Rossi's Oath

Here’s an interesting and unusual Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

jackie
August 15, 2016 at 4:49 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi, would you be kind enough to state the words below for us people of a spiritual nature.
I have great faith in good beliefs and it would be comforting if you would take this oath.
——–
I swear on the Holy Bible that my E-cat works as I have described, giving a clear output far above the input in line with a discovery outside of any known process.
———
All best wishes Jackie

Andrea Rossi
August 15, 2016 at 7:14 AM
Jackie:
I swear on the Holy Bible that my E-Cat works as I have described, giving a clear output far above the input in line with a discovery outside of any process I have knowledge of.
Dr Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corporation

This takes things outside the realm of technical reports and into the realm of character, faith and honor.

  • Interesting. I wasn’t sure he would go there.

    • Ged

      Public domain now, no wiggling out of that. A lot of guts.

      • For those of whom faith serves as the bedrock of their character — and Rossi appears to be one of them from all previous communication — this is a significant statement.

        • Guest

          The holy bible (new testament) teaches that you should never ever swear an oat, especially not on that which is holy.

          For a religious person to swear an oat on the bible is similar to a muslim person eating pork to prove that he is muslim – which he would obviously never do.

          • Aaaand…. now I’m hungry.

          • Guest
          • Robert Dorr

            What is this, a bible study forum. Let’s keep religion out of this and get back to science where this belongs.

          • I simply made on observation. Social science, if you will.

          • Robert Dorr

            Sorry this wasn’t meant specifically for you, It was towards the entire religious bent of this thread.

          • Brokeeper

            It’s Rossi’s fault. 😉

          • Brokeeper

            OK. “In the beginning…..”

          • Carl Wilson

            You are confusing the teachings of Jesus with Christianity. Christianity, as it is, owes a great deal to ancient Rome and the pre-Picean myths of sacrificed gods.

          • Brokeeper

            Guest, you may be misunderstanding Mat. 5:33-37 within its context and audience relevance.

            Mat 5:33 itself certainly validates swearing oaths (or vows) is commanded by God by His Name only; Duet 10:20 “You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you SHALL swear by His name.” God never changes. (Mal 3:6)

            Mat 5:34-37 is addressed in: Deut. 6:13-14 “You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him, and ‘swear by His name’. You shall not follow
            other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you”. The false Jewish believers during Christ’s time were very hypocritical swearing by someone and something except the living God to avoid His judgment if vow was not fulfilled (diluted oaths). The letter to the Hebrew Paul wrote “For when God made promise to Abraham, ‘because He could swear by no greater’, He swore by himself,” – so also for us there is nothing greater than God to swear by; otherwise, say yes or no.

            Check out article: https://bible.org/seriespage/16-yes-or-no-enough-matthew-533-37

          • Guest

            You found a loophole!

            Actually I think the conundrum we have bumped into is the very same which explain why there is several branches of Christianity, not just one.

            One of the main difference between the two big ones, protestants and catholics is that protestant focus more on Jesus, the (divine) son of God, while the catholics focus more on Paul, the leader of the “church”.

          • Brokeeper

            Out of thousands of Christian doctrines there can only be one spiritual truth. Which one?
            Peter not Paul is considered Catholicism’s first Pope. Constantine started its organization. I do not belong to any one physical organized Christian church although I attend one.

  • Interesting. I wasn’t sure he would go there.

    • Ged

      Public domain now, no wiggling out of that. A lot of guts.

      • For those of whom faith serves as the bedrock of their character — and Rossi appears to be one of them from all previous communication — this is a significant statement.

        • Guest

          The holy bible (new testament) teaches that you should never ever swear an oat, especially not on that which is holy.

          For a religious person to swear an oat on the bible is similar to a muslim person eating pork to prove that he is muslim – which he would obviously never do.

          • Aaaand…. now I’m hungry.

          • Guest
          • Michael W Wolf

            Can’t argue with that. But swearing to God is much better than saying you know he doesn’t exist. And to me Rossi’s words now have more weight. And those contradictions by IH and debunked accusations of the skeptics shows signs of their lack of integrity.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Who here has said that he knows that God doesn’t exist?

            Richard Dawkins is a well-known “atheist”, yet, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is a 100% belief that God exists and 7 is a 100% belief that God doesn’t exist, he describes himself as a 6.9/7 because you cannot prove a negative. I am the same.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Then you are not an Atheist. That would make you an agnostic. And by the way. What did Dawkins the antagonist ever do? Not a damn thing but make believers non believers. What a accomplishment. BTW, better to be a bible thumper than a bible burner.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Fine, call me whatever you want.

            Dawkins is a good, decent man who fights for social justice and freedom from religious persecution around the world. If he’s going to Hell for that, at least I know I’ll have good company.

            And no, he doesn’t make non-believers of believers. Clearly, his reasoning would never work on you. It’s the people on the fence that have never really thought about these things that a book like “The God Delusion” is for.

          • Robert Dorr

            What is this, a bible study forum. Let’s keep religion out of this and get back to science where this belongs.

          • bachcole

            Unfortunately the de facto leader of this pack introduced the whole religion bit into the discussion.

            The issue is whether someone swearing upon their Book garners credibility. For me, in this situation, credibility is analog, not binary. I personally give Rossi or anyone else the benefit of the doubt if they swear upon what is most sacred to them, if there is any doubt in my mind. For a binary credibility rating, swearing upon one’s Book isn’t going to do diddley for most people, and it shouldn’t.

          • I simply made on observation. Social science, if you will.

          • Robert Dorr

            Sorry this wasn’t meant specifically for you, It was towards the entire religious bent of this thread.

          • Brokeeper

            It’s Frank’s and Rossi’s fault. 😉

          • Brokeeper

            OK. “In the beginning…..”

          • Carl Wilson

            You are confusing the teachings of Jesus with Christianity. Christianity, as it is, owes a great deal to ancient Rome and the pre-Picean myths of sacrificed gods.

          • Brokeeper

            Guest, you may be misunderstanding Mat. 5:33-37 within its context and audience relevance.

            Mat 5:33 itself certainly validates swearing oaths (or vows) is commanded by God and by His Name only; Duet 10:20 “You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you SHALL swear by His name.” God never changes. (Mal 3:6)

            Mat 5:34-37 is addressed in: Deut. 6:13-14 “You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him, and ‘swear by His name’. You shall not follow
            other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you”. The false Jewish believers during Christ’s time were very hypocritical swearing by someone and something except the living God to avoid His judgment if vow was not fulfilled (diluted oaths). The letter to the Hebrew Paul wrote “For when God made promise to Abraham, ‘because He could swear by no greater’, He swore by himself,” – so also for us there is nothing greater than God to swear by; otherwise, say yes or no.

            Check out article: https://bible.org/seriespage/16-yes-or-no-enough-matthew-533-37

          • Guest

            You found a loophole!

            Actually I think the conundrum we have bumped into is the very same which explain why there is several branches of Christianity, not just one.

            One of the main difference between the two big ones, protestants and catholics is that protestant focus more on Jesus, the (divine) son of God, while the catholics focus more on Paul, the leader of the “church”.

          • Brokeeper

            Out of thousands of Christian doctrines there can only be one spiritual truth. Which one?
            Peter not Paul is considered Catholicism’s first Pope. Constantine started its organization. (I do not belong to any one physical organized Christian church although I attend one.)

  • f sedei

    Rossi puts it all on the line.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Technically Rossi took this oath in his lawsuit filing, but this oath gives me more hope for some reason. Non believers in a creator will dismiss this out of hand. I am an agnostic that has taken Pascal’s wager and this oath has affected me, I am really in a better frame of mind since reading it. Nothing the detractors can do could get me down today. Even more claims of proof Rossi is a fraud.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Obviously, if Rossi were a conman, the whole Bible thumping thing would be part of it.

        • Ged

          Why do people keep physically abusing all those Bibles :(?

          • Guru Khalsa

            repressed spirituality

        • sam

          But if he is a Christian like I believe he is it will mean a lot.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Right, I agree it would mean a lot IF he were a Christian.

            Again, back to square one.

          • sam

            From Vessy’s Blog
            I am a psychologist and then, by nature and profession, an inquisitive person. The detail visible in the image shown below, probably prepared by an expert in photography, struck me too.

            Agenda

            Detail of the Rossi’s personal agenda on his desk.

            It is the agenda of Rossi, visible on the desktop, where you can see, on its right hand page, an image that seems a Madonna or something like that. So, I asked Andrea what it was…Madonna delle Grazie (MI)

            “Dear Vessy, here is the story of the image you asked about,” Andrea begins the unexpected story. “That is the image of the ‘Madonna delle Grazie‘ “, he explains.

            So, I immediately searched on the web, where I found a beautiful picture of the Madonna, Santa Maria delle Grazie or, in English, ‘St. Mary of the Graces’, which coincides with the silhouette of the image analyzed above.

            Andrea told me in detail the story:

            “When I have been made free and exited from the prison of Milan, Italy, after being cleared, I went immediately to prey in the church of ‘Santa Maria delle Grazie’ (the prison is not far from there)”.

            Rossi, in fact, was arrested several years ago in Italy for a long story, as an unpredictable consequence of a previous and important discovery, as described in detail in my book “E-CAT THE NEW FIRE – A biography of Andrea Rossi,” which you can find here.

            Andrea continues the story underlining that this is an important church: “It is, by the way, the church with inside the famous fresco ‘The Last Supper’ by Leonardo Da Vinci”.

            Indeed, on the end wall of the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie, there is one of the world’s most famous religious paintings, a masterpiece of the Italian Renaissance.

            ultcen

            Leonardo Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” (1495-97).

            Then he explained how the events took place:
            “I prayed in that church for my future life and prayed to make useful for something all the studies made in prison on the LENR. I have taken that day, in the same church, an image of St. Mary of the Graces, which is exactly the one that you can see inside my agenda”.

            Finally, he reveals why the image of Our Lady is so faded:
            “From the day I have taken it, many years ago, I prey everyday looking at it, to make useful my work on LENR, so that now it is very worn and barely visible”.

            That’s it. If, from now on, you wonder how Rossi was able to discover the effect that carries his name, you should consider that, in addition to the “material” things, an important role – in my opinion – may have been played by the more ethereal spiritual component

            THE TRUE BELIEVERS ARE OR
            WERE IN THE PRISON SYSTEM.

          • sam

            The last 2 lines are mine.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Clearly, an effective strategy. It makes you more likely to believe in him, even when you don’t have the proof.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Wow, how could you urinate on a story like that? True colors man, true colors.

          • Chapman

            Amen brother!

            I am often a jerk, but there are just some lines you don’t cross – and times when you know to just be quiet. It’s a Character thing.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            If Rossi were just any man, I would agree. However, he claims to have solved the world’s energy crisis. I will NOT take him for his word until the technology is commercialized and proven to work by several third-party entities not connected to Rossi.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            What is this Cult of Rossi that is forming here on E-Cat World, anyway? I’m sorry if I can’t “believe” in the E-Cat based on nothing but revelation.

          • sam

            And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
            Matthew 8:26

      • Teemu Soilamo

        “Non believers in a creator will dismiss this out of hand”. Why would it make a difference what your personal beliefs were? You do acknowledge the existence of televangelists who use religion to part people with their money, right?

        I am an atheist, but even if God existed, that does not rule out a faithless man swearing an oath in His name to affect the judgement of believers to further his own false agenda.

  • f sedei

    Rossi puts it all on the line.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Technically Rossi took this oath in his lawsuit filing, but this oath gives me more hope for some reason. Non believers in a creator will dismiss this out of hand. I am an agnostic that has taken Pascal’s wager and this oath has affected me, I am really in a better frame of mind since reading it. Nothing the detractors can do could get me down today. Even more claims of proof Rossi is a fraud.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        “Non believers in a creator will dismiss this out of hand”. Why would it make a difference what your personal beliefs were? You do acknowledge the existence of televangelists who use religion to part people with their money, right?

        I am an atheist, but even if God existed, that does not rule out a faithless man swearing an oath in His name to affect the judgement of believers to further his own false agenda.

        • Michael W Wolf

          If it were false. But it made the pendulum swing to his favor in hearts and minds. It also may mean Rossi’s religious beliefs had no sway on his ability to invent something and make the world a better place. Remember, you atheists continually claim that believing in God makes you incapable of being scientists and understanding the universe. Seems to me the Atheists are so busy hating the God they say doesn’t exist, they can’t seem to out discover the God fearing folks. With the ecat, Rossi may be killing two birds with one stone.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            “But it made the pendulum swing to his favor in hearts and minds”

            It certainly did. Mission accomplished 😉

            Atheists are not some singular, monolithic block that you can characterize at your whim. That would make you a ‘bigot’. For example: I have never said that religious people cannot be great scientists.

            But it does mean that you have to leave your faith out of the rigorous scientific process. It’s called compartmentalization, being an astrophysicist at work but going to Church in your free time. Some people can handle the internal strife of selectively applying logic to different parts of their life, others cannot. It’s a no-brainer statement.

            How can I hate someone I don’t believe to exist?

        • bachcole

          And how in the world are we to further his agenda?

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Say Rossi is a fraud. First, God forbid you even consider the possibility because you’re immediately witch-hunted and labeled as a pathoskeptic. But just for amusement’s sake.

            We, the regular Joes, are in no way to further his agenda. But we also know Tom Darden and JT Vaughn as men of faith. Don’t you think that their judgements wouldn’t be affected by Rossi’s careful manipulations (which they would be IF he were a fraud)? I mean, if it had an effect on you, why not them?

            Just consider these comments by Michael W Wolt:

            “If it were false. But it made the pendulum swing to his favor in hearts and minds”

            “I am guilty of the accusations shaking my faith in Rossi”

            Two statements where it wouldn’t be wrong to presume that religion is the single most contributing factor to his faith in Rossi.

            Again, I stress the word “if”. Sorry if I hurt your delicate feelings. I’ve almost had it with this place.

  • Paul Smith

    Rightly, he has added: “… I have knowledge of.”

    • georgehants

      Paul, yes, it shows that he is very capable of changing a meaning to be completely accurate.
      Not I think the action of a confused man.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Rossi is definitely not confused. Either 100% sincere or 100% lying, but definitely not confused.

  • Paul Smith

    Rightly, he has added: “… I have knowledge of.”

    • georgehants

      Paul, yes, it shows that he is very capable of changing a meaning to be completely accurate.
      Not I think the action of a confused man.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Rossi is definitely not confused. Either 100% sincere or 100% lying, but definitely not confused.

  • Not surprised at all.
    What makes part of my conclusions, which is difficult to judge when you just assess published info, is my direct and personal impressions of Rossi and what he says. And some may claim that I’m just gullible and that Rossi is an incredibly skilled or even mentally ill conman, but honestly, to me Rossi seems an eccentric and somewhat difficult but very sincere person.

    • wpj

      I found out about Rossi 5 years ago from a post on a phamaceutical blog and it was classified under “snake oil”. I was intrigued and look more into this con man.

      The more I looked, the more I saw that he genuinely believed in what he had and, moreover, he had been using his own money to fund the work rather than taking finance from others.

      I am more convinced than ever that he believes that he has the genuine article and he believes that he has evidence to back it up. Given the amount of time and effort that he has put into this work over the years, I also have begun to believe that he may have something. Like everyone else, I would love to see definitive proof of what he has but, as he says, that proof will come in the market place.

