eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

An eCat joke, not a joke eCat

January 29, 2012

It often astounds me how the community navigates language and cultural barriers in an already confusing landscape. We are used to misunderstandings; often a ripe source for those intent on mischief. They are not normally something you would welcome but in this one case I do. According to Daniele Passerini, yesterday’s comment on sceptics was a joke.

When I asked people to place their bets, that is not an outcome I could not have guessed. Given the possible implications of his previous comment, I for one welcome these words:

Daniele both on Vortex that around, your announcement of “bad times are coming” … is on everyone’s lips. http://ecatnews.com/?p=1950

Oh heavens! But what they understood these?!?!

@ Tizzie Please tell your friend to report to those of Vortex who misunderstood in full, that there is nothing itchy behind my words, that has nothing to do with E-Cat, Rossi, UniBO etc. THAT WAS JUST A JOKE TO THE ITALIAN AUDIENCE!

Phew!

[With thanks to Tony]

Posted by on January 29, 2012. Filed under Media & Blogs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

68 Responses to An eCat joke, not a joke eCat

  1. Tony Reply

    January 29, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    Looking on Vortex / 22Passi, bizarrely, this seems to have something to do with Mary Yugo / George Hody.

    Then again, google translate mangles the words a lot; but those words are mentioned a lot with Sunday’s entry.

  2. Renzo Reply

    January 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    I’m italian and I didn’t understand that it was a joke and still I don’t understand what it was about…

    • AB Reply

      January 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm

      “No, I was referring to something that will involve Focardi, Rossi and (!) Celani. When it happens you will understand what I meant. ”

      Passerini was not joking, but it seems that whatever he was referring to isn’t a “huge bad” thing like the thread over on the vortex mailing list says. I suppose we’ll find out.

      • Francesco CH Reply

        January 29, 2012 at 4:36 pm

        This is it.

        • Tony Reply

          January 29, 2012 at 8:04 pm

          Ah, the fuss over nothing at all…

          • Mahron - A4 B3

            January 30, 2012 at 8:57 am

            On the bright side, it give some of us a blank page to star a new argument.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      January 29, 2012 at 4:19 pm

      Aren’t jokes supposed to be funny?

      So now it looks like he may have said too much, and is backtracking.

      If anyone ever puts all this stuff in a book, no-one will ever believe it isn’t fiction.

    • JNewman Reply

      January 29, 2012 at 4:24 pm

      Ok, to recap, yesterday’s message that seemed to everybody to be nothing but meaningless gibberish has turned out to actually be meaningless gibberish. Back to the salt mines…

  3. LENR4you Reply

    January 29, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Nomination and Selection of Physics Laureates

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/nomination/

    February – Deadline for submission. The completed nomination forms must reach the Nobel Committee no later than 31 January of the following year. The Committee screens the nominations and selects the preliminary candidates. About 250–350 names are nominated as several nominators often submit the same name.

  4. Harry Perini Reply

    January 29, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Undoubtably Andrea Rossi will be nominated for the Nobel Prize.

    • JNewman Reply

      January 29, 2012 at 9:18 pm

      Yeah, well Nobel Prizes kind of work like other major awards.

      You get the Oscar for making a great movie that people can go to see, not for telling everybody you will be showing one next fall.

      You get the Pulitzer Prize for something you have written, not for publicizing the great book you have in your desk drawer.

      I suspect that the handpicked scientists eligible for nominating people for the Nobel Prize in Physics might require a bit more proof of Rossi’s contributions than currently exists.

      But dream on…

      • Josh Reply

        January 29, 2012 at 9:28 pm

        Pres. Obama did get a Nobel Peace Prize…

        • JNewman Reply

          January 29, 2012 at 9:37 pm

          Well, if the Nobel Peace Prize was contingent upon proof that there was peace in the world, then nobody would ever have gotten one!

        • Ivy Matt Reply

          January 30, 2012 at 11:24 am

          True, but Ronald Richter never got a Nobel Prize in Physics.

      • GreenWin Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 3:13 am

        Undoubtedly the immoveable “proof” of cataclysmic global warming due to man made CO2, gave Al Gore the Nobel.

