10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[tomclarke]

he only thing that can change that, is a well written experiment, and a release of all his data, but then, it isn't about the science.... yet. Its still about the money, and excuses of why he won't release all details.

Rossi says you are wrong (and I agree with him.) The only thing that will convince the skeptics is commercial sale of products. Even that will take some time.

Just out of curiosity, you accuse Rossi of fraud: so how is he making money out of it when he is paying for everything himself?

I don't accuse Rossi of fraud at all, and never have. I'm just following Occam's Razor. I think Rossi is likely guilty of overzealous wishful thinking, nothing more. Wishful thinking has a much lower threshold than fraud. The "wishful thinking" explanation and fraud both, have a lower threshold than having to rewrite 100 years worth of Physics texts because of this new science. Wishful thinking, seems to be the easiest and simplest explanation we have. Rock solid, and very accurate data, however might hold sway, allowing for repeatability, thus lowering the threshold of "New Science" to below "overzealous wishful thinking".

Something you said, however, leads me to believe this will not be the case. You implied in an earlier post that casual measurements would be good enough. I also heard that he's connected his E-cat to 240V AC.

240 VAC is great power.... and we all know that with great power comes great ..... responsibility. Responsibility in this case is to take accurate, non-casual measurements, none of this... "withing 10%" business you mentioned earlier.

It is likely Rossi believes his own stuff. He just doesn't take non-casual measurements, possibly because at some level, he may prove to himself that he can only arrive to a dead end.

I suspect there will still be discussion of this decades hence, yet with little to show for it, in both new science or products for sale.

Yes. People are good at self-delusion, and Rossi has no training or motive to question his every step.

[tomclarke]

Giorgio pretty much sums up my feelings as well.
One has to be particularily sceptic, because Rossi is making extraordinary claims.

ECREE. The standard skeptic's credo. And it is a good one. But real skeptics WITHHOLD judgement until the evidence is in, they don't use a lack of evidence as "evidence" to the contrary. I would be happy if folks around here withheld judgement until the evidence was in.

Skeptics treat extraordinary claims as very unlikely true until there is extraordinary evidence.

Rossi has created a coterie of people excited that his stuff is for real.

The skeptical position is that until strong evidence exists it is not real. That is withholding judgement.

[KitemanSA]

The trouble is, there is always a simplest explanation for any experimental result, which may or may not have anything to do with the researchers explanation. The simplest explanation is that Rossi is a wishful thinker on a mission, whom, according to even his most ardent advocates, is very slipshod in his experimental measurements.

You know, if the values he was getting were in the typical milli to deca watt ranges that most others get from LENR machines, I could agree with you. I don't see how three years of supposed data at tens of kilowatts can be a mistake.
SCAM
DELUSION
REAL
The options as I see them.

I understand that Rossi's purpose was to demonstrate the E-Cat actually worked without going to the accuracy of measurement that would be desirable for a scientific paper. It didn't really matter if the results were 10% off - it would make no difference.

Personally, I think it does, especially in a field where the cart is typically pushed by the horse, where far too many advocates all over the world are chasing fortune over science, since it's 'inception' in 1989. I'm interested in Science, and Rossi's bank account focus over building evidences certainly gets in the way.

In the protection of P&F, it wasn't them that wanted to publisize their machine, it was the Dean(?) of their college that pulled the stunt. Too bad.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

Rossi has no training or motive to question his every step.

Don't be so bloody rude. He is a European trained engineer, as am I. We were trained far better than most scientists to actually do things and check our results. You don't see many bridges falling down.

Why do you suppose NASA has been doing so brilliantly since the flock of European trained engineers that largely put men on the moon retired?

[Giorgio]

tomclarke,
Don't be so bloody rude. He is a European trained engineer, as am I. We were trained far better than most scientists to actually do things and check our results. You don't see many bridges falling down.

So is Tomclarke and so am I. What's your point exactly?

[parallel]

Giorgio,
You do have a reading problem.
tomclarke wrote

Rossi has no training...

Or are you going to parse that to mean something different?
You don't sound like an engineer from what you write. What are you?

[Giorgio]

Giorgio,
You do have a reading problem.
tomclarke wrote

Rossi has no training...

Or are you going to parse that to mean something different?
You don't sound like an engineer from what you write. What are you?

Let me help you understand.
Tomclarke made this statement:

.... Rossi has no training or motive to question his every step.

This is simply a true statement because Rossi is not an Engineer.
He has a degree of philosophy from Milano University. Hence he had no training to question his experimental steps and procedures.

To this you replied:

Don't be so bloody rude. He is a European trained engineer, as am I. We were trained far better than most scientists to actually do things and check our results.

As you seem to imply that European Engineers have much better training and quality standards at checking results, I took the liberty to let you know that also me and Tomclarke are European Engineers and, by questioning Rossi claims, we are doing exactly what you stated we are good at, we are checking and judging the quality of his results and we are pointing to the fallacies that they show.

