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

Zurich – Day 1

September 8, 2012

Unsurprisingly, there is a schism between those who started out sceptical of Rossi’s claims and those with a tendency to believe him when we look at the responses to today’s Zurich play. I was neither disappointed nor surprised. Andrea Rossi had prepared us to temper our expectations and then delivered as promised.

I really wish the hard sceptics would behave with a little humility (and some of the believers lay off their own abusive attacks) but I have to agree with them that nothing of substance was demonstrated. That does not mean that this is a scam but it does mean that anyone thinking of investing should jump every time they hear an alarm bell.

To be fair to the conference; they do not exist to satisfy our demands. This is business. We may be surprised tomorrow but I am not counting on it. For me; the break-point will be the delivery (or otherwise) of the University validation as promised by AR after they study the eCat in October. I will give them a short time for the report to be compiled and then make a decision. I am not as hopeful as I would like to be but this site will not exist on the day I hold no hope at all.

From my perspective and taking into account the poor audio and language difficulties, the main takeaway was that there was a lot of talk of basic stuff that is easily available to anyone on the Net and it seemed to be mostly filler. This gave me the impression that the licensees present may not know very much. That could be absolutely wrong and it is not meant as a criticism – it is merely my subjective response to what was presented.

To those among you calling Rossi’s engineer fat, you are being cowards. You would not do so to his face. He is likely much stronger than you. Lay off the personal insults, it reveals your bias and dampens the impact of anything you say that might be worth reading.

Rossi spent most of his time talking about the hotcat. I’m not going to give details here because until there is some evidence that it is real, I do not wish to propagate misinformation (should it turn out to be so). Full details are to be posted on Frank’s site over at e-CatWorld. I was interested to see that he put a strong caveat on the hotcat. Given that this was his first presentation to licensees as a collective, it was curious that he spent the time giving unverified details of a new product he says is too risky to invest in. I would have thought the audience might be more interested in hearing about what they had backed and not a blue-sky dream that might be viewed as a distraction from the tangible promises made to get them to invest in the first place.

I want to stress that I share many of the concerns the hardest of sceptics display here and elsewhere but deplore the scatter-gun insults that paints anyone in their anonymous sights as scammers, idiots, gullible, morons or any of the other descriptors from the bag of insults they wear slung at the ready. Not all sceptics behave this way (I try not to and others manage it, too. Thank you, all). Unfortunately, such poor behaviour is evident in some from the other camp and reading the resulting spat is unproductive, boring and leaves a nasty taste. Being right (in your own eyes) on an Internet forum is not worth the bile you are sending through your system or the damage you do to those who have done nothing to you.

Stop the mudslinging. If it means that this site dies, so be it.

 

Posted by on September 8, 2012. Filed under Business,licencing,Roll-Out,Rossi. 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 Zurich – Day 1

  1. Francesco CH Reply

    September 8, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    Prepare for the surprise of tomorrow,

    i.e. S . . . . . . u n d a y

    • Shane D. Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 12:26 am

      Francesco,

      I know you are an insider and have much to tell, yet are prohibited, or at least refrain, from doing so.

      Can you please tell us why?

      Why no one can come out publicly and scream to the world that this is it, this is the answer, this is REAL, I know for sure, I’ve seen it, and this is what I know and have seen?

      Why all this secrecy about something of such importance? Is it monetary, legal, patent, rivalry or maybe just an “Italian thing”.

      I’m so curious about this and can’t wait for the book, so please shed SOME light on… WHY?

      Thanks.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        September 9, 2012 at 1:51 am

        “Why no one can come out publicly and scream to the world that this is it, this is the answer, this is REAL, I know for sure, I’ve seen it, and this is what I know and have seen?”
        -
        Because it isn’t. This isn’t the way the real thing would develop. This is bad measurements and deceit.

        • spacegoat Reply

          September 9, 2012 at 2:44 am

          “This is bad measurements and deceit.”

          Were this to be rephrased :

          “This is {almost certainly|highly likely} bad measurements and deceit.”

