Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
I have answered this question yesterday on my blog. and have announced it here. Not the end of the world, not the end of LENR Peter On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.comwrote: What will happen after Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer will be proved as a hoax? We will ever seen the “rossi-belivers”? We will see lenr-canr website closed, after this stomach punch? We will see cold fusion researchers stop doing sloppy calorimetry and focusing more on STRONG nuclear radiations before publishing papers? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception.
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Robert Parks will be, once again, smug as a bug. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 25, 2011 7:26 am Subject: [Vo]:The day after Rossi What will happen after Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer will be proved as a hoax? We will ever seen the “rossi-belivers”? We will see lenr-canr website closed, after this stomach punch? We will see cold fusion researchers stop doing sloppy calorimetry and focusing more on STRONG nuclear radiations before publishing papers?
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception. Some questions: How many competent people in the field are convinced by Rossi? How many stand to be cheated in any sense? As far as I know, you can count them on one hand. A lot of people are paying close attention. Many, including me, think that the weight of evidence is in favor of the claims, based on previous Ni-H claims and so on. Some people from outside the field say they are convinced, such as Levi, and EK. They have actually performed tests themselves so they can judge the issue better than most people, and they have more reason to be convinced. If I had observed the 18-hour test in person, I would probably be 100% convinced. (I would also have reported it in much more detail than Levi has done, but that's another story.) If Levi, EK and a few others who have not previously had anything to do with cold fusion have been fooled by Rossi, why would this reflect badly on people such as McKubre, Miles or Fleischmann? As far as I know, they have not said they believe this. They have not said they don't believe it either. I have been in contact with them. They are keenly interested, of course. Who wouldn't be? I myself am waiting for better test results before reaching any final conclusion. I lean strongly toward it being real, as I said. But as I have also said repeatedly, Defkalion has published nothing so I cannot judge their claims. The 18-hour flow test was good enough for its purpose, which was for Levi to decide whether to go ahead with more testing or not. It was pretty convincing and I have not seen any reason to doubt it, but no one familiar with experimental science would bet the farm on one test of this nature. If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason, the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this. They have not discovered a single valid reason to doubt his work that was not obvious to everyone, including me. None of their criticism were any more informed or hard hitting than Celani's, Storms', mine, or others who lean toward believing this. As far as I know, skeptics have not suggested any improvements to the test techniques that Storms, I and others have not already suggested. The memo quoted here recently about the steam sparge test, for example, is something I wrote to Rossi himself months ago. I suggested he let me do that test during a visit to his lab. I planned to spend all day, repeating it 5 or 10 times, and I also wanted to do to a flowing water test. Rossi turned me down, as I reported here. I circulated that memo to various other people and I may have published it here. It was not a bit confidential. It is not a bit original, either. I did not come up with the idea. As the original memo text says, I learned this technique at Hydrodynamics. If Rossi is wrong, the skeptics will NOT have demonstrated any special insight or ability to predict an outcome. Most experiments fail. Most results are wrong. Most product RD is scrapped before the product reaches the market. If you always bet that a new experimental result will be wrong, you will be on the winning side most of the time. This is Robert Park's technique. He predicts an outcome that everyone knows is likely, and then he takes credit when things turn out as everyone knew they probably would. This is like predicting that Las Vegas slot machines will win more money than they lose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
