Posts by woodworker

The more I read of AA and Sam, and the Director, the more I am persuaded that those following Rossi are members of a cult or a religion, in either case one that does not allow for doubt or questions, but mere total obedience to the faith. If you disagree with a Rossi follower, ask real life, practical questions, point out flaws, minor or great in their reasoning, point to Rossi's history of lying and fraud, etc., the response essentially always boils down to RossiSays and we have faith in Rossi. If someone points out a flaw, then it is fake news / babbling. If someone points out a real world problem with the stated Rossi position, then it is anonymous fake news. It just goes on and on.

As a Jew, I believe that there may have been weather or geographic explanations for Moses parting the Red Sea, but at the end of the day, I take that on faith, my faith as a Jew. But I also realize that I am taking it on faith and I am willing to listen to and acknowledge that my faith might be wrong as to the parting of the Red Sea. And if I am proven wrong about that it is not going to weaken my faith as a Jew. Because I believe in the Jewish faith.

But for the cult of Rossi, there can never be any doubts expressed, for to allow any doubt is to doubt the word of Rossi. And doubting the word of Rossi in any detail calls into doubt everything that Rossi has said or done. If you acknowledge that Rossi lied about the fake Doral customer (one of many many lies re: Doral), then you have to acknowledge that Rossi is capable of knowingly lying in order to deceive people about the success of his product, in that instance the e-cat. Once you acknowledge the existence, even the possibility, of the first lie, then you always have to consider the possibility of more lies. And that is not something that is allowed in the Church of Rossi. There can be NO doubt ever. No matter what Rossi does and says, he cannot be doubted. Not even if he changes directions, drops products, etc. After all, we have always been at war with Oceania.

Quote from Director

The only potential danger I see from the Quark is the production of radiation that could, in theory, if not shielded, escape the reactor IF adequate measures are not taken. But I think this danger is very minimal. There's virtually no chance of a conventional nuclear meltdown. The powers that be have no right to say diddly squat about the Quark. I have read about a company that has repeatedly released toxic chemicals into a local river killing every single fish for perhaps a hundred miles down river. Since they were producing something for the military, they were simply ordered to restock the rivers and got a tiny slap on the wrist.

They have every right to say a whole lot more than diddly squat. That is why they are "the powers that be."

However, IIRC, Houston, Texas has almost no zoning laws, so let Rossi start up his widget there.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

As far as one can tell, Rossi's QX & 5lkW SK are quite safe. They shut down in seconds once the power is off. They do not male dangerous radiation. They would be monitored continuously in order to operate at all. Individual reactors are only 1 cm long and would lose the plasma if the case were broken, They are contained remotely from the customers [;amt. They don't contain the large amount of water that a boiler does.

As there are no written regulations for it, government inspectors wouldn't have a clue. Perhaps you are in favor of a ten year delay while they figure it out. It's nuclear! Gasp.

I have built complete manufacturing plants and been responsible for dozens of others. Not clear to me why you think wandering through a few HVAC operations makes you think you know more about safety than I do.

Some Green nut case complained to the authorities about Rossi demonstrating a nuclear device at Stockholm. As a result, Rossi can't demonstrate the SK working in January. I expect you are pleased. Government inspectors are not very imaginative. A hos[ital was built actually on the St Andreas fault line because it was not against regulations. I bet the land was dirt cheap.

THH. For the fourth time. Yes or no?

I skip commentts from the babblers as they are always repeats or juvenile jokes. Perhaps Shane would be good enough to let meknow in the unlikely event of a new thought.

Display More

On exactly what EVIDENCE do you base all of these astounding conclusions about the safety of the widget? Do you know what allegedly powers it? Do you know how it works? Do you have any fucking actual evidence other than RossiSays. And if so, what is it.

As to the regulators, given your vast experience, which you remind us of constantly, please tell me -- is it your experience that the regulators are required to show that something brand new and revolutionary may be unsafe or do the promoters of such new and unproven and untested and unregulated technology usually have the burden to show it is safe? In your vast experience, who is responsible for persuading the certification/licensure agencies? And if the regulators don't have a clue, are they in practice of just saying, well go ahead, we trust you?

I have asked you both these questions previously, asked you to draw on your vast experience, and so far all you do is complain about babblers. This are real world, practical questions. The fact that you seem to deliberately avoid answering them speaks volumes itself.

You claim to have been responsible for many complete plants. If true, I thank dog that you must have had competent assistants. And such assistants have my complete empathy, for you come across, at least here, as a bloviating pompous, too full of himself to ever be, or admit being, wrong and a consummate poseur.

Alan/any other moderator: Please feel free to edit or delete if you believe my comments are not supported by the evidence.

Quote from JedRothwell

Here on planet earth, that arrangement would violate a dozen safety regulations. No sane equipment manager or engineer would even think of allowing it. They would lose their licenses if they did. They might end up in jail. They might even kill someone by accident. Equipment on this scale is extremely dangerous. As you see in this video:

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

I have been in many equipment rooms for HVAC and telephone equipment. I have read the regulations. Any piece of HVAC equipment larger than you use at home MUST be equipped with a full range of meters and thermometers showing how much energy it is consuming, and how much heat (or cold air) it is producing. The exact type of monitoring equipment and the placement of it is shown in the regulations in detail. For example, a dial thermometer must be installed on a level pipe 6 feet from a boiler.

People such as AA who believe these absurd fantasies peddled by Rossi have no knowledge of actual heavy HVAC equipment, boilers, regulations, or common sense safety precautions. AA claims he does, but the fact that believes this nonsense belies his claim.

Display More

But, you have to realize that all of Rossi's marvelous inventions also include the soon to be famous, patent pending, trademark and copyright pending "RossiSafetyAssurance," which guarantees that nothing bad will happen, and that RossiSafetyAssurance, through the miracle of Rossi's brilliant mind, prevents anything bad from happening, all by itself. I am 1000% confident that all safety inspectors, insurance companies, etc. will accept that instead of boring old safety certifications, licenses and permits provided by mere mortals.

Alan: we need a sarcasm emoji.

Quote from Bruce__H

A couple of days ago I wrote a response to one of the denizens of Ecat World who had expressed some triumphalist sentiments along the lines we are currently seeing Adrian Ashley. That post was spiked by Frank Acland, the moderator/owner of site. I thank Adrian Ashfield for giving me the opportunity to refashion my rejected post for use here instead. Minor thanks also go out to sam12

Adrian thinks that Rossi skeptics are going to turn and run after Rossi's January demonstration. But I think that this tells us more about how he sees the world than what Rossi skeptics might do. It tells us that Adrian is a controversialist and polemicist. He is not really interested in what is true and how the world works, he just wants his guy to win. It's sort of a political thing. He thinks everyone is like this, hence his post. In contrast, though, I claim that many of the Rossi skeptics are constituted differently. I know I am. I just want to know what is true and what isn't. That's it. If Rossi has the goods then that is fine with me.

As proof of my claims, here is a little thought experiment to try out.

Let's suppose that tomorrow Rossi drops all the secrecy regarding his machines, tells everyone exactly how they work, and pulls off a really convincing demonstration that is replicated by an independent party. How would the skeptics react? Well I would be tickled pink! And curious! So would a lot of others I think. After all this would be convincing proof that something new and valuable has entered the scene. I might wonder why Rossi acted like a con man when he wasn't, but I certainly wouldn't run. Basically I would be happy and curious.

Now let's reverse things. Let's suppose that tomorrow Rossi announces that it has all been a scam and that he has had a wonderful time fooling everyone. How would the Rossi acolytes behave. I think it would be shock and depression. Probably some degree of nonacceptance too ('He is just lying to throw his enemies off the scent'). I don't think there would be much in the way of 'at least we now know what is the truth of the matter. This is a qualitatively different way of thinking about evidence.

I invite anyone to play this game. Imagine each scenario and try to figure out what your response would be, Could be revealing.

