Replies

I repeat, I have no idea why he did it that way. I don't have the time to waste investigating it at this late date.

I'm in the process of ramping up a major design effort on the oceanographic systems, and have even less time (as little as that was) to waste.

That sounds interesting, what is it and what is it for if you could provide a basic outline? Climate research? Now, this design effort, are you making it incredibly complex using obscure equipment and ensuring you're using up your entire budget or are you using the simplest tools for the job because it makes the eventual analysis of the data, easier?

LOL. Guess what...I've used 'scopes, too. I even owned one 'til technology outstripped it. As usual, your assumption is that all the guys who witnessed that demonstration were not familiar with 'scopes. I would bet that any of the physicists there(there were several) knew how to use them.

Then you know exactly what I'm talking about. Hell, you could leave a scope free running on a bench and people that don't know would think something important is going on but again, Rossi, if he actually had a scope, is again leaping over the easy method and taking the hard one. If you wanted to check to see if the charging system on your car was working, would you lug a scope to your garage or grab a cheap DMM? I'm leaving out the cool scope/DMM combos in this example.

And maybe he would give an answer that makes perfect sense. Another possibility is that he was targeting his equipment for the US market, and designed it to run on 110 and didn't want to buy a high-power stepdown transformer. Again you are ASSUMING that your "criminal fraud" meme is the only possible one.

Rossi, by any rational review of his talks, interviews and demonstrations is a master at obfuscation. Transformers are not that expensive. I buy toroid ones for vacuum tube amps and they are cheap. That is not a valid reason. For example, look at the back of any receiver in your house, does it have a voltage selector? Even the cheap ones do. This isn't rocket science. While my assertions are based on assumptions, the assumptions are based on facts in evidence.

LOL. Just because I see more possibile explanations makes me his "cheering squad".

Now, don't hurt yourself patting your own back. "More possible explanations", sounds almost reasonable but any look at your hand-waiving of anything Rossi does means you're not only on the squad, hell, you're head cheerleader dating the football captain.

You: No. It's pretty obvious you will go to any lengths to support Rossi.

Another false assumption.

Based on facts in evidence.

LOL. I've known and worked with a lot of people smarter than I am. I'm a farm boy, raised with cow-shit between my toes, so I "am" (or was) one of the "unwashed masses".

Clue..... I know very well that I am not, let us say, a "top tier" intellect. My sister in law (the geophysicist) "is" one of those (and nuttier than a fruitcake). I fit at the level of "very bright but not genius". What I do have is LOTS (and lots) of experience, and a "knack" for looking at two pieces of technology and seeing ways they can fit together that other people haven't.

Humility? Really, above average students don't have your career or degree. You probably tested above the genius level in grade school, I have no problem acknowledging that fact either, no skin off my nose. But, that leads to an enormous blind spot, you're not the only smart guy on the planet. Hell, Rossi is smart. Your arguments on all these threads have this unwritten line at the end of each one, "because I know what I'm talking about and you don't, so there."

It appears that the injury also turned you into a monomaniac. Interesting how being exposed to the word "Rossi" turns you into a foaming-at-the-mouth nutter. Or perhaps one of the Three Stooges (".....slowly I turned, step-by-step, inch-by-inch.....")

Well then, we are both allergic to the same thing because you can't help supporting Rossi no matter what he does or says and your responses are equally 'frothy'. Luckily, it appears we might be closer to finding out what Rossi actually has, then again, he promised millions of e-cats in 2012-2013 made in robotic factories and that was some serious vaporware.

Rossi, if he actually had a scope, is again leaping over the easy method and taking the hard one.
***There is no way for you to know that unless you have inside information. Rossi claims to have proprietary waveform technology in his ECat.

Rossi, by any rational review of his talks, interviews and demonstrations is a master at obfuscation. Transformers are not that expensive. I buy toroid ones for vacuum tube amps and they are cheap. That is not a valid reason. For example, look at the back of any receiver in your house, does it have a voltage selector? Even the cheap ones do. This isn’t rocket science.
***But your assumptions of what he is measuring are pseudoscience.

While my assertions are based on assumptions, the assumptions are based on facts in evidence.
***Not if you’ve been following Rossi. Even then it would still be assumptions until you saw the setup yourself and looked at what it actually was measuring.

Your arguments on all these threads have this unwritten line at the end of each one, “because I know what I’m talking about and you don’t, so there.”
***Classic fallacy: arguing from silence.

he promised millions of e-cats in 2012-2013 made in robotic factories and that was some serious vaporware.
***Yup. He’s a classic inventor, wildly optimistic about how difficult the other stuff like product engineering is to do, as if what he did was the only difficult thing. (Well, if he solved the problem of Cold Fusion, that part would be true enough).

Look, dude. I don't have time to continue responding point-by-point to your multi-part screeds. Pick ONE topic and post it, and I might have time to give you an answer.

Here's the only one you're remotely right about.

"That sounds interesting, what is it and what is it for if you could provide a basic outline? Climate research? Now, this design effort, are you making it incredibly complex using obscure equipment and ensuring you're using up your entire budget or are you using the simplest tools for the job because it makes the eventual analysis of the data, easier?"

The first system is to monitor nutrients (NO3,PO4) in "estuarial waters". We are building the units around a new approach to microfluidics developed by us that uses some components developed in-house, and some off-the-shelf. More off-the-shelf than not...but the basic fluidics approach is our development (and the same as that used in the biowarfare device.....so it is "well tested"). But there are other analyses that can benefit from our way of doing things. Some of it is climate related, and some is about better understanding how the water world works chemically.

The rest of your BS is simply wrong assumptions. Leave the psychology to the experts.

My position on Rossi is what it is because I have read all the reports, at least attempted to watch all the video interviews, and to get as close to primary sources as I can manage. That is, verifiable evidence.

I don't need someone else to "interpret" the data, because I have sufficient understanding of the measurement methods to draw my own conclusions. Case in point....the skeptopath community raised hell over the use of a temperature/humidity probe to measure "steam quality", and claimed it couldn't be so used. Unfortunately for their position, "I" know exactly how such a sensor combination CAN be used to measure "steam quality". So their arguments go "poof".