Something is stupid on the internet

Actually, on Rossi’s blog. This has become so unsurprising that I intend to stop covering it unless asked.

Planet Rossi thinks of Rossi as a great genius, and he is often asked about scientific questions. I have previously shown how he commonly has little clue what he’s talking about, his knowledge is shallow, as might be expected from a jailhouse student, as he was. (Though the “electrical engineering” involved here I originally learned early in high school.) This shallow knowledge is distinct from the issue of whether or not he has a real technology, but it can have an impact on how he talks about it.

(By the way, I was a prison chaplain, and knew many intelligent prisoners. I am simply pointing out the possible limitations of prison study. One will not have the benefit of a community of study, it’s isolated and generally solitary. Unless one is taking a correspondence course — some do — there will be no testing, no writing of papers for professorial review, no opportunity to make mistakes and be corrected, which is the fastest way to learn.)

On JONP:

Electric Engineer
August 8, 2017 at 12:42 PM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Your measurement system to define the wattage in the circuit of the E-Cat QX, made by a power source plus 2 resistances is correct:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/measuring-resistance-in-circuit-and-out/
In pag. 5 is drawn exactly the schematic of your circuit.
If the E-Cat has no resistance, the circuit becomes just a circuit with one resistance.
Godspeed

Andrea Rossi
August 8, 2017 at 3:40 PM

Electric Engineer:
Correct.
Warm Regards

Let’s start by noticing the trivial: the cited page is HTML and has no pagination. The schematic is near the end of the page. “Page 5” was probably display pagination. It was the fourth displayed page for me, with a rather large display font.

EE is citing this page as if it confirms Rossi’s “measurement system to define the wattage in the circuit.”

In fact, the page is about measuring resistance, and wattage is not mentioned, and EE simply posits  the resistance as zero (which I think Rossi may have stated somewhere, which is obviously false, unless the device is superconducting, which seems, ah, unlikely.)

The schematic shows only one meter, a “DMM,” measuring current through a resistor.. However, then a circuit is shown with two resistors, one known. There is then a measurement described of voltage across the known resistor, called a “shunt,” usually. However the text then refers to the “voltage drop across the original resistor.” It is this data that is missing from the Gullstrom report, and without that data the input “wattage” cannot be determined. We know the power (“wattage”) dissipated in the shunt, it would be 100 mV squared times 1 ohm (per Ohms law and power as the product of voltage and current),  or 10 mWatts.

If we knew the input voltage (across the two resistors in series), we would then know the total input power to the two-resistor circuit, and the input power to the device would then be this total power minus 10 mW.

But we don’t know that, and, if I’m correct, Rossi has claimed that this information is confidential. From that lack of information, the input “wattage” — to the device, which is what COP would be based on — could be anything from zero (at zero resistance and thus zero voltage drop) to infinite (at unlimited resistance).

The “measurement system” as described, and for which data was provided, is not “correct,” as to measuring “wattage,” but Rossi just agreed that it was, whether he actually wrote that comment or someone else did. The system would work if voltage were measured, but he did not state that it was and definitely did not give any values, other than the preposterous “zero resistance”.

If, on the other hand, total input voltage were equal to the voltage drop across the shunt, then “zero” would be an approximation of the device resistance, and this would be trivial, and since he has already stated “zero resistance,” so stating the fact could not reveal any necessary secret.

Far more likely, the input voltage is secret because it would reveal that Rossi is deceptive and Gullstrom is Gullible.

As well, the evidence cited (the linked page) is generally correct (though a bit fuzzy in places, as a careful science editor would notice), so Planet Rossi is, as seems common, lying with fact. A source cited does not support the claim.

I was an electronics engineer (in a practical sense, not as a result of specific education and I had no degree beyond high school, merely some advanced training in physics (at Cal Tech with Feynman) but no degree; I was, however,  a consultant for decades and my clients were electronics engineers.)

There was an old joke, supposedly a testimonial from a correspondence course student: “A yere ago I kuden even spel injineer, and now I em won.”

“Electric Engineer” is quite different from common usage. The term is “electrical engineer.”

Try googling “electric engineer,” I just did. Google wants to translate it to “electrical engineer” and sites that used “electric engineer” were not written by electrical engineers. Rossi’s “Electric Engineer” probably isn’t, certainly Rossi isn’t.

