FOIA Request of the Munson report about Rossi's thermoelectric claims

  • I have a first response the essentials of which are:


    Quote

    Subject:Transferring FOIA Request


    You requested a copy of “Munson, C.L. 2000. Assessment of Efficiency Increases and Economics of Application of Thermoelectric Apparatus in Fossil Power Plants. Prepared for the United States Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. Contract No. DE-AM01-98FE65271, Task DE-AT01-98FE65489, TD #15. Parsons.” The Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) in Oak Ridge, TN, has performed a reasonable search, and it was determined upon further review/consultation that the information is under the jurisdiction of (DOE) Washington, DC, FOIA Office, who, in turn, will provide a final response to your request... We are sorry for any inconvenience the transfer action to DOE Washington may cause in the processing of your request. Thank you for your interest in the Department.

  • &"We are sorry for any inconvenience the transfer action to DOE Washington may cause in the processing of your request. Thank you for your interest in the Department."


    Typical bureaucratic response. Don't hold your breath too long waiting for response.

  • This took about a month. The report, if they really have a copy, should not take too long to find -- I am guessing one more month, depending on their backlog. They get lots of requests, some probably very sloppy and hard to research, yet they have to try.

  • Sure enough, I received a phone call today from an FOIA analyst, actually a lawyer, who told me they are preparing the report and wanted my agreement to pay up to $50 after it has been received. I agreed. He was unable to tell me how much more time it will require but it does seem I will be able to get it.


    Anyone want to make a bet that it will NOT contain any proof that Rossi ever worked with any member of the faculty or administration of U of NH, not otherwise affiliated or connected to himself? **AND** that if there is such a person, they never did a proper test which showed that the device had the efficiency and output which Rossi claimed in his proposal to CERL as documented in the CERL report? One final condition. If someone on the faculty of U of NH reported a proper test and the device worked, they have to be still alive and reachable at least by telephone to confirm to me their involvement and the result. If not, the bet is off and there is no winner.


    I'll bet anyone here a thousand dollars, I'll give two to one odds (if you lose you pay me $1000, if I lose, I pay you $2000) -- we just have to find a way to transfer the money anonymously... maybe bitcoin? I will take up to five bets of that sort.

  • LENR Calendar: There's no good reason why this couldn't happen... It would likely have to be done on trust, i.e. no escrow, but then, I guess you/I/we shouldn't take the bet if you don't trust the other party to pay up the amount agreed.


    Mary: Fair play to you; I thought there would be a small charge for the FOIA, but also I think we could all find something better to spend $50 on, than settling an internet argument.


    I want to take your bet, but the definitions of "proof" and "proper test" offer us both too many get-out clauses. I would re-word your bet like so:


    Quote

    Anyone want to take a bet that it will NOT include the name of any member of the 'faculty or administration'* of U of NH, not otherwise affiliated or connected to Rossi? AND: if a person is named, they have to be still alive and reachable at least by telephone to confirm** to a third party their involvement and the result, if not, the bet is off and there is no winner.


    * i.e. anyone with a U of NH job title: For example 'Dr X' or 'Technician Y'
    ** Third party must also confirm no prior contact by any party involved in the bet


    And... my bet will be for $25 (I suggest you never buy a house at an auction). This might not whet your appetite too much, but at least we can trust each other to pay it. Also, have you ever tried to use bitcoin? It's a lot of hard work... I suggest a friend of the loser transfers through paypal to a friend of the winner.


    EDIT II: I just realised that I am taking on trust that you haven't already received any documents. Nevermind, the offer still stands.

  • I wonder why a lawyer is involved in this request, and more so, why then only up to 50 bucks?
    I hope there is no NDA attached to it. G.W.'s silence on this report is...out of character for him.
    Thanks again for taking the initiative, especially since you may end up out of pocket a bit for this.

  • OK, small bets are too much trouble so let's skip it. As to Orbo, the odds against Sean and Steorn are astronomical. In the past, Sean has acted like an obvious lying sociopath and I think that he took 20 million Euros, mostly from a bunch of gullible farmers is unconscionable.


    I will continue to post what I hear from FIOA. Not sure what you mean about a lawyer being involved -- the guy who contacted me signed his email "Esq." -- that's all. No NDA is involved in ANY FOIA request. I am quite certain I will receive the requested report-- it's public domain and tax payer property. The up to $50 fee is to pay for the labor involved in fulfilling the request, that's all. Nothing nefarious there at all. When I get the report, I'll post it and I don't mind spending a few bucks to do it. No problem. I don't know why GW didn't publish it and more of what he got. He sort of petered out but even then, there is a lot of important and Rossi-damning information on his web site and also, better done, on Krivit's.

