Andrea Rossi on R & D Process (Video)

Here’s an interesting video clip from an interview conducted by Thomas Florek earlier this year with Andrea Rossi. Florek asks Rossi about the role that making mistakes plays in the research process — and Rossi responds. He doesn’t provide any details about his technology here, but you get a sense of the way that Rossi has approached his work over the years.

Andrea Rossi: The Importance of Being Wrong from Thomas Florek on Vimeo.

It’s telling to me that Rossi’s biggest concern over being ‘wrong’ seems to be the cost of the error. We’ve heard from the posting of ‘Cures’ on the cobraf.com forum recently that for a long time Rossi was operating pretty much as a one man operation, and making his share of mistakes along the way. — and expenses must have weighed heavily on his mind. It seems that now he is in a different circumstance in his position of Chief Scientist with the current partner — apparently now he has a well equipped lab, workers to help him, and presumably all the money he needs to do his work. But I expect his ‘try and error’ process goes forward as ever.

More video clips from this interview can be found here:

http://www.thomasflorek.com/thomas/AndreaRossi.html

  • Chris I

    Obvious enough, though many researchers make most of the mistakes on paper.

    Then, of course, he’s not talking about dumb mistakes. Like, damn how could I have done such a stupid thing as that! Perhaps he’s talking more about attempts than mistakes.

    • Roseland67

      Chris,
      Agreed,
      I am an engineer working in the energy field for a global energy company, and without a doubt, I have learned much more from my mistakes than I have ever learned from my successes.
      And Compared to physicists, our hit rate is fabulous. these guys live on the fringe of “not possible” every day, can you imagine failing 99+% of the time and still get up and go to work in the morning, wow.
      Both The theoretical group and the application physicists are unique in their quest for knowledge.
      I just want to make stuff work and I love taking it apart after I break it ( – :

      • Chris I

        Yeah, although some mistakes are just plain dumb and useless, there are certainly others we can and should learn from.

        I have often made deliberate “mistakes” to the very purpose of finding out exactly what’s wrong with them. This can be quite important in R&D where the limits of thing need to be explored thoroughly in order to guarantee safety.

        When I was about 16 and learning electronics, I was trying to make a simple MW radio receiver. I had seen typical diagrams in the usual magazines and I understood most of the details, at least roughly. What I couldn’t figure out was the purpose of having a capacitor of very small value, between the tuner’s LC resonator and the long wire antenna. I couldn’t think of a single reason for it, back then. So what did I do?

        Well, I tried doing everything else, without it just to see what would be wrong. But I was so young and dumb that I did this first, instead of after doing it the way the experts taught. So after a lot of tinkering with the coil and capacitor (lacking instruments to measure L and C and calculate f) I could hit on a station but I was dismayed to find the tuning changed so much as I moved my own body; I had to keep stil without even removing my hand too much away from the tuning knob.

        Eventually, after tons of frustration and dismay, I just reckoned it was maybe due to the crude design; I knew not to expect much selectivity and I thought this was also causing the strong dependence on the surroundings. When in later days I had become more expert I was easily able to make the connection between the missing capacitor and the inevitable extra capacity of the long wire antenna.

        Boy shouldn’t I have tried it first as taught, and then the wrong way to see what was wrong about it.

  • Roger Bird

    Please could you good people got to “Product Design & Development” ( http://www.pddnet.com/news/2013/09/getting-closer-fusion ) and add some weight to what is said in the comment section.

    • BroKeeper

      Perhaps I am misunderstanding the power requirements here and someone can explain it better. 500TW for one billionth of a second pulse, according to my calculations, equates to be about 500KW/sec or 138W/Hr.

      The question I have is how many pulses occur during what time interval? This is assuming one group of simultaneous 192 laser pulses for each pellet of H isotopes?

      Also what is meant by “1,000 times more than the United States uses at any one moment” – how long is a moment? A gnat wink or time it takes me to eat a plate of spaghetti.