    • B Fast Reply

      February 8, 2012 at 4:23 pm

      I think that this year it should be Pons and Fleischmann who get the prize. Next year Rossi can be nominated — assuming his words become machines.

  5. Neil Taylor Reply

    January 29, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Many now believe that P & F should come first as their early 1989 LENR experiments have now been replicated and proven to produce anomalous heat energy as per their claim. Rossie apparently is using a different approach without the same scientific procedures applied for his claims. Also, Rossi himself claims that P & F were his inspiration for his research into this phenomenon. P & F deserve to be finally recognized for their initial contributions into the field of LENR studies and experiments…

    Rossi, can/will be recognised in the next round a year from now-hopefully!

    • Shaun Taylor Reply

      January 29, 2012 at 11:58 pm

      Rossi claims he was doing LENR research in 1987, 2 years before the 1989 F&P announcement of Cold Fusion.

      Shaun

      • Neil Taylor Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 12:37 am

        Sooo?

        • Shaun Taylor Reply

          January 30, 2012 at 3:27 am

          It is an empty claim with no proof other than Rossi speak. All he is doing is trying to imply is he invented LENR and not F&P. Therefore anyone considering F&P for a Nobel should consider Rossi first.

          Rossi lied about the shipment of the 1 MW plant.

          Rossi lied about going to the secret customers site to do the install.

          Rossi lied about sending Ecats to 2 universities to have them tested.

          Rossi has been caught lying about the test data in various Ecat tests.

          Why would you believe anything this man says?

          • Neil Taylor

            January 30, 2012 at 5:23 am

            Hmmm, where are the publications and peer review papers and journals from that era for his (Rossi’s) experiments? He may well have been experimenting at that time, but has not provided that needed documentation. Right now P & F have that “first place status proof of concept for their LENR concept” until somebody shows something otherwise they deserve the Noble this year. They took the heat for over twenty years from all the naysayer like yourself. It is past time for the science community to finally, now that LENR has been definitely proven, do the correct and right thing here for these two eminent scientists…

      • John Milstone Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 10:51 am

        In reality, in 1987 Rossi was busy dumping raw industrial waste throughout Italy (which caused about $50 million in damages).

        In the 1990s, he was busy being convicted of various fraud-related crimes.

        In 2000, he was convicted of bankruptcy fraud, and sent to prison for 8 years. Maybe it was while he was in prison that he made his “breakthrough” in LENR research.

      • Ivy Matt Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 11:35 am

        Celani may possibly have been a bit confused, but he claimed in his presentation at the Viareggio cold fusion conference last July that Yoshiaki Arata began studying “solid-state nuclear fusion” around 1958.

  6. Ivan Mohorovicic Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 12:33 am

    New email by Francesco Celani:
    http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/01/operazione-mig-22.html

    Important excerpt from the above link translated in english about a LENR workshop at CERN here:
    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62625.html

  7. Shaun Taylor Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 3:19 am

    More of Rossi making false statements.

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=7#comment-70372
    Piers D
    September 9th, 2011 at 10:26 AM

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    …I have two questions that you might wish to answer:
    • Have fully working E-Cats been provided to the Bologna and Uppsala Universities for research and testing?
    • Do you have any prospective European or Asian partners that will license the E-Cat technology for commercial production?
    Yours sincerely
    Piers Dickinson

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=7#comment-70404
    Andrea Rossi
    September 9th, 2011 at 11:28 AM

    Dear Piers D:
    1- yes
    2- yes
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

    We now know neither of these universities received a Ecat to test. Rossi has made so many false statements and the internet has such a good memory. Why anyone would believe anything Rossi says is beyond me.

    This is an interesting read, where some of Rossi’s data has been shown to be false.

    http://esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer

    Peter Ekstrom, who is a senior lecturer in Nuclear Physics at the Faculty of Science, Lund University in Sweden has gone on record and called the Ecat a scam.

    http://energycatalyzer.blogspot.com/2011/04/peter-ekstromkall-fusion-pa-italienska.html

    When will Kullander and Essen present their in depth analysis of the spent Ecat fuel that Rossi brought to Sweden and gave them? Their initial reported analysis showed the Copper isotope ratios to be natural, despite Focardi predicting them to be very non natural. A natural ratio would suggest there as no transmutation of the Copper from Nickel and the Copper was there by other than a LENR process.

