Posts by seven_of_twenty

Quote

Most people would call that a con, unless Rossi himself was so careless as not to know himself whether his devices worked. Your choice.

After all these years and all the effluvia of communications from Rossi on his stupid JONP, it is inconceivable that he did not know he was conning. In fact, it seems evident that the con was careful, deliberate, cunning, extensively tested and started with poor Focardi more than 9 years ago.

There is nothing to suggest that Woodford put more cash into IH. The little public info that there is suggests they simply re-evaluated their shares. And maybe Woodford likes IH but several of the stockholders don't. Discussion on this has been (wait for it) censored in the Q&A from Woodford.

Quote

-Acland at the piano, Florek at the guitar and concertina, Rossi at the drums ?

-What should this mean ?

Looney Tunes and Merry Melodies? What's up, Doc?

Quote

Nice to know - looks like patenting problems have prevented his NANOR device development or any possible marketing?

There always seems to be some excuse other than that the device and/or the testing are not impressive to anyone outside the "usual suspects." BTW, the participant list for the MIT get together is a nice list of "Usual Suspects." I would distinguish them from "the BigGuns" which would be those with more than $1M in funding. Big Guns are getting rather rare, it seems, since the Rossi debacle. In fact, aren't Brillouin and BLP the only ones, if BLP is even in the same business?

("usual suspects," of course, is a reference to the classic film "Casablanca.")

Quote

ETA: Well if they granted Brillouin and AR's patents this seems totally unfair since Swartz's work has effectively been replicated by other groups (Takahashi and others). One wonders if it might be academic politics at MIT rearing its ugly head?

I don't know about Brillouin's patent but Rossi's is worthless unless you want to make ordinary electric heaters and probably even then. If you have evidence that the impartiality of the US Patent Office is swayed by politics at MIT, you'd better contact the Inspector General's office. I am sure they would love to know your evidence. They have little patience for politics influencing supposedly objective and impartial federal agencies.

Quote

The video of Krivit's visit to Rossi's establishment is split into 2 parts. Here are the links ...

This one is much more fun:

He cared enough about LENR to visit Violante at ENEA in Italy, accompanied by his science advisor. It was after that that the usual suspects claimed he funded Duncan at Texas Tech.

TIFIFY

BTW: did ENEA or anyone Gates visited there get a grant? From the Foundation or the billion dollar special energy cooperative fund?

Sorry, Robert, I am not ready to read about titanium and vanadium. Too many things, too little time. Best of luck getting a lab set up though. The more private research the better.

Shane D. trusts Godes on this. That's sort of funny. I'd rather trust Gates about it but he doesn't seem to be on record except for a squiggle behind the black redacting overlay on a letter.

AlainCo a year ago wrote this:

Quote

I don't think ho des anything with BrLP/Mills and his hydrinos. He have accepted to be photographed with Vitorio Violante the coordinator of LENR reserch at ENEA (the DoE of Italy). http://www.univrmagazine.it/20…ble-economic-development/ http://www.univrmagazine.it/20…a-federico-testa-in-enea/ Violante is the author of some LENR articles and evens in EU http://ec.europa.eu/research/i…g-materials-report_en.pdf http://www.enea.it/it/Ufficio-…-renewable-energy-source/

Bill gates is also a discrete funder of Seashore Research, led by Robert Duncan under the patronage of TTU. https://thenewfire.wordpress.c…ersity-with-us-6-million/ Robert V Duncan at TTU: 5Mn$ for hydride research in "Seashore research LLC"

I won't say he is enthusiast on LENR, or at least he choose to be very discrete, but he invest some modest but valuable assets (money, time, reputation) on it.

Why would Bill Gates be discrete[sic] about LENR? He's hardly discreet about his other philanthropic grants to improve sources of energy. Squiggle:

Robert V Duncan at TTU: 5Mn$ for hydride research in "Seashore research LLC"

Gates is certainly not shy about his massive investments in alternative energy technologies including fusion, hot fusion as it be:

Commonwealth Fusion Systems: A firm working on a nuclear-fusion reactor that uses high-temperature superconductors and aims to be the first fusion system to produce net-positive energy. (Read more about CFS in this Quartz feature.)

https://qz.com/1402301/bill-ga…-fighting-climate-change/

I'd say you may want better evidence than a squiggle on top of a huge black bar in a redacted paper. Why doesn't someone who knows him ask Duncan? It can't be a secret. Gates doesn't do secret technological grants and he declines to make grants to government or military entities. Read my earlier links. You guys do read, don't you. Of course, I never do. I got the above via emotional/intellectual osmosis.

Quote

I would say Gates has invested in LENR.

Maybe so. In which case, he thinks so little of the results thus far that they are not even mentioned in his extensive, comprehensive and voluminous reports and letters detailing all his projects and humanitarian investments and grants. Or, like I said, maybe I missed it somewhere amidst the other billions of dollars he spent and you can find it. That's certainly possible.

