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

Industrial Heat And Due Dilligence

January 27, 2014

Venture Capitalists tell us that they invest in the people involved in a project and not just the project itself. They might combine  hard-nosed analysis with passion for an idea but most of us assume that they will always default to the bottom line before anything else. This is why I find the IH development interesting. It seems inconceivable that anyone coming from a VC background would not perform rigorous due diligence on something like the eCat. Could they really let their passion overrule caution?

I hope it is not the case. I do hope the company brought in independent and qualified personnel to test the eCat beyond Rossi’s control. Any observation regarding IH’s lack of expertise is neither here nor there. It would be trivial – considering the money involved – to hire the right people and with luck they did exactly that. Perhaps our hoped-for independents built the device on behalf of IH (as far as Rossi is concerned his partner built it). Perhaps this is why they do not have any problems with him making such statements on his blog. They have had the best part of nine months after all. If all of this is true and then they still decided to issue the press release, that is quite a strong statement.

Of course we can always turn the equation on its head. If we were to invest in IH, due diligence would force us to look at those involved. As far as I can tell these are good people – exactly the type I admire for their efforts to make a difference. It sometimes feels like we are stuck in a pit surrounded by money-men with no concern for others. But could it go too far the other way? Looking at JT Vaughn’s blog, I fear for the sequence of events that led them to invest. I pray (metaphorically) that the attitude expressed there was not dominant when negotiating with Rossi. Thank goodness people like Vaughn exist but in this case if he relied more on faith than science, I would urge them to think again. Could this be why Rossi keeps using the phrase “whether the results are positive or negative” in reference to current and future tests?

I hope my fear is unfounded but if not and Rossi is ever put on trial, he has prepared an interesting defence for himself. He has Nobel laureates as unwitting exhibits, scientists to the left and right who all agreed with him. He even let experts test it for themselves and cautioned that the results could be negative – he can also afford a good lawyer.

I am rooting for IH but would not invest in the eCat without substantially more proof. I hope they have that proof and make lots of money from making the world a better place. I may not be religious or share their  faith but for once I would like the good-guys to win.

 

Posted by on January 27, 2014. Filed under Business,Drama,Press/Blogs,Tests & Demos,Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

8,688 Responses to Industrial Heat And Due Dilligence

  1. Ivy Matt

    October 2, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    US-A-20010024789

    “Methods for generating catalytic proteins”

    • Ivy Matt

      October 2, 2014 at 3:57 pm

      Oops. didn’t mean to make these last six top-level posts. Paul, if you’re still around, is there any way you could attach them to my post of October 2, 2014 at 3:10 pm?

  2. NTAK

    October 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    Daniel,

    Apparently I don’t own a Rossi decoder ring… so please translate the message below and explain to me in simple English (without any spin) what Rossi is saying, or means to say:

    Andrea Rossi
    March 23rd, 2012 at 8:13 PM

    Dear Philippe George:
    I want also to add that:
    1- the robotized line to produce the E-Cats is already in production
    2- the programs of the robots will be adjusted as soon as we will have the requirements from the certificators
    3- we already got the green light from all the competent Authorities, so far the certifications are in course.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Thank you

    • Dale G. Basgall

      October 2, 2014 at 7:16 pm

      In simple “Rossi Sais”. Don’t even try to understand because that’s what Al’s been interested in from the git go here and still hasn’t come to a firm analysis.

      Question is does an intelligent person post on a site that could almost parallel South Park type posting? This Rossi sais bla, bla, bla is not well accepted by some of us that have listened and followed from the beginning of the site ECN and gauge our opinions on direct observation.

      In fact that’s what I would like to read, the document Al produces from analyzing the past 3 years into one paragraph.

      If you substitute Rossi sais and say Rossi want’s before every sentence he makes then it becomes ok and understandable.

      • NTAK

        October 2, 2014 at 7:49 pm

        So what would be the response if I went over to ECW and posted the same question there? Would they even allow it to be posted? Would they label me as a Rossi/LERN hater and “try” to belittle me? They remind me of those crazy religious people who think it’s a sin to question anything in the bible.

        Rossi stated back in 2012 that his “robotized line to produce the E-Cats is already in production” that was over two years ago. I’m just asking if there is any update. I don’t understand why it’s such a hard question for anyone to answer…

        • Daniel Maris

          October 2, 2014 at 7:53 pm

          I answered it. It’s probably a test production line they were working on.

          But why on earth would we know? Why don’t you direct your question at IH. They have invest $12 million in the E Cat. Presumably they are following where the money is going.

          • Al Potenza

            October 2, 2014 at 7:59 pm

            There is no such thing as a “test” robotic line. It’s a huge, complicated and VERY expensive enterprise.

            IH has no web site and has never been interviewed except at their inception. You want to suggest asking them questions? Might as well pee into the wind.

          • John Milstone

            October 2, 2014 at 8:03 pm

            Maris,

            What makes you think that they invested $12 million in the E-Cat?

            It’s true that they collected $12 million from some investors, but I’m not aware of any actual evidence that all, or even most, of that money went to Rossi.

            Where’s your citation that it did go entirely to Rossi in exchange for the rights to the E-Cat?

            Or are you a hypocrite in demanding citations from everyone else, while never providing any for your own assertions?

          • John Milstone

            October 2, 2014 at 8:07 pm

            Meanwhile, Maris, I’m eagerly awaiting your response to Ivy Matt’s discovery concerning all of the related Patents in Rossi’s Patent application.

            If you’re too stupid to figure out what the common elements are, either Ivy Matt or I would be happy to explain it to you in simple terms.

            It will be fun to watch you try to spin this into anything other than clear evidence of fraud.

          • NTAK

            October 2, 2014 at 8:28 pm

            Daniel,

            I have a magic hat, it produces doves and rabbits and I’m considering opening up a chain of pet stores… would you be interested in investing in that?

          • GreenWin

            October 2, 2014 at 10:13 pm

            Natak, least your on the right road. Modern scientests and physictests know Rosie’s hot pipe is impossible. REALLY smart guys like Johnny Huizenga an Bob Park-spokemans for American Physical Soc. has said so.

            So Rosie is using hypnotism and magic to get the international team of scientists to believe what they’s seeing. Black magic. And voodoo, hoodoo, O’cult spells and potions.

            Natak, your just what skeps need to fight the Rosie Black magic! Git to it guy!

          • Daniel Maris

            October 3, 2014 at 1:37 pm

            I don’t think the $12 million went to Rossi. I don’t think I said that. The investment has gone into developing the E Cat. Presumably Rossi has been rewarded in some way – a sale value in dollars or shares.

            As for the patent business, I haven’t had a look at that. It would be nice if you said what you want to say rather than play guessing games.

    • Daniel Maris

      October 2, 2014 at 7:56 pm

      1. They are working on developing a robot production line.

      2. Fine tuning of the robot manufacture process will depend on what certificators require in terms of health and safety.

      3. No one has suggested that the device is subject to nuclear power regulations or any other regulations that might prevent its manufacture.

      That’s my interpretation.

      • Al Potenza

        October 2, 2014 at 8:03 pm

        If they were working on it in 2012, where is it now? Why are not ecats rolling off it?

        Certificators? That isn’t even a word. It’s Rossifiction. There are no “certificators”. He invented them. Certification is done by agencies. He has never named a single agency to which he has provided an ecat. His only certification (it’s really not that at all) is a so-called self certification. Rossi has been certificatoring with his certificators for years now and still no certificathing.

        Of course the device is subject to nuclear regulations. If it’s real and works. Which it doesn’t.

        Rossi himself has said that if safety precautions (including his hilarious and impossible “safety heater”) are bypassed, it will explode. You don’t think the government REGULATORS (not “certificators”) want to look at something like that which relies on nuclear fission?

        Your interpretation is entirely FOS.

  3. GreenWin

    October 2, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    Electric Cars MAY Slow Utilities Death Spiral
    The Economist, October 4th, 2014

    Fugget the bots. It’s about time we got some happy news! 🙂

    “AFTER “rate hikes”, the most common phrase in America’s electricity industry these days is “death spiral”. The recession clobbered demand, and it has not recovered. Last year Americans used 2% less electricity than in 2007. The government’s Energy Information Administration reckons demand will grow by less than 1% a year between now and 2040 (see chart).

    Consumers are buying more electric gadgets than ever, but the power these machines use is tumbling. Electricity consumed by TVs has fallen by a quarter in five years. Tablets and laptops use less than desktop computers, and cloud computing means businesses need fewer power-hungry servers. And then there is “distributed generation”, which covers everything from household solar and geothermal systems to on-site electricity generation by large businesses and college campuses. All steal sales from power companies.”

    http://www.economist.com/news/business/21621850-electric-cars-could-help-save-power-utilities-death-spiral-adapting-plug-ins

    Rosie’s new hot pipe validation is shakin’ markets an it ain’t even published yet!! Curse you Rosie!!!

    • NTAK

      October 2, 2014 at 8:45 pm

      Dude, you are a tard

  4. Al Potenza

    October 2, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    Meanwhile, Rossi is better than all the heroes of the past and he’s taking us to the stars. Could I make this up?

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/02/rossis-e-cat-could-take-us-to-the-stars-guest-post/

    Anyone know anything about the bozo author?

    • GreenWin

      October 2, 2014 at 10:22 pm

      Notice the clown GoodieWin thinks this is swell. Who would wanna go to Mars anyway? It’s a dried up ole dead planet. Talk about “tards.”

    • JNewman

      October 2, 2014 at 10:28 pm

      Al: O. M. G.

    • Jami

      October 3, 2014 at 9:02 am

      In pre-Defkalion days I would have wondered how people writing BS like that look at themselves once it all comes crashing down on them. But you only have to take a look at how the Glucks, Shanes and Daniels of the world dealt with it before (by simply forgetting all about it) to understand that there won’t be anything like even a hint of embarrassment. They’ll just move on to the next stupid idea.

  5. Daniel Maris

    October 3, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    Ivy Matt posted and then went away. I’d be interested to hear what Skeps think about his post if he’s not going to elucidate himself. Not being a technical person myself I don’t claim to understand the patents – and certainly am not going to waste hours trying to understand them. But I presume that Rossi is claiming is some of his techniques in some sense built legitimately on these patents without directly making use of them?

    “Method of testing the gate oxide in integrated DMOS power transistors and integrated device comprising a DMOS power transistor”

    “Device for stopping a radiant burner automatically in the event of ignition”

    “Hall effect device assembly”

    “Electrical technique”

    “Fusogenic lipsomes and methods for making and using same”

    “Optical fibre splicing”

    “Current guiding system”

    “Beam dancer fusion device”

    “Methods for generating catalytic proteins”

    • Jami

      October 3, 2014 at 1:55 pm

      ” But I presume that Rossi is claiming is some of his techniques in some sense built legitimately on these patents without directly making use of them? ”

      Why don’t you break with an old habit and read, for once, what Rossi actually says about these patents in his application at least? Two sentences further down… I mean I know you are “not a technical person” and can’t be bothered to “waste hours” for questioning something you nevertheless seem to firmly believe in – but still… anyway. Here it comes – especially for those not able to click on a link:

      An analysis of the above mentioned references shows that:

      1—all experiments performed based on cold fusion have not permitted to generate power in such an amount to be reliably and constantly exploited in industrial applications;

      2—all the uranium based methods and systems have not up to now solved the problem of safely disposing of nuclear waste materials;

      3—all the nuclear fusion based methods and systems have not been shown as capable of generating significative amounts of energy while allowing the fusion process to be safely monitored;

      4—all the magnetic and inertial confining based methods and systems, such as the plasma fusion method, cannot be properly economically managed; and

      5—the catalyzed fusion of negative muons based methods and systems cannot be used because of the muon short life.

      And on and on

    • John Milstone

      October 3, 2014 at 5:57 pm

      Sorry, I’m traveling this weekend, so I can’t respond in detail until Sunday.

      I also want to do some more research based on a hunch I have about the patent application.

    • Ivy Matt

      October 4, 2014 at 4:27 pm

      The usual complaint about skeptics is that they spend all their time posting on the Internet. My point is pretty simple. Rossi claimed that he “accurately studie[d]” these nine “related” patents and patent applications. My question is: Are these nine patents actually related? If so, how are they related?

      Of course, we can quibble about the meaning of “related”, but I only see maybe three possibilities. One is that the nine patents are related among themselves. A second is as you said, that the nine patents are examples of prior art, and are thus related to the E-Cat. I don’t think the context of the patent application necessarily precludes this interpretation, but there is another interpretation as indicated by Jami that better fits the context: that these nine patents somehow demonstrate the claim that (to summarize) there was no ideal (nuclear) energy source before the invention of the E-Cat. Perhaps others may be able to think of what else these patents might be related to.

      I’m not terribly picky about which of these interpretations you or anyone else prefers. I’m just interested in seeing how different people think these nine patents (and application) tie together. For instance, I don’t doubt that Axil could put them all together to somehow explain the functioning of the E-Cat.

      I said I have my own hypothesis. I’ll get to that, eventually, but it’s just a hypothesis, and I don’t think it’s perfect. You may be able to come up with a better one. It looks like John Milstone will (unless it turns out to be the same hypothesis as mine, just more thoroughly demonstrated). My hypothesis didn’t take very long to formulate, and only required a cursory glance at each patent/application, and didn’t really require much technical knowledge, although I did look up some terms to see what they meant. I’d like to see someone— especially a believer— come up with a hypothesis that fits better.

    • John Milstone

      October 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm

      Not being a technical person myself I don’t claim to understand the patents

      And yet you’ve repeatedly used the Patent application as “proof” that Rossi is legitimate.

      This is why people call you an idiot.

  6. NTAK

    October 3, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    To the True Believers,

    I’m curious as to why some of you believe so strongly in Rossi’s LERN device, and for the record I’m a LERN agnostic.

    I think it will be an historic accomplishment if Rossi’s device is real, but with his checkered past, suspicious announcements of robot factories, secret customers and the lack of an authentic peer review makes me very skeptical.

    So help me understand why you believe.

    • JNewman

      October 3, 2014 at 2:48 pm

      I’m not sure what your story is, NTAK, but there is a disingenuous quality to your posts. There are 3 years of posts here directed at the question of why believers believe. You won’t learn anything new reasking the question. Also, I recommend dropping the “LERN” thing. Surely you understand that the moniker for this alleged phenomenon is an acronym for “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” – LENR. You seem to be trying very hard to appear like a new guy on the block unsullied by previous convictions. If you are, then get things straight. If you are instead yet another poster engaged in some strange game, then continue with whatever that is and disregard this post.

      • GreenWin

        October 3, 2014 at 3:11 pm

        WHO would disregard a JNewmanPhD post? He’s a Senior Skep in our skeptical family.

      • JohnP

        October 4, 2014 at 1:58 am

        “Also, I recommend dropping the “LERN” thing.”

        Of course. Thanks to my guest post on ECW, Rossi himself changed it to QUAR.

      • popeye

        October 4, 2014 at 6:59 am

        JNewman wrote:

        I’m not sure what your story is, NTAK, but there is a disingenuous quality to your posts.

        I have to admit the posts smell fishy to me too. His writing seems very seasoned, except for the seemingly contrived and consistent LERN misspelling, which could not have been “mistyped” *every* time.

        He may be on the up and up, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a believer feigning skepticism, only to claim conversion on the release of the report. Nothing like a conversion to make a position more persuasive.

        But if he’s a believer, he’s a rare one indeed, whose grammar and spelling are nearly perfect (even for the tricky words like its, it’s, there, they’re, their, then, and than). I thought he might be GreenWin, but I doubt that GW could bring himself to represent some skeptical arguments as accurately as NTAK has.

  7. GreenWin

    October 3, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    “Russian Central Bank Prepares Strategy for SHARP Oil Price Drop ($60)” Reuters, Oct 3, 2014

    “Russia’s central bank said it is working on measures to support the economy should oil prices fall by as much as a third or more, showing growing concern as the rouble slides and Western sanctions take a toll.

    Oil and gas produce about a half of Russia’s federal government revenues. Already the price of Urals URL-E, Russia’s chief crude blend, has fallen to around $92, while companies are struggling to raise capital…

    ‘There are considerable risks and the risks are related to the continuation or worsening of the geopolitical situation,’ he said. ‘Uncertainty makes investors very reluctant to invest in Russia.’

    Ruskies takin a beating don’t bother most skeps. But now the friggin New York Times is sayin:

    “Oil Prices Continue Decline…” New York Times, October 2, 2014

    “Crude oil prices continued their decline on Thursday, with the American benchmark dropping below $90 a barrel during the day and its main international equivalent falling as well.

    Saudi Aramco, the national oil company, stunned markets by announcing that it was cutting prices by about $1 a barrel to Asia, the crucial growth market for the Persian Gulf producers, as well as by 40 cents a barrel to the United States.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/business/energy-environment/crude-oil-prices-continue-decline-dropping-to-lowest-levels-since-2012.html?_r=0

    Fellas, if we look hard behind scenes of fossil fuels, we gonna see Rosie an his black magic hot pipe lurking around. CURSE that Rosie!!!

  8. popeye

    October 3, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    In the past, Greenie has spoken very highly of Randell Mills’ ideas and his “irrefutable validations”. I wonder what he thinks of his prediction about Rossi:

    “I predict that every report that Rossi puts out will be positive. Of course, no details will be given allowing anyone including me to test it. It is concealed because ECAT doesn’t produce a fusion reaction and it doesn’t make power, just consumes line power.” – R. Mills

    • Ransompw

      October 3, 2014 at 4:16 pm

      Popeye:

      Your post just makes me smile. It reminds me of the old adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

      • popeye

        October 3, 2014 at 4:21 pm

        I aim to please, Ransom.

        But I’m more reminded of the adage: “It takes one to know one.”

        • Al Potenza

          October 3, 2014 at 4:41 pm

          Mills has had and shown absolutely nothing of value much longer than Rossi. I guess he wins.

          • GreenWin

            October 3, 2014 at 4:59 pm

            Ehh, whaddya expect? Mills is a Medical Doc. What’s a guy like at know ’bout a physical society? Even the GoodieWin on ECW says:

            “On the face of it, Dr. Mills is also a very good poker player.”

        • Ransompw

          October 3, 2014 at 5:02 pm

          So are you one of them also? 🙂

          • popeye

            October 3, 2014 at 5:32 pm

            Ransom asked:

            So are you one of them also?

            Nah. I have to use the corpus of scientific knowledge to deduce his likely deception. *They* know it by instinct.

            It’s like Greenie says. Mills is a good poker player, which means he’s both a good liar, and a good lie detector. See

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/liars-it-takes-one-to-know-one/

        • GreenWin

          October 3, 2014 at 5:57 pm

          POPeyes, careful you don’t shoot yourselves in the foots. Skeps call Rosie a liar every day!

  9. Al Potenza

    October 3, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    Couple of interesting things (or not) this AM:

    – Il Douche refers a job applicant to an email drop at his old company (Leonardo) rather than Industrial Heat.

    – and his megawatt plant is a magnificence. Two things about that. First, the previous one (there was only one that anyone saw) was never a magnificence. Even after at least three revisions, it still seemed like a silly collection of junk metal boxes, sloppy wires, badly routed tubing and irrelevant items stuck on here and there like afterthoughts. A fusion power plant? Not very likely.


    Andrea Rossi
    October 3rd, 2014 at 6:48 AM

    Stevehigh:
    Your son can send his c.v. and credentials to
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    Our Group will need to hire and all the requests of employement will be duly examined.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Note the original question on the blogger clown’s blog. I imagine the brilliant son in question is extremely embarrassed by his father’s ignorance.


    Andrea Rossi
    October 2nd, 2014 at 3:32 PM

    DTravchenko:
    Our 1 MW plant is a magnificence and an ouvre d’art: we resolved the problems we had ( so far…). We have a great team!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    I am delighted to hear that. So we will see this wonder when? Soon maybe? VERY EXTRA SOON?

    • GreenWin

      October 3, 2014 at 5:11 pm

      Al, your a prime cut Skep, but what’s with the obsession over Rosie’s looks?? They’s just machines. If you was talkin broads at’d be one thing. But complaining on Rosie’s “metal boxes” is like whinin’ on Beonce’s lip gloss.

      Grow a pair, bud.

  10. popeye

    October 3, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    I just heard from a reliable source that there will be an important announcement on Oct 16. Fasten your seat belts.

  11. NTAK

    October 3, 2014 at 6:58 pm

    In reply to JNewman from October 3, 2014 at 2:48 pm,

    For specific reasons I’ve been following the E-cat story off and on for a little while now, but I am new too posting and that is because of You. Back on September 24, 2014 at 6:50 pm, you asked “I wonder how many people actually read this stuff apart from the couple of dozen who regularly post here” and my online personality was born.

    I understand there’s the Believer vs Skeptic war going on over Rossi’s E-Cat, and there are thousands of comments posted here and over at ECW that I haven’t had the time to read.

    Being a student of human nature, a Realist and an E-Cat agnostic, I’m really trying to understand why the Believers believe in the E-Cat so strongly, when many of the facts point to it being a “long con”

    As far as the “LERN thing”, I’m normally really busy and do a lot of multitasking, which results in a lot grammatical errors, I wasn’t trying to make fun of LENR… I just mistyped it, I do that a lot.

    With that being said, I would recommend that you go back and reread my post from September 28, 2014 at 5:19 pm especially this part: “First and foremost, I’m here to entertain myself… remember that”

    • JNewman

      October 3, 2014 at 7:06 pm

      No problem, NTAK. I’m here for entertainment value as well. If it wasn’t for the amazing thought processes displayed by believers as this story has dragged on, I would have disappeared years ago. Poking at fellow posters is most of what we do here since there is no actual information to discuss. So enjoy it with the rest of us and call LENR whatever you want. It has had half a dozen names here already.

    • Ransompw

      October 3, 2014 at 7:33 pm

      NTAK:

      Being a student of human nature myself, I am really trying to understand the skeptic crowd (including E-Cat agnostics) who dismiss the E-Cat with almost certainty (and sometimes with certainty) when facts exist which make a long-con unlikely.

      Long Cons don’t typically turn over a device to a half dozen scientists (some of which were criticized a year ago for not being critical enough) for months on end so they can have their way with it.

      Long Cons don’t routinely (notwithstanding the opinions of some) sell the technology to VC’s with strong technology resources if it is a con.

      Those are just a few.

      So while there are facts (and I readily agree) which strongly support the possibility of a long con, there are facts which clearly don’t support that conclusion. So why the religious zeal by some skeptics here to dismiss a possibility?