    • LION

      Hi Mats, your book an Impossible Invention is a great read, so I hear and understand what you say and Respect it, However if ” Andrea is eccentric and somewhat difficult but very sincere person” , He is only Difficult in the sense that His Implacable Will Refuses to allow anyone or any thing to deflect Him from bringing His wonderful work to full fruition. I think for this reason many people do not understand him. As all here Know, I am certain His work will change the world in a positive way and am prepared to be patient. There are so many smart and gifted people working in this field that soon there will be a flood of activity. CHANGE is coming.

    • LookMoo

      Agree, and this legal arm wrestling only plays one roll and that’s is to delay Rossi’s eCat to hit the market. Why?? Because,.. as the Senate defence committee says, LENR is a potentially “disruptive” technology. The Government does not like “disruptive” stuff.. unless it is something that you can use on your enemy

  • Not surprised at all.
    What makes part of my conclusions, which is difficult to judge when you just assess published info, is my direct and personal impressions of Rossi and what he says. And some may claim that I’m just gullible and that Rossi is an incredibly skilled or even mentally ill conman, but honestly, to me Rossi seems an eccentric and somewhat difficult but very sincere person.

    • bachcole

      Thank you, that means a lot to me. That is good, solid soft evidence.

    • wpj

      I found out about Rossi 5 years ago from a post on a phamaceutical blog and it was classified under “snake oil”. I was intrigued and look more into this con man.

      The more I looked, the more I saw that he genuinely believed in what he had and, moreover, he had been using his own money to fund the work rather than taking finance from others.

      I am more convinced than ever that he believes that he has the genuine article and he believes that he has evidence to back it up. Given the amount of time and effort that he has put into this work over the years, I also have begun to believe that he may have something. Like everyone else, I would love to see definitive proof of what he has but, as he says, that proof will come in the market place.

    • LION

      Hi Mats, your book an Impossible Invention is a great read, so I hear and understand what you say and Respect it, However if ” Andrea is eccentric and somewhat difficult but very sincere person” , He is only Difficult in the sense that His Implacable Will Refuses to allow anyone or any thing to deflect Him from bringing His wonderful work to full fruition. I think for this reason many people do not understand him. As all here Know, I am certain His work will change the world in a positive way and am prepared to be patient. There are so many smart and gifted people working in this field that soon there will be a flood of activity. CHANGE is coming.

    • LookMoo

      Agree, and this legal arm wrestling only plays one roll and that’s is to delay Rossi’s eCat to hit the market. Why?? Because,.. as the Senate defence committee says, LENR is a potentially “disruptive” technology. The Government does not like “disruptive” stuff.. unless it is something that you can use on your enemy

  • Curbina

    I wonder if he would do the same about JM Products not having anything to do to Johnson Matthey or any of its related companies 😉

    • georgehants

      Curbina, would you agree that everything is irrelevant except the reality of high output Cold Fusion and it’s early release for all Mankind.

      • Curbina

        I agree. However, in terms of the current legal process, this matter is relatively relevant. I think Rossi is bound by a NDA to deny any relationship. Back when the relationship between Cherokee/IH and Rossi was just a rumour, he was asked and he denied it. Later Cherokee confirmed it in a press release. I think something along these lines is happening now. The involvement of Johnson Matthey (or whatever company it might be the customer of the 1 MW plant) is only important to dismiss all IHs claims. I said from the very day we knew about Rossi’s lawsuit again IH.

        Then again, Rossi could just share his secret sauce with the MFMP and put to rest all the accusations…

  • Curbina

    I wonder if he would do the same about JM Products not having anything to do to Johnson Matthey or any of its related companies 😉

    • georgehants

      Curbina, would you agree that everything is irrelevant except the reality of high output Cold Fusion and it’s early release for all Mankind.

      • Curbina

        I agree. However, in terms of the current legal process, this matter is relatively relevant. I think Rossi is bound by a NDA to deny any relationship. Back when the relationship between Cherokee/IH and Rossi was just a rumour, he was asked and he denied it. Later Cherokee confirmed it in a press release. I think something along these lines is happening now. The involvement of Johnson Matthey (or whatever company it might be the customer of the 1 MW plant) is only important to dismiss all IHs claims. I said from the very day we knew about Rossi’s lawsuit again IH.

        Then again, Rossi could just share his secret sauce with the MFMP and put to rest all the accusations…

    • Vinney

      But its the express wish of the customer to remain ‘incognito’ , and judging by the heat energy requirements (also off the endothermic scale) is something very exotic.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Wow, this is significant. IH and its supporters, prepare to be discredited. World, prepare for the greatest discovery since electricity. Of course the oath has limited relevance, But if that poll on ecat viability were to start now, those percentages would be different. Time for IH to put up or pay up.

    • Bohem FromCz

      No “since electricity”. Since first spark of fire !!

  • georgehants

    Update of new comment accepted on JONP from Jackie, hopefully Mr. Rossi will answer.
    ———
    jackie
    August 15, 2016 at 8:48 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi many thanks for your reply that will bring comfort
    also to the many people of this World, that need Cold Fusion to save
    lives and remove suffering.
    God’s speed in your efforts to bring your discoveries quickly to those most in need.
    Best wishes
    Jackie

    • georgehants

      Mr. Rossi’s reply.
      ————
      Andrea Rossi
      August 15, 2016 at 10:53 AM
      Jackie:
      Thank you for your sympathy.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • sam

        A.R. Thank you for your sympathy.
        I wish I would hear A.R.
        say Don’t feel sorry for me
        I have done all right.
        Now I am going to figure out
        a way to get my differences
        with T.D. resolved.
        Without the Court.
        So Pray for me.

        • wpj

          Wow, interesting……..

  • georgehants

    Update of new comment accepted on JONP from Jackie, hopefully Mr. Rossi will answer.
    ———
    jackie
    August 15, 2016 at 8:48 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi many thanks for your reply that will bring comfort
    also to the many people of this World, that need Cold Fusion to save
    lives and remove suffering.
    God’s speed in your efforts to bring your discoveries quickly to those most in need.
    Best wishes
    Jackie

    • georgehants

      Mr. Rossi’s reply.
      ————
      Andrea Rossi
      August 15, 2016 at 10:53 AM
      Jackie:
      Thank you for your sympathy.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • sam

        A.R. Thank you for your sympathy.
        I wish I would hear A.R.
        say Don’t feel sorry for me
        I have done all right.
        Now I am going to figure out
        a way to get my differences
        with T.D. resolved.
        Without the Court.
        So Pray for me.

        • wpj

          Wow, interesting……..

  • Billy Jackson

    I am actually somewhat offended by this. I call not his character into question but ours.

    That we required this oath to sooth our own doubts and fears belittles the man, his achievements. It shows that despite his sacrifice and dedication to the fight we have watched and at times been participants in. WE still stood before him and told him we did not believe him with out this dedication of truth…

    For the first time on this board.. i can honestly say i am ashamed.

    (i am not offended by the faith aspect but that we required such an oath to begin with)

    • Did you force george’s wife submit the question, Billy? If not you can rest easy.

      Rossi spams stuff routinely. If he didn’t want to answer the question he wouldn’t have.

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes, it is extremely odd to ask AR this, but it is partly his own fault because the proof of the pudding is taking so long and it may take years before we know that it really works.

    • Michael W Wolf

      It is IH and the skeptics that cast the cloud of doubt. Some of the accusations are even plausible. I am guilty of the accusations shaking my faith in Rossi. I am not ashamed at all, it is exactly what I expected of Rossi. Words mean things. Granted, I would never ask him to do that, but now that he has done it, it can only help him get more support against the possible libel that has been launched at him.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        “I am guilty of the accusations shaking my faith in Rossi.”

        Why? Is Rossi your god and you need to repent?

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We simply do not have it yet.

      Either Rossi is a very honorable man, or an extremely convincing liar. How could we presume to know?

      • akupaku

        Looking things objectively there is no such thing as “extraordinary evidence”. It is just a completely subjective opinion, a thing that is extraordinary to one person could be completely ordinary to another. All things in nature are “ordinary”, there is nothing “extraordinary”. Just plain solid evidence is required to prove theories of nature. No phenomenon is more extraordinary than any other.

        Things that we today take for granted and self-evident might some time in the past been seen as extraordinary but that was just a subjective opinion based on ignorance.

        It is a shame on astronomer Carl Sagan who popularized this nonobjective and subjective phrase.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          This is pure semantics.

          Of course I would accept ‘ordinary evidence’ in the form of working, commercially available units.

        • Frechette

          Carl sagan was a total jerk as well as a bigot. He belittled the achievements of Wernher von Braun in the development of rocketry simply because he happened to be a German working for the other side during WWII.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          There is a saying in Finland where I come from:

          “lukea kuin piru raamattua”,

          which roughly translates to: “to read Bible like the Devil”. It means to purposely miss the crux of another’s argument, to play on semantics or to mischaracterize.

          Reality check: we don’t yet have definitive proof where Rossi wasn’t somehow involved in the testing process. Skepticism is more than warranted.

      • Warthog

        “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. “

        No, actually it does not. The very statement is anti-science, but it does give license to hard-core skeptics to deny any and all evidence that might support the phenomenon they choose to deny. All science requires is replicated results.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          I am not a “hardcore skeptic”. I believe there’s a non-trivial chance Rossi has got what he claims.

          All I meant was “independently verifiable evidence”, which we don’t yet have in my estimation.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        That statement is a litmus test for a community, and you saw the color the paper turned. It is, in fact, perfectly ordinary, this is how we operate in life. Ordinary evidence might be something like: My neighbor says he has a boat in his garage. It’s an ordinary claim, nothing terribly unusual about it. The saying of the neighbor is enough for an ordinary assumption, and this is a legal principle: testimony is presumed true unless controverted.

        Now, classic example of an extraordinary claim: my neighbor says there is a dragon in his garage. Do I believe him? I would start by seeking to understand what he said. What is a dragon, how does he know? In a version of this story, he says it’s invisible, but he can sense its presence, and if he listens carefully, he can hear it breathing. What do I conclude? Anything?

        Let’s call the statement ECEE. If ECEE is used to dismiss evidence, it is being used pseudoskeptically. And the word “pseudoskepticism” is a litmus test for a community. A pseduoskeptical community is likely to deny that there is any such thing as pseudoskepticism, that the word was invented by believers to bash skeptics with. Actually, the word came into usage with Truzzi, one of the founders of CSICOP, a real skeptic, who was willing to actually investigate paranormal claims.

        What is the extraordinary claim here? As pointed out by others, “extraordinary” is not objective. I would call it a brain reaction, though, the brain detects patterns and extraordinary means something out of the usual, perhaps implying contrast with prior experience.

        People are having various reactions to Rossi’s oath. What we have objectively is what he actually wrote, and the question he was responding to. We also have evidence about his history, which various readers interpret differently.

        If people have different reactions and then argue that their reactions are right, they are arguing about what is subjective. The reactions are what they are, it’s like arguing if it is right for a light bulb to light up when the switch is turned on, or that it is wrong if it doesn’t turn on. It turns on or it doesn’t. Right and wrong are subjective, which doesn’t mean “wrong,” it means, “conditioned by the observer.”

        Legally, “extraordinary evidence” is required to convict of a crime, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In a civil matter, though, courts will make decisions based on the “preponderance of the evidence.” That’s subjective, in fact, because evidence doesn’t have measurable weight.

        Extraordinary evidence is not required to have an opinion.

        Each of us form opinions based on our own “weight of the evidence,” but there is an aspect to this which can get us into trouble. If we have a prior conviction, apparently contrary evidence may seem like it must be wrong in some way, we may discount it, devalue it, explain it away.

        Hence the process of science looks for these a priori opinions and attempts to distinguish them, knowing that they can bias our assessment of evidence.

        Rossi was asked to attest, with an oath, a conclusion, not fact. Previously, asked to give his word as a gentleman, he was really asked the same question, and he answered with reasons why one should think that his devices generate power: he appealed to authority, the “nuclear engineer” of unquestionable integrity, the “esteemed professors” at reputable institutions. Is something true because experts say it is? What if that is a selected group of experts?

        Putting the best construction on the request for an oath, he was really asked, “Do you believe your devices generate power as you have claimed?” He was asked about his internal state, and what he disclosed was true or not, and there is no simple way to verify it, we could only look at his history and compare.

        Personally, I think it is not relevant, because people can believe things, including about themselves and how they think, which turn out to be illusions.

        Rossi made a conclusory declaration under an oath. In Rossi v. Darden, there will be, as this proceeds through discovery, many declarations under oath. All of them are commitments — under penalty of perjury –, but witnesses are not asked to attest to the their conclusions, their beliefs, but to their experience. Did you receive this email? Did you write this document? Is this a true copy? Things like that. The exception is that qualified expert witnesses, vetted by the court, may testify to their conclusions from evidence.

        Dewey Weaver made some statements about being Christian and having values against lying, and he was ridiculed by a strong Rossi supporter, one who, in fact, is accusing many of us of lying. That’s an extraordinary claim. What is his evidence? Turns out, an APCO employee was a visitor to the Doral plant and was cc’d in the IH announcement in March. From that, and from the existence of criticism of Rossi’s work by long-time writers on cold fusion, an APCO campaign of FUD is inferred and alleged. Over and over. And if APCO is involved, there must sinister forces at work. Evil afoot.

        For every set of evidences, there are an infinite number of possible interpretations, but some of them will be so out of the ordinary that we may set them aside. What decisions are we making? How are they important to us? Should we create a Rossi defense fund and send Rossi money? Should we picket the Court in Miami? The paid-FUD campaign idea requires someone with a lot of money thinking that what bloggers think is important to them, will make a difference. Will it?

        But here is a piece of ordinary evidence: I’m very much in touch with the LENR research community, including non-scientists who have invested significant time in LENR and writing about it. I have seen no trace of any effort, semi-public (CMNS list) or private, to solicit anti-Rossi writing, and I would think that I might be one of the first to be solicited, because of my history.

  • Billy Jackson

    I am actually somewhat offended by this. I call not his character into question but ours.

    That we required this oath to sooth our own doubts and fears belittles the man, his achievements. It shows that despite his sacrifice and dedication to the fight we have watched and at times been participants in. WE still stood before him and told him we did not believe him with out this dedication of truth…

    For the first time on this board.. i can honestly say i am ashamed.

    (i am not offended by the faith aspect but that we required such an oath to begin with)

    • Did you force george’s wife submit the question, Billy? If not you can rest easy.

      Rossi spams stuff routinely. If he didn’t want to answer the question he wouldn’t have.

      • bachcole

        “spams”, meaning toss the request into the trash bin and not answer.

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes, it is extremely odd to ask AR this, but it is partly his own fault because the proof of the pudding is taking so long and it may take years before we know that it really works.

    • Michael W Wolf

      It is IH and the skeptics that cast the cloud of doubt. Some of the accusations are even plausible. I am guilty of the accusations shaking my faith in Rossi. I am not ashamed at all, it is exactly what I expected of Rossi. Words mean things. Granted, I would never ask him to do that, but now that he has done it, it can only help him get more support against the possible libel that has been launched at him.

