Rossi responds

The trend here is to organize an e-Trial on this forum, mimicking and anticipating the real Trial; here Jed Rothwell wants to be the Judge- the decision is already taken- IH acquited Rossi sentenced. This Jury is working with ad-hoc fabricated proofs.

A typical example:
Rossi has no problems with the Flowmeter it was a pretty standard one.
For Jed the flowmeter is a central piece the most unsuitable instrument, the most corruptible tool of measurement and, in the same time the supreme proof of zero excess heat- peculiar mode of thinking but Jed is an LENR lover, ergo he will not lie, isn't it?
Anyway, on my EGO OUT blog I wrote about this yesterday but Jed has not seen it and not answered
Here it is:

"As we were already informed the instruments were unsuitable and the measurements faulty, however the central piece in this story nd the champion of both scamming and self-deceit is the flowmeter- flawmeter, faultymeter; a really evil instrument was chosen- say the relaible source. See the specifications

FlowScam DIABLO-666 Universal Flowmeter manufactured under the patronage of the South American Drug Cartel measures direct flow, backflow, crossflowand during weekdays even the Csikszentmihalyian FLOW(see pleasehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihaly_Csikszentmihalyi ) (please search in EGO OUT too)

It is obvious for any fool that THIS flowmeter indicates clearly total absence of excess heat!!!
Jed has a good memory (not for calendaristic data and chronology) , if he remembers it was an other type, obviously worse than the above shown- he is free to tell us the Manufacturer and Type- otherwise ill-willed people will dare to suppose that he has no idea what a heck of flowmeter was used by the ERV.we will be shocked for sure- but not for long.Waiting for other similar killer proofs

THE ESSENCE- if Jed is unable to tell something relevant about
why is the flowmeter (which type) so a great catastrophy, then, horribile dicu, he does not tell the truth in this case and in all other cases re this conflict.
Everything has a limit.
peter

Quote from sifferkoll

Well, Jed. IH was obviously exstatic about the MW test when they showed it to Woodford and pocketed $50M cash.

How do you know this? Who told you that? Were you present, or did you speak with any of the people involved?

If Woodford was deceived by I.H., it seems likely to me they will take their money back or file suit, now that every sane person knows the test failed. If they do not do that, it will show that you are wrong.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Rossi has no problems with the Flowmeter it was a pretty standard one.

If he told you that, he lied.

Quote from Peter Gluck

For Jed the flowmeter is a central piece the most unsuitable instrument, the most corruptible tool of measurement and,

No, I said it was one of the problems with the test. There were several others.

Quote from Peter Gluck

THE ESSENCE- if Jed is unable to tell something relevant about
why is the flowmeter (which type) so a great catastrophy,

You should ask Rossi for the make and model. As soon as he tells you, you will see the problem.

I have agreed not to reveal any information not already made public by Rossi or I.H. I will stick to my agreement.

Why do you let Rossi say anything, never challenging him, when you will not believe a single thing I say, even when Rossi confirms it? Such as his covering up of the fake customer site by not allowing people in. He was practically bragging that he defrauded I.H., and you don't even question it! You are grotesquely biased in favor of Rossi, because of wishful thinking.

If you do not know the make and model, you do not know why there is a problem, and you have no business commenting about this problem, or taking sides, or criticizing me. Your only comments should be: I do not know. I cannot judge without the essential technical information.

Quote from sifferkoll

You're so full of BS Jed. I'm saying they did visit and that Darden pocketed the $50M. Are you saying they did NOT visit,

I am saying you have no idea what they told Woodford. You think they told him that Rossi's experiment was a complete success. I have some idea of what I.H. may have told Woodford, and I think it is unlikely they said that. While this was happening, I.H. was telling me and others that there were problems with Rossi's test. They expressed doubts. It is unlikely they would tell us one thing and Woodford another, because Woodford would hear from us sooner or later, and then file suit against I.H.

In any case, you will now see if you are right. If Woodford withdraws the money or files suit, that may mean you are right. If they do not, you are wrong.

Quote from sifferkoll

So my question is why don't you care more about where that cash went?

As far as I know, the cash went to I.H. and it is now sitting in the bank. They are using it in various experiments. Unfortunately, they have to use a lot to fight Rossi's lawsuit.

Jed, you have told the flowmeter has and is a great problem and you are obviously unable to tell anything about it.
This is a proof you are acting exactly as a mythomaniac.
With a minimum of intelligence you could give a technical explanation- it is flawed because this or that
Have you ever worked with a flowmeter?
Sorry but all your "inventions"are at this low level of credibility
It is disappointing to see what you are doing

Why you have business of making calumnies-filled destructive mendacious comments and other people should just shut up?

Peter

Quote from JedRothwell

Such as his covering up of the fake customer site by not allowing people in.

You seem very certain it is all faked. But you don't seem to hold open the possibility that the "fake" customer is simply a shell company in the U.S. set up for a U.K. company, as expressly stated in the license agreement. Sure, you can say it is all lies a big ruse, but there is no denying that there it is, in black and white print, in the compliance document filed in court (http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads…es/3885/7420/original.jpg). It is also suggested that IH agreed not to enter the customer area--in writing. Have you asked IH to see that document? Do you think it might be important to confirm whether that agreement exists before taking a hard position on the matter?