      I kind of understand Popeye, he is blatantly biased and that explains his take. He has made it a career to rationalize away evidence of LENR. (And he has a good scientific mind so he can make some good arguments). Some of the other skeptics here are harder to understand.

      • NTAK

        October 3, 2014 at 7:49 pm

        I have not completely dismissed the E-Cat… but there are a lot of unanswered questions around it.

      • JNewman

        October 3, 2014 at 7:58 pm

        Ransom is our one-and-only self-professed neutral party. He has a strong aversion to “concluding” anything. As a result, for three years he has endlessly attacked skeptics for criticizing Rossi’s claims and expressing the opinion that this whole thing is an investment fraud. He is very concerned about mathematical probabilities, which in this case are utterly indeterminate, and therefore is constantly upset that skeptics state that the chances of the ecat being real are miniscule. As long as Rossi has not been unequivocally proven to be a fraud, Ransom believes it is inappropriate to argue that he is.

        In the meantime, believers make comments about Rossi winning the Nobel Prize, enabling space travel, disrupting the entire utility industry, working with giant multinational corporations, and so forth and, to the best of my knowledge, Ransom has never once criticized any of these preposterous comments as unwarranted “conclusions”.

        But he is neutral on the subject.

        • Ransompw

          October 3, 2014 at 8:06 pm

          Newman:

          I post against the skeptics here because they are just as opinionated and deluded as the believers they criticize BUT they are also mean and nasty about it and that pushes my buttons. Wish it weren’t so, I would spend less time posting.

          I see no need posting against the believers, they just want to be left alone for the most part anyway. (That is why they ban some of the skeptics here on other sites who would like nothing better than to go abuse them.)

          Maybe I just hate bullies (come to think of it that is precisely how I view most of you).

          • JNewman

            October 3, 2014 at 9:05 pm

            Ransom, I realize that you are of the opinion that the skeptics here are bullies and are mean and nasty. I suppose that has been your excuse for acting the same way the bulk of the time.

            But in reality, skeptics have perpetually questioned Rossi’s claims on technical and logical grounds and have almost never been engaged in actual debates on those issues. We’d be happy to. Instead, skeptics are accused of being paid shills of Big Oil, having blind adherence to some alleged cabal of science, being closed-minded, and, in general, being evil people. If that is all the believers can offer in defense of their positions, then there is nothing left but to question their intelligence.

            Since there is no real technical argument in favor of Rossi and pretty much everything reported about his device makes no sense whatsoever, the primary argument that believers make is essentially “this doesn’t look like a scam to me.” That is the most pathetic argument one can imagine and I am astounded that you resort to it yourself. I can’t imagine that any of the countless people who have fallen victims to scams over the ages thought that what they were sucked into looked like a scam to them. The whole point of a scam is to fool people. You fool people by providing them with things that convince them that the scam is not a scam. This is so elementary as to not be worth saying.

            You really can’t throw out the preponderance of everything Rossi has ever claimed and declare victory based on whatever is left. The lies aren’t the worst part. You guys explain those as “business strategy”. It is the stuff that literally makes no sense that you can’t escape.

            So yeah, the skeptics here hurl lots of invective. It is about all you can do when the believers side of the argument is that “Rossi said so and I believe him.” And believers don’t want to be left alone. They know full well that they are going to be challenged here. I suppose that they do occasionally disappear into the cushy fantasyland of ECW for periods of time. But as soon as there is yet another unsubstantiated claim from the Italian, they come here to crow about it. These folks never learn.

            I still have not heard one believer whose position does not boil down to thinking this is real because they really want it to be real. Hell, I want it to be real too but shutting off my brain isn’t going to make it any more likely.

            So I’m mean and nasty. I can hardly wait to hear what a real gentleman like yourself responds with.

          • Ransompw

            October 3, 2014 at 9:22 pm

            Newman:

            You can’t debate Rossi on technical grounds. We don’t have all the information. Even when there is information, the skeptics dismiss it if they can imagine a way it may be manipulated, (even without evidence of manipulation) and ones imagination is almost unlimited. So is there real technical information about the E-Cat, sure. Does it matter, no, because it is treated as inaccurate or false. (sometimes without any proof)

            Instead we argue about a lot of tangential issues and try to draw conclusions from them.

            I think it might be real because the tests show it is real and I think it might not be real because the evidence that demonstrates it is real possibly could have been manipulated (but we have no proof of that).

            You ignore real evidence because it is possible it is manipulated. Who is really acting on faith or wishful thinking.

          • JNewman

            October 3, 2014 at 9:32 pm

            I guess our fundamental disagreement is the statement that tests show that it is real. I honesty don’t consider the Levi paper to be evidence of anything. It is so lacking in vital information and so full of holes that it is completely worthless. I realize you completely disagree with that assessment. We can argue about the reasons for that disagreement and have for over a year. However, it is a pointless exercise. Nonetheless, that is the problem. You see viable evidence and I see flimsy nonsense. We can only agree to disagree on that point. Apparently the enormous hope of the masses is that the next report will be a different animal. Perhaps it will. We shall see. But as long as people see the Levi report as meaningful, there is little reason to do better. Frankly, Rossi could care less about internet skeptics – or pretty much anybody else except the people he is getting money from.

          • GreenWin

            October 3, 2014 at 11:50 pm

            Newman, don’t parrot POPeyes. One windbag skep is enough.

          • popeye

            October 4, 2014 at 7:01 am

            Ransom wrote:

            I post against the skeptics here because they are just as opinionated and deluded as the believers

            As opinionated, yes, but not deluded. After all, the skeptic position is the norm in mainstream science as that patent examiner made clear.

            Or would you consider yourself as opinionated and deluded as believers in perpetual motion and bigfoot, since you have expressed similar skepticism about those fields?

            Moreover, you have expressed certainty about LENR (“I do believe LENR is real and the day is coming”), and near certainty about the ecat (“Except for a longer test and the roll out of an actual product I am no longer [a skeptic]. If the report of yesterday is thorough I am satisfied.”) at various times, so you are sympathetic with the believers and that’s the reason for your attacks on skeptics. Your current claim of uncertainty is probably posturing for debating purposes.

            BUT they are also mean and nasty about it and that pushes my buttons.

            Bullshit. As I argued in detail elsewhere, believers in general, and you in particular, are more nasty than skeptics. Believers are never called much worse than gullible idiots, whereas skeptics are accused of crimes against humanity, worthy of trials used against genocidal maniacs, and you have called the likes of me a cancer to science. So, spare us the holier than thou whine.

            I see no need posting against the believers, they just want to be left alone for the most part anyway.

            Nah. They wouldn’t post here if that were the case.

            Maybe I just hate bullies (come to think of it that is precisely how I view most of you).

            But you’re the biggest bully here. Just not a very effective one.

          • popeye

            October 4, 2014 at 7:08 am

            Ransom wrote:

            You can’t debate Rossi on technical grounds. We don’t have all the information.

            We certainly can debate his claims on technical grounds.

            He claimed to prove excess heat based on a claim of dry steam. There are very strong technical arguments that the steam could not have been dry, and therefore his claims of excess heat were wrong, based on the measurements he himself reported.

            He claimed excess heat based on measurements of water temperature with the thermocouples placed on metal conduits. Arguments that those are not accurate are made on technical grounds.

            Even if you accept the claimed observations in Levi2013 at face value, the argument that faked input is possible is made on technical grounds.

            The argument that nuclear reactions are not plausible under those conditions are based on a century of robust experimental observations; i.e. firmly based on technical grounds.

            Even when there is information, the skeptics dismiss it if they can imagine a way it may be manipulated, (even without evidence of manipulation) and ones imagination is almost unlimited.

            The whole point of the Levi2013 exercise was to exclude the possibility of manipulations, and they failed to exclude the simplest and most obvious. You don’t need evidence that they did manipulate to be skeptical. What you need is evidence that they did *not* manipulate to accept extraordinary claims. Why is that so hard to understand.

            If someone claims pigs can fly and they demonstrated it in private in a field somewhere, and then wrote up a report, evidence of manipulation or dishonesty is not necessary to remain skeptical.

            Yes, imagination is almost unlimited, but even if ways to manipulate can’t be imagined, based on their report, it is *still* far and away the most reasonable to remain skeptical.

            Why?

            Because it is so damn easy to eliminate the possibility of manipulation. It’s the way such possibilities are always excluded (or eventually exposed) in scientific claims:

            All they have to do is provide the opportunity for *any* qualified scientists to test the device, even if it is done as a black box test.

            But private experiments using undisclosed materials and methods, described in a report by people who have a stake in it, who are selected, vetted, and probably compensated by the ex-con who stands to get rich on an endorsement is just about the stupidest reason to consider it real.

            So is there real technical information about the E-Cat, sure. Does it matter, no, because it is treated as inaccurate or false. (sometimes without any proof)

            Because it is not accessible and not testable. It has always been thus.

            Instead we argue about a lot of tangential issues and try to draw conclusions from them.

            Well, in the demos we argue about the observations the people there claim, and in the private validations we argue about the observations the stooges claim.

            And so far, everyone seems to agree, including at least two of the authors of Levi2013, that the ecat claims have not yet been proven.

            In spite of that, and the nearly 4 years of these exercises, believers believe anyway.

            I think it might be real because the tests show it is real and I think it might not be real because the evidence that demonstrates it is real possibly could have been manipulated (but we have no proof of that).

            They can’t both true. For the tests to show it is real, they would have to exclude more plausible explanations involving manipulation.

            You ignore real evidence because it is possible it is manipulated. Who is really acting on faith or wishful thinking.

            Oh, that is definitely the believers. Believers must have faith and think wishfully that Rossi did not manipulate the experiment, and also that the experimenters (all of them) are honest and competent. They said themselves, they did *not* prove it. So, to accept it requires faith.

            I think Rossi’s a cheat, and probably one or more of the experimenters are complicit, and they are all incompetent. I have no faith in them, and therefore, fall back to the the default position, which is that the extraordinary claim is bogus.

            Your position is religious. Mine is rational.

            You fail to take account of the plausibility of the phenomenon itself. Even if you accept LENR, Rossi’s claims are extraordinary. And when someone claims Xenu is real, it’s safe to be skeptical until good evidence is provided. If someone claims pigs can fly, a written report is not enough. Without accessible evidence, it takes faith to accept the claim.

        • NTAK

          October 3, 2014 at 8:06 pm

          “But he is neutral on the subject” – LOL!

          • Ransompw

            October 3, 2014 at 8:38 pm

            NTAK

            I am not neutral on the subject. I wouldn’t be interested if I was neutral.

            I am very interested in determining the reality of the E-Cat and LENR, whatever that reality turns out to be. It could be a scam or it could be significant. I assume most of us would like to see it turn out to be real even if we view that as very unlikely. I don’t view it as very unlikely, but neither do I view it as likely the E-Cat is real. So I am somewhat of a fence sitter, although like everyone, I hope it turns out to be real.

            But I have followed this since the beginning and it still isn’t clear to me what is happening. Scam/lab curiosity/holy grail, who knows.

            If IH hadn’t purchased the technology and if I wasn’t reasonably certain they allowed another test (against logic if it was a con), I probably wouldn’t be posting anymore. So I keep waiting for something more definitive (even though I have been disappointed each time I thought we might get some clarity).

            Based on the past 3 years I am realistic enough to seriously question whether this time will be any different, but one can continue to hope.

          • popeye

            October 4, 2014 at 7:14 am

            Ransom wrote:

            But I have followed this since the beginning and it still isn’t clear to me what is happening.

            Because you’re allowing your deep-seated wish to cloud your rational judgement.

            If IH hadn’t purchased the technology and if I wasn’t reasonably certain they allowed another test (against logic if it was a con), I probably wouldn’t be posting anymore. So I keep waiting for something more definitive (even though I have been disappointed each time I thought we might get some clarity).

            A good con man like Mills can keep this sort of charade going for decades. IH purchasing the technology shouldn’t change anything, because it doesn’t add anything to the evidence that’s accessible.

            You have to have *faith* that they would somehow make sure it’s real, but withhold the evidence of that certainty from the public. Why on earth would they?

            There are many other much more plausible scenarios. They could be complicit. They could simply be gambling, based on Levi2013, considering the huge upside. They could prefer to remain ignorant, thinking they can attract other investors based on what’s out there.

            And then there’s the implausibility of selling something worth trillions or billions at least for 12 million.

            In any case, scams on this scale are commonplace, but breakthroughs are rare, and introduced this way, unprecedented.

      • popeye

        October 4, 2014 at 6:55 am

        Ransom wrote:

        Long Cons don’t typically turn over a device to a half dozen scientists (some of which were criticized a year ago for not being critical enough) for months on end so they can have their way with it.

        1. Well, BLP has, so you’d have to argue both were real for this to be valid argument, and that means 20 years of claims of MW power plants that never materialized we not bogus. Very slim chance of that.

        2. When the half dozen scientists already have a stake in finding the “right” answer, it makes it not so hard to believe. Especially when they’ve already demonstrated they either want to be fooled or are ridiculously easy to fool.

        3. We don’t yet know how long they actually tested the device, nor how free they were to have their way with it. It’s all done in secret, so we will probably never know.

        4. Real products are not typically tested by outside scientists with reports taking 18 months to come out, before they are accepted as valid by the public. Especially a device that could be tested in a matter of days or weeks at the most if the claims were valid. In fact, I doubt you could identify a legitimate product that has followed this tortured path to legitimacy.

        Long Cons don’t routinely (notwithstanding the opinions of some) sell the technology to VC’s with strong technology resources if it is a con.

        This is a joke. You can’t possibly use investment as an argument that it’s not an investment scam. Every successful investment scam has investments. It’s not just typical, it’s universal. So all you can argue is that it’s not a failed investment scam.

        In the early days, believers used the absence of investors to argue it couldn’t be an investment scam. You can’t use the absence and the presence of something to argue the *same* point.

        Investment is *consistent* with an investment scam.

        Those are just a few.

        Actually, that’s just two, and one is totally moronic, and the other only marginally better.

        So while there are facts (and I readily agree) which strongly support the possibility of a long con, there are facts which clearly don’t support that conclusion.

        No, you have to jump through burning hoops to make it look like it’s not a scam.

        So why the religious zeal by some skeptics here to dismiss a possibility?

        Well, besides the torturous and totally implausible sequence of events for a product introduction, there is the question of the plausibility of the phenomenon itself.

        Even if you buy LENR, or give it some credence, you still have to believe that someone with a controversial history of failed (but lucrative) claims of a similar nature, but without background or experience in the relevant science, can solve a problem that dozens of scientists have been working on for 25 years.

        And then, if you believe that, that he would fail to provide even proof of principle of an energy density a million times higher than gasoline, after a dozen attempted demos, and some private validations.

        Of course, if, like me, you’re skeptical of cold fusion itself, then that brings the odds into the realm of the infinitesimal.

        But the bottom line is that scams of this type are common, whereas scientific breakthroughs of this importance are rare, and breakthroughs introduced in this way have *never* happened before.

        I kind of understand Popeye, he is blatantly biased and that explains his take. He has made it a career to rationalize away evidence of LENR.

        You should know that someone is not biased just because they disagree with you. My skepticism of cold fusion is based strictly on evidence and observations related to the question, and is therefore not biased. A bias would be if I had a stake in its failure, but if anything, I, like just about everyone else, would benefit from it. You’re biased because you really really want it to be real.

        • Ransompw

          October 4, 2014 at 12:13 pm

          Your same old arguments are just dumb.

          And since we can’t test the truth not worth debating. It is how you argue every point. You make up the world of Popeye and then pretend that it is reality without any proof.

          Just like your constant assertions about what the majority of scientists think.

          • popeye

            October 4, 2014 at 1:27 pm

            Ransom wrote:

            Just like your constant assertions about what the majority of scientists think.

            Two DOE panels, and the absence of cold fusion in any journals that matter make it obvious, as was pointed out by the patent examiner.

        • Ransompw

          October 4, 2014 at 12:53 pm

          Popeye:

          The vast majority of investments by VC groups are not associated with a fraud. Further, this one is tied to the research triangle with excellent scientific resources at its disposal.

          Investment is not proof an investment scam is not occurring, but proof Rossi’s E-Cat is real is not the point. It does point to the possibility it is real, since more often than not VC investments don’t involve scams. So it is an excellent reason to withhold judgment until more evidence is available. And your point as usual is as dumb as you are.

          • popeye

            October 4, 2014 at 1:28 pm

            Ransom wrote:

            The vast majority of investments by VC groups are not associated with a fraud.

            Yea, yea, but no one’s using investment as evidence of a scam, silly. All successful investment scams have investments, so investment is not evidence that it’s *not* a scam.

          • JNewman

            October 5, 2014 at 4:52 am

            After Ransom berated skeptics for being mean and insulting, it is good to see him demonstrate how to properly respond to other people’s arguments. I am sure Popeye is staggered by Ransom’s penetrating counterarguments which, if I may summarize them briefly, are “you are dumb.”

    • Dale G. Basgall

      October 3, 2014 at 7:35 pm

      ENTACK your self claimed entertainment here and overlooking misspelled words or acronyms is simply you communicating in writing. This forum represents free bird posting where everyone’s opinion is left standing. For some and like myself this has never been a joking matter.

      Only those who have no scientific knowledge regarding the depth of the claims that were made by Rossi are entertained and the con I think that simply developed into what is interpreted as a con man scheme to gain money. No one could have planned this out (Rossi) he started out believing he could accomplish what many seek (cold fusion)that are not experienced in the field. He boasted and claimed but nothing has developed into working equipment as he claimed in the beginning.

      So if your just getting into this Rossi sais episode it’s like stepping into a fight between two people after it has started without knowing any specific details about either one. Al, Popeye, JN, J & all those posters others think are joking and going overboard are simply not able to accept things Rossi sais by blind faith. In fact I myself have seen no factual progress since the onset of Rossi sais. I am not entertained by the Rossi facts but do get enjoyment reading others posts on this site. It’s plenty for me to just stay on ECN because facts are welcome here.

  12. NTAK

    October 3, 2014 at 7:33 pm

    All,

    My source has just informed me that the “The Announcement” will be on the 17th of October, at this time I do not know what “The Announcement” is about.

    • Dale G. Basgall

      October 3, 2014 at 7:39 pm

      Three years of continued announcements that result in nothing but another announcement.

    • GreenWin

      October 3, 2014 at 11:48 pm

      All US believers in hot fusion can feel ya Dale. It’s been 62 fuggin years!

      • popeye

        October 4, 2014 at 7:15 am

        Greenie wrote:

        All US believers in hot fusion can feel ya Dale. It’s been 62 fuggin years!

        It has not been 62 years to proof-of-principle, which is firmly established, and not questioned, even by skeptics.

        And no hot fusion people have ever claimed to have used a practical fusion power source for 2 years, or to have a product ready for the market.

        So, it’s different.

        You are a hot fusion skeptopath, just like Kelvin was of aviation. Good thing the aviators were not like you, or we’d still be ground-bound.

        • GreenWin

          October 4, 2014 at 5:34 pm

          POPeyes, I wanna respect our Seniors Skeps like your self but your reading comprehensions are slipping. I said:

          “All US believers in hot fusion…”

          Most skeps know hot fusions happen in our Sun. But rational skeps know how depressed an alienated Dale Basgall feels when we’s told we have “unlimited clean fusion energy” in twenty, forty, sixty years!

          So far these crack-scientests has taken $250B taxpayer dollars and given US ZIP, ZED, ZERO useful energy. At’s prolly why guv’ment is terminated MIT boondoggle Alcator C-Mod. 🙁

          • popeye

            October 5, 2014 at 1:56 pm

            Greenie wrote:

            Most skeps know hot fusions happen in our Sun.

            The proof of principle I was talking about is unequivocal controlled fusion in the lab. Scaling it up is a bitch, but progress is real, and measurable. They actually have a quantifiable metric — the triple product — and with every iteration it gets bigger. Pity the iterations take decades instead of weeks as with LENR, where, according to Hagelstein, the only thing the community agrees on is some vague identification of excess heat in a vaguely described experiment. And the rest of science doesn’t even agree with that.

            But rational skeps know how depressed an alienated Dale Basgall feels when we’s told we have “unlimited clean fusion energy” in twenty, forty, sixty years!

            Unrealized predictions are a bitch, no question. But some shit takes longer than expected. Flight took centuries. But the real disappointment is when people claim something is *ready*, has been used practically for years, and is *in production*, and all they get to see are words on paper, written by lackeys with a stake in the matter.

            So far these crack-scientests has taken $250B taxpayer dollars and given US ZIP, ZED, ZERO useful energy.

            Yea, no useful energy in hot or cold fusion. But the mature among us understand that just because an unfinished bridge transports ZERO vehicles, doesn’t mean we should stop building it when it’s partly done. Likewise, the aviation pioneers understood they should ignore such pessimistic ravings, and not give up. Hot fusionists know they have to ignore the skeptopaths, and stay optimistic.

            And, not that it matters, but could you justify that $250B figure? From what I’ve read, the US has spent about 20B, and the rest of the world, not much more, meaning the total is probably much less than 100B. The current US budget is less than one dollar per person per year. Not much for a real science with a verified proof of principle and such a huge upside, considering subsidies for renewable energy dwarf that figure.

          • GreenWin

            October 5, 2014 at 6:01 pm

            Algore rythmic rationalizations ain’t gonna stop the steady termination of all American hot fusion pograms. Lying to the taxpayers and taking billion$ with no useful energy has run outta “bridge.”

            Next is ITER – worlds biggest science boondoggle.

          • popeye

            October 6, 2014 at 5:59 am

            Greenie wrote:

            Algore rythmic rationalizations ain’t gonna stop the steady termination of all American hot fusion pograms. Lying to the taxpayers and taking billion$ with no useful energy has run outta “bridge.”

            You are such a pessimistic, closed-minded, biased, skeptopath. All the optimistic, open-minded, serious scientists from institutes of serious learning are saying is: It’s worth a shot. The science is legit. Have a little patience. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

            And we should admire their unselfishness. They know vindication will not come within their own career, or possibly even their life. But they toil anyway, for a better future, in spite of the negativity and hopelessness from rubes like you.

            What they’re *not* saying is: our reactor is market ready; we’ve been using it to heat our factory for two years; it’s already in production. Because *those* would be lies.

          • Ivy Matt

            October 6, 2014 at 6:06 am

            Lying to the taxpayers about what?

    • Daniel Maris

      October 4, 2014 at 1:04 pm

      Thanks NTAK.

      Hopefully the sceptical scales will then fall from your eyes. 🙂

  13. NTAK

    October 3, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    I bet we would be really surprised by how many ECW lurkers visit here… and it’s so simple to find out.

