Posts by ZenoOfElea

    That is always possible Axil. But my comment was not arguing with any experimental evidence. I was critiquing your theoretical interpretation of experimental evidence, using the theory of entanglement in a way that contradicts very many experiments.


    THH

    Everybody knows that a pair of socks is entangled such that when one of the pair mysteriously disappears via a micro wormhole in the tumble dryer the remaining sock is still in contact via super luminal intra-dimensional fields based on quaternian matrices.

    And yet BIG PHYSICS refuses to fund meaningful research into this phenomenon!

    I am afraid the maths is a bit beyond my science education (CSE Grade 2 Domestic Science) but I am sure Axil or Rossi will be able to explain how it fits into modern theories of LENR.

    ;):P;):P;)

    Anachronistic and not fit for purpose in the modern age where many discoveries are long and complicated processes, over many years, with large international teams.


    Many cases of injustice such as Jocelyn Bell Burnell and also the discovery of dark energy where 3 persons deemed to be the leaders of the teams personally were awarded the prize, the others got nowt.

    More amusingly Penzias and Wilson who did not even know what they had stumbled across until others explained it to them.

    Let me ask; what kind of effect do you think this information will have on believers?


    Many people have need for a hero, they then associate beyond normal expectations onto that person so they are almost superhuman.

    Whether it be Alexander the Great and the myths about him.

    Whether it be Newton or Leonardo Da Vinci and the many conspiracy theories about them.

    Or in modern times Tesla and Elon Musk.


    The impression I get from ECat World is that many Rossi fans have elevated their hero to this status. Either he is a singular inventor and an all round amazing person who stands alone against his many enemies; or alternatively many of his fans have allowed their hopes and dreams to weaken their judgement and have placed their trust firmly with the Maestro.

    To question Rossi is to question a demi-god.




    As Monti Python might say "He is not a demi-god, he's a very naughty boy". :)

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    Many hope that LENR can be shared openly so that it can be free to the world. A noble aspiration which I agree with.

    However, so far, after so many years, no such luck.


    While LENR free to the world would be great I would settle for just LENR, proven, working and available, even if it is by some entity that "owns it".


    I believe Darden when he says he has aspirations for the technology to better the world. He does not have to say that, or anything. However I also accept he is a business man. LENR clearly needs serious investment if it is to develop and those investors want a profit.

    I agree with Shane that there must be something behind the increased valuation.

    I would expect that at the least it is results replicated by independent, respected laboratories.

    Even better would be if IH was able to show real progress in understanding the LENR mechanism(s), or reliably improved outputs; or both.


    But I also agree with Alan that value can be extremely subjective and even ephemeral, as famously illustrated in the dot com bubble.


    An LENR process might be worth anything from zero (not mentioning any names) to billions or trillions. So pick a number.

    Valuation is indeed a risky business.

    I would expect the figure of 357% is just guff pulled out from somewhere. How do you put a value on LENR?

    The trusts fund managers have talked about "increasing promise" but, other than promise, there is no hard data presented in this article, and, at one point, it calls Andrea Rossi a "scientist" :D.

    However the fact they have been willing to come out and talk about cold fusion in a public article is either informed bravery, or desperation for good news for Woodford, just as his interim fund report is published.

    All we really have is that some new investors have been willing to invest new money in IH at an increased value.


    Best case; I would hope that this is a good sign based on said new investors being presented with convincing scientific data from "external validation" and a realistic development plan.


    Worst case; Rossi has not cornered all the gullible money.


    Personally I am invested in WPCT partly because it is the only way, as a small, private investor, I can get into the LENR action, that is an indication of my generally positive view of LENR and IH. Time will tell.

    Roseland67


    Fortunately then I did not say "all politicians are corrupt" or "all Italians are in the mafia".


    But yes a pretty broand brush discussion of scientific culture to try to provide some context to the Bologna events that Ascoli65 is interested in.