«LENR is another avenue. It's not just about Rossi. If the Rossi thing doesn't happen, then maybe something else will. Rossi has brought a lot of attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate claim are going to benefit from this.» –Michael A. Nelson, Nasa On Aug 25, 2011 8:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception. Some questions: How many competent people in the field are convinced by Rossi? How many stand to be cheated in any sense? As far as I know, you can count them on one hand. A lot of people are paying close attention. Many, including me, think that the weight of evidence is in favor of the claims, based on previous Ni-H claims and so on. Some people from outside the field say they are convinced, such as Levi, and EK. They have actually performed tests themselves so they can judge the issue better than most people, and they have more reason to be convinced. If I had observed the 18-hour test in person, I would probably be 100% convinced. (I would also have reported it in much more detail than Levi has done, but that's another story.) If Levi, EK and a few others who have not previously had anything to do with cold fusion have been fooled by Rossi, why would this reflect badly on people such as McKubre, Miles or Fleischmann? As far as I know, they have not said they believe this. They have not said they don't believe it either. I have been in contact with them. They are keenly interested, of course. Who wouldn't be? I myself am waiting for better test results before reaching any final conclusion. I lean strongly toward it being real, as I said. But as I have also said repeatedly, Defkalion has published nothing so I cannot judge their claims. The 18-hour flow test was good enough for its purpose, which was for Levi to decide whether to go ahead with more testing or not. It was pretty convincing and I have not seen any reason to doubt it, but no one familiar with experimental science would bet the farm on one test of this nature. If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason, the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this. They have not discovered a single valid reason to doubt his work that was not obvious to everyone, including me. None of their criticism were any more informed or hard hitting than Celani's, Storms', mine, or others who lean toward believing this. As far as I know, skeptics have not suggested any improvements to the test techniques that Storms, I and others have not already suggested. The memo quoted here recently about the steam sparge test, for example, is something I wrote to Rossi himself months ago. I suggested he let me do that test during a visit to his lab. I planned to spend all day, repeating it 5 or 10 times, and I also wanted to do to a flowing water test. Rossi turned me down, as I reported here. I circulated that memo to various other people and I may have published it here. It was not a bit confidential. It is not a bit original, either. I did not come up with the idea. As the original memo text says, I learned this technique at Hydrodynamics. If Rossi is wrong, the skeptics will NOT have demonstrated any special insight or ability to predict an outcome. Most experiments fail. Most results are wrong. Most product RD is scrapped before the product reaches the market. If you always bet that a new experimental result will be wrong, you will be on the winning side most of the time. This is Robert Park's technique. He predicts an outcome that everyone knows is likely, and then he takes credit when things turn out as everyone knew they probably would. This is like predicting that Las Vegas slot machines will win more money than they lose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Jouni Valkonen wrote: «LENR is another avenue. It's not just about Rossi. If the Rossi thing doesn't happen, then maybe something else will. Rossi has brought a lot of attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate claim are going to benefit from this.» –Michael A. Nelson, Nasa Hear, hear! I agree with Nelson. There is no such thing as bad publicity. Look at Kim Kardashian who has made $35 million just by being famous, with no apparent assets other than her ass. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
On 11-08-25 01:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason, the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this. Getting a little defensive, are we, Jed?
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Brief public demos have been repeated 4 times in 8 months, I think. That is a small number. Anyone would invest in this based on those demos would be insane, in my opinion. I am glad we agree on at least some aspect of this. On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pretty much the total destruction of all confidence I have in LENR. If so many competent people in the field were cheated that easily by Rossi, I can expect much worse from everyone, even in the sense of self deception. Some questions: How many competent people in the field are convinced by Rossi? How many stand to be cheated in any sense? It is not primarily the people competent in this field that stand to be cheated if Rossi's device is a fraud or self deception. There are plenty of people with a lot of money who are scientifically clueless. These are the kind of people that can be suckered in by scientifically inadequate or even misleading demos. As far as I know, you can count them on one hand. A lot of people are paying close attention. Many, including me, think that the weight of evidence is in favor of the claims, based on previous Ni- H claims and so on. You of all people here must know that *belief* based on minimal evidence is one thing, scientific evidence is another. That is an entirely different thing. There is abundant evidence that LENR is real, and that scientific study of it is warranted. There is no reliable published scientific evidence I know of that demonstrates LENR is commercially viable at this point, and that