          Then it would accord with admin’s request about bile and insult.

          Even if convinced of deceit, without legal proof, politeness dictates rephrasing.

        • Methusela Reply

          September 9, 2012 at 7:49 am

          Did you read Paul’s post at all?

    • Methusela Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 8:06 am

      S o n n t a g = S i e m e n s

  2. John Milstone Reply

    September 8, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    Wake me when a credible, independent organization acknowledges any of Rossi’s claims.

    Anonymous reports won’t cut it.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 12:03 am

      Well, not entirely anonymous. Three names are associated with it. One is a radiation physics student from U of B who only measured radiation. Another is a Rossi engineer. Yet another is another engineer whose affiliation is unknown.

      I agree that this is not what is meant by independent verification.

      Also it’s the wrong product. I want to see independent testing of the lowly but easily testable low temp ecat. The self-glowing version is very hard to do a heat balance on. There are too many places errors can be made and I bet Rossi made every one of them. In his favor of course.

      • Methusela Reply

        September 9, 2012 at 7:51 am

        Will you stop making disparaging remarks about the ability of the scientists involved?

    • spacegoat Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 2:51 am

      Your boredom reveals a true disinterest in the potential of the ecat to revolutionize human affairs. That is sad.

      The reports are not anonymous. You can inspect the education and background of two out of three reporters.

      A report from an organization may be less reliable than reports from independent consultants. What counts are their credentials. Organizations always have political goals.

      Note:I have yet to assess the reports.

  3. Shane D. Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 12:10 am

    To paraphrase Paul (admin): nothing new, nothing bad, back to the believer/skeptic standoff, and the skeptics here have to start taking their bi-polar meds.

    Although he is spot on about the medications, I mildly disagree with admin about where we are today as compared to yesterday. Names, organizations and employees are starting to surface ever more frequently. With each new revelation the argument for scam grows ever more unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.

    Our skeptics were not dealt a knock-out blow today and are fortunate to have some more time to entertain themselves insulting us meek believers.

    Unfortunately we believers have to wait just a bit longer to say… I told you so.

  4. GreenWin Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 12:23 am

    He he… just watching the sputter and fluster from the pathos here is worth the over-priced popcorn!!

    The most irksome statement has to be 2nd hypothesis Energy Density – ((3.66-1.28)/0.02038 x 6.48 hrs.= 758 kWh/kg!!! Eeek!

    And GERK!! “The dosimetry measurement is not dissimilar from the ambient and instrumental background within the instrument’s sensitivity, both in average and peak values.” Zero gamma above bg??? Double Eeek!

    IGZ-2013 Resistance WAS Futile

    BTW D. Bianchini MSc, is on staff at Univ. Bologna as a Radiation Protection Specialist

  5. JNewman Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 12:46 am

    Rossi may not have provided a single piece of information that would sway the opinion of a skeptic but apparently he didn’t disappoint any believers either. So, all in all, he had a good day. Buona notte.

  6. Knoert Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 1:11 am

    What a pity – and a shame – that some people on this blog, who clearly display an above average intellect and also seem to be well educated, can’t stop rubbishing a process which wasn’t taught on their respective high schools. Launching personal attacks on scientists, engineers or anybody else for that matter who are actually trying to understand this process and make their hands dirty is even more disturbing. The arrogance and short sightedness of you is mind-blowing. Have you ever wondered what would’ve happened to you if you were caught with an i-phone by the NSA on your way to Woodstock in 1969? Even without a cell connection. Take an (educated) guess. What a waste of my tax dollars you’ve all been.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 1:49 am

      You think Rossi is getting bad reviews here because cold fusion wasn’t taught in high school?

    • GreenWin Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 1:53 am

      @Knoert, the “sceptos” here are either flaks for competitor energy sources or disturbed in some unfortunate way. That’s why you’ll find little balanced discussion here – it is 98% Rossi-hatred. Some including myself try to lighten up the mood with humor and offbeat commentary. However the wall antipathy is well paid.

