Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
Popsci : If history is any guide, no such report would be issued. Rossi will reset the goalpoststhe only thing he does with any consistencyand forestall his day of reckoning for another few months, and then another few months after that, until finally he disappears from the stage in a puff of smoke, taking his black box with him. Rossi: Andrea Rossi October 23rd, 2012 at 9:09 PM Dear Drew: Important news are on their way. Warm Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi October 23rd, 2012 at 9:11 PM Dear Avi: Leonardo Corp. will not be the same from the next week. I am in the USA, where an inportant event has been born from the last tests. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
Rossi wrote: Leonardo Corp. will not be the same from the next week. I am in the USA, where an inportant event has been born from the last tests. Warm Regards, A.R. Oh boy. Here we go again. Despite his foibles, I really like Andrea Rossi. He annoys the heck out of me. He is infuriating! And yet, somehow, you can't help but like him. He is such a character. A force of nature! Like the guy in the beer ad: he is the most interesting man in the world. If he succeeds all his sins will be forgiven. And forgotten. The history books will describe him as a hero. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
Jed sez: ... Despite his foibles, I really like Andrea Rossi. He annoys the heck out of me. He is infuriating! And yet, somehow, you can't help but like him. He is such a character. A force of nature! Like the guy in the beer ad: he is the most interesting man in the world. If he succeeds all his sins will be forgiven. And forgotten. The history books will describe him as a hero. I must admit that fact that I enjoy keeping track of Rossi's story book adventures. I'm glad there are plenty of others who have made it their personal business to keep track of this colorful Italian. Makes it easy for me. Despite all of the shoot-himself-in-his-own-foot antics that Rossi seems to have done to himself, despite all the intentionally bad press derived from self-proclaimed experts, such as from SK, it seems to me that Rossi has yet to be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he is a charlatan. SK has been relentless in the spoon feeding of his readership that Rossi is to be perceived as nothing more than a convicted criminal, while conveniently leaving out the fact that he was exhonerated from his prior convictions. But no matter. Rossi is like a cat that always seems to land on his feet. Granted, few have reason trust Rossi, and rightly so. But as far as I can tell the only thing that has stuck on Rossi has been insinuation after insinuation that he is nothing more than charlatan, or perhaps a convicted criminal with a record. On that point it would seem that Rossi has done little to dissuade skeptics that he isn't. To me, Rossi's behavior is akin to that of a carnival barker. I continue my vigil, wondering whether his eCats really work as advertised or will they turn out to be a three-headed calf preserved in formaldehyde. Since the competition appeaers to be growing stronger I'm less concerned about the continuing saga of Rossi's tarnished reputation since it is becoming likely that others will soon pick up the ball and deposit the winnings in their own cash register. I still hope that Rossi will eventually succeed in his grand quest, but we shall see. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I think we have been a little unfair to Mary. I have never minded her complaints. She does not lack for enthusiasm and focus. Well, you can get your fill here at her home port: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/ where she seems to be irritating her cohorts.
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
I'm pretty happy at vortex. ;) Eric Sent from my iPhone On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:30, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Well, you can get your fill here at her home port: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/ where she seems to be irritating her cohorts.
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Nothing motivates people more than the prospect of making billions of dollars. ...you'd be surprised how wrong that is. I have pointed out to people that the market is on the order of trillions, with an initial investment of only an hour or so to look at what I've got, and I don't even get a reply. :( That is because they don't believe you. You have the same problem as people writing Nigerian e-mail scam letters. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:36:32 -0400: Hi Jed, [snip] That is because they don't believe you. You have the same problem as people writing Nigerian e-mail scam letters. - Jed I suspect you are correct, but how do I overcome this? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
Hello group, The 8-page article published on the November issue of Popular Science is now publicly available for reading on the official PopSci website. For sure, user reactions in the comment section don't seem very enthusiastic, to say the least: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
On 2012-10-23 18:05, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Not related with the opening post, but this came just in from Google Alerts: http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/27-big-idea-bring-back-the-cold-fusion-dream A cautiously neutral article on cold fusion on Discover Magazine, mainly revolving around Widom-Larsen theory and Zawodny's known public efforts to test the WL theory. Nothing new, but it's interesting to see that this magazine picked it up. No mention whatsoever of Rossi or Defkalion. On the main website page the article headline is A sort-of return of Cold Fusion. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
At 09:05 AM 10/23/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, The 8-page article published on the November issue of Popular Science is now publicly available for reading on the official PopSci website. For sure, user reactions in the comment section don't seem very enthusiastic, to say the least: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box A long disclaimer from Krivit ! http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box#comment-147925 And apart from the usual MY response http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box#comment-147923 (this time it takes a pot-shot at Jed.) a couple of the comments are in support of LENR and wait-and-see on Rossi.
