Quote from Bob#2

I have heard several times that Parkhomov used Rossi's reactor and fuel design and had a successful run. However...

I have followed the Rossi saga since the beginning. I have NEVER seen Rossi publish enough detailed information to do a replication of any type.

Can anyone provide the exact composition? Can any one provide the exact power input, voltage, amps, phase, etc.??

Can anyone tell me exactly what the cat and mouse is? (Not a theory, but actual words from Rossi)

Can anyone tell me if Parkhomov is using the blue plasma light Rossi is now using? Rossi abandoned the 1MW plant a couple of years ago. He abandoned the high temp cat, the gas cat , the Quark X, So exactly WHAT is Parkhomov replicating or showing it works?

This is a true problem with this field. People want LENR to work so badly, that when someone states they have a working device, people start imagining relations to previous works to give it more credibility. (Relating to Rossi does the opposite in my opinion! It degrades the credibility)

So again, how can someone replicate Rossi when Rossi has never, ever provided any reasonable data on what he was doing. He has never, ever shown reliably that his stuff even works. He has shown and been proven, time and time again to lie, deceive and cheat. Which seems most likely? He has a world changing technology or that he simply is a fraud. He has been proven a fraud and has never proven anything works.

Use a 1 ohm resistor? Sure! How about using various catalysts? Sure.... what are they and what amounts? Radio frequency? Sure. How about AC or DC, phase or single. These have all came under scrutiny, but Rossi never clarifies what is what.

Parkhomov may have a working reactor.... or he may not. His calorimetry is very questionable it appears. But if he does have a working reactor, his interest may have been started by the Rossi story, but he certainly is NOT doing a replication. Even now, my understanding is that his reactors do not resemble anything Rossi is currently doing with the "dancing ballerinas".

Truthfully, we could say Parkhomov is replicating Russ George... or Celani... or Piantelli, or Muzino... for that matter! It would be about the same as far as factual data is known!

Display More

If I was twenty years ahead of the competition, I doubt I would want 'replication' either.

Parkhomov and others are feeding off Rossi's hints and his Spirit of invention.

Seek and you shall find.

(I'm in a pro Rossi mood today and quite enjoying it. Blessed be! )

Quote from Curbina

They are back to then sparky videos. They should fire their entire marketing department, I mean, this video serves no real informational purpose whatsoever.

If you think this is from the 'marketing department' and for prospective customers, wow. This is for historical purposes, marking BLP's progress into particular branches of testing. If you want more information there is a five page powerpoint pertaining to the importance of this particular setup on BLP's website.

Quote from Dr Richard

But more recently:

I don't know the specific instrument, but with a lower line size, aliasing is a possibility. There is also the possibility that the response of the 1200 l/mm grating is poor, as gratings have cut angles that maximize a certain wavelength range. Of course, we have to assume that the user was competent enough to know how to read the wavelengths of the smaller grating.
At this point, I find there is no use in debating particular graphs. I consider them all fraudulent.
Here is what a real scientist would do. They would carefully construct a simple and reproducible experiment that would point to hydrinos. They would not include the word hydrino in the paper, but would instead show the anomalous results that point to a smaller bond-length of diatomic hydrogen.
The community would say "wow, that's weird, and I can actually do that experiment in my lab, given a week or so". It would then be reproduced, and a Nobel prize is forthcoming.
Or, the community would say "that is a flawed experiment, and I know this because it is so well written that I can spot the flaw", and science goes on as it should.
Instead, we have all sorts of pro-hydrino propoganda that doesn't even bother to create solid reproducible science. If this was real, why isn't a principle researcher at BLP screaming at the rafters and presenting the results in every scientific conference he can find? Why isn't he calling up his colleagues and asking them to do a replication?
If you answer "commercial reasons", I might agree -- those reasons being "hydrinos do not exist".

Display More

If you consider all the graphs 'fraudulent', then your mind is closed and made up. I'm surprised and frankly disappointed. I suppose then you think that the coauthors of Mills' various papers over two decades just roll over and go along with the fraud. That the validators who have observed the experiments and the measurements over the years have been bamboozled. That people like Dr. Ramanujachary of Rowan University, who independently creates hydrino and performs his own measurement on them is lying or incompetent. Have a look at Ramanujachary briefly describe his results, and the reaction he gets from fellow scientists:

This is representative of the response Mills gets from our public institutions of learning : silence. The inertia of tradition and certain influential people have dictated what is acceptable to seriously talk about in science, if you want a pay cheque. That is the reality.