  14. Tony2

    October 3, 2014 at 9:31 pm

    Here’s how he weasels in and out of things. He’s asked on JoNP how it can possibly be that he still keeps talking about negative results when he’s had years of time with the device to know whether it works or not. The answer is typical AR meaninglessness but it also sets up an interesting situation in my mind. He says he needs the report AND the one year operation of the device to talk about the theory of operation (I think that’s what he’s babbling about here). I could see a very apologetic AR announcing that he has the report but IH will not let it be released until they get the run time on the commercial plant under their belts. I’m convinced that there is no report and we’ll never see one. He has to come up with something to stall everybody.

    Tony2

    Andrea Rossi
    October 1st, 2014 at 4:30 PM
    Francesco:
    We must wait for thr report of the ITP and the operation of at least one year of the 1 MW plant before considering consolidated the technology. In the meantime a huge R&D work will have to be performed.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Daniel Maris

      October 4, 2014 at 1:03 pm

      Tony2 – Even your skep buddies won’t back you up on that. They know the report is a reality – not least because they know Mats Lewan is connected to the scientists involved and he tells us the report will be released soon.

      • Al Potenza

        October 4, 2014 at 3:07 pm

        Wrong! None of us knows if there is or will be a report. Trust Lewan for that info based on his vague conjecture? Uh… no! Lewan didn’t say “the report will be released soon”. He said, “I’m also waiting for the upcoming third party report on Rossi’s E-Cat, which is expected to be published shortly, in order to include this report and comments on it in the second edition.”
        *
        So it’s interesting. Daniel seems unable to distinguish between a conjecture or an expectation and a statement of fact. No wonder he believes and believes in Rossi.

        Lewan doesn’t even CLAIM to know anything about the report and already Daniel has him as an affirmative expert. THAT is how scam marks are bamboozled with low effort flummoxings. They set themselves up for it! And Rossi can spot them easily. THAT is his main skill.

      • Tony2

        October 4, 2014 at 9:12 pm

        Daniel,

        I’ll put the odds at 50/50 that nobody alive right now will ever see the much anticipated ITTPPTTTXIVV report.

        Just think about it – if it was real it would already be done and out in public. The atom bomb didn’t take this long to build for Chrisaakes once they got down to business. He’s going to use the IH connection as a way to keep the report a secret until some later time which of course will be never.

        Wait and see. You have your sources – I have mine.

        Tony2

  15. spacegoat

    October 3, 2014 at 9:41 pm

    When cold fusion was announced, before being mostly debunked, greens were aghast about it, proving that they are not actually interested in real energy supply at all, here being their panic about it:

    “It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of “Climate Change Denial”)

    “Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul Ciotti (LA Times)

    “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)

    “Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)

    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LuboMotlsReferenceFrame/~3/rBzd1eDAWL0/post-socialist-eu-members-find-climate.html

    Now that ecoterrorists are driving policy worldwide, might Rossi be put in jail for crimes against Mother Earth?

    • GreenWin

      October 3, 2014 at 11:43 pm

      Yeah listen goat, “Greens” (I ain’t one) hate growth of any kind less it’s fungi growin in they compost heap. Greens is what a smart skep calls “Misanthropes.” They really only care about keepin’ Earth “green” for themselves an they’re circle of buddies. That’s why they invented the Fear an Loathing Climate campaign. Tax the sheeple into oblivion.

      Big oil and “Greens” want the same thing. Their own world with only 500M peoples in it. Rosie’s hot pipe gonna crush that dream. 🙁

  16. JohnP

    October 4, 2014 at 2:04 am

    When all is said and done, the truth is actually quite simple:

    Believers don’t take bets.

    • Daniel Maris

      October 4, 2014 at 1:01 pm

      You’re sure? I’ve taken a bet. But I wouldn’t take one with you – no offence.

      • Al Potenza

        October 4, 2014 at 3:11 pm

        I don’t know about you but Ransom’s M.O. is to make insulting remarks (for example about my lack of skill, training and credentials) and then when confronted with the request to back it up with a substantial (and, I might add, entirely credible bet), he slinks back into the shadows and won’t address the issue. So he’s not only what he decries, a bully, but also a coward (which most bullies are).
        *
        How about that Ransom? What you said about me is bullshit. Let’s bet $100K, benefits to charity, and Henning Dekant or Jed Rothwell or both can hold the money and make the decision.

        If our illustrious lawyer can’t afford the $100K make it $25K. I bet the Red Cross could really use it these days (or the Red Crescent, if you prefer). How about the Himalaya Cataract Project? They’re one of my favorites because they efficiently and comparatively cheaply bring back vision to thousands of blind people in Tibet.

        Just to refresh you on the bet:

        – I have an advanced degree (doctoral) from a renown university in the United States

        – I have worked in a field which gives me the ability to test Rossi’s claimed heat generators

        – I have published papers in that field in peer reviewed scientific journals

        Disagree, Ransom? Put your money where you way oversized mouth and small brain are.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          October 4, 2014 at 3:43 pm

          Al….this guy Ransom really got under your skin, wonder why? Truth? Rational thinking? Non Fox News logic?

          • NTAK

            October 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm

            Fox News = Tabloid Journalism

            If you repeat anything long enough, people will start to believe it.

          • Al Potenza

            October 4, 2014 at 6:45 pm

            Hi Bernie,

            Actually it’s you who gets under my skin. I can’t understand how anyone with an education can be so obstinately dumb about something as obvious as Rossi. Help me out?

        • Ransompw

          October 4, 2014 at 3:48 pm

          So do tens of thousand of poorly paid, dime a dozen individuals in this country alone. So what, it doesn’t change what you post and very likely what you are.

          Reveal to us your actual identity so we can have a good laugh.

          Wright finally gave us a good look at who he is and how did that go.

          • GreenWin

            October 4, 2014 at 5:03 pm

            Now Ransompw, it ain’t fair to judge US skeps cause Gary Wright’s a Kookoo clock. Gary represents one side of skeps, true. But not all skeps is nutty as Mr. Wright.

            Take POPeyes for example. Just ’cause he’s a two dimensional black an white cartoon – don’t mean his ideas is wrong. Same with Mary Yugo (AlPo tenza.) They’s both Senior Skeps what may be gettin’ long inna tooth, but each knows a phony when they sees another.

          • Al Potenza

            October 4, 2014 at 6:48 pm

            Ransom, your writing skills are so dismal, I am not sure if you’re even responding to me or what you mean.

            If it’s for me, I’m happy to reveal my identity to you. It will require a $100K bet and an NDA. Why would I deliberately encourage the whack jobs to harrass me? Only believers stalk people. Skeptics don’t give a damn who anyone is– only what they say and claim.

            Bet or bray on. Hee Haw!

      • JohnP

        October 4, 2014 at 8:38 pm

        “You’re sure? I’ve taken a bet. But I wouldn’t take one with you – no offence.”

        Non taken, Daniel.

        But let me guess: your bet is held at a secret location, certified by an unknown company, has an undefined termination date, is protected by 320 NDAs, and will be judged by a panel of seven has-beens and never-weres.

        I mean, if you want to be consistent with your hero…

  17. Daniel Maris

    October 4, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    Jami –

    Skeps here accuse Rossi of obfuscation, but he’s got nothing on you lot.

    What point are you trying to make in your post set out below? – and why is it so difficult for you to state it plainly?:

    QUOTE:

    ” But I presume that Rossi is claiming is some of his techniques in some sense built legitimately on these patents without directly making use of them? ”

    Why don’t you break with an old habit and read, for once, what Rossi actually says about these patents in his application at least? Two sentences further down… I mean I know you are “not a technical person” and can’t be bothered to “waste hours” for questioning something you nevertheless seem to firmly believe in – but still… anyway. Here it comes – especially for those not able to click on a link:

    An analysis of the above mentioned references shows that:

    1—all experiments performed based on cold fusion have not permitted to generate power in such an amount to be reliably and constantly exploited in industrial applications;

    2—all the uranium based methods and systems have not up to now solved the problem of safely disposing of nuclear waste materials;

    3—all the nuclear fusion based methods and systems have not been shown as capable of generating significative amounts of energy while allowing the fusion process to be safely monitored;

    4—all the magnetic and inertial confining based methods and systems, such as the plasma fusion method, cannot be properly economically managed; and

    5—the catalyzed fusion of negative muons based methods and systems cannot be used because of the muon short life.

    And on and on

    UNQUOTE

    • Jami

      October 5, 2014 at 3:52 pm

      I always felt that calling you an idiot was slightly out of line – but, man, you’re certainly making it hard not to.

      I don’t make any point at all. I’m merely quoting the patent application. Have you still not bothered to read it? It doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense – which is what people here have been telling you ever since the darn thing surfaced – and now you seriously want us to explain it to you word for word? It is complete and utter nonsense, hastily googled together in probably less time than you would consider “wasted” on reading it. Got it?

  18. GreenWin

    October 4, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    LANL Responsible for WIPP Nuke Waste Explosion
    DOE Inspector General Report, October 1, 2014

    “ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) – A report issued Wednesday by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Energy squarely places blame for the shutdown of the nation’s only underground nuclear waste repository on failures at Los Alamos National Laboratory.”

    This is damned depressing guys. Nuke power plants and waste has been Skeps prime income for 50 years.

    “The report reinforces the findings of internal reviews done by the lab and the Energy Department after a canister of [radioactive] waste from Los Alamos [exploded] in one of WIPP’s storage rooms in February, contaminating 22 workers and forcing the indefinite closure of the nuclear waste repository.

    Mello described the violations of well-established procedures by the lab as shocking and said lab officials need to be held accountable for violating their operating permit and causing the leak at the waste repository.

    Cleaning up the waste repository and resuming full operations could take as long as three years. The cost has been estimated at more than $500 million, including the installation of a ventilation system and exhaust shaft.”

    Los Alamos National Laboratory is directly managed by the University of California, Bechtel Inc., Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services, and URS Energy and Construction.

    http://www.wbtw.com/story/26678717/report-ids-weaknesses-at-nuclear-weapons-lab

    Maybe Skeps should get into Rosie’s hot pipe bidness.

    • JohnP

      October 5, 2014 at 7:30 pm

      Maybe they should hire Rossi as a consultant. He has experience with the first part of the process: dumping toxic waste.

      • GreenWin

        October 6, 2014 at 12:53 pm

        Skeps is waste management specialists, JohnP. It’s how we got our money past fifty years. Why hire a alchemist like Rosie when the boys at Mitsubishi got a patent on transmutation?

  19. Andy Kumar

    October 4, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    I see Ransom is back with his lawyerly arguments. He does not care about the veracity of his conclusions if the argument is convoluted enough to confuse the jury.

    “You must acquit if the glove does not fit” -:)

  20. NTAK

    October 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    So after reading through all these comments, I’m still a little foggy on everyone’s true position about Rossi’s E-Cat. So I devised the following simple scale, please review it and rate yourself accordingly:

    1 – Dumbass Denier (you will deny the E-Cat even if you bought one at HomeDepot and its powering everything in your home)

    2 – Sceptic (you believe the E-Cat breaks the “current laws” of physics)

    3 – Neutral or Agnostic (waiting for provable facts)

    4 – Faithful (you have confidence that the E-Cat is real without verifiable proof)

    5 – Batshiz Crazy True Believer (you will believe in the E-Cat even if Rossi is in prison for fraud… again)

    I would rate myself as a 2.5

    *Note: Football is starting soon and my team is currently a dumpster fire that would be dominated by the University of Hooked Phonics, which means I’ll be drinking and probably angry… so I’ll apologize in advanced if I post anything really unkind. (except to GreenWin)

    • Daniel Maris

      October 4, 2014 at 5:16 pm

      You sound more like a one point oner.

      It’s a very American and very unItalian scale.

      You could, to my mind, equally produce a scale of interest. Clearly there are a lot of people interested in this narrative – sometimes against their better judgement! Interest can be motivated by many things, including scepticism and a determination to see truth prevail.

    • Al Potenza

      October 4, 2014 at 6:50 pm

      @NTK

      Silly scale. Most skeptics hold the position that Rossi is a crook and many of his followers are whack jobs. That does NOT mean that *if* (biggest if in history probably) Rossi sold them at Home Depot, we wouldn’t buy one and test it.

      So it’s none of the above. Not even close to the above.

      By all means drink. With some people, it improves clarity. Of course, your mileage may vary.

    • GreenWin

      October 4, 2014 at 7:29 pm

      NATAK (Mildustone, JNewman, etc) drinkin’, anger, and rage is SOP for US skeps. It goes with the territory. Just check posts of Big Willy Johnson, Tony2, Generale Zarcofagus, or Jorgi Helligore? for best samples.

      Shrinks say its ’cause skeps got fragile EGOs, self-hatred, inferiority or Narcissistic Personality Disorders. POPeyes is best example of NPD. It’s prolly a corrupted algorithm. But hey, US skeps is not only humans, so keep this link handy:

      http://bit.ly/1rbGIkZ

      And get with a new team.

      • Bigwillyjohnson

        October 5, 2014 at 5:55 am

        Thanks for the honorable mention among the heavy hitters of the blog.

        And buddy there is nothing in this world that will enrage me more than if Rossi gadget actually works. I will be so freaking mad. I will go into a true ethnic cleansing. Only thing is I wont even spare my own i will be so pissed.

        Lets hope its all buffoonery like we all know it is.

        • GreenWin

          October 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm

          Ehh Willy. Thanks for a welcome afternoon LOL! One things sure, BWJ keeps a sense of humour about the hot pipe bum’s rush comin our way.

  21. NTAK

    October 4, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    “unItalian scale”?

    I noticed you didn’t rate yourself…

  22. Al Potenza

    October 4, 2014 at 11:36 pm

    Looks like e-catworld.com is down:

    If you feel you have reached this page in error, please contact the web site owner:
    webmaster@e-catworld.com

    It may be possible to restore access to this site by following these instructions for clearing your dns cache.

    If you are the web site owner, it is possible you have reached this page because:

    The IP address has changed.
    There has been a server misconfiguration.
    The site may have been moved to a different server.

    If you are the owner of this website and were not expecting to see this page, please contact your hosting provider.”
    *
    Probably a case of “weekend and holiday syndrome” (no maintenance).

    • John Bull

      October 5, 2014 at 2:59 am

      Al,

      Looking to change sides? ECW changes servers in order to be ready for the curious herds that will soon want to find out more about a life (theirs) changing invention.

      JB

      • JKW

        October 5, 2014 at 11:54 am

        You really believe in this life changing invention, Bull, hmm.. shit?

    • MaxS

      October 5, 2014 at 10:05 am

      must be interception of the CIA/NDA/FBI conspiring ahead of the report publication. LOL.

    • MaxS

      October 5, 2014 at 10:09 am

      seriously, check dns propgation of the site. It seems Frankie boy is changing the server and is incapable to manage the transfer properly.

  23. Alexvs

    October 5, 2014 at 10:08 am

    To NTAK:

    I rate myself as

    2.- Sceptic (I believe the E-Cat breaks the current laws of physics)

    This said, I have no doubt about LENR (L for low). LENR occurs everywhere around/inside us.

    About nuclear fusion. If anyone wants to make experiments upon such issue, cold, hot or tempered, I would recommend using elements far below Ni atomic number.

    About E-Cat. Any IQ>90 person who has followed the E-Cat story since 2011, even without skeptical posters aid, must conclude that the whole saga is an interminable serie of inconsistencies and lies. As a consequence E-cat could become scam, fraud… depending on other circumstances.

  24. Daniel Maris

    October 5, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    There’s a rumour started on ECW that the report will be published in the journal Science.

    Seems a bit unlikely to me, but just to while away the time I was wondering what you skeps would make of such a development?

    Would it affect your judgment of the report in any way, given many of you have asserted it would never get accepted by a peer-reviewed journal…

    • John Milstone

      October 5, 2014 at 2:07 pm

      Maris,

      I am not at all impressed that there is a rumor that the “PENIS TIP” report will be published in Science Magazine.

      I would wear out my keyboard typing in all the “anonymous rumors” that would suggest that Rossi is legitimate and turned out to be wrong.

      This is typical of the “True Believer” syndrome. Some joker posts a positive-sounding lie, and all the “True Believers” start planning their lives around that lie (“My personal E-Cat will be delivered any day!”).

      Then, the lie collapses, and the “True Believers” start over with the next lie (“Home Depot will be selling E-Cats in 2012).

      Remember, the last paper was supposed to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Funny how you don’t want to talk about that certain failure.

    • popeye

      October 5, 2014 at 2:07 pm

      Maris wrote:

      Would it affect your judgment of the report in any way, given many of you have asserted it would never get accepted by a peer-reviewed journal…

      I said that *unless it reveals all the necessary information to replicate, or makes available the black box*, it is very unlikely a respectable journal would publish it. I still think that.

      If Science publishes the report without satisfying this “inherent principle of scientific publishing”, the journal will lose respect.

      If it publishes the paper with said information, *then* we have a whole different kettle of fish, and *then* it would, and should be taken seriously. But I think skeptics will wait for replications from scientists not selected by Rossi before celebrating.

    • John Milstone

      October 5, 2014 at 7:35 pm

      There’s a rumour started on ECW that the report will be published in the journal Science.

      There is also a rumor by the anonymous “Paul” that the report will NOT be published in the journal Science. [Citation for the idiot].

      That’s what makes E-Cat World such an important news source for “True Believers”: It covers all the rumors, no matter how contradictory.

    • Ivy Matt

      October 6, 2014 at 7:35 am

      I refuse to believe that rumor unless it’s confirmed by another rumor.

  25. John Milstone

    October 5, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    About those “prior-art” Patents…

    After a bit of sleuthing, I’ve figured out the commonality of the prior-art patents claimed by Rossi in his Patent application.

    Each of the prior-art Patents (except one), contains the phrase “controlled fusion”.

    That’s it.

    4,014,168 is about an ion engine. At least it has something to do with particle physics.

    4,341,730 is about controlling a laser-based fusion system. At least in the same ballpark, but totally unrelated to the E-Cat.

    4,782,303 is about controlling a particle beam using magnetic guides. This one is at least in the right field, although it describes a mechanism seems totally unrelated to everything we know about the E-Cat (not to mention it having nothing to do with what was described in Rossi’s Patent application).

    5,122,054 is about shutting down gas burners. It uses the phrase “controlled fusion” to describe a heat-sensor (i.e. it melts when a certain temperature is reached). It has absolutely nothing to do with the E-Cat.

    5,195,157 is about splicing together two optical fibers. It actually uses the phrase “mechanically controlled fusion” to describe butting the two molten ends of a fiber optic cable together, so it isn’t even properly using the phrase “controlled fusion”, but this doesn’t seem to have bother Rossi, who probably didn’t even bother reading the Patents he listed in his application. It has absolutely nothing to do with the E-Cat.

    5,552,155 is about creating “liposomes”, which are basically microscopic spheres of fat, often used to deliver nutrients and drugs to certain types of cells. It uses “controlled fusion” to describe how the permeability of the lipsome can be used to control the delivery of the active agent. It has absolutely nothing to do with the E-Cat.

    6,236,225 is about testing power transistors. It uses the phrase “controlled fusion” to describe burning the gate in a transistor to “close” it (i.e. make it conducting). It has absolutely nothing to do with the E-Cat.

    20010024789 is about generation and identifiaction of proteins. It uses “controlled fusion” to describe controlling enzyme activity. It has absolutely nothing to do with the E-Cat.

    The last one, “H466” is interesting. It’s the only one that doesn’t contain the phrase “controlled fusion”. It concerns the design of a time-delay fuse for artillery shells. This one may be the most relevant to Rossi’s claims, assuming that you believed his comments about putting a “self-destruct” mechanism in to his gadget. I suspect Rossi was having some fun with this one. In any event, it has absolutely nothing to do with the E-Cat.

    It’s obvious from the “prior-art” patents that Rossi wasn’t even trying to put together a reasonable Patent application.

    It’s astonishing that in several years, no one, believer or skeptic, has bothered to actually review the prior-art Patents. The skeptics at least have the excuse of never believing that the Patent application was legitimate in the first place.

    • Frank

      October 5, 2014 at 3:38 pm

      Well, I’m wondering what the the ones who ‘acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi’s LENR device’ might think about that…

      • GreenWin

        October 5, 2014 at 5:51 pm

        At’s right. Why wouldn’t Industrial Heat get squirrely over Rosie’s Eyetalian patent? When they got Elforsk-Levy, working hot pipes, Elforsk TIP2, and their long term pilot plant?

        They just don’t make VCs away they used too. Those Cherokee guys is like, “What me worry?”

    • Dale G. Basgall

      October 5, 2014 at 4:28 pm

      John I reviewed patents and applications also from the onset, just that no one was really interested in what an experienced inventor had to say. I found no products that were actually made from any of the applications. Here is the original writing from the Rossi patent I reviewed after this Rossi said episode. I reviewed all patents relevant to the field, the art, that were searchable in the USPTO at the time and all came short from a useful device that was patentable based on the information written on.

      https://deighta.com/ecatevaluation.html

      • John Milstone

        October 5, 2014 at 4:39 pm

        Dale, sorry if I slighted you. Obviously you have put a lot of effort into reviewing Rossi’s claims and the details of the Patent application(s).

        My comments above are based solely on the “prior-art” Patents listed, and how most of them aren’t even in the same broad category as the E-Cat. It seems that Rossi did little more than to search for Patents using the phrase “controlled fusion”, and then listed a handful of them at random.

    • Daniel Maris

      October 5, 2014 at 5:01 pm

      Some sleuthing! So that’s what Ivy Matt was getting at you reckon?

      It seems odd I agree. But also odd if you were a faker – why not put in something that vaguely related to the field in question. If you can be bothered enough to put in a complicated patent application to support your fraudulent activity, I think you could be bothered enough to seek out some convincing “prior art” references.

      • Al Potenza

        October 5, 2014 at 5:22 pm

        I wish I understood what you just wrote but I have not a clue. Maybe I need more coffee or maybe you need to write it more clearly.

      • John Milstone

        October 5, 2014 at 5:30 pm

        If you can be bothered enough to put in a complicated patent application to support your fraudulent activity, I think you could be bothered enough to seek out some convincing “prior art” references.

        So, your previous position was that a faker wouldn’t put so much effort into their Patent application as Rossi apparently did (although you admit that you don’t know anything about such technical issues).

        Now, your position is that a faker would put more effort into their application than Rossi did.

        Which position are you trying to support?

        This isn’t consistent with an honest inventor trying to protect his invention. It is consistent with a con man who doesn’t actually want a Patent (since it would eliminate his excuse for not making any progress) and who is sloppy and lazy about simulating an honest person.

