Rossi on Skepticism — Empathy with the Wrights

Here’s another video clip from Thomas Florek’s recent interview with Andrea Rossi in which he discusses the topic of skepticism.

Andrea Rossi: skepticism from Thomas Florek on Vimeo.

I find Rossi’s position to be a rational one. We are all aware here of the hyper-skeptics about whom he speaks who simply don’t want to consider the possibility that there could be something to his technology. Honest skepticism is a normal reaction to a highly unusual claim, and that was my position when I first learned about the E-Cat. Upon study and investigation, my position changed because of the evidence that I looked at. As time has gone on I haven’t come across anything that has pushed me back to the skeptical position — quite the contrary.

I see now that we are again in something of a waiting position — which always seems to increase skepticism. The promised 3rd party report has been published, we’re anticipating a new one this coming autumn, and we’re now waiting for news about the industrial partner. The best information I have been able to obtain indicates that the partnership is indeed real and efforts are underway to ramp up industrialized production capabilities, and I’m expecting that in time there will be many fewer people holding a rational skeptical position regarding the E-Cat.

  • Methusela

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810&cpage=2#comment-734612

    Eugenio Mieli:
    I already answered to your questions: please see my answers on July 3rd and July 4th 2013.
    Please read carefully those answers:
    1- The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential
    2- We have great hopes for the E-Cat and what it can accomplish, and I am pleased about the findings of the other scientists who have participated in evaluating it so far. As this technology is still in the development stage and undergoing rigorous review, I want to allow the continued process of testing our technology to determine its potential and its uses. I am pleased with our progress to date and I will share more as our work continues.
    AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH:
    The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, manipulate, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is alwaus special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory).
    3- Technological development can require a long process, involving many changes as a technology moves forward. E-Cat is undergoing that process now. This process will continue as long as needed, until such time as the team believes the technology is able to fulfill its promise in commercial settings.
    4- E-Cat is still also in a phase of R&D, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific question.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Sanjeev

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-alexander-phd/there-is-no-free-energy_b_3499480.html

    A usual denial by a PhD type dinosaur. But the comments are interesting.
    May be some of us can comment constructively there citing the recent mizzou article, recent US navy patent(granted) and iccf18 etc.

    • Roger Bird

      I don’t see that he is a dinosaur or a denialist. I do see that he may not be up on the latest with LENR. Remember that we have microscopes focused in LENR and he is probably playing tennis and writing articles about the grid and having a authentic life. Not everyone knows what we know.

  • Ecat

    Andrea Rossi
    July 8th, 2013 at 10:25 PM

    Eugenio Mieli:

    AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH:
    The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, manipulate, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is alwaus special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory).
    3- Technological development can require a long process, involving many changes as a technology moves forward. E-Cat is undergoing that process now. This process will continue as long as needed, until such time as the team believes the technology is able to fulfill its promise in commercial settings.
    4- E-Cat is still also in a phase of R&D, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific question.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Roger Barker

    What irks me is Rossi claimed he had a working eCat over two years ago. Yet we are still seeing demonstrations and tests. Does anyone know when can we see an eCat in operation at a client site?

    • glhf

      There have been claims of machines that are capable of producing excess energy since at least Bhaskara’s wheel in the 12th century but apparently none of these have really worked out. Then perhaps there is some sort of “free energy conspiracy” (see Wikipedia) where these technologies are held back by groups or individuals with selfish motivations. Then you have Rossi who has a device that apparently produces excess energy but he has a reputation speckled with similar claims that didn’t pan out, and he has underestimated milestones on his current project. Then you have some from MIT and NASA and Nobel laureates saying LENR is real and skeptics and the mainstream press, perhaps harried by the 100% record of previous unfulfilled promises, saying it isn’t. I agree it is irksome, but it is also like a really good potboiler fiction where you can’t wait to see what happens next.

      • daniel maris

        I thought nuclear fission was shown to produce excess energy…am I wrong then?

        • glhf

          I was fast and loose in my wording, according to the first law of thermodynamics the total energy of a closed system is constant there is no such thing as excess energy.

          • Roger Bird

            But we all know that that is semantics. So it is a pointless point, a point that serves no purpose.

          • Rockyspoon

            Unless you change the matter in that system into energy by Einstein’s equation E = MC^2.

            The matter in the system isn’t considered “energy” in the common sense of the word. However, change just a small franction of the matter into its energy equivalent and it would be.

