Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • There we come to another thing- the issue of patents intended to mislead. Don't tell me it never happens, because misdirection is a basic business tool.


    I have heard they are used for that purpose. But I have also heard that if the Patent Office rules you are using a patent for that purpose, it will be revoked. So this is a risky strategy. There are less risky ways to mislead the competition. Misleading customers, by any method, violates various civil and criminal laws.

  • Then does that mean McDonalds is going out of business soon? They mislead me every day because the sandwiches in their photos look far better than what I'm served.

    And like Rossi, if you complain loudly, they will tie you up in legal fees so substantial that you will sign almost anything to make them stop and go away.

  • Nothing can stop Rossi selling his heat at -20...50%. He nor any of his satisfied customers doesn't need to care about anything else. Steam doesn't need any electrical, nuclear nor any other certification, insurance covery nor approval from anybody. Only the market will decide and soon all babblers will face the truth and have to accept that there is now finally his masterpiece....

  • Any questions? This was clearly predicted here long ago...but Rossi acolytes are now sure , this is the only way Rossi can go. He is making it clear to his mini me... he would love to disclose their identity but the bad customers deny and want an NDA.. 😆


    1. Michel February 5, 2019 at 1:44 PM

      Dear Dr Rossi,

      It seems that all your customers will be subject to a non-disclosure clause, like the current client of whom we know nothing.

      How is this compatible with a rapid diffusion of the reactor to the market?

      Regards,

      Michel

    2. Andrea Rossi February 5, 2019 at 1:50 PM

      Michel:

      It is, because our Clients like not to be harassed, at least for the time being. Otherwise they would not ask for an NDA.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.



      Edit: SOT was a bit faster... :-)

  • Can't see the problem here - all LENR devices/reactors /electrolyzers require an energy input to initiate the 'proposed' nuclear reaction - OK SOMETIMES once the reaction has been initiated the input energy can be turned off and 'heat after death' occurs releasing energy for a period without any energy input - but to say we start initiating a nuclear reaction without any input at all just mixing the reactants together and letting it sit-has that ever been observed? And then if indeed it has, how reliable or repeatable is the claim? I'm just trying to achieve some kind of overview from the published data what levels of energy production are possible with this technology and barring obviously exaggerated claims the figure in the range 1.2 to 2.2 for energy out/energy in (measured over the whole experiment from start to finish) is about all that can be expected. Whether the reactor is insulated or not is irrelevant.


    It is very strange that input energy (mostly thermal) should be so closely related across difference experiments to output energy. If a reaction is initiated, catalysed, etc, then you'd expect a wide variation in ratios and no obvious limit, Where what is needed is e-m field or temperature, the dependence of either (particularly temperature) on input energy is very loose and can be varies almost arbitrarily by engineering changes.


    That It seems a struggle to get COP away from a close to 1 ceiling is surprising if this idea (initiated nuclear reaction) is true.

  • Same bovine excrement as Rossi pushed out in 2011. One thing the Rossi crowd is good at: recycling garbage. And apparently that sh*t still smells sweet to the Acland and Lewan crowd. Levi, on the other hand, far as is known, has been very quiet as have the "Swedish scientists" who originally tried to reproduce Rossi's hot cat claims.


    But, hey!!! Why are you so surprised? And why so agitated? Just a couple of minutes ago you wrote in another thread that it was actually your prefered strategy to harass (more or less) everyone connected to Rossi!!! So in my opinion you're successfull! Aren't you happy?

  • Quote

    But, hey!!! Why are you so surprised? And why so agitated? Just a couple of minutes ago you wrote in another thread that it was actually your prefered strategy to harass (more or less) everyone connected to Rossi!!! So in my opinion you're successfull! Aren't you happy?

    It isn't terribly likely to happen but I'd be happy if Rossi were back in prison again, where he belongs. Your point was?

  • It isn't terribly likely to happen but I'd be happy if Rossi were back in prison again, where he belongs. Your point was?


    Perhaps jtomas is correctly noting that Rossi's reputation and future income rests more on his blog presence than any engineering reality, so that internet criticism here is actually relevant? We know for sure he thinks it worth answering points made here, whereas the engineering output is both unprofessional and stunningly unconvincing.

  • Perhaps jtomas is correctly noting that Rossi's reputation and future income rests more on his blog presence than any engineering reality, so that internet criticism here is actually relevant? We know for sure he thinks it worth answering points made here, whereas the engineering output is both unprofessional and stunningly unconvincing.


    Of course. It's obvious You believe that to be the case. Otherwise you would never spend all that time around here bashing him.

  • Of course. It's obvious You believe that to be the case. Otherwise you would never spend all that time around here bashing him.


    I try quite hard to comment on actions rather than personality - so "bashing" if you consider that as what I have done - would apply to criticism of his modus operandi as evidenced over the 7 years I've been following this fascinating story? If you look at my posts here I point out factually indisputable egregious technical issues, repeated so many times as to constitute a pattern. That is fact not speculation. What about you: you seem from your one-liners to be critiquing those who critique the RossiSays line?


