Talk-Polywell.org

parallel wrote:

Andrea Rossi
May 19th, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Dear Franco:
We are working with good stability at 600 Celsius degrees. This, if confirmed by the next tests, clearly opens all the possible doors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
p.s. Today, Saturday May 19th,right now, 6.10 p.m. in Miami, I am working at 600 Celsius with the new E-Cat

OMG he's a LIAR!!! Or maybe just has bad aim? No wait, he has a miss-set computer. Naw, none of those excuses are possible... he's a LIAR!!!

ladajo wrote:Sounds like it is time for Florida BRC to visit Rossi's apartment again.

Or Crocket and Tubbs, because Rossi is obviously smokin' something.

KitemanSA wrote:

parallel wrote:

Andrea Rossi
May 19th, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Dear Franco:
We are working with good stability at 600 Celsius degrees. This, if confirmed by the next tests, clearly opens all the possible doors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
p.s. Today, Saturday May 19th,right now, 6.10 p.m. in Miami, I am working at 600 Celsius with the new E-Cat

OMG he's a LIAR!!! Or maybe just has bad aim? No wait, he has a miss-set computer. Naw, none of those excuses are possible... he's a LIAR!!!

You mock people who point out obvious holes in Rossi's story but don't mock the man WHO ACTUALLY HAS THE HOLES IN HIS STORY. Naw, him you defend to the death. Golden.

Lucky Einstein remembered to wind his watch every day or the whole theory of relativity would have been debunked.

I don't know anything about Rossi's E-Cat, but the above looks like a simple Daylight Stupid Time error to me.

seedload wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

parallel wrote:

OMG he's a LIAR!!! Or maybe just has bad aim? No wait, he has a miss-set computer. Naw, none of those excuses are possible... he's a LIAR!!!

You mock people who point out obvious holes in Rossi's story but don't mock the man WHO ACTUALLY HAS THE HOLES IN HIS STORY. Naw, him you defend to the death. Golden.

I am 2 days away from retiring. Some time in the next month or so, I may just go thru ladajo's marvelous listing of all Rossi's posts and look for those "obvious holes" you keep harping about. Indeed, the only holes I saw (after a cursory look-see) were not pointed out by anyone else. Folks harped on his not following "forward looking" statements to the letter, and on use of shorthand rather than long cumbersome equivalents, and hear-say, you know, stuff that no judge would allow in court.
People often see what they want. You appearantly WANT to see holes, so holes you see.
Me, I would LIKE to see valid argument, but so far no luck!

And by the way, I am not actually defending Rossi, I am defending the scientific system, one that requires EVIDENCE, not just hear-say. And the Rossi-bites have no more solid evidence that I can see than the Rossi-ites. No data either way. No decision.

oh, the urge to be holier than the Pope...

You know how it ends, KitemanSA, don't 'ya?
Human Rights Watch defending terrorists

But you have some way to go util you get there, so march along, holy as ever.

If Rossi was a theory you might have had a point. But he's a human being, thus being judged not only with scientific regard.

The whole picture, you know...

Take a break from rossimania and consider how two electrons can overcome the mutual repulsion of their coulomb barriers and join to form a tightly bound cooper pair. Superconductor theory might lend a clue to how LENR works.

So.... Can we look inside Rossi's black box yet?

Axil wrote:Take a break from rossimania and consider how two electrons can overcome the mutual repulsion of their coulomb barriers and join to form a tightly bound cooper pair. Superconductor theory might lend a clue to how LENR works.

Here is a clue...

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/ ... onductors/

Electrons may be the glue in cuprate superconductors

The watchwords are electrons and quasiparticles.

happy retirement kiteman

i think youre wrong, in this case, to stick to being scientifically objective about rossi, there is not and most likely will never be any scientific data or evidence from this guy, certainly none to date.

Thus e-cat must be evaluated on the basis of rossi's behaviour and statements, and on that basis, the conclusion must be untrustworthy.

KitemanSA wrote:

parallel wrote:

Andrea Rossi
May 19th, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Dear Franco:
We are working with good stability at 600 Celsius degrees. This, if confirmed by the next tests, clearly opens all the possible doors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
p.s. Today, Saturday May 19th,right now, 6.10 p.m. in Miami, I am working at 600 Celsius with the new E-Cat

OMG he's a LIAR!!! Or maybe just has bad aim? No wait, he has a miss-set computer. Naw, none of those excuses are possible... he's a LIAR!!!

... i think it is a proven legal fact that he has has 'lied'. as too there is factual proof he IS a 'stupid crook' (sorry 'ex-con'). thus, 'caveat emptor', those who continue to 'believe' anything he says.

to be even handed, i don't think Rossi lies 100% of the time, consistently. but he sure tries hard.

(also, not necessarily 'always' stupid, nor necessarily 'always' wrong).

polyill wrote:oh, the urge to be holier than the Pope...

You know how it ends, KitemanSA, don't 'ya?
Human Rights Watch defending terrorists

But you have some way to go util you get there, so march along, holy as ever.

If Rossi was a theory you might have had a point. But he's a human being, thus being judged not only with scientific regard.

The whole picture, you know...

If your "judgements" were along the line of "his data don't support his claims", I would hae to agree with you and as I understand it, that would be a valid scientific statement.

But people like you are saying "he is a liar". They then present trash as evidence and are annoyed with me when I point out their "evidence" is trash.

THEY are making the "positive claim" here (he IS a liar), one that needs evidence to corroberate. Haven't seen any yet.

And no, that doesn't make me "holier than the Pope; just "righteous enough!

303 wrote: happy retirement kiteman

Thank you.

303 wrote: i think youre wrong, in this case, to stick to being scientifically objective about rossi, there is not and most likely will never be any scientific data or evidence from this guy, certainly none to date.

Thank you for your considered opinion. It is similar to my opinion, except I may not be quite so hard over toward the "will never be" as you. And while I also disagree with the "none to date" I would agree with "no convincings evidence to date".

303 wrote: Thus e-cat must be evaluated on the basis of rossi's behaviour and statements, and on that basis, the conclusion must be untrustworthy.

This is where you and I disagree. E-Cat should NEVER be judged based on your perception of Rossi's personality. This is "ad-hominem" to the very core. It also leads toward shoddy evidence being taken as gospel. It is destructive to the mental processes. Avoid the practice if you possibly can. For your own integrity, leave it as E-Cat, unproven. Rossi... seems XYZ.

rcain wrote: ... i think it is a proven legal fact that he has has 'lied'.

Really? Cite?
I know he has been convicted of a failure to meet contractual obligations, but was there the added "INTENTIONAL" in there? I am asking because I don't know. If you have a cite or a site, please provide.

Thanks