        What this really demonstrates is that Rossi understands that his intended marks aren’t likely to do any real investigation or validation.

        You and the other “True Believers” keep claiming that IH and other “must be” doing validation to which we’re not privy. However, if they are too incompetent to see such obvious fraud in the Patent application, why would you assume that they were any more competent in any other aspect of this farce?

        • Daniel Maris

          October 5, 2014 at 10:04 pm

          There’s nothing inconsistent in my approach. I am saying that it seems unlikely to me that a fraudster would go to all the trouble Rossi has with his patent application and it’s even more unbelievable they would go to all that trouble and then spoil the ship for a ha’peth of tar…i.e. come credible citations. It seems more likely to me that either the prior art citations are accurate or they are deliberately dissociated from the E Cat – is it something patent applicants do to prevent later legal claims against them for instance?

          IN any case , as far as I know, the person reviewing the application has not queried the prior art citations. Or do you know better?

          • JNewman

            October 5, 2014 at 10:21 pm

            I genuinely wonder if there is anything Rossi could ever say or do that would cause Daniel to doubt him or declare that something doesn’t make sense. I seriously doubt it. He will always argue that Rossi is just smarter than everyone else. Incredible!

          • John Milstone

            October 5, 2014 at 10:32 pm

            There’s nothing inconsistent in my approach.

            Yes, there really is.

            I am saying that it seems unlikely to me that a fraudster would go to all the trouble Rossi has with his patent application

            Citation? Where did you get the idea that Rossi “went to all the trouble”? He certainly didn’t spend much time or effort on prior-art, which is what would take a lot of time and effort to actually do.

            It seems more likely to me that either the prior art citations are accurate…

            You’ve already admitted that you’re not technical and you don’t really understand this stuff, and that’s obviously true based on statements like this one. They are Patents for things like using microscopic blobs of fat to deliver drugs to cells, welding the two ends of fiber optic strands and building a better artillery shell. Anyone with half a brain can understand that they don’t have anything to do with Rossi’s gadget.

            …or they are deliberately dissociated from the E Cat – is it something patent applicants do to prevent later legal claims against them for instance?

            Wow! You really don’t know anything about Patents!

            I’m not even sure what you mean by “deliberately dissociated”. The applicant is required to include any relevant existing Patents. Failure to do so is grounds for rejecting or revoking the Patent.

            However, there is no reason to include unrelated Patents, and most of these are obviously not related to the E-Cat. Please explain, if you can, how using microscopic blobs of fat to deliver drugs to living cells is in any way related to the E-Cat.

            IN any case , as far as I know, the person reviewing the application has not queried the prior art citations.

            Only because the application has much more serious problems, which the the reviewer did explain in detail.

            If you drive your car into a crowd of people, killing and injuring many of them, the police won’t bother giving you a ticket for a burnt-out tail light.

            Maris, I realize that you are way out of your depth here, but even you can read and understand the prior-art Patents well enough to realize that they have nothing to do with the E-Cat.

            No legitimate inventor, trying to get a Patent to protect his invention, would do such a shoddy job as Rossi did here. It’s obvious to anyone who has a clue that this was not a serious attempt.

            On the other hand, if Rossi is a con man, this makes perfect sense. Rossi doesn’t want an actual Patent, because then his investors would expect him to actually produce a working product (which doesn’t exist). As long as he is unable to acquire a Patent he has an excuse to not produce a working product.

          • Daniel Maris

            October 6, 2014 at 2:23 am

            J Newman,

            Well it would have to be something pretty off the scale as long as serious scientists from serious institutions of learning are taking him seriously. I don’t feel it’s my job to second guess them.

            Which roughly translates as “Let’s see what the report says.”

          • JNewman

            October 6, 2014 at 3:16 am

            Sure Daniel. You are just being open-minded. Let’s just see what the report says. Who cares how much idiocy and BS has come before it? You simply ignore that. After all, who are you to judge (negatively, that is. You are fully qualified to judge positively.)

            I can only hope for your sake and that of your family that this is the only aspect of your life in which your thought processes work this way.

          • popeye

            October 6, 2014 at 5:49 am

            Maris wrote:

            Well it would have to be something pretty off the scale as long as serious scientists from serious institutions of learning are taking him seriously. I don’t feel it’s my job to second guess them.

            And yet, you seem to do nothing but second guess far more renown serious scientists from serious institutions who have been saying for 25 years that cold fusion is baloney.

        • Daniel Maris

          October 6, 2014 at 2:29 am

          Milstone –

          You are failing to understand.

          1. If a fraudster puts a lot of effort into producing a patent application, then why would he perform so badly in one particular area of the application? It doesn’t make sense.

          2. If you are trying to claim he didn’t want the patent application to succeed (strange for a fraudster I would suggest – he can still claim technical difficulties for not producing a working product after he has secured a patent) then why not make the whole thing sub-standard. He seems to be trying in all other areas but this (that is, the prior art part).

          3. You have not contradicted teh possibility that this is what inventors do – put in spurious prior art citations so as to reduce the risk of legal claims on your patent.

          • popeye

            October 6, 2014 at 5:53 am

            Maris wrote:

            1. If a fraudster puts a lot of effort into producing a patent application, then why would he perform so badly in one particular area of the application? It doesn’t make sense.

            It does make sense. The fraudster is trying to look legitimate, so he applies for a patent. He puts in the minimum amount of effort necessary to *look* like he’s legit. He doesn’t really expect to get the patent, and maybe doesn’t even want to get it, so he doesn’t waste effort. Especially on lists of related patents, which are rarely looked at in any detail unless the patent is otherwise approved (and often not even then), which he does not expect will ever happen. This patent was written around 2008, and in the 6 years since, as far as I know, this is the first time anyone has noticed that the related patents are not related, except that they contain the term “fusion”. You don’t have to be technical to know that “methods for the generation and identification of catalytic and autoproteolytic proteins using nucleic acid-protein fusion approaches” is related to nuclear fusion. It’s a joke.

            The thing that doesn’t make sense is that someone who has a real invention, and who really wants a patent, to be so lazy as to generate a list of irrelevant patents.

            2. If you are trying to claim he didn’t want the patent application to succeed (strange for a fraudster I would suggest – he can still claim technical difficulties for not producing a working product after he has secured a patent) then why not make the whole thing sub-standard. He seems to be trying in all other areas but this (that is, the prior art part).

            The whole thing *is* substandard. The first draft was so obviously unpatentable with the undisclosed secret sauce, he didn’t need to worry about anyone looking at the bogus list. And even with that claim removed, he is still required to convince the examiner it is operative. He knows he can’t do that, but he can delay things with bogus arguments.

            3. You have not contradicted teh possibility that this is what inventors do – put in spurious prior art citations so as to reduce the risk of legal claims on your patent.

            This requires no contradiction until you explain exactly how that would work. How does listing a biology patent on a nuclear physics patent reduce the risk of legal claims on your patent? Are you high?

          • John Milstone

            October 6, 2014 at 8:19 am

            Maris, there is no evidence that Rossi put any real effort into the patent application. It is shoddy work.

            I’d someone actually had the invention of the century, they would work hard to produce a solid patent. Rossi didn’t even try.

            And you are demonstrating your total lack of comprehension work your idiotic notion that adding a bunch of totally unrelated patents as prior art is even a plausible strategy. It isn’t, and I’ve never even heard of it before you apparently made it up in your pathetic attempt to defend Rossi.

          • John Milstone

            October 6, 2014 at 8:43 am

            Maris, in regard to your second item specifically, it makes perfectly good sense, once a patent is approved, Rossi’s investors would demand that he bring in additional resources to make the E-Cat a commercially viable product.

            Since the E-Cat is a scam, Rossi can’t allow anyone to work on it, because they would quickly realize that it didn’t work. Technical problems won’t help Rossi. He needs something that allows him to keep everyone away.

            A rejected Patent application is about as good as he can do. To gullible investors and delusional fan boys (like you) it makes sense (even if you have to make up silly notions like “adding unrelated prior art patents is somehow useful”).

            To anyone who actually understands the process (and there are several on this forum who do), Rossi’s work is obviously a joke.

      • General Zaroff

        October 5, 2014 at 6:36 pm

        Daniel, last night I enjoyed an ice cream bar from Haagen-Dazs. It was a fusion of caramel and chocolate flavours, and there is no doubt it was cold. You probably didn’t know that the Haagen-Dazs corporation was a player in the LENR field, but that’s because you are a moron and since no one has made a guest-post about it on ECW it hasn’t occurred to you. Anyways, there is nothing wrong with the prior art cited by Rossi.

        I think you should be much more worried about all the impending patent-infringement lawsuits that the cold-dessert cabal is going to bring against Rossi in the near future.

        • GreenWin

          October 5, 2014 at 7:14 pm

          Whose better to run a phony phusion racket ‘an counterfeit confectioners at Hostess Twinkies. When DOJ comes to haul off the phony phusion perps — they can claim the “Twinkie Defense.”

          Congrats on recovery Generale! How many days you got??

        • Daniel Maris

          October 5, 2014 at 10:06 pm

          General, your musings are far from amusing but may serve to occupy the hours before we learn of the survey results.

    • Ivy Matt

      October 6, 2014 at 7:22 am

      John Milstone: well done! I had noticed that eight of the patents/applications contained the word “fusion”, but somehow I missed the phrase “controlled fusion”. As you noted. patent H466 doesn’t contain the word fusion, which is why my hypothesis (and yours) is not perfectly elegant. My hypothesis for the exception is that Rossi mistook “fuze” for the verb “fuse”.

      I don’t see that this definitively proves the E-Cat is a scam, but it does show Rossi didn’t put a lot of effort into the patent application. Perhaps he didn’t even bother to read, let alone “accurately study” the patents he cited. Or perhaps he was thinking that the Italian patent examiner wouldn’t bother to read patents written in English. Or he was sending a signal to the patent examiner that his patent application wasn’t to be taken seriously. Whatever, it’s just one of many things Rossi’s done that appear inconsistent with the behavior of a serious inventor.

      • John Milstone

        October 6, 2014 at 8:48 am

        Thanks, Ivy Matt. I wouldn’t have thought to look until you posted your earlier message.

        I suspect that Rossi simply did a search on some search engine and grabbed the first 8 results. He certainly didn’t bother to find relevant prior art.

      • John Milstone

        October 6, 2014 at 8:52 am

        Can you think of any plausible reason that someone with a real invention of this importance would produce such a shoddy application?

        • Ivy Matt

          October 6, 2014 at 3:05 pm

          No.

  26. Al Potenza

    October 5, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    @Milstone: Amazing find. I would not have thought it. Rossi is capable of some of the most inane crap. I can hardly wait for the PENIS-TIP to be revealed, ROTFWL! TOTH to the General!

    Rossi has actually caused Lewan to go way out on a shaky limb with his promise of a new victorious edition of his book on Amazon so that now, everyone can see how gullible he is. And apparently Frank Ackland is spending money to expand the capability of his web site with a new server! Steorn never had such successful flummoxings. Rossi is my new hero.

  27. Al Potenza

    October 5, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    Apparently the Bose company of audio fame once debunked P&F’s cold fusion claims, working with MIT. Supposedly, they found an omission by P&F which accounted for the “extra” heat. There is a somewhat fluffy article about this here:

    http://mashable.com/2014/10/05/bose-cold-fusion/

    • JordiHeguilor

      October 6, 2014 at 2:47 am

      Here’s a bit more info from the horse’s mouth:

      http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/discover-dialogue

      • JordiHeguilor

        October 6, 2014 at 2:57 am

        It’s a long article, so this is the pertinent part:

        “Talk about your non-audio research.

        Bose: Well, one was cold fusion. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons came out with this result [that power-producing atomic fusion reactions could occur at subthermonuclear temperatures] in 1989. I went to a conference at MIT where the chemists and the physicists were literally shouting at one another about it. I said, by God, I am going to assemble a team and find out if this exists or not. We worked for two years. We spent a year simply perfecting measuring systems. Then we repeated experiments that had been done by others. We verified an experiment similar to that of Fleischmann and Pons and were about to break out the champagne bottles. But then one of our team members checked a recombinant [chemical] reaction that had been regarded by everyone else as negligible in this type of experiment. Bang, there was the energy. Take that out and all of the experiments came to zero. The paper we produced had a significant impact.

        But this yielded nothing to the Bose Corporation’s bottom line?

        B: That’s right [laughs]. But it was interesting.”

  28. GreenWin

    October 5, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    Savannah MOX Facility 700% Over Budget Faces Cold Standby Aiken Standard, September 7, 2014

    ” The National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, reported it is still working with Shaw AREVA MOX Services, the contractor for the Savannah River Site’s Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, to place the program in a cold standby at the top of the fiscal year.

    The Aiken Standard asked for updates on MOX on Aug. 27. NNSA Deputy Press Secretary Derrick Robinson wrote in an email that there were no further updates at the time.

    When asked whether that meant NNSA is still working to implement a cold standby, Robinson responded with a simple, “Yes.”

    Naysayers of the program have said it is unsustainable, citing a Department of Energy study in April that priced the entire program at more than $30 billion [taxpayer dollars.]

    “The issue is if there will be a sustainable funding stream,” Moniz said. “We charged the contractors to look at a different track, depending on what the funding is and its adequacy. In the end, if the budgets don’t support construction, we’ll have to act accordingly.”

    U.S. taxpyaers is biggest suckers on planet. Meanwhile, Mitsubishi Heavy scientests say their cold fusion process transmutes dangerous radioactive waste to stable compounds. Maybe our boys at DOE/NNSA should getoffa their duffs an follow the leaders?

    http://www.aikenstandard.com/article/20140907/aik0101/140909587

    • GreenWin

      October 6, 2014 at 1:09 pm

      If only those hot fusionists had delivered “clean, unlimited energy” like they promised in 1951 – all fission plants and radioactive waste coulda been retired in 1975-1980.

      BUT NOO! Hot fusionists lied to Congress, the public and they own fragile EGOs for 62 years while boondoggle pograms took hundreds of billion$ taxpayer dollars and…

      1) Bought nice cars and swimmin pools
      2) Hid funds in offshore accounts
      3) Shuffled cash into illegal drug trade
      4) Perfected cloning human beings
      5) Had giant parties at Generale Z’s river compound

      Take yer pick 1-5. Heh heh, they’s all prolly true!

  29. Frank

    October 6, 2014 at 2:03 am

    Rossi is a real busy guy. Not only does he have to look after the 1MW plant…

    Andrea Rossi
    October 5th, 2014 at 5:00 PM
    […]
    Gotta return to my 1 MW baby, he decided Sunday is the best day to make troubles. Especially during the night.
    Talk to you soon,
    Andrea

    … he also is in charge for all the PR (JONP), and also for HR:

    Andrea Rossi
    October 3rd, 2014 at 6:48 AM
    Stevehigh:
    Your son can send his C.V. and credentials to
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    Our Group will need to hire and all the requests of employement will be duly examined.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Someone from ecw sent his resume, and got a reply … from Rossi himself:

    Justin Church
    Update: I sent my resume to the email address listed within this article. I got a reply withing about 30 minutes. The contents of the email reply is as follows:

    Thank you for your proposal, we will take it in consideration.
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

    GreenWin, how about helping Rossi and (fully) taking over the PR work?

    • GreenWin

      October 6, 2014 at 3:11 am

      Naw. We’s too busy keepin’ Generale and Willy outta the klink. And workin’ up a new doggle to replace hot fusion funds! 🙂

    • Tony2

      October 6, 2014 at 3:53 pm

      Frank,

      And if you follow the trail, AR answers a few more emails until around 1930 then signs off until he reappears back at 0648. Just the right amount of time to get dressed and head out for a nice dinner and a few glasses of wine in Miami and maybe study the real estate ads for some promising new properties and then back home for a nice, deep sleep.

      Then it’s wakey time and a steaming cup of Joe (made with his own personal ecat don’t ya know!) and then back to the JoNP grind.

      That, or up all night working out the bugs on the magnificence of the 1MW plant.

      Which seems more likely?

      Tony2

    • MaxS

      October 6, 2014 at 3:57 pm

      strange again. why does he not ask CVs of job applicants to be sent to an IH e-mail address?
      Seems this world class organisation with robotic plants apparently has no HR department.
      What the heck is J.T. Vaughn doing?

      • Al Potenza

        October 6, 2014 at 3:59 pm

        J. T. Vaughn is probably busy praying.

  30. morse

    October 6, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Is ecat world website offline? Can not access it anymore for a few days

    • JohnP

      October 6, 2014 at 3:11 pm

      BWAHAHAHA! The Cabal has installed a filter on the ECW website so only skeptics can access it…

      Seriously, I have no problem opening it.

    • John Milstone

      October 6, 2014 at 3:17 pm

      Clear your Web browser’s cache.

      Although I don’t know why I should help anyone access that insane asylum.

    • Asterix

      October 6, 2014 at 9:16 pm

      Try here. Frank evidently had a server crash and things are still messed up.

  31. GreenWin

    October 6, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    STUNNING! Uber-Skep AlPo Tenza: “Rosie is My New Best Friend!”

    Pathattic VA, APenewswire, 10/6/2014

    “In a stunning revelation Senior Skeptic AlPo Tenza aka “MaryYugo” has confessed to fellow skeps that one-time nemesis and arch villain, Dr. Andrea Rosie has become AlPo’s newest BFF! Tenza, a frantic opponent of Rosie and his band of Crutians, has for the past four years ridiculed and maligned Rosie and his “Impossible Invention,” called the Energy Catalyzer. The E-Cat is based on a Cold Fusion phenomenon introduced by Drs. Pons and Fleishchmann at University of Utah, in 1989. Cold Fusion, now known as LENR, was soundly debunked by slim-minded physicists John Huizenga and Robert Park, a spokesman for the American Physical Society.

    Tenza’s sudden turnaround is a great surprise. It was only last month that uber-Skep Tenza wrote on his dyspeptic blog:

    “Even if Rossi’s idiotic and impossible claims were true, it would not end the dominance of the electric company.” (The Electric Company is a production of PBS & The Children’s Television Workshop.)

    Tenza and fellow skeptics are heavily invested in fossil/fission energy infrastructure and detest the thought of clean, low cost electric power for the 3+ billion humans that have none.

    Asked why Tenza made such a dramatic reversal, Tenza replied: “It’s all what you read into it. Rosie’s work is a big secret and I’m not at liberty to comment positively. My job is to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. So, you may doubt my motives.”

    Dr. Rosie’s “Impossible Invention” has been evaluated by a team of independent scientists over the past 8-12 months. A peer-reviewed report is expected by the end of October.

    • JKW

      October 6, 2014 at 6:31 pm

      Does anyone read Green’s crap any more? What a waste.

  32. Dale G. Basgall

    October 6, 2014 at 6:17 pm

    No matter what anyone wants to believe from Rossi there is no working observable E-Cat. So is three years waiting a reasonable time for someone to make good with the claims or now what?

    Al doesn’t seem like the type that would just up and buddy up with a guy like Rossi.

    • Daniel Maris

      October 6, 2014 at 7:10 pm

      You’re saying all those scientists were lying last year?

      • General Zaroff

        October 6, 2014 at 7:41 pm

        Did you read the report from last year Daniel? You don’t have to answer that.

        On a more serious note: could you please tell me what you do for a living? I don’t mean to invade your privacy, but I would really like to know what field you work in.

        • GreenWin

          October 6, 2014 at 10:12 pm

          Believers don’t believe in real jobs Zarcof. They’s that phony “In God We Trust,” bunch a whackos.

        • Daniel Maris

          October 7, 2014 at 12:16 am

          Ah Generalissimo,

          I am flattered you wish to get to know me better…but I bet you say that to all the young things on this site!

          I’ve explained before I have some experience of the energy market and major industrial installations. But I am not, and have never claimed to be, a person with technical or scientific knowledge.

          Just an interested observer.

          • Andy Kumar

            October 7, 2014 at 1:49 am

            “But I am not, and have never claimed to be, a person with technical or scientific knowledge. Just an interested observer.”

            ALL believers fit this profile.

      • popeye

        October 6, 2014 at 8:08 pm

        Maris wrote:

        You’re saying all those scientists were lying last year?

        They didn’t have to. Even if they were honest, they reported what they observed, and said it was consistent anomalous heat.

        But at least two of the authors have admitted the observations do not *prove* the ecat works as claimed. Here’s Hartman:

        “All these observations take away a number of ways to tamper with our measurements but there can still be things that we “didn’t think of”and that is the reason why we only can claim “indications of” and not “proof of” anomalous heat production. We must have more control over the whole situation before we can talk about proof.”

        And even if they had claimed they were convinced they had seen proof, it’s still possible they were deceived, and saying what they believe is not lying.

        So, they didn’t have to lie, but you’re admitting that to believe the ecat does work, we have to believe they *didn’t* lie, and they weren’t deceived, and they are competent. In short, to believe the ecat works, based on Levi2013 requires faith. It is not in evidence, just as Dale said.

        Scientists do lie, and they can be fooled, and they sometimes make mistakes. True believers must be more certain of that than anyone because without batting an eye, they reject all those Nobel laureates who say cold fusion is baloney (not to mention all the scientist who read Levi2013, and argue that even if the observations are accepted, they fail to prove the ecat works).

        On the other hand, breakthroughs of this type are far more rare than duped or dishonest or incompetent scientists. And introducing a breakthrough to the world in this convoluted way is unprecedented. You are choosing to reject something that is relatively common, but accept something that is unprecedented.

        • GreenWin

          October 6, 2014 at 10:10 pm

          “…introducing a breakthrough to the world in this convoluted way is unprecedented. You are choosing to reject something that is relatively common, but accept something that is unprecedented.” POPeyes

          Don’t it just piss US off?? If only sheeples would do it OUR WAY!!!

      • John Milstone

        October 6, 2014 at 11:09 pm

        You’re saying all those scientists were lying last year?

        Not likely for most of them. Of course, most of them had almost nothing to do with the “test”. Read Essen’s comments: he clearly states that it was Rossi and Levi alone who choose the experiments and set them up. The rest of them were limited to observing just those things that Rossi and Levi decided they should see.

        Now Levi on the other hand… He has been far too cozy to Rosi to trust him. The fact that the most impressive-sounding “test” occurred when only Levi was present, and then he conveniently “lost” the data and ignored calls to re-do the test with independent observers makes him a very likely candidate for “shill” (and most-likely the “brains” of the outfit).

    • popeye

      October 6, 2014 at 8:12 pm

      We’re only a few months short of 4 years since the first (semi-)public demonstration, and a “market-ready product” but we are at least 6 years since Rossi claimed he was heating a factory with an ecat, and his claims of COP 200 observed in experiments with Focardi. So, yea, it’s enough time.