      This all seems very ambiguous to me and not sure how to relate this with input power compared to LENR input. Then again I was not an ace in mathematics.

      OK wizards, fix me if you can. 🙂

      • GreenWin

        1.87MJ for 23 nsec… You’d need to eat fast Bro.

        • BroKeeper

          Is that the duration of the pulse or the rate of occurence?

      • Omega Z

        BroKeeper

        “The unified lasers deliver 1.8 megajoules of energy and 500 terawatts of power”

        For conversion-1.8 megajoules is watts per 1 second or 1.8Mw for 1 second.
        1.8 megajoules spread over 3600 seconds(or 1 Hour)=500 Watts for 1 hour or 0.5kwh.

        The 500 terawatts of power is the 1.8 megajoules delivered within a billionth of a second pulse. The Formula?

        Now a Laugh moment.
        At 1st Glance, the number (500Twatts) didn’t seem right. So I pulled up my Calculator & went thru the steps to see. Huh! 500Twatts is Right… In that moment of Clarity I had the process. Don’t ask me to post it tho- I don’t remember. A “Moment” latter an All Important Single Brain Cell must have Died. 🙁

        What is meant by “1,000 times more than the United States uses at any one moment”

        Their term is vague but I’m guessing the maximum Generating Capacity ever used in a billionth of a second if their not fudging to impress People???

        The way they mesh & present the numbers make them sound Sooo Impressive. Great for convincing politicians to provide funding.
        And I have no problems with this kind of research. I’m just pointing out the Sales pitch means everything.

        One I heard about 25+ years ago on Laser Research & the Power output. Don’t remember the exact numbers as those in the article, but here’s how it was presented to the public…

        Think of the power as 50,000 tons of TNT hitting the Moon at the Speed of Light.

        WOW FACTOR- Your Imagination in Overdrive.
        Wait. WTF. So Impressive, Yet what does it really mean???
        Oh’ Well, Lets give em another Billion… It’s sounds so Impressive… 🙂

        • BroKeeper

          Thanks OZ! (I think). 🙂

    • GreenWin

      It is fascinating that less than a year ago, the report on NIF failure to achieve ignition, said this:

      The NNSA report now proposes a 3-year program to better understand why the actual implosion does not agree with the models. And 3 years may not be enough. “The three-year plan culminates in a comprehensive review at the end of FY 2015. At that time, NNSA will have an assessment of the likelihood and schedule for achieving ignition,” the report says. “

      Ever so curious that NIF suddenly, after a turbulent change in management and red faced embarrassment at LLNL, MIT, and DOE has “found the answer!”

      “There is already a qualitative understanding of the reasons for the NIF failure. Obtaining quantitative information will be difficult. There are severe limitations on what can be diagnosed inside the gold hohlraum,” says a laser fusion expert who doesn’t want to be identified.”

      http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/12/agency-tells-congress-nif-not-working

  • GreenWin

    NASA’s Dennis Bushnell ascribes Andrea Rossi as one of these Edisonian scientists – unwilling to accept failure as a bar to truth. But in the era of Big Science, requiring enormous budgets and elephantine equipment (e.g. NIF) – trial and error is intolerable. Most scientists utilizing this method do not last long.

    The question is why do mainstream funders reject these “messy” approaches to materials research? Is it just safer to march to the status quo and dismiss evidence that demands hard work by trial and error?

    In this 2009 CBS 60 Minutes segment, Mike McKubre of SRI spells it out.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955214n

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      The reason is that research funding is competed. The only way funding agencies know how to gauge proposals is to see how “compelling” the science case is, how close to producing a result the project is. This being the game, a scientist who promises to “do some messy experiments on the subject” is always outcompeted in the selection process. It’s a classic case of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

      After winning a grant one typically has some freedom how to use it. That is how some real progress is still being made, despite the above challenge. In principle evaluators of funding agencies like novelty and innovative ideas, but the competition mechanism does not allow them to fund them directly.