      Your comments are welcome. Though I don’t get the Woodstock reference.

      • Knoert Reply

        September 9, 2012 at 2:46 am

        Greenwin, I’m probably a bit older than you are. But in the Woodstock days, there were no digital wristwatches. I think they became available in the early seventies. I had one of the first Pulsars. It had THREE (3) functions. I’m sure that if I would’ve been stopped and strip searched by a NSA agent with an i-phone in my possession in 1969, I would’ve been arrested and charged with being an alien from a very distant planet. Because the technology in today’s i-phones would have been classified as being alien – and therefore impossible – in 1969. As what’s happening with cold fusion right now. Sad.

        • CuriousChris Reply

          September 9, 2012 at 8:17 am

          knoert

          The technology behind mobile phones WAS available and understood in the 60′s the only thing that was lacking was the ability to make it work. The manufacturing to get it small enough and the insight to make it fun and usable. None of the physics you claim as being ‘alien’ in the 60′s was unknown.

          There are plenty of technologies that were unthought of back then and maybe even thought of as impossible for us mere humans to do. but none of it was outside the realms of known physics. Go back another 60 years and then I’d agree with you.

          The mobile phone itself was invented by motorola in the 70′s but the physics wasn’t ‘discovered’ then.

  7. 123star Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 1:18 am

    I had a quick look at the “reports” (thanks to Ivan Mohorovicic)

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/high-temperature-e-cat-report-published/
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/105322688/Penon4-1
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/105325449/Hot-Cat-Data
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/105326231/Corrections

    I have the following questions:
    1) Using Stefan-Boltzmann equation to estimate the radiated heat is a very bad method IMHO, why they don’t use flow calorimetry?

    2) Why the hell they suppose that the *inner* cylinder radiates independently from the outside cylinder (so, in the end they estimate twice the output power??). Only the external cylinder should be considered radiating. Otherwise I could construct a “hot pipe” made with n inner pipes and just multiply the supposed radiated power by n!?!?

    3) What does this mean?

    Average room temperature, as recorded by the infrared camera, was 35° C.This value was subtracted from the calculated data.The highest average E-Cat module temperature was calculated from Frame 17h49 (5:49:00PM) and was 800.98° C, taking room temperature into account. The local peak of 873° C wasreached at 5:49:21 PM.

    What exactly are they subtracting from what?

    4) Other things that I don’t bother to mention now =)

    • 123star Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 1:40 am

      Also, why no blank run?
      Hehe, actually this is already a blank run, very blank :D

    • spacegoat Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 3:01 am

      123star
      1.Complexity of flow calorimetry is unnecessary to prove the power density in kW/kg and the energy density in kWh/kg matches a COP > 1 non-chemical source.

      2.For simplicity of calculation that does not significantly detract from demonstration of point 1.

      3.The calculations were based on 35 degrees ambient temperature.

    • 123star Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 10:26 am

      Oh, now I understand why in the report they suppose that the inner pipe is radiating “freely”, that’s because there is a hole on the side, made to measure the internal temperature, in the spirit of black body radiation measurement. That said, considering the whole inner surface as radiating is wrong, they should just neglect it or at most just consider the area of the hole radiating at the inner temperature.

  8. Knoert Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 1:48 am

    123star,

    Instead of critisising – knocking is probably a better description – the reports, why don’t you offer your expertise you profess to possess towards this project?
    Better still, do something constructive for a change and BUILD ONE YOURSELF????? Refraining from making crap comments on a blog will give you plenty of time to do so.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 1:55 am

      Project? What project? Build what exactly? How? Why?

      • Knoert Reply

        September 9, 2012 at 2:19 am

        Read my post again. I’m not talking about Rossi. Whether he’s right or wrong is irrelevant. I’m talking about “scientists, engineers or anybody else for that matter who are actually trying to understand this process and make their hands dirty”. (As this blog is about cold fusion, I’ve obviously used it as an example).
        I would put it to you however, that you would react in a similar manner with ANY new or not well understood process you haven’t been taught about in high school. Which is sad. Did nobody ever teach you to think outside the square?
        No wonder why more than two thirds of all scientific papers are published by people with a Chinese sounding name.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          September 9, 2012 at 2:37 am

          Nobody is insulting serious workers, for example Celani. I am not sure what you are objecting to. The only people attacked in this forum are Rossi, Defkalion and other claimants who provide no or bad evidence for their claims.

