Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

I'm a Rossi Watcher

Expand Messages
  • Steven Vincent Johnson
    I confess: I m an unabashed Rossi Watcher. I never know what Andrea going to do or say next. While occasionally informative, Rossi is always entertaining. It
    Message 1 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I confess: I'm an unabashed Rossi Watcher. I never know what Andrea going to do or say next. While occasionally informative, Rossi is always entertaining.

      It seems from my perspective that many Rossi Supporters seem hang on every tenuous scrap of information the eccentric engineer posts out on his personal web site, the "Journal of Nuclear Physics, Nuclear experiments blog".

      http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/

      As for Rossi skeptics (and unabashed bashers) ... the same.


      As I look back at the continuing saga, the impression Rossi has given me is that he has uncovered something truly extraordinary. I don't have a problem assuming Rossi has indeed stumbled across a procedure (what I'd call an alchemic approach) that seems to produce an excessive amount of heat in what hopefully will eventually turn out to be in an extraordinarily cheap manner.

      For several years now Rossi watches, supporters, and bashers, have observed Rossi try to engineer ways to harness his alchemical discovery commercially, sometimes flamboyantly so. To do so would likely turn him into an instant billionaire, perhaps even our planet's first trillionaire. But alas, more often than not, what I see is Rossi talk & promises that eventually seem go to the wayside. This is not meant to insinuate that I believe Rossi is a fake or a charlatan. While I could be wrong I continue to suspect Rossi is the genuine article, and so is his mysterious discovery he accidentally stumbled across. Unfortunately, I also suspect he has yet to figure out a way to stabilize this alchemical discovery of his in a way that would lead to commercialization.

      Watching Rossi, to me, is like watching a monkey with his hand in the cookie jar. Rossi KNOWS what his fingers are trying to grasp. But, damn, the cookie jar lid is so blasted narrow! Attempts to pull out just a single cookie all by himself will most likely to end up with a crumbled mess that falls back into the pile. The only way to get at any of the cookies would be to smash the jar. But smashing the jar would make far too much a ruckus. It would immediately alert all the other inquisitive monkeys to what Rossi is futzing with. In short order they would descend upon his cache of cookies and steal him blind. My metaphor pertains to what I have heard from "watchers" with far greater scientific & engineering background that I posses. Many of these watchers seem to have concluded that Rossi's hold on his discovery is at best tenuous. Some have concluded that Rossi's patents are weak. Should too many potential competitors begin to take Rossi's discovery more seriously they would most likely end up marginalizing all of his past-endeavors and ambitions in short order with stronger patents of their own. Under the circumstances it would appear that Rossi's greatest hope (perhaps a better definition: strategy) would be to continue to act the role of the LENR clown and buffoon insofar as public relations are concerned while privately trying to perfect the secret alchemical incantation.

      Will such strategy work? I gather many astute observers doubt it. Monkeys are considered a clever species. It's in their nature to observe and forage. I have no doubt that Rossi is being watched. After all, why grab the cookie jar from Rossi's figners (and end up looking like the bad guy in the eyes of the public) when it's very likely that Rossi will eventually end up deliberately (or by accident) breaking the jar all himself. If the latter eventually happens, who could possibly blame the rest of the monkeys if they descend upon all the scattered remains stuffing their cheek pouches with as much "cookie" as they can.

      Regards,
      Steven Vincent Johnson
      www.OrionWorks.com
      www.zazzle.com/orionworks
    • Mary Yugo
      I don t see how or why you differentiate Rossi from obvious scammers like Steorn, Carl Tilley, Dennis Lee, Papp, the Rohner brothers, Bedini, and all the other
      Message 2 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't see how or why you differentiate Rossi from obvious scammers like
        Steorn, Carl Tilley, Dennis Lee, Papp, the Rohner brothers, Bedini, and all
        the other claimants on Sterling's web pages, who make vast promises and
        never have anything properly and independently tested. I don't see any
        valid reason to believe a single thing Rossi says. The same is true for
        Defkalion. All these people do is make promises of third party tests and
        famous companies and universwities they are associating with. But the
        tests results are never properly revealed and replicated. The companies
        and universities deny any involvement. The schedules are never kept.
        Rossi claims customers but no customers have ever been properly identified
        and interviewed.

        How long do you think it would take to get a home heater properly tested?
        Licensed? How long has it been? Is that really how the most important
        invention of the century would be developed if it were real? With lie
        after lie and missed schedule after missed schedule? Do you remember what
        Defkalion claimed they had working in June 2011? (10 kilowatt or larger
        desktop reactors being tested by the dozen!) The Greek government tests
        they were getting done right then for the next October (2011)? What
        happened to all that? Why did they delete their forum which documented
        those claims?

        It amazes me ANYONE still believes ANYTHING Rossi (or Defkalion) says.
        Rossi is indeed entertaining but he's now reduced to a comedy show.

        M. Y.

        On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Steven Vincent Johnson <svj@...
        > wrote:

        > I confess: I'm an unabashed Rossi Watcher. I never know what Andrea going
        > to do or say next. While occasionally informative, Rossi is always
        > entertaining.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mary Yugo
        Abd writes in Vortex: Yes, Rossi went to jail. He was later exonerated, the charges were dismissed. But the charges were dismissed on a technicality.
        Message 3 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Abd writes in Vortex: "Yes, Rossi went to jail. He was later exonerated,
          the charges were dismissed."

          But the charges were dismissed on a technicality. According to John
          Milstone, writing in ecatnews.com:

          " I spent an entire day once reviewing every news article mentioning Rossi
          in Corriere della Sera (the local newspaper) from the beginning of their
          online archive through his first mention related to the E-Cat.

          He was convicted of fraud several times, as well as being convicted for
          creating toxic waste dumps (the �waste� he was supposedly converting to
          fuel).

          I did find articles indicating that the convictions for polluting were
          overturned, since the laws weren�t put into effect until after the �crimes�
          had been committed. Note that there is no question of Rossi dumping the
          waste and causing a (at least) $50 million cleanup effort. The only issue
          was whether that was actually a crime at the time it occurred. One
          additional point: the expert witness at Rossi�s polution trial stated that
          there was no sign that any waste had ever been converted into fuel. It had
          just been stored improperly and eventually leaked out into the environment.

          Beyond that, Rossi was convicted several times for business fraud. The last
          conviction I found was for bankruptcy fraud in 2000, for which Rossi was
          sentenced to 8 years in prison. As of 2004, that conviction was still in
          force, and I did not find any later articles indicating that it had ever
          been overturned. Note that Rossi wasn�t the only one convicted of business
          fraud related to Petroldragon. There were a whole gang of �businessmen� who
          were all convicted in conspiracy to commit fraud and money laundering.

          As far as I was able to determine, Rossi spent most of the 2000s in prison.
          His fans, of course, blame the entire Italian government for �persecuting�
          Rossi."

          From: http://ecatnews.com/?p=2490#comments

          Rossi also cheated the DOD out of millions of dollars, claiming he had
          highly efficient thermoelectric devices. I read the DOD report cover to
          cover. Rossi said the University of New Hampshire had tested the devices
          but no such test report was ever produced nor was any investigator at U of
          NH named. That is the same modus operandi Rossi uses now-- citing
          university studies and company associations which don't exist. DOD did
          not catch him on it but they should have. Rossi never produced a single
          device that worked. NOT ONE! He never produced or showed the original
          prototypes he claimed worked correctly and which he said the university
          tested. So where are those revolutionary and extremely valuable
          prototypes? A decade later, nothing has come from this research except
          the millions of dollars spent by DOD on a clear cut fraud.

          This is analogous to Rossi's claim that he was heating a factory in
          Northern Italy with an ecat since 2007. This claim appears in his blog and
          in his patent application. Yet nobody credible has reported seeing, much
          less testing, such a remarkable device. In fact, no proper independent
          test of any Rossi (or Defkalion) "technology" has ever been performed.

          DOD level of funding for this ridiculous waste (the purported
          thermoelectric devices) was documented here:
          http://shutdownrossi.com/rossi-the-military/rossis-thermoelectric-scam/

          The full DOD report with appendices is here:
          http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2004Army-ApplicationOfThermoelectricDevices.pdf


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Alain Coetmeur
          There are clear difference between Rossi and papp/rohner. first is tha LENr is scientifically proved... If I understand well the greatest proofs tha mainstream
          Message 4 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            There are clear difference between Rossi and papp/rohner.

            first is tha LENr is scientifically proved... If I understand well the
            greatest proofs tha mainstream is wrong are the Tritium proofs (BARH and
            another...), He4/Heat correlation proven in report41... add to that some
            very good calorimetry like isothermal calorimetry, some huge accidents of
            excessheat that let no possibility of chemical origin... Abd could probably
            make a better listing...

            the second sources of evidence are more business. The only reason to
            believe Rossi is Proia and more than him, his investors.

            for Defkalion you finish to prove you lack of honestiy, intelligence or
            more probably your self-delusion, by mixing Defkalion and Rossi about
            their claims.

            about half baked test of Defkalion, the proven mainstream delusion that
            blocks peer review, the expected hop of huge benefits, can explain why all
            testers stay in NDA... Defkalion might have been wrong imagining that they
            could publish anything.

            What is proven is that Nelson, after bashing rossi methodology, thanked
            Defkalion for being cooperative and self-confident in their reactor.
            Fraudster don't let a skeptical play with their baby.

            Given that LENr is a proven science, much more than many news that flow in
            scientificmedia, that this science is so much criticized that no
            businessman would invest a cent without checking two times with his own
            tools, there is no real risk that it is not a really hopeful situation...
            this does not mean it will work easily, but the investors have clearly
            proven that there is good reason to hope big benefits despite the huge
            warning of mainstream scientists.

            as i say often, read the data, use logic (first of all, absence of evidence
            is nothing, and does not negate any positive evidence), use indirect
            evidence (don't need to taste the blood when i see the sharks joining the
            party), think business once science is established, and don't restrict the
            evidence to what is comfortable for your bias (connect the dots with all
            data from the landscape, stop cherry picking negative=null-meaning)...

            I agree that there are some exaggerations, but exaggerated facts are to be
            ignored totally, not used to critic. this is a sophism. many reasoning I
            heard remind me the pre-logic reasoning of early greek, and some medieval
            philosophers.
            You should learn the non-aristotelian reasoning.mixing of quantifier,
            reverse implication, and grammatical/vocabulary arguments.

            Papp, Leclair, the myth around rossi, the lies of rossi, the rossi says
            globally, are... non-facts about E-cat, Hyperion and Brillouin reactor.
            SRI test, Nelson test and notes, Proia interview, are facts. Tritium
            detection, He4/heat correlation, iwamura and toyota replication , nasa
            GRC89,2008, thsinghua uni, biberian are facts...
            failed experiments are non-facts. erroneous experiments are non facts.
            violation of ethic by MIT replication team, by Nature on Oriani paper, by
            Science on report 41, are non-proof about LENR, but positive proof that the
            process of mainstream science is not reliable, that critics against LENR
            bear no trustable value.

            today there are clear evidence, yet business-rated, that there are few
            reactors working, Defkalion, Rossi and Brillouin. the worst position that
            you can take is that it is only 95% sure.

            estimating more than few % of chance of failure is clear lack of honesty,
            or delusion.
            saying 100% fraud, and not even 5% genuity is a joke, and a proof of
            delusion.