  • I don't want to figure out how to do an anonymous internet wager for the paltry sum of $25. I would do it for $1000 or more. The point is, some of you have such a strong belief in Rossi that you are willing to write and promote very abrasive and unpleasant postings about skeptics and critics of Rossi. Put your money where your mouth is. I am quite certain that the paper I requested because several participants in this forum thought it would exonerate Rossi in the Thermoelectric scam, I am quite certain this paper won't. I am willing to bet that there was not an admin or a prof from U of NH who did what Rossi/LTI/Parsons told CERL they did -- test a highly efficient thermoelectric converter prototype which worked as advertised when *properly* and *independently* tested.


    Staff of U of NH won't do. It has to be a academic or administrator who wrote about an experiment they performed officially for the University. Rossi is known for hiring shills who claim to be such odd things as NATO colonels, whatever that is, and customer representatives who then vanish and can't be found and interviewed. Maybe Rossi paid some low level janitor types to let one of his friends slap some silly non-working plate on a boiler at U of NH. And then faked some results. That would hardly qualify as a Rossi "win." I doubt that even that happened but having watched Rossi's ecat performances since 2011, I think it's possible.


    Anyway, when the report arrives, I will post it somewhere that everyone can read it and we'll argue it.


    PS: if someone wants to make a small bet with me to benefit a charity and it will be done on trust, fine. But before I accept, you have to be precise and specify the conditions under which you win and those under which you lose, in a clear and understandable manner.


    BTW, anyone know who "Domenico Fioravanti" really is, his credentials and CV? Who was the so-called customer he worked for in November 2011? What happened to the so-called "plant" in a container that Rossi sold way back then? It's only been 4 years and there is absolutely no reason for secrecy. So who? Where?

  • If you can't work out that a 'NATO colonel' means a person who is ranked a colonel, by the army of a NATO member, I am not surprised you cannot figure out the mechanics of an Internet bet. PayPal. Through a third party if one wishes to be 'anonymous'.


    The point is, you have such a strong belief in "skepticism" that you are willing to write and promote very abrasive and unpleasant postings about Rossi (and many many more). Yet when it comes down to it, you WON'T put your money where your mouth is. You are unwilling to bet.


    Anyway, the Orbo bet interests me more. Your typical slander of the owner as a "lying sociopath" and your claims of "astronomical odds" tells me you've lost the plot on this one too. How about 10:1?

  • Yes, I'm abrasive about rank scammers like Steorn and Rossi. Something wrong with that?


    If you can tell me what Orbo is supposed to do and how we're going to know if it indeed does it, I'll give you ten to one odds.


    There is no such thing as a NATO colonel and in any case, because nobody has come up with any independent mention of "Domenico Fioravanti," I doubt that the name is real, much less associated with military rank at the level of a full colonel in a NATO army. My best guess is that he is someone Rossi met in prison and who helped him out with the scam in 2011.

  • There's nothing wrong with vigilantism, as long as the supposed perpetrator is guilty. The problem arises when the vigilantes can't be sure. Or more insidiously, don't recognise when they can't be sure.


    The claim is the orbo is a self charging battery. It can recharge itself enough to charge *a number* of mobile phones per day, indefinitely.


    I guess that some websites will get hold of one and take it apart, or test it, then confirm that it works as claimed, or that it's nonsense. I'm sure all the reviews would agree with each other.


    I suppose the bet could also be lost if orbo's aren't delivered as promised.


    Are you saying that there is no such thing as the rank of colonel, or no such thing as a NATO member? At least your prison theory is amusing.

  • The thing about scammers like Rossi is that they are deliberately imprecise. Could be positive or could be negative. Really? 8 years out from the triumph ecat which heated an entire factory for more than a year? Fioranventi? A NATO colonel? Well, there is no such a thing. Rossi didn't say a colonel in a NATO army. He said a NATO colonel. Vigilantes? Hardly. Nobody is out to lynch Rossi. Just to hold him responsible for all the time and other people's money he has wasted with his con.


    As for Orbo, how long is "indefinitely?" What if it fails and Steorn says that's part of their expected 25% failure rate (yes, Sean said that). Without the ability to know what it is supposed to do in terms one can measure, for example so many Amp hours each day, or so many watts for how long, there isn't anything to bet on. Many times before, Steorn has promised deliveries -- their solid state Orbo demo kit, their Hall effect probes, and most recently, they said that two of the world's largest heater manufacturers had bought their Hephaheat (A very dangerous flash water heater). NEVER has a SINGLE statement of that type been borne out as true. In going on TEN years. So who knows if they will deliver anything and if it will DO anything at all. BTW, they didn't say a number of mobile phones. They said one phone twice in 24 hours. Or one tablet. Also that it works inside a Faraday screen, ruling out external RF. I guess we will see.