  33. Shane D.

    October 6, 2014 at 11:50 pm

    I don’t like to get on here anymore because you skeptics are mean and nasty and I just like to be left alone. But I thought todays interview with Dr. Melvin Miles posted on COLDFUSIONNOW:

    http://coldfusionnow.org/dr-melvin-miles-on-helium-4-excess-heat-new-interview/

    is worth the risk to advertise.

    You can read the details of Miles research into the HE4/excess heat connection during his China Lake days in the piece.

    Couple of things stuck out to me in listening. Skeptics often refer to the Miles/McCubre/Storms types as lone wolves in producing excess heat correlated with HE. But really your talking teams. In this case Miles group and 2 others made the case for cold fusion. Including those (Rockwell) from outside they brought in to verify their findings.

    Gives LENR a little more validity than this notion that Miles alone did the experiments, concluded excess heat, then became a CF advocate. Easy to pick apart one man, but 3 groups!

    Also, the skeps often times portray the early CF pioneers as drop outs from CF, no longer interested which weighs against their early claims…”Hey, if they are so sure why did they give it up”? Not true though. They are still very much interested. In Miles case he just doesn’t have the money to pursue anymore. Sounds like Storms too.

    He (Miles) is still very interested…passionate even, and wants very badly to get the word out that CF is real and FPs should and will be vindicated. Even wants to give lectures on the greatness of Fleischman. Going to author a book on his great calorimetry skills and intricate math applications to calorimetry. Side note: Miles also mentioned that research from the 1920s triggered Fleischman’s interest so my comment weeks ago that this has been around a hundred years appears to be right.

    To show Miles is still in the game, he solicited in the interview for someone to let him into their lab where he would love to get back at it. Seems to me a great opportunity for MFMP who has the equipment to bring him aboard. Just a few things Miles said about how the cells have to be (tall and skinny), how you can have too much insulation, tells me MFMP could learn something from him. So MFMP?

    Couldn’t help but think about Popeye when listening to Miles talk of the politics, poor replication attempts, lack of commitment to the scientific method immediately following FPs going public. Popeye gets on his high horse all the time defending his colleagues, and his, actions during that firestorm following the announcement. Miles says they gave the scientific method a “couple months” before “killing the field”.

    Miles himself was unsuccessful for 6 months until after the DOE report (referencing him for one) concluded no replication. Only after switching to a thicker Pd sample did he start seeing something.

    As I have said many times…when LENR finally is accepted, history will show the nuclear physicist community, for all the good they have done us elsewhere, served humankind poorly by purposely killing CF.

    Good interview. Suggest everyone listen. If you’re going to post “Bose”s lack of replication, you owe it to yourself to read of someone who gave it more then 6 months.

    • John Milstone

      October 7, 2014 at 12:15 am

      Last I heard, the University of Missouri had $5.5 Million to apply to LENR research. They don’t seem to have done anything with that grant; perhaps Miles should ask them for some money?

      I notice that he found He4, not He3 as predicted. That difference is important. He3 would be indicative of fusion. He4 is indicative of party balloons. Remember that the very first “Cold Fusion” experiment gave false positive results due to Helium in the walls of the test chamber. It only out-gassed when the test was run with Hydrogen, not vacuum or air, which made H-He fusion the obvious conclusion. It just happened to be the wrong conclusion.

      I see that you are claiming absolutely (“when LENR finally is accepted”). Not even popeye is as pig-headed as you are. He claims (correctly) that the evidence is lacking. You claim LENR as a certainty. Are you willing to even consider that you might be wrong?

      If we were to use your standard, we would all believe that faster-than-light neutrinos exist, because even a single positive experiment must be absolutely accepted, regardless that the entire history of theory and experiments suggest otherwise.

      There, not a single insult. Not that that will matter to you. You will still accuse me of being a mean skeptic for daring to point out the flaws in your arguments.

      • Shane D.

        October 7, 2014 at 12:24 am

        Sigh…listen to the interview.

        Thx for the compliment (pig-headed) too! First one here on ECN.

      • Shane D.

        October 7, 2014 at 12:30 am

        Read this Milstone:

        http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/MIT2014Colloq.pdf

        A recap from the 2014 MIT LENR Colloquium. On the first page is about SKINRs findings.

        • John Milstone

          October 7, 2014 at 12:45 am

          The trouble is we’re approaching 30 years of “positive but preliminary” results that never move beyond the “preliminary” stage.

          I see that Miley has regressed from his claimed “hundreds of watts”. I see Swartz is featured, after his several years of demonstrating his LENR device in a forum that also featured folk dancing and garage sale buying strategies.

          The fact that you’re trying to convince us based on anything published in “Infinite Energy” magazine is also problematic. That’s not much better than claiming that Sterling Allan’s web sites are authoritative.

          But as long as you’re having fun…

          • Shane D.

            October 7, 2014 at 1:09 am

            Catch 22 Milstone. Mainstream scientific community stigmatizes and politicizes anything CF, making it radioactive to any mainstream medium. Then when the CF community uses the only means available at it’s disposal to get the word out, it is rejected due the venue. How can they win?

            Anyways, no matter the forum the facts are there. Words, comments, research, conclusions, are valid no matter where published or who publishes it. Thank goodness for that or LENR would have been smothered by now through shear neglect and unofficial censorship.

            Just read the damn thing.

          • John Milstone

            October 7, 2014 at 12:34 pm

            Just read the damn thing.

            I’m not going to waste my time reading/viewing gushing fanboy articles/blogs like the ones you actually provided. Would you be willing to seriously consider similar fanboy articles about Bigfoot? I thought not.

            Perhaps his papers are interesting, but I seriously doubt that I could refute it and I know I can’t validate it. That’s what replication is for. It appears that none of the other credible LENR researchers are willing to attempt to replicate his work, let alone the “skeptical” scientific community. Whether that’s because Miles work is so poorly done or whether the entire LENR field is too incompetent to recognize the merit of his work is open to debate.

            You mention the MFMP group. They are probably the best evidence that LENR doesn’t exist. They have, on multiple occasions, claimed to have produced excess heat, but each time, once they work out the flaws in their test setups, the evidence of LENR disappears. Almost 3 years later, they’re still trying to figure out how to place thermocouples to measure the “excess” heat that they are certain must be there, somewhere. I also note that Celani has apparently abandoned his “robust and reliable” magic wires to work on an entirely new “promising but preliminary” discovery.

            Perhaps LENR is real. It’s possible. But the occasional “promising but preliminary” papers are not compelling evidence of anything. Again, if we were to use your standard, we would all accept that faster-than-light neutrinos exist (not to mention N-Rays, polywater, etc, etc.)

            I wonder whatever happened to Zawodny and his “chip” that was going to do massively parallel testing, to nail down once and for all whether LENR exists? It’s been almost 3 years. Surely if he had positive results we would have heard something by now?

            Here’s a hypothetical for you: Suppose that LENR really does exist, but it is intrinsically incapable of producing more than a tiny amount of “excess” power, far less than would be useful for any practical purpose. That’s really the “best case” scenario based on any credible research. Would that fully vindicate your excessive zeal in supporting it? Would it make you feel better to say “I told you so!” to all the nasty skeptics, even though there was no practical benefit to LENR?

            If your only criteria is “being right” even if LENR is useless, then why don’t you just declare victory and move on to some other obsession?

          • popeye

            October 8, 2014 at 7:45 am

            Shane wrote:

            Catch 22 Milstone. Mainstream scientific community stigmatizes and politicizes anything CF, making it radioactive to any mainstream medium. Then when the CF community uses the only means available at it’s disposal to get the word out, it is rejected due the venue. How can they win?

            Bullshit. That’s an extremely offensive and insulting comment to make about essentially every mainstream scientist — that they are all so corrupt that they would suppress cold fusion for political reasons. We know that’s BS because in 1989 thousands of mainstream scientists gave Pons a standing ovation. They were giddy. Everyone wanted it to be true. The stigma is because the science is bad. Bad science deserves a stigma.

            Every whacky claim cries about the same catch 22, but it’s always just an excuse, just as it is here.

            And we also know that many cold fusion papers *do* get published. NW has Storms as an editor, and has published several CF papers recently. If SKINR had something passable, they could publish it there. I’d be surprised if they don’t eventually get something in print. But if they have to resort to Infinite energy as part of a report, they’re not doing well.

            Anyways, no matter the forum the facts are there.

            What facts?

            Words, comments, research, conclusions, are valid no matter where published or who publishes it.

            No, they’re not always valid. Sometimes they’re BS. And if they’re in a good journal, the odds are better that they are valid, but there are no guarantees.

            Anyway, the particular words you refer to say nothing. You should try reading them.

        • popeye

          October 8, 2014 at 6:46 am

          Shane wrote:

          Read this Milstone: []
          A recap from the 2014 MIT LENR Colloquium. On the first page is about SKINRs findings.

          Did you read it Shane? ‘Cause I did. They have found nothin’, just like Milstone said.

          There are 4 paragraphs updating the “progress” at SKINR. The first paragraph says there are 7 groups with multiple experiments with varying protocol, and invites collaborators, and mentions some of the current collaborators. It says there’s progress, but doesn’t say what.

          The second paragraph talks about the 2004 experiments at Energetics which had an energy gain of 5 to 20% on average. Then he says that *a* recent experiment at SKINR had 70% excess power with a reproducibility of 40%, so that’s supposed to look like progress. What he didn’t mention is that in 2004, they claimed *an* experiment with 2500% excess, and 70% reproducibility. So, like cold fusion everywhere, they are regressing.

          The 3rd paragraph talks about problems like impatience. Then it mentions some classic vague and meaningless cold fusion observations: “… confirmed the importance of inductive resonance. From the new data, what SKINR has further gleaned about the excess heat effect includes: RF emission is an indication of resonance in cathodes; surface contaminants are important as well as surface morphology as measured by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and analyzed by Power Spectral Density Function (PSDF); unstable and increasing voltage and unstable cathode resistance are seen during excess heat events; acoustic triggering seems relevant…” Sorta fits one of the criteria used to identify pseudoscience “Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements”, as well as others.

          The last paragraph simply says “This is not still a break- through, but we believe we are in the right direction to get control of this very complex phenomenon.”

          It’s no wonder there are no refereed papers from the lab yet.

          I hope Sydney Kimmel thinks he’s getting his money’s worth.

      • JNewman

        October 7, 2014 at 12:34 am

        Well, you are certain that LENR is real. I am not certain that it isn’t, but have strong doubts. I wonder what insight you have about this arcane alleged physical phenomenon that provides you with this certainty. On the other hand, I am extremely confident that regardless of whether LENR exists or not, Rossi is a fraud. And the source of my insight is common sense.

    • Shane D.

      October 7, 2014 at 12:57 am

      Another interesting tidbit from the interview is that Miles and Fleischman exchanged many letters which will form the basis for the upcoming book. Some of those are from Fleischmans time in France when he was working in the Toyota lab.

      Miles claims Fleischman had good success there, but Toyota kept the details secret. Keep in mind that Toyota since then remained committed to LENR research. Even gave a good presentation at MIT LENR 2014.

      Skeps always point to Fleischmans lack of progress in France as proof of pseudoscience, but it appears that may not be the case.

      Another interesting tidbit is how far Pons went in distancing himself from the US and his former colleagues like Popeye due their mistreatment of him. For that you have to listen to the tape though. Not going to tell you everything.

      • Jami

        October 7, 2014 at 7:31 am

        Crying about how evil mainstream science mistreats them is all LENR research is doing these days. If you look at Miles’ vitae and his publication record, it seems to consist of a handful of shoddy experiments followed by a plethora of articles and interviews blaming these failures on the rest of the world. At least he has people like you who still listen to him. Must be comforting.

      • Tony2

        October 7, 2014 at 3:38 pm

        And that’s the point here. This is “ecat” news – not LENR news. Go debate LENR somewhere else. The only topic here that interests me is Il Douche. He is a fraud and has been from the get go. Why anyone believes a word he says is the dynamic that has my interest.

        Tony2

      • popeye

        October 8, 2014 at 7:15 am

        Shane wrote:

        Another interesting tidbit from the interview is that Miles and Fleischman exchanged many letters which will form the basis for the upcoming book.

        It seems the leaders like Miles and Storms have given up trying to improve the evidence, and now don’t know what else to do other than write obituaries for the field.

        Miles claims Fleischman had good success there, but Toyota kept the details secret.

        Yet Toyota shut the lab down as well as its counterpart in Japan. Hearsay about great, but secret, results is not going to win any skeptics over.

        Keep in mind that Toyota since then remained committed to LENR research.

        No, they have not. They shut down two substantially funded cold fusion labs. They may have tolerated some activities by one or a few of their people, but their commitment was slashed.

        Even gave a good presentation at MIT LENR 2014.

        I didn’t see a presentation on the cold fusion page of talks. The infinite energy coverage only mentions Toyota in passing with reference to their claim of transmutation. They don’t mention that the level was 100 times lower than what Mitsubishi observed, and so fails as a replication. Leaving aside the completely implausible lack of radiation.

        Skeps always point to Fleischmans lack of progress in France as proof of pseudoscience, but it appears that may not be the case.

        We can still point to the lack of public progress as evidence of pseudoscience.

        Another interesting tidbit is how far Pons went in distancing himself from the US and his former colleagues like Popeye due their mistreatment of him. For that you have to listen to the tape though. Not going to tell you everything.

        How is that new to you? Pons’ bitterness has been well publicized. But if he was treated poorly, it was because he did bad science. If he had succeeded, he would have been lionized. So it goes.

    • popeye

      October 8, 2014 at 4:50 am

      Shane wrote:

      I don’t like to get on here anymore because you skeptics are mean and nasty and I just like to be left alone.

      You are just as insulting as skeptics, and to a lot more people. But welcome back. We can take it.

      But I thought todays interview with Dr. Melvin Miles posted on COLDFUSIONNOW: … is worth the risk to advertise.

      It’s truly amazing how little it takes to give believers a warm and fuzzy feeling about cold fusion. It seems like your hiatus has erased your memory, so you can start fresh.

      There is not one new insight in that interview that has not been raised here and on other forums repeatedly, and routinely crushed. And surely you don’t think there’s something there more persuasive than Miles’ scientific publications, which have failed dismally in persuading the world that there is anything to LENR.

      No hard questions
      But Miles knows his audience, and so a soft-ball “interview” with a fellow true believer who asks no difficult questions is just what true believers want to rebuild their confidence in a field Rossi is exposing as full of gullible fools.

      Note that the interviewer is actually a propagandist, and spends part of the time pontificating himself. Surely, if you bring in Miles, you want his take, and not Maguire’s own opinion. And regardless of his opinion, challenging him would make a better case, assuming Miles’ can meet the challenge.

      But Maguire doesn’t challenge inconsistencies, or the failure to improve experiments.

      For example, to explain why he sees too little helium, Miles says maybe half of it goes into the Pd, which he regards as reasonable. (It is reasonable for a surface effect, but he thinks it may be a volume effect, in which case, even more than half would go into the Pd.) But then, when they talk about looking for helium in the P&F experiments, he objects because they looked in the Pd, and he thinks it’s all in the gas. Come on Miles. Which is it?

      And surely, this is something he could have sorted out definitively. It’s much easier to check for helium in the Pd, because you don’t have to worry about atmospheric helium and sealed cells and diffusion through gas etc. Why didn’t he check the Pd? Why do all his experiments identifying helium have such a pathetically low level of heat? Why didn’t anyone look for helium in the rods from experiments that allegedly produced more than 100 W of power for weeks at a time? Why are there no refereed replications of Miles’ correlation, and so on.

      Another example of an inconsistency is the claim that CalTech and MIT didn’t get enough loading to see excess heat, only to repeat the claim that MIT did see excess heat, but hid it.

      Pathological science

      To me, interviews like this just scream pathological science. One of the most consistent identifiers for pathological science or pseudoscience, is the lack of progress over long periods of time, and this interview does nothing if not clearly demonstrate how stagnant cold fusion is.

      The interview begins by identifying Miles’ 20-year old heat/helium work as the best evidence so far. That work was all over the map, consisted of guessing at a detection limit, and eyeballing peaks and assigning orders of magnitude to them, and then later changing the results by a factor of 10 to fit better. They measured a few parts per billion, when the concentration of helium in the atmosphere is ppm, a thousand times higher.

      Coincidentally, all the possible reaction products that are not present in nature are *not* observed within orders of magnitude of the levels necessary to explain the heat.

      Miles claims were challenged in the refereed literature, and yet they admit it has not been improved upon in 20 years. And there are such obvious things that could be done to improve it, such as looking for helium in the Pd, and in experiments with substantial excess heat.

      But in spite of many attempts at replication by others, none survived peer review. And the most careful ones like Gozzi and McKubre admitted failure, although McKubre later moved his data and claimed a correlation.

      Miles says many people say it’s a surface effect, but he also observed a volume effect. And 20 years later, can it really be so that this band of buffoons has not been able to resolve this simple question? You don’t have to know anything about the theory or the reaction to determine whether it’s surface or volume. But they still don’t know. In fact, later on Maguire says all of these details don’t matter. Like Hagelstein said recently, he admits that the only thing the community agrees on is that there is excess heat. In 25 years, they have not gone beyond that vague unquantified claim. It’s just a big joke.

      And Miles makes the same bone-headed argument that the internet rubes make about how the lattice changes everything. As if it hadn’t occurred to the skeptical physicists to consider the effect of the lattice. He says fusion in Pd should not be expected to be the same as fusion in a plasma.

      Um. Remember how experiment trumps theory. There are commercial neutron sources that cause fusion — guess where — in a Pd lattice; in fact in palladium deuteride. And the fusion is exactly the same as they see in a plasma, with exactly the same branching ratio and reaction products. How come the genius Maguire didn’t ask him about that?

      And then they talk about the 1989 failures at MIT and CalTech. Miles is still analyzing those old papers, and publishing about them, as if anyone’s gonna pay attention. If they were wrong, the way to show it is to do better experiments and prove the excess heat. Living in the past just proves they couldn’t prove excess heat.

      And now, instead of trying to improve the evidence Miles is compiling his correspondence with Fleischmann. He clearly has run out of ideas, or is afraid to do better experiments, because they will probably prove he wasted the last 25 years.

      The only modern experiment they talked about (Rossi) is completely different from P&F, and Miles admitted he did not have enough information to evaluate it.

      Zero progress is the message of this interview.

    • popeye

      October 8, 2014 at 5:13 am

      Shane wrote:

      Skeptics often refer to the Miles/McCubre/Storms types as lone wolves in producing excess heat correlated with HE. But really your talking teams. In this case Miles group and 2 others made the case for cold fusion. Including those (Rockwell) from outside they brought in to verify their findings.

      The other groups measured the helium levels. There is no quarrel with those measurements, but by themselves, they don’t verify cold fusion.

      The objection is to the low levels (when much higher could be possible given existing claims of excess heat) and the possibility of helium intrusion from the atmosphere which has a concentration 1000 times higher. The objection is to measuring the gas, when looking in the Pd would be much more reliable. Of course, true believers look for experiments where experimental error can work its magic.

      Also, the skeps often times portray the early CF pioneers as drop outs from CF, no longer interested which weighs against their early claims…”Hey, if they are so sure why did they give it up”? Not true though. They are still very much interested. In Miles case he just doesn’t have the money to pursue anymore. Sounds like Storms too.

      Storms got money from Rothwell and others for his home lab, and basically came up empty. That’s why he (like Miles) spends his time writing reviews and complaining about critics.

      There has been money from EPRI, ENEA, Toyota, Sidney Kimmel, Mitsubushi and others, totaling, according to Storms, 500M. But the proof never gets better — it gets worse.

      And why does the funding dry up? Because there is no progress. You have it backwards. The results are not bad because there is no money. There is little money because the results are bad. Every subject is faced with exactly the same situation. Show the potential and the money flows. You simply aren’t going to convince skeptics that the mainstream hates cold fusion and is actively suppressing it, because they are the mainstream, and they know better, and the events in 1989 prove it’s not the case. Like Storms said, people got into cold fusion because they thought it would make them all rich.

      Anyway, there’s no indication Pons or Will or Gozzi are interested in getting back into it.

      He (Miles) is still very interested…passionate even, and wants very badly to get the word out that CF is real and FPs should and will be vindicated. Even wants to give lectures on the greatness of Fleischman. Going to author a book on his great calorimetry skills and intricate math applications to calorimetry.

      He claims he’d like to do experiments, but what he’s doing is analyzing and writing and talking about 25-year old stuff. If he was passionate about proving the validity, he wouldn’t give lectures — he knows damn well that’s not gonna work — he’d go back to the lab. But he only pays lip service to that.

    • popeye

      October 8, 2014 at 5:55 am

      Shane wrote:

      Side note: Miles also mentioned that research from the 1920s triggered Fleischman’s interest so my comment weeks ago that this has been around a hundred years appears to be right.

      Shane, Shane, Shane. How do expect us not to abuse you when you say such stupid shit?

      First, it was Maguire who made the comment, and there is no reason he would know that. Fleischmann may have said something like that after the fact to add some credulity to his thinking process, but I’ll believe it when you can produce some comments or references to that effect from before 1989.

      And even if it did trigger Fleischmann’s interest, it doesn’t mean “they’ve been doing it for 100 years”, which is what you said. Can you name someone who determined the validity of cold fusion before 1989? The only claim that bears a remote resemblance to what is now called LENR was that of Paneth and Peters, and they withdrew the claim as an artifact.

      Miles says they gave the scientific method a “couple months” before “killing the field”.

      Miles says Lewis and Koonin gave it a couple of months. But they are much better scientists than Miles, and what they found and claimed has stood the test of time. Not so Miles’ claims.

      But the DOE had it studied in detail for 6 months. And *lots* of people studied it for years after. They were publishing hundreds of papers a year until about 1992. There was plenty of opportunity for the scientific method to prove cold fusion, and it failed.

      To suggest a couple of guys can kill a field with two talks at a conference is nothing but an excuse.

      Miles himself was unsuccessful for 6 months until after the DOE report (referencing him for one) concluded no replication. Only after switching to a thicker Pd sample did he start seeing something.

      But Miles results were still minuscule, and funny how thicker Pd worked for him, foils worked for others, powder for still others, perfect Pd for some, and cracked Pd for the same people but at another time, and now it’s all nickel, and still no one knows what configuration works repeatably.

      As I have said many times…when LENR finally is accepted, history will show the nuclear physicist community, for all the good they have done us elsewhere, served humankind poorly by purposely killing CF.