          • Methusela

            September 9, 2012 at 7:54 am

            That’s not true, Al.

            You do spend a lot of time insulting serious workers.

      • 123star Reply

        September 9, 2012 at 11:04 am

        Well yes, I could build a “blank run” (without any nickel or hydrogen) hot pipe and show how easy it is to overestimate the output power. My opinion is that this kind of measurement is both error prone and also trick prone.

  9. Al Potenza Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 1:54 am

    “PaulReply
    September 9, 2012 at 12:39 am

    If Rossi had something, by now he’d have proved it.
    -
    In other words, because Rossi has not proven his ecats are real, then he must be a fraud and he must be a fraud because he has not proven that they are real.
    -
    At least there is a pattern to your logic.”

    -
    Well, there’s no pattern to yours. You just said the same thing twice. All you changed was the order of the phrases.

    • Paul Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 2:32 am

      Your logic appears to be that
      -
      A. Rossi is a fraud because he has not produced proof.
      -
      B. Rossi has not produced proof because he is a fraud.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        September 9, 2012 at 2:39 am

        Ah, that’s better. That’s not what you wrote before. But it’s wrong. Rossi is almost certainly a fraud because he follows the exact script for similar frauds. If he’s bringing out a real discovery by making it look like a fraud, it’s his fault he’s thought of as a fraud.

        I am not going to repeat the whole long list of things Rossi has done and not done to make me think he’s a bald faced liar and an unrepentant crook. We’ve been over it many times here and it’s been discussed in many other places.

        • spacegoat Reply

          September 9, 2012 at 3:04 am

          “Rossi is almost certainly a fraud”

          Better phrasing. Thanks. :-)

        • LCD Reply

          September 9, 2012 at 3:09 am

          Your powers of logic are amazing AP. So you are sure from your home under a rock that what you are witnessing is all fraudulent.

          Trully a half wit. No sorry that’s a compliment. Half a wit is 10 times more brain power than your Capable of possessing in your entire life.

          Normally i attack the argument but in you’re case i make an exception since you and you’re stooge buddies have never presented actual proof of anything yet continually act like you do.

          If you have the proof i suggest you take it to the authorities and show it to them so they can put Rossi in jail otherwise shut your pie hole and stop spreading you’re silly pseudo facts and pseudo logic.

          You need to be limited in you’re posts. Its annoying for readers to have to sift through post after post of garbage from you.

          Let me bottom line it for you. Nobody here has been taken by Mr Rossi. Nobody here can possibly prove anything about Rossi. I and most readers want to hear about new developments not you’re latest pet theory on how Rossi is almost surely a fraud.

          Admin please limit the annoying repetetive borderline libelous posts from AP and JM.

  10. Paul Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 2:35 am

    The results from Zurich day 1 are exactly as I expected.
    -
    Those people that are certain that Rossi is a fraud saw more proof of their beliefs.
    -
    Those people that are certain that Rossi has a real working device saw more proof of their beliefs.
    -
    What this proves is that behavior science is correct once again – people see what they expect to see regardless of what is actually presented.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 2:42 am

      No. I didn’t see more proof that Rossi is a fraud, not that I need a lot more. This time, what I saw was badly presented inconclusive material which was purported to show an LENR device and most probably reflects measurement errors. Deception is not ruled out but there’s no immediate evidence for intent here. It could be incompetence, negligence or fraud. I guess he gets to choose which but he probably won’t tell us.

      But wait. There’s more to come tomorrow.