  • I think it is disingenuous for you to on one hand, laugh at Rossi's use of English, then, on the other hand hold his words up as some sort of ultimate reference.


    Steorn actually said that they receive Orbo components from China with a 25% failure rate. I would expect an honest company to replace failed modules sent to consumers, but that is yet to be judged.


    Assuming no-one tears it apart, I guess 'indefinitely' for our purposes would have to be worked out based on the total volume of the Orbo, multiplied by the energy density of a lithium battery*. Then a healthy safety margin on top.


    * Unless you can think of something more energy dense that could realistically be in there.


    I think any sane tester do a similar calculation, then measure mAh's into their phone using an app.


    What size bet are you willing to take (and possibly loose) on good faith? I would have no problem sending you $50 if I lost. $500 is about the limit I would take on trust from you, but only because I think it would be more easily paid without leaving too bad a taste in the mouth. It's also about the limit of my good humour, in case you unfairly decided not to pay up.

  • The problem is not setting the amount but deciding how and when the bet would be won or lost. What do you suggest for clear criteria? When Steorn's gadget is reviewed favorably by Consumer Reports? I'd go for that. Popular Science magazine, not so much. They endorse all sorts of fanciful stuff which never worked.

  • Note: I've just realised 'Consumer Reports' is some sort of well-regarded US publication. I don't think they are going to feature the Orbo any time soon, but I think other clearly independent publications might. I wrote the rest of this beforehand, but I think it's all still relevant...


    Yes I think consumer reports are the only way to proceed on this. My main worry is that we will disagree over the credibility of the 'reporters', and because of this it would be good to arrive at some sort of understanding beforehand. For example e-catworld: I can understand that from your point of view, you might not consider him an impeccable/respectable source. However, from my point of view, his writings on this display a reasonable amount of skepticism, so I would deem his views valid.


    If we choose not to rely on Frank, the problem is framing the bet in terms of who might or might not write a decent consumer test report. Ultimately this is why is keep referring to good faith etc.: It might come down to one of us conceding defeat.


    But like I've said, I'm sure there will be some sort of consensus between reviewers. Even if there is not clarity in the short term, in the medium term it should become obvious whether the Orbo has self-charging properties. So like I say, good faith is probably the key to this...


    What's your opinion on all this? Can we rely on e-catworld, or just reasonable consensus between reviewers, as to whether more energy is available (over a period of time) than would be if it was just a big LiPo battery.


    I know I generally give you some grief, but that doesn't prevent me from acting honorably.


    Tom: Thanks, you make a good point (as you do regarding Amazon). I guess the details of the Paypal transaction would be sorted out by private email, and hence, be fairly anonymous.

  • Quote

    E-catworld? I don't think so. They're on the same level as pesn.com.


    Including also a strong censure of any criticisms.

    JoNP means Journal of Non-Physics or Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax and junk).

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Henry ().

  • A couple weeks ago Mary Yugo (now banned here) received the FOIA he had requested. This is the same FOIA he claimed would prove the TEs, that Rossi (Leonardo Corp, Leonardo Technologies Inc.) provided the DOE (Dept of Energy), were in fact *never* tested. Proving he and Gary Wrights accusation, that Rossi scammed the U.S. government. Mary has allowed my posting it here:


    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwb9AudbPldSWjYwSVBlRWZub3M/view?pref=2&pli=1


    I will let everyone decide for themselves. Keep in mind as you read, that Mary offered serious bets that this document would prove his claims against Rossi.

  • MY did not say it was never tested. But that it was never tested independently by genuine uni personel. Obviously, Rossi controlled testing is not the same, whether done in a uni lab or not.


    Tom,


    LOLs, Guess he did! Mary worded that wager so vaguely no one ever would have collected, as what he defines as a "proper test", is in the eyes of the beholder.


    I really haven't paid much attention to Mary on this, as the issue was discussed several years ago and resolved to my satisfaction. The document I remember seeing at the time showed the test being done at the university. End of story to me, but MY and Gary Wright wouldn't let it go. I believe Wright even claimed to have been told by someone, that they had shipped 27 or so cheap Russian made TEs to Rossi, or LTI, and those were the ones Rossi sent to the DOE.


    Anyways, I tend to block out Mary at times, and don't fully read his ramblings, but here is what "Marysays" a couple weeks ago:


    "The document does NOT show (and neither do any of the ones Gary Wright recovered) that a thermoelectric device was tested by any capable person at or by U of NH and that the result was high power and efficiency. There is still nothing to suggest such a test took place and nothing to suggest any high efficiency prototype ever worked."