceptable by the administrators of this site. In the past, other L-F moderators tried to interpret and synthesize my position, but they did it in a much more fair and correct way.


    Do you really want your readers to believe that you still haven't made up your mind yet even though you're answering your questions in your own posts? Just admit that you simply don't want to take any responsibility for what you've been slyly suggesting for the past 7 years or so. You cannot have it both ways, though.


    As any other here, I have my preliminary scenario. But it is a puzzle that is very far to be complete, and where not all pieces are in the final position. I don't understand the usefulness for the L-F readers to try to complete my puzzle in advance. I think it's much more useful to share as many pieces as possible among us, leaving each of us the burden of assembling his own puzzle.


    That said, you did a very good job in collecting some of my real quotes. Thanks. The important is to read them in the right context, looking at the original post from where they have been extracted.


    Btw, is there anything in my quotes you want to dispute?

    @ oldguy,


    I think it dates back much earlier: for example, He demoed the Energy Catalyzer in Bedford, New Hampshire, to the Department of Defense in Nov 09 and claimed on his blog (he had a public web presence) in April 2010 of running his system to heat a factory for 2 years.


    It's true that the first appearance on the web of Rossi's activity in the CF field dates back to March 2010 when JoNP published the Rossi-Focardi paper and the Rossi's patent, but the name Ecat appeared in the public demo held in Bologna in January 2011. This event, as Google Trends demonstrates, has been the real beginning of the public propaganda phase of the Ecat initiative. Many people here on L-F started to follw the LENR field and the Ecat saga thanks to this sensational event.


    As for the very beginning of Rossi involvement in the CF field, it goes back well before November 2009. Leaving aside the "Rossi says" about its interest in CF in the early '90, the first certain involvement dates back to 2007 when he returned to Italy from the USA to meet Focardi (Krivit said that he approached first Piantelli (1), though). But informed sources (Celani and Passerini) reported that Rossi collaborated with Ahern in a US government lab, before coming back to Italy (2).


    Another info on the very first contacts between Rossi and the LENR community comes from a Macy's article:


    Quote

    From: http://www.infinite-energy.com…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html

    [...]

    I heard how Mike became involved in starting to explore what he was doing. Rossi claimed to be closing in on producing a working LENR technology. He had American partners who had worked with the U.S. Navy and were familiar with the continuing interest of the Navy in energy technology. In late 2007 the company requested someone with technical interest and competence to view a demonstration. It took until summer 2009 before the promised demonstration was nearly ready.

    [...]


    Some more hints on the American partners mentioned above, on the first tests in the USA and to their timing are provided in the deposition of Cassarino (Ampenergo) contained in the Document 326 of the Miami trial:



    (1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Investigation-Index.shtml

    (2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    @ can,

    So, basically you're saying as follows:


    Quotes box [Ascoli65 wrote:

    Andrea Rossi colluded with university professors and researchers to mislead the public about the reality of LENR.]


    I don't understand why some members here are so eager to jump into somebody's else conclusion, instead of helping to improve the knowledge on the facts we are discussing.


    In any case, I never said the words you attributed to me in the quotes box you put in your comment. This is a very incorrect way of doing. Please, would you be so kind to remove that box, and use another way to express your opinion?