      • Ransompw Reply

        September 9, 2012 at 3:57 am

        After watching and reading through this stuff, I really don’t see Rossi as a scam. I do question whether he has a viable product but Scam, doesn’t feel like it. One thing I am sure about though, you never accomplished a competent thing in your life. In fact expect for Popeye who Seems competent I doubt any of the sceptics on this site are capable of evaluating a scam. The only incompetents I see are named Al, Milstone and company. What a bunch of losers.

        • GreenWin Reply

          September 9, 2012 at 7:29 am

          Al’s not a loser, he’s just written that way. Now, who loves ya Al?? Seriously… who?

          IGZ-2013 Nobody Loves Ya!

  11. Mickey Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 2:51 am

    Have you asked yourself why Rossi would put out such preliminary trash masquerading as a “scientific” analysis?

    Do you think he may be trying to get his critics to evaluate these papers so he can just write better ones later in the final report?

    What a genius – let his critics write the papers for him! Then they cannot complain about the final report.

  12. Knoert Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 2:53 am

    AL, I specifically said attacking, not insulting.

  13. Bruno Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 3:11 am

    As expected, no independent verification. Nothing proved. The same doubts remain.

  14. GreenWin Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 7:33 am

    Funny, how some deniers don’t know when they’re thoroughly defeated.

  15. JKW Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 8:03 am

    The “hot cat report” is just a load of crap to use polite terms… For any person with basic knowledge of thermodynamics and physics it raises a red flag. First, the assumptions are all wrong. What the heck with the inner cylinder radiation power estimates? The so called assumptions 1 and 2 are both total crap. Anyone with a pass grade on their thermodynamics course should know why. There was an attempt to rectify this in so called “corrections” section, but it still totally discredits the first part of the report and Rossi’s engineer.. Then come the shady calculations around the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. WTF with assuming an average temperature? The whole thing should be calculated as an integral going through the whole range of temperature readings.
    Second, and more important… The report estimates some kind of “active ingredient” mass as the difference of weight of the device before and after the experiment. Total BS! What are they comparing? If the mass loss is due to nuclear reactions then 28 grams of mass converted to energy would have wiped the whole neighborhood out of existence (gigawatts of power generated in a cylinder you can hold in your hands…). Then, on the other end, if no nuclear reactions are involved then the mass of reactants should be equal to the mass of the product…
    Whichever way you look at it, it smells like fish…

    • Methusela Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 8:12 am

      Read the errata properly.

      Someone else who hasn’t read Paul’s article, and has embarked on a scatter gun ‘incompetence’ attack.

      • JKW Reply

        September 9, 2012 at 8:42 am

        I don’t see your point clearly, Methusela. Which part of my post do you refer too?
        I read the “errata”. It does address the “inner cylinder” part, which I mentioned that made no sense, and which puts Eng. Penon in a rather unreputable spot , but I don’t see any explanation of the “active mass”. What is it exactly? Is it the mass converted through nuclear reactions to energy? Or is it the mass of Rossi’s cup of coffe, which he spilled inadvertently into the reactor in the morning before the test, which eventually had evaporated?

        • 123star Reply

          September 9, 2012 at 11:30 am

          Hi JKW, I agree with all you wrote. About the “lost mass” it is funny to calculate that just 1 milligram converted completely to energy is equivalent to about 25,000 kWh. ^_^

    • JKW Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 8:21 am

      Another funny thing.. Rossi’s been running his unseen hot cat for a month at a time or more (I feel lazy to look up His JoNP elucidations, but I’m pretty sure it’s on the conservative side), then he whips out a “validation” report spanning 8 hours or so… Diesel gen ran out of fuel?

  16. Bruno Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 9:53 am

    Good morning all,

    I would like to suggest an interesting reading about Rossi’s Hydrogen-Nickel reaction.

    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/05/the-nuclear-physics-of-why-we/

    Regards
    Bruno

  17. Jami Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Somebody from Cyprus just asked whether it would be possible to get an on-site demo for his bosses in order to convince them. Rossi said “yes” – but only if they would sign a try-and-buy agreement.

    That would be standard procedure for deals like this.