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
I uploaded a post with links to all three articles and eCat news, conveniently located in one place: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1356
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
At 12:36 PM 10/23/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: I uploaded a post with links to all three articles and eCat news, conveniently located in one place: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1356 You might add Wired's Sep 14 --- now archived Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: And apart from the usual MY response http://www.popsci.com/science/** article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-**black-box#comment-147923http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box#comment-147923 Mary Yugo wrote here: His [Rossi's] marks must be investors and distributors who pay him for shares and fees in advance. This is speculation. Yugo does not actually know who these investors or distributors are, or whether they have paid, or how much. She speculates that such people exist and then (more-or-less asserts) that as a fact. She should have said, I suppose . . . or In cases like this you sometimes find . . . This is a strange mental habit some people have. You go from speculating to assuming that what you imagines must be a fact, with no intermediate evidence gathering. Conrad Black's biography of FDR has some glaring examples of this. It is a strange book. Black is an amateur historian. He is an opinionated, wealthy person, who is free to publish whatever he wants. The book has some sharp observations and thought-provoking ideas, but it is dangerous because he keeps dreaming up assumptions, changing them into facts, and then finally claiming that everyone alive at the time knew these were facts and agreed with his views. This is contractual history gone berserk. The worst example: Black says that U.S. and England could have successfully invaded France in 1943, but they waited until June 1944. Granted, some historians and some people at the time thought they might have, especially Stalin. He keeps repeating this assertion, until a few chapters later he has FDR, Eisenhower and Churchill knowing this as a fact in 1943, and trying to find ways to justify the delay, to fool the world. They agree with Black. Okay, think about Eisenhower's famous message that he drafted in case of failure: Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. . . . I can't imagine Black does not know about this message. Apparently Black imagines Eisenhower drafted this message and kept it secret for years just for show. Or just to fool future historians. There are many assertions about cold fusion by skeptics that are similarly far removed from reality, based on weird ideas of how people behave or what motivations they might have. Some skeptics assert that hundreds of professional scientists are deliberately publishing fraudulent data. They never say why these scientists would do that, or what benefit there might be. They ignore the fact that the scientists are excoriated for publishing this data. Sometimes they claim that scientists do this to become famous even though most cold fusion researchers labor in obscurity. The accusations do not add up. They remind me of the assertion made by some homophobic people that homosexuals choose their orientation. This begs a couple of well-known counterarguments: Given all of the opposition and persecution homosexuals faced in the past, why would anyone choose to be homosexual?!? Do heterosexual people choose their orientation? Specifically, did you, the person making this accusation, choose to be heterosexual? Black's book also has some egregious factual errors. For example, he casually states that Harry Hopkins was drunk on one occasion toward the end of his life. Hopkins was dying of cancer and could not drink, according to his biography. This is not a big deal, but anyone who writes a biography of FDR has to read that biography. Books like this are dangerous. They give you mistaken ideas. After you find several mistakes in a book, I think it is best to set it aside. I know a lot about FDR and I can spot many errors, but there may be errors in this book that slipped by me, which I have now added to my knowledge. There is a 19th century quote ascribed to Twain and some other humorists of that era: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
He should get some physics education or just quit babbling about something he doesn't understand, damn! 2012/10/23 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com A long disclaimer from Krivit ! http://www.popsci.com/science/** article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-**black-box#comment-147925http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box#comment-147925 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: You might add Wired's Sep 14 --- now archived Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam? Might as well add it. Done. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote, regarding this: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box#comment-147925 [Krivit] should get some physics education or just quit babbling about something he doesn't understand, damn! Yeah. Well he is not babbling about physics much in this instance, but he often does, and he cites himself as a Distinguished Expert, and in this case he publishes an e-mail from Featherstone to himself . . . all of which is bad form. As the British say, it is *not on*. (They used to say that.) Meaning it isn't done in polite society. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
