The Playground

  • OT:

    (Phys.org)—For the first time, researchers have demonstrated that shining a nanosecond pulsed laser at the base of a 100-µm-long diamond needle can significantly enhance electron emission from the tip of the needle. The ability to control electron emission with light in this way has potential applications in portable X-ray sources, electron microscopes, and sensors. Maybe this will help LENR


    Diamond needles as an x-ray emitter

  • skip ,

    Hey welcome here. To me it does not matter (to me Rigel) if someone is pro or anti Rossi, just pro LENR. Intelligent skepticism is welcome. I come here for knowledge and that can come from many points of view. I personally have learned as much from the believers of LENR as from the skeptics (but I am a believer so I have to state that). And I am a free speech guy until it comes to doxxing then I am an asshole. Why? Some people are unstable and I will leave it at that ( e.g. 4chan).


    In fact if one of us here doxxes anyone else- I will probably be banned. I just to not like it that much. Not to get on a high horse but when we drive someone away we all suffer.


    Anyway welcome.

    Rigel

  • Cite and quote the court document that has this number and I'll move your post back to the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

    Dear Eric,

    The big amount of money raised from Darden is also a public information.

    Just as an example please have a look to this page:

    http://www.donbot.com/Enerbot/…rtFromIndustrialHeat.html



    So that is not a "Rossi Says".



    Here :

    https://translate.google.com/t…spx%3Fid%3D845&edit-text=


    is the photo of Darden in China.....

  • Surely, I would not have it any other way. But please bring some science if you can, so I will both learn and enjoy it. I will start -- I am not sure that LENR as some are proceeding with will ever be overunity hence to me it seems why see nuclear evidence is very scarce so far, but I think that there exists palladium and hydrogen anomalous experiments that have not been properly discounted. (I am undecided honestly.)

    But I also think that properly described scientific experiments could easily persuade me as I like to think I have an open mind. We have several folks here that I am absolutely convinced are following scientific method.

    I also think that we should agree that there exists muon catalyzed cold fusion. Or you should describe how MCCF as not in fitting the standard model? How's that?


    Anyway welcome really.

  • And welcome from me too.

    Thanx Alan


    Surely, I would not have it any other way. But please bring some science if you can, so I will both learn and enjoy it. I will start -- I am not sure that LENR as some are proceeding with will ever be overunity hence to me it seems why see nuclear evidence is very scarce so far, but I think that there exists palladium and hydrogen anomalous experiments that have not been properly discounted. (I am undecided honestly.)

    But I also think that properly described scientific experiments could easily persuade me as I like to think I have an open mind. We have several folks here that I am absolutely convinced are following scientific method.

    I also think that we should agree that there exists muon catalyzed cold fusion. Or you should describe how MCCF as not in fitting the standard model? How's that?


    Anyway welcome really.


    Not sure that is directed to me but if so, thanx again.


    I'm not a scientist, but I am an experimenter.


    I have seen what was reported to me and others, what was described as an over unity reactor. When I thought no one was looking, I put my hand on it. I think Pianatelli might have caught me out of the corner of his eye. If so, he didn't say anything.

    In one (out of dozens) of my electrolytic experiments, I think I saw and measured what appeared to have been over unity.


    Sorry, can't bring any "science" to these discussions as I'm unqualified. I do however choose to believe that some sort of nuclear reaction that is neither "cold" nor "fusion" (in the main stream sense) exists, and I will continue to do my damndest to find it. Alone and with others.

    That choice is my driving force, but if I see "over unity", I'll continue to be a skeptic until all other possible answers are dissipated.


    I have been honoured to meet and work with (more accurately: worked for) other members on this site who deserve and receive respect from most, if not all.


    It appears that I am useless at making gobs of money, so I gave up and dedicate my time and labours in this field to myself, my kids and mankind in general.


    BTW, I've been lurking here, on and off for years.


    skip


  • So that is not a "Rossi Says".


    Well, let's look at the (surely misleading) numbers you quote. Nominally from Woodford we have 50 million, and nominally from the Chinese we have 121 million. That's 50 million + 121 million = 171 million dollars. You're short by 79 million to get to your 250 million that you've mentioned on several occasions.