Display More

I think that if Rossi said it was all the scam many of his supporters would claim that the only reason Rossi is saying that is so that Rossi can continue to develop his universe shattering devices without worrying as much about his IP being stolen. That Rossi admits to a scam is itself a scam to divert attention from him while he steals a march on his competitors. Pretty standard cultist response actually.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

while I largely agree with the first part, Rossi has the difficult task of doing adequate testing with so much pressure on him to show something. I originally forecast it would be mid 2019 before he could be ready.

As for what energy will be used in the future, I'm not as pessimistic as you on LENR. Also if you follow my link on the previous page, you will see that Russia is way ahead of the US with small nuclear reactors.

I read the link and, without going into politics on this board, anyone who predicts that nuclear power is going to be the winning power solution going forward is smoking and not sharing. Look at what the market is doing and tell me that US energy companies believe in nuclear, in the either the near, short, medium or long term (I am talking about conventional nuclear, whether small reactors or large, not LENR or fusion). The only way nuclear is anywhere close to be economically feasible is with huuuuge government subsidies (direct or indirect). Your reference to that article tells me all I need to know about your engineering acumen going forward. Perhaps we should ask the author about his views on coal.

One other "very strong argument" I found interesting is that the Russian alleged 5th generation jet fighter is also "aesthetically pleasing," which somehow makes it more lethal. Strange, but I have never heard that a major criteria for a jet, or any other, fighter's or weapon's usefulness is how pretty it is. One might look at the A-10 Warthog, nicknamed such because it is an ugly beast. But for ground support lethality, which is its major role, there is nothing better. You take a pilot, seat him in a titanium bathtub, surround him with armor plating, give him an airframe that is difficult as hell to shoot down and arm with an electrically powered Gatling gun shooting out shells carrying depleted uranium and that is an extremely lethal machine. But, as it is ugly as all get out and aesthetically pleasing is the new criterion, I guess we should trash all the wart-hogs.

And yes, the US military design and acquisition process is full of corruption and waste, but you put up the Russian 5th generation fighter against an F-22 and the F-22 will be back in its hangar having a silhouette of a Russian jet painted on to its airframe while the Russians are still trying to figure out what happened to their plane.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The cached version is open, via Google.

For the benefit of those of us who only speak english (and barely, on a good day), could you provide a one or two paragraph summary? Many thanks if possible.

Quote from sam12

That one investor will make a lot of money if Rossi is successful with the Ecat.

Not if Rossi is keeping the books. Why do this remind me of the Producers? The oversubscription part, not the success part.

Quote from Alan Smith

Under current circumstances that would be equivalent to doxxing. Unfair question.

I disagree. Doxxing someone would be outing someone who has not already expressed his opinion, in public. If someone publicly states that they believe Rossi, they have already publicly identified themselves, so no doxxing.

Quote from oldguy

That logic would seem to mean if there are more scientists that do not support Rossi than those that do support him, then Rossi is less than credible than credible.

Note there are an estimated 7.5 million scientists-

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235407e.pdf

and how many claim to publicly support Rossi - perhaps 7,

so the odds with this logic is there is a 1 in a million chance that he is credible.

Display More

Fellow old guy. I agree that there is less than a snowball's odds in hell that Rossi has anything, but I disagree with your example. Probably 99% of the scientists so identified have probably never heard of Rossi or LENR. Your sample is not representative.

Quote from Roseland67

Jed,

You can bring an Adrian to water,

but you can’t make him read data.

Adrians’s heels are so firmly dug in now there is absolutely nothing that will convince him Rossi and his Ecat are frauds.

This would be tantamount to him admitting he was conned and wasn’t smart enough to see thru the conn.

And that is impossible, he is smarter than all of us, just ask him.

His retorts are funny though

Display More

It seems funny to me that there has been a great deal of speculation here lately as to the behaviour and actions of the academics who initially backed Rossi's claims. Some here still believe in Rossi's, and the academics', claims while others cannot understand why the academics haven't publicly admitted that they were wrong.