            That’s what most would consider “excess energy”.

            No tricks, deception, or guile. Just unadulterated science.

        • zvibenyosef

          Strictly speaking the “excess” energy is from the conversion of a small amount of matter into energy according to Einsteins famous equation. No magic involved

      • zvibenyosef

        It appears you have spent far more time researching Rossi and his “reputation” as you put it, than on catching up on the latest developments in LENR. That with your comment about 100% unfulfilled promises is a clear indication of your agenda. Just write confusing and contradictory statements to try and muddy the water right?

    • Kim

      Everybody is afraid of the boogey man.

      Respect
      Kim

    • Roger Bird

      Roger Barker, I wish that you as a tax-payer would have irritation toward hot-fusion proportional to their failure to deliver. I was told in the late 1960’s that hot-fusion was just around the corner.

      I feel similarly about Rossi, but I know and I want you to know that 95% of the irritation is because we are following it so closely and want it so badly.

      • Roger Barker

        Oh believe me, I have immense irritation towards all promises made for energy which have never materialized.

        • Roger Bird

          Well, don’t you think that your (and my) irritation should vary according to how much money you and I have spent on an energy source that has not yet produced anything? Rossi = exactly $zero. Hot-fusion = our share of $billions. So the ratio is roughly $10 divided by $0, which is . . . hot-fusion gets infinitely more of my rage than Rossi. Of course, this is silly, but illustrates how our interest and focus is on Rossi and how he irritates us ever so much more. But remember this when you decide who to vote for.

  • kasom

    we are close to mid july 2013 and there is no news about the 1MW customer, nor the 6 month Hotcat test, A.R. responses on JONP are miraculous, no news regarding the “partner”! I do hate Krivit, but I am getting nervous about what i have been hopefully following the last two years, sadly……..

    • Rockyspoon

      Patience, grasshopper.

      All in due time.

      Rome wasn’t built in a day.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    As Greenwin pointed out, Pomp and Ericsson are at least suspect because of their connections to a “fission-based research focused on high energy neutrons” (can we say funded hot fusion research?). To think they have the balls to accuse the third party rapport of not being independent just because Levi knows Rossi makes them, with their background, totally unbelievable.

    Rossi in the interview seems very lucid and clear in his talking. I do not see a scammer at all, and should he turn out to be a fraud then I can be sure I have been conned by someone with a much greater intelligence than my own. There’s no shame in that.

    However, with all that I know about him I find it seriously difficult to consider his ecat does not work as advertised. I’m personally convinced it is working. It’s just a matter of perfecting the reactor before someone else does it and goes to the market first. And that is a good thing because the pressure to deliver first to the market makes sure as little as possible time will be wasted by all involved considering the potential earnings involved.

    We just have to be patient for a little longer. Boy that’s hard to do…

  • Dave Lawton

    A cosmic contribution of Nickel. It is written in the stars.

    http://earthsky.org/earth/explosion-from-russian-meteor-heard-round-the-world-twice

  • Sandy

    Taking a jab at Rossi…

    “Recently, we find a few grandstanding activities based apparently on commercial purposes on various internet sites.”

    Akira Kitamura, Editor-in-Chief, “Proceedings of the 13th Meeting of Japan Cold Fusion Research Society”. Meeting held December 8 – 9, 2012, WincAichi, Nagoya, Japan. http://www.jcfrs.org/file/jcf13-proceedings.pdf

  • Sanjeev

    I didn’t read the patent fully but it looks like a Pd-D wet cell spitting neutrons, gamma and stuff. Congrats to US Navy….took 6 years ONLY.

    From :
    http://coldfusionnow.org/navy-lenr-patent-granted-transmutes-radioactive-waste/

    This U.S. Navy patent transmutes radioactive elements into less harmful elements through a benign “cold fusion” low energy nuclear reaction process. The patent was granted April 16, 2013 for a device and method that shortens the half-life of radioactive materials by increasing their rate of emissions.

    • GreenWin

      One must wonder; with a Federal Disctrict Court Order freezing all nuclear power permitting – why would DOE not be all over this patent? Why are they NOT working with Navy to expedite a method of high speed neutralization of radioactive waste??

      Basically, we have here what appears to be a viable solution to the thousands of tons of radioactive waste. The issue has legally frozen the nuclear power industry (regardless of Obama’s announcements.)

