[Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
A word of caution, thanks to Steve Krivit http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/15/rossi-discovery-what-to-say/ Since Krivit has come forward with this today, I guess it is OK for others to publish the same information that has been floating around Italy for a couple of days regarding Rossi's two prior criminal fraud convictions. This needs to be addressed by Rossi, even if it is tangential to the claimed work. It actually shows up on the Italian version of Wiki. IOW the two (or more) prior criminal problems, should be completely ignored if they were unrelated to this new work, which they are not, or if the experimental results are absolutely shown to be valid, which is less than certain. Ask yourself this, could the results which have been shown have been faked by a convicted con-man, who BTW - has no record of having gotten a PhD from anywhere in Italy, other than the Mail-order variety, and is in serious difficulty in the USA because of prior allegations for funding received from DARPA, inappropriately, for thermoelectric work which was never completed ? I think the enthusiasm shown today this work so far is fine, and I am still part of the cheering section - but this word of caution should be taken into account, and put forward for answers from Rossi himself. Maybe there is another man with the same name who is responsible. As a community, the honest people in LENR do not want to be seen by skeptics, in a couple of months, as having been completely gullible and taken-in by a convicted con-artist, should he be shown to be faking this. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
All beginnings are messy, why should be the LENR era be an exception? I know that the merits belong, first of all to Prof Piantelli. However it had been a very long period when the process had not been reproducible and upscalable- till the critical know how elements have been discovered. It is fine that Steve warns us about Rossi's past, however I think we are more interested in the present and future of the device we have seen yesterday working. Suppose Rossi is the Al Capone of science and the Ostap Bender of technology, how many non working damned generators will he sell? I think his past, character, are not relevant. Let's be intelligent, the Romanian thinker Mihail Ralea has given a negative definition of intelligence: *To be intelligent means to NOT mix (confuse) the points of view* * * And the same thinker has defined seriousity as being focussed on the core of the things, on the essence, not on the halo of the trivia floating around them. On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: A word of caution, thanks to Steve Krivit http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/15/rossi-discovery-what-to-say/ Since Krivit has come forward with this today, I guess it is OK for others to publish the same information that has been floating around Italy for a couple of days regarding Rossi's two prior criminal fraud convictions. This needs to be addressed by Rossi, even if it is tangential to the claimed work. It actually shows up on the Italian version of Wiki. IOW the two (or more) prior criminal problems, should be completely ignored if they were unrelated to this new work, which they are not, or if the experimental results are absolutely shown to be valid, which is less than certain. Ask yourself this, could the results which have been shown have been faked by a convicted con-man, who BTW - has no record of having gotten a PhD from anywhere in Italy, other than the Mail-order variety, and is in serious difficulty in the USA because of prior allegations for funding received from DARPA, inappropriately, for thermoelectric work which was never completed ? I think the enthusiasm shown today this work so far is fine, and I am still part of the cheering section - but this word of caution should be taken into account, and put forward for answers from Rossi himself. Maybe there is another man with the same name who is responsible. As a community, the honest people in LENR do not want to be seen by skeptics, in a couple of months, as having been completely gullible and taken-in by a convicted con-artist, should he be shown to be faking this. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
The allegations about Rossi reported by Krivit have been circulating for some time. I described Rossi as eccentric and I mentioned the havoc he has reportedly caused. This is what I had in mind. When evaluating a claim of this nature you should try to ignore the personality and history of person making the claim. A good example is Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz. who was a psychopathic murder. He was a leading expert and his book on caring for birds is still in print. Still, it is difficult to ignore the allegations about Rossi, and perhaps it would be unwise. I have hesitated to endorse his claims because I have heard all of these rumors about his past. Having said that, I am confident that you cannot fake boiling water, and there is no way a power supply can draw 10 kW, so Rossi's credibility is irrelevant. Some of Krivit's other assertions in this article are ridiculous, or asinine. He seems to be taking credit for introducing Piantelli to the world. That would be like me taking credit for introducing Arata or Patterson. Everyone in this field knew about Piantelli long before Krivit came alone. I uploaded Piantelli and other Ni-CF papers soon after starting LENR-CANR.org. Every major book and review of the field, including my book, discusses Ni-CF. Most of them discuss Mills. (I did not, because I thought it was too much technical detail for a book about potential future technology.) Krivit wrote: . . . of a nickel-hydrogen low-energy nuclear reaction device that purportedly produced excess heat. A minor gripe: that should