The funny, or strange part, for me is that we have a ongoing example of the various arguments made about the academics' behaviour -- that being AA (who I fully admit I like to go after for my disagreements with his positions and logic). ASSUMING that Rossi, and the ecat/sk/qx/widget of the day, are bogus, which to many of us is clear beyond any dispute based on the evidence/lack of evidence/engineering issues/Rossi's unfamiliarity with the truth, why is AA so resistant to agreeing that Rossi ain't real.

AA claims that he is a highly experienced individual and not only do I have no reason to doubt him, but I believe him. AA comes across as highly intelligent and capable of reasoning logically and rationally. All of which begs the question then of his unwavering faith in Rossi -- is this because he knows something that the rest of us don't, is it because he sees something we don't, is it because he truly, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is keeping a completely open mind while the rest of us are so prejudiced against/jealous of Rossi that we are incapable of being fair judges, or is it because AA has invested so much of his time, his energy, his failing eyesight into believing in Rossi that he cannot now possibly consider not believing him, or is it that the reputational cost of having to admit being suckered by, or just wrong about, Rossi would be, in AA's estimation, too great.

I truly am not trying to pick on AA here or attack him and I get the feeling that AA and I would agree on many other issues, but I find his behaviour confusing here. It would be one thing to discuss disagreements rationally and logically, but ad hominem attacks don't move a discussion forward. And no, this is not an ad hominem attack -- I am questioning AA's behaviour because I don't understand it.

Quote from Alan Smith

Ascoli65

I am totally with Shane.D on this. You are on very thin ice. If you continue to imply that there is some kind of conspiracy to promote LENR - which I suspect you consider to be impossible - at the taxpayers expense then you will find yourself perma-banned. It's very simple, and entirely your choice.

Alan, I don't interpret Ascoli's remarks as proposing that there was a conspiracy, although I may be wrong. I read his remarks as suggesting (a suggestion with which I agree) that, (1) as you have noted, the people involved are all humans and, by definition are capable of not only making mistakes but also being susceptible to pride, hubris, shame and all of the other human failings; and (2) institutional and bureaucratic structures are not well designed to handle situations where one person, in this instance Rossi, has taken advantage of academics and other professional and has put them in, essentially, compromising positions.

To me, Rossi took advantage of a lot of people, many of whom would prefer that their involvement could somehow be airbrushed out of history. Assuming Ascoli is correct on his engineering analysis (and applying AA's standard, I have no reason to doubt Ascoli), the original measurements as reported don't work out. If so, the academics involved have, from many viewpoints, two choices: admit they made a mistake in their work (including not doing a thorough job) or admit they were suckered -- neither of these choices is attractive. So they exercise a third option, one we really don't like -- they just ignore the issue assuming that with the passage of time their involvement will be forgotten or forgiven. I dln't view that as a conspiracy but rather as basic human nature.

Alan, that was a long winded way of saying that I don't think his comments deserve banning. But it is not my board. I usually prefer a more open environment, but again, I am a guest here.

Quote from Ascoli65

The only relevant question to LENR is how it has been possible that a controversial man like Rossi climbed in a few years at its top, eventually ending being almost identified with the whole field.

The answer is very simple, and has been unequivocally revealed by the Ecat affair. Being LENR inexistent, the only achievable target is convincing as many people as possible for as long as possible that there could exists such an ephemeral phenomenon. It is not possible to get more, in particular it is not possible to have a replicable LENR method or device. This is the reason why a philosopher and marathon runner like Rossi has become the champion of this field. The only winning strategy for LENR is wait&see, change horse and wait&see, change again and wait&see, and so on. AR on JoNP - and his supporters on the other websites - are just applying this strategy, month after month, year after year.

This strategy lasted for almost 30 years thanks to the credibility provided by academics who have been allowed to produce and disseminate erroneous and even misrepresented experimental data without any effective scrutiny and adequate criticism by their peers (except during the first few months), also benefitting from the protection of their scientific institutions, and from the patronage of some political apparatuses.