      Maybe Senator Feinstein should take a look at these Navy results and then walk over to visit Ernie Moniz at DOE. Ernie is backwards in the MIT way of fighting innovation, clinging to hot fusion and outdated fission. But Senator Feinstein is a senior Committee member and could pointedly ask why DOE is not following up on what Navy has discovered.

      A little heat on Moniz might jar him out of the old school orthodox thought bubble he lives in.

      • Paul Maher

        Hey Friend, Why does the DOE website http://www.energy.gov return “0” hits on “cold fusion”, and you get 1,000+ on http://www.science.gov which has the DOE and OSTI logo’s on it

        There are about 6 or 8 websites sponsored by the DOE from Newton to NASA’s Eagleworks. There’s big stuff coming soon.

        Paul

    • Jim

      Gee, I wonder if they’ve thought about whether there’s any excess heat, like for pushing 70,000 tons of metal through the water.

  • RenzoB
    • RenzoB

      Googletranslate + corrections

      There is no peace for Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat. The publication of the now famous independent third-party test on the E-Cat high temperature seemed to represent a turning point in the story starring the Italian engineer and his creature, which promises to revolutionize the world of energy.

      But even the new test came in the middle of strong controversy, carried out by an article made by Professors Goran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp, nuclear physicists at the University of Uppsala, which is highly critical of the test and openly questioned the results.

      The criticism of Ericsson and Pomp -published on arxiv.org, the platform of Cornell University on which also the E-Cat tests were made public, in their report Ericsson Pomp and question the real independence of the testers noting that some of them had already participated in previous demonstrations organized by engineer Rossi. It ss also criticized their own qualifications to perform these tests because they do not have adequate preparation for a “black box” test.

      Ericsson and Pomp wonder how the testers could be assured that inside the reactor there is nickel and hydrogen if they have not been able to open.

      Furthermore, the same reference to “trade secrets” about the “fuel” of the reactor brings a veil of shadow over the real operation of the reactor itself overshadowing the possibility that it could be using a second source of energy.

      This accusation stems from the fact that Ericsson and Pomp do not agree on the choice to perform the tests in the laboratories of Leonardo Corporation made available by engineer Rossi. The two scientists also point out that in both tests the reactors were put into operation by personnel authorized by engineer Rossi and not by the testers themselves.

      Regarding the measurements, according to Ericsson and Pomp, the December test must be invalidated because no data have been reported on emissivity. For the test in March, the two critics claim to have been able, through the COSMOL (a simulation tool used in physics) to replicate the same results without the involvement of any abnormal heat. The two critics consider that there is no data were provided on the unloaded dummy (“dummy”).

      The conclusions of the report of Ericsson and Pomp were harsh: they accuse their colleagues to have made to prevail their hopes above the scientific rigor and, based on all the observations prior reported, express the conviction that no truly independent test was performed on the E -Cat. Ericcson and Pomp therefore conclude that neither the test published on Arxiv or elsewhere has never proven that there’s an “abnormal production of energy.”

      The answer of Professor Bo Höistad – This is clearly a very harsh report in which, not only doubt is cast on the operation of the E-Cat, but also on the reliability of the same scientists who have carried out two tests in December 2012 and March 2013 so as to explicitly accuse them of having followed a typical method of “pseudo-science”, that is to skip to extraordinary conclusions without first having sought explanations in traditional physics.

      We therefore decided to contact Professor Bo Höistad, a nuclear physicist and professor at the University of Uppsala and one of the authors of the famous independent test, to allow him to replicate and to explain its position on the target of criticism by Ericsson and Pomp.

      IBTimes: Dear Professor Höistad, Ericsson and Pomp bring into question the independence of the testers, especially Professor Levi and Petterson. How do you respond to this charge?

      Bo Höistad: First, let me point out that the article of Pomp and Ericsson is written with a very negative provision towards Rossi and tried to find all the possible arguments to support their idea that Rossi is cheating. As a result they are very critical about our tentatively positive results. Their paper, instead of directly discuss our findings in a scientific manner, focuses on a number circumstantial issues that have no relevance to the primary outcome i.e. if our results are correct within the errors estimated. Furthermore they attribute to us different statements that are false. Also there are many deliberate omissions, unwarranted opinions and false claims. Finally, their article is written in a polemical style tended to insult and ridicule rather than bring clarity to a complex scientific controversy.

      On the question of independence, it is an obvious contradiction that the result of our measurements may be rejected only because one of our authors (Levi) and Rossi know each other. Our result should be judged on scientific grounds and not on the basis of insignificant relationships.