be reportedly or appear to not purportedly. Purport implies specious or second-hand information. Many American LENR researchers were skeptical, I suspect because successful Ni-H LENR technology would make their palladium-deuterium research projects irrelevant. Ni-H also, of course, disproves the hypothesis of 'cold fusion,' which is bad news for some LENR researchers. That is ridiculous. LENR researchers worldwide -- not just Americans -- are skeptical of the Ni results because these results have not been widely replicated, despite tremendous efforts by people such as Srinivsan during his time at SRI. If you are not skeptical of these results you are not a scientist. Furthermore, this does not in any way, shape, or form disprove the hypothesis of cold fusion. Deuterium may not be involved but hydrogen can also fuse. Other reactions may also be occurring but other reactions and transmutations occur with D-Pd cold fusion as well. No one ever claimed that D = He is the only reaction that occurs with palladium. The fact that it is much harder to fuse H and D with plasma fusion has no relevance. According to plasma fusion theory, any kind of fusion at room temperature is impossible. A few extra orders of magnitude of difficulty for hydrogen does not make it significantly more impossible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
Jones Beene wrote: I strongly suggest that nothing … absolutely NOTHING … seen so far, proves that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on things not in the record. Well, I do not speak Italian, but based on the blogger's comments and the caliber of the people who worked on this project, I disagree. I would say there are plenty of technical indications this claim is real. The blogger comments, photos and other materials are here, by the way: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-lenr-cold-fusion-demo.html Some quotes that lend credibility to the claim (re-arranged in chronological order): Focardi, said colleagues in the Physics Department are taking action in the calibration of measuring instruments. . . . Rossi took the floor, anticipates that the reactor will be switched soon. Pass the word to Professor Giuseppe Levi, Department of Physics of Bologna. [I think this means gave the floor to . . . IOW, Levi spoke] Explain the types of measures that will be made: 1) estimate the energy produced on the basis of the measure of how much water is vaporized in the second, and 2) to understand the source of the process of energy production seek to ensure that hydrogen is not burned (by measuring the mass at the beginning and end of the experiment). Prof. Levi has finished speaking at the reactor and returned. . . . Levi Professor of the Physics Department has confirmed - in response to a question - he does not know how the reactor is built, it was limited to measuring what it produces. This tells us that various professors at the university have been involved for some time, and they designed and implemented the calorimetry. I do not think there is any way Rossi could fool these people. I think that would be physically impossible. Rossi may be a crook but he could not persuade Levi to destroy his career. The fact that Levi and other established professors took part in the experiment is about 4 orders of magnitude more significant than what Rossi may have done, or the unexplained fires, or his criminal record (if he has one). Krivit should have said that. I dislike the way he focuses on personalities and allegations, and ignores the technical content of the demonstration. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
Dear Jones, I don't understand what you say exactly. What I know for sure is that Piantelli has a perfect reproducible Ni-H process and this one developed by Piantelli's former collaborator and an inventor is very similar to that. Why do you believe that I am speaking about Ni-H technology in general, that by the way is an abstraction? The device works, don't know how it works- no problem but nobody, including its developers don't know either, reaction X responsible for a% of the released heat and so on...Heat cannot be correlated with known nuclear reaction, no theory. Therefore- thank you for mentioning my friend Randy my guess is that hydrinos are at the play and I intend to ask him how can this be proven- or on the contrary. Randy's CIHT technology will be demonstated this year, most probably late summer. I am a chemical engineer have worked mainly for process developments- so I am able to appreciate the difficulties. Jones vs Leonardo- ia nie znaiu- have no idea. Peter On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck Ø Suppose Rossi is the Al Capone of science and the Ostap Bender of technology, how many non working damned generators will he sell? I think his past, character, are not relevant. You miss the point almost completely, Peter. This is not about the nickel hydride technology in general, which is solid – going back twenty years. No one doubts that this level of gain can be accomplished, in principle. But has it been accomplished in fact? Do not forget Randell Mills’ (Blacklight Power) prior art position, either. Except for the slight radioactivity seen by Rossi, Mills is arguable better positioned in this niche. Mills’ experiments are rock-solid in my book, unlike what has been shown today. Mills also claims a much larger COP. Yes, Rossi’s past history is only relevant if it is part of his present. We agree on that. In bringing up the fiasco in New Hampshire, I am indicating that he appears to be afoul of the Law there, and that was very recent - so we cannot be certain that this latest episode is not more of the same. That remains to be determined. Notice specifically that he NEVER mentions Leonardo Technologies, which owns the rights to this new work. The specific question for us now is this: does Rossi have a **bona fide advancement** in the nickel hydride niche, or not? I strongly suggest that nothing … absolutely NOTHING … seen so far, proves that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on things not in the record. Certainly his (already rejected) patent application proves nothing. Yes, there are indications that he has found the “secret ingredient”, but this depends on his credibility. If so inclined, almost any good con-artist could fake a better presentation than what has been shown. Is Rossi still that kind of con artist? He was four years ago in the DARPA fiasco. Maybe he has reformed now, who knows? … all that we do know at present, until he addresses the charges of prior conduct, including the Leonardo contract - is that he “once” was in that category. Jones
RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
We are talking past each other. The operative word is proof. Since even Focardi himself admits that he is not permitted to see inside the reactor, and since chemical reactions could provide this level of excess for a few hours, or since an fairly safe alpha emitter could provide it for longer - and since no one can be sure that the reactants have not been replenished periodically - there is no firm proof yet. Don't get me wrong, I do think he has something. But why not let's all get on the same page and clear the record before the skeptics do it for us? BTW - I also think that Randell Mills has something valid and similar. Are they different? If nothing else, maybe Rossi will force Mills' hand. Jones From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: I strongly suggest that nothing . absolutely NOTHING . seen so far, proves that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on things not in the record. Well, I do not speak Italian, but based on the blogger's comments and the caliber of the people who worked on this project, I disagree. I would say there are plenty of technical indications this claim is real.
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
No dear Jones, Focardi has looked inside the reactors starting 1994. It is an other professor who made the black box measurements. I like your mode of thinking re methods of crookery, but do not think they are realistic- in this case. Randy is a different subject. Peter On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: We are talking past each other. The operative word is “proof”. Since even Focardi himself admits that he is not permitted to see inside the reactor, and since chemical reactions could provide this level of excess for a few hours, or since an fairly safe alpha emitter could provide it for longer - and since no one can be sure that the reactants have not been replenished periodically – there is no firm proof yet. Don’t get me wrong, I do think he has something. But why not let’s all get on the same page and clear the record before the skeptics do it for us? BTW - I also think that Randell Mills has something valid and similar. Are they different? If nothing else, maybe Rossi will force Mills’ hand. Jones *From:* Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: I strongly suggest that nothing … absolutely NOTHING … seen so far, proves that he does have it. I think he does, but that is only based on things not in the record. Well, I do not speak Italian, but based on the blogger's comments and the caliber of the people who worked on this project, I disagree. I would say there are plenty of technical indications this claim is real.
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The operative word is “proof”. Since even Focardi himself admits that he is not permitted to see inside the reactor, and since chemical reactions could provide this level of excess for a few hours . . . I have heard from reliable sources that the thing has been run for much longer, well past the limits of chemistry. Obviously this particular press conference test proves nothing! I find it very disturbing that Focardi, Levi and the others have not been permitted to see inside the reactor, but not because I think it calls the results into question. I could see right into Patterson's experiment, but he hid the most essential aspect of it, which was how to make the beads. He and Reding told me their goal was to prevent others from replicating even though they had a patent. They succeeded all too well: they took the secret of the experiment and any hope of replicating it with them to the grave. I fear that Rossi will do the same thing. He is no spring chicken. Let us not underestimate Focardi, Levi, Celani and the others. They are not fools. If this thing could be explained as a chemical reaction -- that is, if it had only been run for a short time -- they would know that as well as you or I. In another message here, someone suggested it is odd that the reaction stopped as soon as the hydrogen was shut off. Not necessarily. Clearly the hydrogen could not all have been consumed, but perhaps the pressure is a control factor. It is in other experiments. Actually, that is very good news, since it means they can control the reaction. That is another important point that could not have escaped the attention of Focardi et al. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
hey...This is Italian science ...not WASP science. ;-) Harry
RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
