Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Rossi certainly has lots of nerve asking Johnson Matthey to send the paperwork to "JM Products"!

    Well, in communications with IH, Rossi had in the letterhead:

    Advanced Derivatives of Johnson Matthew platinum sponges”.

    But not in the communication with Johnson Matthey. Why not there? :/;)


    That would have been really bold!

  • Not sealed:


    0207.44_Exhibit_44.pdf

    The attached is not an order, it is merely a request for a price, etc. quote and IMHO Rossi only wanted the "pro-forma" invoice as a documentary prop to induce someone, e.g., IH, into believing that the Doral plant was going to work. I would be much more impressed if Rossi had actually ordered and paid (OMG, what am I suggesting, pay) for the platinum sponge. IIRC, Rossi's more common MO was to have someone else's secretary fabricate a false invoice to show that he had purchased supplies.

  • Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions – on a sesame seed bun. The ADDITIONAL ELEMENT (drum roll please) was the special sauce.

  • Quote

    the question was why IH didn't do a good check of Rossi's reactor before giving him so much money. My understanding is that only after there was a transfer of money did Rossi give Darden the secret of the fuel.


    Eric Walker Sorry, but are you saying that the secret of the fuel is somehow needed to do a bulletproof test of an ecat? What does knowing the secret of the fuel have to do with doing a test of power in and power out?

  • [...] I am not so smart (thanks, anyway) to complete the picture with so many missing pieces. My thesis is that when, and if, there will be enough valid pieces on the table, everyone will be able to assemble a quite realistic picture by himself.


    Don't you have a working document with the known pieces, with direct references and/or quotes? I'm assuming you already have something similar for personal reference, otherwise you wouldn't be able to retrieve what you and others have written in the past as quickly as you've often shown. What about making a public version of that in the form of a informally published paper (or Google document, etc)?


    As long as all the information is scattered around, you're only adding confusion to this matter.



    EDIT: by the way, why would Ahern's supposed collaboration with Rossi be important to this story? (assuming this isn't incorrect information due to Celani believing at the time that the US DOE - which Ahern has been indirectly associated with - and the DOD are the same thing).

  • Eric WalkerSorry, but are you saying that the secret of the fuel is somehow needed to do a bulletproof test of an ecat? What does knowing the secret of the fuel have to do with doing a test of power in and power out?


    No — I wasn't saying that the secret of the fuel was needed to do a bulletproof test of the E-Cat. I was responding to @Bruce__H's mention of the secret of the fuel having been transferred as being not directly relevant to the question you were asking earlier. (He agreed with me.)

  • @ can,

    Don't you have a working document with the known pieces, with direct references and/or quotes? I'm assuming you already have something similar for personal reference, otherwise you wouldn't be able to retrieve what you and others have written in the past as quickly as you've often shown. What about making a public version of that in the form of a informally published paper (or Google document, etc)?

    As long as all the information is scattered around, you're only adding confusion to this matter.


    Good questions. I'll try to reduce the confusion.


    Since March 2010 (first JoNP article) tons of documents (articles, reports, patents, pictures, videos, comments, etc.) have appeared on the web. Think, for example, at the ca. 400 documents (plus exhibits) of the Rossi-vs-Darden dispute. You need dozens of large working documents to track only a small part of them. To do this, the first step is to correctly select this small portion to take into account. It's not an easy task, because since the beginning the amount of false info has largely overwhelmed the valid ones. A preliminary step is to classify the reliability of the many sources.


    My personal starting point was that the public demo of January 2011 appeared from the beginning like a magic show, where the attention of the public is diverted from the real tricks, concentrating the suspicions on some possible wrong explanation of the magic. In the case of the Bologna demo this diversion was the combustion of hydrogen as a possible fake source of excess heat. Leaving aside the dangerousness of this expedient, any reasonable physicist understand that it's impossible to burn hydrogen inside that device. But incredibly such a silly hypothesis was suggested to the public by the Press Release of the Department of Physics which announced the demo:


    Quote

    From: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…1-Levi-PressRelease.shtml :


    Besides the energy produced, the consumption of hydrogen will also be measured, in order to exclude all chemical combustion processes;


    Once you realize that the first public demo was likely a blatant farce, you change the way you look at the whole story. Your attention moves from the central scene to the surrounding details, and when the characters on the board invite you to look to the left, you scan carefully the right side.