(Rossi’s arguments on “wh/h” were face-palm ignorant. Expressing power as wh/h is not unknown as an expression of average power, but the unit of average power is simply the unit of power. Rossi claimed that cancelling the unit “h” was wrong, because somehow the “hours” in “watt-hours” was just a part of the name, not the same unit as in the divisor, at least that’s the closest to sense I could make from his argument, but the kicker is that Rossi then cited a famous science writer for understanding, and that science writer, I found, had actually written what was well-known to any physics student: the units cancel. Rossi was not “wrong” to use wh/h for power, and I had not claimed he was, I called it “idiosyncratic” which is not a synonym for wrong. Rossi is often the most ignorant when claiming others are wrong.)

Keeping on keeping on

Rossi still is flogging the radical misrepresentation of what is in — and what is not in — the Gullstrom paper.

Silver
August 15, 2017 at 6:12 AM

Dr Andrea Rossi,
Your measurement system described in the Gullstrom-Rossi paper is perfect. The circuit is very simple, the plasma is a conductor, as everybody knows, therefore placing a resistance with a known ohmage and measuring the voltage across it, the current is obtained by the Ohm equation, as well as the wattage.
Godspeed
Silver

Andrea Rossi
August 15, 2017 at 7:47 AM

Silver:
Correct.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Again, Lying with Fact.

The plasma is a conductor, if there is a plasma in the device.

My desk is illuminated by two fluorescent bulbs. In them there is a plasma. They are 40 W bulbs. If I place a 1 ohm resistor in series with them and measure the AC current, it will be about 700 mA. The voltage crop across that resistor will be 700 mV, by Ohms law. The wattage determined by that, 140 mW, is a tiny fraction of the wattage of the circuit, of the wattage dissipated in the bulbs. It is only the power dissipated in the resistor, which could be an ordinary 1/4 watt resistor.

Yes, a plasma is a conductor. So is the resistor, the wires, and anything else in the circuit, that is the definition of “circuit.”

The measuremeent system described is called an “ammeter.” (There is another kind that measures magnetic fields, but setting that aside, that is how ammeters work, a shunt of known resistance is inserted in the circuit, and the voltage across is it measured.)

I’m inclining toward the explanation that THH gives in a comment, that Rossi is conditioning his fans to accept total BS. If they don’t like it, they go away, which is what he wants. He does not want anyone near him who does not accept everything he says.

His fans excuse the lack of data on actual power dissipated in the device by his drive to maintain secrecy. That does not explain the nonsense comments, which will fool no serious investigator or spy. He is confusing his supporters, or deepening the well-developed habit to create explanations for whatever he says. I.e., rationalizations.

So his lawsuit is set to fail spectacularly, at high expense. He finally gets a smart lawyer who cuts the Gordian knot and the case is settled for nothing but a return of the license which the defendant has been claiming is worthless, and then he claims that this was a total victory! Exactly what he wanted! Forget about $89 million and triple damages for fraud, with Rossi and his fans claiming that it was a slam-dunk. No, new announcement from Big Brother: Victory!

Because Rossi Says.

Even though the existence of the License was no impediment at all, in the present, it was not stopping him from pursuing improvements to his technology. If one looks underneath the hood of the Lewan interview, Rossi’s “goal” was powered by paranoia, not actual restraint or harm. He had received $11.5 million, had no ongoing onerous obligations or burdens, and faced no actual competitive pressure, just fantasy.

It is not clear to me that the settlement agreement is legally binding, other than on the parties to the lawsuit with respect to each other. Ampenergo was not a party to the lawsuit, did not sign the Settlement Agreement, and the agreement explicitly sets aside Ampenergo and any cause of action against Ampenergo or by Ampenergo. Because the License Agreement was not amendable without the consent of all parties, and unless a court invalidated the agreement, it would stand. The parties explicitly told the court they were not asking for an Order other than for dismissal with prejudice.

However, my attorney friend, once he read the Settlement Agreement, and the Lewan interview, considered it a brilliant move on Rossi’s part. It allowed him to continue to claim whatever he wanted. It saved face. It obviously worked on Mats Lewan. Look at the headline!

Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority

It accepts Rossi Says, as fact, even though the idea that Rossi’s goal was getting the License back never appeared in the case, nor on the blog, as far as I recall. His goal was quite clear: to get them to pay what they had allegedly promised. The alleged priority was a post-facto rationalization.