      IBTimes: In the report of Ericsson and Pomp it is also said that neither you nor the other authors of the study have the appropriate skills to carry out a test “black-box”. Is that so?

      Bo Höistad: As researchers in experimental physics, chemistry and radiology with a long experience in advanced techniques of high precision our expertise is evident. It should be noted that both Ericsson and Pomp are nuclear physicists, while our group includes a much broader field of science.

      IBTimes: We come to “technical” criticisms, the fact that the tests were carried out in the laboratories of Leonardo Corporation puts into question in any way the results published by you and your team?

      Bo Höistad: We used our experimental tools. Rossi has only provided his E-Cat reactor with its electrical box. It also allowed us to use his laboratory that we have carefully inspected before testing. Rossi was not involved in the test in any way. One of his technicians helped us to operate the E-Cat, but then he did not take part in any way to the measurements.

      IBTimes: I report some questions that are addressed in the study. How do you know that inside the reactor there are nickel and hydrogen since you could not open it? Why was the reactor put into operation by technicians assigned by Rossi?

      Bo Höistad: We were there when Rossi emptied the reactor fuel, although we have not seen him doing it. We have also implemented a fuel analysis after the operation of the reactor. But strictly speaking we can not be 100% sure that the fuel that we have analyzed is the same that was present in the reactor. However, this has no relevance to the main result of the measurement that it has produced a large excess heat compared to the combustion chemistry of ANY substance.

      IBTimes: What can you tell us about the “fuel” and “trade secrets” that surround him? Is it really possible – as suggested in the study by Ericsson and Pomp – that a second source of energy has been used ?

      Bo Höistad: If you are referring to some form of hidden energy to cheat, we have made every effort to unmask an trick of this kind.

      At this point of our investigation it does not make sense to make assumptions about the nature of the excess heat produced by the reactor fuel. In particular, any hypothesis on the prevalence of a nuclear reaction is understandable only if a nuclear transition can be localized, and so far it has not been so.

      Note that we communicated it in the “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder”, and our results should certainly be repeated by more comprehensive studies. Our current results are interesting enough to continue these studies. Presumably there is still a long way to go before we can confirm or deny the operation of the E-Cat reactor (I made this observation to the Swedish newspaper Ny Tekink, New Technology, and Ericsson and Pomp know).

      IBTimes: How do you respond to criticism on the measurements for both the December test for the March?

      Bo Höistad: Their conjectures about the difference in the excess heat produced between the test in December and March are incorrect. Just look at our paper.

      IBTimes: Finally Ericsson and Pomp argue that in the tests you made you find a typical attitude of pseudo-science, which is moving quickly to extraordinary conclusions rather than trying to find explanations in the physical standard. It is a very heavy criticism: How do you respond?

      Bo Höistad: It is very unfortunate that Ericsson Pomp and resort to wicked and mischievous comments. Accusing colleagues with a long and distinguished series of hundreds of scientific articles published in the most important international journals in physics to be sold to pseudo-science is simply a severe insult and beyond any reasonable level of a decent academic behavior. Frankly speaking I am ashamed of having colleagues at the University of Uppsala that don’t refrain from personal attacks of such a low level.

      • Robyn Wyrick

        Freakin excellent.

      • GreenWin

        It’s good to hear Prof Höistad responding to the highly offensive tone adopted by Pomp and Ericsson – an accusatory, personal tone reflective of the orthodox response to Pons & Fleischmann.

        Turns out Pomp and Ericsson are a virtual science hit team, sent to attack any area of nuclear physics that does not conform to their (Pomp & American Physical Society, Ericsson & IEEE) “standards and limits.” In 2009 Pomp & Ericsson teamed up to attack Italian researchers finding evidence of piezonuclear reactions. Their attack style is accusatory, negative, implying incompetence:

        “…their Reply displays a worrying lack of control of their experimental situation and the data they put forward as evidence for their claims.”

        Pomp is a member of the Nuclear Reactions Research Group – fission-based research focused on high energy neutrons, utilized in fast Gen IV power reactors. Pomp parrots the APS official view of standard model with little room for anomalies, cold fusion or, phenomena like piezonuclear reactions.

        In a previous post I pointed to Ericsson’s publishing record clearly tying him to the mainstream utility industry. Taken together, these two critics are biased to represent the vested interests of the nuclear power and utility industries.

        • Jim

          Pomp and Ericsson have soiled themselves.

    • AB

      Bo Höistad telling it like it is.