What I really mean is that he ends up adding confusion to the mess. If not even WL, the authors, can answer Abd's objections, what's to say about Krivit? 2012/10/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote, regarding this: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box#comment-147925 [Krivit] should get some physics education or just quit babbling about something he doesn't understand, damn! Yeah. Well he is not babbling about physics much in this instance, but he often does, and he cites himself as a Distinguished Expert, and in this case he publishes an e-mail from Featherstone to himself . . . all of which is bad form. As the British say, it is *not on*. (They used to say that.) Meaning it isn't done in polite society. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
From Jed: ... ... and in this case [Krivit] he publishes an e-mail from Featherstone to himself . . . all of which is bad form. As the British say, it is not on. (They used to say that.) Meaning it isn't done in polite society. According to Krivit, this is what Featherstone asked him: * I came across your site while researching a feature story about 'cold fusion,' or LENR as it were, and Andrea Rossi in particular. I'm new to the subject of cold fusion, so it's been quite an uphill battle separating fact from fiction. Especially with material found on the web, most of which appears to be fiction. Your skepticism about Rossi's claims, while not rare, seems more informed than most and certainly well-documented. In fact, I’ve ordered your book and plan to read it ASAP. I’m just getting started on the reporting, but my editor wants the story as soon as possible. At the moment, I haven't contacted Rossi, but plan to do so soon, in order to arrange an interview. Before I talk to him, I’d love to get your take on Rossi I’m aware that you’ve probably said everything you need to say on your site, but I’m hoping that you can help me cut quickly through the detritus -- as well as the whole field of “cold fusion” research. Thanks, and keep up the good work! * I assume Featherstone is referring to Krivit's publication: The rebirth of Cold Fusion. Incidentally, I'm quoted in Krivit's book, ever so briefly - as an interested bystander. Vortex chatter. This was, of course before Krivit decided to excuse himself from the Collective where he demanded that Mr. Rothwell apologize to him for... oh, I don't know for what reason, nor do I care. My 20 minutes of fame. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: What I really mean is that he ends up adding confusion to the mess. If not even WL, the authors, can answer Abd's objections, what's to say about Krivit? Absolutely right. Quoting one of Krivit's papers: Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen propose that, in condensed matter, local breakdown of the Born–Oppenheimer approximation occurs in homogeneous, many-body, collectively oscillating patches of protons, deuterons, or tritons found on surfaces of fully loaded metallic hydrides . . . If I were to write something like that, here is how my worst nightmare would play out. I imagine myself sitting in panel discussion like the one on Commercialization at ICCF17. Someone in the audience with a PhD who knows what a Born–Oppenheimer approximation is asks me to elaborate on that statement. Umm . . . Errr, ahhh . . ., after a quick surreptitious look at Wikipedia using a iPad on my lap), I respond: Well, you got your computation of the energy and the wavefunction of an average-size molecule is a formidable task, which is alleviated by that sucker, the Born–Oppenheimer approximation . . . I'm pretty sure Krivit would not know a Born–Oppenheimer approximation if it bit him on the butt. I know I wouldn't! I felt fine on the Commercialization Panel because hey, that's all blue-sky speculation anyway, and besides it's the last hour of the the last day and most people have already left the conference. Who's going to know? Here is what I said on the panel. It is such stuff as dreams are made of: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
I wrote: he keeps dreaming up assumptions, changing them into facts, and then finally claiming that everyone alive at the time knew these were facts and agreed with his views. This is contractual history gone berserk. That was a spell-check error. Meant counter-factual history. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:05:09 -0400: Hi Jed, [snip] http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf You wrote: Nothing motivates people more than the prospect of making billions of dollars. ...you'd be surprised how wrong that is. I have pointed out to people that the market is on the order of trillions, with an initial investment of only an hour or so to look at what I've got, and I don't even get a reply. :( Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:PopSci article on Rossi now online
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: And apart from the usual MY response http://www.popsci.com/science/** article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-**black-box#comment-147923http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box#comment-147923 (this time it takes a pot-shot at Jed.) a couple of the comments are in support of LENR and wait-and-see on Rossi. I think we have been a little unfair to Mary. I have never minded her complaints. She does not lack for enthusiasm and focus. Eric