            It does not prevent me to propose that even 1% is not realistic, since now
            the doubt are infinitesimal, which in business mean null. I admit it is a
            position that one can critic not being stupid, yet I maintain it from the
            data I gathered and my experience in corporate behavior.

            Chance that the adventure turn bad are still high, but for usual reason,
            like defkalion and rossi shows : because of incumbent business opposition,
            because of technical problems, because of hubris, because of some safety
            discovery or scientific new fact, because of competitors, of regulators, of
            protectionism...
            Anyway if Brillouin, Defkalion, Rossi fails, Celani, Chauvin,Ovidi,
            Piantelli, Toyota, Mitsubshi, Thinghua university, beijin Univesity, ENEA,
            Uni Missouri, EPFL, Uni Orebro, Pirelli, Uni Moscow, BARC, will be able to
            take the relay... unstoppable.

            about rossi, I would say that even a clown can sell a working car... and if
            Nixon have bought the car, I guess that it works more or less well.

            About defkalion, Eurotunnel was late delivered, yet it was real... it was
            banckrupted, yet useful and working...

            about Brillouin, Manhattan project was secret and yet succeed.

            many denialist reasoning are simply not honest, or kiddish. At most those
            argument let room for not being sure... If beside that you have business
            evidences, or serious claims, there is no more reason to doubt. absence of
            proof let the other evidence unchanged.

            2013/1/13 Mary Yugo <maryyugo@...>

            > **
            >
            >
            > I don't see how or why you differentiate Rossi from obvious scammers like
            > Steorn, Carl Tilley, Dennis Lee, Papp, the Rohner brothers, Bedini, and all
            > the other claimants on Sterling's web pages, who make vast promises and
            > never have anything properly and independently tested. I don't see any
            > valid reason to believe a single thing Rossi says. The same is true for
            > Defkalion. All these people do is make promises of third party tests and
            > famous companies and universwities they are associating with. But the
            > tests results are never properly revealed and replicated. The companies
            > and universities deny any involvement. The schedules are never kept.
            > Rossi claims customers but no customers have ever been properly identified
            > and interviewed.
            >
            > How long do you think it would take to get a home heater properly tested?
            > Licensed? How long has it been? Is that really how the most important
            > invention of the century would be developed if it were real? With lie
            > after lie and missed schedule after missed schedule? Do you remember what
            > Defkalion claimed they had working in June 2011? (10 kilowatt or larger
            > desktop reactors being tested by the dozen!) The Greek government tests
            > they were getting done right then for the next October (2011)? What
            > happened to all that? Why did they delete their forum which documented
            > those claims?
            >
            > It amazes me ANYONE still believes ANYTHING Rossi (or Defkalion) says.
            > Rossi is indeed entertaining but he's now reduced to a comedy show.
            >
            > M. Y.
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
            ... Intuition? ... Today is Sunday and it s Bologna. ... Mary, this is newVortex. On newVortex, I expect, we will demand that pseudoskeptics become genuine
            Message 5 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              At 01:41 PM 1/13/2013, Mary Yugo wrote:
              >I don't see how or why you differentiate Rossi from obvious scammers like
              >Steorn, Carl Tilley, Dennis Lee, Papp, the Rohner brothers, Bedini, and all
              >the other claimants on Sterling's web pages, who make vast promises and
              >never have anything properly and independently tested.

              Intuition?

              > I don't see any
              >valid reason to believe a single thing Rossi says.

              Today is Sunday and it's Bologna.

              > The same is true for
              >Defkalion.

              Mary, this is newVortex. On newVortex, I expect, we will demand that
              pseudoskeptics become genuine skeptics. We have no authority to do
              that other than

              It's the right thing to do.

              I'll say some reasons to think that Defkalion might sometimes tell the truth:

              1. They look nice.
              2. Vysotskii was photographed working a bit on some measurements there.
              3. Why not?

              Defkalion is a *business*, and businesses have no obligation to tell
              the truth, except under certain circumstances. Announcement of
              product plans, etc., are not those circumstances. They can lie
              through their teeth, and businesses do this all the time. Cheat an
              investor -- or a customer --, though, and it can be big trouble. So
              far, no Rossi or Defkalion investors filing legal complaints or tort actions.

              > All these people do is make promises of third party tests and
              >famous companies and universwities they are associating with. But the
              >tests results are never properly revealed and replicated.

              That is, as far as we know. There are exceptions, of course.
              Brillouin is setting up at SRI, McKubre's lab. I was there, I'm
              confirming that. (But, of course, no report yet; that will take time,
              if we ever see it. I do not know the nature of the SRI-Brillouin
              agreement.) Celani's NiH work is being studied, apparently with
              Celani's cooperation.

              I don't know what Defkalion is up to. They don't present the same
              clown-like scammer appearance as Rossi.

              Here is a problem, Mary. There are many of us who know the research
              on cold fusion. We know that cold fusion is real, but the same highly
              skeptical arguments are made about cold fusion, as we see about, say,
              Rossi. The researchers are sometimes called frauds and incompetent
              free-energy dreamers.

              Now, NiH LENR is not as well substantiated as palladium deuteride
              version. For the moment, just take it from me that PdD is real.
              Practical? Not at all proven, not even close. Real, but maybe a "real
              laboratory curiosity."

              (Cold fusion fans often present rosy scenarios of vast amounts of
              cheap energy, but ... that is *possible*, but by no means certain.
              What's needed is serious basic research, and the problem there is
              funding. The basic research that is needed isn't *directly* useful to
              an entrepreneur, though large corporations who fund basic research
              for the long term do seem to be perking up their ears.)

              Nevertheless, even though NiH reactions seem preposterously unlikely,
              if we look at, say, fusion cross-section, we also know that the
              predictions about PdD reactions were dead wrong. So we are more
              sympathetic to NiH claims that the average scientifically bent person.

              If one is convinced that NiH is impossible, then the conclusion is
              obvious, and there is a ton of evidence for it: Rossi is a scammer.
              It's all fake.

              However, what if it is not impossible?

              A real skeptic doesn not forget to be skeptical of self.

              > The companies
              >and universities deny any involvement. The schedules are never kept.
              >Rossi claims customers but no customers have ever been properly identified
              >and interviewed.

              He appears to do those things, yes.

              >How long do you think it would take to get a home heater properly tested?
              >Licensed? How long has it been?

              Rossi is not disclosing the truth. I'd say that is *certain*.

              Steve, however, has pointed to one reasonably likely cause: Rossi has
              been unable to make the devices *reliable*. Given that, an
              entrepreneur might even fake a few tests, thinking, "Damn thing isn't
              working today! So I'll fudge this one. Here, pump up the heater power
              while Mats Lewan is busy looking at the outlet hose. Oh! He's turning
              back! Look innocent while turning the power back down! It's all for a
              good cause. After all, I *really do have the most important invention
              of the century here,* I just need to work out the kinks."

              > Is that really how the most important
              >invention of the century would be developed if it were real? With lie
              >after lie and missed schedule after missed schedule? Do you remember what
              >Defkalion claimed they had working in June 2011? (10 kilowatt or larger
              >desktop reactors being tested by the dozen!) The Greek government tests
              >they were getting done right then for the next October (2011)? What
              >happened to all that? Why did they delete their forum which documented
              >those claims?

              They are a business and don't want to maintain negative comments?

              >It amazes me ANYONE still believes ANYTHING Rossi (or Defkalion) says.
              >Rossi is indeed entertaining but he's now reduced to a comedy show.

              It's amazing, Mary, that anyone "believes" anything, given the
              history of "belief."

              I highly recommend identifying all beliefs as beliefs, i.e., made-up
              interpretations. Beliefs are *useful* or *not useful.* They are
              neither "true" nor "false."

              Some beliefs are so routinely useful that we think of them as "true."
              But complex beliefs about reality, the motivations of other people,
              scientific possbilities and impossibilities? That's quite another matter.

              So, Mary, don't forget to be skeptical of your own confident
              interpretations! Vortex was founded as a place where beliefs about
              science were suspended. Not discarded! Just placed in abeyance enough
              that we can actually look at "six impossible things before breakfast."

              Communication requires some level of belief, i.e., a *trust* that the
              person has something to say.

              When we trust this, it is *not* that the person is *intrinsically
              trustworthy.* It is that we have found that trusting people, this
              far, leads to increased knowledge. We will ask questions, if we have
              the opportunity, that resolve problems. When we don't trust in this
              way, we will *frequently* fail to even understand what people are
              saying. We *believe* that we already know. It's a load of crap!

              The pseudoskeptics were never able to falsify cold fusion because
              they did not trust the reports sufficiently to replicate them.
              Falsification would take one of two things: replication of the
              original work, with, then, controlled experiment demonstrating the
              source of the "artifact," or strong evidence of fraud or deception.
              Among scientists, fraud and deception are pathologies, and a single
              finding of fraud or deception can ruin the career of a scientist, and
              properly so.

              The social rules for business are different!

              It is fairly common among entrepreneurs that they have business
              failures, until they hit it. Those business failures can sometimes be
              spectacular, and they often involve bankruptcy. And when creditors
              have been burned, deception is commonly asserted. Whether or not
              there was intentional deception, and entrepreneur may easily have
              made promises that were not kept. Indeed, that is how most bankrupt
              debt was acquired!
            • Craig
              ... Q: Why do you care? You seem extremely dedicated to the task of dissuading anyone from being interested in Rossi, and you ve been relentless about this for
              Message 6 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On 01/13/2013 01:41 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
                >
                >
                > It amazes me ANYONE still believes ANYTHING Rossi (or Defkalion) says.
                > Rossi is indeed entertaining but he's now reduced to a comedy show.
                >

                Q: Why do you care? You seem extremely dedicated to the task of
                dissuading anyone from being interested in Rossi, and you've been
                relentless about this for almost two years now. Why?

                Craig



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Steven Vincent Johnson
                Greetings Ms. Yugo Like I said, I m a Rossi watcher. I don t have enough time in my day to also be entertained by Steorn, Tilley, Papp, the Rohner brothers,
                Message 7 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Greetings Ms. "Yugo"

                  Like I said, I'm a Rossi watcher. I don't have enough time in my day to also be entertained by Steorn, Tilley, Papp, the Rohner brothers, Bendini and what-not. I know they all exist. Occasionally I'll read up on some of their latest adventures, particularly when one of them generates a lot of noise in the public arena. But for now, watching Rossi is about all the alternate energy entertainment I can take in.

                  Meanwhile, you seem to be proving my previous point:

                  > ... many Rossi Supporters seem hang on every tenuous scrap of
                  > information the eccentric engineer posts out on his personal web
                  > site, the "Journal of Nuclear Physics, Nuclear experiments blog".
                  >
                  > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
                  >
                  > As for Rossi skeptics (and unabashed bashers) ... the same.