    Shaun

    • H. Visscher Reply

      January 30, 2012 at 4:10 am

      I’m not aware that the universaties never received an E-cat. Where did you get that information from? I am aware that the university of Bologna terminated the contract because of non compliance. It did not mention that that meant they never received an E-Cat…

      • Shaun Taylor Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 5:55 am

        In the link:

        http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=7#comment-70372

        Rossi was asked the question:

        “Have fully working E-Cats been provided to the Bologna and Uppsala Universities for research and testing?”

        In the link:

        http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=7#comment-70404

        Rossi answered:

        “YES”

        Which we now know was a lie. It would seem Rossi is very good at telling people what they want to hear, even if it is not the truth.

        • H. Visscher Reply

          January 30, 2012 at 7:08 am

          Indeed, but is it a lie? How do you know it is lie?

          • Shaun Taylor

            January 30, 2012 at 8:10 am

            You must be joking? If not I take it you have not been following the Ecat history? Neither university has received an Ecat to test, despite that Rossi claimed.

            There has never been an independent test of an Ecat. There are no independent test data.

            Shaun

          • John Milstone

            January 30, 2012 at 11:11 am

            As of
            THIS
            article, as of November 23, Kullander was still asking Rossi to allow the University of Uppsala to test the device:

            Sven said that he have asked Rossi if Uppsala university can independently test the device, with the demand that all information will be reveled to the public. If Rossi says no to this Uppsala will not test the device.

            Rossi has said repeatedly, starting before this statement, that he would not allow any public testing.

            And, of course, the University of Bologna actually issued a
            PRESS RELEASE
            stating that they had not done any testing with Rossi:

            A) no experiment concerning E-Cat was held at the University of Bologna or October 28, 2011, or earlier dates, nor was conducted by researchers at the University;

            2) the University of Bologna (Department of Physics) experiments on the apparatus is ready to play cat-and as soon as the contract signed with EFA Srl (Italian society of Andrea Rossi) will be made active to this end were to experiments, as observers, researchers at the University of Bologna.

            I was going to include a link to the follow-up press release, stating that they had cancelled the contract due to non-payment by Rossi, but it appears that they have removed it (404 error).

            The facts are that Rossi has repeated claimed that independent testing had occurred throughout last year, but the people who would know at each University have denied it.

            Either Rossi is lying, or Kullander and the University of Bologna are lying.

          • John Milstone

            January 30, 2012 at 11:28 am

            Sven Kullander was quoted in
            THIS
            article on November 24:

            Sven said that he have asked Rossi if Uppsala university can independently test the device, with the demand that all information will be reveled to the public. If Rossi says no to this Uppsala will not test the device.

            Rossi repeatedly stated, starting in early November, that there would be no more public testing.

            And, of course, the University of Bologna issued a press release stating that:

            no experiment concerning E-Cat was held at the University of Bologna or October 28, 2011, or earlier dates, nor was conducted by researchers at the University;

            And, of course, just a few days ago, UniBo released another press release stating that they had cancelled the contract due to non-payment by Rossi. (Interestingly, it appears that this press release is no longer available from the UniBo web site).

            They did make a somewhat vague statement that they either did or were going to provide expertise and equipment to “provide an answer to the scientific community and the general public” about their results, and that the information would be made public.

            This also contradicts Rossi’s claims that no public testing will occur.

          • H. Visscher

            January 30, 2012 at 4:11 pm

            I have been following the story quite well and I’m not joking. That the University of Bologna never received an E-Cat is your assumption.

  8. Pekka Janhunen Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 7:40 am

    In a previous thread we discussed Rossi’s recent video statement “fusion is byproduct” and I said that it might be sloppy language because where else could the energy come from except fusion. I take it back, he might just have meant that something happens in the matter (like formation of ultradense hydrogen condensate or whatever) and as a byproduct of that some fusion occurs which produces the energy. In another interview made on the same day he said that they overcome the Coulomb barrier by cunning rather than brute force, which also relates to fusion.