So, what didn't I understand of your post that brought you to say that I have a reading comprehension problem?

You don't sound like an engineer from what you write. What are you?

Trying to move the focus from the main subject by questioning the credibility of the posters is a trick old as Internet itself. It won't work.
Stick to facts, if you have any.

[chrismb]

Don't be so bloody rude. He is a European trained engineer

But this is 'new physics', not 'new technology'. Not that I would undermine my own credibility by suggesting we, engineers, cannot string a null hypothesis together, but it's not typical 'standard-tool-kit' for engineers.

In so many ways, this is why I keep harping on about this website being about 'known physics' being used in 'unknown ways'. In my own work, I am not purporting to be coming up with any new physics, just cleverly engineering known physics.

But getting to the hub of the matter... what are his qualifications, exactly? I have seen people refer to him as Ing but I do not recall him referring to himself as such.

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,

Rossi has no training or motive to question his every step.

Don't be so bloody rude. He is a European trained engineer, as am I. We were trained far better than most scientists to actually do things and check our results. You don't see many bridges falling down.

Why do you suppose NASA has been doing so brilliantly since the flock of European trained engineers that largely put men on the moon retired?

I was making an assumption (which seems true) that Rossi has no good technical training. It was based on my reading, in detail, his comments on his blog on reply to many other posters. You can tell BS when you read it.

As for whether engineers or scientists have better training to check experiments you can argue it both ways. There are cases of engineers (e.g. Laithwaite) going mildly off the rails and claiming spurious experimental support antigravity machines etc... Probably physicists too. But they more often claim weird theories (Penrose).

I think all that is needed is the humility not to believe what you think you see without double & triple checking, and then to treat it with considerable caution until it has been reviewed & replicated by others. An engineer will naturally do the first, a scientist naturally the second.

[Giorgio]

But getting to the hub of the matter... what are his qualifications, exactly? I have seen people refer to him as Ing but I do not recall him referring to himself as such.

In Italy he got a degree in Philosophy.
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... _Milan.pdf

In USA he got a degree in "Chemical Engineering" from a non accredited university. According his website:

In 1979, Andrea Rossi will get the degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Kensington, California (USA) thanks to many professional credits earned at the University and lots of registered patents since the first years of his professional career.

[parallel]

Giorgio,

Doctor of Philosophy, abbreviated as PhD, Ph.D., DPhil or D.Phil. (for the Latin philosophiae doctor or doctor philosophiae), in English-speaking countries, abbreviated as Dr. Phil. or similar in several other countries...

Taken literally means most scientists have advanced degrees in philosophy.
I assumed that Rossi was an engineer because that is how he is referred to in many of the pieces I've read. Pretty clearly he is an engineer/inventor from what he has done in his life.

I'm pretty sure tomclarke thought he was an engineer at the time he wrote that Rossi had no training, which I took to be a disparaging remark from a scientist about engineers. Is tomclarke an engineer or a scientist?

IN essence, I don't like ad hominems

[tomclarke]

But getting to the hub of the matter... what are his qualifications, exactly? I have seen people refer to him as Ing but I do not recall him referring to himself as such.

In Italy he got a degree in Philosophy.
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... _Milan.pdf

In USA he got a degree in "Chemical Engineering" from a non accredited university. According his website:

In 1979, Andrea Rossi will get the degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Kensington, California (USA) thanks to many professional credits earned at the University and lots of registered patents since the first years of his professional career.

Here you go:
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/ken ... university

He is not trained as engineer or scientist.

[tomclarke]

Is tomclarke an engineer or a scientist?

I guess I am trained as mathematician mostly but have done lots of engineering. Science has been a lifelong interest, and maths of course includes theoretical physics.

I thought Rossi had no training when I wrote my remark - it was not anti-engineers.

Experimental phjysicists and engineers share a lot anyway.

[chrismb]

I'm pretty sure tomclarke thought he was an engineer at the time he wrote that Rossi had no training, which I took to be a disparaging remark from a scientist about engineers. Is tomclarke an engineer or a scientist?

That's a bullshit backtrack.

Who are you to tell TomC he was rude?

I don't like bullshitters or schmoozers. Are you one or other, or will you be recognising by open and unconditional admission that you made a totally unfounded claim about Rossi?

He is a European trained engineer, as am I. We were trained far better than most scientists to actually do things and check our results. You don't see many bridges falling down.

This is what you said. We want to know on what did you base that comment. Time to put up, or shut up. The clock is ticking.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

So it is certain that you received "no training" in how to run experiments

I recall my structure's lecturer had a math degree from Cambridge. He explained he took math because it was the only course where he didn't have to attend a single lecture...

My main criticism was that your remark was an ad hominem.