Posts by ZenoOfElea

    Believe that (someone or something) will arrive soon.

    Many of us have been waiting and believing and hoping that LENR would arrive soon.

    Jed Rothwell for instance.

    Many of us on LENR Forum and ECat World were initially made aware of "important developments" in the field by the Rossi/IH fiasco.

    And after watching and waiting several years - so far nothing of substance. So we keep watching, but in the meantime we have the Rossi show to entertain us.

    There presumably must be a type of cognitive bias whereby people want something, or want to believe something, despite the lack of evidence. And so they go looking and “find” the evidence. Especially if they go looking with likeminded people.

    Take the whole Sasquatch thing. There have been a number of television series all based on looking for something that logic and lack of firm evidence dictates does not exist. No Sasquatch yet interviewed on television. Sometimes lack of evidence is itself evidence. And yet the believers find enough shadows, marks on the ground, sketchy eyewitness reports etc to convince themselves to keep going.

    In LENR there is certainly the odd report of developments from GEC, IH, Brillouin etc, just enough to keep the followers interested, but so far no commercial LENR reactor.

    Now, of course, Jed would say LENR has been replicated convincingly.

    And on the other side of the coin it is also true that sometimes science can benefit from stubborn minded people who keep going when all others have given up the search.

    So which side of the coin is LENR, science or fantasy? That's why we are here I guess.

    Do Synthestech have private financing?

    I would imagine that if they wanted some rich individual to stump up a large investment then said individual would demand some actual evidence or proof, which should not be too difficult to do.

    The IH example is not a good one as their decisions were somewhat based on certain scientists reports which were not substantiated, but even IH did some investigations which resulted in a decision to walk away .

    However it seems you could launch an ICO, for the public, selling a bag of magic beans and not have to demonstrate that you actually have beans or even a bag.

    Sad that cold fusion is being used/abused in this scenario.

    Maybe it is because even his fans acknowlege that Rossi is a slippery eel who won't give a straight answer.

    What day is it?

    A weekday (AR).

    Sorry I meant what day is it?

    a) Monday

    b) Tuesday

    c) Wednesday

    d) Thursday

    e) Friday

    f) Saturday

    g) Sunday

    Yes, F8 and F9 (AR).

    Now look what you have done with your biased moderators and your anti IH, pro Rossi ways.

    I guess Dewey will just have to decamp to ECW - where I am sure he will be welcomed. :)


    To be clear I am not saying Rossi is making any untrue statements concerning Focardi and Kullander.
    The point is that as both are deceased it is difficult to validate what might be claimed.

    Equally I am not doubting that Rossi worked with Focardi and Kullander but the phrase "worked with" is very general, it could be interpreted in many ways.

    For instance Rossi "worked with" IH but either;

    a) Rossi did not disclose his secret sauce,

    b) his technology does not work,

    c) IH are lying,

    choose whatever option fits the facts.


    Thank you for the correction. Difficult enough to get the facts straight as it is.

    Always open to new learning.

    Rossi worked with Focardi. Sounds good but since Focardi is deceased Rossi can claim what he likes.

    Rossi worked with Kullander. Did he? Again as Kullander is deceased Rossi can claim what he likes.

    The only party you mention who worked with Rossi and are still around are IH and the conclusion of that little legal drama is supposed to be kept secret. However I think we have a pretty good idea how that worked out.

    IMHO Rossi has a history of "tests" from the Navy test in 2011 (mentioned by Dewey) through Bologna 2013, Lugano 2014, the one year test and even Stockholm 2017.

    He always does the same thing.

    What he actually presents is a demo with a closed box and Rossi with hands on the controls.

    There are selected observers at these demos, scientists or prospective investors.

    Later Rossi tries to pretend the demo was actually a scientific experiment.

    Well it must be because measurements were taken and there were scientists present!!! :rolleyes:

    For those who are interested Woodford has presented updates on his funds.

    The updates on the fund holdings are dated end of January 2018.

    By my calculations Woodford currently has just over £12 million invested in IH in two of his funds so total of approx £25 million.

    To me that suggests he is still backing the IH endeavour, good for him.

    Woodford was recently interviewed and said about their investing aims "whether it's AI or gene sequencing, in drug discovery or oncology. There are all sorts of areas … Or new energy."

    I found the "new energy" comment on the end quite interesting.…-household-names-tomorrow

    As a Woodford shareholder I have my fingers crossed.

    By the way - good to see Ireland beating England at Rugby on this St Patrick's day. :thumbup:

    Forty-Two; my understanding is as follows;

    Woodfords initial investment to IH was around £32m.

    From Woodfords end of year report April 2017 the figure was down to around £18m.

    So Woodford may have lost some money in the Rossi debacle but it was my understanding that Darden used his own money (and perhaps a few close friends) to separately fund Rossi because of the risk.

    There was an email from Woodford funds to JT Vaughn, in March 2016, expressing their disappointment because Rossi was “a core element of the initial investment”. So Woodford may have subsequently withdrawn some of his initial investment.

    It also looks like the remaining investment with IH was converted to preference shares.

    I guess we will see an update in April 2018.

    Personally, as someone who is invested in Woodford, I am happy for a relatively modest amount to be directed to support IH. Some say Darden’s search for LENR is a noble quest to save the planet, others say it is all about greed and money. I suspect a bit of both, these motives are not mutually exclusive. But clearly the due diligence needs to get better after Rossi, although I agree with Dewey that Rossi was either lucky, or manufactured the luck somehow, of getting respected Swedish scientists to provide support for him.

    Meanwhile Woodford currently has much bigger problems than IH, his funds are doing really badly at the moment.


    Having thought about this somewhat I tend to agree with Jim Holt, author of “Why Does The World Exist?”

    You would expect that a manufactured universe would have some special features, perhaps very beautiful, or dramatic, or entertaining, or maybe do some work such as test a model, or produce an end product via an evolutionary process.

    Holt has come to the conclusion that, out of the range of possible universes, our universe is not the best (a manufactured heaven) and not the worst (a manufactured hell), in fact it is bland, average and ordinary.

    Why make a bland universe?

    So that would suggest it is not artificial.

    If we find that it is manufactured I would want to put in a formal complaint to those responsible.


    Certainly we do not know what an atom or electron is really like. We just have various models that approximate the behaviour. Some models work better in some circumstances and not in others.

    Are theoretical predictions really failing to produce experimental results?

    There are certainly predicted effects that have produced results; the most obvious one is the Higgs, although the predicted search paramenters were very fuzzy.

    A few others I found;

    The Kondo effect.

    Light from a vacuum via Casimir effect.

    Predicted quantum transient bond in cold chemistry.

    Thank you Max, you made me have to think.

    My problem with alternative theories is that there are hundreds of them from loan cranks sitting in their basement to super smart researchers like Edward Witten and Sabrina Pasterski.

    The fans of these theories demand that you must read and study the entire works of their hero; Randell Mills, Garrett Lisi, Rossi etc etc.

    Luckily I am too stupid to be able to attempt to do this, knowing my level of stupidity saves me a lot of time.

    As a tax payer I pony up the money for clever physicists to waste their time on string theory or whatever.

    Presumably the theory that supercedes the Standard Model will be one theory that explains more phenomenon. So that would be one theory then!

    Of course there is no guarantee that any of the current theories on offer is the correct one. We may have to wait another hundred years.

    Or maybe nature is not as mathematically elegant as most physicists would like to imagine.

    The big question in my mind is: Is there ANYTHING that Frank and His Rossies WON'T BELIEVE?

    Well strange you should say that because in another ECat World article; "Rossi’s Catalyst: Electron Clusters Light Up Christmas This Year (Hank Mills)."

    Engineer48 says of Axel's speculations.

    "No verified experimental data. Just more unproved theory."

    "I call that out as techo babble rubbish."

    But if Rossi says it runs on anti-matter then that must be true.

    I guess they don't have irony on ECat World.

    Neil deGrasse Tyson on Twitter has the right idea.

    There is no point providing evidence to support a round earth because they will never accept/believe it.

    Better to go after their "facts" by showing them to be absurd.


    Alan Smith

    Thank you for the information.

    Indeed as a stand-alone piece of logic then indeed there could be a market here for heat.

    Problem 1 is; this goes against some of the previous conspiracy theories from Sifferkoll. That was my main point.

    If one is into conspiracy theories then one could also argue that he is an oil industry man sent in to spy on Rossi. Not that I believe that either, but of course I cannot prove he isn't. ;)

    Problem 2 is; taking the view that Rossi does have a viable LENR product then Rossi in bed with the fossil fuel business may be a problematic path for LENR to take. Many feel the fossil fuel business may have peaked, or peak soon, in which case Rossi is teaming up with yesterday's energy providers rather than tomorrow's. Also if Rossi had problems dealing with IH then how is it going to work with the oil industry? I would think they would have a conflict of interest in Rossi delivering LENR to the world.