You can Google "Texas Tech" and "Bill Gates" and all you get in returns is the usual suspects (LENR fan sites). But it's not hard to find other projects at Texas Tech that Gates or his foundation fund, even something as obscure as this:

"The Health Sciences Center at Texas Tech University has announced a two-year, $2.85 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in support of efforts to develop an effective vaccine for schistosomiasis."

https://philanthropynewsdigest…r-schistosomiasis-vaccine

My point was simply that if Gates thought there was much of a chance LENR would work, he'd mention it somewhere! Anywhere! Why isn't there a corresponding news blurb about a grant to Texas Tech or whoever for the LENR grant?

robert bryant Perhaps you can help demonstrate that LENR is viable and that Gates is very interested in it. Sure you can.

You misunderstood. Read it again. Gates doesn't care about secrets. I doubt he cares about possible profits. His job is no longer to make money. It's to spend it wisely. And don't forget Warren Buffett gave and/or pledged most of his immense wealth to the Gates Foundation as well. I have no idea how Gates feels about LENR. But is reasonable from the evidence I posted that he doesn't consider it important. If he did, he would have spent much much more on it and also would have featured it in his letters and reports. Remember that doing away with fossil fuels to decrease global warming is a major Gates priority. He and Melinda say that often in interviews.

I hope you are not holding your breath.

I have no idea. Maybe 5? 2? Maybe he doesn't think much about it at all? I think he has a healthy curiosity and a few million dollars donated isn't a big deal as long as it is not given to crooks. And that is relevant only if he has actually given and it is not simply the illusion of a few enthusiasts based on a few scratches of ink on a largely redacted signature.

"According to the latest World malaria report, released in November 2018, there were 219 million cases ofmalaria in 2017, up from 217 million cases in 2016. The estimated number of malaria deaths stood at 435 000 in 2017."

Recently, IO and I were challenged to provide some facts. This is a preamble to a fact perhaps. This fact: Bill and Melinda Gates are very open about the work they fund, both through the B&MG Foundation and some other groups they participate in. Gates also funds some research as an individual. Here is the fact I want to try: while Gates gives money for many technologies, including alternative nuclear fusion methods, there is no mention of LENR/cold fusion at all. I looked in many places. You can also search a huge data base of projects large and small (from a few thousand dollars to several millions). So my "fact" is in the alternative. I am not debating that it is possible (but not certain) that Gates is supporting some sort of LENR research. But if he is, he does not think it important enough to mention in his encyclopedic list and descriptions of projects. Note that Gates has said that neither he not the foundation support anything political or secret. That LENR is not mentioned but another fusion technology and many energy research projects are, should be telling.

I got the idea of searching this out after seeing an interview on Late Night with Stephen Colbert a few days ago in which Bill and Melinda Gates talked to Stephen about 10 minutes and never mentioned cold fusion or LENR. If they think it has potential, I found that strange. So have at it. Maybe I missed it and they write about it somewhere. God knows, they and their staff write about thousands of projects worth billions of support dollars each year. Can you find a mention?

The Colbert Interview: https://www.thedailybeast.com/…naires-to-stephen-colbert

Searchable List of all awarded grants by the B&MG Foundation: https://www.gatesfoundation.or…ck-Links/Grants-Database#

Awarded grants search for LENR: https://www.gatesfoundation.or…/Grants-Database#q/k=lenr

Introductory letter: https://www.gatesfoundation.or…om-Bill-and-Melinda-Gates

2019 Annual Letter (no mention of LENR):

https://www.gatesnotes.com/2019-Annual-Letter

Annual letters year by year (suggest you examine 2017 and 2018 at least):

https://www.gatesfoundation.or…Media/Annual-Letters-List

Breakthrough Energy Organization (BTE, Gates instigated and supported energy research coalition):

http://www.b-t.energy/ventures/our-investment-portfolio/

CFS (Commonwealth Fusion Systems) Web Site -- the fusion research Gates for sure supports (a hot fusion variant):

https://www.cfs.energy/

So based on the above links and facts, how seriously does Gates take LENR and how successful has his sponsored work been if he is actually sponsoring some?

And don't bother with the paranoid BS about secrets. Gates doesn't care. He doesn't need more money. He says it in interviews and anyway he's too rich to worry about just about anything except death. He wants to do a lot lot of philanthropy before he dies.

Quote

@IO & SOT why not try to contribute something real = facts that can be verified?

We sometime do. You probably didn't notice.

Quote

Rossi Now Looking for Pilot Customers in the 10MW (500 ECatSK) Range – Deals are being Negotiated as We Speak!

