Mat Lewan Meets Rossi in Sweden, Rossi Bidding on Factory For QuarkX Production

    Thomas - I have taken note and greatly appreciate your fortitude and finese. Rossi is out of bullets for his PR war and is reduced slander / bully tactics. They are not smart enough to realize that they have underestimated your resilience, tenacity, and intellect. Jed is the same way. They have now also drawn Abd's attention which is also a big mistake on their part. Abd is a diesel bulldozer who never gets tired or runs out of fuel. The Rossi clone reproduction system is running as smoothly as a robotic factory so don't expect any slowdown in their onslaught until the next heat round lands on target. They always scatter and have to regroup following a direct hit. The next one is going to be a doozy. Timing is everything. Hang tight.

    Quote from IHFB

    Any gas is a fluid and any liquid is a fluid. The contract does not specifically call for liquid phase flow calorimetry. You ought not to make that claim when we can all read the express language of the agreement.


    How this will read legally I don't know:

    Quote from wikipedia on fluid

    Although the term "fluid" includes both the liquid and gas phases, in common usage, "fluid" is often used as a synonym for "liquid", with no implication that gas could also be present. For example, "brake fluid" is hydraulic oil and will not perform its required incompressible function if there is gas in it. This colloquial usage of the term is also common in medicine and in nutrition ("take plenty of fluids").


    In any case the specified measurements (temperature and flowrate, not pressure) make it quite clear that phase change is not being assessed and therefore we have flow calorimetry. An expert witness would point out that the specified measurements are insufficient to evaluate phase change contribution.


    So: you may be right that it would be OK measuring temperature of water and steam, but you are definitely wrong that it is Ok counting the latent heat of vaporisation if you do this.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    You seem certain that this wasn't done ...


    On this basis of the real measured values, the calculations are made.


    I'm very certain that this wasn't done.


    That doesn't sound as if the calculations have been made on the basis of real measured values:


    It's truly amazing that some Rossi cult members fans can not even accept the facts that have been proclaimed confirmed by their master AR and rather fall into the wildest speculations. :)

    Sir Paulson - the "ERV" is going to be especially entertaining in that regard. They are going to be dancing in the streets for a day or two by reading the summary. They will not be able to discern how bad it is even after it is completely analyzed for them by folks who are orders of magnitude smarter than they are.
    Stay tuned....

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    So: you may be right that it would be OK measuring temperature of water and steam


    I appreciate your backing off from fluid and liquid "equivalence," which scientifically speaking, is not accurate. Remind me if I'm being unreasonable on a point, and I might back off as well in the future.


    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    , but you are definitely wrong that it is Ok counting the latent heat of vaporisation if you do this.


    I'm not so sure about that. How can you make such a definitive statement given, as you openly admit, our lack of information and insight into the data and the ERV report?

    Quote from Tom Paulsen

    It's truly amazing that some Rossi cult members fans can not even accept the facts that have been proclaimed confirmed by their master AR and rather fall into the wildest speculations.


    It's truly amazing that some Rossi cult members fans IH Fanboys (FTFY) are so adept at slaying the wild speculations and misinterpretations expounded on this thread. You have adopted your own definition for "ignored" and seem to suggest that this means "didn't measure." I'm pretty certain even the most rabid IH Fanboys wouldn't buy into this misconstruction. I certainly don't.

    • Official Post

    Thomas Clarke:


    I don't dislike your posts, and I think you many times raise valid objections, but I do see that many of your objections stem from that you are convinced that is impossible to have excess heat as purported by LENR (any LENR) experimentalists. I wonder what you think of other experimental data as the one of Holmlid (sorry if I spell it wrong) and other more "classic" as the reported "water mist arc explosion" (performed by the late Dr. Graneau, published in a peer reviewed Journal in 2000, http://rodscontracts.com/docs/…MIT_Energy_From_Water.pdf) and recently replicated here (http://waterarcresearch.blogspot.com/) that claims around 4 times excess heat.

    IH Fanboy


    Your troll tactics do not work here because everyone can read what I had written.


