Posted on 11/06/2011 10:03:09 PM PST by Kevmo
Media eCat Story Evolves
admin on November 6, 2011 — 27 Comments
The number of media organisations dipping toes into the eCat story continues to grow. From Fox to MSNBC and the UK’s Daily Mail to Wired UK, Forbes and more.
Wired was there before most and now they’ve updated their view, mirroring many of the questions informed skeptics have been asking for some time.
Reserving judgement, they nevertheless note that much of the coverage appears to be softening and wonder if AP is holding back for the bigger story to come. They note the dearth of substantial coverage in the mainstream but voice that and their views on Rossi in positive tones.
A shift is on the horizon. It would not take much for that shift to become a slide – a solid link identifying a credible customer or a qualified and independent observer breaking cover. There is a profusion of potential breakpoints and it is only a matter of time before something breaks. One thing seems likely – as journalists begin to see through the superficial certainty of those screaming Fraud, they are probably the canaries signaling a hidden change among potential investors, genuinely open scientists and cautious sceptics who recognise that there is more to this tale than the artificial noise suggests.
We all know that we do not have the proof required but the complex contortions required to construct a cohesive narrative that does not involve the possibility that Rossi is telling the truth are becoming as incredulous as that simple possibility. An interested person new to the subject and curious enough to peek through the preconception of junk science might be fooled by the contention stirred by a handful of commenters but more are sneaking through and thinking for themselves. Despite the lie that sites such as eCatNews.com are dominated by believers, the ranks of those taking a hopeful stance while waiting for real proof is growing.
The true voice of reason is becoming stronger.
But I’ll bet the Mafia (for lack of a better word) could.Actually, I got the Mafia angle from you:***Geez, where do you come up with this nonsense?
Back in June you posted the following:
Rossi has explained his version of the story on his personal Web site. His well-written story gave me the impression that he was well-intentioned, did nothing wrong, and was merely the subject of persecution from the Italian government and its alleged collusion with the local mafia.You would rather believe Rossi's self-serving story instead of the prosecutors who successfully convicted Rossi and sent him to jail. That's fine. You can believe anything you want, even if it's demonstrably false.
The fact is that Rossi has been convicted and sent to prison several times for fraud. The Petrodragon story is clearly a case of Rossi being involved with money laundering, which is commonly a mob activity.
So, based on the actual evidence, it seems more likely that Rossi was working for the mob, not a victim of it.
The fact that there's no concrete tends to put the kibosh on this little theory.Rossi has never allowed full inspection of his "secret box". I do recall that on the October 8th test (the one Heffner is analyzing), Rossi lifted the corner of the lid and let observers peek in to see a small portion of it.
All Heffer is doing at this point is determining that using nothing more than simple and cheap materials, it is possible to duplicate Rossi's data without anything more than simple, well understood thermodynamics. No magical cold fusion required.
When you have two theories that explain the data equally well, one requiring a magical, secret nuclear fusion reaction, and the other requiring nothing more than a small valve, it becomes much harder to believe in Rossi's secret catalyst and secret companies.
So you are telling us that Brian Ahern built his own e-Cat using instructions provided by Rossi? PROVE IT.
Liklihood....zero.
"So, why has Rossi been able to recreate it??? You have no problem with the factory burning down and taking the working devices with it?
Perhaps because funding ran out, and the consulting firm he worked for/with wasn't willing to fund it independently.
Lots of interesting prototypes end up being non-producible on an economic or multi-unit scale. Happens all the time. Cold fusion case in point....Patterson Cell.....had power outputs similar to Rossi....those outputs verified by independent researchers evaluating units loaned by Patterson(precisely what Rossi plans to do with U. of B. and U. of U.). But Patterson died, and the recipe for his specific "fuel" formulation was lost.
And yes, labs "do" burn down.
I told you specifically which link in which post led to the document. If you're incapable of understanding those SIMPLE directions, perhaps you shouldn't comment on complex subjects.
As I understand it, most of those "convictions" were fines, not jail time.
"The TE project is one of the few times Rossi didn't end up convicted of a crime, so I guess that makes it a successful scam.
Or perhaps it was just a research project that didn't pan out.
"We're waiting to see whether the E-Cat is another.
Yes, we are.