    Now let us recall the article that clarified that only 20 or so million from Woodford had been disbursed to IH. And let us recall that the Chinese number was probably a commitment and does not appear to have been intended to be directed to IH. We are now far shorter the 250 million. Please stop repeating that IH raised 250 million as though it were a fact unless you can substantiate it. Or, if you do repeat it as though it were a fact, your post will probably go into the bargain bin.

  • That's 50 million + 121 million = 171 million dollars.

    This is not just few money. I remember also other figures in the docs and I will search the exact document..... but ok lets take 171 for now

    Now let us recall the article that clarified that only 20 or so million from Woodford had been disbursed to IH.

    Please cite the aricle yourself. You have not.


    And let us recall that the Chinese number was probably a commitment and does not appear to have been intended to be directed to IH.

    Are you sure ? The only internet articles I found with this figures are related to Darden visit. Remember that IH holds the rights for China.

    Or, if you do repeat it as though it were a fact, your post will probably go into the bargain bin.


    As you see I'm not repeating.

    I feel, but of course I can be wrong, that there is a double standard here. People from IH can openly offend and insult other while I'm just trying to reconstruct how much money IH has rosen.

  • Are you sure ? The only internet articles I found with this figures are related to Darden visit. Remember that IH holds the rights for China.


    People from IH can openly offend and insult other while I'm just trying to reconstruct how much money IH has risen.


    ele


    The issue here is that the points made in favour of IH are all backed by hard facts. The points made in favour of Rossi are all speculation and RossiSays (not even Rossi says sworn evidence - though in some cases even that is provably inaccurate). And this difference needs to be called out.


    • We have in the mountains of Court evidence clear info re the 20M/ 30M split of that 50M.
    • We have no evidence to support the RossiSays 200+M


    The internet article here that you cite is typically loose. The figure in it will perhaps be real, but not necessarily definite, and not likely for LENR. If it had been IH would have more money now. Such articles from journalists are notoriously unreliable when it comes to what the sums of money mentioned actually represent: possibles, wishes, contingencies, etc.


    Darden clearly had (from Woodford alone, and for all I know China too) access to large amounts of money for working LENR. Which, had Rossi's stuff worked, would have been drawn upon. That is quite different from having been given this large amount. No-one of any sense would expect funders to provide this money until the next phase of validation was complete so lowering risk.


    None of this is surprising. It would be surprising if Darden could raise such large amounts for LENR when in the process of testing Rossi's device until it is proven working. If you claim IH did prove LENR working you have to ask why would Darden perjure himself when there must be other technical guys who know differently? Unlike Rossi, where he can control technical stuff with all other technical guys deferring to him, Darden and Vaughn rely on other technical expertise to tell them what is what. Murray would have to be willing to perjure himself and wreck his reputation. After all, working e-cats are not something that can get hidden if they are commercialised.

  • Well, let's look at the (surely misleading) numbers you quote. Nominally from Woodford we have 50 million, and nominally from the Chinese we have 121 million. That's 50 million + 121 million = 171 million dollars. You're short by 79 million to get to your 250 million that you've mentioned on several occasions.


    Now let us recall the article that clarified that only 20 or so million from Woodford had been disbursed to IH. And let us recall that the Chinese number was probably a commitment and does not appear to have been intended to be directed to IH. We are now far shorter the 250 million. Please stop repeating that IH raised 250 million as though it were a fact unless you can substantiate it. Or, if you do repeat it as though it were a fact, your post will probably go into the bargain bin.

    I can not read all the public documents related to the trial .... they are really too many. However, I think that the amount of the investment can be in one of those. Anyway, is it really important to know if investors have given to IH $ 50 million or $ 250 million? The question remains the same: before collecting that money, IH should have been certain of the product they were buying. So either they were unwise, or the reactor worked fine. This is a fact.

  • Reading here and there.....

    Mail from McLaughlin (APCO) to Rossi (214-30)


    Quote


    - I spoke with Tom today and he reported that the 400 day test is about to commence. I wanted to share a new mantras with you around this event. [...] As guidance, I think we should call this event "a long term test and continued R&D" -

    From the very beginning, it seems that Darden had indoctrinated his PR group to make no one call the Doral test the "GPT" ... ;)

  • Reading here and there.....