    I never claimed that nothing had been measured.

    You will certainly understand that my time is too valuable to waste it with your misrepresentations and not wonder that I will not respond to your
    comments in the future.

    Quote from Tom Paulsen

    Your troll tactics do not work here because everyone can read what I had written.


    My troll tactics honest to goodness well-thought-out logic (FTFY) does work here because everyone can read, and for the most part, comprehend what I write. One man's trolling is another man's "pointing out the flaws in your logic and insinuations." The overall impression conveyed by your words and the context in which your words are organized, matter. Similar to how Dewey throws up a smoke screen by insinuating that the 101.1 C value was a measured value (even without explicitly stating as much), and then boasts about how much mileage he is getting from it later on.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke


    Kei, if you and others here are upset by what I say being contrary to your agreed credo, then I'll go. That offer remains on the table.


    You don't sound upset. You sound like a bully. And unlike Dewey who makes a substantive contribution, you sound like a bully who has thus far on this thread made no contribution.


    We'd be better off without the noise your posts add - and I'm not saying that because we disagree - read up your posts and check for content!


    Do you yourself post anything but noise?


    Oh wait you also shill, unconsciously or not!


    The problem is not that you think Rossi is a fraud, but that you are a vehicle for a certain view of the world that is unwelcome in any time and place
    Well maybe if Earth is about to get invaded by ETs we might need an ultra coercitive tyranny but even so, the one which you are related to lives on corruption so it's not even pragmatical

    FWIW when Rossi was asked if the ERV measured output pressure during the test, this was his response:


    Quote

    I presume you keep your eyes open while you drive your car ?



    So far Rossi's copy looks pretty good to me. I completely disagree with people who say that the COP must be bogus based on what Rossi has said. We will have to wait for the report to see if he is truthful.


    I'm also waiting for Dewey Weaver to publish useful information rather than his spin on supposed inconsistencies and dripping water.


    Actually, I urge you to publish just one line of data from the report from when the E-cat was supposedly delivering 1MW.

    Dear R Fanboy(z) - your fabricate, swarm and slander strategy to clog and bury legit comments from legit posters appears to be working for the moment - congrats on that. It is also evident that your fear of the unknown and curiosity around timing upcoming fact disclosures affirms that drip....drip is a viable strategy. Going to let you twist in the wind for a little while........

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Nice to hear the cautious sceptics trying to downplay the story:


    Here the source

    Wyttenbach has mentioned a Swiss Newspaper without providing a link. I had responded with many links on the story, including the lawsuit, and saw many images of a crew scrubbing the deck of the carrier. I not only described detail, I provided sources for what I wrote. Wyttenback had misrepresented the facts.


    This is what likely happened: he had read the story, and then wrote here what he remembered. He did not check on his facts. Now, this time, he read the newspaper article. One article. I read maybe a dozen. And I see this again and again in fora like this.


    People have formed an idea, and the idea persists and when someone provides contrary evidence, they will argue forever.


    Quote

    We see a nice picture where the crew of US-Reagen tries to decontaminate the main carrier deck.

    . USS Reagan is, after all, a nuclear-powered supercarrier, with two nuclear reactors on board. What we see is a crew scrubbing down the carrier deck with mops. It's not clear when the photo was taken. But it was realized at some point that there was some contamination, so ... they scrubbed the deck. It means very little, but they are not wearing major protective gear. And remember, this is a crew trained to deal with a nuclear disaster. And they would have protective gear, and they had radiation detectors and almost certainly dosimeters.

    Quote

    The people on desk tell the following story: While loading a helicopter they felt a breeze of warm air and suddenly snow fall (fall out) started. The felt a strange taste on the tongue like that of ALU-foil. They joked about the situation, made photos & movies...

    I reported the taste. That is a sign of radiation, all right, but major radiation, not a little. That was not "them," it was one person's story, told long after. You say "fallout," she (I think it was) said "snowfall."
    They knew where they were and the knew what the crisis was. And this crew would be trained. So why were they joking? I can tell you why: almost certainly, they knew that the radiation levels were not all that high. Later, though, there may have been an issue with desalinated water, that the sea water may have been contaminated. This would be serious, if they drank that water. Showering with it, probably not so serious.