    • bachcole

      I understand what you are saying. But it does help me.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We simply do not have it yet.

      Either Rossi is a very honorable man, or an extremely convincing liar. How could we presume to know?

      • bachcole

        Regular ol’ evidence will work with extraordinary claims. I don’t need extraordinary evidence.

        I agree with your second paragraph. He strikes me as an honorable man.

      • priestie

        Evidence is evidence. How do you define “extraordinary evidence” anyway?
        In my view this is just a tool to supress new paradigms and thinking. Skeptics can allways claim that the evidence is not suficient “extraordinary”.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          How about this: I used a popular phrase as a shorthand, because I (falsely) assumed that all of you bright folks here would immediately grasp the crux of it. I need regular ol’ evidence, of which a couple of well-known companies making money off of working E-Cats would suffice.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Hey, you come here putting your thumb in peoples’ eye. As you know an argument can be made for practically anything. Well, you don’t want none, don’t give none. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is a snarky statement around here. Rossi and company are being accused of a mass conspiracy. Now my friend, that is an extraordinary claim.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Not familiar with this idiom, do you meant ‘to taunt, to provoke’?

            I refuse to believe that you do not, in good conscience, understand what is meant by “extraordinary evidence” in this case. It means that we need to be absolutely sure that no foul play is involved, the tests must be done by an independent entity with many independent people using many independent, cross-referencing methods of verification with Rossi and his pals a 1000 miles away. Just to be sure. Because of the enormous, earth-shattering magnitude of what is being suggested.

            I concur that both Rossi’s and IH’s claims are extraordinary and must be backed by strong evidence either way.

          • Michael W Wolf

            You don’t have to be absolutely sure of anything, Rossi is doing the work. The test doesn’t have to be independent. Especially if a company is using the energy. But I agree with the end of your comment.

        • Ciaranjay

          There are different levels of claims and different levels of evidence.
          If I said I was at a restaurant last night and had a picture on Facebook you would likely accept that.
          On the other hand, if that was my alibi in court, they would ask for stronger evidence.
          If I said I had a pet unicorn and showed a picture on Facebook you might want a stronger level of evidence, I would hope you would be skeptical and ask me to prove it.
          If someone says they have a perpetual motion machine you can be darn sure that very strong evidence will be required and any evidence provided will be examined with extreme skepticism.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Thank you!!

            At last, a sane person.

          • Michael W Wolf

            There is a big difference between excepting and having a wait and see attitude. Rossi says he has something, people around him concur. If this was cut and dried, there would already be units on the market. But it is very difficult to get a reaction, let alone automate it. I give Rossi the benefit of the doubt, until someone can prove him wrong. Nobody is making you come here, or else you would be right. This is a fan site. After all isn’t everything we believe depend on who we believe?

        • Michael W Wolf

          Exactly.

      • akupaku

        Looking at things objectively there is no such thing as “extraordinary evidence”. It is just a completely subjective opinion, a thing that is extraordinary to one person could be completely ordinary to another. All things in nature are “ordinary”, there is nothing “extraordinary”. Just plain solid evidence is required to prove theories of nature. No phenomenon is more extraordinary than any other.

        Things that we today take for granted and self-evident might some time in the past been seen as extraordinary but that was just a subjective opinion based on ignorance.

        It is a shame on astronomer Carl Sagan who popularized this nonobjective and subjective phrase.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          This is pure semantics.

          Of course I would accept ‘ordinary evidence’ in the form of working, commercially available units.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Commercially available units would be extraordinary, or is that semantics too? 🙂

          • akupaku

            Haha, this is the exception that confirms the rule! 😀

          • Warthog

            Actually, that statement is wrong. The actual meme is that exceptions PROOF (i.e. test) a hypothesis, not prove it. If the exception is replicable, then the hypothesis must be discarded.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Just what are you trying to say here? I am being accused of using the word ‘extraordinary’ incorrectly. Yes, it would be extraordinary to me in relation to the original intent of my sentence that unleashed this s**tstorm. How terribly lacking in literary pedantry of me. We can’t all be linguists.

          • Michael W Wolf

            I was just playing around with you man, relax.

          • bachcole

            Then why use the sentence “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”? You sort of contradict yourself.

            I accept the 2013 and 2014 tests as proof enough, and I won’t be debating them with anyone. Debating them amounts to two monkey debating about the Moon that they see reflected in a pond.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            “Then why use the sentence “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”? You sort of contradict yourself.” Really, now? I had no idea the phrase popularized by Carl Sagan carried such an unscientific stigma. I think you’re trying way too hard to paint me as the illogical, unreasonable pathoskeptic.

            “I accept the 2013 and 2014 tests as proof enough, and I won’t be debating them with anyone.” Didn’t these tests, under some analysis, amount to a COP of roughly 1?

        • Frechette

          Carl sagan was a total jerk as well as a bigot. He belittled the achievements of Wernher von Braun in the development of rocketry simply because he happened to be a German working for the other side during WWII.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          There is a saying in Finland where I come from:

          “lukea kuin piru raamattua”,

          which roughly translates to: “to read the Bible like the Devil”. It means to purposely miss the crux of another’s argument, to play on semantics or to mischaracterize.

          Reality check: we don’t yet have definitive proof where Rossi wasn’t somehow involved in the testing process. Healthy skepticism is more than warranted.

          • Michael W Wolf

            There is no proof of God either Teemu. But I don’t go around to Christian sites, arguing that with them. They may well be right because I have no proof they are wrong. I know this is a little different, but you go right up to the line of antagonism sometimes. And according to some we don’t have definitive proof we went to the moon. We take peoples’ words for it.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I guess “definitive proof” then depends on your personal threshold for what constitutes such. I do want to point out that there is an enormous body of evidence that man went to the moon.

          • Michael W Wolf

            I know that, but don’t you think the guys who tested the rocks, could be lying? I have concluded from what I learned and who I believed, that we went to the moon. But are you 100% sure?

          • Michael W Wolf

            Hey did you know that no other country could get to the moon? They tried and none other made it.

      • Warthog

        “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. “

        No, actually it does not. The very statement is anti-science, but it does give license to hard-core skeptics to deny any and all evidence that might support the phenomenon they choose to deny. All science requires is replicated results.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          I am not a “hardcore skeptic”. I believe there’s a non-trivial chance that Rossi has got what he says.

          All I meant was “independently verifiable evidence”, which we don’t yet have in my estimation.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        That statement is a litmus test for a community, and you saw the color the paper turned. It is, in fact, perfectly ordinary, this is how we operate in life. Ordinary evidence might be something like: My neighbor says he has a boat in his garage. It’s an ordinary claim, nothing terribly unusual about it. The saying of the neighbor is enough for an ordinary assumption, and this is a legal principle: testimony is presumed true unless controverted.

        Now, classic example of an extraordinary claim: my neighbor says there is a dragon in his garage. Do I believe him? I would start by seeking to understand what he said. What is a dragon, how does he know? In a version of this story, he says it’s invisible, but he can sense its presence, and if he listens carefully, he can hear it breathing. What do I conclude? Anything?

        Let’s call the statement ECEE. If ECEE is used to dismiss evidence, it is being used pseudoskeptically. And the word “pseudoskepticism” is a litmus test for a community. A pseduoskeptical community is likely to deny that there is any such thing as pseudoskepticism, that the word was invented by believers to bash skeptics with. Actually, the word came into usage with Truzzi, one of the founders of CSICOP, a real skeptic, who was willing to actually investigate paranormal claims.

        What is the extraordinary claim here? As pointed out by others, “extraordinary” is not objective. I would call it a brain reaction, though, the brain detects patterns and extraordinary means something out of the usual, perhaps implying contrast with prior experience.

        People are having various reactions to Rossi’s oath. What we have objectively is what he actually wrote, and the question he was responding to. We also have evidence about his history, which various readers interpret differently.

        If people have different reactions and then argue that their reactions are right, they are arguing about what is subjective. The reactions are what they are, it’s like arguing if it is right for a light bulb to light up when the switch is turned on, or that it is wrong if it doesn’t turn on. It turns on or it doesn’t. Right and wrong are subjective, which doesn’t mean “wrong,” it means, “conditioned by the observer.”

        Legally, “extraordinary evidence” is required to convict of a crime, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In a civil matter, though, courts will make decisions based on the “preponderance of the evidence.” That’s subjective, in fact, because evidence doesn’t have measurable weight.

        Extraordinary evidence is not required to have an opinion.

        Each of us form opinions based on our own “weight of the evidence,” but there is an aspect to this which can get us into trouble. If we have a prior conviction, apparently contrary evidence may seem like it must be wrong in some way, we may discount it, devalue it, explain it away.

        Hence the process of science looks for these a priori opinions and attempts to distinguish them, knowing that they can bias our assessment of evidence.

        Rossi was asked to attest, with an oath, a conclusion, not fact. Previously, asked to give his word as a gentleman, he was really asked the same question, and he answered with reasons why one should think that his devices generate power: he appealed to authority, the “nuclear engineer” of unquestionable integrity, the “esteemed professors” at reputable institutions. Is something true because experts say it is? What if that is a selected group of experts?

        Putting the best construction on the request for an oath, he was really asked, “Do you believe your devices generate power as you have claimed?” He was asked about his internal state, and what he disclosed was true or not, and there is no simple way to verify it, we could only look at his history and compare.

        Personally, I think it is not relevant, because people can believe things, including about themselves and how they think, which turn out to be illusions.

        Rossi made a conclusory declaration under an oath. In Rossi v. Darden, there will be, as this proceeds through discovery, many declarations under oath. All of them are commitments — under penalty of perjury –, but witnesses are not asked to attest to the their conclusions, their beliefs, but to their experience. Did you receive this email? Did you write this document? Is this a true copy? Things like that. The exception is that qualified expert witnesses, vetted by the court, may testify to their conclusions from evidence.

        Dewey Weaver made some statements about being Christian and having values against lying, and he was ridiculed by a strong Rossi supporter, one who, in fact, is accusing many of us of lying. That’s an extraordinary claim. What is his evidence? Turns out, an APCO employee was a visitor to the Doral plant and was cc’d in the IH announcement in March. From that, and from the existence of criticism of Rossi’s work by long-time writers on cold fusion, an APCO campaign of FUD is inferred and alleged. Over and over. And if APCO is involved, there must sinister forces at work. Evil afoot.

        For every set of evidences, there are an infinite number of possible interpretations, but some of them will be so out of the ordinary that we may set them aside. What decisions are we making? How are they important to us? Should we create a Rossi defense fund and send Rossi money? Should we picket the Court in Miami? The paid-FUD campaign idea requires someone with a lot of money thinking that what bloggers think is important to them, will make a difference. Will it?

        But here is a piece of ordinary evidence: I’m very much in touch with the LENR research community, including non-scientists who have invested significant time in LENR and writing about it. I have seen no trace of any effort, semi-public (CMNS list) or private, to solicit anti-Rossi writing, and I would think that I might be one of the first to be solicited, because of my history.

  • Gerard McEk

    We all know Rossi’s religieus background. I too believe that this oath is significant and gives me more faith that Andrea has something in operation that works as he has always said it does.

  • Gerard McEk

    We all know Rossi’s religieus background. I too believe that this oath is significant and gives me more faith that Andrea has something in operation that works as he has always said it does.

  • Bruce Williams

    I find this statement to be profoundly moving & re-assuring.

  • Bruce Williams

    I find this statement to be profoundly moving & re-assuring.

  • bachcole

    It helps me. I am impressed.

    I swear to the Living God that I will not disbelieve Rossi until someone proves him false. In my mind, he is innocent until proven otherwise.

    I copied his oath and sent it to most of my contacts. That is how impressed I am.

    • Steve Swatman

      Just this

      “I swear to the Living God that I will not disbelieve Rossi until someone proves him false. In my mind, he is innocent until proven otherwise.”

  • Zephir

    But… but… was Bible peer reviewed….? It was not even written in English(°o°)

    • bachcole

      Yeah, perhaps it was a fake Bible. One can never be too sure. (:->)

    • Alex

      The Vatican is in the same country as the University of Bologna and Lugano is at the Swiss-Italian border.

      • akupaku

        I am not at all a religious person but I have to say that I am impressed!

  • Zephir

    But… but… was Bible peer reviewed….? It was not even written in English(°o°)

    • bachcole

      Yeah, perhaps it was a fake Bible. One can never be too sure. (:->)

    • Alex

      The Vatican is in the same country as the University of Bologna and Lugano is at the Swiss-Italian border.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Thank God it wasn’t. lol

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Obviously, if Rossi were a conman, the whole Bible thumping thing would be part of it.

    • bachcole

      Your hatred of religious/spiritual people is showing. Yes, he could still be a con artist. But it is up to you to prove it.

      For me, if he was a Muslim or a Hindu and had sworn upon the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita, respectively, I would be feeling exactly the same.

      • roseland67

        Not up to Teemu to prove anything,
        Still up to Rossi.

        • William D. Fleming

          No one has to prove anything to anyone, but if you are going to accuse someone of a crime you should have some very good evidence.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Does that mean that anytime anyone here speculates on scenarios under which either Rossi or IH are fraudulent, they must come up with evidence?

          • Michael W Wolf

            speculate is a far cry from IH and others are doing T.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Yes, I agree. They also know the truth, whatever it may be.

        • Michael W Wolf

          When Rossi is accused of such things, it is up to accusers to prove it.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            No, you got it backwards. The original onus is on Rossi.

            I am not “accusing” him on anything, simply considering alternative explanations. I am not 100% committed to any truth, because I don’t know the truth.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea I know Teemu. You haven’t actually accused Rossi, so that comment really doesn’t apply to you, sorry.

        • Steve Swatman

          “Innocent until proven guilty” you accuse mr Rossi of charades, fraud, deceit, Teemu does the same but with less openess, however you could be both sat across the same desk.

          So Again Mr rossi is “Innocent until proven guilty” and he offers far more proof of his innocence that any of you “nay sayers” offer as proof of his guilt.

      • Chapman

        I so agree!

        The value of any oath lies in the faith of the oath-maker. We know of Rossi’s religious beliefs, and such a heartfelt and absolute oath from such as he, given in such a manner, is more convincing to me than eyewitness testimony.

        I am greatly encouraged.

        But I must admit that I agree with Billy Jackson below – that while it speaks volumes about Rossi for him to make this oath, it also speaks poorly of us that demanded such an oath FROM him. I admit that I was dismayed by the reported email regarding faking the test with Hydrofusion, as I also have firm beliefs about honor and loyalty that leave me unable to excuse such actions, but now I find myself questioning the authenticity of that email as I cannot reconcile the two sentiments as having come from a common source.

        No matter your opinion regarding the E-Cat science, you HAVE to admire, respect, and even LOVE the man – or question what kind of man YOU are…

      • Teemu Soilamo

        “Your hatred of religious/spiritual people is showing”

        How? I have said nothing demeaning of religious people.

    • Ged

      Why do people keep physically abusing all those Bibles :(?

      • Guru Khalsa

        repressed spirituality

    • sam

      But if he is a Christian like I believe he is it will mean that he truly believes
      what he swears to.
      But the bigger problem for A.R. is to
      get T.D. To believe.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Right, I agree it would mean a lot IF he were a Christian.