I looked again at the Marianne Macy story on the lawsuit in Infinite Energy. Reporting a Lawsuit in LENR

The situation of an $89 million dollar lawsuit between the field’s highest profile, highest paid inventor and his environmentally-inclined investors wasn’t akin to the adage of having an elephant in the room. It was like having an elephant with projectile diarrhea who had snorted a kilo of cocaine after mating with Donald Trump in the room. This was a worst case scenario, a four star sriracha-saturated shit storm that could distinctly prove unhelpful to the LENR world’s public profile at the time of its greatest collective acceleration.

For myself, the perpetual struggle for objective reporting was competing with shock. I’d hoped for the success of Rossi’s technology for so long and been so glad that someone like Darden had come along to support it.

The whole interview is well worth reading. She quotes Brian Scanlan:

[…]

In June 2011 I met Rossi in Miami along with his partners from Leonardo. Mike Melich and Marianne Macy were also present. Prior to the meeting I had constructed a consortium committed to funding $15mil provided we could establish mutually agreed-upon test conditions. We didn’t get far. The meeting lasted about two hours but from the beginning was fraught with conflict. I mentioned that Ed Storms would design and run the calorimetry of our proposed test, which in hindsight I realize ended the negotiations. A real scientist and experimentalist such as Ed was too risky for Rossi. Soon after Rossi threw a tantrum, set a series of absurd conditions and left the room, followed by a train of his partners hoping to sooth the genius’ hurt feelings. Although I wasn’t amused at the time, I should have been. Rossi is a character sprung from Hollywood central casting.

[…]

As we watch this circus, we should imagine ourselves in Tom Darden’s shoes. Suppose the agreed-upon test required a 6.0 COP, but delivered something less than that. Anything greater than 1.0 would still be exciting from a scientific point of view, as long as it was real. A real 1.5 COP would allow the launch of a major research effort. A competent businessman such as Darden with strong entrepreneurial bona fides could easily raise $100 mil or more with proven excess heat. He and his partners have a personal net worth far in excess of this number, so they needn’t go to the outside. Silicon Valley routinely funds speculative ventures with 100s of $ millions.

It’s clear to me the IH tests failed entirely. Rossi had to be present with the device at all times, a very bad sign. When the e-Cat failed he conjured up the Hot-Cat, a Very Very bad sign. If the e-Cat produced even a small excess energy, that was enough to prove LENR to the world and to gain funding. Yet, the e-Cat effort was abandoned in favor of high-temperature work. The calorimetry design at the Hot-Cat’s high temperatures was very challenging and certainly caused extensive delays. It’s the perfect setting for bad intentions. Delay and obfuscation rule.

As was noted in this group, Rossi sued before the money from IH was due. Why the rush? Rossi wanted to strike first to paint himself as a victim before IH sues him for fraud.

There’s a book that’s worth reading: The Sociopath Next Door, by Martha Stout. Or take a look at http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath. Most of us in this group have trouble with the basic question, Why would Rossi try to pull such a brazen fraud? How did he expect to get away with it? Answer—Some people crave control. For some, control is much more important than money. And Rossi has succeeded. He’s hijacked the LENR agenda, which has derailed countless sincere and promising research efforts.

Folks, it’s time to move on.

Macy writes with passion and clarity and she goes on, pointing out the use of praetoritio by Lewan and Rossi, the latter in his April 7, 2016 blog posting wherein he clearly lies as well as accusing while denying discussion. One point from that blog post, out of many:

Until they had to collect money thanks to the E-Cat, they made replications and have been happy with the E-Cat; when it turned to have to pay, they discovered that they never made replications, …

This is common on Planet Rossi, that a test which shows some apparently positive result is a “replication.” What came out in the lawsuit was that there were, indeed, “positive results,” on occasion, but replications are not proofs of an original report, and there is an important class of replications that show the similar results, and then show that they are artifact. That happened in one situation, reportedly, where, accidentally, a reactor under test was unfueled, and yet the study showed major heat, showing, in fact, that the measurement methods (perhaps the same as used in Lugano) were defective. Rossi, faced with the empty reactor when they opened it, stormed out, claiming that “The Russians stole the fuel!” IH knew full well, from their own experience with Rossi, as well as that of others, as Macy and Scanlan point out, that Rossi was completely intolerant of any complaints or exposure of error, and never admits error.