    Article "Black Friday Was a Day of Success for Rossi" by ECW Reporter. ^^

    Sifferkoll comment regarding the role of William S Hurley.

    "Yes, big oil is potentially a HUGE client. They have the infrastructure and the processes and with LENR they can make their own synthetic oil cheaply as well without the need of mideast or fracking, etc. It is huge."

    So big oil have gone from being part of the Forces of Evil trying to stop Rossi and are now Rossi's new best friend and saviour.:saint:

    The rest of the Forces of Evil are not going to like that! :evil:

    If Sifferkoll spins any more he is at risk of meeting himself coming back and disappearing up his own fundament. :D

    Interested observer; you got it right, now in stage 5 and 6. Well done. :thumbup:

    Either Mary or Jed once commented that each of Rossi's tests/demos/DPS get successively worse (from a data perspective) not better, as would be the case with most development projects.

    And indeed we can see that here. :thumbup:

    Reading the Dr Mike analysis on this was certainly not science.

    It was indeed (as Eric called it) a dog and pony show (DPS). :thumbup:

    Rossi certainly does not care about his critics (fair enough, as Adrian says he does not owe us anything). But he does entertain us so. ^^

    Nor does he care much for his supporters. Once again he provides them with a DPS and a crock of data that is worthless.

    Clearly, as others have stated, it is all about the money.

    The key people in the room were not the scientists and loyal followers, they were just there for decorative purposes.

    The key people were the marks (sorry investors).

    For those who might disagree with this view it would be interesting to find who Rossi actually spent his attention on after the show.

    According to Alan the maestro was only available for a limited time, so who got to see him?

    The yorkshiremen of Rothwell will not be impressed with your 'midlander' slur.

    Actually I live in the rhubarb triangle in Yorkshire.

    Its a bit like the Bermuda triangle, but with less sun and more rhubarb.

    I suspect Jed Rothwell may be a member of one of the lost tribes of the rhubarb triangle.



    I know it is not quite right.

    I know Rossi does not owe me anything, although he may owe some people something. :(

    It was an attempt to give a rough sketch of the differing perspectives. I am sure each of us has different subjective takes on everything and how significant or insignificant it is.

    I am interested on why different people, who are smart, can look at this and see such polarized conclusions, otherwise we risk painting the opposing viewpoint as idiotic and those proponents not worthy of respect.

    Without respectful debate this site deteriorates into pointless preaching.

    Queue Mary ... :)

    I don't think anyone here (well almost) is being dishonest.

    I think we all have our opinions and what we want is definitive proof, whether Rossi will ever provide that is unlikely IMHO.

    Sadly as the emotion grows and the claims become more shrill the civility and respect decreases.

    Glass half full or glass half empty.

    This is my take on reading through the various postings.

    Theory 1:- Rossi is a fraud.

    The evidence is clear in his dishonesty and evasiveness.

    His trials and demonstrations are sloppy and flawed to hide his trickery.

    Finally, after many years of promising he has repeatedly failed to produce a marketable device.

    This is the conclusion from looking back at the evidence.

    Theory 2:- Rossi is the real deal.

    His dishonesty was forced upon him by dishonest partners, he is not evasive he is necessarily secretive.

    His trials and demonstrations may be sloppy and flawed according to scientific standards but Rossi is not a scientist, he is an engineer.

    Sure Rossi may have character flaws but In any case none of this is of any import.

    The proof will be when he produces the device to market as he has promised.

    From this perspective looking back proves nothing and serves no purpose.

    Rossi could not possibly be putting all these years of effort in if he did not have what we all hope for. So we must look forward to the promised demonstation. That will settle everything.

    And if not this one then maybe the next.

    "pathoskeptic technofascism" - wow, is that a thing? Or is it just nonsense?

    In fact most people here started off believing in Rossi (Jed, Shane, myself and many others).

    Others at least had an open mind and wanted to investigate.

    So why all the criticism against Rossi?

    You can blame mystery shills paid by IH (how is that still working now the court case is settled)?

    You can blame secret government black ops (not very successful are they)?

    You can blame space aliens.

    The real answer is much simpler and closer to home.