                  You seem to have come to a conclusion that Rossi is a fake. As for me, I'm not so sure. Actually, I doubt it. In any case, I think we know where each other stands on the Rossi matter. Since I've already stated a few of my reasons it strikes me as a redundant endeavor to repeat them here. They are simply my opinions. Considering the controversy that swirls around enigmas like Rossi, I do my best to make sure that whatever tentative opinions I may have formed are subject to change when additional information comes to light. I certainly hope you give yourself the same freedom of choice.

                  Regards,
                  Steven Vincent Johnson
                  www.OrionWorks.com
                  www.zazzle.com/orionworks
                • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
                  ... Mary referred to a post about the crime issue, and cited it. I m going to ask Mary to watch and see if the following question receives responses. If it
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 02:12 PM 1/13/2013, Mary Yugo wrote:
                    >Abd writes in Vortex: "Yes, Rossi went to jail. He was later exonerated,
                    >the charges were dismissed."
                    >
                    >But the charges were dismissed on a technicality.

                    Mary referred to a post about the crime issue, and cited it.

                    I'm going to ask Mary to watch and see if the following question
                    receives responses. If it doesn't, I may point (again) to this thread
                    on Vortex. Then I'd ask Mary to be patient and watch to see what
                    happens. The question:

                    This is Mary Yugo's post:

                    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/47

                    If any reader has evidence to the contrary of whatever was shown in
                    Mary's post, please provide it here.

                    Let's start with *evidence*, not merely explanations. Anything can be
                    explained, whichever way one likes. Let's start with what actually happened.

                    One exception to my request that Mary not respond for a while: if she
                    has links that could be posted to evidence, posting there here would
                    be useful. If you do this, Mary, please *skip the interpretation*
                    beyond a brief neutral summary of what's in the link. You referenced
                    John Milstone on ecatnews, a long page with lots of other
                    information. If you want to cite a page like that, please give the
                    date(s) of the relevant comments.

                    If you bring quotes or "facts" here, please attribute them
                    specifically, as to the source as verified by you. You have cited
                    Milstone as your source, but Milstone is writing polemic, and does
                    not actually provide evidence. He simply asserts stuff. Unless he has
                    credentials as an expert, and is testifying as one, being
                    professionally responsible, he is not a reliable source.

                    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2490#comments

                    >John Milstone
                    >January 13, 2013 at 1:09 am

                    >I spent an entire day once reviewing every news article mentioning
                    >Rossi in Corriere della Sera (the local newspaper) from the
                    >beginning of their online archive through his first mention related
                    >to the E-Cat. [...]

                    The full post makes many claims about the history. No links were
                    provided, so verifying Milstone's history would be tedious. If he
                    spent an "entire day" reviewing "every news article mentioning
                    Rossi," surely he could have provided links. Instead, very likely,
                    what he has posted is what he remembers from that research. When we
                    have strong opinions, we tend to remember what confirms them, and not
                    what does not. That is a general phenomenon, it's not limited to,
                    say, John Milstone.

                    So maybe this is an opportunity to examine the real history, such as
                    it can be found. People may still differ in how they interpret it. I
                    prefer not to interpret it at all. It simply is what it is. If I were
                    contemplating investing with Rossi, I would surely want to know his
                    history, not to *interpret it*, but to make an informed choice.

                    What do we actually know here?
                  • David
                    ... Mary, some of the scientific statements made by Rossi on his blog now match simulation variables and results that I have generated. He has had a tendency
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In newvortex@yahoogroups.com, Mary Yugo wrote:
                      >
                      > I don't see how or why you differentiate Rossi from obvious scammers like
                      > Steorn, Carl Tilley, Dennis Lee, Papp, the Rohner brothers, Bedini, and all
                      > the other claimants on Sterling's web pages, who make vast promises and
                      > never have anything properly and independently tested. I don't see any
                      > valid reason to believe a single thing Rossi says.

                      Mary, some of the scientific statements made by Rossi on his blog now match simulation variables and results that I have generated.

                      He has had a tendency to keep the facts away from would be copy cats but they slip out on occasions when people ask him specific questions.

                      Now he admits that his Cat family operates with a 50% input drive duty cycle. For the longest time he had most people confused by his definition of the self sustaining mode which left them thinking that it continued to put out power indefinitely without additional drive pulses. My model has pointed out that it takes a 50% duty cycle to be able to control the device while maintaining a COP of 6.

                      The model further suggests that it will be quite difficult to achieve a COP of greater than 6 with adequate control.

                      How would Rossi know these facts unless he actually has a device to test or perhaps he has been reading my posts. I bet you do not recall him ever stating that his device will work with a specified higher COP since it will not happen unless he actually allows power generated by the heated coolant, etc. to augment the input electrical drive. In this case, the overall COP could be infinite with reasonable conversion efficiency.

                      Please do not take the COP of 6 as being a theoretical limit, since it is possible to get a little bit more, but the control suffers greatly under those conditions.

                      Dave
                    • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
                      ... *Some* LENR is scientifically proven, though I m not big on the word proof. I prefer to think of preponderance of the evidence. ... No, LENR may
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 04:05 PM 1/13/2013, Alain Coetmeur wrote:
                        >There are clear difference between Rossi and papp/rohner.
                        >
                        >first is tha LENr is scientifically proved... If I understand well the
                        >greatest proofs tha mainstream is wrong are the Tritium proofs (BARH and
                        >another...), He4/Heat correlation proven in report41... add to that some
                        >very good calorimetry like isothermal calorimetry, some huge accidents of
                        >excessheat that let no possibility of chemical origin... Abd could probably
                        >make a better listing...

                        *Some* LENR is "scientifically proven," though I'm not big on the
                        word "proof." I prefer to think of "preponderance of the evidence."

                        >[... circumstantial evidence, i.e. business people would not get
                        >involved with frauds.]

                        >Given that LENr is a proven science, much more than many news that flow in
                        >scientificmedia, that this science is so much criticized that no
                        >businessman would invest a cent without checking two times with his own
                        >tools, there is no real risk that it is not a really hopeful situation...

                        No, LENR may exist, but NiH LENR is not "proven." There is *very
                        substantial risk* that Rossi and Defkalion and others will not
                        succeed, whether because they have nothing (but fraud or artifact),
                        or they have something but are unable to make it reliable or
                        sustainable (two separate issues), and we have no public information
                        on which we can make a judgment of that.

                        >this does not mean it will work easily, but the investors have clearly
                        >proven that there is good reason to hope big benefits despite the huge
                        >warning of mainstream scientists.

                        We do not know what the investors think or have "proven." They are
                        not talking. We don't even know who they are, for the most part. We
                        certainly do not know whatever business arrangements have been made.

                        >[...] I agree that there are some exaggerations, but exaggerated
                        >facts are to be
                        >ignored totally, not used to critic.

                        Depends. For a scientist to "exaggerate" is highly reprehensible,
                        because quantitative results are essential to science.

                        However, for an entrepreneur to exaggerate is mere puffery. They may
                        even lie. They may say, "We have a contract for a million dollar
                        sale," when they have nothing. They may say, "We are building a
                        factory to produce a million units per month," when what actually
                        happened is they chatted with a real estate agent about industrial
                        property. If that."

                        >[...] positive proof that the
                        >process of mainstream science is not reliable, that critics against LENR
                        >bear no trustable value.

                        The process of mainstream science is *long-term* reliable. Cascades
                        can occur, social phenomena where an idea that is never proven takes
                        over the "scientific consensus." I usually point to
                        www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?pagewanted=all for an
                        explanation of cascades, a particularly ironic one, because Gary
                        Taubes was intimately involved in creating the cold fusion cascade.

                        "Critics against LENR" are arguing an old battle, beating a dead
                        horse. However, "Critics against Rossi," which is really the issue
                        here, are often just stating the obvious, and making reasonably
                        obvious conclusions from fact. There is a big difference.

                        That does *not* mean that the critics are always right. Sometimes
                        "reasonable conclusions" can be wrong.

                        >today there are clear evidence, yet business-rated, that there are few
                        >reactors working, Defkalion, Rossi and Brillouin. the worst position that
                        >you can take is that it is only 95% sure.

                        No. The worst position that we can take is that nobody is seeing real
                        anomalous heat from nickel hydride.

                        I'll say that I don't know enough to be sure of this position.
                        However, a pile of weak arguments does not a strong argument make.
                        Where can we say, with *certainty*, that there is a NiH "reactor" working?

                        What I can say is that nobody has shown that NiH heat is
                        *impossible,* but impossibility proofs are, in fact, impossible.
                      • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
                        ... I can understand it. It can take years to become familiar with a subject. Craig, please consider Mary Yugo our guest here. Think that, perhaps, we have
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 06:15 PM 1/13/2013, Craig wrote:
                          >On 01/13/2013 01:41 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > It amazes me ANYONE still believes ANYTHING Rossi (or Defkalion) says.
                          > > Rossi is indeed entertaining but he's now reduced to a comedy show.
                          > >
                          >Q: Why do you care? You seem extremely dedicated to the task of
                          >dissuading anyone from being interested in Rossi, and you've been
                          >relentless about this for almost two years now. Why?

                          I can understand it. It can take years to become familiar with a subject.

                          Craig, please consider Mary Yugo our guest here. Think that, perhaps,
                          we have invited Mary Yugo to speak to us about certain topics. Mary
                          is a pseudoskeptic (being a debunker is a common sympton of
                          pseudoskepticism, per Truzzi).

                          Please don't bait her, and we will expect her to avoid the "you
                          gullible believers" tropes as well.

                          Pseudoskeptics are not always wrong. In fact, they may even usually be right.

                          Mary responded to a comment of mine that Rossi did go to jail (that's
                          true) but that the charges were dismissed. That's also true, if we
                          limit the "charges" to the ones he went to jail for.

                          I'm interested in what actually happened.

                          Here is the problem with the Rossi claims. We often look at them as
                          if they were the claims of a scientist. Jennifer Ouellette actually
                          refered to him as an "Italian physicist." But he is not a scientist,
                          he's an entrepreneur -- and maybe an engineer.

                          Were he a scientist, personality doesn't matter, at least not as
                          much. But if we are going to judge what's actually happening with
                          Rossi, and try to figure it out, most of what we think we know about
                          Rossi comes from ... Rossi.

                          To assess the importance of the Rossi claims, we need to know
                          something about the man. If we had independent confirmations, direct
                          evidence, etc., we'd need to know almost nothing about him. Rossi is
                          claiming something that was very much out of the ordinary. Sure, LENR
                          is real, but not all claims of LENR are real, and most LENR phenomena
                          had a common characteristic: an extreme dependence upon very
                          sensitive conditions in the material. Suddenly Rossi is claiming
                          something very different.

                          Okay, interesting. But *how much should we trust these claims."

                          Mary has made some claims about Rossi's history. Some of them I think
                          I've seen elsewhere, but not all. Rossi is a public figure, and his
                          *reliability* is an issue of public importance. Hence I'm encouraging
                          Mary to provide more direct evidence. What actually happened?