      • Warthog

        I made the unfortunate choice to read through the Pomp and Erickson “critique”. Same old, same old tactics that the skeptophysicists have used since Pons and Fleischmann. A ludicrous exercise in polemics……NOT science of any sort.

        Shame on’em.

    • Robyn Wyrick

      I don’t recall if the 6 month test (reported to begin this summer) will include the same test team as the previous 90 hours of testing.

      However, I think the first 3rd party test was radically valuable (besides for the obvious reasons) in that it brought forward the exact nature of the criticisms that the new test can look to head off.

      I mean that in the best way possible: the critics are fulfilling an important role of lining out the nature of the hill these tests have to climb.

      Of course there is junk mixed in with the good criticism, but there has been some valid criticism. The DC power question was a good one, and one that was answered by the testers in their subsequent comments, but missing from the report itself.

      No doubt the 6 month test will be looking for any cheat, and the report will detail all of the means used to expose any.

      • Bob

        I agree.
        You wont beat unfounded skepticism with a barrage of abusive comments. Rather, make careful note of everything they say and then be sure to include those points in future tests and then clearly state how these points are addressed and refuted.
        When all points are properly refuted, we can be sure that we have something which works.
        Apparently there are further tests planned for August onwards.
        For a conclusive result, all criticisms should be dealt with in these test.

  • Pachu

    Admin, Frank, i know this is e-cat world, but you have post interesting info about Defkalion for example and MFMP for a brief short time until a Rossi’s says digs the interesting post on others developments.

    I think the recent patent by Etiam OY deserves some attention, a new player in the field is interesting and the patent has mucho more interesting technical and theoretical stuff than any other Rossi’s paper, ¿are you doing some research on it to build a post? have you read the newsletter from http://www.lenr-info.com/ ?

    Can you ask Rossi’s his word (or his lawyer`s word) on this patent submission ?

    Can our friend Pekka get more info about the other Pekka given his vicinity? (Pekka must be such a common name like John/Juan 🙂

    I hope you can build some interesting article on the matter.

    • Jouni Tuomela

      Finland is closed during the summer holidays. That is now.

  • daniel maris

    Well, not a scientific comment, but once again I am impressed by how few signs of lying Rossi displays – none of the nose scratching, secret smirking, odd eye movements, tongue in cheek, unintended head shaking, convoluted phrasing (making due allowance for English not being his first language) that one associates with lying…He comes across as v. natural. Maybe there is a little sign of embarrassment when asked why he can’t just dispel scepticism with convincing evidence – but again not really the marks of deceit.

    Which is why I have always thought that if he doesn’t have this technology, it could only be some sort of delusional case. He must believe he has it!

    • Robyn Wyrick

      I don’t doubt that a professional con artist could hide most of the “tells” that you noting. As could an actor or probably a psychopath.

      As much Rossi has a salesman inside him, he is also a tech nerd, and that combination is pretty rare. It would seem to be a remarkable combination to be a tech nerd, AND a salesman, AND an itinerant liar, but it’s not beyond the possibility.

      However, I think the 3rd party test ruled out “delusional”. Once we see the power that they measured, it is either there by genuine phenomenon, or by extraordinarily skillful trickery.

      And more over, Rossi would have to have such amazing trickery that he confidently let a team of scientists comb all over his invention for 90 hours, and presumably is letting another, longer test begin this month.

      It just seems far fetched, but not impossible.

      What makes it even more far fetched is that hundreds of papers on Cold Fusion have reported results in the same vein.

      If Rossi had been claiming to turn a goldfish into a helicopter, then I could see the cause for mistrust. But Rossi is claiming to have a successful model of something that many other people are also claiming to have. Rossi seems to claim to have the best one out there, but who cares; it is a matter of grades at that point. The CF skeptics are affronted at the very notion of Cold Fusion, not the particular scope of it in Rossi’s claims.

      At this point, I think we’re looking at the revolution. It will probably be televised. Eventually.

      • Warthog

        “…tech nerd, AND a salesman, AND an itinerant liar…”

        Steve Jobs during the Apple I and II days. Once he got rich, he reformed somewhat.

      • Roger Bird

        If I were to accept the judgment on a social matter of a woman vs. a man, I would take the woman ANY DAY over the man, all things being equal and I didn’t really know either face to face. And given that Robin is an executive of her own company, I am very happy to get a short essay from her that I agree with about Rossi and the E-Cat. Remember that all we have is social matters, reports from other people. I don’t have an E-Cat in my basement; chances of someone in this audience actually seeing an E-Cat working is very slim [If there are, please speak up.] It is all about the social for us. It is all about reading people. And given what I know from health oriented forums about skeptopaths, they are pretty poor at reading people.