    This is the way I have selected my pieces. It saved me a lot of time by not examining all the tests carried out after 2011, ie those relating to the HotCat (Ferrara, and Lugano), the Doral test, and the latest demo held in Stockholm. It also spared me a lot of effort for imagining how the testers could have been fooled.


    These pieces are already on the web, in a couple of forums, embedded in the original documents whose links are usually listed at the end of many of my comments. On L-F forums, these comments are currently 274. Unfortunately they are dispersed on many pages, but from my user page on L-F you can get the chronologic sequence of all the comments I posted.


    Well, not all of them: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/low-down-on-lie-bull/


    Quote

    EDIT: by the way, why would Ahern's supposed collaboration with Rossi be important to this story? (assuming this isn't incorrect information due to Celani believing at the time that the US DOE - which Ahern has been indirectly associated with - and the DOD are the same thing).

    Personally, I would find bizarre, to say the least, that a controversial outsider was allowed in a US government lab to collaborate on a potentially world-changing technology with a public researcher who had been studying that technology for a long time, and then he was allowed to go overseas, develop a greatly improved method of the same technology with a local university, and eventually patent this method on his behalf in that foreign country. Unless the US people who were aware of this story were also well sure that the method was nothing but a pretty convincing magic show.

  • Since March 2010 (first JoNP article) tons of documents (articles, reports, patents, pictures, videos, comments, etc.) have appeared on the web. Think, for example, at the ca. 400 documents (plus exhibits) of the Rossi-vs-Darden dispute. You need dozens of large working documents to track only a small part of them. To do this, the first step is to correctly select this small portion to take into account. It's not an easy task, because since the beginning the amount of false info has largely overwhelmed the valid ones. A preliminary step is to classify the reliability of the many sources.


    I understand that a working document for everything that has been published so far would be too much work.


    [...] Once you realize that the first public demo was likely a blatant farce, you change the way you look at the whole story. Your attention moves from the central scene to the surrounding details, and when the characters on the board invite you to look to the left, you scan carefully the right side.


    Makes sense.


    These pieces are already on the web, in a couple of forums, embedded in the original documents whose links are usually listed at the end of many of my comments. On L-F forums, these comments are currently 274. Unfortunately they are dispersed on many pages, but from my user page on L-F you can get the chronologic sequence of all the comments I posted.


    Still, why not condense those 274 comments (and counting) in a single coherent document with proper references (and not references to other comments of yours) and structure? If you've limited your references to a subset excluding post-2011 tests and more recent events, it shouldn't require as much work as initially suggested. Why should the burden of this task be onto your readers?


    Personally, I would find bizarre, to say the least, that a controversial outsider was allowed in a US government lab to collaborate on a potentially world-changing technology with a public researcher who had been studying that technology for a long time, and then he was allowed to go overseas, develop a greatly improved method of the same technology with a local university, and eventually patent this method on his behalf in that foreign country. Unless the US people who were aware of this story were also well sure that the method was nothing but a pretty convincing magic show.


    Brian Ahern has always been one of the most vocal critics of Rossi since the Bologna demo. I think it's more likely that Celani's hearsay was inaccurate.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…10115NET-Rossi-Story1.pdf


  • Brian Ahern has always been one of the most vocal critics of Rossi since the Bologna demo. I think it's more likely that Celani's hearsay was inaccurate.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…10115NET-Rossi-Story1.pdf

    Agreed. I can hardly imagine Ahern and Rossi in the same room together. Ahern would likely saved the peanut gallery a lot of time if he had ever to been able to examine a Rossi demo and look over the apparatus. I always thought that Rossi mentioning that Ahern's work had merit on JoNP (closet competitor, IIRC?) was intended to deflect or temper Aherns negative comments about Rossi (as well as endear Rossi a little bit to the old school CF crowd, while making Rossi look even more knowledgable) [slick move, but a little too slick. Self-aggrandizing flattery of others is a Rossi specialty]. Of course, Mr. Ahern does not seem to be the sort of person who would be cowed by flattery (or anything else) if he felt he had something to say.


    Rossi, on the other hand, fastidiously avoids people who critically examine and question every aspect of his devices and protocols, and keeps that sort away from his demos and equipment, meaning that Ahern would almost certainly never be invited to look at anything of Rossi's. As a competitor, Ahern would be smart and experienced enough to recognize errors and knowledgeable enough to learn trade secrets [I am being generous here] if he had access to Rossi devices. Neither outcome would be acceptable to Rossi.