        Again, back to square one.

        • sam

          From Vessy’s Blog
          I am a psychologist and then, by nature and profession, an inquisitive person. The detail visible in the image shown below, probably prepared by an expert in photography, struck me too.

          Agenda

          Detail of the Rossi’s personal agenda on his desk.

          It is the agenda of Rossi, visible on the desktop, where you can see, on its right hand page, an image that seems a Madonna or something like that. So, I asked Andrea what it was…Madonna delle Grazie (MI)

          “Dear Vessy, here is the story of the image you asked about,” Andrea begins the unexpected story. “That is the image of the ‘Madonna delle Grazie‘ “, he explains.

          So, I immediately searched on the web, where I found a beautiful picture of the Madonna, Santa Maria delle Grazie or, in English, ‘St. Mary of the Graces’, which coincides with the silhouette of the image analyzed above.

          Andrea told me in detail the story:

          “When I have been made free and exited from the prison of Milan, Italy, after being cleared, I went immediately to prey in the church of ‘Santa Maria delle Grazie’ (the prison is not far from there)”.

          Rossi, in fact, was arrested several years ago in Italy for a long story, as an unpredictable consequence of a previous and important discovery, as described in detail in my book “E-CAT THE NEW FIRE – A biography of Andrea Rossi,” which you can find here.

          Andrea continues the story underlining that this is an important church: “It is, by the way, the church with inside the famous fresco ‘The Last Supper’ by Leonardo Da Vinci”.

          Indeed, on the end wall of the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie, there is one of the world’s most famous religious paintings, a masterpiece of the Italian Renaissance.

          ultcen

          Leonardo Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” (1495-97).

          Then he explained how the events took place:
          “I prayed in that church for my future life and prayed to make useful for something all the studies made in prison on the LENR. I have taken that day, in the same church, an image of St. Mary of the Graces, which is exactly the one that you can see inside my agenda”.

          Finally, he reveals why the image of Our Lady is so faded:
          “From the day I have taken it, many years ago, I prey everyday looking at it, to make useful my work on LENR, so that now it is very worn and barely visible”.

          That’s it. If, from now on, you wonder how Rossi was able to discover the effect that carries his name, you should consider that, in addition to the “material” things, an important role – in my opinion – may have been played by the more ethereal spiritual component

          THE TRUE BELIEVERS ARE OR
          WERE IN THE PRISON SYSTEM.

          • sam

            The last 2 lines are mine.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Clearly, an effective strategy. It makes you more likely to believe in him, even when you don’t have the proof.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Wow, how could you urinate on a story like that? True colors man, true colors.

          • Chapman

            Amen brother!

            I am often a jerk, but there are just some lines you don’t cross – and times when you know to just be quiet. It’s a Character thing.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            If Rossi were just any man, I would agree. However, he claims to have solved the world’s energy crisis. I will NOT take him for his word until the technology is commercialized and proven to work by several third-party entities not connected to Rossi.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            What is this Cult of Rossi that is forming here on E-Cat World, anyway? I’m sorry if I can’t “believe” in the E-Cat based on nothing but revelation.

          • bachcole

            Your unwillingness to believe the 2013 and 2014 tests is not justification for you to denigrate our intelligence and good sense. Which revelation told you to disbelieve the professors; how is it that you can know what was going on during those tests better than the professors? You really are quite the high and mighty one.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Stop putting words in my mouth.

            I don’t claim to know better than the professors, I’m simply saying the methods they used to measure the COP seem to be under dispute. This is the “revelation” I speak of, if you want to call it such.

            THEREFORE –> not 100% conclusive

          • bachcole

            I grant you that it is not 100% conclusive to you, if you say so. It is 100% conclusive to me.

            And all of those people who dispute the 2013 and 2014 tests also were not there, just like you and just like me. So they know no more than you and I. I trust the professors, who had/have everything to lose. You are, again, just following the crowd, which you accuse us of doing. Some people doubt or dispute the results, but those people weren’t there.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            So, you admit you weren’t there but are 100% sure that the results are conclusive (“to you”, as if the truth were different for each person)?

            Hope you’re not in a position to make big investments for anyone.

          • bachcole

            If I was an investment dude, of course I would require more proof.

            Truth may be out there, but what we believe to be true varies from person to person.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            But you claimed you were 100% certain. Why would you then require more proof?

          • Steve Swatman

            What is really happening is this, You accept the word of unknown people who were not there and have done any scientific tests with Mr Rossi’s device and or the word of a legal team who know only that they are paid to win a court case.

            We (the believers) take the details from Mr Rossi, the ERV, the guys who worked with Mr Rossi, the lugano testers and the professors, who have seen, touched and tested Mr Rossi’s device, as holding far more credence than the negative commenting, no experience Apco/Academi brigade of condemnation and derogatory remarks aimed at condemning a man who is trying to create.

            If you do not accept that’s fine, however you might just let who do accept have their bit of fun and stop heckling the actors in this play.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I have absolutely no qualms with that. I have a problem with stating you’re 100% sure. 80-90% sure, now that would be fine though still a miscalculation is my estimation.

          • Steve Swatman

            The thing is, that you totally ignore the fact that the people who feel 100% certain do so on information from valid scientists, professors and electricians. who were there, who tested the device, who understand as much as anyone can that the device worked, even IH claimed the device worked, they made the device and it worked, and yet, You have a desire to not accept these people, their evaluations and their tests, for some reason known only to yourself.

            And you have such a low vicious manner of denigration, for both Mr Rossi and his device and the people who come here with positive ideas, positive comments, positive hope.

            What is that all about, envy?

          • Teemu Soilamo

            No envy, just skepticism. No need to read into it any more than that.

            Because of the nature of the E-Cat, I require more evidence than I would for an invention of a lesser importance. I won’t rule out a large conspiracy or clever manipulations. I wish I could be convinced already, but I am not.

          • bachcole

            Steve, did you borrow my brain when I wasn’t paying attention, perhaps while I was asleep?

            So you actually had two brains to use ’cause that comment was so well written.

            (:->)

          • Steve Swatman

            I accept that as a compliment sir, from such an auspicious commenter as yourself.

          • bachcole

            I know that it was sort of an awkward compliment, implying that you couldn’t have thought it up by yourself. (:->) I just thought that it was so perfectly written and exactly what I wanted to say.

          • Steve Swatman

            Again I thank you sir.

            I often smile at your comments and your concise, succinct and direct defense of your stance concerning Mr Rossi and LENR.

          • bachcole

            The problem with my current mind set (which would account for “concise, succinct, and direct”) is that if a comment is too long, I will probably not finish reading it. I figure that if they needed a lot of words to say what they wanted to say that what they had to say probably wasn’t worth much or they were still confused about what they wanted to say. Why, just yesterday I was telling Arnold that . . . . . . (as in Arnold the guvornator, known for his very short answers because his English wasn’t so great when he first started in movies).

            (:->)

          • sam

            And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
            Matthew 8:26

  • Carl Wilson

    “giving a clear output far above the input in line with a discovery outside of any process I have knowledge of” testifies to the reality of LENR+ (high COP).
    Does “E-Cat works as I have described” apply to ‘control issues’?

  • Carl Wilson

    “giving a clear output far above the input in line with a discovery outside of any process I have knowledge of” testifies to the reality of LENR+ (high COP).
    Does “E-Cat works as I have described” apply to ‘control issues’?

  • akupaku

    I am not at all a religious person but I have to say that I am impressed!

  • roseland67

    Replication of excess heat by multiple, non Rossi related experimenters, scientists and engineers carries infinitely more weight,
    Underwhelming.

    • Steve Swatman

      And there I was enjoying the show, in walks the guy with 4 noisy kids, a big bag of crisps and doesn’t switch off the phones…

  • William D. Fleming

    No one has to prove anything to anyone, but if you are going to accuse someone of a crime you should have some very good evidence.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Does that mean that anytime anyone here speculates on scenarios under which either Rossi or IH are fraudulent, they must come up with evidence?

  • akupaku

    Haha, this is the exception that confirms the rule! 😀

    • Warthog

      Actually, that statement is wrong. The actual meme is that exceptions PROOF (i.e. test) a hypothesis, not prove it. If the exception is replicable, then the hypothesis must be discarded.

  • jimbo92107

    I bet he winds up in prison for massive fraud. This makes me even more sure. Religion is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    • Gerard McEk

      I am grateful that Andrea responded on my following personal question:

      August 16, 2016 at 2:50 AM
      Dear Andrea,
      I am not sure if you want to talk about personal things, if not than please bin this.
      The oath that Jacky asked you for was very unusual and I believe it is much appreciated that you did respond on it positively. It gave me much more faith that what you are saying can be trusted. Thank you for that.
      I just wonder how you felt when Jacky asked you to do this oath. What were your emotions?
      Kind regards, Gerard

      Andrea Rossi
      August 16, 2016 at 7:19 AM
      Gerard McEk:
      As I received that request I was offended, but rethinking about that I decided to accept. Our foe is using the tactic to make his puppets raise mud saying stupidities of which the puppets are not liable because they, substantially, are nobody and are not officially bound to him; nor the foe is reliable, because he is saying nothing directly, he is always shielded by the puppets. This way they can disseminate slanders and repeat their lies like a commercial spot on television: repeat a message to sell a product, and people will buy it even if it is not good. I cannot disclose information that have to be disclosed in Court, and they are taking advantage of this, creating confusion. At the end I decided to comply. I wrote the truth, so at the end my emotions about this are strong, but positive.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • georgehants

        Gerard, good question and seeming very honest answer from Mr Rossi.
        He seems to have thought deeply about his reply to the Oath and this question and his answers for me hold that ring of Truth.
        Just my opinion.

        • Gerard McEk

          I agree George. I also think it is a good action counter the puppets attacks.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Yes, but one should careful read his answer.

          He stating that the ecat works. It works as described. He certainly
          not confirming or agreeing to any kind of output or COP such as 50.
          so there is no context. Given the Lagardo report and several other tests, and several other LENR players who have a COP in the 2-3 range, then all we know is that the device and what Rossi has produces a COP over 1 – this answer in zero way confirms a high COP.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Omega Z

            I agree with you including the caution about the COP. If I recall, what is/was available from certain sources, the E-cat was COP>50 for substantial periods of the 1 year test. That does not mean average COP of 50. Substantial is also a subjective term. How much time did it spend in SSM. Is that 30% of the time, 50% of the time or what?

            How about the E-cat in SSM 90% of the time. That’s 9 of every 10 hours. That is COP=10 and ignores the fact that even in SSM, the E-cat still requires some power input. While I find a COP=50 plausible for limited periods of time, I’m far less positive of the equaring to an Average of COP=50.

            And lets not forget. Rossi has never claimed an average COP=50. In fact, he still stands by the guaranteed COP>6..

      • sam

        This would be a good Bible verse for A.R. and T.D. to work on.
        I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
        Mathew 5:44

    • Steve Swatman

      “Innocent until proven guilty” you accuse mr Rossi of charades, fraud, deceit, Teemu does the same but with less openess, however you could be both sat across the same desk.

      So Again Mr rossi is “Innocent until proven guilty” and he offers far more proof of his innocence that any of you “nay sayers” offer as proof of his guilt.

      • Steve Swatman

        The thing is, that you totally ignore the fact that the people who feel 100% certain do so on information from valid scientists, professors and electricians. who were there, who tested the device, who understand as much as anyone can that the device worked, even IH claimed the device worked, they made the device and it worked, and yet, You have a desire to not accept these people, their evaluations and their tests, for some reason known only to yourself.

        And you have such a low vicious manner of denigration, for both Mr Rossi and his device and the people who come here with positive ideas, positive comments, positive hope.

        What is that all about, envy?

  • Andy Kumar

    // This takes things outside the realm of technical reports and into the realm of character, faith and honor.//
    .
    Bible also teaches you to be charitable to fellow humans, and NOT to covet MONEY, among other things? No need to take oath. Even Jesus himself refused to prove that he has special powers. It was up to you to believe him or not. It gets curiouser and curiouser as Alice would say.

    • Andy Kumar

      Just like to add that taking HIS name in vain is NEVER justified. There are much *simpler, mundane and effective* ways to assure your audience that you HAVE what you claim.

  • Andy Kumar

    // This takes things outside the realm of technical reports and into the realm of character, faith and honor.//
    .
    Bible also teaches you to be charitable to fellow humans, and NOT to covet MONEY, among other things? No need to take oath. Even Jesus himself refused to prove that he has special powers. It was up to you to believe him or not. It gets curiouser and curiouser as Alice would say.

    • Andy Kumar

      Just like to add that taking HIS name in vain is NEVER justified. There are much *simpler, mundane and effective* ways to assure your audience that you HAVE what you claim.

  • Michael W Wolf

    When Rossi is accused of such things, it is up to accusers to prove it.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      No, you got it backwards. The original onus is on Rossi.

      I am not “accusing” him on anything, simply considering alternative explanations. I am not 100% committed to any truth, because I don’t know the truth.

  • Chapman

    I so agree!

    The value of any oath lies in the faith of the oath-maker. We know of Rossi’s religious beliefs, and such a heartfelt and absolute oath from such as he, given in such a manner, is more convincing to me than eyewitness testimony.

    I am greatly encouraged.

    But I must admit that I agree with Billy Jackson below – that while it speaks volumes about Rossi for him to make this oath, it also speaks poorly of us that demanded such an oath FROM him. I admit that I was dismayed by the reported email regarding faking the test with Hydrofusion, as I also have firm beliefs about honor and loyalty that leave me unable to excuse such actions, but now I find myself questioning the authenticity of that email as I cannot reconcile the two sentiments as having come from a common source.

    No matter your opinion regarding the E-Cat science, you HAVE to admire, respect, and even LOVE the man – or question what kind of man YOU are…

  • Ivan Idso

    I only rarely post on here, although I check it daily. It will come as no suprise to anyone who remembers my previous posts, that I fully support Rossi. I have seen enough instances over the years where what “Rossi says” turns out to be actual, that I believe him to be a man of great character.

    I know of at least one other gentleman who is a bit excentric (in aviation) but who has done amazing things, so I have come to the conclusion that in order to achieve great things and to think way out of the box, you quite likely won’t fit into the norm.

    I don’t really care what some people on this post say, because if they were half the man/woman that Rossi is then they would be coming up with solutions rather than throwing out contrary remarks to any positive comments made. Unless they have proof that they have done anything to advance lenr or civilization as a whole, I won’t give them any attention.

    Further, it doesn’t matter if you believe in religion or not, this is about character and values. End of story.

    • Mike Rion

      I could have said it better.

      • Mike Rion

        Sorry, I meant “couldn’t have said it better”.

  • Ivan Idso

    I only rarely post on here, although I check it daily. It will come as no suprise to anyone who remembers my previous posts, that I fully support Rossi. I have seen enough instances over the years where what “Rossi says” turns out to be actual, that I believe him to be a man of great character.

    I know of at least one other gentleman who is a bit excentric (in aviation) but who has done amazing things, so I have come to the conclusion that in order to achieve great things and to think way out of the box, you quite likely won’t fit into the norm.

    I don’t really care what some people on this post say, because if they were half the man/woman that Rossi is then they would be coming up with solutions rather than throwing out contrary remarks to any positive comments made. Unless they have proof that they have done anything to advance lenr or civilization as a whole, I won’t give them any attention.