                          I'm a "believer." That is, I believe in Reality. I just am far from
                          sure I know what Reality is. The search is the goal, I suspect, I
                          suspect that we never know for sure about "facts," only about Reality
                          itself, sheer existence. If that.
                        • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
                          ... I think Mary would agree. ... I would agree. ... I doubt both positions. Meanwhile, Mary made some statements. I m asking the list to correct errors in
                          Message 12 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 06:26 PM 1/13/2013, Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

                            >You seem to have come to a conclusion that Rossi is a fake.

                            I think Mary would agree.

                            > As for me, I'm not so sure.

                            I would agree.

                            > Actually, I doubt it.

                            I doubt both positions.

                            Meanwhile, Mary made some statements. I'm asking the list to correct
                            errors in those statements, if there are errors. And I'm asking Mary,
                            who only pointed to some blog posts by an apparent debunker, as if
                            those were facts, to, if she cares, support them with links.

                            I guess I'm still kind of a Wikipedia editor. You know, Reliable
                            Source and all that.

                            What do we actually know? I'm amazed how much people will flame at
                            each other without actually looking for common ground. What actually
                            *happened*? I don't give a fig about how it looks.
                          • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
                            ... Okay, putting on my skeptic hat, liars will often say something true, to build rapport. Then they sneak in the lie. ... Or he s clever and makes it appear
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 06:39 PM 1/13/2013, David wrote:




                              >--- In newvortex@yahoogroups.com, Mary Yugo wrote:
                              > >
                              > > I don't see any
                              > > valid reason to believe a single thing Rossi says.
                              >
                              >Mary, some of the scientific statements made by Rossi on his blog
                              >now match simulation variables and results that I have generated.

                              Okay, putting on my skeptic hat, liars will often say something true,
                              to build rapport. Then they sneak in the lie.

                              >He has had a tendency to keep the facts away from would be copy cats
                              >but they slip out on occasions when people ask him specific questions.

                              Or he's clever and makes it appear so.

                              Look, we can interpret "Rossi facts" a hundred ways till next Sunday.
                              Most of what we see is fluff.

                              David, how about reporting -- in its own thread -- what you found as
                              confirmed. Write an article on it. That could be very useful.

                              >Now he admits that his Cat family operates with a 50% input drive duty cycle.

                              Eh? Link?

                              > For the longest time he had most people confused by his
                              > definition of the self sustaining mode which left them thinking
                              > that it continued to put out power indefinitely without additional
                              > drive pulses. My model has pointed out that it takes a 50% duty
                              > cycle to be able to control the device while maintaining a COP of 6.

                              That would imply, David, that he was *lying.*

                              Trying to outwit a liar, to figure out what part is true, is a risky
                              occupation.

                              >The model further suggests that it will be quite difficult to
                              >achieve a COP of greater than 6 with adequate control.
                              >
                              >How would Rossi know these facts unless he actually has a device to
                              >test or perhaps he has been reading my posts.

                              This is a "how come" argument. It assumes that a coincidence is a
                              symptom of something else. He might indeed have been reading your
                              posts, David. Or not.

                              >I bet you do not recall him ever stating that his device will work
                              >with a specified higher COP since it will not happen unless he
                              >actually allows power generated by the heated coolant, etc. to
                              >augment the input electrical drive. In this case, the overall COP
                              >could be infinite with reasonable conversion efficiency.
                              >
                              >Please do not take the COP of 6 as being a theoretical limit, since
                              >it is possible to get a little bit more, but the control suffers
                              >greatly under those conditions.


                              Rossi originally claimed much higher COP, as I recall. Of course,
                              there were also reports of a near-runaway event.

                              If the reaction rate is only constrained by temperature, if the
                              reaction increases with temperature and, of course, the temperature
                              increases with the reaction, obviously the thing can run away. That's
                              why one would want to control the device in another way, perhaps by
                              restricting the fuel. As long as the NAE is intact, the higher the
                              temperature, the better. Temperature as a control, then, is
                              problematic. However, there could be other problems with control by
                              fuel restriction.

                              It's circumstantial evidence, David.

                              As I recall, the runaway event was quenched by flooding the reactor
                              with nitrogen. So ... how would the reactor behave with lower
                              pressures of hydrogen? With a nitrogen mixture?

                              Rossi could end the charade in a flash (if he really has something),
                              but nobody who has been following him expects that he will.
                            • Jeff Berkowitz
                              I hold the same views about Mr. Rossi that I ve held more or less since day one: that he thinks he s got something, in his own view of the world, but he s
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I hold the same views about Mr. Rossi that I've held more or less since day
                                one: that he thinks he's got something, in his own view of the world, but
                                he's wrong. My viewpoint is generous, in its way. It removes any need to
                                accuse him of anything, or describe him of being delusional, or making any
                                other uncharitable judgment about him, regardless whether the uncharitable
                                judgment is correct, whether he "deserves" it, or any of that. Debates over
                                such judgments are unnecessary and in my view serve only to introduce drama
                                into a situation where no drama is required.

                                He made some claims: fine. The proper description of the situation is: a
                                man made some claims, and if he can follow through, the results will have
                                tremendous, world-changing value - also fine. So let him follow through, or
                                not. And if he instead makes more claims: fine. And so on.

                                Now if it was my job to decide whether to invest money in Mr Rossi's
                                claims, I'd have to make a sort of judgment. But even that judgment would
                                be about the claims and the supporting evidence only. Further judging the
                                man or tagging him with loaded words like "scammer", "genius", ... - or
                                whatever - is simply add drama where no drama is appropriate.

                                Every scammer has a little entrepreneur in them, and every entrepreneur a
                                little scammer. Release yourself from judging the person and you'll get
                                better results. My guess is that Mr. Rossi will never be able to support
                                his claims, but it's just a guess. I'd give my right arm to be proven
                                wrong. I don't mean that as a casual expression of speech - I mean I'd give
                                my right arm, if that was what it took.

                                My $.02

                                Jeff



                                On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd@...>wrote:

                                > **
                                >
                                >
                                > At 06:39 PM 1/13/2013, David wrote:
                                >
                                > >--- In newvortex@yahoogroups.com, Mary Yugo wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > I don't see any
                                > > > valid reason to believe a single thing Rossi says.
                                > >
                                > >Mary, some of the scientific statements made by Rossi on his blog
                                > >now match simulation variables and results that I have generated.
                                >
                                > Okay, putting on my skeptic hat, liars will often say something true,
                                > to build rapport. Then they sneak in the lie.
                                >
                                >
                                > >He has had a tendency to keep the facts away from would be copy cats
                                > >but they slip out on occasions when people ask him specific questions.
                                >
                                > Or he's clever and makes it appear so.
                                >
                                > Look, we can interpret "Rossi facts" a hundred ways till next Sunday.
                                > Most of what we see is fluff.
                                >
                                > David, how about reporting -- in its own thread -- what you found as
                                > confirmed. Write an article on it. That could be very useful.
                                >
                                >
                                > >Now he admits that his Cat family operates with a 50% input drive duty
                                > cycle.
                                >
                                > Eh? Link?
                                >
                                >
                                > > For the longest time he had most people confused by his
                                > > definition of the self sustaining mode which left them thinking
                                > > that it continued to put out power indefinitely without additional
                                > > drive pulses. My model has pointed out that it takes a 50% duty
                                > > cycle to be able to control the device while maintaining a COP of 6.
                                >
                                > That would imply, David, that he was *lying.*
                                >
                                > Trying to outwit a liar, to figure out what part is true, is a risky
                                > occupation.
                                >
                                >
                                > >The model further suggests that it will be quite difficult to
                                > >achieve a COP of greater than 6 with adequate control.
                                > >
                                > >How would Rossi know these facts unless he actually has a device to
                                > >test or perhaps he has been reading my posts.
                                >
                                > This is a "how come" argument. It assumes that a coincidence is a
                                > symptom of something else. He might indeed have been reading your
                                > posts, David. Or not.
                                >
                                >
                                > >I bet you do not recall him ever stating that his device will work
                                > >with a specified higher COP since it will not happen unless he
                                > >actually allows power generated by the heated coolant, etc. to
                                > >augment the input electrical drive. In this case, the overall COP
                                > >could be infinite with reasonable conversion efficiency.
                                > >
                                > >Please do not take the COP of 6 as being a theoretical limit, since
                                > >it is possible to get a little bit more, but the control suffers
                                > >greatly under those conditions.
                                >
                                > Rossi originally claimed much higher COP, as I recall. Of course,
                                > there were also reports of a near-runaway event.
                                >
                                > If the reaction rate is only constrained by temperature, if the
                                > reaction increases with temperature and, of course, the temperature
                                > increases with the reaction, obviously the thing can run away. That's
                                > why one would want to control the device in another way, perhaps by
                                > restricting the fuel. As long as the NAE is intact, the higher the
                                > temperature, the better. Temperature as a control, then, is
                                > problematic. However, there could be other problems with control by
                                > fuel restriction.
                                >
                                > It's circumstantial evidence, David.
                                >
                                > As I recall, the runaway event was quenched by flooding the reactor
                                > with nitrogen. So ... how would the reactor behave with lower
                                > pressures of hydrogen? With a nitrogen mixture?
                                >
                                > Rossi could end the charade in a flash (if he really has something),
                                > but nobody who has been following him expects that he will.
                                >
                                >
                                >


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • David
                                ... I realize that it is difficult to control Rossi s device by adjusting the thermal drive, but it can be done. Indeed, as the temperature rises the reaction
                                Message 15 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In newvortex@yahoogroups.com, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
                                  >

                                  >
                                  > If the reaction rate is only constrained by temperature, if the
                                  > reaction increases with temperature and, of course, the temperature
                                  > increases with the reaction, obviously the thing can run away. That's
                                  > why one would want to control the device in another way, perhaps by
                                  > restricting the fuel. As long as the NAE is intact, the higher the
                                  > temperature, the better. Temperature as a control, then, is
                                  > problematic. However, there could be other problems with control by
                                  > fuel restriction.
                                  >

                                  I realize that it is difficult to control Rossi's device by adjusting the thermal drive, but it can be done. Indeed, as the temperature rises the reaction rate increases and that is the very process that he relies upon to get the COP of 6 according to my simulations.

                                  The system operates on positive feedback which has certain characteristics that can be used in his favor. I call it a critical temperature; the device temperature that once exceeded tends toward self destruction. The positive feedback takes over at critical point and starts exponentially increasing the internal temperature of the device with time. If nothing is done, the ECAT will become hotter and hotter until it melts.

                                  Melting is a one time process, and must be avoided. Fortunately, control is possible if the drive power is rapidly turned off once the excess internal power reaches a value that is approximately two times the drive. As long as the drive power is removed just prior to reaching this level, the temperature curve will reverse and slowly head downwards.

                                  I have a model that performs in this manner and it operates with an effective COP of 6. This is in line with the writings of Rossi.

                                  Of course this represents circumstantial evidence since we are not in possession of one of the actual devices, but it does support the concept that it might be possible. Further, it gives evidence that Rossi might actually have units to experiment with.

                                  > It's circumstantial evidence, David.
                                  >
                                  > As I recall, the runaway event was quenched by flooding the reactor
                                  > with nitrogen. So ... how would the reactor behave with lower
                                  > pressures of hydrogen? With a nitrogen mixture?