  18. Jami Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 10:19 am

    When confronted with the Cu transmutations again, he starts spinning an entirely new theory. He now claims the transmutations are a “side effect” and in reality the Cu samples found were too small to be analyzed properly (I replayed it – and that is in deed what he is saying). He now also claims that gamma rays thermalizing in lead only account for a fraction of the energy gain and that “something else” was going on.

    Too bad – I loved the idea of neutrinos wearing sun glasses. Maybe the new theory is they’re wearing wigs and makeup.

  19. Jami Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 10:24 am

    The “discussion” during the afternoon will now only be held between the “specialists” on stage and not with the audience. The audience was asked to provide questions in written form which will then be selected from. I’m sure they’ll love that.

  20. Jami Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 10:37 am

    It ends in an irrelevant question about using metals other than Ni – and Rossi answers that he doesn’t care any more. He is now focusing on “making electricity” because that would put him on a level with Tesla. So – pretty much what we thought before: Forget the e-cat, forget the theory or validation. Focus is on the Hot Cat. (and, yes, there was applause in response to that)

    In essence, this was – again – a complete waste of time. Any of the nutcases on vortex could have done a better job of impersonating a serious researcher who has at least some foggy idea of nuclear physics than Rossi did.

  21. Jami Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 11:23 am

    On stage now is Gerd Neumann. He’s a babbler going on about how important all this is for mankind and who could use it for what and how wonderful it will be.

  22. Knoert Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 11:26 am

    At September 9 2012 @ 08.17 CuriousChris wrote:
    “knoert
    The technology behind mobile phones WAS available and understood in the 60′s the only thing that was lacking was the ability to make it work. The manufacturing to get it small enough and the insight to make it fun and usable. None of the physics you claim as being ‘alien’ in the 60′s was unknown.There are plenty of technologies that were unthought of back then and maybe even thought of as impossible for us mere humans to do. but none of it was outside the realms of known physics. Go back another 60 years and then I’d agree with you. The mobile phone itself was invented by motorola in the 70′s but the physics wasn’t ‘discovered’ then.”
    Curious read my post again. I wrote: ” Because the technology in today’s i-phones would have been classified as being alien – and therefore impossible – in 1969.”
    As I wouldn’t have been able to connect to a cellular network, because there were none, the NSA couldn’t have arrested me for making a call. I’m specifically talking about the technology and wizardry of an i-phone or any other smart phone for that matter.
    I’m glad though that, by your own admission, you agree that my illustration bares a striking similarity with what is going on with E-cats: i.e., the technology is there, were just trying to make it useful. Unless of course you’re absolutely convinced that LENR is, to use your own words, “outside the realms of known physics”.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      September 10, 2012 at 1:18 am

      Only someone willing to twist anothers words would imply what you have.

      The dissimilarity is simple you are claiming ‘new physics’ in the example of a mobile phone by comparing it to cold fusion.

      My response is there is no ‘new physics’ in a mobile phone.

      Cold fusion if proven represents new physics. therefore your comparison is apples and oranges.

      As one who appears to twist reality it is easy to see why you believe in Rossi.

      If you are going to find a comparison please do like for like. For example if you attempted to claim it is similar to say the wright bros. you are only showing more ignorance.

  23. Jami Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    “my illustration bares a striking similarity with what is going on with E-cats”

    You could say that about any crackpot idea ever dreamed up. “It is not fully understood yet”. Every perpetual motion machine on youtube, every zero-point-energy tinfoil experiment in a garage somewhere, every water engine, every wonder fuel saver, every self-charging battery ever presented on PESN.

    • Knoert Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 12:48 pm

      I take it therefore that you are satisfied that LENR is a hoax. Your honesty in this regard is to be commended.

      • Jami Reply

        September 9, 2012 at 1:11 pm

        No, I don’t think LENR is a hoax. I think it is totally unproven and most likely doesn’t exist.

        • Knoert Reply

          September 9, 2012 at 3:09 pm

          Instead of existence, how about the possibility of LERN? Any thoughts about that?