    Further, it doesn’t matter if you believe in religion or not, this is about character and values. End of story.

    • Mike Rion

      I could have said it better.

      • Mike Rion

        Sorry, I meant “couldn’t have said it better”.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    “Your hatred of religious/spiritual people is showing”

    How? I have said nothing demeaning of religious people.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    “Then why use the sentence “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”? You sort of contradict yourself.” Really, now? I had no idea the phrase popularized by Carl Sagan carried such an unscientific stigma. I think you’re trying way too hard to paint me as the illogical, unreasonable pathoskeptic.

    “I accept the 2013 and 2014 tests as proof enough, and I won’t be debating them with anyone.” Didn’t these tests, under some analysis, amount to a COP of roughly 1?

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Just what are you trying to say here? I am being accused of using the word ‘extraordinary’ incorrectly. Yes, it would be extraordinary in my opinion. How terribly lacking in literary pedantry of me. We can’t all be linguists.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Say Rossi is a fraud. First, God forbid you even consider the possibility because you’re immediately witch-hunted down and labeled a pathoskeptic. But just for amusement’s sake.

    We, the regular Joes, are in no way to further his agenda. But we also know Tom Darden and JT Vaughn as men of faith. Don’t you think that their judgements wouldn’t be affected by Rossi’s careful manipulations (which they would be IF he were a fraud)? I mean, if it had an effect on you, why not them?

    Just consider these two sentences by Michael W Wolt:

    “If it were false. But it made the pendulum swing to his favor in hearts and minds”

    “I am guilty of the accusations shaking my faith in Rossi”

    Two statements, in which it wouldn’t be wrong to presume that religion is the single most contributing factor to his faith in Rossi.

    Again, I stress the word “if”. Sorry if I hurt your delicate feelings. I’ve almost had it with this place.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    “But it made the pendulum swing to his favor in hearts and minds”

    It certainly did. Mission accomplished 😉

    Atheists are not some singular, monolithic block that you can characterize at your whim. That would make you a ‘bigot’. For example: I have never said that religious people cannot be great scientists.

    But it does mean that you have to leave your faith out of the rigorous scientific process. It’s called compartmentalization, being an astrophysicist at work but going to Church in your free time. Some people can handle the internal strife of selectively applying logic to different parts of their life, others cannot. It’s a no-brainer statement.

    How can I hate someone I don’t believe to exist?

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Who here has said that he knows God doesn’t exist?

    Richard Dawkins is a well-known “atheist”, yet, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is a 100% belief that God exists and 7 is a 100% belief that God doesn’t exist, he describes himself as a 6.9/7 because you cannot absolutely prove a negative. I am the same.

  • Ciaranjay

    There are different levels of claims and different levels of evidence.
    If I said I was at a restaurant last night and had a picture on Facebook you would likely accept that.
    On the other hand, if that was my alibi in court, they would ask for stronger evidence.
    If I said I had a pet unicorn and showed a picture on Facebook you might want a stronger level of evidence, I would hope you would be skeptical and ask me to prove it.
    If someone says they have a perpetual motion machine you can be darn sure that very strong evidence will be required and any evidence provided will be examined with extreme skepticism.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Thank you!!

      At last, a sane person.

  • What if Rossi lost touch with reality, just not admitting himself he made measurement errors since the early days?

    He can swear a lot to the bible. It means nothing.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      I don’t think he could keep on fooling so many people if he had lost touch with reality.

    • Measurement error is a red herring with so many years, so many prototypes and so many tests and so many involved.

      The Lugano ash alone eliminates the unintentional error scenario. Either Rossi switched the ash or the E-Cat is a nuclear device.

  • What if Rossi lost touch with reality, just not admitting himself he made measurement errors since the early days?

    He can swear a lot to the bible. It means nothing.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      I don’t think he could keep on fooling so many people if he had lost touch with reality. // in the hypothetical fraud scenario, do I have to point this out every time now?

    • Measurement error is a red herring with so many years, so many prototypes and so many tests and so many involved.

      The Lugano ash alone eliminates the unintentional error scenario. Either Rossi switched the ash or the E-Cat is a nuclear device.

  • georgehants

    All interesting, of course this Oath means nothing in the rightly cold world of scientific Evidence.
    It Truly removes many of the possibilities.
    Mr. Rossi is either telling the Truth or has in full public view condemned himself irreversibly in terms of his own professed beliefs.
    We I think are only left with the two possibilities, the E-cats work as he says or a very disturbed man psychologically.
    This Oath taken in most courts of Christian communities, as Mr. Rossi says on JONP, for many years, does carry weight as long as the person taking the Oath has a religious conscious and the Evidence seems to show that Mr. Rossi does.
    Another chapter in this story of Human nature.

    • cashmemorz

      Science does not attempt ever to deny. Notice the preceeding statement does not qualify what is being denied. This is the crux of the scientific method that denial or affirmation is not part of science. It does not start from a point of affirmation or denial of whatever is being investigated. It only goes where the numbers and research point. The numbers and research indicate what is probably there. It is dispassionate and without opinion. Affirmation or denial is an opinion that people add from their own personal state of preference. Science has no preferences. It has its own definition of what it is. However people want to color science according to opinion, based on pre-affirmation or pre-denial of something before the evidence is in.

      • cashmemorz

        Also science does not start with a baseless preconceived idea of a power that has no point in being investigated. Science does not start with preconceived ideas and work on proving them. It works on problems with known exiting phenomena that are known to exit from previous problem solving. To do otherwise would be to turn the scientific method into a religious method.

        • georgehants

          You seem to have failed to read my comment, I said —-
          “just add that any attempt by science to deny the possible existence of a
          creator with the known Evidence, shows a level of scientific
          incompetence that can only be laughed at.”
          Your reply is in no way connected to my comment.
          Please try again.

          • cashmemorz

            Yo say “attempt by science to deny the possible existence of” is a statement of how you see science working. I made the statement that science does not start with denial. That is an accurate definition of science.

          • georgehants

            You again seem to act ignorant of the vast mass of science that tries to deny the possible existence of a creator. please state clearly that you except that science cannot scientifically deny that a creator is responsible for all our existence.

          • cashmemorz

            Science does not try to do any such thing. If some scientists are trying to deny a religious entity then it is an opinion of a few. Same as saying that a religious group is all corrupt base on the acts of a few. Both are baseless blanket statements.

          • cashmemorz

            The opinions of scientists has nothing to to with science itself. Science is a tool and has no opinions much as a hammer has no opinion of what it is to be used for. If science points to way to dispassionate research then when a religious person says that there is something wrong with the methods used to prove or disprove because the method cannot prove or disprove the existence of a religious entity then it is not the fault of the people doing the research it is the way that the method works.

          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, agreed, only a fool would follow scientific “opinions”
            That there is no creator is a foolish incompetent scientific opinion by some.
            Do you say there is no possibility of a creator

          • sam

            Some Scientists can believe in multi universes,life on other planets,extraterrestrial
            life etc.
            But they can’t stretch there
            imaginations to believe in
            God,Christ,Holy spirit,
            Heaven,etc

          • georgehants

            sam, so agree, but science has no place for a persons beliefs, only Facts and Evidence.
            Opinions etc. are for fun and recreation and personal use,
            It is not their place to believe or disbelieve just keep an open-mind and Research the Facts, if they cannot do this then they have no place in science.

          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, you need to read a little more of the Dawk as in Dawkins and Hawkins and thousands of others failed scientists who routinely try to make out that science knows there is no creator.
            Thanks for chat

          • cashmemorz

            If that is where science takes them then they are honest. More people should take that road.

          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, As it is impossible for science to state that there is no creator, those that do are incompetent fools.
            I asked above are you saying there is no creator?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          general comment: Both science and religion try to explain the world. If an explanation is falsifiable, it belongs in science, if not, it belongs in religion. Taken in this way there is no real conflict between the two.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, you seem to be saying that all the theories of science that are not falsifiable at present are to be only viewed as religion.
            I would certainly agree with you based on the attitude of many scientists to their many un-proveable Dogmas such as Cold Fusion is impossible etc. but Cold Fusion Evidence as it appears, or the possibility of our existence being a Hologram etc. cannot, just because of temporary ignorance (that is the inability to falsify them) be excluded from science and made religious surely, or there would be almost nothing left for science to do beyond a steam engine.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Interestingly, the numerous transition from religious to scientific explanations and back possible?

          • bachcole

            IMHO, that part of religion which is intended to explain the world in a mechanistic sense of “explain” is bu11$hit. That part of religion which is intended to help people clean out their hearts and build depth within themselves is GREAT and the real intention of the founders of the Great Religions.

  • georgehants

    All interesting, of course this Oath means nothing in the rightly cold world of scientific Evidence.
    Mr. Rossi is either telling the Truth or has in full public view condemned himself irreversibly in terms of his own professed beliefs.
    We I think are only left with the two possibilities, the E-cats work as he says or a very disturbed man psychologically.
    This Oath, taken in most courts of Christian communities (as Mr. Rossi says on JONP) for many years, does carry weight as long as the person taking the Oath has a religious or honorable conscious and the Evidence seems to show that Mr. Rossi does, excepting the damage caused by the delay in showing clear, repeatable proof of his findings exceptable to rational observers.
    Another chapter in this story of human nature and possibly nurture.
    ———
    Edit, just add that any attempt by science to deny the possible existence of a creator with the known Evidence, shows a level of scientific incompetence that can only be laughed at.

    • cashmemorz

      Science does not attempt ever to deny. Notice the preceeding statement does not qualify what is being denied. This is the crux of the scientific method that denial or affirmation is not part of science. It does not start from a point of affirmation or denial of whatever is being investigated. It only goes where the numbers and research point. The numbers and research indicate what is probably there. It is dispassionate and without opinion. Affirmation or denial is an opinion that people add from their own personal state of preference. Science has no preferences. It has its own definition of what it is. However people want to color science according to opinion, based on pre-affirmation or pre-denial of something before the evidence is in. Science is a tool only. Just as a hammer has no opinion or bias similar with science. If a hammer hits a nail then there is a nail.If it does not hit a nail, then there is no nail where the hammer hit. If science can find something then its found because the method currently used was able to find that thing. If science cannot find something does not mean it doesn’t exist, just that the current methods cannot find it. No opinion in this method.

      • cashmemorz

        Also science does not start with a baseless preconceived idea of a power that has no point in being investigated. Science does not start with preconceived ideas and work on proving them. It works on problems with known exiting phenomena that are known to exit from previous problem solving. To do otherwise would be to turn the scientific method into a religious method.

        • georgehants

          You seem to have failed to read my comment, I said —-
          “just add that any attempt by science to deny the possible existence of a creator with the known Evidence, shows a level of scientific incompetence that can only be laughed at.”
          Your reply is in no way connected to my comment.
          Please try again.

          • cashmemorz

            Yo say “attempt by science to deny the possible existence of” is a statement of how you see science working. I made the statement that science does not start with denial. That is an accurate definition of science.

          • georgehants

            You again seem to act ignorant of the vast mass of science that tries to deny the possible existence of a creator. please state clearly that you except that science cannot scientifically deny that a creator is responsible for all our existence.

          • cashmemorz

            Science does not try to do any such thing. If some scientists are trying to deny a religious entity then it is an opinion of a few. Same as saying that a religious group is all corrupt base on the acts of a few. Both are baseless blanket statements.

          • cashmemorz

            The opinions of scientists has nothing to to with science itself. Science is a tool and has no opinions much as a hammer has no opinion of what it is to be used for. If science points to way to dispassionate research then when a religious person says that there is something wrong with the methods used to prove or disprove because the method cannot prove or disprove the existence of a religious entity then it is not the fault of the people doing the research it is the way that the method works.

          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, agreed, only a fool would follow scientific “opinions”
            That there is no possibility of a creator is a foolish incompetent scientific opinion by some.
            Do you say there is no possibility of a creator

          • sam

            Some Scientists can believe in multi universes,life on other planets,extraterrestrial
            life etc.
            But they can’t stretch there
            imaginations to believe in
            God,Christ,Holy spirit,
            Heaven,etc

          • georgehants

            sam, so agree, but science has no place for a persons beliefs, only Facts and Evidence.
            Opinions etc. are for fun and recreation and personal use,
            It is not their place to believe or disbelieve just keep an open-mind and Research the Facts, if they cannot do this on every subject then they have no place in science.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Establishment scientists have the most closed minds on the planet.

          • bachcole

            This, I believe, is the result of their minds having become solidified thanks to materialism.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Hey bach, some Christians are the same way and forget the do not judge less ye be judged part. We are all guilty sometimes I think. I don’t mind a person who doesn’t believe, I just hate it being shoved down my throat. Same with religious people that do that.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea, as if they are at war with something they say doesn’t exist. But in their deepest heart it must be they believe and are rebelling. Or else it wouldn’t be important enough for them to waste their time.

          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, you need to read a little more of the Dawk as in Dawkins and Hawkins and thousands of others failed scientists who routinely try to make out that science knows there is no creator.
            Thanks for chat

          • cashmemorz

            If that is where science takes them then they are honest. More people should take that road.

          • Michael W Wolf

            I wouldn’t call any of them scientists. They were/are more like philosophers.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          general comment: Both science and religion try to explain the world. If an explanation is falsifiable, it belongs in science, if not, it belongs in religion. Taken in this way there is no real conflict between the two.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, you seem to be saying that all the theories of science that are not falsifiable at present are to be only viewed as religion.
            I would certainly agree with you based on the attitude of many scientists to their many un-proveable Dogmas such as Cold Fusion is impossible etc. but Cold Fusion Evidence as it appears, or the possibility of our existence being a Hologram etc. cannot, just because of temporary ignorance (that is the inability to falsify them) be excluded from science and made religious surely, or there would be almost nothing left for science to do beyond a steam engine.
            It clearly is the job of science to gather Evidence on any subject to find the answers, or if that Evidence is not yet available one does not deny it or push it off into a different ignored category, but simple state Truthfully, we do not know.

          • bachcole

            Spirituality does not try to explain the world. It says that God alone is real and that the goal of life is to be united with Him through love.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Interestingly, the numerous transition from religious to scientific explanations and back possible?

          • bachcole

            IMHO, that part of religion which is intended to explain the world in a mechanistic sense of “explain” is bu11$hit. That part of religion which is intended to help people clean out their hearts and build depth within themselves is GREAT and the real intention of the founders of the Great Religions.

        • Michael W Wolf

          If Rossi has a real reactor. Quantum physics will have been a religion.

      • Michael W Wolf

        Rossi swore his science is real. It meant something to some people, it meant nothing to others. I don’t want to science to be confused with Opinion. We are all ignorant to some extent. But science handled by people is almost always opinion. I just think Rossi may be telling the truth and IH and Rossi’s detractors helped me think it, in the last few months. I tend to believe Rossi, it isn’t rocket science, just my observations and who I choose to believe. As simple as that.

  • bachcole

    The last refuge of the scoundrel is for the scoundrel to be vehemently opposed to something that he perceives to be evil. Like the Nazis tried to pass themselves off as the enemies of Bolshevism in the last months of WW II. For jimbo92107, his perceived evil is religion, so he is against it.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    You know those sleazy, gold trinket wearing Catholic priests who turn out to be closet pedophiles? Is it, indeed, a crazy proposition that religion may be used as a cover to conduct operations of a shadowy nature?