                                  There have been many different modes of operation that Rossi has attempted during his development. Most of the ones you describe were used as rescue techniques that he deployed to save his unit from self destruction. The method I am proposing does not require this level of protection unless something goes wrong with his algorithm.

                                  I have made suggestions to him via his blog of techniques to use active cooling to enhance protection and performance, but he never responds with anything but a thanks. Recently, I have ceased to offer ideas.

                                  Many of the concepts that I proposed have shown up in his product in later generations so I suspect he was listening.

                                  I could go into great detail about how you can control a thermally unstable system with thermal input, but it would take a lot of space. Unless someone specifically wants that information I plan to keep it simple.

                                  >
                                  > Rossi could end the charade in a flash (if he really has something),
                                  > but nobody who has been following him expects that he will.
                                  >

                                  He will not end the game unless it is in his interest. Until that time comes we can only speculate and I have done plenty of that!

                                  Dave
                                • David
                                  ... Jeff, that would be asking a little too much of you. A left ear would be adequate! I sincerely hope that you are wrong in your assessment, and feel that I
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In newvortex@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:

                                    > wrong. I don't mean that as a casual expression of speech - I mean I'd give
                                    > my right arm, if that was what it took.
                                    >
                                    > My $.02
                                    >
                                    > Jeff

                                    Jeff, that would be asking a little too much of you. A left ear would be adequate!

                                    I sincerely hope that you are wrong in your assessment, and feel that I have seen plenty of evidence that he really has something. We will all know fairly soon and it might be a let down when we are no longer able to speculate wildly about his developments.

                                    I know that I have had an opportunity to mentally visualize many new and unique system behaviors as I have followed this field and certainly have had a great learning experience. It somewhat reminds me of when I first become involved in the design of radios a few more years ago than I care to admit.

                                    Dave
                                  • Jeff Berkowitz
                                    Thanks. I sincerely hope I m wrong too. Nickel is cheap, so we re talking about something that would transform the human condition. An arm? Cheap at twice the
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Jan 13, 2013
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Thanks. I sincerely hope I'm wrong too. Nickel is cheap, so we're talking
                                      about something that would transform the human condition. An arm? Cheap at
                                      twice the price.

                                      Jeff



                                      On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:00 PM, David <dlr.rcpi@...> wrote:

                                      > **
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In newvortex@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > wrong. I don't mean that as a casual expression of speech - I mean I'd
                                      > give
                                      > > my right arm, if that was what it took.
                                      > >
                                      > > My $.02
                                      > >
                                      > > Jeff
                                      >
                                      > Jeff, that would be asking a little too much of you. A left ear would be
                                      > adequate!
                                      >
                                      > I sincerely hope that you are wrong in your assessment, and feel that I
                                      > have seen plenty of evidence that he really has something. We will all know
                                      > fairly soon and it might be a let down when we are no longer able to
                                      > speculate wildly about his developments.
                                      >
                                      > I know that I have had an opportunity to mentally visualize many new and
                                      > unique system behaviors as I have followed this field and certainly have
                                      > had a great learning experience. It somewhat reminds me of when I first
                                      > become involved in the design of radios a few more years ago than I care to
                                      > admit.
                                      >
                                      > Dave
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
                                      ... There were people who pooh-poohed Rossi based on the supposed ridiculousness of controlling heat with heat. However, yes, if we assume an NiH
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Jan 14, 2013
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 09:48 PM 1/13/2013, David wrote:

                                        >I realize that it is difficult to control Rossi's device by
                                        >adjusting the thermal drive, but it can be done. Indeed, as the
                                        >temperature rises the reaction rate increases and that is the very
                                        >process that he relies upon to get the COP of 6 according to my simulations.
                                        >
                                        >The system operates on positive feedback which has certain
                                        >characteristics that can be used in his favor. I call it a critical
                                        >temperature; the device temperature that once exceeded tends toward
                                        >self destruction. The positive feedback takes over at critical
                                        >point and starts exponentially increasing the internal temperature
                                        >of the device with time. If nothing is done, the ECAT will become
                                        >hotter and hotter until it melts.

                                        There were people who pooh-poohed Rossi based on the supposed
                                        ridiculousness of controlling heat with heat. However, yes, if we
                                        assume an NiH heat-generating reaction, and if the reaction increases
                                        with temperature, and can, below max temp (i.e., melting or other
                                        heat-induced shutdown), generate more heat than is lost to radiation
                                        and conduction, there will be a critical temperature where the
                                        cross-over occurs.

                                        Below that temperature, adding heat will increase temperature and
                                        lowering heat will lower it.

                                        However, this requires operating the device in a less powerful
                                        region. COP of 6, however, may be adequate (2 is about the minimum
                                        for a useful device; remember that a device may be used for a water
                                        heating application; higher COP reduces the input power needed for a
                                        given amount of water heating. (Conceivably, if the device is cheap
                                        enough, COP of less than 2 could still be useful.)


                                        >Melting is a one time process, and must be avoided. Fortunately,
                                        >control is possible if the drive power is rapidly turned off once
                                        >the excess internal power reaches a value that is approximately two
                                        >times the drive. As long as the drive power is removed just prior
                                        >to reaching this level, the temperature curve will reverse and
                                        >slowly head downwards.
                                        >
                                        >I have a model that performs in this manner and it operates with an
                                        >effective COP of 6. This is in line with the writings of Rossi.

                                        The data for the model came from where?

                                        And Rossi is capable of generating models as well. It would be
                                        surprising if he didn't. Con artist or not.

                                        >Of course this represents circumstantial evidence since we are not
                                        >in possession of one of the actual devices, but it does support the
                                        >concept that it might be possible. Further, it gives evidence that
                                        >Rossi might actually have units to experiment with.

                                        Not really. It might give evidence that he's not stupid.

                                        > > It's circumstantial evidence, David.
                                        > >
                                        > > As I recall, the runaway event was quenched by flooding the reactor
                                        > > with nitrogen. So ... how would the reactor behave with lower
                                        > > pressures of hydrogen? With a nitrogen mixture?
                                        >
                                        >There have been many different modes of operation that Rossi has
                                        >attempted during his development. Most of the ones you describe
                                        >were used as rescue techniques that he deployed to save his unit
                                        >from self destruction. The method I am proposing does not require
                                        >this level of protection unless something goes wrong with his algorithm.

                                        I would highly advise anyone building a unit to demonstrate the
                                        "Rossi effect" incorporate some sort of emergency shutdown mechanism.
                                        Two have been used: nitrogen flushing and a very large increase in
                                        cooling water flow. Don't wait until the device is sitting there,
                                        getting hotter than you like, ready to blow, and you then have to
                                        scrounge. Frankly, if I saw runaway going like that, I'd take very
                                        little time to *leave the place.*

                                        >I have made suggestions to him via his blog of techniques to use
                                        >active cooling to enhance protection and performance, but he never
                                        >responds with anything but a thanks. Recently, I have ceased to offer ideas.
                                        >
                                        >Many of the concepts that I proposed have shown up in his product in
                                        >later generations so I suspect he was listening.
                                        >
                                        >I could go into great detail about how you can control a thermally
                                        >unstable system with thermal input, but it would take a lot of
                                        >space. Unless someone specifically wants that information I plan to
                                        >keep it simple.

                                        You *can* control such a system that way, but it's undesirable,
                                        unless the COP limitation is harmless.

                                        Theoretically, with a COP of 6, one could use that for self-power
                                        generation, feeding that heat back to the device. The inefficiency of
                                        power generation might not, in some applications, be a problem. After
                                        all, "inefficiency" ends up as heat.

                                        The problem is, though, that the reactor chamber needs to be heated
                                        to a temperature higher than the cooling water. So one would probably
                                        need to run a turbine to get enough power out to create the more
                                        focused energy (probably electric) needed to heat the chamber.

                                        Complicated, in fact. Control by controlling the fuel pressure, if it
                                        can be accomplished, would allow operation at higher temperatures,
                                        above the cross-over point, where the input power needed goes to
                                        zero, electrical power is only needed, then, for control mechanisms.
                                        *Much* less power. Steam generation, probably, for simplicity.

                                        > > Rossi could end the charade in a flash (if he really has something),
                                        > > but nobody who has been following him expects that he will.
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        >He will not end the game unless it is in his interest. Until that
                                        >time comes we can only speculate and I have done plenty of that!

                                        Right.

                                        Rossi could have been selling investigational products from early
                                        2011. Most of us really wondered, then, what this "megawatt" power
                                        plant was about. If you can make 10 KW devices, you can make a
                                        megawatt with 100 of them. If you *can't* make a 10 KW device, how
                                        can you make a megawatt plant. All those plants, that he's shown,
                                        are, is a container with a bunch of smaller devices in them.
                                        "Megawatt" is *splashy.* It reduces your market, drastically. If
                                        there were 10 KW devices actually being used by even a few people,
                                        Rossi would then have the credibility to sell many larger plants (but
                                        I don't see any efficiency of scale in the way those megawatt
                                        containers are designed).

                                        But, one would think, time would be critical. Lots of people are on
                                        Rossi's tail. If I think that Rossi is "real," I have to also
                                        conclude that he's "really crazy." Happens.

                                        The most likely scenario I've come up with is that he does have a
                                        real reaction, but he's having a devil of a time making it both
                                        reliable and sustainable. Suppose he has a design that runs, like
                                        new, for a few days. Then the heat peters out, because, say, the
                                        reaction shifts the crystal structure of the catalyst and the
                                        reaction then gradually poisons itself. Sometimes the thing doesn't
                                        work at all, suppose. Sometimes, when he thinks it will produce so
                                        much heat, it produces more. Investigational devices could be sold
                                        under these conditions. Practical ones, not.

                                        We are not going to get the data we need to judge "reality," from
                                        Rossi. His credibility, from so many promises broken, not to mention
                                        his checkered history, is shot. But his position is still, pretty
                                        much, "trust me, would I lie to you?" blink, blink.

                                        Mr. Rossi, yes, you might lie. Don't take it personally!
                                      • Mary Yugo
                                        A few additional remarks about Rossi. His criminal history including the Petroldragon travesty and his convictions for bankrupcy fraud are documented in
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Jan 14, 2013
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          A few additional remarks about Rossi. His criminal history including the
                                          Petroldragon travesty and his convictions for bankrupcy fraud are
                                          documented in Italian news reports. I don't have time to look up the links
                                          once again. The details of the story have been reviewed and described on
                                          ecatnews.com.

                                          Incidentally, even as staunch and consistent a believer as the editor of
                                          ecatnews.com (pen name Paul Story) recently threw in the towel regarding
                                          Rossi calling one post the "Lie Cat".

                                          The evidence for the DOD thermoelectric device fraud is in the report
                                          itself. Nobody has ever seen the working devices other than Rossi and
                                          possibly his shills. Nobody from the University of New Hampshire has
                                          reported testing them. Rossi made all of that up. The investigators at
                                          DOD were either too embarrassed or too incompetent to call Rossi's bluff on
                                          this issue.