      • Omega Z

        Pekka

        I don’t know if your aware of Lonnie Johnson- JTEC.
        He worked for NASA on energy projects. Inadvertently Invented the Super Soaker water gun while trying to create a super efficient heat pump I think.

        He made millions in Royalties & started his own Research incubator.
        He designed a TEC device with possibilities of 40 to 60 percent efficiency.
        He presented it to the Military & others at a funding meeting. Due to material sciences at the time, they showed little interest (Had little understanding of)as they didn’t think the tech was mature enough for major funding. They didn’t even pay attention enough to give him a chance. The meeting was very short.

        His device has no moving parts & involves heat/pressure pushing hydrogen through a membrane to create/produce electrons. It’s a closed loop. Circulates from hot to cold continuously. Only requires Heat & a Heat sink.

        When he had a 2nd opportunity to present it to them at a latter date, He presented as more of a high efficiency Fuel Cell considering it is of similar design.
        Fuel Cells they Understood & were Interested in. They provided Seed funding.

        Presentation is Everything.

        And- I having given it a little thought- He may have come up with this Idea when working on a high efficient heat pump system. It would be similar I Believe to a heat absorption system.

        If he could get anywhere near 40% or above, it would be a perfect fit to E-cats.

        • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

          Thanks, I checked it up and it sounds interesting. However from my “desktop viewpoint” I’m not able to estimate if it holds more promise than some other technique. For example, in theory Stirling process could reach 100% of Carnot although in practice remains lower.

    • GreenWin

      Thanks Pekka. I agree with both you and Omega, presentation is all-important and, valuable criterion for funding analysts. I am more concerned with a small, inbred, orthodox clan of “experts” who have effectively hijacked the funding/publishing arena.

      We have now a poignant example of just such a clan, and its violent opposition to alternatives like LENR. I remind such a clan, they have little or no dominion over knowledge; yet they lay claim to the people’s money. Their failures are legion. The cost to taxpayers intolerable. Akin to the intolerable acts of George’s kingdom upon the American colonies.

      The missteps of this clan have interfered with human progress: the Fukushima disaster, nuclear proliferation, radioactive waste, 60 years hot fusion failure, cost overruns & failures in nearly every nuclear energy project on Earth. The individuals responsible are coming under spotlight. Their intolerable acts will not be hidden. Their Achilles heel is… hubris.

  • winebuff

    Its nice to see that there are scientists still making discoveries the old fashioned way.

  • Kim

    Rossi was a freedom dog

    Rossi is now a dog with a collar and leash.

    Respect
    Kim

    • Jim

      Didn’t quite get the “Respect” in that one…

      • Kim

        I have great respect for our “controllers”

        Respect
        Kim

        • JIm

          Perhaps you assign them too much power, and yourself too little.

          “If you believe you can, or you believe you can’t, you’re right.”

          • Christina

            Yes, gifted and tenacious!

  • http:[email protected] BroKeeper

    I’m curious how the readers compare Ing. Andréa Rossi with other past inventors? I’m thinking perhaps the most obvious is Thomas Edison and his 10,000 failures before a working light bulb. What does he/they have in common?

    • frank sedei

      One word: GIFTED.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      It has been fascinating for me to listen to and sometimes communicate with Dr. Rossi. I have found him to be very intelligent, muti- disciplined scientist, humanitarian and a good entrepreneur. As an inventor, will he be in the class of Edison and Bell, probably not, because of the number of their inventions. As far as positive impact of his inventions I would say Rossi will be at or near the top.

    • Warthog

      Actually, they’re quite a bit alike in a surprising number of ways. I just finished reading “Empires of Light”, which is a truly excellent history of the electrification of the USA. It shows some of Edison’s “warts”, which most histories don’t get into, as well as those of many others of the key players…Tesla, Westinghouse, and a number of others. One person who comes out very favorably is Westinghouse.

      Rossi’s “warts” are a lot like Edison’s.