    It’s either “Rossi has solved the energy crisis” or “there is something else going on”. I am forced to consider many plausible explanations. Rossi being a purposely flamboyant charlatan is a possible conclusion that follows. He is not confused, or stupid, or misguided. He is purposeful. These are the two options.

    Because I’m not 100% willing to throw in with Rossi based on a religious testimony, I’m being crucified. Is this the kind of forum you want this to be? If so, ban me right now and I’ll gladly leave you to it.

    • cashmemorz

      This a problem that is introduced when religion is introduced where the scientific method should be used exclusively. A forum such as ECW is trying to investigate something. Opinion is also welcome, I guess. But to make hard conclusions based on religion is trying to make religion into a science. The same as science cannot be use “religiously”, then religion cannot be use scientifically. Each methods is base on completely different rules. Science works towards to-be- determined fact, religion starts from pre-determined postulates.

      • georgehants

        cashmemorz, the content of this thread is psychological and as psychology is one of the most failed areas of science one just fumbles along on experience.
        This page is not science and to try and connect it is ridiculous.
        ECW is trying to find the answers to a question without any clear Evidence and it is clearly reasonable that all tools are used in our speculation.

        • cashmemorz

          If my psychological bent is voodoo then Rossi is a zombie. He sure acts strange and makes strange claims about things that the scientific method has no clear road towards. So he is a Zombie. That he displays religious icons amongst his scientific papers confirms this. Voodoo is a mix of religions that can, as far as I’m concerned even mix science. My opinion base on the methods of voodoo and my scientific bent.

          • georgehants

            You seem to have no awareness of the nocebo effect that shows Voodoo to be a perfectly proven and dangerous effect.
            As for your Zombies, well your definition is strange but maybe Mr. Rossi is one, like everything else, you will have to wait for confirming Evidence.

          • cashmemorz

            I am aware . It is a trance like state. Sure, that is psychology. We can play at psychologist to cover over our religious bent. Just that that road is the road to nowhere. Scientific method is dependable on the other hand.

          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, wrong, no trance like state, just the opposite of the powerful Placebo that can kill if believed strongly enough.
            No religious bent here, just Facts, if you can’t keep up with the Fact’s, best bow our gracefully instead of keep digging yourself into deeper holes.

          • cashmemorz

            You are cherry picking opinions based on what you want them to reflect. Therefore you state that it is an effect based on placebo. You seem to base everything on belief and state them as facts and there is where the problem begins. If I based my activity on belief I would be in jail by now , because I want a lot of money and I believe I can walk into a bank and get all I want.

          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, you bring up Zombies and then complain when you are given the Facts.
            Then you complain that I base things on belief when I have never stated my beliefs only Facts.
            I think this silly conversation has gone far enough. please come back when you are able to discuss a point to conclusion without continually moving from the moon to the sun.

          • cashmemorz

            Honesty is the best policy. Do not see it from you.

          • georgehants

            Please point out any examples of dishonesty in my comments.

          • cashmemorz

            You are cherry picking opinions based on what you want them to reflect.
            Therefore you state that it is an effect based on placebo.

    • georgehants

      You are acting paranoid, you are not being “crucified” you are being simply advised that like all of us, you have no answer, so tread carefully until the full Evidence is available.
      Just common sense.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        No, I won’t ‘tread carefully’. I will state exactly what I think. If Rossi turns out to be the real deal, I will apologize for having doubted him. But until that day, I will not stop speaking my mind.

        • georgehants

          Teemu, you say the words of ignorance, if you do not have an answer with clear Evidence then you can put forward all possibilities, but to attack, abuse, insult, etc. without that clear Evidence is the lowest form of intellect.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            So, I am free to make hypotheses and put forward all possibilities… yet, I am not?

            Please cite an example where I have attacked. abused or insulted anyone.

          • georgehants

            You use isolated examples to condemn the majority. cheap and abusive, you did not say some priests.
            ————
            “You know those sleazy, gold trinket wearing Catholic priests who turn out to be closet pedophiles? Is it, indeed, a crazy proposition that religion may be used as a cover to conduct operations of a shadowy
            design?”

          • Teemu Soilamo

            “You use isolated examples to condemn the majority”

            Ah, but I didn’t. You just made it up.

          • georgehants

            Please correct your statement copied below to state that you only imply a relative few.
            And please add that there are many caring responsible priests that have devoted their lives to helping others with very little reward.
            ———–
            “You know those sleazy, gold trinket wearing Catholic priests who turn
            out to be closet pedophiles? Is it, indeed, a crazy proposition that religion may be used as a cover to conduct operations of a shadowy design?”

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Copying my response from above:

            I said “priests who turn out to be closet pedophiles”.

            I do not believe the majority of priests have been found to be pedophiles. How can saying “pedophile priests are pedophiles” be condemning the majority of priests unless the majority of priests are pedophiles?

            “And please add that there are many caring responsible priests that have devoted their lives to helping others with very little reward.”

            Why? Pointing out that there are corrupt priests already implies exception to the rule, no need to do that.

          • georgehants

            Then you will happy to agree that many religious priests do a great deal of good for sections of our population.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Yes. I have not ever disputed this to my knowledge.

          • georgehants

            Many thanks, then it is very hard to disagree with your stance if it is kept balanced unbiased and fair.

          • georgehants

            There seems to a fundamental misunderstanding by some on page.
            This topic is not religious but purely psychological
            A very serious and unfortunately horrendously inexact scientific subject.
            After many thousands of technical and engineering comments, nobody is any nearer the Truthful answer regarding Mr. Rossi and his high output Cold Fusion.
            While we wait for that clear scientific Evidence to confirm or deny his claims, it would seem very appropriate to look at the problem from a different and very valid perspective.
            The Topic page asking people to record their confidence in Mr. Rossi like so many other things in life is based purely on the psychological leanings of those that replied, the only correct scientific answer was of course, I don’t know, excluding anybody such as Jed Rothwell etc. who we do not know the accuracy of their claimed inside information.
            Science demands the investigation of any area that could give Evidence and this page like all the others can prove nothing, but it has added Evidence from Mr. Rossi that one must interpret in line with ones own psychological leanings

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Ah, but your problem is you think science somehow is not faith based. You really don’t know what the acceleration of gravity is. However you can read from a book. However to accept that book, you are in fact accepting a HISTORIC statement from that book – and one that is simply witness and testimony from that person.

            You now have to make an act of faith to accept that witness and testimony. However if you are honest, you will still accept that you are in fact making an act of faith to accept that witness and testimony.

            There nothing wrong with making acts of faith, but far too many bring up the word “science” and use that word in place of the fact you are making act of faith to accept the witness and testimony of someone else. Calling something science in ZERO WAY removes this simple issue that you still making an act of faith on the given matter.

            Simply placing some label of science does not get one past the jail card that you still making an act of faith and accepting witness and testimony of someone else.

            And even more interesting is you accepting a past tense – thus it is an historic witness and testimony. So you read in a book that someone saw people eating a bunch of fish.

            Of course such a witness and testimony becomes more believable and your acts of faith become easier to make when provide with evidence – but as noted, you are making acts of faith to accept such evidence. You can post in this forum that you have 10 dollars in your pocket. Calling your position “science” does not change that I must make that act of faith to accept your witness and
            testamoney.

            And then you can say that your friend is in the room, and have him follow up here and post and state that you do have 10 dollars and you seen that 10 dollars. At that point, I now have to accept that testamoney on a act of faith. Or I could simply state that your friend in dishonest and he is in bed with you so to speak.

            So, keep in mind, that 99% of your knowledge and in including your so called “scince” is based on an act of faith on your part. And evidence anyone provides will also require you to make an act of faith.
            The bottom line here is your going to have to make a act of faith to accept the ecat.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • georgehants

            Albert, thank you, all agreed, I would prefer if you stopped referring to me individually in your reply.
            You say for example ——-
            “Ah, but your problem is you think science somehow is not faith based.”
            I think nothing of the kind, most of science is a silly Dogma based religion, if one moves to the depth of analyses that you have.
            You have moved away from generalities where solid Evidence exceptable to any reasonable intelligent person moves it from faith to Fact, to the more philosophical area showing the difficulties and complications of ever being able to talk generally on a Website where full coverage of any subject is not usually feasible.
            Interesting subject that could be discussed very enjoyably with a good bottle of red.
            Best

    • sam

      You have made a lot of good points Teemu.
      I think everyone will agree with that.
      As for being Crucified those nails
      must have HURT.

    • georgehants

      Teemu, are you saying that All priests are corrupt etc. or just taking those shown to be so as a cheap example to condemn them all.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        So, saying that some priests are corrupt to illustrate how religion can be used for evil = condemning all priests?

        Nice logic there, pal.

        • georgehants

          You did not say “some” priests.
          Get your act together.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            I said “priests who turn out to be closet pedophiles”.

            I do not believe the majority of priests have been found to be pedophiles. How can saying “pedophile priests are pedophiles” be condemning the majority of priests unless the majority of priests are pedophiles?

            You’re not making any sense, sorry.

          • georgehants

            Many thanks, in which case can you compliment the many that devote their lives to helping others because of their beliefs and how that helps many people.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            This has nothing to do with anything.

          • georgehants

            So you refuse to thank those that do good work, I think you have clearly condemned yourself.
            Pointless going further with such a sad attitude that you have.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Okay, I added it just for you. Cause I care.

          • sam

            Frank
            Is this comment within your
            moderation limit?
            Sam

          • cashmemorz

            Now, now its all about opinion and beliefs. No need to get all tied up because someone has different beliefs or opinions from yours

    • I’m with you Teemu.

      It is a very sensitive subject for many people. This was to be expected.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Call me whatever you wish.

    Dawkins is a good, decent man who fights for social justice, women’s rights and freedom from religious persecution around the world.

  • Gerard McEk

    I am grateful that Andrea responded on my following personal question:

    August 16, 2016 at 2:50 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I am not sure if you want to talk about personal things, if not than please bin this.
    The oath that Jacky asked you for was very unusual and I believe it is much appreciated that you did respond on it positively. It gave me much more faith that what you are saying can be trusted. Thank you for that.
    I just wonder how you felt when Jacky asked you to do this oath. What were your emotions?
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    August 16, 2016 at 7:19 AM
    Gerard McEk:
    As I received that request I was offended, but rethinking about that I decided to accept. Our foe is using the tactic to make his puppets raise mud saying stupidities of which the puppets are not liable because they, substantially, are nobody and are not officially bound to him; nor the foe is reliable, because he is saying nothing directly, he is always shielded by the puppets. This way they can disseminate slanders and repeat their lies like a commercial spot on television: repeat a message to sell a product, and people will buy it even if it is not good. I cannot disclose information that have to be disclosed in Court, and they are taking advantage of this, creating confusion. At the end I decided to comply. I wrote the truth, so at the end my emotions about this are strong, but positive.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • georgehants

      Gerard, good question and seeming very honest answer from Mr Rossi.
      He seems to have thought deeply about his reply to the Oath and this question and his answers for me hold that ring of Truth.
      Just my opinion.

      • Gerard McEk

        I agree George. I also think it is a good action counter the puppets attacks.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Yes, but one should careful read his answer.

        He stating that the ecat works. It works as described. He certainly
        not confirming or agreeing to any kind of output or COP such as 50.
        so there is no context. Given the Lagardo report and several other tests, and several other LENR players who have a COP in the 2-3 range, then all we know is that the device and what Rossi has produces a COP over 1 – this answer in zero way confirms a high COP.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Michael W Wolf

          common’ man, let it go.

        • Omega Z

          I agree with you including the caution about the COP. If I recall, what is/was available from certain sources, the E-cat was COP>50 for substantial periods of the 1 year test. That does not mean average COP of 50. Substantial is also a subjective term. How much time did it spend in SSM. Is that 30% of the time, 50% of the time or what?

          How about the E-cat in SSM 90% of the time. That’s 9 of every 10 hours. That is COP=10 and ignores the fact that even in SSM, the E-cat still requires some power input. While I find a COP=50 plausible for limited periods of time, I’m far less positive of the equaring to an Average of COP=50.

          And lets not forget. Rossi has never claimed an average COP=50. In fact, he still stands by the guaranteed COP>6..

    • sam

      This would be a good Bible verse for A.R. and T.D. to work on.
      I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
      Matthew 5:44

  • Frank Acland

    The subject of religion is bound to come up, especially in a thread like this, but this site is not intended to be a place to argue about religion — hence moderation.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      This subject has been raised by the person who required an ‘oath’ of Dr Rossi: why?
      Was it in order to believe or disbelieve, or to place a judgement on the person performing the oath?
      Personally, I question the reason for demanding. It seems to be a subjective demand, placed for subjective reasons.
      The answer to this question seems to imply many unpronounced answers that are other than strictly rational, or scientific. Proof: the length of this thread.
      It is understandable that a researcher might feel offended by the question.

  • Frank Acland

    The subject of religion is bound to come up, especially in a thread like this, but this site is not intended to be a place to argue about religion — hence moderation.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      This subject has been raised by the person who required an ‘oath’ of Dr Rossi: why?
      Was it in order to believe or disbelieve, or to place a judgement on the person performing the oath?
      Personally, I question the reason for demanding an oath. It seems to be a subjective demand, placed for subjective reasons.
      The answer to this question seems to imply many unpronounced answers that are other than strictly rational, or scientific. Proof: the length of this thread.
      It is understandable that a researcher might feel offended by the question.

  • bachcole

    If I was an investment dude, of course I would require more proof.

    Truth may be out there, but what we believe to be true varies from person to person.

  • Jonnyb

    Rossi’s word is good enough for me, a devout atheist. So long as he believes in what he is swearing on then then that is fine with me.

  • Jonnyb

    Rossi’s word is good enough for me, a devout atheist. So long as he believes in what he is swearing on then then that is fine with me.

    • my sentiments match yours

    • Michael W Wolf

      me too man. I am not an Atheist though. But I recon you had the same feeling I had when reading it.

  • georgehants

    There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by some on page.
    This topic is not religious but purely psychological
    A very serious and unfortunately horrendously inexact scientific subject.
    After many thousands of technical and engineering comments, nobody is any nearer the Truthful answer regarding Mr. Rossi and his high output Cold Fusion.
    While we wait for that clear scientific Evidence to confirm or deny his claims, it would seem very appropriate to look at the problem from a different and very valid perspective.
    The Topic page asking people to record their confidence in Mr. Rossi like so many other things in life is based purely on the psychological leanings of those that replied, the only correct scientific answer was of course, I don’t know (but that was not the question asked) excluding anybody such as Jed Rothwell etc. where we do not know the accuracy of their claimed inside information.
    Science demands the investigation of any area that could give Evidence and this page like all the others can prove nothing, but it has added Evidence from Mr. Rossi that one must interpret in line with ones own psychological leanings.
    The next relevant question to Mr. Rossi would be to ask if he would willingly take a lie-detector test.
    ———–
    But while often accurate, polygraphs are not foolproof, experts say. “Proponents will say the test is about 90 percent accurate. Critics will say it’s about 70 percent accurate,” said Frank Horvath of the American Polygraph Association.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Ah, but your problem is you think science somehow is not faith based. You really don’t know what the acceleration of gravity is. However you can read from a book. However to accept that book, you are in fact accepting a HISTORIC statement from that book – and one that is simply witness and testimony from that person.