Very curious! It's obvious to me that Rossi is more handsome than the average man his age. Square, well defined jaw, fit build, intense eyes, face etched with character. (Will Rafael Nadal or Andre Agassi look that good at that age?) I find the "I believe in the E-cat" song rather catchy. I find the SK demo, particularly the plasma ballerina and the spectra, fascinating. I haven't been to the doctor (for myself) for over five years. Maybe it's time?

Wyttenbach wrote: Hydrinos have no complete force equation and the assumption of a doubling etc. of charge with shrinking radius is the opposite behavior we see for nuclear mass ...

Quote from Navid

Wrong. It shows you don't know what is happening in hydrino creation, nor understanding photons, nor understanding electrons. I would start there.

- How does excitation of an electron by a photon really work? What causes the increase in radius and decrease in the velocity of the currents during excitation?

- What is the relationship between an electron radius and "photon standing wave" wavelengths?

Einstein won the Nobel prize for physics for the photoelectric effect but didn't have a clue what an electron or photon was. If you don't understand this in detail -- you can't understand why hydrinos ARE in force balance.

Display More

Mills is all about force balance. He takes full account of the forces he believes are in operation, and makes his calculations, which seem to work very well. The reason Mills calculations work is is because he introduces the trapped photon, which alters the coulombic force that the electron experiences from the proton. For excited states, the trapped photon(s) decreases the force ; for hydrino states the trapped photon(s) increased the force. This is critical in the calculations. Without them, no hydrino. Now, I suppose Wyttenbach thinks that this trapped photon is a bit of a cheat. Perhaps it is, or perhaps this is the way nature does it. The thing going for Mills is that he has performed experiments that appear to validate the existence of certain of the hydrino states precisely, like for instance the H2(1/4) Ro-vibrational spectrum branch one sees starting on page 15 of

https://www.brilliantlightpowe…l-Presentation-120718.pdf

Wyttenbach's theory however, to the best of my knowledge, predicts only one low energy shrunken hydrogen state, much smaller and lower energy than H2(1/4), something that might give off about 500eV. Don't quote me on that though. So the two theories predict different things. Who knows, Mills may be shown to be more or less correct on the electron level, while Wyttenbach may be more or less correct on the nuclear level. Either way, both are champions in my eyes.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

They think they think, therefore they think.

I resemble that remark. Maybe we are putting de carte before de horse?

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Mark, when I read statements like these I feel the intent of the author is to prove to themselves how great they themselves are. (open minded, loving, unselfish, whatever). That usually has nothing to do with the crackpot they lovingly espouse.

Just consider me as a data point. People like me are out there who may be prone to like the underdog or the unlikely prospect. For the record I can be damned selfish and a stubborn prick.

Quote from Dr Richard

Knowing Rossi's set up it was probably an old running down Hg vapour lamp - hence the instability - but who cares?

I care. I care because mainly because I'm curious. The Ballerina truly puzzles me. You want to move on because you assume (I think) that the Ballerina is just a run of the mill plasma phenomenon with hardly a relation to real energy production, while Mizuno has the stuff we should care about. You may be right, but maybe not.

Quote from clarifier

Which people ?

And if any, which of them do You consider "good" regarding the circumstance, that they "worked" with this invertebrate maggot ?

People like Sergio Focardi, Piantelli, Norman Cook and certain Swedes.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Do you know of a Rossi customer other than IH which was really a development partner and not a customer? If so, who was it? I don't believe Rossi, despite his claims, ever sold a single ecat in any variation, to anyone.

I certainly don't know any names. And maybe you are right that Rossi never have any real customers. Take this 2011 news from https://phys.org/news/2011-11-rossi-e-cat-customers.html

Quote

According to Rossi, each module received an initial energy input of 400 watts and produced a self-sustaining, continuous output of 10 kilowatts for the next few hours. Altogether, he claims that the device produced an average of 470 kilowatts in the form of steam for more than five hours.

Impressed with these results, the unknown US customer accepted delivery of a commercial E-Cat device. In the days since then - and likely due in part to all the media attention - Rossi has reported on his blog that he has sold “more than two”devices to other customers, which are also unnamed. The devices are being sold through Rossi’s company, Leonardo Corporation, and he says that the customers will reveal their identities when they choose.

The 'customers will reveal their identities when they choose' sounds exactly the same as what Rossi is saying in 2019 for the SK customers. Maybe the first 2011 customer was fake, and the 2019 customers are all fake, like Doral. Tempting to believe that. I consider it, but I don't happen to believe it, at least not at this point.