Mainly, I am glad @Adrian Ashfield feels well enough to post. Had not hear from him recently (?),

Classic high tech scam scenario:

- secret customers (for many years, not one revealed)

- device with the potential to make billions not sold to large companies or military who will reveal the purchase

- principle of action worthy of the Nobel prize never properly proven by "indipendent" verification and replication

- no patent protection that makes any sense

- no consumer protection type certification (ie UL).

- claim to nuclear power but no nuclear agency clearance or inspection

- claim to megawatts but no regional or other permits

- claim to many associates and staff but nobody knows who they are

- claim to a factory but its location is never revealed, doesn't show up in permits or directories

- no interaction with main line press despite multi-billion dollar potential

- no interaction with main line science

- discussed mainly in small forums on the internet

- often supported by those who have endorsed other scams

Did I miss some? For the above, Rossi scores 100%.

Quote

As for Krivit's highly edited video(s), you folks see all kinds of conspiracy in facial expressions, attributed intentions, fallacious conclusions, and the like. Krivit is one of the least reliable and most biased "experts" in this space

Actually, Krivit was one of the first to call out Rossi for the crook he is. Had IH / Darden relied on him as a consultant, they could have paid him a million dollars and come out substantially more than ten million ahead. That, not a Rossi boondoggle, would have been an investment.

Quote

My bet is that AR will now disappear and that will be the end of this ridiculous saga.

To paraphrase a bit: Old cons never die. They just smell that way.

robert bryant

I am curious to know what you will have to say a year from now when neither Brillouin nor BLP have made clearly verifiable progress and are still embellishing their claims. Or do you expect no improvements in a year for either one?

That's all very nice and good. I once worked on a project several decades ago when instrumentation was not as sophisticated and computerized as now. It involved measuring a couple of millivolts in a noisy environment. There was also data logging and other functions involved but this is about low level, low frequency voltage measurement. Two sources provided devices to the Navy. One was supplied by a major university research lab and the other by a small private company. The university opted for conventional technology with high impedance inputs. They thought they had properly filtered those inputs but they had not. The second company used an unconventional approach of a low impedance input which was much less sensitive to ambient noise spikes from motors and other nearby gear. They compensated for the low impedance by appropriate calibration using simulated sensors.

The device which disregarded the issue of induced noise from "spikey" power in the lab area, was never stable and adequate and had to be discarded as a failure. There was no time due to project constraints to try debugging it extensively. The device which made every possible effort to screen for and remove stray signals and spikes worked fine from the start.

The university lab did not lack experts. It is not unusual for experts to mismeasure low level signals for whatever reason. Some eventually correct their procedures, some don't. Tanzella may be great and he still could be paying too little attention to possible errors due to noise from the famous HF pulse source employed by Brillouin. Or from other sources. When one gets what one sees as strongly positive results, there is pressure not to question much or make changes.

This is why replication by an independent source using first the same method and later also using different measurement methods and calibrations is desirable before pronouncing that the results indicate an exceedingly important and promise-filled discovery.

I'm with THHuxleynew on this one.

Yah shoore. Brillouin is real because they say they are. Lovely graph. How do you know it is not measurement error? Same way all the Rossi fans were so convinced Rossi's claims were real before IH revealed they were not?

Quote

A 100% improvement in COP over 6 months isn't shabby.

Especially not shabby if it's real.

Quote

You claimed they did not calibrate, so I doubt you read it in the first place. In any case, if you are not going to read it, I suggest you refrain from commenting on it. How can you even tell if there are lies or any indication of criminality if you don't even read it? When there are lies in a report of this nature, such as the Penon report, they are usually obvious.

I was and I assumed others were talking about the multitude of Rossidemos with the steam ecats that Lewad, Levi, Kullander and Essen endorsed. Other "demos" had other infelicities. Rossi is mostly but not entirely an idiot.

Quote

seven_of_twenty wrote:

However what I recall from discussions is that the errors in that experiment involved the input power rather than the output.

JedRothwell wrote I doubt that. High bandwidth three-phase power analyzers are pretty reliable in my experience. The on-off cycles were not extreme and could easily be measured with this kind of instrument. I do not see how the heat balance would have been zero if the input power was measured incorrectly.

You doubt it because you emphasize reading and rereading Rossi and Levi while neglecting to read the critiques on the internet. Of course you don't see because you never question enough. Best I recall, one phase of the supposed "y" configuration was misconnected or unconnected but the calculations assumed it was correct. Your take on reading papers from improbable claimants and claims is what continues to make many people not believe you.

Quote

You cannot challenge me on this, because you refuse to read the paper. You will have to take my word for it, won't you? That's the disadvantage of your strategy toward cold fusion evidence, which is to cover your ears and yell out "Nanny-nanny boo boo! I can't hear you!!!" That does not convince other people.

What a crock! I read the paper when it came out, that was quite enough. Yes, I refuse to waste another hour or two on rereading Rossi's effluvia. Your continuous challenge of skeptics on the basis they don't read is laughable.