      You now have to make an act of faith to accept that witness and testimony. However if you are honest, you will still accept that you are in fact making an act of faith to accept that witness and testimony.

      There nothing wrong with making acts of faith, but far too many bring up the word “science” and use that word in place of the fact you are making act of faith to accept the witness and testimony of someone else. Calling something science in ZERO WAY removes this simple issue that you still making an act of faith on the given matter.

      Simply placing some label of science does not get one past the jail card that you still making an act of faith and accepting witness and testimony of someone else.

      And even more interesting is you accepting a past tense – thus it is an historic witness and testimony. So you read in a book that someone saw people eating a bunch of fish.

      Of course such a witness and testimony becomes more believable and your acts of faith become easier to make when provide with evidence – but as noted, you are making acts of faith to accept such evidence. You can post in this forum that you have 10 dollars in your pocket. Calling your position “science” does not change that I must make that act of faith to accept your witness and
      testamoney.

      And then you can say that your friend is in the room, and have him follow up here and post and state that you do have 10 dollars and you seen that 10 dollars. At that point, I now have to accept that testimony of your friend on a act of faith. Or I could simply state that your friend is dishonest and he is in bed with you so to speak. Perhaps you paying that friend to confirm that you have 10 dollars in your pocket?

      So, keep in mind, that 99% of your knowledge and in including your so called “science” is based on an act of faith on your part. And evidence anyone provides will also require you to make an act of faith.

      The bottom line here is your going to have to make a act of faith to accept the ecat.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Michael W Wolf

        yep. Just like the people that realize it is an act of faith when they say Rossi is a fraud. I don’t mind if someone thinks Rossi may be a fraud. Heck, it is a possibility In my mind. It is these disgusting comments ( not that yours is) that relentlessly bring up the fact that Rossi may be or is a fraud. We have known that from day one and we are sick of it. or at least I am. I want to hear what people like axil, or even George h, or E48, they at least help for the hope of something better. That is what I want to hear, not liar, liar, pants on fire. Or I am scientific and you are stupid comments.

      • georgehants

        Albert, thank you, all agreed, I would prefer if you stopped referring to me individually in your reply.
        You say for example ——-
        “Ah, but your problem is you think science somehow is not faith based.”
        I think nothing of the kind, most of science is a silly Dogma based religion, as I have stated many times, if one moves to the depth of analyses that you have.
        The denial of UFO’s etc. and many other important scientific subjects are nothing but the following of closed-minded religious doctrine induced by some, to gain non-thinking followers.
        You have moved away from generalities where solid Evidence exceptable to any reasonable intelligent person moves it from faith to Fact, to the more philosophical area showing the difficulties and complications of ever being able to talk generally on a Website where full coverage of any subject is not usually feasible.
        Interesting subject that could be discussed very enjoyably with a good bottle of red.
        Best

  • Mats002

    It all boils down to experience.

    Rossi et al experienced the effect, IH/Darden et al did not.

    As long as I cannot experience the effect I am not convinced.

    The jury need to experience the effect.

    • Omega Z

      ->”IH/Darden et al did not.”

      Actually you can’t be certain of that.
      What is their agenda?

      Could it be they don’t want this technology available for another 10/15 years.

      Certain stated goals from different positions of world power would indicate that LENR is the last thing they want at this time. The U.N. just released a statement that the world needs to drastically reduce making/using/building anything including housing. LENR would not be in their interests.

  • Mats002

    It all boils down to experience.

    Rossi et al experienced the effect, IH/Darden et al did not.

    As long as I cannot experience the effect I am not convinced.

    The jury need to experience the effect.

    • bachcole

      Try:

      Rossi et. al. said that they experienced the effect.

      IH/Darden et. al. said that they did not.

      Even better:

      I read that Rossi et. al. said that they experienced the effect.

      I read that IH/Darden et. al. said that they did not.

      Everything else is less certain. I do not know for a fact that the professors experienced the effect. I only know for a fact that I read that they said that they experienced the effect.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Every time that I’ve tried to ask Rossi if he would prove the E-Cat works in Court if needed be, he has spammed my question

    • Omega Z

      ->”IH/Darden et al did not.”

      Actually you can’t be certain of that.
      What is their agenda?

      Could it be they don’t want this technology available for another 10/15 years.

      Certain stated goals from different positions of world power would indicate that LENR is the last thing they want at this time. The U.N. just released a statement that the world needs to drastically reduce making/using/building anything including housing. LENR would not be in their interests.

  • Gerrit

    I believe I can fly

    • Mats002

      So did the Wright brothers – noone believed them.

      I just landed from a flight.

    • Steve Swatman

      ah, another paraglider? fly high, fly long.

  • Gerrit

    I believe I can fly

    • Mats002

      So did the Wright brothers – noone believed them.

      I just landed from a flight.

    • Steve Swatman

      ah, another paraglider? fly high, fly long.

  • Nixter

    Anyone can swear an oath to something, that does not count for much if they themselves are not truly, deeply spiritual. An atheist breaking such an oath is completely different from someone who is a true believer and a regular practitioner of their faith. If Dr. Rossi’s oath is to be taken seriously, one must first be familiar with his psychological makeup, one would need insider knowledge regarding his religious practices and beliefs, does he attend religious services with regularity, or is he a casual believer who attends church services only occasionally? ( I must confess I have serious doubts as to whether or not attending church services regularly actually makes you a religious practitioner with deeper spiritual beliefs. ) A truly highly devoted religious believer takes such an oath quite seriously. The sincerity of any such oath is directly related to their innermost beliefs, whether or not they are genuine and deeply felt is key. To summarize, if Dr. Rossi truly and really is a deep practitioner and believer then his word could actually carry some weight, however if his is just a stated belief ( The religious refer to this as a “said faith.”) put out there for the public to see without any real underlying basis, then any such oath is completely worthless and not worth any consideration what so ever.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi believes so the oath has merit.

      As to people who go to regular services or not does not matter.
      I know those who seldom ever make it to a service(only special circumstances) and believe and practice strongly otherwise.

      I know others who rarely ever miss a service that are just plan hypocrites.

  • Nixter

    Anyone can swear an oath to something, that does not count for much if they themselves are not truly, deeply spiritual. An atheist breaking such an oath is completely different from someone who is a true believer and a regular practitioner of their faith. If Dr. Rossi’s oath is to be taken seriously, one must first be familiar with his psychological makeup, one would need insider knowledge regarding his religious practices and beliefs, does he attend religious services with regularity, or is he a casual believer who attends church services only occasionally? ( I must confess I have serious doubts as to whether or not attending church services regularly actually makes you a religious practitioner with deeper spiritual beliefs. ) A truly highly devoted religious believer takes such an oath quite seriously. The sincerity of any such oath is directly related to their innermost beliefs, whether or not they are genuine and deeply felt is key. To summarize, if Dr. Rossi truly and really is a deep practitioner and believer then his word could actually carry some weight, however if his is just a stated belief ( The religious refer to this as a “said faith.”) put out there for the public to see without any real underlying basis, then any such oath is completely worthless and not worth any consideration what so ever.

    • bachcole

      I NEVER attend any kind of service, but I practice the presence of God 24/7.

      (:->)

    • Omega Z

      Rossi believes so the oath has merit.

      As to people who go to regular services or not does not matter.
      I know those who seldom ever make it to a service(only special circumstances) and believe and practice strongly otherwise.

      I know others who rarely ever miss a service that are just plan hypocrites.

  • Steve Swatman

    And there I was enjoying the show, in walks the guy with 4 noisy kids, a big bag of crisps and doesn’t switch off the phones…

  • Steve Swatman

    What is really happening is this, You accept the word of unknown people who were not there and have done any scientific tests with Mr Rossi’s device and or the word of a legal team who know only that they are paid to win a court case.

    We (the believers) take the details from Mr Rossi, the ERV, the guys who worked with Mr Rossi, the lugano testers and the professors, who have seen, touched and tested Mr Rossi’s device, as holding far more credence than the negative commenting, no experience Apco/Academi brigade of condemnation and derogatory remarks aimed at condemning a man who is trying to create.

    If you do not accept that’s fine, however you might just let who do accept have their bit of fun and stop heckling the actors in this play.

  • Steve Swatman

    Just this

    “I swear to the Living God that I will not disbelieve Rossi until someone proves him false. In my mind, he is innocent until proven otherwise.”

  • LilyLover

    Just as Billy said and others agreed, I am a Rossi believer, even though he is religious. Also at the same time, I fully believe that we should not have put him to this oath-test. It only shows our lack of trust in the good man over biased consensus-Science with witchcrafty peer review.
    Risking being labeled a desparate con man, he still took the challenge up, not because he is naive but because he is the zen-master.

  • LilyLover

    Just as Billy said and others agreed, I am a Rossi believer, even though he is religious. Also at the same time, I fully believe that we should not have put him to this oath-test. It only shows our lack of trust in the good man over biased consensus-Science with witchcrafty peer review.
    Risking being labeled a desparate con man, he still took the challenge up, not because he is naive but because he is the zen-master.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      We do not necessarily disbelieve Rossi because of our lack of respect for his character, but because we’re pitting that against his extraordinary, out-of-this-world claims. The most virtuous, trustworthy man in the world wouldn’t get a free pass in such a situation.

  • georgehants

    Has, I think been a super page giving people the chance to talk in human terms about the situation.
    I am not religious but strongly spiritual, based I believe on good Evidence (nuf said)

    For the good of the World I Spiritually pray that Mr. Rossi is genuine, but until the clear Evidence is available I just stay open-minded and like us all wait for that day, as I have for five and a half years, when that bottle of bubbles can be opened.
    People like maryyugo can never be right even if Rossi is wrong, because without an open-mind a person is just a fool.

  • georgehants

    Has, I think been a super page giving people the chance to talk in human terms about the situation.
    Jackie and I are not religious but strongly spiritual, based on it’s simple beliefs and we believe, on good Evidence (nuf said)
    For the good of the World we Spiritually pray that Mr. Rossi is genuine, but until the clear Evidence is available we just stay open-minded and like us all wait for that day, as we have for five and a half years, when that bottle of bubbles can be opened and the fat lady sings an ear splitting crescendo
    People like maryyugo can never be right even if Rossi is wrong, because without an open-mind a person is just a fool.
    Time to again thank Frank for his dedicated work, without which we could not sit here and spill out many of our frustrations regarding Cold Fusion that at least in my case is very cathartic.

  • georgehants

    Notice that a House committee has recommended that charges of perjury be brought against Hillery Clinton for lying under Oath, showing the importance attached to an Oath, religious or not in the American justice system.

    • Billy Jackson

      on oath given to a court of law or judicial system is a separate entity than an oath given as an individual. i do not believe that you can be held accountable for promises or statements made outside of the courts if you can show reasonable cause that prevented you from securing your stated action.

      (aka i can make an oath all day long that if i win the office of the presidency i am going to change immigration… in the end, reality will show that it takes more than just the president to change such a law in a manner that’s acceptable to at least 51% of the nation. should you fail.. you may not get voted in for a 2nd term but you wont go to jail for failing to keep your promise)

      oaths are tricky things.. and generally are only accountable when giving testimony in some form of official setting.

      • georgehants

        Billy, O yes very True, just pointing out that an Oath is a very powerful thing either in a court etc. or to an individual who’s morals demand the Truth, when known and possible as in the case of Mr Rossi’s clear and simple Oath of a working, high output E-cat.
        I am sure you are correct in that no legal action could be connected to this Oath only our interpretation of his honesty, but if he repeats it when the case comes to trial then it certainly will.

        • Billy Jackson

          There in lies the conundrum, our interpretation of his Oath changes not one instance of Rossi’s character for giving it. It changes our perception due to our own failings. An honorable person wouldn’t need to give said oath because we have yet to be given cause to doubt his word. Its our own distrust and second guessing nature that requires soothing by requiring an honest individual to state openly their own honesty. when in fact. nothing changed for them.. they were telling the truth to begin with or their oath means nothing when given. All the doubt and fear.. and lack of character lies in our lap not his.

          • georgehants

            Billy, respect your view but taken a little more logically you are saying there should be the same objections in a court of law etc.
            The Oath only works not because of any interpretation of those asking for the Oath, but by the importance of Truth and morals of the person taking the Oath.
            Normally Mr. Rossi, allowing normal scientific testing and third party independent repetition of his claims is necessary, but for us still following the story and his refusal to take the normal course based on his personal need to protect his IP, it seems reasonable to make a change of tack from the pure speculation etc. regarding pipes and fans etc.

          • Billy Jackson

            An oath given in a court is not for the courts sake but for your own. It is an oath given that swears you are telling the truth. so that you know that there are consequences should be caught or proven to lie under said oath.. (or legal setting)

          • georgehants

            Yes of course that is correct, but as said above many times an Oath to an individual depends on their respect for Truth and honesty as in the case of this Oath by Mr. Rossi.
            You pay’s your money and makes yer choice if you believe he has given a Truthful Oath or lied.
            Best

          • Billy Jackson

            Agreed,

            An oath given freely of one’s on volition can be a powerful statement of integrity and honor from a man who has proven time and again that his words and actions are his bond.

            An oath forced under duress or peer pressure carries with it the same cloud of doubt and fear that the individuals who forced such an oath bring with them.

          • georgehants

            O dear, nothing forced Mr Rossi to take the Oath, he explained clearly on his page why he did.
            taking an oath even in a court of law is by choice (I think) nobody can force it to be sworn, but if you do not then it would rather devalue your Evidence I think.
            It again is up to the individual how they interpret that persons free choice to take or not take an Oath.

          • Billy Jackson

            Its my belief that peer pressure forced this oath. It was not given until it was talked about here first i believe? (i refuse to believe that was coincidence)

          • georgehants

            Many Thanks, I think I will except Mr. Rossi’s explanation.

          • Billy Jackson

            you wouldn’t have a link to that statement would so i can make sure i didn’t miss it?

          • georgehants

            Billy, sorry about the bad spacing to much to clean up, ha.
            ———
            Andrea Rossi
            August 16, 2016 at 7:19 AM
            Gerard McEk:
            As I received that request I was offended, but rethinking about that I
            decided to accept. Our foe is using the tactic to make his puppets raise
            mud saying stupidities of which the puppets are not liable because
            they, substantially, are nobody and are not officially bound to him; nor
            the foe is reliable, because he is saying nothing directly, he is
            always shielded by the puppets. This way they can disseminate slanders
            and repeat their lies like a commercial spot on television: repeat a
            message to sell a product, and people will buy it even if it is not
            good. I cannot disclose information that have to be disclosed in Court,
            and they are taking advantage of this, creating confusion. At the end I
            decided to comply. I wrote the truth, so at the end my emotions about
            this are strong, but positive.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • Billy Jackson

            Thank you sir.

            I still stand by my stance. Much respect as always but you can see from the first line that he was offended regardless of the reasons to accept or pass on making such an oath.