REALLY???? Perhaps you should take time to review the specifications of geiger counters. They detect ANY ionizing radiation, including gammas. Their efficiency for gammas isn't all that great, but they "do" detect gammas. And with BF3 added to the fill gas, they can also detect neutrons, again, not very efficiently, but they "can" detect them.
Better detector for gammas is thallium-doped sodium iodide. Because the interacting substrates are of high atomic number (Tl/I), they interact more strongly with gammas, and with a reasonably thick "window" can be built to detect ONLY gammas. Mechanism of operation.....gamma ray "bumps" electrons off of the substrate, which is captured by the substrate and gives off a flash of light, which is in turn detected by a photomultipler tube. The intensity of the flash is indicative of the energy of the gamma, and the number of flashes is indicative of the amount of radiation impinging on the detector.
Another good detector is Si(Li) (lithium-doped silicon...basically a transistor). In this case, impingement of a gamma knocks electrons into the "conductive band" of the semiconductor. Gives the same info as NaI(Tl), with better resolution of gamma energy. Drawback.....have to be cooled to liquid N2 temps to get good signal/noise ratio.
As I understand it, most of those "convictions" were fines, not jail time.So... You're saying that since he only went to prison some of the times he was convicted of fraud that we should implicitly trust him?
Interesting point of view.
Only in your dreams. But by the same token we shouldn't automatically reject something just because of past behavior. It is necessary to look at ALL the data, both personal and technical. I've done that. You haven't. You and the rest of the seagulls apparently believe that because of some past shady activity we should reject EVERYTHING the man has ever done, or ever does. That position is as psychotic as the one you're trying to foist off on me.
Obviously, I'm no expert in Italian law, but I suspect that most of Rossi's indiscretions are "civil" rather than criminal, and likely of misdemeanor status than felonious.
And no, I don't consider the few links you've provided as "incontrovertible proof". Bad translation and lack of detail prevent that. You're drawing a lot of conclusions from quite sparse evidence. To indulge in a bit of my own "psychotic skepticism"....how do you know that your source is actually impartial?? The Mafia has a long reach in Italy.
But I also look at the OTHER people involved, and THEIR records are (at least as far as I know) spotless. Focardi, Levi, and Stremenos are more than qualified to judge technical merit, and they have been "on the inside" if not from the beginning, at least from the time of first public disclosure. Stremenos, in particular, because of his time as ambassador, is probably more qualified to judge Rossi's personal integrity and credibility than anybody involved, and he seems to think Rossi is on the "up-and-up".
And your "meme" that ALL of those people are "in on it" is simply nuts.
Based on the data from the reports of the demonstrations, I can only conclude that there is a very high probability that Rossi's device is real. What you fail to realize is that to "fake" ALL the different demos, Rossi would have to have devised multiple DIFFERENT ways to fake the E-Cat's performance. Different tests rule out different possible "fakes".
The "psychotic skeptics" over at Vortex-L are really good at coming up with individual POSSIBLE scam modes for the INDIVIDUAL demos, but I don't think any of them have come up with a single method that could scam ALL the demos.
Just use "Johnny B."'s link upthread. That's where I got the quote. This is a USARMY report, not one issued by Rossi. There is another report as well (from DOD, I think) that says pretty much the same thing.
From Me:
There are five links in that post which is why I asked you which one so I knew I was responding to the correct one.
From WW plus him quoting me:
"I'm not wading through link after link and then it's possible I don't have the link you're refereeing to.
Reply #20, last link in the reply. It takes you directly to the report.
From me:
however this is WW trying to be clever, the quote is from up thread.
From WW:
"....but if you do believe and you want others to believe, it would behoove you to supply the link so we know it's the correct one."
Why....it's better if you get to it through "Johnny B.'s" link than one I post. After all, I "might" work for the Mafia, or the CIA, or some ridiculous speculation. But "Johnny B" is the very soul of veracity.
From me:
You didn't even post a link. You did, finally say which one of the five you were referencing.
I assume this is WW's attempt at humor for which he failed miserably. I don't care where the link came from, whether Johnny B or WW.
Then you reply like the above never took place:
From WW:
No. I told you precisely where on the thread to find the correct link. If you're too damned lazy to scroll upthread and click on the link I described, or too stupid to follow simple directions, then **** off.
"The fact that it's in a Johnny B post is immaterial and you know it.
I assumed that finding the information contradicting his comment AT THE LINK HE HIMSELF POSTED would have more veracity than one that I provided.
So can the false outrage.
