Instead of making you go to all the trouble of finding that reply, I'll repost it here:
1. What is your source that he claimed to have a degree from this degree mill?
2. Any reason to dispute this doctorate? It seems to me that's far more significant than debating an undergrad degree.
I do not believe that Rossi has a doctorate.
Let's look at the text of the letter posted at the Nyteknik site (translated by Google):
This is to certify that the documents before the Secretary that Mr. Andrea Rossi was born in Milan on 03/06/1950, has been awarded by this university, on 10/12/1975, examination degree in Philosophy with a hundred and ten votes of one hundred and ten and obtained the academic qualification of Doctor of Science in Philosophy. This certificate is issued on plain paper at the request of, for the purposes authorized by law.
For one thing, the doctorate awarded by the University of Milan is called a "Dottorati di Ricerca" (Doctorate in Research), not "Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia" (Doctor's Degree in Philosophy) as the letter says. As far as I can tell, "Dottorati di Ricerca" is the name of all doctoral degrees in Italy. I Googled the term "Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia" and found some hits; apparently, that is the name of a MS degree awarded in Philosophy (the actual "I think therefore I am" type of philosophy). But the take-home message here is that the name of the degree in the letter is NOT a degree awarded at U of Milan.
Another discrepency is the time line, which is slightly off. According to the Univ. of Milan website, it is required to have both a Bachelor's and a Master's degree before applying for the Doctorate. The Bachelor's program is 3 years; the Master's adds another 2 years. The doctorate is 3 or 4 years. Assuming Rossi entered school at the age of 6 (the age most Italians begin school), he would have graduated at the age of 19 in spring, 1969. Further assuming that he proceeded directly from high school to college, took no breaks, and graduated each level in the minimum time, the earliest I can figure out someone born in 1950 could have earned a PhD would have been spring of 1977. If he had entered elementary school early, at the age of 5, he could possibly have pulled off a Doctorate in spring, 1976. Either way, his timeline is one or two years short.
Another discrepancy is in the way the degree is described as having been awarded in the letter, with "110 votes". The Italian doctorate is awarded on the basis of several criteria--passing a PhD exam, submission of a dissertation, and a jury examination. As far as I can tell, the jury consists of three members.
Other oddities that stand out are that he supposedly obtained his doctorate on "relativity" and that he has no actual certificate to show for his doctorate. The "relativity" topic is rather nonsensical; in my experience, PhDs are awarded in fields of academic study (for instance, in "Genetics" or "Theoretical Physics") and the topic of the PhD is given in the dissertation title, for example, "Mechanisms of toxicity exhibited following exposure to heterocyclic halogenated hydrocarbons." And where is his actual doctorate certificate? That is not something that people typically lose, and people usually like to display it so that others can see it--my PhD certificate is nicely displayed in a cherry frame, along with my graduation tassels, and I keep it hanging on the wall in my office. Plus, if I should need to document my PhD, I request copies of my transcript be sent; I don't ask for a letter stating the degree I received.
I suspect the letter shown is a fake. The letter shows oddities: the font size changes for no discernable reason, and even though it is not right justified, there are variable gaps between words.
Lastly, Rossi neither acts like a scientist nor speaks the language of science.
I found this information with the help of Google, the U of Milan website, and Google translate.
Golly Kev,
why can’t we all stay on topic with ad hominem attacks on Andrea Rossi? You spoil the game by introducing hard science from the United States Navy that confirms Rossi is not only a scientist but a savvy entrepreneur.
See, I specialize in what’s called “reframing” the argument. It’s a kind of chef specialty taught at the pretty good school of propaganda. Lots of treacherous aholes use it to distract people from the facts.
I’m just pissed the facts are the whole LENR phenom is real and producing products that’ll shut down my in-bred fiefdom of criminals and mobsters! We want to control science so’s we can rip you ignorant clowns off keepin you addicted to oil and um... “hot fusion.” That hoax cost ‘Mericans $6 BILLION DOLLARS and they got jack sheit to show for it.
So, um let’s keep trying to kill the messenger like exMom - cause the facts Rossi’s delivering are killing us!
ExDemMom, you make some good points. Keep in mind that all the Rossi’s fanboys like Kevmo are playing the person across the board (nitpicking about academic degrees) and not the pieces on the board (namely, scientific and engineering facts). I ignore the person and focus on the chess pieces on the board.
Almost all the postings from Kevmo to Free Republic are dishonest: not so mcuh dishonest to the general public (and it is indeed) but -more importantly- dishonest to themselves, the pro-Rossi camp. What I am referring to is confirmation bias: the postings ignore the failures and trumpet the ‘’successes’’, not realizing that the failures point to some essential issues relating to the engineering of viable energy generators.
David Goodstein, vice-provost of CalTech, wrote a book “On Fact and Fraud”, relating to scientific fraud and error. Chapter 5 focuses on Cold Fusion. Prof. Goodstein talked about his friend Prof. Scaramuzzi who became involved in cold fusion frenzy. However, Scaramuzzi changed his methods (read the book for details) and came up with the most solid evidence for LENR. Work by Rendell Mills (hydrino) is mainly pathological science. Work by Rossi may have started as pathological science but is becoming more and more just plain fraud. I am surprised that Rossi (italian) did not consult his fellow countryman Dr. Scaramuzzi.
In science, they say that any process which does not violate the basic laws of physics will occur to SOME non-zero extent. Question: what is the speed of said process? All the papers listed in the various LENR websites end up with unknown (experimentally and theoretically) proportionality factors. A glass of water (say, 100cc), make it deuterated water, a room temperature and 1 atm., WILL be the locus of 1 nuclear fusion event: would that be 1 event per day? per year? per decade? per century? per millenium? Whatever number you come up with should be compatible with observations of the geology of Earth and with the behavior of the surrounding Cosmos. One may say: ‘’well, the experimental conditions are SOOO SPECIAL that no way it can be reproduced in Nature!!!’’ No dice. Earth has at least 2 things going: time (4 billion years), mass (mega-gigatons of metal and hydrogen/deuterium).