            Don’t get me wrong. it took great amounts of integrity to step forward and take that oath and for it I take my hat off to Rossi for being the man that he is. Yet i shake my head at the fact that he was asked to take such an oath to begin with by people who do not understand the full ramifications of asking for such a thing. It should have never been asked for.. instead we should have accepted his word until he’s proven wrong or that he gave such an oath freely of his own will.. anything else was just peer pressure.

            I think that both of us have laid out how we stand and as such i can live with and respect your explanation for your stance. I may not follow the same but i can respect it as given in the spirit its intended.

            Thank you very much George.

          • georgehants

            Well Billy we have had a good chat.
            His last sentence to me is the most important.
            There are many extremely arrogant people who think that they should be believed unreservedly, many scientists for example, with their laughable expert opinions.
            You can say you or science knows there are no genuine off-world UFO’s, but now if I ask you to swear an Oath saying that you or any part of science has the slightest Evidence to back up your claims, you may well get a little uncomfortable and start banging your fist on the table etc.
            Look forward to our next chat

          • Billy Jackson

            always 🙂

          • georgehants

            Billy, can only say, Amen to that.

          • georgehants

            bachcole, you have made an interesting statement as you have before. would you like to back up your opinion by explaining in a little more detail how my comment that you are answering can in any way be described as me “having a monopoly on the Truth” when I clearly stated in English, “I THINK”.

          • Mats002

            Ehum…

            “A little study of basic psychology [I think] may help you to understand why you make such errors of opinion.”

          • georgehants

            Morning Mats, the word “may” takes away the uncertainty and already confirms I am not stating it as a Fact, but an opinion of hope.

  • georgehants

    Notice that a House committee has recommended that charges of perjury be brought against Hillery Clinton for lying under Oath, showing the importance attached to an Oath, religious or not in the American justice system.
    ———
    American law on Oaths ——-
    In order to accommodate various objections that have arisen in recent generations, in general:
    You are allowed to “affirm” instead of “swear”
    You do not have to say “so help me God”
    You do not have to place your hand on a Bible or any object
    These variances are often allowed by statute.
    A witnessed “solemn affirmation” has the same legal consequences as the traditional swearing on a Bible: I.e., you would be held to the same statutes and rules that apply to sworn statements.

    • Billy Jackson

      on oath given to a court of law or judicial system is a separate entity than an oath given as an individual. i do not believe that you can be held accountable for promises or statements made outside of the courts if you can show reasonable cause that prevented you from securing your stated action.

      (aka i can make an oath all day long that if i win the office of the presidency i am going to change immigration… in the end, reality will show that it takes more than just the president to change such a law in a manner that’s acceptable to at least 51% of the nation. should you fail.. you may not get voted in for a 2nd term but you wont go to jail for failing to keep your promise)

      oaths are tricky things.. and generally are only accountable when giving testimony in some form of official setting.

      • georgehants

        Billy, O yes very True, just pointing out that an Oath is a very powerful thing either in a court etc. or to an individual who’s morals demand the Truth, when known and possible as in the case of Mr Rossi’s clear and simple Oath of a working, high output E-cat.
        I am sure you are correct in that no legal action could be connected to this Oath only our interpretation of his honesty, but if he repeats it when the case comes to trial then it certainly will.

        • Billy Jackson

          There in lies the conundrum, our interpretation of his Oath changes not one instance of Rossi’s character for giving it. It changes our perception due to our own failings. An honorable person wouldn’t need to give said oath because we have yet to be given cause to doubt his word. Its our own distrust and second guessing nature that requires soothing by requiring an honest individual to state openly their own honesty. when in fact. nothing changed for them.. they were telling the truth to begin with or their oath means nothing when given. All the doubt and fear.. and lack of character lies in our lap not his.

          • georgehants

            Billy, respect your view but taken a little more logically you are saying there should be the same objections in a court of law etc.
            The Oath only works not because of any interpretation of those asking for the Oath, but by the importance of Truth and morals of the person taking the Oath.
            Normally Mr. Rossi, allowing normal scientific testing and third party independent repetition of his claims is necessary, but for us still following the story and his refusal to take the normal course based on his personal need to protect his IP, it seems reasonable to make a change of tack from the pure speculation etc. regarding pipes and fans etc.

          • Billy Jackson

            An oath given in a court is not for the courts sake but for your own. It is an oath given that swears you are telling the truth. so that you know that there are consequences should you be caught or proven to lie under said oath.. (or legal setting)

            (sorry re-edited for clarification)

          • georgehants

            Yes of course that is correct, but as said above many times an Oath to an individual depends on their respect for Truth and honesty as in the case of this Oath by Mr. Rossi.
            You pay’s yer money and makes yer choice if you believe he has given a Truthful Oath or lied.
            Best

          • Billy Jackson

            Agreed,

            An oath given freely of one’s on volition can be a powerful statement of integrity and honor from a man who has proven time and again that his words and actions are his bond.

            An oath forced under duress or peer pressure carries with it the same cloud of doubt and fear that the individuals who forced such an oath bring with them.

          • georgehants

            O dear, nothing forced Mr Rossi to take the Oath, he explained clearly on his page why he did.
            taking an oath even in a court of law is by choice (I think) nobody can force it to be sworn, but if you do not then it would rather devalue your Evidence I think.
            It again is up to the individual how they interpret that persons free choice to take or not take an Oath.

          • Billy Jackson

            Its my belief that peer pressure forced this oath. It was not given until it was talked about here first i believe? (i refuse to believe that was coincidence)

          • georgehants

            Many Thanks, I think I will except Mr. Rossi’s explanation.

          • Billy Jackson

            you wouldn’t have a link to that statement would so i can make sure i didn’t miss it?

          • georgehants

            Billy, sorry about the bad spacing to much to clean up, ha.
            ———
            Andrea Rossi
            August 16, 2016 at 7:19 AM
            Gerard McEk:
            As I received that request I was offended, but rethinking about that I
            decided to accept. Our foe is using the tactic to make his puppets raise
            mud saying stupidities of which the puppets are not liable because
            they, substantially, are nobody and are not officially bound to him; nor
            the foe is reliable, because he is saying nothing directly, he is
            always shielded by the puppets. This way they can disseminate slanders
            and repeat their lies like a commercial spot on television: repeat a
            message to sell a product, and people will buy it even if it is not
            good. I cannot disclose information that have to be disclosed in Court,
            and they are taking advantage of this, creating confusion. At the end I
            decided to comply. I wrote the truth, so at the end my emotions about
            this are strong, but positive.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • Billy Jackson

            Thank you sir.

            I still stand by my stance. Much respect as always but you can see from the first line that he was offended regardless of the reasons to accept or pass on making such an oath.

            Don’t get me wrong. it took great amounts of integrity to step forward and take that oath and for it I take my hat off to Rossi for being the man that he is. Yet i shake my head at the fact that he was asked to take such an oath to begin with by people who do not understand the full ramifications of asking for such a thing. It should have never been asked for.. instead we should have accepted his word until he’s proven wrong or that he gave such an oath freely of his own will.. anything else was just peer pressure.

            I think that both of us have laid out how we stand and as such i can live with and respect your explanation for your stance. I may not follow the same but i can respect it as given in the spirit its intended.

            Thank you very much George.

          • georgehants

            Well Billy we have had a good chat.
            His last sentence to me is the most important.
            There are many extremely arrogant people who think that they should be believed unreservedly, many scientists for example, with their laughable expert opinions.
            You can say you or science knows there are no genuine off-world UFO’s, but now if I ask you to swear an Oath saying that you or any part of science has the slightest Evidence to back up your claims, you may well get a little uncomfortable and start banging your fist on the table etc.
            Look forward to our next chat

          • Billy Jackson

            always 🙂

            One of the greatest aspects of the debate is being willing to understand the opposing view. without the compassion to understand why someone else see’s differently than you do. There can really be no debate, instead its just 2 people yelling at each other with as about as much intelligence as a brick. Passion deserves its place at the table, but without logic and common sense you get smug arrogance that can not be pierced regardless of the data you use.

          • georgehants

            Billy, can only say, Amen to that.

  • Jarea

    I think it would be more valuable for Rossi to present the promised massive production on 2016 instead of doing the Oath. Words are words and facts are facts, at the end of the day, the facts show the truth intentions and the words hide it.
    It has been a very long run and what it is incredible is that there is still doubts about LENR.
    In other words, if a very powerful instance would like to hide or destroy this LENR movement. It could do it. That is because, after so many years, we still don’t have the open science we want, the reproducible experiment, the receipt we want. MFMP tried. me365 promised us, but still the efforts are void.

    Rossi plays with fire trying to hide and protect his IP. He should use his patent and create the massive production he told us. He should once for all show the world that his device works. That LENR+ is real. That would be something that big bank and big oil could not stop. The world need it.

  • Jarea

    I think it would be more valuable for Rossi to present the promised massive production on 2016 instead of doing the Oath. Words are words and facts are facts, at the end of the day, the facts show the true intentions and the words hide it.
    It has been a very long run and what it is incredible is that there are still doubts about LENR.
    In other words, if a very powerful instance would like to hide or destroy this LENR movement. It could do it. That is because, after so many years, we still don’t have the open science we want, the reproducible experiment, the receipt we want. MFMP tried. me365 promised us, but still the efforts are void.

    Rossi plays with fire trying to hide and protect his IP. He should use his patent and create the massive production he told us. He should once for all show the world that his device works. That LENR+ is real. That would be something that big bank and big oil could not stop. The world need it.

  • georgehants

    For a man who can publicly state these words below to then lie on the bible I think would be unforgivable in any moral sense.
    ——–
    Andrea Rossi
    August 17, 2016 at 9:20 PM
    Stephen:
    May God be with your daughter every day of her life.
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea

    • yes

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Déjà vu. Sir Thomas More’s oath.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLIsqYKDqY8

      • georgehants

        Showing the problems of a man of principles trying to stick to those principles when his life is at stake.
        We just have to wait now, as always, for Mr. Rossi’s principles to be revealed.

  • georgehants

    For a man who can publicly state these words below to then lie on the bible I think would be very disapointing in any moral sense.
    ——–
    Andrea Rossi
    August 17, 2016 at 9:20 PM
    Stephen:
    May God be with your daughter every day of her life.
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea

    • bachcole

      It is amazing georgehants how you always seem to have a monopoly on the truth and never suffer from uncertainty or the humility of not knowing.

      • georgehants

        bachcole, you have made an interesting statement as you have before. would you like to back up your opinion by explaining in a little more detail how my comment that you are answering can in any way be described as me “having a monopoly on the Truth” when I clearly stated in English, “I THINK”.
        A little study of basic psychology may help you to understand why you make such errors of opinion.

        • Mats002

          Ehum…

          “A little study of basic psychology [I think] may help you to understand why you make such errors of opinion.”

          • georgehants

            Morning Mats, the word “may” takes away the certainty and already confirms I am not stating it as a Fact, but an opinion of hope.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

      You are allowed to have hope, I’m allowed to be cynical. There, now we’re all happy.

    • yes

  • Steve Swatman

    I accept that as a compliment sir, from such an auspicious commenter as yourself.

  • PW

    A ‘spiritual’ oath is much more than an oath in court or between people. It is a commitment to your higher Self and has severe karmic consequences for the person who takes the oath. Seen in this light it is an oath not to take lightly. In an earlier remark to Andrea Rossi on his blog I stated that there is a deep interest from within spiritual organisations to what he is doing right now. Take this literally, there IS much interest in what can be manifested on this physical level with the knowledge that is evolving in humans at this moment. It is not a question that it can be achieved, merely a question if mankind can handle the responsibility that comes with this knowledge. If his achievements can be manifested with the understanding that it will be used for the good of mankind, with compassion and wisdom, then, and only then it can become reality. It will be a big step forward and cannot be compared with achievements of the last century. It will open the minds and hearts of mankind and also at the same time other events will happen (no hocus pocus but intellectually well explainable). Much more can be said about this subject but it is the individual responsibility and will that must find this wisdom in the world of today. There are still spiritual schools on this earth today or, at least beginning schools that are portals to the temples of wisdom. Andrea Rossi knows this: ‘There is no religion higher than Truth’.

    • Stefenski

      Well said.

  • Steve Swatman

    Again I thank you sir.

    I often smile at your comments and your concise, succinct and direct defense of your stance concerning Mr Rossi and LENR.

  • otto1923

    This is not evidence. Psychopaths wrote the bible and so a psychopath would have no problem swearing on it. And no Im not saying rossi is a psychopath, he seems like a very nice person.

  • sam
    • sam

      I just remembered that I did see a
      comment somewhere that A.R.
      made Saying he had made
      mistakes in his past business dealings etc.
      Just thought should add that.

  • sam

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/09/15/andrea-rossis-faith/
    Found this thread from 2015.
    The TV part is touching if A.R.is
    successful and he started out from
    that it will be an incredible story.
    But I have to admit I might be seeing
    a man who does not like seeing that
    he has responsibility for what happened.
    If T.D. has a similar trait then no wonder
    they are in such a mess.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Déjà vu. Sir Thomas More’s oath.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLIsqYKDqY8

    • georgehants

      Showing the problems of a man of principles trying to stick to those principles when his life is at stake.
      We just have to wait now, as always, for Mr. Rossi’s principles to be revealed.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Since the discussion here has branched out into a lot of issues, I will introduce the concept of “ethics”. I recently (Thursday, August 18th) participated in a two hour course on Engineering Ethincs sponsored by the Madison Section of the IEEE and given by a lawyer who often uses engineers in cases involving liability. His comment was in general “Engineers are usually quite ethical. They are truly trying to solve problems”. His comment about his profession was in effect, “I find a lot of unethical behavior in Lawyers”.

    One of the things discussed was the IEEE’s publish “Ethics” statement. I post it here for discussion:

    ==========
    We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:

    1. to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;
    2. to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;
    3. to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;
    4. to reject bribery in all its forms;
    5. to improve the understanding of technology; its appropriate application, and potential consequences;
    6. to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;
    7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;
    8. to treat fairly all persons and to not engage in acts of discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;
    9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;
    10. to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

    ==============

    I would like to feel that the primary role of the e-catworld site is to enhance Items 5, 6, and 7. I fear that items 2, 3, 4 and 9 might not be being followed truthfully.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Since the discussion here has branched out into a lot of issues, I will introduce the concept of “ethics”. I recently (Thursday, August 18th) participated in a two hour course on Engineering Ethincs sponsored by the Madison Section of the IEEE and given by a lawyer who often uses engineers in cases involving liability. His comment was in general “Engineers are usually quite ethical. They are truly trying to solve problems”. His comment about his profession was in effect, “I find a lot of unethical behavior in Lawyers”.

    One of the things discussed was the IEEE’s publish “Ethics” statement. I post it here for discussion:

    ==========
    We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:

    1. to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;
    2. to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;
    3. to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;
    4. to reject bribery in all its forms;
    5. to improve the understanding of technology; its appropriate application, and potential consequences;
    6. to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;
    7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;
    8. to treat fairly all persons and to not engage in acts of discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;
    9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;
    10. to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

    ==============

    I would like to feel that the primary role of the e-catworld site is to enhance Items 5, 6, and 7. I fear that items 2, 3, 4 and 9 might not be being followed truthfully.

  • sam

    An interesting video about A.R.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6B8Muz-A_e4