Shane D wrote: "That makes me wonder about his supposed relationship with IH. Maybe I misread him earlier, but I got the impression he was in touch with them NOW, and they told him the plant didn't work."
I am in touch with them now. But not often, and they do not tell me much. Everything I said was based on their press releases. I.H. did briefly confirm to me that a failure to "substantiate" the claim means they do not think there is significant excess heat. But what else could it mean? What other interpretation can there be?
I think you should take both press releases at face value. They mean what they say. Rossi believes the device produces 50 times input. Whereas I.H. believes the tests failed to "substantiate" the claim. One of them has to be mistaken. There is no way a machine that produces 50 times input would fail to "substantiate" the effect.
If you think there is some other interpretation to "substantiate" or you think there is some hidden meaning or motivation, you may be right, and that makes me wrong. I am not claiming any proof more compelling than the press releases and lawsuit documents which everyone has access too.
To summarize: I do not wish to give the impression that I have super-secret or privileged access to information, and you should believe me on that basis. I don't! Just slightly better access than others. I try to base everything I say on published sources you can see for yourself. Which is not to say you must agree with my interpretation! Perhaps you have reason to think the press releases are not trustworthy and should not be taken at face value. If you are right, then I am wrong.