CF/LENR is a big bluff. A bluff is not replicable, but it can only be raised again, and again, and again, …

Display More

I must strongly disagree with much of what you just wrote: I am not a scientist nor a engineer, and have made that clear in my postings. However, I tend to be of the school that what man can dream, he can ultimately achieve (except my becoming incredibly handsome, I dream, I dream, but nothing). I don't KNOW for certain that CF/LENR is possible, but I believe we should continue investigating, trying and yes, often stumbling in the dark.

Now, as to Rossi, I think we agree that he is a complete fraud and, at least in my opinion, a loathsome deceitful individual as well.

Quote from bang99

That's your kind method of answering. Avoid the critical part.

I said" The Stockholm Demo was convincing me, in not to believe in RossiSays/MatsLewanSays".

You asked why! You avoid any serious answer to specific tech questions! You are really an engineer?!

"Why so desperate to convert me? Who cares?"

I'm not on the road to "CONVERT" you.

I would like to have an answer from an educated enigineer, zig long years in business, experiance and knowledge to some simple questions about electric engineering and schematics, circuits, layout, data and common calculations with Ohm and Kirchhoff.

Got nothing back in substantional.

Only babbling by AA. Yes, that's YOU! A Babbler! RossiSaysBabbler!

Man, you had a career in industrial workmanship. Did you loose it al?

Okay, got it, put you back on BLOCK LIST, so I don't have to read your nonsense.

It it is offensise this time, well, it's well placed and deliberate,

OVER AND OUT.

Display More

Bang, I appreciate your posts and your willingness to enter the lists. PLEASE do not put AA on block -- that would deprive us of another educated avenue for examining and critiquing AA's babblings.

AA, I have not forgotten that I still owe you a response -- however, in addition to my kidney stone problems I am sure I mentioned (but not more than 20 or 30 times), I tripped over myself a week and a half ago and broke (clean breaks fortunately) two ribs on the left side and am in some discomfort. But please don't let my delay in responding prevent you from answering the real world practical application certification and licensure questions I asked a few weeks ago, all of which I am sure you would have had to deal with in your vast experience in designing, overseeing the construction and running of large scale industrial plants. Please let me know if you can't easily find them and I will be most delighted to repost for your convenience.

Quote from Forty-Two

Rossi’s Real Estate enterprise (REFC Real Est Corp) bought another 4 Miami Condos this year - so it looks like he has some money flowing in (or some cash left from the IH deal).

(Although, the last entry is for a claim of lien agains REFC about a couple of thousand dollar)

https://www2.miami-dadeclerk.c…obile/StandardSearch.aspx

Search for “Party Name”: REFC real

Anybody knows for what reason might this clause have been included in the last purchase:

“No person(s) other than those described above [Andrea Rossi] shall temporarly or permanently reside in the Condominium without prior written approval of the Association.”

Display More

I would not be surprised if that is a standard clause from the HOA. HOA/s generally don't like people renting out long-term, short-term or AirBNB style without their knowledge. HOA/s are all about control and such clauses allow them control over who resides there. That doesn't mean he can't rent it out, he just needs to get their approval.

But yes, Rossi has been a busy little real estate investor.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Certifications again... *sigh*

Last image, BOLD = Rossi Replies (BV = Bureau Veritas)

Thank you, Para, I am no SOOOOOOOOOO relieved. I was seriously concerned that Rossi might have some sort of BS certification, but these provide me with an overwhelming sense of confidence. AND WE REALLY NEED A SARCASM BUTTON.

"Our Customer is dealing with this issue. We have the necessary safety certification already done and all our plant’s components are certified. Locally certified engineers are dealing with specific licenses."

But question for the engineers here (although I suspect I know the answer - NO): if I take a piece of 4 inch OD Schedule 40 PVC, and an assortment of similar fittings and connectors, etc., all of which have been tested and certified and have their own magic sticker, and construct a "rube goldberg" contraption of a boiler, is that a "certified boiler" suitable for use as such? As I said above, I suspect NOT. And yet Rossi seems to believe that because all of his components are "certified" the combination thereof must be. I would appreciate the engineers, including AA, weighing in.

