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

  • 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

    Including also a strong censure of any criticisms.

    • Official Post

    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:

    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.

    • Official Post

    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.


    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."

  • Quote

    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.

    LOL. You are saying you think a Rossi controlled test is worth anything? All that was needed, for MY to pay, was a bona fide test conducted by real University staff - not people employed by Rossi. That is what is commonly supposed when people say "... University tested my invention".

    • Official Post

    Just one question on that subject, because I've heard of conflicting informations.

    Was LTI paid for the test of industrialization (that finally failed as reported), or did they pay the test themselves asking help to DoD, with hope to industrialize for DoD ?

    Anyway, what is important is Darden&co story with E-cat.

    I notice a recent change in the critics, moving from sciento to smear campaign, like Kitvit and Coyaud (what a shame for such old fashion extreme-leftist to use nearly fascist method to discredit enemies with accusation by associations. LOL :D she is desperate like Krivit).

    • Official Post

    You are saying you think a Rossi controlled test is worth anything? All that was needed, for MY to pay, was a bona fide test conducted by real University staff - not people employed by Rossi. That is what is commonly supposed when people say "... University tested my invention".


    I think this is much ado about nothing. Of course any Rossi controlled test would be suspect on many levels...duh. Has Mary proven that Rossi somehow "controlled" the U of NHs testing of the LTI provided TEs? Or steered the DOE to use the U of NH for the testing, so he(Rossi) could influence the testers? No, he hasn't. Doubtful he ever will, as MY and Wright concocted their charge of collusion from the get go.

    Absolutely nothing to base the accusation on, or the smear campaign that followed, other than his and GWs conviction that Rossi is corrupt to the core, so therefore everything he has ever been involved in, must also be corrupt. Well, looks like they were wrong twice ...PetrolDragon, and now this.

  • Quote from Alain

    I notice a recent change in the critics, moving from sciento to smear campaign,

    I have not noticed such a change. MY has always concentrated on character. I've always had no belief that any of Rossi's technical comments or tests are reliable. What's new?

    Quote from Shane

    I think this is much ado about nothing.

    I agree. And if everyone realised that what Rossi provides is nothing we would be better off! :)

    • Official Post


    I could be wrong, as I haven't really followed this story much, but I don't think the DOE was into "industrialization" of these supposed super efficient TEs, so much as studying the possibility of using advanced TEs in some co-generation capacity. Yes, I would think that, had LTI's TE they provided lent itself to mass production, it would have subsequently been so. But the ones provided were, as reported by Rossi on his JONP, painstakingly hand crafted and not suitable for mass production. Therefore the unit cost was prohibitive. Not to say the TE even worked as Mary claims, as it may not have. But it was sent, and tested, and not by a friend of Rossi's.

    To be honest, this appeared to be a poorly executed DOE study, which considering it was done by the govt., is not too surprising. The DOE probably funds thousands of these things a year, with little care for quality of results, and this would have been just another.

    No conspiracy here.

  • Sorry for intervening on an apparently long story of which I obviously don't know all the details, but may I ask, as a newcomer in this forum, why is this relevant to LENR (which is more or less the gist of a couple of comments above?)

    Having participated in many similar research projects (one of which on thermoelectrics for automotive heat recuperation, which did not lead to the expected breakthrough), I can say that an unsuccessful outcome of such a project (as it seems to be implied by the phrase " nothing to suggest any high efficiency prototype ever worked") is difficult to prove to be a scam, let alone after so many years. These projects are not paid "by achievement of results", but by "best effort", so not reaching high efficiency or a sufficient durability is not enough grounds for defining such a project a scam, otherwise this would be true for 60-80% of them. For instance, if these were the metrics, how would any manager of defence programs like the F35 or the Boeing tanker still be at large ;) ?

    Of course this issue might be raised because somebody still deems Mr Rossi's eCat a scam and wants to establish a link. If so, may I ask on which grounds?

    In fact, after reading some of the abundant material on this site, in particular the very recent replication announcements, I came up with the following "reductio ad absurdum":

    1 Assumption: Rossi is a scammer
    2 He has manipulated all his tests (including the ones where the device was handled by third parties, which are obviously colluded.)
    3 He swapped the fuel from the Lugano tests with one having an altered isotopic composition
    4 This fake material was analysed with a mass spectrometer and the results published
    5 Mr Parkhomov, Songshen Jiang et al deduced from these fake data a composition of the fuel (that happens to be the one in the awarded patent) and build a replica eCat
    6 These replications, and other, seem to work, including the one by MFMF that has been conducted in a quite transparent way. Yesterday announcement by Mr Jiang even shows self sustaining operation for a relatively long time.

    My (simplistic, I admit) deduction is that either it's not a scam, as multiple scientists cannot develop different working devices from fraudulent data, or one must look into a wide conspiracy where all the replicators are in fact accomplices of Mr Rossi.

    Am I missing something?

    Thanks for any clarifications

    • Official Post


    I think you summed it up well! The man to answer most of your questions would of course be Mary Yugo and he is banned from here. The only reason it is a "long story" is due solely to the determination of he and his sidekick Gary Wright, fueling their campaign to smear Rossi's reputation. Surely Mary, who goes by Al Potenza on ECNs, will read this thread and respond there. If he makes any sense I will copy here.

    One thing I would like to make clear is that I am not defending Rossi. To be perfectly honest, I think he is a little slick. That is not to say he doesn't have something real, as many great discoveries were by individuals who also lacked social skills, giving them the appearance of being dishonest. Rossi may very well turn out to be as Mary and many others...even believers like Brian Ahern accuse. You never know.

  • LENR implies an alternative scientific paradigm that is just as persecuted as religious heresy and perversion has been in the worst historical examples of this reaction. It is almost as if the currently established scientific beliefs are religious in nature and these divinely revealed beliefs must be protected with extreme zeal where the ends justify the means just like divine revelation must be protected from the mischief inspired by the devil. The opposition that Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Charles Robert Darwin faced are born anew in a religious frenzy that LENR inspires with as much venom and misdirection as ever in this dawning of this new LENR age.

    The following words are from the great philosopher Bertrand Russell from his book Religion and Science.


    “Those to whom intellectual freedom is personally important may be a minority in the community, but among them are the men of most importance to the future. We have seen the importance of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin in the history of mankind, and it is not to be supposed that the future will produce no more such men. If they are prevented from doing their work and having their due effect, the human race will stagnate, and a new Dark Age will succeed, as the earlier Dark Age succeeded the brilliant period of antiquity. New truth is often uncomfortable, especially to the holders of power; nevertheless, amid the long record of cruelty and bigotry, it is the most important achievement of our intelligent but wayward species.”

    • Official Post

    @candide89: The weak point of your argumentation is point 5


    Mr Parkhomov, Songshen Jiang et al [...] and build a replica eCat.

    In both experiements, by Parkhomov and Songshen, there are big questionmarks and odd behaviours. Therefore the whole experiments are highly questionable.
    We can not be sure to date.

    I simply hope that MFMP found the key (the recipe) and that more transparent and positive experiments are coming soon.