In previous postings, I showed that the acceptance of radioactivity as a true event was very rapid since it filled in the gap between current observation of volcanism and the (old and discarded) theoretic result (by Lord Kelvin) that Earth cannot be older than 100,000,000 years. In the 1950’s the analysis of selected volcanic eruptions pointed to Aluminum-26 (radioactive) to be the main driver of Earth’s nuclear process but the levels of Aluminum-26 were too high. Then scientists found that Earth’s mantle and core is not homogeneous. The current and standard model of Earth’s geological process gives a good (not perfect) accounting of Earth’s geological history and composition (element-wise and isotope-wise).
Is there a place for LENR in the modelling of Earth’s behavior? Of course, yes! There is some badly needed search of the scientific literature that Rossi, Mills, and their fanboys can do and that is their homework.
All the work I have seen on LENR/cold fusion have 2 processes going on: 1- a physico-chemical process (overlooked or ignored) 2-(probably) a LENR process.
The platinum-based experiments have a greater probability of exhibiting LENR than the Nickel-based experiments. So far, none of experiments (including the electrochemical) have done a complete and accurate energy audit of the COMPLETE fuel-product cycle. Given the incomplete energy audit, the excessive energy ratio has been in the 2 to 6 range, well within the physico-chemical process capabilities. How can one assure a complete energy audit? That is the homework for Mills, Rossi, and their fanboys.
How come the focus on Platinum and Nickel? Prof Miley of U. of Illinois at Urbana used laminated Pt/Ni plate but the nuclear results would have more to do with Pt and not with Ni. Rendell Mills - at least him - explored quite a range of chemical mixtures and came to the Ni/H system at least 2 years before Rossi. I would not be surprised if Rossi stole Mill’s idea, dropped the hydrino hypothesis and stuck with the LENR. Even the experiments of Pons and Fleischmann were not original: they were repeating some experiments done in Germany in the early 1930’s. All events point that Ni and Pl become the focus because of the physico-chemical process (much more common) then the possible (and rare) LENR process. The issue of catalyst as in Rossi’s e-cat is a chemical concept, not a nuclear one and said catalyst affects only the physico-chemical process, not the nuclear one.
Hey! I will be working on my own (theoretical first!) study of liquid Pb/Ca/D system. Lead has an atomic number (82) greater than that of Nickel (28) and of Platinum (78) [a very important point!!], is cheaper than Ni and Pt, and has a lower melting point than Ni and Pt. The choice of Calcium can be replaced by some other element whose atomic number is less than 28 (Nickel having the most stable nucleus). Liquid form since the enhanced-lattice crap (found at LENR websites) is just a red herring. Besides, in liquid form, any metallurgical peculiarities disappear and the physico-chemical process goes away. D is for deuterium (essential but there is a range of Deuterium concentrations which does not interfere in the possible LENR. What is that range? That is for me to know and you to guess).
As one of the references (pointed to by commentator JohnnyB) stated, the energy involved in the Widom hypothesis is way too high to be plausible. There is another mechanism (not mentioned in any of the papers at the LENR websites) involving less energy than the Widom hypothesis: possible with the Pt electrochemical process, absent in the Rossi scheme.
The latest posting by commentator JohnnyB listed 4 NASA powerpoint presentations. All of them just listed what was out there in InternetLand (no experiments done at NASA). But then all of the presentations drifted into FantasyLand, dreaming of breadbox-sized cold-fusion engines for space travel. Not. Going. To. Happen. Going back to the David Goldstein’s book, Chapter 5 talked about Scaramuzzi’s extensive efforts to rule any artifacts masquerading as LENR: the experiments went on continuously for months and there were sporadic bursts of neutrons. Here is where I become disappointed: what is the definition of “sporadic”? 1 burst per day? 1 burst per week? Too often accounts of LENR are written like the UFO books of yesterday. The sporadic nature of the results (thus implying long intervals of failure) points to the proper engineering design of stable LENR output. Take a few steps back. One of the Free Republic commentators made a very relevant point: the power density (per kilogram) of the Sun is 0.001 watt (=1 milliwatt) whereas the heat output per kilogram per second of the human body is 1 watt.
The US Navy experiments relate to electrochemical processes, not Rossi’s scheme. Vague accounts of “glowing” processes going on for hundreds of days (100 days? 200 days? 300 days?), vague accounts of converting in 2 months 10% of Nickel into Copper: put them in the same category as UFO’s and werewolves.
LOL. Your "research" is laughable. Lots of speculation, very little in the way of verifiable fact. Here's a clue. I was born in 1947. I graduated with my PhD (chemistry) in 1973. And I lost a year switching from mechanical engineering to chemistry. So much for your timeline.
As an example, here is a sample Rossi tirade posted here.
"We will run also in self sustained mode, the periods will depend on many factors. In any case, the power output will be 6 times the power input. About the snakes: the time of the snakes is over. The start up of the 1 MW plant is the end of the mental masturbations of enviuos, wannabe theorists, lecturers of calorimetry and engineering. Now LENR goes to the market. The test will not be made by me, but by the Customers’ consultants. Time of chatters is over. Maybe the test will not be good, maybe: it will be the first time I will start up a plant of that dimension, but in this case the problem will be the Customer, not the bunch of imbeciles that instead of understanding that we actually made LENR a reality lose their time digging holes on the surface the water in the middle of the ocean to find the wine. And in the case this test will go not well, we will learn and remake another, and another, and another, but, be sure, we will arrive to the target. At any cost."