So, yes, they did not often complain!

And we know that IH was claiming that the Doral test was not a GPT, and that Penon was not approved as ERV for a GPT there, easily by December, 2015, when lawyer letters were involved. It was not “time to pay” until just before the lawsuit, five months later, and, as pointed out, the lawsuit was filed the day before the payment allegedly became past due under the tightest construction. (Some have argued with this, but the Agreement specified “working days,” not “days.” “5 working days” is one calendar week, minimum.)

The collection of money mentioned was not “thanks to the Ecat,” that was a Rossi fantasy, this would be a reference to the $50 million Woodford investment in May, 2015, and Chaiken in his opening statement to the Rossi v. Darden jury made the point that this wasn’t for Rossi at all, and Rossi’s big complaint, in the story he told Lewan, was that IH was investing in other LENR, his “competitors.”

Rossi lies. We might excuse him as deluded, but sometimes the lies are so blatant and clear that it’s difficult to maintain that. Surely he knew, for example, in the Hydro Fusion test, whether or not he deliberately failed the test! And if he deliberately failed it, then he was lying to Mats Lewan and Hydro Fusion about the measurement method. To do what he later claimed to have done, all he had to do was say, “Oops! You’re right, I made a mistake! See you later!” But Rossi Does Not Admit Mistakes Ever.

I’ll go with insanity, the kind that justifies lying by necessity. Rossi may or may not be confused about the reality of the Rossi Effect. He may or may not be a conscious and willful con artist, using well-known devices to those who study such, or doing the same without consciousness, which is possible.

(Real and well-known con artists, such as Demara, The Great Imposter, are complex and often develop fans who strongly defend them in spite of blatant evidence to the contrary.). I often have fun with the oft-repeated argument made by Planet Rossi that “he’d have to be crazy to sue IH if he was a fraud.” Yes, he would, wouldn’t he? But “fraudulent representation” was unmistakeable in the Rossi v. Darden evidence, and even if the reactor had performed spendidly, this would be a clincher for the jury, and I suspect that Lukacs, the lawyer who apparently engineered the settlement, made that point to Rossi. “Right or wrong, you are going to lose.” If Lukacs had told Rossi he had lied, he’d have been fired. So Lukacs, I assumed, talked about appearance. It looked bad, very bad.)

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

See http://coldfusioncommunity.net/biography-abd-ul-rahman-lomax/

4 thoughts on “Something is stupid on the internet”

  1. Yes. For me, the clearest evidence that Rossi is deliberately doing his deception is that so much false technical material is supported by Rossi blog comments during which he never lies. That requires real competence, and of course if he is competent in this way then he must be deliberately and knowingly obtaining wrong results in all these tests. Ironic.

  2. This episode exposes Rossi’s modus operandi perfectly. It was apparent from both the original paper – and – mazingly – the followup paper – that Rossi did not understand how to measure power input to his device. This is hardly difficult – but from the text of both papers – more clearly in the second – what he appears to be doing is measuring the power input to this 1 ohm resistor.

    In the face of that ECW try hard to think of variant measurements that could possibly fit the wording here (they don’t – but might approximate it) that justify Rossi’s claims. In this case it is very difficult to do that. You have to suppose – as Rossi says here – that the device resistance is negligible in which case the power it dissipates is negligible anyway. But – this has never been measured.

    The dislocation with reality here (for anyone used to electronics as I am) is so glaring it does not need to be explained. The psychological process whereby Rossi supporters rationalise this is to me just unpleasant in its effects – so let us not dwell on this phenomena too long!

    1. Right. That post was from “Electric Engineer.”

      I do not conclude that Rossi didn’t know how to measure power, but that if he measured it, it was not reported. That was actually pointed out by a Rossi follower on E-Cat World.

      I pointed to a blatant contradiction between the Gullstrom paper and Rossi Says.

      Acland allowed that and following comments (he has never actually censored me), but … nobody has acted to clarify the water/oil issue, AFAIK. And the JONP post covered here was in response, apparently, to the effort to clear up issues around the Gullstrom report. Rossi feeds his followers BS which filters that community to be how he wants it. I’ve been reading Konnikova The Confidence Game. The horrible spelling in confidence spam is deliberate, she claims: it suppresses responses by those who might be more inclined to be suspicious, making the artist’s job more efficient. That could happen by design, but it could also be a learned behavior.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield