What we DO know, is that Kullander and Essen, professional scientist and skeptic, did not check very much, taking anything Rossi said to be true without checking. So how can we know anyone else involved will do a better job of checking?
Hanno Essén is an associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society
Their role in the Andrea Rossi affair began when they expressed an interest in the eCat and then attended a Bologna demo. During that demo, the eCat seemed to produce around 5kW of heat from a small sealed vessel (50 ccm) containing Hydrogen and Nickel. They were allowed to check for hidden conduits and examine the instruments and various elements of the system. They were not allowed access to the core but since it was small and the claimed energy large, it was reasonable to treat the device as a black box to determine its utility.
And remember this was just the 50cc version of the E-Cat and Essen was former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.
If you can't trust him, just who would you trust?
And remember this was just the 50cc version of the E-Cat and Essen was former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.
If you can't trust him, just who would you trust?
Again, you obviously fail to see the difference between a demonstration and a test. Essen was vitnessing a demonstration, he was not conducting a test or an investigation.
recent NDA that we had received wrote:The Recipient shall not be liable for disclosure of Confidential
Information that: (a) was in the public domain at the time it was communicated to the Recipient by XXXXX, or
entered the public domain subsequent to the time it was communicated to the Recipient by XXXX other than
by a breach of this Agreement by the Recipient; (b) is or was rightfully received or known by the Recipient without
restriction on disclosure or any obligation of confidentiality; (c) is or was independently developed by employees of
Recipient; (d) is or was generally made available to third parties by XXXX without restriction on disclosure;
ladajo wrote:Given we don't actually know the terms of the UoB NDA, what use is all the speculation?
I am sure Giorgio can ask his buddy for a copy, or sections. But, I would say, (speculation and opinion only), that given Giorgio's long history here of be upfront and honest, he is representing the situation as it presented itself to him. Now, obvioulsy that does not mean that Giorgio's source is stand up. But let us leave that to Giorgio to pull the string on, and tell us what he thinks.
Now, all that defense of Giorgio done, I must now find something to vehemently disagree with him on.
I didn't think about that, but given that he stated that the NDA is not binding anymore the UoB I think he should have no issues in delivering me a copy of it, either informally or by making a direct requests to UoB.
After all they are a public university and these should become public documents once expired.
I'll give him a call and ask him directly about this.
Just for the sake of discussions, there are also NDA that are situation based, meaning that once the situation has been finalized you are not anymore bound to the NDA. As example, I might sign NDA that I will not disclose a plant and equipment layout until after the bid envelope is open or the contract is signed. This is particularly common in my field, so, given the many different experiences I have read in the last few pages it looks like NDA rules widely change from sector to sector.
Anyhow, let's see if I can get a copy of this NDA, I am getting curious too now and it might also be a good way to distract me a little from my China life.
GIThruster wrote:Odds are good someone is pulling your leg.
He has been very truthful till now, but you might have a point there.
This whole Rossi story has been very stressful for many people inside UoB as many felt they was just being used by Rossi to push his claims. Still, the allure of 500K Euro was too big to be discarded. Italian University are extremely underfunded, and 500K do make a huge difference.
Now that Rossi didn't pay there are many inside UoB that have a bitter attitude against him, especially all the undergrads that was hoping on those money to make end meets during the coming months.
I will press him to get a copy of the NDA, let's see how this will evolve.
This is a good explanation for why my views on LENR and AGW are so different from tomclarke's and the scientific establishment.
As you will see Dr. Stoyan Sarg (Sargoytchev) is a Bulgarian-born Canadian who holds an engineering diploma and a PhD in Physics and has been around enough to know what he is talking about.
What we DO know, is that Kullander and Essen, professional scientist and skeptic, did not check very much, taking anything Rossi said to be true without checking. So how can we know anyone else involved will do a better job of checking?
Hanno Essén is an associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society
Their role in the Andrea Rossi affair began when they expressed an interest in the eCat and then attended a Bologna demo. During that demo, the eCat seemed to produce around 5kW of heat from a small sealed vessel (50 ccm) containing Hydrogen and Nickel. They were allowed to check for hidden conduits and examine the instruments and various elements of the system. They were not allowed access to the core but since it was small and the claimed energy large, it was reasonable to treat the device as a black box to determine its utility.
And remember this was just the 50cc version of the E-Cat and Essen was former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.
If you can't trust him, just who would you trust?
That was exactly my point parallel. You cannot trust anyone who approaches the tests in a "friend of Rossi" way. And those who approach the tests looking for problems (who would be welcomed by a scientist) will get called snakes and shown the door by Rossi pretty quickly.
These professors got egg on their faces over this "test".
Anyone promising a miracle will find people of all professions - even swedish professors - willing to suspend critical thinking and believe.
In this case what is surprising is Essen's totally un-skeptic like approach to the test: starting with his extraordinary assumption that everything Rossi says should be regarded as reliable.
We know, from his multiple contradictions, that that cannot be safe. But a skeptical approach to extraordinary claims would double-check everything regardless of the reputation of the originator. A good scientist, with such a claim, woyuld require this.
These professors got egg on their faces over this "test".
Anyone promising a miracle will find people of all professions - even swedish professors - willing to suspend critical thinking and believe.
In this case what is surprising is Essen's totally un-skeptic like approach to the test: starting with his extraordinary assumption that everything Rossi says should be regarded as reliable.
We know, from his multiple contradictions, that that cannot be safe. But a skeptical approach to extraordinary claims would double-check everything regardless of the reputation of the originator. A good scientist, with such a claim, woyuld require this.
When I read the articles and watched the video interviews, my take was not so much that they just took Rossi at his word, but wanted to say that there were things that were not physically verified, but were Rossi's commentary. So in other simpler words, they said, "this is only what we saw, and this is what Rossi told is is why." I do think that they tried to draw a line between "What Rossi said" and "What we saw", and then tried to point out that there were big leaps that depended soley on "What Rossi said", but did so in a more subtle and indirect manner (maybe gentlemanly???).
I any event, I did not think that they thought it was good to go. I thought that they understood there were key points of proof that remained soley on the word of Rossi. They just chose to point these gaps out in a non-aggressive manner.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
They just chose to point these gaps out in a non-aggressive manner.
Precisely.
Unlike Dick Smith's approach... Spare me the details. I know it is fake and they are all criminals trying to rob Mom & Pops of their pathetic savings.
tomclarke tries to run down Kullander and Essen in much the same way. They are not "friends of Rossi" and he has no data to back his accusation that they didn't look for tricks and were incompetent.
Rossi was right about required proof if nothing else.
What we DO know, is that Kullander and Essen, professional scientist and skeptic, did not check very much, taking anything Rossi said to be true without checking. So how can we know anyone else involved will do a better job of checking?
Hanno Essén is an associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society
Their role in the Andrea Rossi affair began when they expressed an interest in the eCat and then attended a Bologna demo. During that demo, the eCat seemed to produce around 5kW of heat from a small sealed vessel (50 ccm) containing Hydrogen and Nickel. They were allowed to check for hidden conduits and examine the instruments and various elements of the system. They were not allowed access to the core but since it was small and the claimed energy large, it was reasonable to treat the device as a black box to determine its utility.
And remember this was just the 50cc version of the E-Cat and Essen was former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.
If you can't trust him, just who would you trust?
A professor of experimental physics. Calorimetry to be exact.
Last edited by MSimon on Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
parallel wrote:And remember this was just the 50cc version of the E-Cat and Essen was former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.
If you can't trust him, just who would you trust?
Nobody here has accused Essen or Kullander of dishonesty.
Rather the demos/tests they witnessed were not rigorous enough to provide proof for Rossi's claims - which, btw, is something they themselves admit.
They just chose to point these gaps out in a non-aggressive manner.
Precisely.
Unlike Dick Smith's approach... Spare me the details. I know it is fake and they are all criminals trying to rob Mom & Pops of their pathetic savings.
tomclarke tries to run down Kullander and Essen in much the same way. They are not "friends of Rossi" and he has no data to back his accusation that they didn't look for tricks and were incompetent.
Rossi was right about required proof if nothing else.
He [Kullander] also said that Rossi is definitely not a fraud and that his friend Focardi and Levi is absolutely not frauds. They are his friends and he trust them.
That was first I found, though my memories are of a different para - maybe in their comments on reports... saying their results were premissed on the assumption that Rossi was truthful.
Parallel - do I need to find a more direct quote from them?
As for running them down. I was not above. I'm pointing out that they did not do the job of critical appraisal needed. But that was never their intent. As friends of Rossi they were there to provide friendly validation.
However there certainly are clear issues in the tests they witnessed (debated at length on this thread - do we have to do it again?) which they did not pick up, so to that extent they could have done better.
I think they would say that was never the intention of the tests, and that they did what they set out to do.