    Rossi's personality is fascinating and one of the compelling aspects of this psychodrama, why many of us hang around this story. But that is less important than the technical stuff.

  • I try quite hard to comment on actions rather than personality - so "bashing" if you consider that as what I have done - would apply to criticism of his modus operandi as evidenced over the 7 years I've been following this fascinating story? If you look at my posts here I point out factually indisputable egregious technical issues, repeated so many times as to constitute a pattern. That is fact not speculation. What about you: you seem from your one-liners to be critiquing those who critique the RossiSays line?


    Rossi's personality is fascinating and one of the compelling aspects of this psychodrama, why many of us hang around this story. But that is less important than the technical stuff.


    I guess you know better than I the reasons for your actions (I can only speculate). I can see that you try hard to paint your speculation as "technical issues" and "facts" even though you obviously have no idea about them since you are still sitting in the armchair far far away... You are probably becoming delusional; deceiving yourself into believing that the patterns you see are facts.

  • I guess you know better than I the reasons for your actions (I can only speculate). I can see that you try hard to paint your speculation as "technical issues" and "facts" even though you obviously have no idea about them since you are still sitting in the armchair far far away... You are probably becoming delusional; deceiving yourself into believing that the patterns you see are facts.

    Perhaps you could educate yourself more by reading the court documents and Rossi's own contradictory comments rather than the baseless assertions and veiled insults?

  • Perhaps you could educate yourself more by reading the court documents and Rossi's own contradictory comments rather than the baseless assertions and veiled insults?


    Oh, how does my speculation differ from other speculations using patterns to evaluate the state of things in this saga?

  • Oh, how does my speculation differ from other speculations using patterns to evaluate the state of things in this saga?

    Not quite sure how to parse that. You attack and criticize people for criticizing Rossi. However, their criticisms of him are based on his proven (by himself) lying and obviously deceitful practices. Your staunch support of him is based on *what* evidence? Don't bother answering. There is none. He has never had any independent replication or verification and never allowed any measurements but his own (flawed) ones.

  • Not quite sure how to parse that. You attack and criticize people for criticizing Rossi. However, their criticisms of him are based on his proven (by himself) lying and obviously deceitful practices. Your staunch support of him is based on *what* evidence? Don't bother answering. There is none. He has never had any independent replication or verification and never allowed any measurements but his own (flawed) ones.


    Ok. How is that Rossi behaviour can be considered obvious, and at the same time, behaviours just as obvious of the people here cannot?

  • Ok. How is that Rossi behaviour can be considered obvious, and at the same time, behaviours just as obvious of the people here cannot?

    Jt,


    Do you believe that Rossi has developed an Energy Out > Energy In system/device?


    This is the only thing that has mattered since 1995 when he first started this saga.


    Do you believe it or not?


    It’s simple really, you can do all of the psychobabble interpretation and analysis of everyone who has ever commented and nit pick away at all of their idiosyncrasies trying to deflect and distort the fact that Andrea Rossi is a fraud and a conman, but in the end, it all comes down to Energy Out > Energy In.

  • Rossi is practicing a new profession: comedian.


    *-------

    Greg Daigle

    February 7, 2019 at 6:46 AM

    Dr Rossi,

    do you think the diffusion of the Ecat can be spurred by the US House Resolution on the New Green Deal?

    Greg Daigle


    Andrea Rossi

    February 7, 2019 at 11:19 AM

    Greg Daigle:

    For now we do not serve houses, eventually, we’ll see.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • Quote

    I find it kind of unsymphatetic (to put it mildly) to wish someone spending time in prison who is obviously not proven guilty of any criminal activity.

    Well, two things. First, I have no sympathy for con men and thieves. So indeed, as you point out, I am unsympathetic with Rossi to put it mildly. Second, I would, of course, want Rossi tried and convicted before imprisoning him. That would be feasible but it hasn't been done because investigators and prosecutors have bigger fish to fry. And there are no complainants. I have always thought that Darden and company should have referred Rossi for a fraud prosecution but I guess they had spent enough time in court.

  • You, see. I certainly don't believe this to be a "fact" and since I also do believe it to be a fact that you don't know this for sure (but do not hesitate to state it anyway) the labels you use are more suited for yourself.


    Beleifs are important and should be respected.


    But we were alluding to the much repeated public evidence to back up the comments about Rossi's tech flakiness and deceit. Those support this "belief". Perhaps you just have not bothered to read it?


    You were asked similarly to support your belief. And you reply with this? Sure: "I believe because I believe". May be enough for you, but don't expect it to have much weight.

  • Beleifs are important and should be respected.


    But we were alluding to the much repeated public evidence to back up the comments about Rossi's tech flakiness and deceit. Those support this "belief". Perhaps you just have not bothered to read it?


    You were asked similarly to support your belief. And you reply with this? Sure: "I believe because I believe". May be enough for you, but don't expect it to have much weight.


    What are you talking about? You're not making any sense. From what I can see parsing through an endless amount of comments it looks like you believe that repeating your opinion enough times in writing, somehow turns it into a fact. Sorry to bring you the bad news - It doesn't... :)