                                          Someone (Robeson?) mentioned that the COP of 6 coincides with some
                                          theoretical calculations. It also coincides with the error factor
                                          described by Grabowski et al when one pretends that wet steam is in effect
                                          dry. That error is somewhere between 5:1 and 7:1 overestimation of energy
                                          output. That reprint is:
                                          http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf The figure in
                                          question is near the end.

                                          As to other Rossi inconsistencies, they have been widely documented. As
                                          Krivit reported, Rossi has never shown anything like a laboratory or
                                          factory. He has only shown an empty shed in Bologna with some crude plumber
                                          tools. Rossi denied to a Florida atomic energy inspector that any reactors
                                          were being made or tested in the US at the same time he was saying the
                                          opposite to his believers in his blog. Rossi's customers are nowhere to be
                                          found. Faviorenti (sp?) has never been interviewed. The only "megawatt
                                          plant" ever seen in public still sits in Rossi's shed in Bologna. The only
                                          time it ever ran, it was connected to a 500 kW diesel generator! Rossi
                                          works out of a small condominium in Florida. No company offices or factory
                                          have ever been identified and only a handful of supposed employees (who
                                          could easily be shills) have shown up at Rossi's "conventions" where,
                                          interestingly, not a single hard question was asked of him.

                                          There is not one thing credible about the entire Rossi story. By all means
                                          check the facts. If you can find a customer, a factory, someone who
                                          properly and independently tested an ecat, I'd love to see it.


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
                                          A few comments on this post, not on all of it. ... Mmmm... the post is at http://ecatnews.com/?p=2478 ... The categorization of Paul Story as a believer is
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Jan 14, 2013
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            A few comments on this post, not on all of it.

                                            At 03:53 PM 1/14/2013, Mary Yugo wrote:

                                            >Incidentally, even as staunch and consistent a believer as the editor of
                                            >ecatnews.com (pen name Paul Story) recently threw in the towel regarding
                                            >Rossi calling one post the "Lie Cat".

                                            Mmmm... the post is at http://ecatnews.com/?p=2478

                                            >For some time now, it has been obvious to most
                                            >that Rossi cannot be trusted. Even his
                                            >supporters admit he lies as they excuse him for
                                            >one reason or another. In business, gaining such
                                            >a reputation can be damaging but not always
                                            >fatal. If you are new to this saga, I urge you
                                            >to sample eCatNews archives. This accusatory
                                            >post does not come from a pseudo-sceptic but
                                            >from someone who has spent countless hours for
                                            >the best part of two years living in hope of an
                                            >eCat breakthrough. Despite some discomfort, I
                                            >allowed all sides of the argument to air in an
                                            >attempt to immunise myself and other readers
                                            >from our own ignorance. Even so, and despite a
                                            >constant plea for caution, I retained a small
                                            >measure of hope that the gathering signs were
                                            >wrong. I can no longer ignore the fact that
                                            >Andrea Rossi is acting like a fraudster.

                                            The categorization of Paul Story as a "believer"
                                            is pseudoskeptical. Hope is not an exclusive
                                            symptom of belief. A standard of "testimony is
                                            presumed true unless controverted" is not a
                                            "belief" in the testimony. It's an operating
                                            assumption based on certain principles that *often work.*

                                            In any case, Mary's claim is essentially true.
                                            That was a strongly worded post by Paul Story. He went on.

                                            >To the hard sceptics – you were right. To the
                                            >pseudosceps – I am no longer confident in that
                                            >label although you still puzzle me. Proclaimed
                                            >certainty in an uncertain sphere puzzles me.
                                            >While I have come to side with your view of
                                            >Rossi and Defkalion, I am far from convinced
                                            >when anyone rules with absolute confidence against LENR.

                                            Pseudoskepticism is still "pseudo" if the
                                            "belief" of the pseudoskeptic is true. Skepticism
                                            becomes pseudoskepticism when it's based on
                                            belief, rather than in evidence, when the skeptic
                                            forgets to be as skeptical of self as of others.
                                            The *essential* skepticism is that we know bleep.

                                            We are pieces of meat walking around, with delusions of grandeur.

                                            I do, in fact, trust in a "higher consciousness,"
                                            but it never shows up as "I know better than these poor fools."

                                            I do trust in the progress of knowledge, but
                                            that's founded in the scientific method, which
                                            requires testing everything, and nothing, no
                                            theory, is ever *fully* tested. Quantum mechanics
                                            is brilliantly tested in the 2-body case, where
                                            the predictions have been verified to extemely
                                            high accuracy. The math is horrific in the
                                            multibody case, so all we had was approximations,
                                            of unknown accuracy. So someone who confidently
                                            says that cold fusion is "impossible," citing
                                            fusion cross-sections calculated using these
                                            simplifying approximations, simply is ignorant.
                                            And belief in a thing when knowledge regarding it
                                            is not sound is just that: belief, a form of
                                            opinion. The scientific method was developed to test such.

                                            So: theory: the fusion rate at room temperature
                                            for deuterium is below measurability. Falsification?

                                            It's obvious. Look for evidence of fusion. That
                                            is what Pons and Fleischmann were actually doing
                                            in 1984-1989. I should probaby drag up a
                                            reference. They were doing basic theoretical
                                            research, testing an assumption. They expected
                                            the assumption was correct. They were wrong.

                                            Pseudoskeptics will often tell the story of Pons
                                            and Fleischmann as being deluded by dreams of
                                            limitless power. It's just not what happened.

                                            I judge pseudoskepticism by the stories told.
                                            Pseudoskeptics are always looking for reasons to
                                            discount or discard inconvenient evidence. A real
                                            skeptic may question evidence, a pseudoskeptic
                                            will *ridicule* it. The pseudoskeptic is
                                            *certain*. They are debunkers of bunk, and if
                                            they go after something, it is bunk, pure bunk,
                                            no possibility of any reality to it, and only
                                            deluded fools would think otherwise.

                                            >The evidence for the DOD thermoelectric device fraud is in the report
                                            >itself. Nobody has ever seen the working devices other than Rossi and
                                            >possibly his shills. Nobody from the University of New Hampshire has
                                            >reported testing them. Rossi made all of that up. The investigators at
                                            >DOD were either too embarrassed or too incompetent to call Rossi's bluff on
                                            >this issue.

                                            That's an interpretation, not a fact, to be
                                            clear. Unconfirmed claims are claims that are not
                                            confirmed. "Made it all up," about Rossi's claim,
                                            is not proven by the lack of confirmation.
                                            However, we can report on a lack of something, as
                                            long as we are clear about the limitations of that.

                                            "As far as we know, nobody from the University of New Hampshire has ..."

                                            Now, the real question: has anyone actually
                                            investigated this, actively, seeking testimony?
                                            Who would have been a knowledgeable contact at
                                            the University of New Hampshire? Our friend Mary
                                            is here telling a story constructed on a series of missing facts.

                                            In any case, I'm seeking contrary evidence here,
                                            to what Mary has claimed, not as to the obvious
                                            conclusions that Mary makes and communicates, but
                                            as to the underlying facts. I'm quite prepared to
                                            assume all the alleged facts are true, and I
                                            imagine I'll list them to be clear. I don't want
                                            to run a long back and forth on interpretation, when the facts aren't clear.

                                            >Someone (Robeson?) mentioned that the COP of 6 coincides with some
                                            >theoretical calculations. It also coincides with the error factor
                                            >described by Grabowski et al when one pretends that wet steam is in effect
                                            >dry. That error is somewhere between 5:1 and 7:1 overestimation of energy
                                            >output. That reprint is:
                                            >http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf The figure in
                                            >question is near the end.

                                            Yeah. Interesting coincidence, if it's that.
                                            That's really about any unvaporized water, it would include spillover.

                                            Mary, we can compile documents on all the issues,
                                            if we want to do something more than chit-chat or
                                            toss mud pies. In this case, this Rossi topic can
                                            easily become a free-for-all, because Rossi is a
                                            rich source of OMG facts or allegations.

                                            >As to other Rossi inconsistencies, they have been widely documented.

                                            Too widely. Often they are not carefully compiled
                                            and presented neutrally. Rather, they are
                                            polemic. As is your writing here. The facts are
                                            not polemic, though they might still be cherry-picked.

                                            > As
                                            >Krivit reported, Rossi has never shown anything like a laboratory or
                                            >factory. He has only shown an empty shed in Bologna with some crude plumber
                                            >tools. Rossi denied to a Florida atomic energy inspector that any reactors
                                            >were being made or tested in the US at the same time he was saying the
                                            >opposite to his believers in his blog. Rossi's customers are nowhere to be
                                            >found. Faviorenti (sp?) has never been interviewed. The only "megawatt
                                            >plant" ever seen in public still sits in Rossi's shed in Bologna. The only
                                            >time it ever ran, it was connected to a 500 kW diesel generator! Rossi
                                            >works out of a small condominium in Florida. No company offices or factory
                                            >have ever been identified and only a handful of supposed employees (who
                                            >could easily be shills) have shown up at Rossi's "conventions" where,
                                            >interestingly, not a single hard question was asked of him.
                                            >
                                            >There is not one thing credible about the entire Rossi story. By all means
                                            >check the facts. If you can find a customer, a factory, someone who
                                            >properly and independently tested an ecat, I'd love to see it.

                                            I'm not directly checking the facts, unless it's
                                            made easy. If I put my signature on something, I
                                            consider myself responsible for providing evidence, if it's needed.

                                            What I'm doing here is to *solicit* checking of
                                            the facts, because many hands make short work,
                                            and because many eyes can see much more than one set.

                                            I do know one of the situations you described,
                                            Mary, the story about the Florida atomic energy
                                            conversation. Seems to me that this might be a
                                            bit exaggerated. Words can have various meanings
                                            in various contexts, and the report of an
                                            inspector, based on a conversation with a person,
                                            will *often* not be what the person actually
                                            said. What I recall of this was that the
                                            inspector's report was really focused on whether
                                            nuclear products ere being measured, and their
                                            concern was products that produce radiation or radioactive waste.

                                            This is the problem with pseudoskepticism, Mary.
                                            If you are *convinced* that Rossi is a con, and
                                            your goal is to save people from their own
                                            foolishness, you will look for proof that your
                                            conviction is true. After all, it's true, that is
                                            *assumed*. So the evidence must exist, we need
                                            only dig for it. And then each piece of evidence
                                            found is tossed on the mounting pile of proof.
                                            And contrary evidence really doesn't mean
                                            anything. There isn't any contrary evidence, right?

                                            The lack of contrary evidence is a clear marker of pseudoskepticism.

                                            A real skeptic will say, well, there is this, on
                                            the one hand, but there is that, on the other.
                                            And they will do that even when the evidence on
                                            one side is overwhelming. They don't filter the
                                            evidence by what "side" it seems to support. They
                                            strive to become familiar with *all* the
                                            evidence. It's difficult. We like to remember
                                            stuff according to what we make it mean.

                                            In fact, evidence, as fact, doesn't support
                                            sides. It's just what's so. We make up "sides."