      And as I have said many times…when perpetual motion is finally is accepted, history will show the physicist community, for all the good they have done us elsewhere, served humankind poorly by purposely killing perpetual motion.

  34. Shane D.

    October 7, 2014 at 1:58 am

    Well said GW:

    “A wonderful thought Frank! In ways it is similar to America’s Founders, who, by signing their names, at once gave their souls to the Declaration of Independence whilst potentially signing their own death warrant. In this case it is a privilege rarely offered any person anywhere. Indeed, perhaps eons from today, those whose signatures appear on this document will be revered as the few, courageous, perhaps divinely inspired individuals who followed the evidence, and discovered a benevolent universe.

    I could almost hear the Star Spangled Banner song in the background. But then again, that could be the booze.

    • JohnP

      October 7, 2014 at 2:53 am

      As far as Greenwin is concerned, you can bet your house it’s the booze talking.

  35. freethinker

    October 7, 2014 at 11:25 am

    Hi there fellas…

    Still at it, like a bunch of grumpy old farts at the retirement home?

    Apparently the report from last year didn’t do it for you guys, as – in your thinking – people partaking in that test were shills, fraudsters or just excessively gullible and stupid people.

    What is then your take on the coming TIP?

    What if it IS published in a reasonable publication?
    What if the work IS done by large team of credible scientists?
    What if it IS underwritten by a large number of credible reviewers?
    What if it DOES show a long term stability in generating over-unity power of significance?
    What if it DOES show a tremendous power density for the fuel?

    Will you then concede?

    I doubt it.

    No doubt you already know well what to say if any of those things I stacked above DOES NOT come to pass. And if all things DOES come to pass, you will keep on fighting the windmills, evermore isolated, until you can fart no longer.

    • Jami

      October 7, 2014 at 11:45 am

      “What if”? Is that all you believers have left after… how many years since Rossi supposedly started heating his “factory” with an e-cat… seven?

      • freethinker

        October 7, 2014 at 11:54 am

        🙂 Don’t you even want to try to answer my questions? What a surprise…

    • JNewman

      October 7, 2014 at 12:22 pm

      What if it IS published in a reasonable publication?
      What if the work IS done by large team of credible scientists?
      What if it IS underwritten by a large number of credible reviewers?
      What if it DOES show a long term stability in generating over-unity power of significance?
      What if it DOES show a tremendous power density for the fuel?

      That would be amazing and exciting news.
      What If pigs could fly? Same answer.
      I wonder which is more likely?

      • freethinker

        October 7, 2014 at 12:41 pm

        🙂

        “That would be amazing and exciting news.”

        Would that then mean you would concede, and accept it as a real thing?

        Besides, flying pigs would not be as exciting as it would be annoying. The would be a shortage of pork chops, ham and bacon, to name a few… The pigs would fly away into hiding in some remote forest…

        If you think it is more likely for pigs to fly than a novel energy source be invented, then I pity you. What a sad perspective to have.

        • JNewman

          October 7, 2014 at 1:11 pm

          If all your conditions were met, then of course I would conclude that it is a real thing. Anybody with any sense would.

          Your view of skeptics is so distorted that it is laughable. Just because you have bought into an investment scam hook, line and sinker, that doesn’t mean that people who haven’t been suckered are unreasonable.

          I do agree with you that flying pigs would not be a positive development. But it would be exciting!

          As for likelihoods, I did not imply that the invention of a novel energy source is less likely than flying pigs. Far from it. However, I think the likelihood of Rossi’s invention being legitimate is about the same as the likelihood of flying pigs. The fact that he has conned you is what I would call a sad perspective.

          • freethinker

            October 7, 2014 at 2:04 pm

            🙂

        • popeye

          October 8, 2014 at 5:08 am

          freethinker wrote:

          If you think it is more likely for pigs to fly than a novel energy source be invented, then I pity you. What a sad perspective to have.

          First it’s LENR we’re talking about, not “a novel energy source”.

          But I think you’re missing the point of the flying pigs. Of course *you* think flying pigs are much less likely than LENR and the ecat, and that’s why it’s useful here for the sake of argument. If you ask yourself all those questions, but about scientists claiming to have trained pigs to fly, would you still be skeptical?

          Let’s try.

          If there were a report coming up on a group of zoologists who claim they have trained pigs to fly, but they don’t show anyone else, or reveal how they did the training or how the pigs do it. They are simply measuring their trajectory, and showing it is not consistent with an ordinary projectile.

          What would be your take on the coming TIP?
          What if it IS published in a reasonable publication?
What if the work IS done by large team of credible scientists?
What if it IS underwritten by a large number of credible reviewers?
What if it DOES show a long term unaided flight of pigs clearly beyond simple projectile motion?
          What if it DOES show a tremendous range for the pigs?
          Will you then concede that pigs can fly?
          I doubt it.

          You see how that works. If the phenomenon is truly extraordinary, such a secret report would not satisfy anyone.

          Well, to skeptics like me, the LENR phenomenon *is* truly extraordinary, and so, such a report could not possibly suffice as evidence that it’s real. We need more, and the thing is, it would be so damn easy to provide more. Just release the pigs at Yankee stadium.

          Capiche?

    • John Milstone

      October 7, 2014 at 12:40 pm

      freethinker, here’s a couple of hypothetical questions for you:

      What if Rossi failed to produce a single actual customer, 3 years after promising to do so?

      What if Rossi failed to produce any evidence of an actual factory, years after promising that?

      What if Rossi failed to produce any evidence of a real technical partner of any sort.

      What if Rossi lied extensively about having dealings with organizations such as Universities and industry leading companies?

      What if Rossi only ever allowed his gadget to be seen in his facilities, and to only be tested using the procedures he chose?

      Oh, wait! Those aren’t hypothetical questions at all. The are all accurate statements of just a few of Rossi’s failures and lies.

      • freethinker

        October 7, 2014 at 2:06 pm

        Thank you Mr Milestone,

        I’m perfectly willing to answer your questions, right after you answer those of mine.

        🙂

    • Tony2

      October 7, 2014 at 3:44 pm

      If all of those things come to pass then everyone here would sit up and take notice. The entire crew here has said repeatedly that if evidence surfaces that the ecat is real then it would be a very happy day for mankind. You guys don’t seem to understand that or choose to ignore it.

      However, history has shown us that the higher probability is that none of those things will occur. To me, it’s not even probability – it will happen just like the last time, probably even worse since it’s taking The Inventor so long to put the story together.

      So to rephrase just a bit, what will YOU do when it happens my way?

      Tony2

      • freethinker

        October 7, 2014 at 6:51 pm

        Hi Tony2.

        You will sit up and take notice, and then scour through that report for any small bit to question and complain about – even if they in the larger picture is completely irrelevant. I have seen that before.

        In spite of the report of last year, you all seem unable to stay away from ad-hominems aimed at AR, or any other related to this story, may it be Essén, Levi, Hartmann, Vaughn, Darden etc. All are gullible and tricked by this mastery crook AR, that – in spite the odds – manage to keep this boondoggle floating over several years, while you guys – the masters of all sceps – see the truth.

        There shall be nothing new under the Sun as far as the motley crew at ECN goes, I venture to suggest. It will be the same with this report – no matter the quality of it.

        For what I will do I refer to my comment to Ivy Matt below – albeit I do not really answer the question. I guess I will sit up and take notice too 🙂

        • Tony2

          October 7, 2014 at 7:19 pm

          But I did answer you and you fail to answer me. I’m not like the other skeps here. Whether you or your crowd over at ECW want to believe it, these guys tear you apart every time the science end of things come up. Milstone even proved to single digit percentages just where the excess power came from in the rigged last test and you still can’t see it.

          I can’t argue on the science side but AR is a fraud and a liar. Every single aspect of this whole laughable affair screams fraud. Even the Nigerians make a better case than this.

          So, since there is no ecat the answers to your questions are all variations of “no” or “can’t happen”. When AR bones you again and you still believe then I guess there just won’t be anything left to say.

          Tony2

          • freethinker

            October 7, 2014 at 8:10 pm

            🙂

            “I can’t argue on the science side but AR is a fraud and a liar”

            Has teh proof?

          • Tony2

            October 7, 2014 at 11:31 pm

            The liar part is easy – his lips were moving.

            The fraud part is even easier – he’s been in jail for fraud.

            Simple.

            Tony2

        • popeye

          October 8, 2014 at 5:45 am

          freethinker wrote:

          You will sit up and take notice, and then scour through that report for any small bit to question and complain about – even if they in the larger picture is completely irrelevant. I have seen that before.

          It is actually the responsibility of scientists to scour through results that are extraordinary to find flaws. Because usually, they are there. That’s why extraordinary claims are just that. Take the FTL experiment. They scoured and scoured because they thought it must be wrong. And in that case it was. Occasionally it’s not, like with HTSC, or superconductivity itself. But in both those cases, the evidence was completely unequivocal. Evidence for cold fusion, if it were real, would be similarly unequivocal.

          But the problem with a report like this is that the suspicion is that there could be deception. And the skeptics looking for the source of deception have nothing to go on except a report written by those who would have been deceived.

          Consider David Copperfield performing his illusions for an audience. It’s hard enough if you are there to discover the trick. But imagine trying to discover the trick based on the description from someone who was fooled by it. That’s tough, because he obviously missed the trick, so what he saw and could describe would not reveal it.

          In spite of the report of last year, you all seem unable to stay away from ad-hominems aimed at AR, or any other related to this story, may it be Essén, Levi, Hartmann, Vaughn, Darden etc.

          They’re not ad hominem if their gullibility or incompetence explains the observations more plausibly than nuclear reactions.

          All are gullible and tricked by this mastery crook AR, that – in spite the odds – manage to keep this boondoggle floating over several years,

          Oh no, freethinker, it’s because of the odds. You see this kind of con is commonplace. They happen all the time.People like Rossi can involve or fool a list like that in his sleep. Mills has fooled more, and Madoff has fooled way more people. The thing that is *unlikely*, that happens once a century, is a discovery like the ecat. And no product has ever been introduced in the convoluted way Rossi is using.

          So it’s *you* that believe in the ecat in spite of the odds, and reject the most obvious explanation for all of this. A run-of-the-mill scam.

    • Ivy Matt

      October 7, 2014 at 5:28 pm

      Well, it would certainly be unprecedented in the whole Rossi saga if all those were to occur. From the beginning I thought Rossi’s story was a bit fishy. Nevertheless, I was willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt that he would prove to my satisfaction that he had invented a useful LENR reactor. I have always had the following criteria:

      1) A theory of the E-Cat’s functioning that makes sense and (more importantly) makes predictions that can be and are experimentally verified.

      2) A description of the E-Cat’s functioning in sufficient detail that it can be and is replicated by independent teams of researchers.

      3) A number of identifiable customers who can and do confirm the E-Cat’s high power (without a corresponding hefty electrity bill) in operation.

      I would say if two entities that are independent from Rossi and have no particular reason (e.g. cold fusion advocacy) to support his claims confirm one of the above, then the E-Cat is proven to my satisfaction, except for the final step of buying my own E-Cat and confirming its high power density to myself.

      To me these all seem to be reasonable criteria. An honest inventor should at least be able to meet the last one. So far Rossi hasn’t met any one of them. Therefore, my verdict remains unchanged: Not proven. And if Rossi’s claims are not proven, especially after all this time, why should I take them seriously?

      You may have noticed I didn’t mention demonstrations. I’m not terribly impressed by demonstrations, if for no other reason than that I don’t think I can’t be fooled by a well done demonstration. I’ll let people like Al Potenza judge demonstrations.

      Now, here’s a question for you: what (if anything) would cause you to concede that Rossi’s claim to have invented a LENR reactor is probably false?

      • John Milstone

        October 7, 2014 at 5:52 pm

        Regarding you’re first point, not only has Rossi not made any progress, he’s gotten worse.

        Originally, he and Focardi published their paper staying that a particular reaction (Ni62 -> Cu62 + 2 * 511KeV) was responsible foe the “excess” energy.

        This had one big problem (Coulomb barrier), but it explained the alleged “excess” heat and it provided testable criteria (non-natural isotope ratios).

        As we now know, there were no such results, and now Rossi has retreated into thar vague “Rossi Effect” to explain it.

      • freethinker

        October 7, 2014 at 6:26 pm

        Thank you Ivy Matt,

        I take it from your criteria that they will likely not overlap the content to be found in the report. Not on any count. Hence, you will remain a sceptic of ARs device, no matter the outcome.

        Unlike yourself – apart from being confident that the report will be hugely positive – I am already convinced that LENR is proven, that ARs ECAT work.

        Further, unlike yourself, I do not think the previous team of investigator be neither fraudulent nor borderline criminally gullible. Hence I credit the previous report to prove that the machine has the over-unity output claimed and the the fuel has a energy density far exceeding any combustive or otherwise chemical agent.

        Needless to say, I will be in dire straights does the coming report not show this to be so. 🙂

        Exciting times, ehh?

        • popeye

          October 8, 2014 at 6:23 am

          freethinker wrote:

          Hence, you will remain a sceptic of ARs device, no matter the outcome.

          No matter the outcome of the report, I will remain a skeptic, for sure. But if the report allows others to replicate, and if they do so successfully and convincingly (as described elsewhere), then I will celebrate with the true believers. I think the chance of that happening is unfortunately very remote.

          Unlike yourself – apart from being confident that the report will be hugely positive – I am already convinced that LENR is proven, that ARs ECAT work.

          Convinced huh. So, you’re not really a free thinker. You let the Rossi cabal think for you, and accept what they tell you. You trust them. That’s a religious thinker.

          You should keep an open mind. Always allow for the possibility that you could be wrong, like skeptics do. With the right evidence, I’d embrace the ecat in a heart beat. That makes me a freer thinker than you.

          Further, unlike yourself, I do not think the previous team of investigator be neither fraudulent nor borderline criminally gullible.

          You would if you watched and understood what they said about those lame demos in 2011.

          But it’s really just about the possibility. A claim like Rossi’s needs solid proof. If there are other explanations involving fraud or gullibility, they should be regarded as more plausible than Rossi’s claim, just because fraud happens — a lot. But Rossi’s claim is — what did you call it — a once-in-a-billion lifetimes event.

          Hence I credit the previous report to prove that the machine has the over-unity output claimed and the the fuel has a energy density far exceeding any combustive or otherwise chemical agent.

          Even though the authors admit that it *fails* to prove the same.

          Needless to say, I will be in dire straights does the coming report not show this to be so.

          Yea, but that’s not likely. My question is how long after the report with no sign of a working device in the wild would it take for you to lose faith. One year? Two? Five? Ten? Because, in ten years, it’s almost certain that there won’t be an ecat in the wild. Pity, though.

        • Ivy Matt

          October 8, 2014 at 4:49 pm

          Hence, you will remain a sceptic of ARs device, no matter the outcome.

          If the outcome of the report doesn’t fit any of my criteria, sure.

          Further, unlike yourself, I do not think the previous team of investigator be neither fraudulent nor borderline criminally gullible.

          Let me add that, in addition to not being impressed by demonstrations, I am also not impressed by appeals to authority. I have no need to speculate on the motivations or competence of the previous team. For me it is sufficient that their investigation did not meet any of the above criteria.

          Needless to say, I will be in dire straights does the coming report not show this to be so.

          Do you mean that you would concede that Rossi is probably a fraud if the report is negative? Or just that it might take you a while to come up with a plausible excuse why this one was a dud when the previous one was a success?

          • John Milstone

            October 8, 2014 at 4:57 pm

            Hey Ivy Matt and anyone else… There’s a new posting for the post-report analysis. Come on over! 🙂

    • popeye

      October 8, 2014 at 4:43 am

      freethinker wrote:

      Apparently the report from last year didn’t do it for you guys,

      No, and apparently it didn’t do it for the authors either, who admit it does not constitute proof that the ecat works as claimed. Here’s Hartman: “We must have more control over the whole situation before we can talk about proof.”

      So if it did it for you, you not only have to trust the authors, but at the same time you have to distrust them.

      as – in your thinking – people partaking in that test were shills, fraudsters or just excessively gullible and stupid people.

      Well, they were probably one those things. Levi and Essen at least had already demonstrated that they are not to be trusted by their pathetic reports and interpretation of the demos in 2011. They claimed dry steam without evidence, when it was almost certainly very wet steam. And as Ascoli65 has emphasized, some incongruities like the presence of the RH probe can only be explained by them inventing data.

      Furthermore, even if you do accept what they say in the report, it is clear that they failed to exclude an obvious way for Rossi to have cheated. It may not be the way he cheated, since it seems quite likely that his method would not be detectable from a report written by those who were fooled. But that failure still shows rank incompetence. How could they not have examined the input carefully? It’s kind of the point of it.

      But their incompetence is not the only reason the report falls short.

      It falls short as scientific evidence because it can’t be checked by anyone else. That means they are free to say what they want, without anyone having an opportunity to prove them wrong (or right).

      It’s a claim, not evidence.

      To regard it as evidence requires trust, and that’s not enough, especially for an extraordinary claim. And especially for a group of scientists selected, vetted, and probably compensated by the person who stands to get very rich on their endorsement. True believers distrust the entire mainstream science because some kind of perceived conflict, but somehow they regard these scientists who have a real conflict as infallible.

      What is then your take on the coming TIP?

      Well, if as before, if it does not disclose the catalyst, and Rossi does not make the ecat generally available, then it will be as meaningless as Levi2013 is.

      If they make positive claims, and it is possible for others to test their claims, then it becomes interesting. And then if scientists *not* selected by Rossi test the ecat and also find strong evidence for heat from nuclear reactions, let the celebrations begin.

      What if it IS published in a reasonable publication?

      If it can’t be replicated, the journal will lose respect, and the paper will still be meaningless. If it does disclose the information needed to replicate, see above.

      What if the work IS done by large team of credible scientists?

      As Wikipedia writes in the article on scientific literature (and many journals include in their instructions for authors), “acceptance of the conclusions must not depend on personal authority, rhetorical skill, or faith”. That means that, while their credibility would help, it’s not enough. If their claims can’t be tested, then the conclusions rely on faith, not science.

      What if it IS underwritten by a large number of credible reviewers?

      Same comment. Credibility of the conclusions demands that any qualified scientist has access to the experiment.

      What if it DOES show a long term stability in generating over-unity power of significance?
      What if it DOES show a tremendous power density for the fuel?

      Unless others can test the claims, we can’t know if it *DOES* this. We can only know that they claim it does this. And that is not enough.

      So if we know that it DOES work, then the evidence must be accessible, and then, once again, upon verification by independent scientists, the celebrations can begin.

      However, if it’s over unity, but still requires input, I will remain highly skeptical that others will be able to verify. Because if it has a robust and significant over-unity power, then it’s simply too implausible to think they wouldn’t have engineered a self-sustaining device as the number 1 priority. And not just because it would convince skeptics, but because it would make it a far more useful commercial device. Failure to do this would suggest almost certain deception somewhere.

      Will you then concede?

      There is no report from Rossi’s team that will by itself convince me that the ecat works as claimed. That will require that the report fully enable others to test their claims, and of course successful tests, or a completely transparent public demo, organized and invigilated by skeptics.

      For example, a self-contained device a few square feet in volume, taken to a location of a skeptic’s choosing, that generates obvious heat (by boiling water in a tanker truck, e.g.) long enough to exceed its weight in gasoline, and I will concede a new energy source in a heart beat.

      But as long as there’s input, especially from the line, it will remain suspicious.

      And if all things DOES come to pass, you will keep on fighting the windmills, evermore isolated, until you can fart no longer.

      Well you missed the most important condition. But an energy density a million times higher than dynamite is not something anyone can deny if it is demonstrated competently. And just like the skeptics immediately capitulated when the Wright brothers flew in public in 1908, they would capitulate now, if only Rossi could fly. That there still are deniers after 4 years of more than a dozen public demos, means there is almost certainly no such source, and if there were, it means Rossi is the most incompetent demonstrator imaginable.

  36. Dale G. Basgall

    October 7, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    I like this site, there are many more individuals that operate and comment based on facts and what is real than those who post on a hypothetical feeling generated from a story.

    The only thing real about the Rossi E-Cat is the stories, the believers and the skeptics.

    What a believer has in fact are the stories, what the skeptic has in fact is the absence of a claimed device.

    So where does that leave us here on ECN?

    Since there are different types of people with different views we remain clustered. As soon as Rossi comes up with what he has told us he already had and someone can touch it, use it and observe what it actually does then the posts will be different. Right now it is evident that Rossi does not have, did not have what he claimed to have had when he claimed it.

    At least Santa leaves real gifts, comes once a year just like the Easter Bunny who leaves real eggs and candy for all the believers.

    When someone like a Rossi contends he has an invention to change the world and never provides any tangible evidence of what he contended are you really going to hold your breath waiting for him to produce or are you going to take a deep breath and say it would have been nice if what he told us actually manifested into reality.

    Who could call what Rossi did as a lie, he may be telling the truth here. He may actually believe what he is saying and possibly he has what he contends. The observable facts however lack any observable evidence that what he said is in anyone else’s reality based space.

    For those of you here attempting to write truth and fact is there anything positive any of you could factually state (post) about Rossi and like in support of current claims absent any evidence?

    What company would even consider making any device that does not have a United States patent issued valid? That makes no sense at all in the light of a business transaction. This entire cold fusion saga is a “someone sais” subject and until someone exhibits in coherent life what they contend on paper and can replicate it then this LENR / Rossi will remain controversial between those who operate their lives on factual happenings and those who will go to the line in the sand with words to convince others something is really going on based on faith.

    So I guess a question needs to be clarified, what is reality? Most of us here would answer touching it , feeling it, using it and finding utility in it. That’s what a real invention is, something tangible that has come out of claims made and there is absolutely positive evidence the Rossi E-Cat has never existed in reality.

    • freethinker

      October 7, 2014 at 2:57 pm

      🙂

      R u by any chance a professional writer?

      That was sooo well written …. Full of blah-blah, but sooo well written.

    • Anonymole

      October 8, 2014 at 2:03 am

      Dale, nice post.

      This saga just turns round and round on itself doesn’t it? I think it has all the makings of a grand Italian opera… set to Goth-Dubstep music.

      I’m actually saddened by the whole thing. I mean, who comes out and says he can save the world and then doesn’t? Not someone who lives in our reality right? It must have been someone who fabricated their own reality and crawled backward into it, facing outwards, a conceited vicious snarl on his face.

      Just think of all those honest but naive folks who have put their faith with Rossi. Those desperate people who’s farm needs a new energy to power their water pump to water their farm. The starving villagers who could use an NFE device to power their pumps and to light their dark world, light their buildings at night to let their children read and learn. All the folks who were thinking of going off-grid and making a go of it against all of these oppressive governments. Maybe thousands of folks all drawn in, all hanging their hopes on Rossi.

