Page 363 of 424

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:13 am
by quixote
DeltaV wrote:Note that this post represents neither an endorsement nor rejection of Rossi, et al.

Since we have pathological scepticism and pathological faith, can we classify this as pathological noncommittalism?

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:45 am
by Enginerd
quixote wrote:
DeltaV wrote:Note that this post represents neither an endorsement nor rejection of Rossi, et al.

Since we have pathological scepticism and pathological faith, can we classify this as pathological noncommittalism?


I'm not certain if our noncommittalism is sufficient to merit the term pathological. I think we will need more evidence first.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:22 pm
by Joseph Chikva
KitemanSA wrote:I DO think that it is more likely that his claims will turn out to be false than true.
The patient is rather dead than live?

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:05 pm
by seedload
KitemanSA wrote:Never ascribe to evil what stupidity will explain.


Nobody thinks your evil, Kite.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:10 pm
by ladajo
Amazingly, over in Acland Fantasy World and also Sterling Land nobody has yet picked up on the fact that Rossi is still showing the same box.

In Acland World it has even been hailed as a new generation build and further proof that Rossi is not lying.

I wonder what the combined cool-aid bill is over there?

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:58 pm
by KitemanSA
seedload wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Never ascribe to evil what stupidity will explain.


Nobody thinks your evil, Kite.
What about my evil?
And I don't think you're evil 'load. But you do have trouble with English.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:02 pm
by KitemanSA
So does anyone know how to ask Rossi about the box?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:44 am
by DeltaV
quixote wrote:
DeltaV wrote:Note that this post represents neither an endorsement nor rejection of Rossi, et al.

Since we have pathological scepticism and pathological faith, can we classify this as pathological noncommittalism?

Maybe, maybe not.

Really though, more like a desire to avoid adding to this thread's page count growth rate. I do believe there is something to LENR (just look at the trail of dead bodies). My best guess is that something like Widom-Larsen Theory (weak nuclear force reaction) will eventually explain the mosaic of data. I have no definite opinion on Rossi because I don't have time to follow ecat. Now, if Lamborghini puts ecat into one of their cars, I'll make time.

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:20 pm
by ladajo
KitemanSA wrote:So does anyone know how to ask Rossi about the box?


Someone here was/has posted over at Rossi's blog and got answers. Escapes my mind first thing in the morning. I must be getting old...

So I take it you are conceding the point on it being the same box?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:43 pm
by KitemanSA
ladajo wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:So does anyone know how to ask Rossi about the box?


Someone here was/has posted over at Rossi's blog and got answers. Escapes my mind first thing in the morning. I must be getting old...

So I take it you are conceding the point on it being the same box?
I am conceding that it looks very much like the same BOX. What that means in the scheme of things is what my question to Rossi would be aimed at.

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:55 pm
by MSimon
KitemanSA wrote:
ladajo wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:So does anyone know how to ask Rossi about the box?


Someone here was/has posted over at Rossi's blog and got answers. Escapes my mind first thing in the morning. I must be getting old...

So I take it you are conceding the point on it being the same box?
I am conceding that it looks very much like the same BOX. What that means in the scheme of things is what my question to Rossi would be aimed at.


Seen one box. Seen 'em all.

All those boxes look alike to me.

I prefer the box lunch.

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:59 pm
by MSimon
The real trick of the illusionist is to get you to believe in the illusion even though you know it is an illusion. Making Penn and Teller some of my favorite magicians.

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:03 pm
by ladajo
KitemanSA wrote:
ladajo wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:So does anyone know how to ask Rossi about the box?


Someone here was/has posted over at Rossi's blog and got answers. Escapes my mind first thing in the morning. I must be getting old...

So I take it you are conceding the point on it being the same box?
I am conceding that it looks very much like the same BOX. What that means in the scheme of things is what my question to Rossi would be aimed at.


I think simple and direct would be the best way. I think it was ScottL that asked Rossi about the Cu transmutation as part of the reaction as I recall. I also think it was possibly him that asked about the radiation/products danger as a result of "explosive testing" also. Maybe he can post this over in Rossiworld...

"Mr. Rossi, it has been strongly alleged via photographic and video evidence that the 1MW Ecat shown in the Swedish TV Video is the same one used in October 2011 for testing, then subsequently seen throughout 2012, and that it is the only one you have ever made, and has never been sold or delivered to a customer. Is this true? Can you clarify?"

If he says it is not the same one, then an offering of the photo and video proof is simple enough to show he is lying. If he does say it is the same, then he will need to do some entertaining (and probably not effective)dancing to try and clear up his previous statements about its status.
Easy enough to cite those as well if need be.

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:31 pm
by ScottL
I've asked several questions to him either via his blog or various e-cat sites, none of which ever produced an adequate answer. In most cases he skirted around the question or ignored them completely, giving me answers about stuff I didn't not ask about. I subsequently gave up when I realized I'd never get a straight yes/no answer or often an answer on the same subject.

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:32 am
by KitemanSA
Ladajo,
I think your question is too confrontational and has too many parts. Rossi seems quite adept at answering part of a question in a way that is true but may cause you to think he said something else.

"The shipping container that held your first unit has the same unusual dents as the one that was shown in the recent Swedish video. Why is that?"