          • Jami

            September 9, 2012 at 4:34 pm

            Very remote and declining.

  24. Jami Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    It’s Roger Green’s turn now – and he lifts the entire circus firmly in the realms of PESN by going on about “brownian gas”. What’s next? Somebody with a magnet motor? Feng Shui? UFO sightings, crop circles, the Illuminati and the Nazi’s secret spaceport in Atlantis?

    • Alain Reply

      September 9, 2012 at 1:50 pm

      don’t feign to look skeptical or rational…
      facts are blatant scientifically (Nasa GRC+Uni Tsignsua, Spawar+replicators, Toyota+mitsubishi, NI, Darpa (see nanotech research on PdD), CEA Grenoble, Uni Missouri boss-> Duncan).

      you cannot even doubt on the result it is not scientific nor rationnal in any way… rather believe in UFO conspiracy.

      about industry you can still play teh hyperskeptic, waiting for hard proof, ignoring circumstantial evidence that are huge for Defklalion and Brillouin.

      For Rossi, you can play easy since he play the fool all the time… but Rossi fool behavior does not cancel Brillouin nor DGt results…

      please stop that comedy… rather go to conspiracy theory site, free energy magnetic engine sales or ID science.

      If you are honest (which I doubt) you can find much data about scientific data and research centers there:
      http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewforum.php?f=15
      and for the business data:
      http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewforum.php?f=18

      you really need to update your data…
      provided you can see evidence that disagree

      • Jami Reply

        September 9, 2012 at 2:14 pm

        The mountain of crap you piled up on your playground is impressive in size – I’m giving you that. Now – what was your point again?

        • Alain Reply

          September 9, 2012 at 3:43 pm

          calling it crap does not change the facts.
          I thought you could with p=0.05 be honest, it is clear no.
          At best you could give interesting critics.

          In put you in the same camp as Science when they rejected report 41 DeNinno by ENEA. Not Honest!

          I know you know what I mean, because you clearly are not ignoring how important it is, otherwise you would be curious.

          I don’t care about you, but lurkers clearly will understand the reality…

          by the way, are you financially dependent on the mainstream consensus (Benabou theory) ?
          Are you paid to disinform the public (Exxon theory).
          Are you simply investing too much ego (Benabou+Troll theory) ?

          nb: in don’t expect any honest answer, but lurkers can try to get the idea from your past behavior.

          and please, stop feigning to be balanced. You are less honest than a priest on condom.

          • Jami

            September 9, 2012 at 4:33 pm

            We’ve been there before, haven’t we, Alain? The point isn’t that I’m calling the facts crap – the point is that you’re calling the crap facts. And the only argument you have is the height of the pile. If we pick out any single piece of it, it doesn’t stand up. Not a single one. You simply make the continuous, Jed-Rothwell-mistake of believing that so much bad information simply has to amount to something good. Well it doesn’t.

  25. Bruno Reply

    September 9, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Reading these blogs is like smoking crack. Addictive but without any benefit. We know as much today as we knew after Rossi’s October 2011 test. What we knew then and know now is that Rossi is making claims but that there has been no verifiable third party substantiation. Most of the skeptics who post in these blogs are not pathologically negative (or part of a conspiracy to discredit LENR). They just see a suspicious pattern of behavior on Rossi’s part.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      September 10, 2012 at 1:20 am

      I never smoked crack, but now thanks to you I have insight into the feeling. Thank God I was going to try it next week. you have saved me the effort. ;)

  26. Pingback: LENR Conference in Zurich 9-9 through 9-10 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  27. Quax Reply

    September 10, 2012 at 3:46 am

    Admin, you write “… but this site will not exist on the day I hold no hope at all.”

    Seriously? You are not serious about this, are you? The believer/skeptic theater of the absurd on this blog is a never ending source of entertainment. And the best thing is, it is entirely self sustained, and requires no, or only minimal, input as you found out when you abandoned this site for a while.

    Don’t take this away!

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>