goes for Rossi's device especially. In fact there are various red flags with regard to both Rossi and his claims. I am sure we all look forward to the production of a 1 MW reactor. If that does not happen then it will be very difficult to obtain investors or political support from legislatures to fund badly needed research. *Everyone* stands to lose from that. There could even be unnecessary resource wars and famine because of that. Some people from outside the field say they are convinced, such as Levi, and EK. They have actually performed tests themselves so they can judge the issue better than most people, and they have more reason to be convinced. If I had observed the 18-hour test in person, I would probably be 100% convinced. (I would also have reported it in much more detail than Levi has done, but that's another story.) [snip] - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, or hugely mistaken for some reason, the skeptics here will deserve no credit for predicting this. Getting a little defensive, are we, Jed? No, but I am sick of people who play it safe by predicting failure where failure is likely. I am sick of people who criticize Rossi for his personality and for lying instead of looking at the technical issues. It is too easy to point out his personality faults and thereby evade serious consideration of the claims. Besides, I don't think he regards them as faults, and I doubt anyone is fit to throw the first stone. Rossi appears to be happy with his life. His wife loves him. Who are we to judge his way of talking? Who cares if he constantly contradicts himself or says things that appear to flagrant nonsense, such as the claim that Defkalion never tested a reactor? So what if his hobby is writing strange messages on his blog? What difference does any of that make?!? Learn to ignore that stuff, and concentrate on independent observations by Levi or EK. All too often in the history of science and technology, people have ignored important breakthroughs because of personality issues. Because the person who made the discovery was too bold, or too bashful, irritable, irrational, prone to telling fibs, or from wrong social class. Harrison, who invented the chronometer, is a classic example. If people in high places and academic hacks had not been sidetracked by his personality for a generation, and if they had looked at the technical claims instead of the person, thousands of lives and millions of dollars would have been saved. If Rossi is right, everyone will say his habit of spouting off and his carelessness are merely the eccentricity of genus. All will be forgiven. I don't think it is the eccentricity of genius, because I know many stupid people who act this way. It is mostly harmless because you can usually tell when he is saying something that makes no sense. Just as you can tell with Steve Jobs. Rossi has done more good than harm. If he is right about this, he will have done a billion times more good than harm, so why make a big deal about his personality? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Horace Heffner wrote: It is not primarily the people competent in this field that stand to be cheated if Rossi's device is a fraud or self deception. There are plenty of people with a lot of money who are scientifically clueless. These are the kind of people that can be suckered in by scientifically inadequate or even misleading demos. Unless you know of some specific people who may have been suckered in by Rossi's demos, I do not think you should worry about this. I know lots of people with money who would like to invest in Rossi's discovery. They do not appear to be in any danger of being scammed by him. As I have often said, he would make the world's worst confidence-man because he inspires no confidence. Most investors I have spoken have a terrible impression of him because of his demos, his fake PdD and his other quirks. His blog in particular seems to be the worst marketing ploy in the history of commerce. If he succeeds in convincing people this is real, it will be in spite of the demonstrations and his blog, not because of them. I think it is only likely to happen if Defkalion is telling the truth, and if they release test results from the Min. of Energy or someplace like that. I think he writes the blog as a hobby, as a way to relax, and as a way to get good ideas from other people. It probably does him a world of good. It causes no harm, and there is no reason why he should stop. People opposed to Rossi have said the blog may be clever viral marketing, or part of a scheme to defraud people, or an effort to make him look mainstream by the title Journal of Nuclear Physics. Such claims are ludicrous. It is the extreme opposite of good marketing or an effort to appear mainstream! If Rossi deliberately set out to make himself look like a disreputable, eccentric, over-unity energy claimant, he could not give a more convincing impression of that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Jed, how many words wasted ! Just recall how Rossi reacted, time ago, when you proposed to make a test in Bologna using your own tools and what he said when you asked him to visit his Florida plant ! Didn't any alarm bell ring ? I'm sure you are, in his opinion, one of the very very very whatever but you'll have to watch any demo with your hands