Quote from Dr Richard

Pretty sure that the ballerina AR demonstrated was just a Hg vapor lamp. In his other demos he did probably see some small excess heat effects but since he did not attempt to use any ultra dense D or H catalysts in his quartz tube e-cats he never produced anything like the kW of excess heat reported in Mizuno's R20 reactor. Oxidized 316 stainless steel and the Pd/Ni mesh used with a low D pressure will I think turn out to be the necessary combination of factors to optimize UDD/H formation>neutrino/antineutrino energy trapping>proton decay>meson release>negative muons>muon induced D/H fusion as a chain of events leading to MeV energy release ie kW excess heat. Rossi only understood part of this reaction and I suppose in frustration exaggerated his results. Still, he kept the cold fusion dream alive for many people.

Interesting hypothesis. I suppose you think it was an Hg lamp because of the higher frequency light. The difficulty with this idea is that when one compares the EM frequencies shown from the SK demo at this point

and over the next 45 seconds or so, there just isn't a comparable spectrum to a mercury lamp, at least none that I've seen. The thing is an enigma to me. Also, a mercury lamp would have a stable emission; the emission profile of the Ballerina seems to dance just like the plasma itself. The closest I've seen to the Ballerina's form is this plasma generated by microwaves:

It would be interesting to see what its spectrum profile would look like.

About the Mizuno's reactor and the reaction mechanism: Seems to be a novel and intriguing idea, which I'm not qualified to properly judge. Just by inspection however, 'neutrino ... trapping' doesn't make sense to me. And proton decay has never been observed. But what do I know.

Quote from Bob#2

Then if you think the blue light demo was mesmerizing, you evidently have little scientific training or knowledge. It was a total sham. There truly was nothing shown that was of any value at all. Nothing was verified or even presented as calculating out to any believable equations. Even most of his ardent supporters at ECW were dismayed.

Forgot to address this. The ballerina was glowing white, not blue. (But there was an early reference to a blue light when the Quark X was being developed.) But then supposedly there has welding glass between the camera and the plasma. Perhaps that removed any blueness. A while back I did some calculations, and given that the plasma was as big as Rossisaid, then using the wattage of a normal candle flame, I concluded that the power of the Ballerina plasma was congruent to what Rossi said it was. I didn't even account for the (supposed) higher photon energy of the Ballerina, compared to a candle flame.

Quote from Bob#2

Thank you for your response. While I do not understand it, at least you are open about it. I am not trying to change your mind simply for the sake of changing it. I do think Rossi is damaging the LENR field tremendously and continued support of him does disservice to a potentially world changing technology.

I would suggest you read the Doral court documents if you have not. This is a large task, but one that absolutely proves Rossi is a liar and fraudster. Under oath depositions of his OWN words prove he lied (about customer, production, who took the readings, etc. etc.), that he defrauded (fake invoices, fake certifications, faked test results to licensees, etc. etc.) and that he deceived his own fan base about new customers, factories, etc. on his blog while the trial was going on.

Then if you think the blue light demo was mesmerizing, you evidently have little scientific training or knowledge. It was a total sham. There truly was nothing shown that was of any value at all. Nothing was verified or even presented as calculating out to any believable equations. Even most of his ardent supporters at ECW were dismayed.

Many here have followed Rossi since 2011. He has stated he has sold 13 1MW plants during that time. What do you think happened to these "customers" and their plants? He has abandoned the 1MW eCat. He has stated robotized factories for all of his multiple designs and that they were ready for production. The Doral depositions clearly showed he has none.

He trumpeted theories with Cook and then Gulstrom. He had several aerospace "experts" consult with him. And now he is stating the eCat has nothing to do with CF! A very recent proclamation!

All to put it bluntly, I do not believe you can provide any data or information concerning Rossi or his eCats that show he has any working technology other than "Rossi says". Nothing. Period. So in light of his many, many proven lies and long history of deceit, you chose to simply take him at his word without any substantiation at all!

You might consider this a bit further!.

Display More

Yes I well know that Rossi lied about the Dorval customer. And he lied about the robotized factory it seems. I just don't generalize and conclude he has lied about almost everything else. Does that make me naive? Maybe. But then I believe that Rossi is very familiar with the works of Machiavelli, and believe that he does these things out of a detached strategy for ultimate success and not out of the condition of his soul, so to speak.

Yeah I have to rely on Rossisays. I take what Rossi says with a grain of salt, depending on the topic. But also, the fact of his collaborations with good people means something to me.

About Rossi saying it has nothing to do with cold fusion, I think I know what he is getting at. The idea about cold fusion is traditionally about a proton finessing the coulomb barrier and entering into another atomic nucleus. It's about nucleon contact. Rossi's new proposal is that (I think) a cluster of electrons outside an atom can remotely act on that atom's nucleus and change it.