                                            You are certainly not required to do it, but it
                                            would be a fantastic exercise if you could come
                                            up with *one reason* to suspect that Rossi
                                            actually has a real energy-producing device.
                                            Don't worry! Finding one reason doesn't
                                            automatically dump into the trash your thirty
                                            reasons for thinking him a complete con! For
                                            extra credit, post the reason and don't
                                            immediately remind us of the thirty in the other
                                            direction. Just let it stand for a day. See what
                                            conversations arise. For even more credit, come
                                            up with even more reasons. (You can, of course
                                            disclose that you have other reasons in the other
                                            direction, I wouldn't want people to be misled.)

                                            Come on! Blow our minds! We don't expect this of
                                            you, Mary, we have a collective image of you as a
                                            dedicated, fanatic pseudoskeptic, debunker,
                                            that's all you do and that's all you can do! I'm
                                            testing this theory, attempting to falsify it.

                                            My sekrit agenda, though, is to stimulate some
                                            interesting and useful conversations, as well as
                                            to generate some serious content.
                                          • Mary Yugo
                                            I ll try to get to Abd s long list of Rossi stuff when I can. Meanwhile, here are the links about the Petroldragon affair and the related and unrelated
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Jan 16, 2013
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I'll try to get to Abd's long list of Rossi stuff when I can. Meanwhile,
                                              here are the links about the Petroldragon affair and the related and
                                              unrelated criminal convictions which make Rossi a crook/felon without the
                                              slightest doubt. And that's before we get to the DOD fiasco involving
                                              about two million dollars which Rossi got from them without **ever**
                                              showing a single working device to anyone. I already gave the link to the
                                              DOD report in which Rossi again uses the ploy of associating with a
                                              university even though there is no statement or paper from anyone at the
                                              university that they ever tested anything.

                                              Rossi's arrest in 2000 after being a fugitive for a year: *
                                              http://tinyurl.com/a3gth7y* <http://tinyurl.com/a3gth7y>

                                              The article describing Rossi�s 2000 conviction for aggravated bankruptcy
                                              fraud, and his sentence of 8 years in prison:
                                              *http://tinyurl.com/amu2t8e*<http://tinyurl.com/amu2t8e>

                                              2004 article stating that Rossi had been exonerated on the pollution
                                              charges, but that the 8-year prison sentence for fraud was still in
                                              force: *http://tinyurl.com/a4dplhp

                                              *With thanks to John Milstone in ecatnews.com. I note again that
                                              exoneration on Petroldragon charges was a pure technicality in that the
                                              needed legislation was written AFTER the offense took place. Nobody
                                              credible has ever denied that no waste was ever converted to oil. In fact,
                                              all the waste was stored, and badly kept. The local government spent more
                                              than the equivalent of $50 million US to clean up Rossi's mess. They
                                              should have jailed him and thrown away his key.
                                              *
                                              M. Y.


                                              *


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Mary Yugo
                                              You are certainly not required to do it, but it would be a fantastic exercise if you could come up with *one reason* to suspect that Rossi actually has a real
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Jan 16, 2013
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                "You are certainly not required to do it, but it
                                                would be a fantastic exercise if you could come
                                                up with *one reason* to suspect that Rossi
                                                actually has a real energy-producing device."

                                                I am familiar with most if not all of the arguments for this premise.
                                                There is not a one that stands up to close scrutiny and there are dozens of
                                                reasons to think Rossi is nothing but a rank crook. Even such staunch
                                                believers as Craig Brown, Daniele Passerini and George Hants no longer
                                                claim that Rossi is telling the truth or that any of his claims are real
                                                (if I understand them-- they don't write very clearly).

                                                Coming up with reasons why some people believe or believed Rossi is easy.
                                                They're all bad reasoning but there are dozens. Why do you think
                                                regurgitating one of these is a fantastic exercise? Sorry. I don't get it.

                                                I believed that there was a small chance that Rossi had something when he
                                                first presented his experiments and demonstrations in the early days of the
                                                claims. That's the only reason I first was interested in the claims.
                                                Levi's experiment was particularly persuasive because it did not involve
                                                phase change. Imagine my surprise and disbelief when Levi refused to
                                                reveal original data to Krivit during an interview and refused to repeat
                                                the experiment even under a direct (recent) request from Brian Josephson!
                                                The Levi interview was the start of my skepticism about Rossi. Rossi's
                                                kaleidoscope of rapidly changing and highly implausible further claims
                                                (high temperature device, megawatt "demo" with the diesel generator, low
                                                cost isotope enrichment, self destruct device, and all manner of other
                                                nonsense) convinced me the man is nothing but a complete crooked fraud
                                                designed to take money from investors and distributors (because he has no
                                                customers).

                                                M. Y.


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
                                                ... You have not understood the exercise. I m asking you if you can come up with one reason to suspect what I said. From my point of view, almost all thinking
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Jan 16, 2013
                                                View Source
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  At 04:26 PM 1/16/2013, Mary Yugo wrote:
                                                  >"You are certainly not required to do it, but it
                                                  >would be a fantastic exercise if you could come
                                                  >up with *one reason* to suspect that Rossi
                                                  >actually has a real energy-producing device."
                                                  >
                                                  >I am familiar with most if not all of the arguments for this premise.
                                                  >There is not a one that stands up to close scrutiny and there are dozens of
                                                  >reasons to think Rossi is nothing but a rank crook. Even such staunch
                                                  >believers as Craig Brown, Daniele Passerini and George Hants no longer
                                                  >claim that Rossi is telling the truth or that any of his claims are real
                                                  >(if I understand them-- they don't write very clearly).
                                                  >
                                                  >Coming up with reasons why some people believe or believed Rossi is easy.
                                                  >They're all bad reasoning but there are dozens. Why do you think
                                                  >regurgitating one of these is a fantastic exercise? Sorry. I don't get it.

                                                  You have not understood the exercise. I'm asking you if you can come
                                                  up with one reason to suspect what I said.

                                                  From my point of view, almost all thinking is bad thinking in some
                                                  way or other!

                                                  I haven't asked you for evidence to *believe* that Rossi is real.
                                                  Just to suspect it.

                                                  You have developed some history with Rossi, and that can lead to
                                                  confirmation bias. I'm asking you to set that aside.

                                                  The way you describe it, you have set up an airtight story, every
                                                  road leads to Rome, i.e., to Rossi Fraud.

                                                  But, right now, could you think of some hypothesis -- it could be
                                                  far-fetched, but don't make it *impossible* -- that would include
                                                  Rossi having something real? And that would explain at least *some*
                                                  of the evidence?

                                                  Thanks for considering this, by the way.

                                                  >I believed that there was a small chance that Rossi had something when he
                                                  >first presented his experiments and demonstrations in the early days of the
                                                  >claims.

                                                  I also thought that was possible, since there is no special reason to
                                                  think that NiH LENR is *impossible*. But it was a long shot. Rossi
                                                  was making a claim that was far ahead of what anyone else had done.
                                                  Not just a modest improvement. But maybe he'd done it.

                                                  > That's the only reason I first was interested in the claims.
                                                  >Levi's experiment was particularly persuasive because it did not involve
                                                  >phase change.

                                                  Seemed so.

                                                  > Imagine my surprise and disbelief when Levi refused to
                                                  >reveal original data to Krivit during an interview and refused to repeat
                                                  >the experiment even under a direct (recent) request from Brian Josephson!
                                                  >The Levi interview was the start of my skepticism about Rossi.

                                                  Yes, got it.

                                                  > Rossi's
                                                  >kaleidoscope of rapidly changing and highly implausible further claims
                                                  >(high temperature device, megawatt "demo" with the diesel generator, low
                                                  >cost isotope enrichment, self destruct device, and all manner of other
                                                  >nonsense) convinced me the man is nothing but a complete crooked fraud
                                                  >designed to take money from investors and distributors (because he has no
                                                  >customers).

                                                  Okay, your thinking took you back to where you were. Not surprising.
                                                  You've got a beaten path there.

                                                  What you have is a hypothesis about Rossi, and a pile of
                                                  circumstantial evidence supporting it.

                                                  I'm asking you to put on a scientist hat and attempt to falsify your
                                                  theory. One way to begin this is to see if there is some alternate
                                                  theory that could explain the facts.

                                                  With some skill, you could probably come up with more than one, that
                                                  still remain within the realm of possible human behavior.

                                                  To repeat, I'm asking you to come up with such a theory *and not
                                                  immediately discard it.*

                                                  Then look for evidence that *might* support it, since your bias is
                                                  now the other way. Look for evidence that might support rejectinig
                                                  the fraud theory.

                                                  This is not the same as coming to believe that Rossi is real. It's
                                                  just a practice in *real skepticism.*

                                                  If you *really* can't do it, then fake it. Just say, at the top of
                                                  the page, "I couldn't do it, but I'm faking it. I don't believe what
                                                  I'm about to say." Then fake it. But make it the best fake you could
                                                  come up with, the strongest statement of a different position than
                                                  you own, that you canmanage.

                                                  Again, Mary, if you can't find *any,* it's a sign of
                                                  pseudoskepticism, of established *belief*, because life just isn't
                                                  that simple, that there is one truth, and everything else is wrong.
                                                  That's all. It's not Bad or Mean, it is neither Right nor Wrong, it's
                                                  *limited.*

                                                  But I think you can do it.
                                                • Mary Yugo
                                                  I don t really understand what you re asking but maybe it s something like this. Rossi could have some sort of secret method of creating energy with LENR but
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Jan 16, 2013
                                                  View Source
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    I don't really understand what you're asking but maybe it's something like
                                                    this. Rossi could have some sort of secret method of creating energy with
                                                    LENR but maybe he's a raving lunatic and so he decided to act like a fake.
                                                    I don't know if that's the sort of thing you're asking for. I have no idea
                                                    what the purpose of your proposed exercise could possibly be. Rossi being
                                                    real but mad is as likely as a pig growing wings and taking flight lessons.

                                                    As to what could falsify the hypothesis that Rossi is a fraud and a crook,
                                                    that's extremely easy and I've said it many times. The hypothesis would be
                                                    false if Rossi were to allow independent testing by a RELIABLE and CREDIBLE
                                                    and IRREFUTABLE source (or better yet, several such sources) and if those
                                                    sources found excess energy of a robust nature congruent with Rossi's
                                                    claims of kilowatts sustained indefinitely (or for long periods) with no
                                                    fresh fuel. I've said this all along. It's obvious and it's nothing new.
                                                    And of course, it is exactly what Rossi studiously avoids doing. But
                                                    keeps promising to do.


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • Steven Vincent Johnson
                                                    From Yugo ; ... Of course, we all want to see that. Who doesn t. But under the circumstances why would Rossi want to do that? We need to keep in mind the fact
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Jan 17, 2013
                                                    View Source
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      From "Yugo";

                                                      >
                                                      > As to what could falsify the hypothesis that Rossi is a fraud
                                                      > and a crook, that's extremely easy and I've said it many times.
                                                      > The hypothesis would be false if Rossi were to allow independent
                                                      > testing by a RELIABLE and CREDIBLE and IRREFUTABLE source ...

                                                      Of course, we all want to see that. Who doesn't. But under the circumstances why would Rossi want to do that?

                                                      We need to keep in mind the fact that this is a start up business venture. Too much over-exposure can result in the premature death of a start up business venture as carrion eaters begin circling to pick at the exposed flesh of a newborn business venture.