    It would be more accurate, but long winded, to say that how science is supposed to work and how it actually works are different things. [At which point a long debate about Popper and Kuhn opens up but lets not go there].

    The belief that scientists are all about money and reputation is no more accurate than the belief that they are all about open investigation and getting to the truth.

    Science has its own culture, with all the pros and cons that come with that and as far as I can see, when politicians, or other scientists want to control individuals or even an entire field, the levers of choice are money (in the form of funding) and reputation (as in attacks on).


    Hopefully that is not too controversial.

    seven_of_twenty

    I do not know of any evidence of fraudulent behaviour on behalf of any scientists who have been involved with Rossi.

    I am merely discussing with Ascoli65 who feels that the behaviour of at least some the scientists involved with Rossi has been less than might be expected from such professionals.


    Ascoli65

    Personally I have invested money with Neil Woodford. I increased my investment when I read that he was involved with Industrial Heat. There was a lot of excitement around Rossi in 2014 and you are right to say that the Lugano results helped to give Rossi credibility. Huw Price and Tom Darden at the time all sounded very positive. Also I went to ECat World hoping for some more information ;(.

    Gradually the truth came out, Rossi had nothing. So I have been suckered by Rossi too.


    You mention the Bologna report, which I have not read, and yes I agree it is an important piece of support for Rossi.

    It is true that criticisms have been made and questions asked and no answeres supplied.

    Do you know of any further research that has been done by Bologna? Any publications?

    It sounds like it has all gone quiet, I think that tells us that they have no defense.


    Unfortunately, short of proof of fraudulent behaviour by the scientists, I think there is no-where to go with this.

    However much you wish it the Bologna scientists have no requirement to answer your questions or mine. No requirement to come into the public domain and explain themselves.

    They only have a requirement to justify themselves to their peers and to their funding bodies.



    You asked for my opinion in this matter.

    I agree with earlier comments by THHuxleynew. I think we cannot know the reasons for their actions we can only guess. I personally think fraud is unlikely and more likely is foolishness or naïvety.

    They are either poor scientists or more charitably are good scientists but were working outside their area of expertise. Jed and many others have criticised the calorimetry.


    The cause of the effect is Rossi.

    In truth there is no science here.

    Science does not work around Rossi.

    There are no independent replications because Rossi’s stuff is secret.

    There are no scientific tests because Rossi only does demos.


    You see a number of scientists who have apparently done something dumb or bad.

    But remember, Rossi selected these scientists.

    Rossi controlled the demo (as became clear afterwards).

    And Rossi did this because he could make use of it to provide himself with credibility.


    So yes, there was fraudulent behaviour. Rossi is indeed a maestro at conducting his followers and fans.

    Ascoli65


    Scientists are human and can be foolish or even fraudulent.

    Science runs on money and reputation, these things distort and corrupt science from its ideals.

    I agree that it was the input from certain scientists that encouraged IH to press on with supporting and funding Rossi, and cost them time and money, but the responsibility is with IH to do the due diligence for their investors.


    So in the specific case of the scientists that gave support to Rossi is it;

    1. They were just taking a look (which is what scientists should be doing).

    2. That they actively provided support for Rossi (but in good faith).

    3. That they are guilty of falsifying or fabricating data.


    If you choose 2. and think they actively provided support to Rossi then boo hoo so did Defkalion, Industrial Heat, Fabiani, Penon, Matts Lewin, Frank Ackland, Sifferkol and many others.

    At some point the scientists must have felt confidence that Rossi had something because it was the science rumour mill that got Huw Price excited enough to write his article.

    In this case I am sure those scientists will have had their reputations questioned by their colleagues.


    It seems to me that the real point is 3. You think the Bologna physicists are guilty of falsifying or fabricating data or some kind of professionaly fraudulant behaviour.

    Now that is a major charge which scientific institutions and funding bodies need to take seriously.

    If what happened was just a demo controlled by Rossi and no scientific papers were produced then it will be difficult for you.