You also said, and yes, labs burn down. Really, he didn't have his computer backed up off site, he didn't have copies of his design? Why can't he recreate it?
From me:
You are not now nor ever will be in a place to give me orders.
No, but I am in a position to ignore anything you put up in future. Consider that policy from now on.
Actually, I got the Mafia angle from you:
***I got that thread from one of Rossi’s enemies. Even his enemy acknowledges certain facts on the ground.
Rossi has never allowed full inspection of his “secret box”.
***Yeah, but a few hundred pounds of concrete per ECat would have stood out.
I do recall that on the October 8th test (the one Heffner is analyzing), Rossi lifted the corner of the lid and let observers peek in to see a small portion of it.
***Your recollection is far off. There were people all over his device, weighing it, tearing it apart afterwards.
All Heffer is doing at this point is determining that using nothing more than simple and cheap materials,
***I think that’s fantastic. The problem is that for it to be true, the ECats would have to be surrounded by hundreds of pounds of concrete for each device. It is easy to see even on the videos that such a thing is not happening.
it is possible to duplicate Rossi’s data without anything more than simple, well understood thermodynamics. No magical cold fusion required.
***Other than the fact that there wasn’t any concrete observed on the site, it’s a dandy theory.
When you have two theories that explain the data equally well,
***Now, here’s yer problem. Your theory requires tons and tons of concrete and it just wasn’t there. Was it invisible concrete? How can your invisible concrete theory be on equal footing with the LENR theory?
one requiring a magical, secret nuclear fusion reaction, and the other requiring nothing more than a small valve,
***and tons & tons of invisible concrete.
it becomes much harder to believe in Rossi’s secret catalyst and secret companies.
***Yup. If you had demonstrated such invisible concrete, it would be harder to “believe” in the Energy Catalyzer.
I think I see where you’re hitting the speed bump. You assume that Rossi was the first person to demonstrate LENR effects over the last 22 years, whereas in reality the Pons-Fleishmann effect has been replicated more than 14,700 times. So, someone like Brian Ahern who had already replicated the effect could build a similar system to Rossi’s relatively quickly but it doesn’t have to be “his own e-Cat”. Your distortion amounts to a straw argument.
Brian Ahern getting 8 Watts for over four days of operation in a Low Energy Nuclear Process
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2735933/posts
Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:28:27 PM · by Kevmo · 133 replies
“So Brian Ahern is getting some success replicating Rossi and Focardi. Brian Ahern plans to make some adjustments to what he is doing to attempt to get the higher power levels that Rossi and Forcardi have claimed to achieved over the last year or so.”
Next Big Future ^ | June 13 2011 | Brian Ahern
He stated months ago that he expected a full ecat power plant to be running in Greece by September or October. Delivering power on the grid. To customers. For sale.
***I don’t think so. The 1MW demo was always gonna be about heat. Feel free to produce evidence for your claim.
Instead, he delivered a string of thoroughly unsatisfying public demos, culminating in this one you’re crowing about.
***Initially, he was saying there would be NO demos. He acquiesced because his friend Focardi is in ill health and wanted the recognition. Rossi sucks at demos; that’s probably why he only wanted to do the customer demo exclusively in the first place.
He delivered little more than an unverifiable claim that his top-secret customer is pleased as punch because the device can run for a short period of time while connected to a generator, and we’ll just have to wait an unspecified further amount of time for energy to become virtually free.
***Yup. Rossi sucks at demos. He has said this isn’t about convincing skeptics (like you) but about selling units. Eventually the satisfied customers will be enough to convince the ultraskeptics, and if that doesn’t, why should he care?
I think you’re crowing far too much what he’s promised and what he’s delivered. Do you honestly think this sort of timeline of events can’t be considered “dragging it out?”
***Yes
Go ahead, take your football and go home.
How will I taunt you when the Rossi scam is uncovered?
I didn’t hit a speed bump. If Ahern didn’t use Rossi’s equipment, he didn’t duplicate his results. You are quite improperly and dishonestly lumping Rossi in with every other researcher whom has ever investigated cold fusion.
You are quite improperly and dishonestly lumping Rossi in with every other researcher whom has ever investigated cold fusion
***Nothing improper nor dishonest about it. It is exactly what Rossi is, a Cold Fusion researcher. Your extreme requirements for replication are not what is followed in industry nor science, but merely a fantasy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.