At the risk of appearing to 'beat a dead horse' let me make a couple of other comments relevant to the 'big picture' of nano-nickel technology. 1)Mills and BLP may try to distance themselves from Rossi due to one critical detail: *radioactivity*. Mills' entire patent protection is vulnerable if it is discovered that the Ni-H system goes radioactive in a short time. I am certain that this cannot be avoided. The implications are disastrous for BLP. 2)Focardi and Rossi are 'not exactly' partners in this, since Leonardo Technologies, founded by Rossi but owned by shareholders, is the real owner of the technology and they may be trying to keep him on a short leash. 3)This has led some to believe that originally, Rossi was trying to 'play both ends against the middle' and to quietly, even secretly - obtain Euro-funding in Italy for a parallel project with Focardi, from which he would be paid a large fee, and avoid Leonardo's claim on it. 4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy of Focardi, going back to the early nineties - and that is probably the way in which Steve was alerted to Rossi's sordid past. Who says that rational science is immune from the soap opera effect of petty jealousy and multiple layers of intrigue and 'white lie' dishonesty? Jones
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: 4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy of Focardi, going back to the early nineties They co-authored a paper in 1994, so I doubt they were bitter enemies then. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
Might I provide some different points of view from real-world (i.e., personal) experiences... Sometimes decisions are not so clear-cut... I've come to a conclusion in my life that those who live by absolutes probably live in a box, or have not been involved in a sufficient number of situations to realize that what one thought was a clear, black or white, right or wrong decision, all of a sudden isn't. I was helping out a very bright (PhD at age 15), but unconventional inventor in ~2003. We had made good progress and things were looking up for investment opportunities. Unfortunately, one of the persons involved was a real slime-ball. When the inventor went oversees, on his return trip he was refused admittance back into the US because his VISA expired -- he was a Canadian citizen, and wasn't too diligent about keeping watch on annoying details, like the VISA renewal period being shortened! So the slime-ball took this 'opportunity' to change the locks on the lab to secure the prototype, create a new business entity and transfer all assets, and then filed suit... we tried to fight the legal battle, and won the first few rounds, but the inventor's health suffered and he couldn't get the $ to continue the fight, and the slime-ball ended up getting a summary judgement, thus, succeeding in stealing the technology/business. You will to this day find a legal judgement against the inventor, but if you don't know the details, you will come to the wrong conclusion as to who was right, and who had integrity. The legal system is just a tool in business, and if you don't have the money to use that tool, regardless of whether you're right or not, you will lose... I personally am friends with a very competent businessman who has been fighting a major oil company over gasoline leaking into the ground from one of their service stations. Even though he has overwhelming evidence that 5 gallons leaked instead of the 50 gals they claim, he has spent years and millions fighting this in the courts, both state and fed'l. You'd think it should be cut-n-dry, but the legal system has a very complex set of rules and if your attorney slips up just once, it could cause you to lose the battle... NOT because you weren't right; NOT because you didn't have the evidence to prove your point, but simply because you didn't follow procedure; didn't follow the rules. The inexperienced think that truth will prevail; justice will be served! Unfortunately, that is not guaranteed. Its not surprising that he has a VERY jaded view of the legal system these days... As far as Rossi's 'fraud' charges... What if Rossi had done enough experiments to know that he was onto something, but, as many transformative technology inventors find, it is very difficult to get the $ required to continue the work. So you begin to stretch the truth, and if things get real desperate, lie, in order to get the $ you need... I would look to how the money was spent to determine if it was that grey area. If the person was buying fancy cars and using the money for 'lifestyle enhancement', then I'd say they deserve the scoundrel label and time in jail. However, if they spent the money on the research and lived a very modest life, then I'd cut them a little slack. Doesn't make it right, but in the real world, things are not always black or white. Perhaps for a well established business, there's not much 'grey' area but in my experiences with 'fringe' or 'out there' startups, there's alot of grey... Ask yourself this question: If you had done experiments and knew that given a reasonable amount of $ you could prove that this wonderful discovery works, how far would you go to get the resources you needed? We're not talking a new kind of toaster.. we're talking about how the world produces energy. The very wheelwork of civilization is energy -- all manufacturing, transportation, communication is energy-hungry... Reduce the cost of energy to 1/100th of what it is now, and it will transform the planet... overall, for the better. And if that new energy is clean, then its all the more important... and greys the situation/decisions even more. Both Jones and Jed make valid points on this topic... and Steve reminds us of the history. Its good to have all that collective knowledge to work off of. My position is, knowing Rossi's past means be a bit more cautious, but the importance of the discovery warrants giving him a chance and some time to answer all the questions that will come... BEFORE one starts with the judgements! As I've argued before on this site, be careful about rushing to judgements when you do not have intimate details of the situation. For the bright inventor I mention above, unless you are one of 10 people who were directly involved, you could not possibly know what really went down and who was the real scoundrel... in today's world, perception and reality are seldom the same.
RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
Jones wrote: Who says that rational science is immune from the soap opera effect of petty jealousy and multiple layers of intrigue and 'white lie' dishonesty? It most definitely is NOT, especially when big $ are at stake... -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi At the risk of appearing to 'beat a dead horse' let me make a couple of other comments relevant to the 'big picture' of nano-nickel technology. 1)Mills and BLP may try to distance themselves from Rossi due to one critical detail: *radioactivity*. Mills' entire patent protection is vulnerable if it is discovered that the Ni-H system goes radioactive in a short time. I am certain that this cannot be avoided. The implications are disastrous for BLP. 2)Focardi and Rossi are 'not exactly' partners in this, since Leonardo Technologies, founded by Rossi but owned by shareholders, is the real owner of the technology and they may be trying to keep him on a short leash. 3)This has led some to believe that originally, Rossi was trying to 'play both ends against the middle' and to quietly, even secretly - obtain Euro-funding in Italy for a parallel project with Focardi, from which he would be paid a large fee, and avoid Leonardo's claim on it. 4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy of Focardi, going back to the early nineties - and that is probably the way in which Steve was alerted to Rossi's sordid past. Who says that rational science is immune from the soap opera effect of petty jealousy and multiple layers of intrigue and 'white lie' dishonesty? Jones
RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
You could be right, and my-bad for passing on rumor . unless, that is, this is one of the papers which caused a falling-out, which continues to the present. Was Piantelli present? For instance, it appears the Italians were in the habit of listing co-authors alphabetically, to wit: S. FOCARDI(1), V. GABBANI(2), V. MONTALBANO(2), F. PIANTELLI(2) and S. VERONESI(2) Whereas, one of the five - might have - at some later date - considered himself to have been the lead investigator, but realizing that he is not getting the credit he deserves. Who knows? BTW a close look at this paper and the ones cited prior to it shows that energetic nickel-hydride has been around a long time - and that the major advance which pushed it over the top in recent years - is probably the emergence of nano . Randell Mills, in contrast - chose a commonly available form of nickel early on - Raney nickel - which since the 1920s was made in such a way (leaching out aluminum from an alloy) that it was already nano in an inverse sense . and therefore Mills had a form of nanopowder a decade ahead of the others. . what a tangled web this may turn out to be . From: Jed Rothwell 4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy of Focardi, going back to the early nineties * They co-authored a paper in 1994, so I doubt they were bitter enemies then. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
You can find a coauthored paper in 1998 too. FYI Piantelli is 77 years old and ill- asthma, he cannot travel. And is a very bright scientist. The other authors as Vera Montalbano have done the analytical chemistry, microscopy etc part. Peter On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You could be right, and my-bad for passing on rumor … unless, that is, this is one of the papers which caused a falling-out, which continues to the present. Was Piantelli present? For instance, it appears the Italians were in the habit of listing co-authors alphabetically, to wit: S. FOCARDI(1), V. GABBANI(2), V. MONTALBANO(2), F. PIANTELLI(2) and S. VERONESI(2) Whereas, one of the five - might have – at some later date - considered himself to have been the lead investigator, but realizing that he is not getting the credit he deserves. Who knows? BTW a close look at this paper and the ones cited prior to it shows that energetic nickel-hydride has been around a long time - and that the major advance which pushed it over the top in recent years - is probably the emergence of “nano” … Randell Mills, in contrast - chose a commonly available form of nickel early on – Raney nickel - which since the 1920s was made in such a way (leaching out aluminum from an alloy) that it was already “nano” in an inverse sense … and therefore Mills had a form of “nanopowder” a decade ahead of the others. … what a tangled web this may turn out to be … *From:* Jed Rothwell 4)As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy of Focardi, going back to the early nineties Ø They co-authored a paper in 1994, so I doubt they were bitter enemies then. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A word of caution on Rossi
WELL SAID! Jones Beene said [snip] Randell Mills, in contrast - chose a commonly available form of nickel early on - Raney nickel - which since the 1920s was made in such a way (leaching out aluminum from an alloy) that it was already nano in an inverse sense . and therefore Mills had a form of nanopowder a decade ahead of the others [/snip]