    It is Rossi that has changed minds with his actions and lack of actions.

    For those who are scientifically able the data produced by Rossi and the lack of replication is damning.

    For many others it is simply his actions and behaviour. His dishonesty and ability to take the money and provide nothing in return speaks volumes.

    As Adrian says - it is true that the fact he has not produced a product to market does not prove he does not have one. But it does not prove anything, it is not proof of any kind.

    So obviously, at this point, we cannot know 100% for sure Rossi does not have what he claims.

    Guesses on 1% or 0.1% chance. I and others would be amazed and embarrassed but also delighted.

    Of course we want LENR, which is why we are here.

    So those who expect nothing from the November demo and those who expect a triumph, who will be correct? Either way it is interesting to watch the Rossi show.

    Good luck to Alan.

    Mary; your negativity is busting my chakras.

    Are there any areas of LENR research that you have any positive feelings about?

    I get the criticisms of particular individuals or research that you feel are dodgy or sloppy or inaccurate.

    Indeed evidence proves that there are conmen selling LENR. Strange for an area that apparently suffers from no funding being available.

    So is that it, exposing conmen? In which case why choose the LENR field to camp at.

    Is there anything in the LENR field that you think is worth more research?

    Even worse than 'Corporate Science' is when the government decides it is best placed to decide what specific research projects should be funded.

    There needs to be a balance between oversight of tax payers money and stifling scientific creativity. So who is best placed to decide?

    While I agree the current system sidelines maverick scientists, if I wanted to make a contrary wise argument;

    In the UK I know that the Royal Society do bang the drum for "blue sky" research and leaving open the possibility for serendipity in science.

    Also in the case of "mavericks" such as Rossi and BLP, although supporters can complain about lack of support by mainstream science and various establishment obstacles that they face, but both have managed to find parties willing to provide financial backing, so financing is not a show stopper.

    It seems the evolution of science progress today is more dependent on expensive technology and expensive big team collaborations.

    This approach can surely provide great focus and "reach";

    Planetary space probes.


    Human genome project.

    Yesterdays news about collaboration on the gravity detection results is in this vein.

    But I guess this must constrain the areas of enquiry towards mainstream goals and inevitably collaboration means that more "maverick" scientists get sidelined.

    Also of concern is the "reputation trap" and the politics of science.

    Science needs creativity otherwise it risks becoming ossified.

    There is still much creativity in certain theoretical areas, just look at sites such as Quanta Magazine.

    However we need some mechanism to encourage mavericks in research, I guess this comes down to funding and the battle for money.

    It seems the evolution of science progress today is more dependent on expensive technology and expensive big team collaborations.

    This can surely provide great focus and "reach";

    Planetary space probes

    Human genome project.

    Yesterdays news about collaboration on the gravity detection results is in this vein.

    But I guess this must constrain the areas of enquiry towards mainstream goals and inevitably collaboration means that more "maverick" scientists get sidelined.

    Also of concern is the "reputation trap" and the politics of science.

    Science needs creativity otherwise it risks becoming ossified.

    I am also convinced that there is so many LENR materials available that it can't be denied. You are served with undeniable facts. But as you can see, even this is not enough for normal people. You need a real product to be convinced. Even after independent tests there will be doubts. But if you can buy and use it, there will be no doubt anymore.

    There are certainly many who feel that the amount of anecdotal evidence for LENR is convincing. "There is no smoke without fire."

    But if we accept that then do we accept UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster? All these have many anecdotal reports to support them.

    What will convince skeptics is evidence. But what kind of evidence?

    As ME356 says evidence can be faked.

    So maybe it depends on trust for the source of the evidence.

    But trust can be subjective, trust can be manipulated and even an honest researcher can fool themselves.

    So we are stuck with either a bullet proof, verified demonstration; or replication; or a working product on the market.

    Recent demonstrations have been less high COP and more Keystone cops.

    So far no working LENR product on the market.

    Although Jed says there are convincing replications they are clearly not convincing enough for many.

    Oh well, maybe 2018.



    Axil is Axil.

    He travels his own road to seeking the truth but he certainly has a taste for the fantastic.

    Be more tolerant, not everyone is the same and Axil seems like a nice guy.

    Its just an Internet board, not a national news publication.

    If you find his posts unhelpful or intollerable simply ignore them.

    If the censors start coming after posters because another poster does not like what they say then this place is going to get very quiet.