      Makes ya kind of sick inside doesn’t it?

      What kind of person does that? Build up all of these hopes, these false hopes, and then let them dwindle away, completely unfulfilled. Who would do that? Promise salvation to thousands with never a actual plan as to how to make good on those promises. I would think that someone like that would have shown some evidence of delivery right? Some physical manifestation of an actual product that could be documented by the world at large. Right? Right? Within the years they’ve been promising? Something.

      I just convulse at the thought of this next report. This next glowing beacon of redemption that all the poor folks who are crying for a solution will swarm around and point to as the Word of their Savior. But after another year or two, only to have nothing but words to feed their children, hearsay to light their dim world. Prophesy: October 2015 — nothing new to show the world per the e-cat.

      And so on it goes, this Italian operatic tragedy.

      • John Milstone

        October 8, 2014 at 4:36 am

        Let’s not forget Rossi’s cynical lie to help children with cancer.

  37. Ivy Matt

    October 7, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    October 7, 2014:

    The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences robs Andrea Rossi yet again by awarding the Nobel Prize in Physics to…the inventors of the blue LED. How lame. 🙁

    Ah, well, at least there’s still a chance he could win the 2014 prize in chemistry, economics, peace…or literature! 😀

    • freethinker

      October 7, 2014 at 2:59 pm

      As well as I appreciate the desire to give AR the Nobel Prize, he will have to wait a li’l while before getting it. 🙂

      • Al Potenza

        October 7, 2014 at 3:14 pm

        And if Rossi is in jail, they may not let him out to attend the ceremonies.
        *
        Here is some “freethinker” brilliance from 8 months ago. How is it working out for you?
        *
        ” Fortyniner to georgehants • 8 months ago

        Of course, the rats on this particular sinking ship will fight their inevitable demise using any and all means available, and it may be some time before the last of them sink beneath the waves. The dishonesty of pop science rags and other publications including wikipedia, and the shrill noises from Hody and the other web trolls may only be the beginning, now that many threatened interests know that the fight is on for real.

        Their survival depends on using connections, disinfo, half truth, feigned scorn and outright slander to convince everyone concerned that alternative energy is a pipe dream and the proponants are hucksters. The IPCC managed something similar with massive support from politicians and certain industries so (as I recall saying a very long time ago) the degree of delay they can bring about will depend on to what degree threatened interests (including many politicians) can get their act together and divert some real money into the pot. We certainly shouldn’t expect everything to go ‘our’ way from this point on.”
        *
        http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/26/rossi-on-the-evolution-of-the-e-cat-and-the-theory/

        • freethinker

          October 7, 2014 at 6:15 pm

          Sorry Al 🙂

          Can’t take credit for that.

          • Al Potenza

            October 8, 2014 at 2:32 am

            Sorry. Meant to cite this:

            freethinker
            May 24, 2013, 5:55 pm | #

            George Hodi alias MaryYugo, forever the pathological skeptic.

            As in all scientific pre-prints entering into arXiv. there may be things to question. The paper show clearly that some went in, much more went out, conservatively speaking. You are like Gary Wright in many ways. He can’t wrap his mind around the fact that the cylinder, in the very first failing test in the paper, were glowing in colors of bright orange to white and melted inside. This is in itself is a clear cut evidence that a huge amount of energy is produced very rapidly.

            Wrap your head around this: LENR is a reality (check http:\\lenr-canr.org for proper references), and there are now very compelling evidence that there is atleast one entreprenour/inventor with a product about to hit the market…”

            What product was that? When did it hit the market, as you put it?

          • Al Potenza

            October 8, 2014 at 2:47 am

            Also that glowing cylinder — all it means is that Rossi goosed the power on his elecrtic heater. Remember when he did that to Lewan and Krivit saved the video? I love Rossi’s deer in the headlights expression as he mumbles, “stable… stable…” talk about getting caght with your hand inside the cookie jar!

            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Failure-of-Rossis-Energy-Catalyzer-Caught-on-Video.shtml

            that’s one of my favorite Rossimoments!

  38. General Zaroff

    October 7, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Welcome back freethinker. What a nice visit from one of the biggest penis tip lovers in this whole saga. Asking stupid questions is expected of you, and you are obviously looking for the answers that confirm your views of the evil pathoskeptic. So let me oblige:
    What is then your take on the coming TIP?
    It will be a pointless exercise in bad science and it will not resolve anything.

    What if it IS published in a reasonable publication?
    Like the last one? You definition of “reasonable” is very different from mine. The penis tip is sending its report to the arxiv, and you are going to gobble it up.

    What if the work IS done by large team of credible scientists?
    Like the last one? I recall the lead author’s speciality had something to do with coffee machines. Maybe this time they can bring in an expert on hot chocolate or milkshakes.

    What if it IS underwritten by a large number of credible reviewers?
    Maybe in fantasy world. In the real world reviewers are generally anonymous and don’t “underwrite” a paper. Or, if they actually contribute to the paper, they are called authors. And since this waste of time is headed for the arxiv, I don’t think a large team of reviewers is very likely. And even if turns out that several reviewers read it, our definitions of “credible” differ.

    What if it DOES show a long term stability in generating over-unity power of significance?
    What is power of significance? Probably somewhere right around the noise level? I just hope they describe it in fun units like kW hours per hour. And whatever they get, you can bet their measurement technique will not be ideal.

    What if it DOES show a tremendous power density for the fuel?
    Don’t worry, it won’t. And if it does, it is most likely due to poor experimental set-up.

    Will you then concede?
    Concede what? This isn’t a chess match. No matter what this report says, you cannot get an ecat, and you never will.

    I get it, you had the imbecilical cord wrapped real tight around your neck in the womb. But an oxygen-starved brain is not an excuse for belittling Dale, at least he has some practical knowledge of patents and is always respectful to others here. I, on the otherhand, am a complete asshole so feel free to concoct your most clever and stinging response. And while you are at it, you can answer Ivy Matt’s question: exactly what will have to happen for you to conclude that the ecat is most likely a scam? Or is that even possible? In 3 years here I have never heard a single believer answer that question.

    • Daniel Maris

      October 7, 2014 at 7:57 pm

      The coffee maker as you call him makes the list of Top Italian Scientists.

      http://www.topitalianscientists.org/top_italian_scientists_via-academy.aspx

      So, it’s a pretty lame line of attack.

      • Jami

        October 7, 2014 at 10:17 pm

        Will you EVER do your homework and actually read the sh*t you’re talking about? (preferably BEFORE talking about it – but afterwards would be a start, at least)

        • Daniel Maris

          October 8, 2014 at 1:50 am

          Will you ever moderate your language and engage in polite discourse as civilised people are prepared to do? What’s your beef? I posted a link to “Top Italian Scientists” and that gets you riled because Professor Levi is among them.

          • Al Potenza

            October 8, 2014 at 2:51 am

            I looked for a single important and well done paper by Levi. Of course his is a common name in Italy. I didn’t find a single one but then maybe I missed it. Know any you can cite, Daniel?

      • JNewman

        October 8, 2014 at 2:18 am

        Daniel, do you have the slightest idea of what that ranking is? Do you know how it is calculated? I’m betting the answer is no. Well, the answer is that it uses the “H-index”, which is a measure of how often the person is cited someplace. The esteemed coffee maker has been cited endlessly in places like this pivotal blog for years. That does not make him a “top scientist” except in the most meaningless sense of the word. Of course, you will ignore this and add it to your trenchant and equally specious reasons for worshipping at the Church of Rossi.

      • popeye

        October 8, 2014 at 6:09 am

        Maris wrote:

        The coffee maker as you call him makes the list of Top Italian Scientists.
        So, it’s a pretty lame line of attack.

        Someone’s been having fun with google scholar, but appears to have been pretty careless. If you search on Giuseppe Levi, you get about 30,000 papers and about 17000 citations. Are they all attributable to *our* Levi. Almost certainly not. Evidently G Levi is a common name, and many papers just list the initial.

        An H-index of 62 means that someone has 62 publications with at least 62 citations *each*. Think that’s our Levi? I doubt it.

        On ResearchGate, his most cited paper has 48 citations, and his H-index is only 12, meaning he has 12 papers with at least 12 citations each (including cited conference proceedings). That’s not enough to make that list. So it seems likely that someone made a mistake. Or ResearchGate is very much out of date.

        Even so, ResearchGate lists an impressive 343 publications for Levi. As a graduate student, he was part of the Zeus collaboration, which includes close to 200 authors, and they are all listed on all the papers generated by that collaboration, and there are many of them. Many are in arxiv, and they are included in this number, as are all conference proceedings.

        So, Levi’s not a slouch, but then in my brief scan, I didn’t see any papers where he is lead author or corresponding author. And for some reason, on his CV on his university page, he lists only 12 publications. And although he was hired to the faculty at Bologna in 2000, he still holds the rank of assistant professor, meaning his university has not seen fit to promote him. Doesn’t really suggest a star.

        • Al Potenza

          October 8, 2014 at 6:58 am

          Mo. Levi *is* a slouch. His REAL bibliography is on the U of Bologna web site. Any other “Levi, G” papers you find are by some other individual with the same common often seen Italian name.

          http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.aspx?UPN=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it&View=Pubblicazioni

          Note that some of the papers have a truly humongous number of authors. He’s a minor cog in a huge wheels in those.

          I find twelve papers altogether in his publication list! I had that many before I was age 21. And FOUR are about coffee makers!!!! The rest are inconsequential contributions, mostly to measurement methods totally unrelated to calorimetry or LENR. In fact, there is NOTHING in his list about Rossi’s ecat or LENR which is pretty darn amazing. Or not.

          • popeye

            October 8, 2014 at 8:07 am

            Al wrote:

            His REAL bibliography is on the U of Bologna web site.

            Yea, I saw it.

            Any other “Levi, G” papers you find are by some other individual with the same common often seen Italian name.

            Many are, yes, but not all. If you go to researchgate.net/profile/Giuseppe_Levi/publications, you will find a much longer list of publications, and all of the ones I checked appear to be from the same G Levi we know and love. As I understand it, ResearchGate checks full names and affiliations to generate their lists.

            All the papers I checked give the right affiliation and the topic corresponds to research he describes on his university web site. I think they’re legit, but as I said, the list includes conf proceedings, arxiv publications, and a lot of papers from his time as a member of the large Zeus collaboration, when he was a graduate student.

            There don’t appear to be many first author papers, but he has managed to make himself part of a several different (and some very large) collaborations.

    • freethinker

      October 7, 2014 at 8:26 pm

      My dear General!

      Barging in like a true trooper.

      But your macho style is a little over the top and is thoroughly wasted on me, much like your nonsense arguments.

      No doubt nothing that ever transpires as positive from LENR or ARs ECAT will likely ever persuade you. You will be that last fart standing in the retirement home, serving up your ad-hominems to anyone daring to pass by too closely.

      BTW: I did answer Ivy Matt. Likely a response to your liking. Maybe you would like to spend some time on that answer and think out some more ad-hominems and cheer full comments to lighten up everyone’s day?

      🙂

      Cheers

      • Andy Kumar

        October 7, 2014 at 9:09 pm

        freethinker,

        If you “constrained” your thinking by “reason”, you may see Rossi as the congenital fraud and clown that he is!

        You may need to change your moniker to constrainedThinker.

        • freethinker

          October 7, 2014 at 9:31 pm

          🙂

          This is pure enjoyment.

          Words like “constrained” and “reason” in this never never land of ECN that is completely liberated from “reason”, replacing it with extra dose of “constrained” instead.

          And yet more ad-hominem arguments. You have NO proof that the ECAT is a fraud, only your very much “constrained” gut feeling.

          I have broken out of the box you are still a prisoner in. Just because you were taught “it cannot be so” you must cast it away and start thinking outside the box. The evidence is clear enough, it is just you who muddle the water.

          • John Milstone

            October 7, 2014 at 10:04 pm

            It’s much more significant that, after more than 4 years, you have NO proof that the E-Cat is real.

            We DO have plenty of evidence of fraud, such as Rossi’s lies about his associations with legitimate organizations such as National Instruments (which issued emails explicitly denying Rossi’s claims) and the University of Bologna (which had to issue press releases twice to state that Rossi was lying about them!).

            Every high-tech con man, going back to the original “Rossi”, John Worrell Keely, followed the exact same pattern: plenty of “demos” (but only in their own facilities), plenty of claims (but no proof), and never, never an actual product.

            Like every other “proof”, this one will fall far short of what was promised. Remember that the October 6, 2011 demo was supposed to run for days to prove that it wasn’t using stored energy. In reality, it ran for 4 hours

            Remember that the Levi report was supposed to be published in a “prestigious journal”. It wasn’t. It was supposed to be in an independent location. It wasn’t. It was supposed to allow the tester independence. It didn’t.

            And, notice how the entire world has ignored the Levi report. That is objective evidence of it’s failure.

            Ultimately, this upcoming report (if it is real), will be more of the same. The “True Believers” will crow about how great it is, and then the skeptics will point out all of the shortcomings that make it another waste of paper.

          • freethinker

            October 7, 2014 at 11:41 pm

            @John Milestone:

            Naturally, I disagree with everything you write.

            But as you see things the way you do, you will then have to enthusiastically welcome the upcoming report, as it will undoubtedly have to be of much higher quality than the previous one to stand a chance in your world. So don’t count it out before you see it.

          • JNewman

            October 8, 2014 at 1:00 am

            Alainco – I mean freethinker – the other name for Milstone’s world is “the real world”. You should check it out some time.

          • John Milstone

            October 8, 2014 at 1:11 am

            I owe our “True Believers”an apology.

            I had forgotten just how massively delusional the inmates of the LENR looney bin really are.

          • popeye

            October 8, 2014 at 7:12 am

            religiousthinker wrote:

            Words like “constrained” and “reason” in this never never land of ECN that is completely liberated from “reason”,

            This is the land of reason, home of the brave. It is the same mainstream that thinks bigfoot is bogus, astrology is crap, dowsing is imaginary, and perpetual motion is a fraud. Shutter island over at ECW is on the fringe just like believers in bigfoot, astrology, dowsing, and perpetual motion. That’s why you can post here, but I can’t post there. I think Frank got upset when I was winning arguments about publishing policies and he shut me down before I could deliver my knock-out blows.

            You have NO proof that the ECAT is a fraud,

            And you have no proof that pigs can’t fly.

            What matters is that there is no proof they can, and so common sense tells you they probably can’t.

            There’s no proof the ecat works, and after all this time, that means it almost certainly doesn’t.

            I have broken out of the box you are still a prisoner in.

            No, you’ve just picked a smaller box. You are absolutely sure LENR is real and the ecat works, and can’t conceive of evidence that would convince you otherwise. You can’t get out of that box.

            Skeptics are the free thinkers. We can tell you exactly what sort of evidence would make us accept the ecat as a new energy source. We just think it’s unlikely. Very unlikely.

            Just because you were taught “it cannot be so”

            No. We think it *unlikely* or *extraordinary* because a century of copious, consistent, robust, and reproducible experimental evidence is consistent with a generalization that indicates cold fusion will not work. In the face of that, evidence that it does must be at least as strong. It’s not even in the ball park.

          • John Milstone

            October 8, 2014 at 1:40 pm

            Naturally, I disagree with everything you write.

            Imagine my relief!

            If I found that the village idiot was agreeing with me, I would have to immediately reconsider my position.

      • General Zaroff

        October 7, 2014 at 9:52 pm

        For the record, I am indifferent about LENR. It is not my field of interest or expertise, but to this outside observer it appears to be moving backwards or sideways. And a charlattan like Rossi is not exactly going to help its image. By the way, what is LENR, preceisely?

        I do believe that at this point there is nothing that can happen that will convince you Rossi is a fraud. You might be in dire straights (it is “straits”, for the record, as in straitjacket – that thing you wear when they let you out of your padded room), but the next report will be positive. So what happens in 1 year, or 5 years, when you still can’t buy an ecat and all the customers are still secret? It would be very clothes-minded of you to rule out fraud. How many years will you hold out?

        I will happily change my mind about Rossi and the ecat when I can buy one and it works. I predict this to happen about 10 years after the earth crashes into the sun. So, it looks like I am more open-minded than you.

        • freethinker

          October 7, 2014 at 11:32 pm

          Sorry for the linguistic violation, but English is not my native tongue. 🙂

          Like I could give you a oneliner explanation of what LENR is, that you would accept without a barrage of merryness and cheerful superlative au de negative… Check lenr-canr.org. Excellent site for information.

          I am not looking to buy an Ecat. I am OK if my utility can provide me heat and electric power from one.

          I am looking for a fair hearing of a clean, abundant, disruptive and future defining energy source – proven to work – that can lift us out of the environmental crap pit we are heading deeper into. I believe you and your attitude towards out of the box concepts like the Ecat serve as one good example of why that fair hearing is so hard to get.

          I seriously think I am way more opened minded than you and your motley crew all taken together. Find the way out of the group thinking, your box, your prison – or your strait jacket, if that analogy suits you better.

          • John Milstone

            October 7, 2014 at 11:39 pm

            I am looking for a fair hearing of a clean, abundant, disruptive and future defining energy source – proven to work – that can lift us out of the environmental crap pit we are heading deeper into. I believe you and your attitude towards out of the box concepts like the Ecat serve as one good example of why that fair hearing is so hard to get.

            Rossi is the only person preventing the E-Cat from getting a fair hearing.

            He could allow a honest, black-box test anytime he wanted, but he never allowed it. He claims that this next test will be independent, but he lied about the last test, and his entire history suggests that this is just another stunt.

          • freethinker

            October 8, 2014 at 12:12 am

            @John Milestone:
            🙂

            Same blah blah as always. Don’t you understand the basics of capitalism? If you were in his shoes you would not surrender you once-in-a-billion-lifetimes insight you gained to please some skeptics. You would do the same. Even if you had half a brain.

            And all the crap about “lies”. You patho skeptics are all equally guilty in listening to “Rossi Says”. Who in his right mind would pay attention to everything he writes in his blog. You blame “believers” of doing so but you do the same. He has been maneuvering with petty funds to bring his invention to fruition. Hence he has done what any entreprenour would do – he has played his cards. You interpret every statement a lie, does it not match your image of expectancy or fidelity.

            He is now in a situation where he will be capable of realizing his invention in a reasonably short timespan, thanks to Cherokee.

            What lies have you seen stated from AR lately? I mean,that you can substantiate as being LIES, and not dressed up hopes, and miscellaneous thoughts from a man’s private blog.

            No, the lack of fair hearing, comes from the massive groupthinking that always smack down novel ideas. The idea does not fit the consensus of the group, hence it must be wrong, and be denounced. You and your compadres, who repeatedly bash AR and any associated with him, are enforcing this behavior.

          • popeye

            October 8, 2014 at 7:43 am

            religiousthinker wrote:

            Like I could give you a oneliner explanation of what LENR is,

            No, it’s hard because it probably isn’t real. So, some people make errors with PdD, and call it LENR, others do it with NiH, and call it the same thing.

            I am looking for a fair hearing of a clean, abundant, disruptive and future defining energy source – proven to work – that can lift us out of the environmental crap pit we are heading deeper into.

            We all want that. But the rational among us know that hope and prayer are not enough to change the laws of physics. Cold fusion got two fair hearings, and flunked them both. And if gets continual hearings every time a manuscript is submitted for publication, or a proposal is submitted for a grant. But without any progress over 25 years, the consensus view simply becomes stronger with time.

            I believe you and your attitude towards out of the box concepts like the Ecat serve as one good example of why that fair hearing is so hard to get.

            Have you read about the enthusiastic and much too indulgent hearing cold fusion got in 1989? Storms account in his chapter 2 of LENR science is a good one. P&F were treated like rock stars. Pons got a standing ovation from thousands of giddy scientists. Everyone wanted it to be true. The atmosphere was electric and exciting. Here’s Storms:

            Excitement was building as more people heard about the “discovery” and wanted to get in on the action. If real, such an important discovery hardly ever happens during a scientist’s career, … ”

            You see, scientists become scientists because they love and embrace change, and love to challenge the current world view. That’s why awards in science, selected *by* scientists, are given to scientists who discover *new* things, not those who fear them; they are given to scientists who bring about change, not those who prevent it. The most famous and honored scientists are those who brought revolutions in thought and practice. So, when scientists reject something like cold fusion, it is not because they fear new ideas; it’s because they’re nearly certain the idea has no merit.

            I seriously think I am way more opened minded than you and your motley crew all taken together.

            All deluded religious types think that way. Scientologists think their belief in Xenu is more open minded than that of all us “suppressive persons”.

            But if you are completely certain of something, you can’t say you have an open mind about it.

            Look, you’re in a cult. And you need to be deprogrammed. We have groups on Fridays. Come. You’ll be glad you did.

            Find the way out of the group thinking, your box, your prison – or your strait jacket, if that analogy suits you better.

            OK, but there’s a few whackos ahead of you. I’m trying to accept perpetual motion and astrology right now. I’ll try to fit cold fusion in before I try to accept crystal healing. They all tell me I’m in a prison.

          • popeye

            October 8, 2014 at 8:36 am

            religiousthinker wrote:

            Don’t you understand the basics of capitalism? If you were in his shoes you would not surrender you once-in-a-billion-lifetimes insight you gained to please some skeptics.

            Totally unnecessary. If Rossi’s claims were valid he could prove them easily without revealing his insight. A suitable public demo would do it. Or suitable security could be arranged to prevent independent testers from snooping.

            And all the crap about “lies”. You patho skeptics are all equally guilty in listening to “Rossi Says”. Who in his right mind would pay attention to everything he writes in his blog.

            So, you’re saying he does lie. How do we know when he’s not?

            You blame “believers” of doing so but you do the same. He has been maneuvering with petty funds to bring his invention to fruition.

            That might be plausible if you could find an example of this sort of maneuvering for a legitimate product.

            If he can’t be trusted, then we need hard verifiable evidence. And there is none.

            Hence he has done what any entreprenour would do – he has played his cards.

            How can you tell the difference between playing cards to release a product, or playing cards to run an investment scam? If we don’t know when he’s bluffing, then we some independent intelligence, and there is none.

            You interpret every statement a lie, does it not match your image of expectancy or fidelity.

            No, we interpret every statement as a possible lie. Which means what he says means nothing.

            He is now in a situation where he will be capable of realizing his invention in a reasonably short timespan, thanks to Cherokee.

            You have no way of knowing that. It’s the same think his flock was saying in 2011, 2012, and 2013. All Cherokee has provided is a short press release which says nothing about time scales.