  • This being said, Rossi claimed to have lived in Boston for a period, to have friends at MIT (which close to Boston, but MIT is a pretty large institution), and once referred to Brian Ahern as being located in Boston. Reportedly he also got the idea for his company Leonardo Corporation when he arrived at the airport in Boston years ago. It seems he owes much to this city, in his own words.


    On the other hand, if his company ended up being located in New Hampshire, Milan-Boston flights would probably be the quickest way to reach there from Italy.


    Does this mean he worked together with Brian Ahern in the same laboratory? It's plausible that they had common friends and that on occasions E-Cats have been tested in a few locations in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. But working side to side with him? I don't think so.


    Reading early documentation from Krivit's timeline of Rossi events for the 2009-2011 period, it's clear that nobody has ever had the opportunity to conclusively test an E-Cat and especially test one without Rossi around. Some tests have been performed in front of government officials (documented examples exist for the latter, like this one from Tony Tether, former head of DARPA, referring to tests made with the NRL), but this is far from saying that Rossi worked for this or that department of the US government or worked with this or that person.


    This very easily explains how Rossi has been "allowed" (Ascoli65's wording) to go overseas minding his own business: by never performing any fully convincing test and acting like a paranoid inventor like he's always has. His results probably appeared intriguing enough to warrant a certain degree of early official interest (with word-of-mouth doing the rest) and that could be all that Rossi needed at the time to boost his ego and marketability.




    After actually investing some time reading old documents, Ascoli65's scenario now appears to me even less likely than it previously was. I urge him once again to put together a well-structured and well-sourced coherent document about his hypothesis, as I suspect it has been built on loose foundations. The process of writing such document might also help him seeing where the holes are.


    So disappointing.

  • b) who has called who in the phone call between JR and Scanlan, when it happened (before, during or after the meeting), for which purpose, etc.

    Me, to say hello and ask how the meeting went and what did he think of Rossi. That's all there is to it. Not a conspiracy and there is no greater significance to it. Nothing much happened in the meeting. You can read about it in Infinite Energy. You read far too much into trivial events.

  • Reading Can's links, it appears to me the most likely scenario is that Rossi was name dropping. That helped him to open doors, and gain trust as he worked his way up the ladder. Play one name against another to build the aura surrounding him. So it is not surprising to me that Passerini and Celani thought Rossi and Ahern worked together, as that is what they were told by him.


    Occam strikes again!

  • @ can,


    This being said,Rossi claimedto have lived in Boston for a period, to have friends at MIT (which close to Boston, butMIT is a pretty large institution), and once referred to Brian Ahern as being locatedin Boston. Reportedly he also got the idea for his company LeonardoCorporation whenhe arrived at the airport in Boston years ago. It seems he owes much tothis city, inhis own words.


    On the other hand,if his company ended up being located in New Hampshire, Milan-Boston flightswould probably be the quickest way to reach there from Italy.


    Does this mean heworked together with Brian Ahern in thesame laboratory? It's plausible that they had common friends and that onoccasions E-Cats have been tested in a few locations in Massachusetts and NewHampshire. But working side to side with him? I don't think so.


    As you wish. Anyway thanks for the interesting links.


    I also propose you other links. The first revelation about this rumor came from Passerini in August 2011:


    Quote

    From: https://22passi.blogspot.com.e…-cimby.html?commentPage=6


    @tutti

    Colgo l'occasione per rivelare a tutti che prima di tornare in Italia nel 2007 e contattare Focardi, Rossi ha lavorato insieme a Brian Ahern in contesti in cui non si può millantare un bel niente: contano solo i fatti. Non posso rivelare la mia fonte, ma vi assicuro che è più che attendibile. Unite i pezzi e avrete la visione d'insieme.

    29 agosto 2011 19:05


    You are able to make good translations from Italian (1), maybe you can do the same on this occasion.


    Two days later, after being informed of this revelation, Rossi wrote:



    So, he didn't ruled out having worked with Ahern, he simply didn't remember. But he remembered to have met an homonym 14 years before. Quite strange, considering that he already had presented Ahern as his first competitor:



    So, I find that this rumor is plausible. In any case, if someone here on L-F is contact with Celani, he can ask directly if he wants to provide some clarification on this point.


    (1) Francesco Celani: LENR: esiti sperimentali e ricerche teoriche.