    Thus Rossi’s old and new statements seem after all consistent with the idea that the energy comes from fusion.

  9. georgehants Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 8:42 am

    Defkalion are in no hurry to answer my simple question.
    georgehants
    PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:56 pm
    Defkalion could you give an approximate date when we can expect the first public report from one of the testers you are inviting.
    -
    They have answered once with no answer so I repeated the question—-
    -
    Defkalion, you did not answer my original question, I don’t feel that it in any way compromises your position to give an indication of the timetable of events.
    Defkalion could you give an approximate date when we can expect the first public report from one of the testers you are inviting.

    • DC Reply

      January 30, 2012 at 9:02 am

      @georgehants

      In Defkalion’s defence their first sticky post is “No Answers on the weekend”. So give them a break. I saw your post and wondered if you’d be patient. Obviously not. We do not know if any reputable company/institute has even put their hand to test it. I certainly hope NASA and possibly SRI International put up their hands. SRI has experience they have funded research for the last 20 years.

  10. AB Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 8:49 am

    http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/01/operazione-mig-22.html

    Some readers of the 22passi blog are trying to get Celani involved in the upcoming Defkalion testing. They are offering to pay for travel expenses through donations. Celani shares some thoughts on Defkalion’s test setup and seems generally interested but notes that the dual reactor setup proposed is not useful at his point.

    He also speaks about the CERN seminar [about LENR] and mentions that preliminary agreements have been made. The agreed date is March 22. An official announcement by CERN will be made once the seminar has been formalized.

    [No full translation as it's a lot of text. If machine translation fails on some parts I'm willing to help clarify though.]

  11. georgehants Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 9:06 am

    Shaun Taylor, may I ask a question.
    You continue like many to argue with old history that Rossi is a fraud.
    Every bit of evidence you use has been looked at and analysed by everybody and up until now the only conclusion that a fair, open-minded, unbiased, skeptical observer can conclude is that–
    There is not enough conclusive evidence to finalise a decision. We all wait.
    You seem a very able commenter, so why do you waste time trying to convince people who will never prejudge until the evidence is in.
    You seem to agree that P&F have been badly handled and the evidence is in and clear, but I do not see comments from you campaigning to put right a confirmed fraud and incompetence by main-line science.
    I hope we are all optimistically hoping that Rossi et al are legit and well aware that it could all be fools gold.

  12. Shaun Taylor Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Patio style space heater
    http://www.barbequesgalore.com.au/products/product-view.aspx?id=958

    As used my Rossi to heat his factory
    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/515/howrossiheatsthebologna.jpg/

    10 kg bottled LPG based space heater. Maximum output 40 MJ (11 kWs)

    Cost to run the LPG based unit is very high as it uses 10 kg LPG bottles. Rossi claims his 10 kW Ecat costs less than $0.01 / kWh to run. So $0.10 per hour for a 10 kW unit or $2.40 per day at retail fuel prices.

    I would have thought that at $10 per day (running 4 x 10 kW Ecats flat out) to make his factory a hot short sleeve shirt environment would be a huge selling point for anyone visiting Rossi.

    So why are heavy costs required when visiting the factory of the man who claims to make LENR Ecat heat at such a low cost as to make heat generation almost costless?

    Why can’t he heat his showplace factory, where the 1 MW plant sits alone, unloved and gathering dust in the corner?

    Not really a difficult question to answer.

    Shaun

    • georgehants Reply

      January 30, 2012 at 9:18 am

      He has already answered and is in no way a point to change minds as there are a thousand perfectly reasonable answers.
      We wait for evidence.

      • Shaun Taylor Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 10:39 am

        Wait for evidence? Oh you mean independent testing evidence? We have been waiting for that evidence for several years now. Nothing yet.

        As Rossi has said he will not be doing any more tests (what tests did he do? Oh no more Rossi orchestrated and controlled PR Ecat demos?) as the customer’s test are all he needs, we will have to wait another 18 months for the first customer tests to arrive.

        Are you really OK with that? Another 18 months of unprovable statements by Rossi.