    If scientific papers were produced but they are full of errors and poor measuring then the best you can hope for is to have the authors censured for sloppy science.

    If what happened was a real scientific test and papers were published with falsified data then there is a real case that you should submit to the appropriate institutions and bodies that funded the work.


    Good luck.

    Zeno

    You and the people who agree with you are doing Rossi an invaluable service. You are keeping his real enemies in a state of confused inaction. If the likes of the Koch brothers, the king of Saudi Arabia, and the President of Russia were to finally realize what Rossi could do to them, Rossi would be sucking in some form of exotic nerve agent by now.


    Keep up the good work, Rossi is depending on you to keep him going. Let us hope that your efforts among others can keep Rossi going until LENR commercialization is unstoppable.



    Just doing my bit ;)

    Ascoli65


    Rossi finds people that are either gullible, or naïve, or perhaps they just give him the benefit of the doubt.


    Some of those people are scientists, who provide useful cover for Rossi.

    Scientists can be gullible or naïve just like anyone.

    Or perhaps their curiosity hooks them.

    Or perhaps they are arrogant enough to think they cannot be fooled.


    Anyhow; it is Rossi who has banked the millions of dollars. The scientists who have supported, or been used by Rossi, have had little to show from it other than criticism and a risk to their reputation.

    Perhaps this is the reason they are less than open.


    It seems that you are trying to whip up some kind of a backlash against those scientists.

    That might then be perceived as increasing the risk for any scientist who might be inclined to take a look at LENR. We have already had too much treatment of LENR as a toxic area and certainly the Rossi fiasco has not helped things.

    I do not support your attacks. Better to have more curiosity and try to encourage openness. Sure some scientists might be made to look foolish but we need more scientists to be willing to come forward not less.

    So boiling this down;

    Statement 1; Rossisays the customer will sort out the authorizations and/or insurance for the plant.

    Statement 2; But Rossisays the customer is not allowed to know any details of what is in Rossi’s big black box.

    So how can the customer possibly submit for authorizations and/or insurance for something that they have no information on?

    How does that work?

    Seems like this is a very basic logical fallacy or am I missing something?

    Adrian


    “My position is safer than your rash certainty that it is a scam. Unfortunately we will have to wait to 2019 to find out which story is right.”


    I predict you will not get satisfaction from Rossi in 2019.

    If you are waiting for irrefutable proof that something does not exist then your position is indeed very safe because that proof will never come.

    There are still people who believe that Orbo was somehow not a scam.


    Good question like always. You remind me of that great Soj....oh never mind. :) Quick answer; I do not know. All I can say is that if they carried the story, I am grateful to them. It has been fun, and there is still a long way to go to the end. We know the ending, mystery is how the plot will unfold. I have my buttered popcorn, and ready for the show.


    And Rossi is indeed a showman, among his other talents.

    Actually his shows are not really very good.

    A bit like going to see a magician who puts a rabbit in a box and then announces to the audience that it has vanished, then gets his assistant to look in the box and confirm the rabbit has vanished, but cannot allow the audience to look in the box because they may discover his magical secret.

    But nonetheless he does like to put on a show and he does like to have an audience.


    Most scams are done either in dark alleys, or anonymously via e-mail, so the perp can vanish or remain anonymous. Rossi has a particular modus where the scammer is very public (which fools some into thinking public = legit), oh and its got scientists! Similar to Orbo, although Rossi is more successful than McCarthy, but not as successful as others. The big scams currently are with Bitcoin. Rossi really needs to move with the times and get into an ECAT ICO or perhaps he could use his ECats to mine for bitcoins and sell that idea.


    As a one time believer the entertainment is to see how much crap people are able to swallow and finally to see the end game. How will the Maestro escape and how will he deal with his followers?

    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. :)

    sam12

    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.


    JedRothwell

    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.

    http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/…-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.

    magicsound

    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.

    max


    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.