Dear Mary

Jed has promised to not tell, anything about the flowmeter except that it does not measure well, it is unsuitable. How can he hustify this without telling some technical detail, some technical reason? As say it was made from LDPE and has worked at 130 C. He has no idea what he is talkng about. do not compromise yourself defending him. YOU know what a flowmeter is, he not.
Peter

Quote from Peter Gluck

How can he justify this without telling some technical detail, some technical reason?

How many times do you need to be told Peter that Jed has promised not to reveal unauthorized details? The technical detail you ask about, as Dewey Weaver reported, is that Rossi was discovered substituting a fake flow meter which exagerated the flow rate by a factor of 10 or so. What more do you want? This is so similar to previous manipulations by Rossi and by Defkalion of flow calorimetry that I am amazed that any rational person would question its veracity.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…1/37/3727appendixd5.shtml

Despite overwhelming documented evidence you still cannot bring yourself to accept that your heroes are in fact criminals out to make a quick buck.

Rossi claims that his "customer" for the one-year test has ordered three more units. He also stated that he expects these units to be delivered by the end of this year.

Does anyone believe that such deliveries will be made before the trial? If they are, and if they all worked and satisfied the customer, it would be hard for Rossi to lose the case.

d

Quote from dartin

Rossi claims that his "customer" for the one-year test has ordered three more units. He also stated that he expects these units to be delivered by the end of this year.

Does anyone believe that such deliveries will be made before the trial? If they are, and if they all worked and satisfied the customer, it would be hard for Rossi to lose the case.

Jed (and others here) are convinced that the customer is fake and that Rossi is simply making this all up. I'm not so sure about that. Generally, when Rossi has taken a public position in the past about something being in existence, to the surprise of many, it turns out to be true. Based on this track record, I think the safer position to take is that the customer probably exists, and is likely a going concern from the U.K., as expressly set forth in the license agreement.

Jed says, Mary says and says and says, Rossi says, Dewey doesn't say any more, Abd is lost for words. Stephenrenzz says ad hominem ad infinitum

I say 'what does Judge John J O Sullivan say?

Is Rossi's invention 'illusory' - no comment (if he were to comment we would infer that either it works or does not work, Mary would be exonerated or left fighting the US justice system for credibility)
Has the motion to dismiss succeeded - no comment (but it is unlikely that preparations for the next stage would be made when the MTD is ruled successful.
Have arrangements been made to proceed to the next stage of the trial, no comment from O Sullivan, however, the ORDER Setting Trial and Pretrial Schedule, Requiring Mediation, and Referring Certain Matters to Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan: Jury Trial set for period of 6/26/2017 in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

What this guy says and does not say is more meaningful and insightful than any of some of our regular contributors could ever hope to emulate.

By taking the decision not to dismiss on the basis of Mary's contention 'that Rossi is a fraud and therefore his stuff does not work' means that at this stage it is far from clear that Rossi's inventions are fraudulent. In fact the court has assumed there is a case to answer. For this to be so the invention, patents, IP and contract must be considered 'on an equitable basis' to have sufficient substance for the purpose of the trial. Of course during the trial, anything could happen.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Hermes

as Dewey Weaver reported, is that Rossi was discovered substituting a fake flow meter which exagerated the flow rate by a factor of 10 or so.

Yes. Not exactly "fake" but the wrong type, installed in a way that gives the wrong answer. As I pointed out previously, Defkalion did something similar. They installed the flowmeter without a backflow check valve, and then ran it at low flow rates so that the meter measured the flow much too high. Rossi did not use this trick, but he did something similar.

Defkalion's trick is described here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

but he did something similar

And that something similar must be kept secret? Not unlike the ERV report? So these are arrows in IH's quiver waiting to be grasped and released by their litigation bow? They don't want you to steal their thunder?

Quote from Peter Gluck

Jed, you have told the flowmeter has and is a great problem and you are obviously unable to tell anything about it.
This is a proof you are acting exactly as a mythomaniac.
With a minimum of intelligence you could give a technical explanation- it is flawed because this or that
Have you ever worked with a flowmeter?
Sorry but all your "inventions"are at this low level of credibility
It is disappointing to see what you are doing

Why you have business of making calumnies-filled destructive mendacious comments and other people should just shut up?

Peter

Display More

Says the angry little old egotistical blogger....ohhh the irony.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Jed, you have told the flowmeter has and is a great problem and you are obviously unable to tell anything about it.

I have agreed not to say anything that Rossi or I.H. have not revealed. If you would like to know about the flowmeter, you should ask Rossi for the make and model.

Quote from Peter Gluck

With a minimum of intelligence you could give a technical explanation- it is flawed because this or that

I could easily tell you, but I agreed not to. Ask Rossi.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Have you ever worked with a flowmeter?

Often, with several different types.

Elsewhere, you claimed that it is not possible to deliberately set up a flowmeter incorrectly to produce the fake result you want. You are wrong about that. I know of several methods, including the one used by Defkalion, and the one used by Rossi. You probably have not used a flowmeter if you think it is not possible to cheat with one.