      • daniel maris

        No – you’re wrong as you will find out if you research the subject. It is extremely difficult to hide the signs of lying in terms of our leaked behaviour and the way we describe things. Con artists know how to control their behaviour, but not to eliminate it. Rossi face and voice betray none of the stress and strain of lying or of controlling the giveaway signs.

  • Gerrit

    There is absolutely a lot of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Rossi and the others really have working devices, but as Rossi himself says, the only thing that counts is a satisfied customer.

    When ecats are deployed at local utilities and the price of electricity decreases significantly then surely many people will no longer hold a rational skeptical position.

    Until such a satisfied customer, one that I trust, reports an ecat in operation for several months, I happily keep a healthy supportive skeptical position towards the claims.

    IMHO, the next big step will be Defkalion performing the announced demo at NI-week. We have heard of Yeong E. Kim that he witnessed a successful demo. Now I want to see it, with National Instruments taking the measurements on the input power. If for some reason that demo won’t take place, it would worry me tremendously.

    The other big thing would be an announcement from Elforsk that the 6 month test run of the ecat has started.

    • Robyn Wyrick

      Gerrit,

      I don’t know if we should expect to hear an announcement from Elforsk at the start of the 6 month test. I don’t recall anything from them about the first 3rd party test.

      But I certainly hope they’re getting that underway.

  • Roger Bird

    Frank uses the phrase “rational skeptical position”, and I think that it is an excellent phrase, because there are many people who seem to be drawn to edgy subjects like moths to a light, or more like seagulls to garbage, who are way beyond the pale; we have been calling them skeptopaths, pathoskeptics, etc. I frequent several different kinds of sites that deal with several different controversial subjects, and LENR is not alone in attracting these kinds of sick people. One way that you can tell the sickos is how persistent they are. Let’s say there was a new religion that I thought was utter nonsense and nut-case grove. Well, there is. I have NEVER visited their site or a forum devoted to promoting their thing. It just doesn’t interest me. If LENR is utter balderdash, then why would anyone who thought that way want to keep coming back. Always ask yourself what is the person’s motivation?

    I honestly and truly think that these skeptopaths have as much in common with rational skepticism as hoarders have in common with untidy people (that would be me) or anorexics have in common with slender people. Really. I really and truly think and feel that.

    In my opinion, they should be banned if the moderator is wise, and the rest of us, where ever we meet them, we should merely ignore them. As soon as you realize that you have a sick person on your hands, just ignore them. Don’t respond. Nothing that you will ever say will make any difference. Perhaps you have something really clever or insightful to say; say it to someone else. No matter how clever or insightful it is, it is just like telling an anorexic that she/he is too skinny and is going to die if they don’t get their appetite back.

    • Ted-X

      The readers should be able to award:
      – a rotten tomato (for bad postings),
      – a red tomato for a posting that they like).
      The limit would be perhaps two red and two rotten potatoes per user per day. 🙂

      • Roger Bird

        Is that receiving or giving tomatoes? I think that the good should be stars, and the bad rotten tomatoes. Or we could have a numbering scale; why limit ourselves. And if you get too many negative points then you are banned for the rest of the day. And when grading, we should honor bind ourselves to grade on everything but agreement. If it is well written and polite, then a high score. If it is poorly written, taking into account primary language differences or it is impolite or poorly researched, then it gets a low number.

        • Ted-X

          This would be giving/attaching rotten tomatoes to postings that do not deserve an answer. Something visual, like a splashed rotten tomatoes 🙂 . Lets have some fan, instead of responding to junk posting or omitting them. The rotten tomatoes are used in film ratings, there is a whole web-site known as “rotten tomatoes”. The psychological advantage is that throwing/awarding a rotten tomato unloads the stresses caused by repeated posting promoting misinformation. I agree with respect to stars – stars should be awarded for the best postings.

  • Roger Bird

    Speaking of the Wright Brothers:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/10163963/First-full-launch-for-Grasshopper-rocket.html

    Is this going to be embarrassing for NASA? I hope so since they need the competition.

  • orsobubu

    Being italian, I can see from Rossi’s speech, looks and body language that he’s more relaxed and confident than usual