        Aargh………….

        Shaun

        • georgehants Reply

          January 30, 2012 at 10:49 am

          Shaun Taylor, That I agree does not feel good, but if that is the way it must be. Shouting will not change things, only new evidence.
          One thing is certain any more delay does not alter the situation, all of your evidence has been analysed and found unsatisfactory to come to a final decision and any repetition is illogical.
          Only new evidence is valid and keenly awaited by all.
          You did not answer re your feelings concerning P&F and the proven fraud and incompetence of main-line science.

        • Ivy Matt Reply

          January 30, 2012 at 11:57 am

          You can always change the channel. Maybe there’s something interesting going on elsewhere.

  13. Ben Stuttard Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 9:48 am

    I’m so glad “Shaun Taylor” has decided to take up residence here to spam these discussions with boring and infantile and repetitive posts. I was so missing the pleasure on Vortex.

    • Shaun Taylor Reply

      January 30, 2012 at 10:43 am

      Don’t blame me. I’m just the messenger or historian. It is Rossi’s false words and total lack of independent Ecat testing that are digging his grave.

      Shaun

      • georgehants Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 10:52 am

        Shaun, just rhetoric no new evidence.

  14. georgehants Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 10:02 am

    • Pekka Janhunen Reply

      January 30, 2012 at 10:34 am

      Thanks, looked like a neat demonstration of uncertainty principle’s macroscopic effect.

      • georgehants Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 10:58 am

        Pekka, allowing for the virtual particles to be doing the bumping, That energy is still coming from some completely unknown source.
        If it is just put down to ZPE then ZPE could account for any number of unknown Quantum phenomenon.
        If that is correct then surly science should be looking out for the slightest anomaly that could be a sign of new science.

        • Pekka Janhunen Reply

          January 30, 2012 at 11:07 am

          remember that regardless of ZPE, total energy conservation is observed to hold. No one has demonstrated a way to utilise ZPE as an energy source, and such experiment would indeed contradict the predictions of quantum mechanics.

  15. georgehants Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 10:08 am

    The Wall Street Journal
    No Need to Panic About Global Warming
    There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

    • Tomas Douting Reply

      January 30, 2012 at 11:00 am

      Excellent article George. The parallels to Trofim Lysenko and genetics are not the first I’ve seen his name mentioned, but they are the first in a publication with as large a readership.

      • georgehants Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 11:16 am

        Tomas Douting, as the evidence is now overwhelming that Lamarck’s Evolution: has a very large part to play, once again closed minds have delayed science.
        Let scientists do science and follow their noses, not be dictated to by irrational skeptics of the establishment.
        Cold Fusion has suffered, why not learn and free our wonderful scientists from the shackles of DOGMA.

  16. georgehants Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 10:18 am

    Could help in an explanation as to why P&F and Rossi et al are having to fight to survive in the scientific world.
    The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake – review The Guardian home.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/27/science-delusion-rupert-sheldrake-review

  17. nima Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 10:19 am

    Defkalion GT

    You can watch some shots from our internal testing on Hyperion “bare” reactors in one of our labs at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuRGpRZ1t5E

    Thank you for your attention

  18. Pekka Janhunen Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 10:26 am

    New Defkalion video showing their workshop and Hyperion kernel testing http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=955

    • georgehants Reply

      January 30, 2012 at 11:00 am

      Well done Pekka, new evidence but of course does not mean very much.

      • Shaun Taylor Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 11:15 am

        OK I bite.

        Where are the inlet and outlet connections for the coolant? You know the flowly fluid like stuff that transfers the thermal energy from the Hyperion’s reactor core to the customers thermal load?

        Without flowing coolant you can’t put a working load on the reactor. Without a working load on the reactor, DGT can’t measure the amount of energy generation and can’t show the kWhs of heat being generated.

        As for the workshop, I’ve seen better and I’ve seen worst. It is a prototype and not a production workshop.

        Shaun

        • georgehants Reply

          January 30, 2012 at 11:22 am

          Shaun Taylor, you agree with the rest of us, no new evidence but nice pictures, we continue to wait for new evidence.
          You have still not answered about P&F and the fraud and incompetence of main line science.