And a question for AA: would certifications, underwriting approvals, etc. have to be attached to or publicly posted near where the applicable piece of equipment is located? You have represented in your posts that you have a great familiarity with furnaces and boilers (IIRC). Aren't their UL or similar certificates required to be attached or posted nearby, along with their general specifications?

If such certificates/labels/etc. are not attached to Rossi's black box and there is a fire or other accident, even in the attached building, how are emergency responders supposed to react. If they don't know what is in the black box, can they safely use water to combat a fire, or must they use a specific chemical, and if so, what chemical? Does the black box represent contain hazardous materials and/or will a fire turn any materials into hazardous chemicals. No insurance company is going to insure a facility if a company can't tell the local fire/emergency departments what they might be dealing with.

You may not have dealt with these issues from an insurance perspective but surely, from your vast experience in supervising the construction of all of those plants you have mentioned, you would have had to deal with the issues of accident prevention, coordination with emergency responders and related issues. And generally, as I understand it, the local fire department has to sign off and approve before you begin construction, much less operation. In your vast experience, is the local fire department likely to approve solely because RossiSays or will they want details of what the device is, how it operates and what are the potential risks? Remember also that Rossi has publicly said that there is the possibility of his earlier devices exploding and causing damage to property and possibly lives. In light of that, wouldn't it be prudent for a fire department to insist on details. And, as I am sure you know (unlike Axil), the fire department doesn't have to prove it is not safe, it would be Rossi's (or the "independent customer's) responsibility to prove it is safe.

Looking forward to your answers as I know you would not stoop to claiming some excuse to avoid answering.

Quote from axil

That is a fine idea. Ask Rossi in his blog to post his QX related certifications.

YOU claimed that Rossi had certifications. I am asking YOU to produce copies of what Rossi has produced, if any, or give me a link to a citation where I can find them. I know, and often repeated, that I don't trust RossiSays and accord it no legitimacy. If you can't show these famous certifications, why do you believe they exist? Other than RossiSays, of course.

Quote from axil

1. TOUSSAINT francois August 16, 2018 at 5:05 AM

   Dear Andrea Rossi

   I wish you a great success with this first 40 Mw plant, and there will be many more to come !

   Is there still an important test this august with the SK E-CAT ?

   Warm Regards

   Toussaint françois

2. Andrea Rossi August 16, 2018 at 7:58 AM

   Toussaint Francois:

   Thank you for your kind wishes. Yes, an extremely important test will be made at the end of August through the first 10 days of September. After that, strategic decisions will have to be made.

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

3. Frank Acland August 16, 2018 at 5:42 AM

   Dear Andrea,

   Do you already have all the necessary authorizations to install and operate the 40 MW plant?

   Kind regards,

   Frank Acland

4. Andrea Rossi August 16, 2018 at 7:56 AM

   Frank Acland:

   Our Customer is dealing with this issue. We have the necessary safety certification already done and all our plant’s components are certified. Locally certified engineers are dealing with specific licenses.

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

As the situation now stands: this dialog tells me that Rossi must use the QX reactor in the 40 MW application because he has certification of that product. Either that or Rossi intends to wait to further develop the SK before he attempts to use the SK to manufacture the 40 MW reactor.

Display More

Please enlighten us as to the basis for your claim that Rossi "has certification of that product." I don't remember anyone finding any public record of such a certification, an application therefor or any posting by Rossi of a copy of any such a certification. Or is this another instance of RossiSays?

Quote from axil

The Mills GUT theory that underpins how his tech works is how he intends to avoid the AstroTurfing that accompanies a tech that is not yet otherwised explained. You got to give Mills his due to come up with a theory that is non nuclear...totally based on chemistry that explains how his product produces energy. He also has a boatload of followers who support his concepts with religious intensity. Maybe Rossi should embrace the hydrino theory with a change in his patent. This new tech approach for Rossi will solve his certification problems. But is Rossi so dishonest to embrace a fraudulent theory to advance his own interests?

I will assume that is a rhetorical question. Also, and I am not a patent lawyer, but if he changes to adopt this new theory, whouldn't he have problems with the issue of pre-existing art?