I'm always open to further consideration. Looking forward.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

If you knew anything at all about cons, you'd realize that by now, the probability that Rossi is one is approaching 100%. I suppose he could be insane but there isn't anything to strongly suggested. There is not one pico-piece of evidence to suggest Rossi's stuff ever worked, not one yocto-percent of probability (yocto=10^-24).

Just out of curiosity, Mark U, how long have you been following Rossi's misnamed grossly idiotic blog? Did you read the depositions in the legal case of Rossi vs IH which expose his dozens if not hundreds of blatant lies and cheats? And what has Rossi ever been proven to have accomplished in the way of worthwhile work or notable peer reviewed papers in his entire life? The whole of his life?

I would not be surprised if you're a sock puppet for the slob. Or maybe for Torkel (sp?) in Scandinavia somewhere obscure.

I disagree that there has been zero evidence that Rossi's devices worked. People much closer to the devices that you or I seemed to think there was something there.

FYI I've only been following Rossi's blog maybe about a year and a half, on and off. I read some of the depositions, but must admit they made my eyes glaze over. I primarily read what Abd U-R Lomax wrote, although not all of it by any means. And yes I did occasionally read Torkel Nyberg's blogs on the Sifferkoll site. I seek a balanced perspective.

I'm nobody's sock puppet, sorry. I prefer thinking and acting for myself. People like me are out there, just want to let you know.

Quote from bang99

Mark U Member
Member since Oct 26th 2018

Some of us are already through with that

To speak for myself:

In 2009 50:50

In 2011 20:80

In 2019 0:100

No need for three more years.

You know Rossi's mantra?

"In mercado veritas" or something like that. And money for the children with cancer. And industrial certification. Fab's with ROBOTS!

He is proving everyday, that he does not have the technology that he AND HIS TEAM is so proud of.

No customer! IMHO a very important thing, when you say "In mercado veritas".

He is the "Con-Do Man".

And a sockpuppeteer.

How poor is that?

Display More

I'm definitely later to the game than you. Maybe I'll be where you are in a few years. Don't know. Frankly I'm surprised that Rossi would have *any* customer as soon as he did, in 2012 or whenever that was. Developing a reliable product, even for field trials with customers, takes time. My feeling is that his product did go out to a select few early customers but failed early. (Not something the inventor or customer would advertise.) That may be why Rossi has been big on his "Sigma 5" terminology and testing a while back during a marketing lull, and now has again approached the market with his SK version.

Yeah it is poor that he has engaged in sockpuppetry. On the positive side, it seems to show he is in emotionally invested in his energy devices and wants to counter wrong information out there.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

I'm probably just blanking out from a wonderful excess of rum during the holiday but WTF is "GW"?

Stop right there! Do you even know what a con artist is and how they work? I suggest you study that a bit. Rossi isn't simply a con artist. He is the most obvious, poster boy, hallmark example of one. He has been churning out lies and crimes his entire life and you be will hard put to point out a single achievement other than what he claims in his idiotic web sites and blogs, all filled with contradictions and lies. I won't go through the whole sickly catalog of Rossifiction, Rossilies, and Rossicrap again. Please try to educate yourself before you say things as foolish as doubting that Rossi is a liar, a criminal and a totally classic con artist.

GW probably refers to either General Wellativity or Global Warming.

Hey, I get you about the con thing. I've watched movies. I know about Bernie Madoff. Etc. Please note that I don't put this out of the realm of possibility. I'd give ten percent odds of Rossi being a con and having nothing, ten percent odds of him having all that he says, and eighty percent odds that he has something in between. Ask me again in three years.

Quote from Bob#2

[big snip]

So I honestly ask of you...how to you justify to yourself the ignoring of the mountain of proven evidence of Rossi's misdeeds against no evidence that he really is telling the truth and that your support of him regardless of the proven lies, fraud and misdeeds is justified by the hope that he has a working eCat?

This is an honest question as I seek to understand the thought process.

Thank you.

Display More

Hello Bob#2,

Long story short, I disagree with your one sided, extremely negative portrayal of Rossi. That you deem an alternative energy inventor in some way comparable to Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson and Jesse James says *something*, at least.

I don't ignore 'mountains' of evidence. I do consider them. I consider alternative narratives, alternative contexts to the 'evidence'. Balance and context. I apply the same principles to large corporations and smaller companies such as IH. No rush to judgement from me. I have not heard enough about IH to consider people in that company evil at all. They may be in part predatory. They may be in part wanting to truly help the world. I don't know. But I know that some more sizeable organizations will have a clique of bad apples who protect themselves while doing misdeeds that profit themselves at the expense of the public good. Perhaps Rossi is a lone bad apple who has at times sometimes associated with some good apples, to make himself look better, while knowing all along he doesn't have anything? Yes I consider that a possibility, and have so for a long time. But I am nowhere near the threshold of believing that. Perhaps now the Ballerina has me mesmerized and under its spell. Ask me in another three years. For now, I rather admire the man.