    Fukushima was a serious accident, but nowhere near the scale of harm of Chernobyl. Deaths from Fukushima: none definitively identified as from radiation, one death from an accident during evacuation, but there will be increased incidence of cancer for some.


    Chernobyl:

    Quote

    28 emergency workers ("liquidators") died from acute radiation syndrome including beta burns and 15 patients died from thyroid cancer in the following years, and it roughly estimated that cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl may reach a total of about 4,000 among the 5 million persons residing in the contaminated areas...


    What may be missed is that helicopters were flying into the reactor area, and were then being decontaminated back at the carrier. One of the stories I linked to described a man who had carried radiation detection equipment and wore a "Tyvek suit" while those helicopters were being decontaminated. But "warm air"? What is that supposed to mean? Radiation at levels that could cause sensible warmth? They would be dying, and rapidly.


    There is hardly any comparison with Chernobyl. Helicopter crews there died. Quickly. And they knew. Call them heroes. No jokes.


    The stories of children of these sailors with mysterious health problems is almost certainly unrelated. The only way that radiation could do that would be if the sailors were heavily contaminated and allowed to go home like that. And the sailors would be a lot sicker than the children.


    However, some sailors very likely received excessive doses of radiation. Nevertheless, this is the official estimate for the USS Reagan: https://registry.csd.disa.mil/…TOM_USS_RONALD_REAGAN.pdf


    Now, are they lying? There is a lawsuit pending. I mention a man who was taking radiation measurements during the incident. There would be many with information like that. If someone is lying about radiation levels, it will be very likely to come out. I would expect the U.S. military to set up a special monitoring program if there were a major risk. Why not? The goal would be to reduce damage, to treat problems as soon as possible. This is the military. They cannot be sued for exposing personnel to risk. Risk is part of being in the military!


    This doesn't mean that no mistakes were made.


    The point here: readiness to jump to conclusions from shallow understanding.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Dear R Fanboy(z) - your fabricate, swarm and slander strategy to clog and bury legit comments from legit posters appears to be working for the moment - congrats on that. It is also evident that your fear of the unknown and curiosity around timing…


    Dear Dewey, why don't you answer the reasonable questions that are posed by me and others? Radio silence isn't much of a strategy. Yes, admittedly, we are all waiting for some reliable information, because what has been put out so far has been shown to be quite unreliable, as the narrative evolves from what initially appears to be a legitimate disclosure, to surprise surprise, something that was spun from the get-go. Why doesn't IH just release the ERV report already so that they can put all of the "fabrications" to bed? And by the way, the only fear peddling is coming from your end. I understand. If a person has reasons ($s) to peddle fear, then they will likely be quite liberal with the FUD--it is human nature. FUD is quite effective in controlling people. But it doesn't work with me, and it doesn't work with most other enlightened folks on this forum and elsewhere among the LENR+ community, if you haven't noticed. This is more a social movement than a business venture. When you comprehend that, then you will understand better the energy that underpins the efforts to get to the bottom of the spin.


    Now even Thomas Clarke is confusing me. I have noticed your username on several LENR forums dating back to maybe 2009. I have also noticed until the end of the test and then the lawsuit (give or take a month) we did not have so many new users spending so much time on personal attacks or talking around others points. As I mentioned on the playground we only used to have Ty and MY making it personal. Now you are asking if you are to be voted off the island by all the newcomers?


    When push comes to shove, unless someone is buying my dinner (a.k.a paying for me) I don't give a ratz assz what they think. Of all people when did you grow a thin skin? Especially after all these years?

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Dear R Fanboy(z) - your fabricate, swarm and slander strategy to clog and bury legit comments from legit posters appears to be working for the moment - congrats on that. It is also evident that your fear of the unknown and curiosity around timing…



    Ah I see I thought the drip drip comment was about steam dryness. Seems like it's actually about releasing new information slowly one bit at a time. Meh.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.