            In 2011, he said he already had a market-ready product.

            What lies have you seen stated from AR lately? I mean,that you can substantiate as being LIES, and not dressed up hopes, and miscellaneous thoughts from a man’s private blog.

            Are you implying that he’s honest now? He’s been bluffing all along, but now for some reason, you think he stopped. Is that what you think?

            It’s impossible to identify a recent lie, because nothing verifiable has happened in 18 months. His most recent lies that can be checked were about Levi2013, which he said would be published in 2012, in a peer reviewed journal, would be accompanied by a video, would be independent. None of those were true.

            He also said many things that have not been verified about the partner, and many that are highly implausible given the partner is IH. He said they had a magnificent factory; were in possession of materials and expertise; a company like the Enterprise to Rossi’s warship; a company that one year ago was ready for mass production in a relatively short term. But it is a paper company, and there is no evidence it has any employees beyond the 2 founders, who have no relevant technical expertise.

            No, the lack of fair hearing, comes from the massive groupthinking that always smack down novel ideas.

            The only plausible groupthink is on the side of cold fusion advocates. Mainstream science is an extremely diverse and diffuse entity that actually encourages and rewards innovation and novelty and disruptive ideas supported by good evidence. But the True Believers in cold fusion are fairly tightly knit group that discourages dissent, and embraces cold fusion’s many inconsistencies. It’s the reason so many cold fusion advocates (though not all) accept such an obviously unlikely claim as Rossi’s with almost no scrutiny, and from someone with a history of fraud, but none in physics.

            Where was the smack down of HTSC? It was awarded the Nobel prize in record time. Where was the smack down of the dark energy and dark matter proposals. Both novel, both speculative, neither are universally accepted, but there is no smack down.

            Where was the smack down of graphene? Of relativity? Quantum mechanics?

            Sure, bring up Galileo or Darwin and their religious objectors. Or even Semmelweiss or plate tectonics or quasicrystals. There are examples of scientific inertia, but none are like cold fusion, which is much closer in nature to N-rays, polywater, perpetual motion, dowsing, homeopathy, astrology, and so on.

            But don’t say that novel ideas are *always* smacked down. Because many are not. And even cold fusion, as whacko as it is, was given an enthusiastic welcome. It was when it didn’t stand up to scrutiny that the wheels fell of the wagon.

            The idea does not fit the consensus of the group, hence it must be wrong, and be denounced.

            Give it a rest. Science celebrates successful ideas that don’t fit the consensus. It does not denounce them out of pure dogma. Science is about learning *new* things. If current dogma were enough, there would be no science.

            You and your compadres, who repeatedly bash AR and any associated with him, are enforcing this behavior.

            No, we’re supporting evidence based science, and are bashing faith-based pseudoscience and greedy scam artists. You are just not clever enough to recognize the difference.

      • popeye

        October 8, 2014 at 6:32 am

        religiousthinker wrote:

        No doubt nothing that ever transpires as positive from LENR or ARs ECAT will likely ever persuade you.

        That’s an extremely pessimistic prediction for someone who thinks the ecat is revolutionary. You can’t really think that when our power is produced by ecats, when they are available for purchase for anyone to test, that anyone can remain unpersuaded. So, the only explanation for the prediction would be that you think such things will never happen. Is that it?

  39. Tony2

    October 7, 2014 at 7:22 pm

    Speaking of coffee makers, where has Levi gone? I would expect that now that we’re on the eve of the most important announcement in the history of man that GL would be out in the streets waving his T-shirt proudly over his head! Even The Inventor never mentions him. Levi doesn’t look like the kind of a guy who would want to miss out on this so where did he go?

    Perhaps he’s managing a few condos in Miami?

    Tony2

  40. Ransompw

    October 7, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    AL et al:

    Just think it is possible that in a week to 10 days (assuming a report is released) all of you may have some new individuals to insult, criticize, belittle, denigrate and character assassinate. You must be all hyperventilating just thinking about it.

    What makes it all so humorous is the fact that it will be coming from a group of anonymous blowhards who almost certainly haven’t done a meaningful thing in their lives.

    • Andy Kumar

      October 7, 2014 at 9:12 pm

      Ransom,

      I posted this higher up. Like to get your take on this.

      I see Ransom is back with his lawyerly arguments. He does not care about the veracity of his conclusions if the argument is convoluted enough to confuse the jury.

      “You must acquit if the glove does not fit” -:)

      • Ransompw

        October 7, 2014 at 10:50 pm

        You think I am wrong about the posters here. Come on, I have thousands of posts to back up my observations. I am just observing human nature in action. And PS General, no one is a bigger idiot than you.

        • Andy Kumar

          October 8, 2014 at 1:48 am

          Ransom,

          I don’t know about other believers. Greenwin and you seem to be fairly competent in your chosen fields in real life. Like all believers, you don’t have any formal science background. Your competence in other areas (Law for you, Language for Greenwin)does not translate well into scientific matters.

          I like to remind believers that scientific establishment is not a monolithic entity conspiring against LENR. TIME ran P&F as their cover story. If LENR were real, chemists and material scientists would love nothing better than to teach those particle physics high priests a thing or two.

          • Ransompw

            October 8, 2014 at 10:16 am

            What is true believer to you?

            It seems to be anyone who isn’t almost 100% sure that Rossi is a fraud. It is like religion to you all, anyone who shows the slightest bit of open-minded evaluation is criticised, hated on and lumped in with a group you perceive at the fringe.

            No one can reasonable question that Rossi’s actions over the past 3-4 years include some serious warning signs. But the facts also include just the opposite. That is what makes this story interesting. And your cabal, not so interesting, kind of pathetic in point of fact.

        • Al Potenza

          October 8, 2014 at 3:00 am

          Yet you are too cowardly to bet me that your assessment of me is very wrong. I have written countless technical reports and internal papers for private companies and government agencies and more than 20 publications in refereed journals along with a couple of chapters in technical books and many presentations at international meetings. I back up that claim with $100K. What do you back up your insults with? Nothing but hot and foul lawyer breath! Does anyone here care at all about what you illogically believe?

          • Ransompw

            October 8, 2014 at 10:23 am

            AL:

            I am not betting you about having a degree. You likely have one. I can’t see how that matters, you are nevertheless hopeless. You have this illusion that the internet persona you cultivate is important. You and your persona are a joke. And your analysis is as wacky as Gary Wright, who everyone knows now is a complete kook. No doubt you are also.

      • popeye

        October 8, 2014 at 6:35 am

        Andy Kumar wrote:

        “You must acquit if the glove does not fit” -:)

        The line is: “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” A little more poetic, I think.

        • Andy Kumar

          October 9, 2014 at 6:20 am

          Popeye,

          You are right. And the argument was not even convoluted, really very simple. Still the jury fell for it or they did not have much choice, given legal standards for criminal convictions.

    • freethinker

      October 7, 2014 at 9:23 pm

      😀 lawl!

    • General Zaroff

      October 7, 2014 at 10:01 pm

      Dear Ransom,

      I want you to know that no matter how many new people sign o to this report you will always hold a special place in the pantheon of idiots who drooled over Rossi. If at any time in the coming weeks you feel neglected please post your thoughts on why Rossi has the goods and I will smack you around verbally for being stupid.

      Speaking of meaningless existences, how goes the law practice tehse days?

  41. John Milstone

    October 7, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    I’d like to thank freethinker for demonstrating the standard “True Believer” tactic of coming out with preemptive “I told you so!”s.

    They have to do this before the actual event, because after the event they are proven wrong and they have to go scampering back under the woodwork.

    JNewman called it back in January [Link]:

    How many times have we gone down this road over the past 3 years? Another explosion of glee where every long-lost believer comes out of the woodwork and declares victory. Skeptics defeated at last! Dawn of a new age!

    • freethinker

      October 8, 2014 at 12:24 am

      😀

      That’s funny.

      The only “true believers” here today is you, the general, and the rest of the motley crew spinning for the dark side.

      As the Ecat was sufficiently proven in the previous report to warrant trust for continued work (think Thomas Francis Darden would agree). Commenting here BEFORE the publication of that report was not something that was lost after the fact, however much you guys wish it was.

      See my little guestplay here as a fair warning to gear up, as the new report is inbound.

      Likely, it will hit you guys so hard that it almost hurts thinking about it.

      🙂

      • Dale G. Basgall

        October 8, 2014 at 12:47 am

        Text that should be printed on toilet paper is what your report is worth in the real world.

        • Al Potenza

          October 8, 2014 at 3:02 am

          You hate to mess up toilet paper by covering it with sh*t before it’s even used!

      • JKW

        October 8, 2014 at 4:27 am

        “it almost hurts thinking about it.”

        From your posts it’s clear that for you thinking hurts altogether, period. What a pathetically ironic nick for an idiot.

        • freethinker

          October 8, 2014 at 9:08 am

          😀

          Amazing how well you people handle a argument. Feel better?

          • JKW

            October 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm

            Arguing with an idiot is a waste of time.

      • popeye

        October 8, 2014 at 6:55 am

        religiousthinker wrote:

        The only “true believers” here today is you, the general, and the rest …

        You expressed absolute certainty about the ecat and LENR, and are unable to identify circumstances that would cause you to disbelieve. That’s classic non-falsifiability. True belief and pseudoscience by definition.

        Skeptics are happy to explain repeatedly just what it would take to embrace the ecat.

        As the Ecat was sufficiently proven in the previous report to warrant trust for continued work

        For some, yes. For you it was sufficiently proven to become convinced it works, even though the authors don’t even claim that.

        (think Thomas Francis Darden would agree).

        Big deal. Bigger fish than him have been fried.

  42. spacegoat

    October 8, 2014 at 4:10 am

    Reading the Believer posts above is truly depressing. What hope for humanity when, after 6 years of strong evidence of fraud, these internet priveleged “educated” persons still can’t grok the basics.

    The pinnacle of this stupidity being comments on “the basics of capitalism” and “surrender you once-in-a-billion-lifetimes insight”. Let’s cover this subject.

    Rossi is 64 years old. Average life expectancy in the US is 79. 15 years of spending remains. When is payback going to begin? Let’s be optimistic and say within 3 years.

    Bill Clinton pulls in 8 million dollars per year just on speeches alone. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/29/clinton-earns-65-million-in-speaking-fees-as-private-citizen/

    How much would saviour of humanity Rossi pull in? Including books, films, TV, advertising. A modern day Jesus such as Rossi would pull in at least 5 times Clinton on speeches. 150 million? That’s 1 billion he’s lost so far over the past 6 years. Can an old man really spend 83 million per year in his remaining 12 years of health? General Zarroff, please help. At that age is the pecker willing (maybe yes for Bill)? Is drug consumption OK? Gambling seems the only way of spending such an amount of money.

    Instead he’s sold (something he said he would never do) his IP for 12 million dollars???

    How can an old convict spend big?

  43. Al Potenza

    October 8, 2014 at 7:00 am

    So it doesn’t get lost above, I am repeating down here that Levi’s official publication list from UniBo is here:

    http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.aspx?UPN=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it&View=Pubblicazioni

    He participated in a total of twelve papers– two with huge author lists. Four are about brewing coffee! The rest are about measurement of traffic flows, gadgets used in space stations, and instrumentation and methods NOT related in any way to LENR or the ecat or calorimetry.

    So much for the world renown illustrious genius, Dr. Giuseppi Levi! In the US, he would never even have been granted tenure at any major campus. I don’t know how that works in Italy. I wouldn’t let him near graduate students and would have to hear some lectures before I’d consider him for undergraduates.

    • popeye

      October 8, 2014 at 8:46 am

      Al wrote:

      So it doesn’t get lost above, I am repeating down here that Levi’s official publication list from UniBo is here:

      I already replied to the comment above. I think you’re mistaken about his publication list. The one on the UniBo site seems to represent a subset.

      If you go to researchgate.net/profile/Giuseppe_Levi/publications, you will find a much longer list of publications, and all of the ones I checked appear to be from the same G Levi we know and love.
      -

      All the papers I checked give the right affiliation and the topic corresponds to research he describes on his university web site. I think they’re legit, but as I said, the list includes conference proceedings, arxiv publications, and a lot of papers from his time as a member of the large Zeus collaboration, when he was a graduate student.
-
There don’t appear to be many first author papers, but he has managed to make himself part of a several different (and some very large) collaborations.

      Even so, the listing that shows his H-index as 62 is almost certainly in error. According to the data on ResearchGate, it should be 12, including citations of conference proceedings, and less if you don’t.

  44. popeye

    October 8, 2014 at 8:54 am

    This reply to Omega Z on ECW was rejected, so I thought I’d post it here, since I went to the trouble of writing it:

    Omega Z wrote> “Tho this is my opinion, It appears to be shared by … a couple Nobel winners who advise others to avoid top tier Paywall Journals for the reasons I have listed.”

    If you’re referring to the Randy Schekman (not to be confused with Dan Shechtman) boycott of Science, Nature, and Cell, then his objection is to the tendency to publish trendy fields and studies that are likely to make a splash, at the expense of quality, more status quo type work.
    One of his co-objectors objected because the journals “emphasize novelty over solid work”. Schekman feels quality, journeyman work is being discriminated against in favor of breakthroughs and big discoveries. In other words, he objects to favoritism *toward* flashy subjects like cold fusion, which is kind of the opposite of the objection cold fusion advocates express that *novel* work is discriminated against.

    OZ> “I think in a few years we will see some changes in these Journals or their replacement by a new breed of Journals.(JONP maybe head there) If those above quit submitting papers, it is inevitable.”

    But so far, publication rate in existing peer reviewed journals, including the big guns, is increasing without any sign of saturation, let alone a decrease.

    OZ> Sidenote: I recall many talking about free access to knowledge of this nature. Paywall is anything but free. It limits access to a few.

    Anyone can go to a university library and read the journals for free to their heart’s content. Before the internet, that was just about the only way people could read scientific literature without their own subscription.

    Nowadays, anyone with an affiliation to a university can read most of the prominent science journals on-line anywhere for free. For industrial researchers, the cost of the journal is not an issue. Members of the public do not have *cost* free on-line access, unless they go to a university library.

  45. popeye

    October 8, 2014 at 8:55 am

    alainco wrote> “how HTSC was hidden as footnotes to pass review”

    You made this mistake before. Your reference is about heavy fermion superconductivity, not high temperature superconductivity. The critical temperature in HFSC is typically below 1 K, and in no case above 2.3 K, so it is not HTSC. There was no suppression of HTSC evidence. It was awarded the Nobel prize in record time, in spite of the absence of a theory.

    alainco> “Scheckman : how journal like nature, science , cell are damaging science”

    If you’re referring to the Randy Schekman (not to be confused with Dan Shechtman) boycott of Science, Nature, and Cell, then his objection is to the tendency to publish trendy fields and studies that are likely to make a splash, at the expense of quality, more status quo type work. One of his co-objectors objected because the journals “emphasize novelty over solid work”. Schekman feels quality, journeyman work is being discriminated against in favor of breakthroughs and big discoveries. In other words, he objects to favoritism *toward* flashy subjects like cold fusion.

  46. popeye

    October 8, 2014 at 8:57 am

    This reply to Mats002 on ECW was rejected:

    Mats002 wrote> “LENR has evolved from wet Palladium-Deuterium mW excess heat to Nickel-Hydrogen MW systems.”

    Actually, in Pons and Fleischmann’s first refereed paper in 1989, they claimed excess power of 27 W. There has been no refereed cold fusion paper claiming more than 1 W excess power in the last decade. If there are MW systems in operation, they are well hidden.

  47. popeye

    October 8, 2014 at 8:58 am

    This reply to Timar was rejected on ECW

    Timar wrote> “From all we know the mousetrap has been made fully available to the researchers.”

    But not to the journal’s audience. *That’s* what the policy requires.

  48. John Milstone

    October 8, 2014 at 9:02 am

    We’ve had several new “True Believers” suddenly show up here.

    Makes me wonder whether they feel the need to try to preemptively attack to soften the blow of a bad report?

  49. popeye

    October 8, 2014 at 9:02 am

    This reply to Omega Z was rejected on ECW

    Omega Z wrote> “The 1st point. This wasn’t directed at you persa. You assumed.”

    I assumed the earlier discussion gave rise to your comment, but what I said did not depend on the assumption. I was merely clarifying what I had argued — that Levi2013 does not comply with publication policies at major journals. And if the next report withholds the catalyst, and the ecat, it won’t either.

    OZ> “Papers submitted on the Higgs Boson have nothing to do with the LHC. Just the Data it produced.
Papers on the Higgs Boson are all about deciphering/interpreting the data.
Papers on the E-cat are all about deciphering/interpreting the data.”

    Right, but the difference is that in one case, all the information needed to replicate is provided, and in the other case it’s not.

    FP>>”But unlike the ecat, the LHC is a publicly accessible facility, with no secrets about its design. Just as with other experiments, qualified scientists who can raise the funds are given access to the public facility to perform experiments. Not so with the ecat.”

    OZ> “Qualified scientists did raise the funds for this test & Rossi did provide the E-cats. There is no reason to think it couldn’t be done again, “

    There is a very good reason to think it couldn’t be done by anyone. The reason is that all the scientists so far have been vetted by Rossi.

    And the policy requires a reason to think it *could* be done again, by anyone. The absence of a reason that it couldn’t is not consistent with the policy.

    In the case of LHC, all the information is in the public domain, and evidently the journals are satisfied that their conditions are met. Rossi’s policy is as secret as the ecat, so there is no way the editors could conclude that the policy condition is met.

    OZ> “A Key Point-
It’s all about how such a paper is presented-It’s purpose.”

    Not according to the explicit policy. Information needed to replicate must be provided, regardless of its purpose. They say that withholding information for patent purposes is not acceptable, so if the paper withholds information for patent purposes, then it is in clear violation of the policy.

    Whether you like the policy or not, that’s what it is.

    OZ> “If it’s all about the Data, the emphasis would be whether the maths are in error or not. If questions arise to how the data was acquired, then they would be free to raise funds & perform another test or maybe the information is available on request.”

    The problem is that the editors don’t know that the journal’s audience would be free to perform the necessary test. If they were assured in some way that the ecat would be made available, it seems to me that the policy conditions would be met.

    OZ> “I will point out. This test & any possible additional tests does Not depend on Rossi. This technology belongs to Industrial Heat.”

    I don’t see how that’s relevant to whether or not the paper is consistent with the explicit policy.

    OZ> “Rules, regulations & policies all have exceptions & are bent all the time.”

    Maybe that’s true, but you haven’t yet provided any specific examples, except for the Higgs’ boson, which I have argued does not require bending the rules.

    In any case, because of the scale and expense of the LHC, it is a more complicated situation, and presumably the editors of the relevant journals have decided it meets the requirements of full disclosure.

    But ecat experiments are very simple and inexpensive, and there is no ambiguity. If the ecat is not known to be accessible, and the catalyst is withheld for IP purposes, it is in clear violation of the policy.

    Maybe they would be prepared to make an exception for the ecat. All I was saying is that an exception is necessary.

    But examples of similar papers would make it more plausible that an exception might be granted. I don’t actually see a reason for an exception in the case of the ecat. A paper that does not disclose the catalyst has no scientific value, since it depends on trust, and does not permit others to build on the findings. It has commercial value to Rossi and IH, but science journals are not in the business of providing free advertising for entrepreneurs.

    OZ> “In fact the Government not long ago demanded some information held back on some biological papers being submitted for publication.”

    Can you be more specific? If a drug was made available to others, then possibly the policy could be met. Or if public safety was an issue, that might justify an exception. But I’m interested in the specifics to see if a similar case can be made for the ecat.

    OZ> “They are not written in stone. If they were, there would be no need for corporate or national espionage to obtain technology.”

    Corporate and national espionage are for technology that is *not* published in the likes of PLOS, Nature, or Science.

    OZ> “Just subscribe to the journals or scour the patent files.”

    I do , and I have, and I have not found examples in the 3 mentioned journals where information is explicitly withheld for IP purposes. You claim there are examples, so again, can you cite some specific papers?

  50. freethinker

    October 8, 2014 at 9:56 am

    Well,

    I think my guest play is over for now. 🙂
    I have rattled the cage enough.

    The general being the muscle, the sailorman being the brain, and the rest hangarounds, all sharing the same introvert group thinking.

    But one final comment to the puppeyed sailorman.

    Science celebrates successful ideas that don’t fit the consensus. It does not denounce them out of pure dogma. Science is about learning *new* things. If current dogma were enough, there would be no science.

    I laugh my head of 😀 I doubt you can verbally speak those words with a straight face and still talk about LENR the way you do.

    Even if you are scientifically trained (so am I) and maybe even an achieved scientist (I doubt it), I find it amusing how you use the logic of scientific process to defend your inane and aggressive posture towards people. Yes, you read me right. You have way better skills with words compared to the general, but it amount to the same.

    There is something really dark about the skeptics of this world today. I am shaming true skeptics when calling you a skeptic. Rather than allowing due scientific process, one resort to magicians and the likes to “expose” frauds. You talk about how wide spread fraud is. I agree. It is.

    I wonder what your take is on the shoddy debunking that happened in 1989? “We had PLENTY LOADING”. No you dumb fool, you did not. Was that an example of good science? Was that the skeptics at its best? No it was not. It was an epic fail for humanity.

    There are plenty of points to be made of how P&F got character assassinated for no good scientific reason. Read people like Baudette and Mallowe.

    So LENR is a viable physical phenomenon, regardless of your point of view. Why? Because those who do work there today stand on the shoulders of others who did work yesterday. There are some very capable people that has done work and are doing work in that field. Hence the EVIDENCE is today so substantial that only a die hard, group thinking, dark minded skeptic can claim the opposite.

    If so LENR is a viable phenomenon, there is a probability that claims in that area suggesting commercial levels of energy output will come. The field is still young, and for an entrepreneur with drive such a field can be explored from an engineering standpoint, without knowing the underlying theory.

    So there you are, barking like mad dogs at this guy who did just that. He lie, he is a fraudster, it is OBVIOUS, he been in prison for fraud. Look at his face, ohhh what did he say just there??? Steady? He is obviously fraudulent. You act like a flock of school bullies, save naming you morons.

    I guess the general will not have to be the last grumpy fart standing in the retirement home, you will likely make him company popeye.

    Best of luck, now.

    Soon there will be a new report for you to – in your normal wild eyed manner – throw yourselves at.

    🙂

    Just one final in PS:
    @spacegoat:
    😀
    What are you rambling about?
    There is such a thing as leaving “Rossi Say’s” behind, and instead indulge in “Rossi thinks”.
    No goat man, back to the pasture.