    Mail from McLaughlin (APCO) to Rossi (214-30)


    From the very beginning, it seems that Darden had indoctrinated his PR group to make no one call the Doral test the "GPT" ... ;)

    Right. And could that possibly be because, as is obvious from Rossi's e-mail asking for it, it is not the GPT? Darden was perhaps alert to the possibility that Rossi might try to twist things?

  • Anyway, is it really important to know if investors have given to IH $ 50 million or $ 250 million? The question remains the same: before collecting that money, IH should have been certain of the product they were buying. So either they were unwise, or the reactor worked fine. This is a fact.

    No, this is your speculation, and your opinion. Not a fact. Whether something is unwise or not is a matter of opinion.


    Perhaps the people who gave them the $50 million were unwise. I do not know the details of the agreement. If it were me giving them the money, it would be contingent on the test working, and if the test failed, they would have to give it back. I have no idea whether such conditions are attached.


    What I know for a fact is that the test failed. Anyone can see that from Penon report.

  • No, this is your speculation, and your opinion. Not a fact. Whether something is unwise or not is a matter of opinion.


    Perhaps the people who gave them the $50 million were unwise. I do not know the details of the agreement. If it were me giving them the money, it would be contingent on the test working, and if the test failed, they would have to give it back. I have no idea whether such conditions are attached.


    What I know for a fact is that the test failed. Anyone can see that from Penon report.

    Also, there are definite hints of the classic criminal's "logic" in SSC and ele's repeated opinions/insinuations of other's motives: that being "...I wouldn't have robbed that bank, if they hadn't LET me rob it...". Or: "....if anyone is "unwise" (or risk-taking, uninformed, etc) enough to give Rossi money, they deserve to have it stolen....".

  • The main question remains, had IH the full sum of money in order to meet the obligations of the license agreement at any time available?. The answer is no!

    Speculation as to how they could have raised money is superfluous, because they have signed a contract with the knowledge that they can possibly not raise the sum and so they could not be interested seeing Rossi successfully running a long term test - because they did not have that $89 million at no time!

  • Quote

    Perhaps the people who gave them the $50 million were unwise. I do not know the details of the agreement. If it were me giving them the money, it would be contingent on the test working, and if the test failed, they would have to give it back.

    Uh....no. You don't give a convicted felon with no record of credible accomplishments and a long history of claims which turned out to be lies -- you don't give him MILLIONS on another claim AHEAD OF TIME. If you even consider wasting time on him, you require him to PROPERLY and CONCLUSIVELY prove that the device works FIRST -- BEFORE he is entrusted with millions. That is done BEFORE money changes hands. And you get a proper test done-- not one entirely in the charges of the supposed inventor; not one lasting for an entirely useless and senseless entire year when it could be accomplished properly in at most a few weeks. You might offer to pay for some of the equipment rentals and perhaps some of the machining charges but really, the inventor, having presumably proven the device to work BEFORE making the claims, would have all that already. And you don't test dozens of subunits when testing a single one accomplishes the same thing! Rossi's proposal was OBVIOUSLY defective and BOGUS from the start to anyone with any experience in scientific method and testing.


    You don't need a complete or proven theory. You don't need anything ready for market. But you'd better do a competent test with your own, well vetted, experts, including for certain, some who are skeptical about the device. All must have special training and proven accomplishment in the appropriate fields. In Rossi's case that would be nuclear physics, thermal and fluid physics and engineering, and sleight of hand methods, not necessarily in that order. Unwise is a vast understatement. And of course, Woodford was so hopelessly negligent with the investment that when asked how Rossi was vetted, in their own Q&A web-based conversations, they refused to state-- even in the most general of terms. Even the method was "proprietary" which I take to mean "negligent" and "woefully inadequate" and not done by appropriate experts if done at all.


    What in the world leads you to think it would be possible to get money back from Rossi by asking for it? Probably not even from IH. But Woodford knew a lot of the money they gave IH to invest was going to Rossi. Rossi was IH's showcase project (ROTFWL!).