          • Shaun Taylor

            January 30, 2012 at 11:30 am

            George,

            It would appear that DGT plan to heat up that lump of machined SS and measure it’s black body radiant balance temperature and then to compare it against a control unit with no secret sauce inside.

            If so and they think the world will accept that kind of test, well they are wasting their time and will destroy any credibility they had.

            No one will take them seriously without flow calorimetry. They have been told that and have said “No Flow Calorimetry will be done”.

            Red flags, Red flags, Red flags.

            Shaun

          • Pekka Janhunen

            January 30, 2012 at 11:52 am

            Shaun “No one will take them seriously without flow calorimetry.”: I don’t agree, there are pros and cons for both. Flow calorimetry has the potential to be more accurate, but also more complicated, more things to check to eliminate fraud. If the expected COP is as large as 20, it’s likely that one could prove it convincingly with static calorimetry, with error margins that are clearly smaller than 20.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          January 30, 2012 at 2:00 pm

          The ‘coolant’ being used in the video is compressed air from the blue bottle marked ‘Air Liquide’ on the floor.

          Air cooling is consistent with DGT’s description of the test method they propose. As it happens I agree with your objections about the lack of calorimetry. Unquantified air cooling would introduce an unknown factor into any testing.

          However with that said, if the core gets hotter and stays that way far longer than measured electrical i/p plus any known exothermic chemical reaction could explain, then that would be proof of principle even without calorimetry. Unfortunately, the use of air cooling will inevitably lead to accusations that some oxidative process provides the heat.

  19. AB Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 10:34 am

    I believe this is what Passerini was referring to:

    Celani will be giving a live interview on January 31 in the Italian Rai 1 television channel. The subject is the e-cat demo held in Bologna on January 14 last year, at which Celani was present.

    http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/domani-su-rai-1-alle-830-la-scoperta-di.html

    • Antonella Reply

      January 30, 2012 at 3:42 pm

      AB, that post was written one year ago, January 2011 :)

  20. Peter Roe Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 11:06 am

    The video doesn’t tell us much but the test facility certainly looks real enough, c/w empty paper coffee cups! Shame it isn’t possible to make out what is on the laptop screen. The camera work is not brilliant – some longer shots with pans and zooms would have been nice.

    More tantalising evidence of DGT’s progress, but not much more.

  21. georgehants Reply

    January 30, 2012 at 11:07 am

    If Paul will allow me my one off subject as more proof of the Placebo effect, denied by main-line science just like Cold Fusion. Not for 23 years but for hundreds of years.
    Science News
    Mind Over Matter: Patients’ Perceptions of Illness Make a Difference
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120127162753.htm

    • John Milstone Reply

      January 30, 2012 at 1:56 pm

      The placebo effect is an excellent analogy to LENR research (but probably not in the way you expect).

      The placebo effect has been observed forever, and it has been clear that something was going on, even if science hasn’t been able to determine just what was going on. In this regard, it’s like LENR research.

      However, all sorts of con men have taken advantage of the placebo effect to “sell” their quack products. They convince you that wearing their special bracelet will cure your arthritis, or make you stronger, or make you more appealing to the opposite sex.

      A couple of centuries ago, Electricity was an almost magical force that was only partially understood. Legitimate researchers were busy trying to figure out what it was and how it worked.

      At the same time, con men were sellling “cures” based on bogus electric gadgets. The fact that electricity was real didn’t stop the con men from using it for their own fraudulent purposes. And, because of the placebo effect, their victims often believed that the bogus gadgets really worked.

      The biggest logical fallacy related to Rossi is that any legitimate LENR results must therefore prove that Rossi is also legitimate. History shows that this is a not necessarily true.

      • Peter Roe Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 2:13 pm

        Convoluted, but you got there in the end!

      • georgehants Reply

        January 30, 2012 at 4:32 pm

        Hello John, you are mixing causes and effects.
        Do you think the only thing that counts is first is Cold Fusion real if so it is separate from if Rossi or any other con is real.
        Second is the Placebo Effect real it is separate from all cons etc.
        There is no connection between science researching a subject for its authenticy and how many conman play with it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>