                                                      To reveal, to use your words, "RELIABLE and CREDIBLE and IRREFUTABLE" data would expose all the problems Rossi has been dealing with trying to control a process I suspect he still doesn't know how to manage very well. I suspect his mysterious eCats are nowhere near ready for any kind of a commercial endeavor, despite all the hoopla Ross has expressed over the past couple of years. That's a major problem for Rossi, Rossi's business venture, and Rossi's investors. It's my understanding that Rossi's patents are weak. Under the current circumstances too much exposure that reveals "RELIABLE and CREDIBLE and IRREFUTABLE" data, despite all the warts in the data, would open his operations to being ransacked by opportunistic enterprises. Competitors could steal his flawed process, and then improve on it and subsequently patent the new-and-improved process as their own. Under the circumstances it is the lesser of two evils to be perceived as the LENR clown and baffoon. If that is the case, you may be helping him out more than you know.

                                                      I suspect you are not likely to believe this might be a likely explanation. However, this is not a scenario that I came up with on my own. I got it from other individuals in the LENR business who know far more than I do on this subject.

                                                      Regards,
                                                      Steven Vincent Johnson
                                                      www.OrionWorks.com
                                                      www.zazzle.com/orionworks
                                                    • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
                                                      ... Mary, you are writing like a pseudoskeptic, a debunker. You are not writing like a skeptic. I m encouraging you to try something else. Yes, it might
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Jan 17, 2013
                                                      View Source
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        At 02:23 AM 1/17/2013, Mary Yugo wrote:
                                                        >I don't really understand what you're asking but maybe it's something like
                                                        >this. Rossi could have some sort of secret method of creating energy with
                                                        >LENR but maybe he's a raving lunatic and so he decided to act like a fake.
                                                        >I don't know if that's the sort of thing you're asking for. I have no idea
                                                        >what the purpose of your proposed exercise could possibly be. Rossi being
                                                        >real but mad is as likely as a pig growing wings and taking flight lessons.

                                                        Mary, you are writing like a pseudoskeptic, a debunker. You are not
                                                        writing like a skeptic. I'm encouraging you to try something else.
                                                        Yes, it might stretch you. I'm assuming you are not dead yet.

                                                        >As to what could falsify the hypothesis that Rossi is a fraud and a crook,
                                                        >that's extremely easy and I've said it many times. The hypothesis would be
                                                        >false if Rossi were to allow independent testing by a RELIABLE and CREDIBLE
                                                        >and IRREFUTABLE source (or better yet, several such sources) and if those
                                                        >sources found excess energy of a robust nature congruent with Rossi's
                                                        >claims of kilowatts sustained indefinitely (or for long periods) with no
                                                        >fresh fuel. I've said this all along. It's obvious and it's nothing new.

                                                        That's right, which is why it's not even necessary to say. No, the
                                                        challenge would be for *you* to come up with a hypothesis that
                                                        interprets the facts in such a way that Rossi might *not* be a fraud.
                                                        The existing facts. Or some subset, perhaps. I am asking you to think
                                                        of theories contrary to *your theory*, the theory of fraud. In a way,
                                                        I'm asking you to falsify *your theory,* not to demand that Rossi
                                                        falsify the theory of fraud.

                                                        Pretend you are a scientist, studying the Rossi phenomenon, coming up
                                                        with theories and then attemping to falisfy them.

                                                        The "Rossi phenomenon" is what we have read about, all the
                                                        information we have about him and his work.

                                                        (You could do research with NiH, but that actually wouldn't tell us
                                                        much about *Rossi*. I.e, NiH could be real, and Rossi could still be
                                                        a fraud, for example.

                                                        Instead of acting to create a contrary hypothesis to your preferred
                                                        one, which you would then attempt to falsify with existing data (for
                                                        starters), you have simply presented something that *Rossi* could do
                                                        to prove something. He doesn't care! And that makes us dependent on
                                                        him, increasingly frustrated by blah, blah, blah.

                                                        No, my concern here is not really Rossi. It is science and
                                                        pseudoscience, skepticism and pseudoskepticism.

                                                        A pseudoskeptic, at least the garden variety pseudoskeptic, is
                                                        *incapable* of doing what I've suggested. They literally cannot
                                                        *think* of any reason why they might not be right about what they
                                                        believe. They *know* that cold fusion, telepathy, religion, whatever
                                                        are *wrong*. (See the Wikipedia article on pseudoskepticism, and the
                                                        article on Marcello Truzzi. My own historical connection is with
                                                        Martin Gardner, whom I read as a child, and he later quoted some of my work.)

                                                        So, should you accept it, the task is to come up with a hypothesis
                                                        that explains what we know about Rossi and his work and history, and
                                                        that allows some reality to the "Rossi effect" or whatever we want to call it.

                                                        It's actually pretty easy, that's what makes the apparent difficulty
                                                        interesting.

                                                        Note: coming up with a theory, and trying it on, and looking for ways
                                                        to confirm it (if you doubt it) or falsify it (if you don't doubt
                                                        it), is not in any way an *endorsement* of the theory. It's an exploration.
                                                      • Mary Yugo
                                                        Debunker? I am not sure what is wrong with that. Or do you prefer bunk? Pseudoskeptic? If that s someone who can t be convinced by good evidence to the
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Jan 18, 2013
                                                        View Source
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Debunker? I am not sure what is wrong with that. Or do you prefer bunk?

                                                          Pseudoskeptic? If that's someone who can't be convinced by good evidence
                                                          to the contrary, that's not me. I started out this adventure early on by
                                                          looking for reasons to believe Steorn AND Rossi. I quickly ran out of them
                                                          due to their behavior. Either could convince me with a single (or a
                                                          couple) of proper tests. But it seems they are so busy they can't be
                                                          bothered.

                                                          When I helped to bust the Sniffex (extremely dangerous) explosive detector
                                                          fraud (I also wrote the Wikipedia entry on Sniffex), I started out thinking
                                                          they might be real and I was searching for some mechanism to explain their
                                                          claims. I then attended a meeting where they showed the device and
                                                          (foolishly) allowed me to test it. Of course, it turned out to be a
                                                          dowsing rod and it didn't work when a simple, objective test was done on it.

                                                          http://sniffextest.blogspot.com/ and see also (I am not involved with this
                                                          one): http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/NavyReport.pdf

                                                          I helped to some degree to bust Steorn because I provided some of the
                                                          equipment and methods used to film covert video during a session in which
                                                          they supposedly showed Orbo to preferred persons such as Scott Little of
                                                          Earthtech. Of course, it didn't work. I didn't take the video myself.
                                                          Someone else kindly did it for me and wishes to remain anonymous.
                                                          http://freeenergytracker.blogspot.com/2007/07/upstairs-at-kinetica-spinning-orbo.html


                                                          So in those cases, I was willing, even eager, to find something to
                                                          believe. Reality raised its ugly head just as it does with Rossi and
                                                          Defkalion. The conflicting claims and reports, failure to provide proper
                                                          data and independent tests and the endless delays with changing ever
                                                          escalating and empty claims are classical tactics for investment scammers.
                                                          That's where all the evidence points.

                                                          @Steven: Sorry but the dumbest theory is that Rossi (and Defkalion) are
                                                          being secretive because they don't want to alert competition. That's
                                                          simply silly. If it's true, how do you explain all the dog and pony shows,
                                                          the Levi claims of two years ago, the "megawatt" "demo"? The various
                                                          dealer conventions and meetings? The supposed tests by independent
                                                          sources, none of whom ever want to publish anything even though they
                                                          supposedly are free to. Defkalion showing up at various highly
                                                          publicized LENR meetings (and spouting silliness). How do you account for
                                                          Rossi's daily blabbing nonsense on the JONP blog?

                                                          @Abd: As to what you're asking of me, I have no clue. There is at this
                                                          point, no viable reason one can contrive to believe Rossi so if that's what
                                                          you want me to hypothesize how it might still be possible to believe him, I
                                                          can't do it. If that's not what you want, give me a sample or something.


                                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                        • Steven Vincent Johnson
                                                          From Ms. Yugo ... As you well know Rossi & Co is NOT being secretive, nor is that what I implied. What I stated was that at this precarious stage in Rossi s
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Jan 18, 2013
                                                          View Source
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            From Ms. "Yugo"

                                                            > @Steven: Sorry but the dumbest theory is that Rossi
                                                            > (and Defkalion) are being secretive because they don't
                                                            > want to alert competition. That's simply silly. If it's
                                                            > true, how do you explain all the dog and pony shows,
                                                            > the Levi claims of two years ago, the "megawatt" "demo"?
                                                            > The various dealer conventions and meetings? The supposed
                                                            > tests by independent sources, none of whom ever want to
                                                            > publish anything even though they supposedly are free to.
                                                            > Defkalion showing up at various highly publicized LENR
                                                            > meetings (and spouting silliness).

                                                            As you well know Rossi & Co is NOT being secretive, nor is that what I implied. What I stated was that at this precarious stage in Rossi's questionable business strategy he may perceive it as strategically advantageous to be publicly perceived as the LENR clown and buffoon in the eyes of potential competitors. How can one possibly behave secretively in matters like that? I don't think you fully comprehend my premise.

                                                            You also ask me, "how do [I] explain all the dog and pony shows,"

                                                            Rossi's behavior, or should I say Rossi's strategy certainly does strike many as silly. It's not how I would have approached a business venture of this sort. But then... I've never had to manage a startup venture of this nature. I would imagine it isn't easy. Meanwhile, I find it curious that most of these independent sources never seem to come out and flatly state something to the effect that Rossi's data is fraudulent. Why is that? Is it because they are too embarrassed to reveal how stupid or hood wicked they allowed themselves to be in the presence of that flamboyant Italian? ...Or is it because all of these independent sources don't really exist? I doubt such explanations. Meanwhile, the only individuals who seem to be openly criticizing Rossi are organizations like NET, managed by Mr. Krivit. Having been a former Board Member for Mr. Krivit's news organization I finally came to the realization that I was witnessing far more personal agenda being played out versus a news organization claiming to report LENR news in an impartial, objective manner. That's one of the reasons why I resigned. Hopefully, that ought to give you some clue as to how much stock I put into Mr. Krivit's analysis of Rossi's questionable data, as well as other organizations with similar agendas.

                                                            If any of these "independent sources" have an invested interest in Rossi's technology, why would they want to publish their data when their own business plans aren't anywhere near ready for primetime exposure. Publishing independent data prematurely... now THAT would be a silly business decision. It would alert potential competitors who would then be more than happy to steal their thunder.

                                                            > How do you account for Rossi's daily blabbing nonsense on the JONP blog?

                                                            "...blabbing nonsense"? It's obvious to most individuals that Rossi is a prima donna. Why does this seem to be so difficult for you to take in about this pubic demeanor? Like most Rossi watchers, I take most of what Rossi sez for public consumption with a grain of salt. It is not wise to take what Rossi sez in pubilc and overlap it with what Rossi doz within the privacy of his laboratory.

                                                            Regards,
                                                            Steven Vincent Johnson
                                                            www.OrionWorks.com
                                                            www.zazzle.com/orionworks
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.