tied back and a dutch tape strip over your mouth. Did you already get the invitation for to the one megawatt gala party with the 4th July like steam show ? I whish you, at least, having a fine and fresh choice of snacks and apetizers :) 2011/8/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Horace Heffner wrote: It is not primarily the people competent in this field that stand to be cheated if Rossi's device is a fraud or self deception. There are plenty of people with a lot of money who are scientifically clueless. These are the kind of people that can be suckered in by scientifically inadequate or even misleading demos. Unless you know of some specific people who may have been suckered in by Rossi's demos, I do not think you should worry about this. I know lots of people with money who would like to invest in Rossi's discovery. They do not appear to be in any danger of being scammed by him. As I have often said, he would make the world's worst confidence-man because he inspires no confidence. Most investors I have spoken have a terrible impression of him because of his demos, his fake PdD and his other quirks. His blog in particular seems to be the worst marketing ploy in the history of commerce. If he succeeds in convincing people this is real, it will be in spite of the demonstrations and his blog, not because of them. I think it is only likely to happen if Defkalion is telling the truth, and if they release test results from the Min. of Energy or someplace like that. I think he writes the blog as a hobby, as a way to relax, and as a way to get good ideas from other people. It probably does him a world of good. It causes no harm, and there is no reason why he should stop. People opposed to Rossi have said the blog may be clever viral marketing, or part of a scheme to defraud people, or an effort to make him look mainstream by the title Journal of Nuclear Physics. Such claims are ludicrous. It is the extreme opposite of good marketing or an effort to appear mainstream! If Rossi deliberately set out to make himself look like a disreputable, eccentric, over-unity energy claimant, he could not give a more convincing impression of that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
Susan Gipp wrote: Jed, how many words wasted ! Just recall how Rossi reacted, time ago, when you proposed to make a test in Bologna using your own tools and what he said when you asked him to visit his Florida plant ! Didn't any alarm bell ring ? Yes, as I have said again and again, if we are going to judge this by Rossi's behavior, alarm bells will ring, klaxons will sound, flashing red lights will blind us, and we will not believe it. That is why I suggest you ignore Rossi, and his behavior. Concentrate instead on the reports and observations made by Levi, EK and Lewan, and the claims made by Defkalion when the Minister of Energy was in the audience. Unless you suppose that Rossi has some magical ability to change the laws of thermodynamics or make calorimetry and flow meters stop working in Greece when he is in Italy, you need not worry about him. His flamboyant personality will not deceive a flow meter or seduce a thermometer. Science is not about personality, and not about personal credibility. If Rossi were the only person making these claims, we would be forced to consider his personality as a factor, but unless you suppose Levi and these others are secretly in cahoots with him, or unless you think he has come up with some fantastic undetectable method of fooling them, you can rule out his personality. I see no evidence they are conspiring. I have not seen anyone propose a viable method of faking the experiment. Alan Fletcher went to a lot of trouble compiling a list of ways to make a fake test. There was not one method on his list which Levi or even I would not spot in two minutes. There is not the slightest chance any of those methods would work. None of them was as difficult to catch as an actual experimental error is, including the errors I myself have made. Until someone comes up with a plausible method I think we can put aside that hypothesis. Besides, the hypothesis is not falsifiable until you propose a specific method, so it is not scientifically valid. It is conceivable that Defkalion is faking it. They have not published a report or test data as far as I know. I would say they have a lot more credibility than Rossi does, based on the people attending the press conference, but it is dangerous to judge an scientific claim by outward appearances or a list of impressive friends. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
On Aug 25, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: «LENR is another avenue. It's not just about Rossi. If the Rossi thing doesn't happen, then maybe something else will. Rossi has brought a lot of attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate claim are going to benefit from this.» –Michael A. Nelson, Nasa I hope this is true. However, I expect NASA will be lucky to afford office supplies when congress gets done with them. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The day after Rossi
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Look at Kim Kardashian who has made $35 million just by being famous, with no apparent assets other than her ass. Jed, Might I suggest that you look a bit higher? T