I hope I have given you some insight into the thought process, or perhaps the lack of it. Thank you.

Quote from bang99

He (sam12) says clear that he believe! (in the E-Cat and what Rossi says)

We can't discuss believe here, or will we?

Someone here earlier wanted to distinguish between belief and faith, saying something to the effect that belief is more evidence based, while faith not so much. To me there is evidence that Rossi has something quite good. Now, it may not be as good as he makes it out to be, but it is good enough to motivate him to work on improvements, like a man inspired. At least that's the impression I get. He seems too intelligent and philosophically grounded to be deluded. My hunch is that Rossi is an experimental, intuitive genius, yet on others levels, like calculations and physics, I think he struggles.

I also believe that Rossi was a competitive endurance athlete as a young man. I believe he worked on that because he truly had something, a natural ability, which drove him further. Similarly I believe Rossi has something with the E-cat, based on the effort he has exerted around it. He has seen enough positive result to inspire him further in his invention. But he is also fiercely protective and will resort to deception (so it seems) in order to continue his work.

With age I've become more skeptical, even cynical, of certain things. I marvel at certain people here who seem proud of their skepticism, particularly of Rossi, yet who nonetheless swallow certain propagandized, mainstream ideas so easily, despite contrary evidence that exists on closer examination of the facts. Very curious.

People like myself have a soft spot for the hardworking, freethinking individual who struggles against the current. If I recall correctly, President Eisenhower in his farewell address lamented that the days of the inventor tinkering in his garage were almost over and were being superseded by big money corporatists and bureaucrats of dubious motivation who through the power of funding control the stream of scientific inquiry and progress.

Even if Rossi turns out to be a con artist (which is possible, but which I currently doubt), picking on him is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. So don't be so full of yourselves. Thank you. Cheers.

Quote from THHuxleynew

OK, let us tease this apart.

1. On the one hand, you are saying that Rossi never had working technology. In that case you agree with me. Note that half-working ecats would still be worth $100M and/or nobel prizes as definite sign of new physics. But Rossi has completely abandoned his old devices, and IH did not try to keep them either.

2. Otherwise, you think he concocted that $100M up front payment contract, and deliberately withheld the one thing IH would want to pay him? Why?

I did not say Rossi never had working technology. I said that the technology he gave to IH was probably not complete, perhaps missing a critical component to work.

I don't recall where I read it long ago, but my impression was that IH was originally to set Rossi up for the year long test, to start before a certain deadline. When IH didn't follow through on this, Rossi hastily concocted up his own 'customer' for the test, with $100M to follow successful completion. Rossi may have suspected that IH was never truly on board with this, and ultimately withheld some critical IP. I don't really know, but that's my guess.

I scratch my head in wonderment over the agreements between IH and Rossi.

Quote from THHuxleynew

OK: this is the: "liar and cheat - but its all business" rationalisation which is pretty well required of the latter-day Rossi supporters.

The problem with this is that once you open that box - how can you know that anything Rossi says about his technology is true?

Indeed. This is what makes it so interesting. Like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get. I believe there are at least some good chocolates in the box. Non believers have extrapolated to think it is *all* some other brown substance. Like politics these days, things are more polarized and there seem to be fewer in the middle.

Quote

It is not as though he has any external validation. All he has is a situation where he lost $100M (that must be more than a 100 more condos?) which he clearly desperately desired because his tech as given to IH did not work.

How do we know that? Well, if IH had working tech from Rossi, Niall Woodford would not be finding it so difficult to sell his holding in them.

But Rossi had such a strong motivation to keep to that contract and give IH working tech... Even given he is a liar and cheat.

If Rossi knew he had working tech, imo there is no way he would give the rights of that working tech to IH for even one hundred million dollars. To me he values control of ultimate outcome over short term gain. What he gave to IH wasn't working tech but something probably close imo. So he was possibly trying to weasel more money out of IH over IP that wasn't quite all there, and it wasn't all there because Rossi probably never did entirely trust IH. In the end Rossi didn't want IH to have any of it, lest it come to bite him later. A plot worthy of a movie.

About being a liar and a cheat. I disagree. I believe the man is a noble, creative spirit who in the trenches of war will do the nasty business of what he thinks has to be done. It's cruel out there and he learned those lessons early.