Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • remember he claimed his customer was one of the top 10 larges global companies.

  • Huw Price: Icebergs In The Room? Cold Fusion At Thirty


    In his article, this is what Huw Price has to say about his early bet on Rossi:


    "The three years is now up, so how am I faring? About Rossi, I am happy to concede that he hasn’t made it to the finishing line, even at a modest 50% credence. I think there is still some reason to think that that he may have something, based in part on claimed replications by far less colourful figures. But there is also evidence of dishonesty, especially in his dealings with his US backer, Industrial Heat."


    Good assessment IMO. Could be Rossi had, or has a little something, but if so, he will take it to his grave. Until then, he will probably get as much mileage with it as he can.

  • Could be Rossi had, or has a little something, but if so, he will take it to his grave.


    I don't think he would (take it to his grave). He has asserted several times that the tech is in good hands in the event of his demise. Sure, you can disbelieve that and whatever else, but I think if he has what he says he has, he would want to go down in history as being the discoverer. It might actually be in better hands anyway if anything were to happen to him.

  • If anything were to happen to Rossi, it would naturally be a conspiracy between big oil and the US scientific establishment that caused it. The investigation will be buried by the US government, just like the truth about the flat earth and water memory. The "better hands" would be imprisoned and tortured at Guantanamo Bay to be sure to protect these secret societies. Just ask most of the ECW posters.

  • I don't think he would (take it to his grave). He has asserted several times that the tech is in good hands in the event of his demise. Sure, you can disbelieve that and whatever else, but I think if he has what he says he has, he would want to go down in history as being the discoverer. It might actually be in better hands anyway if anything were to happen to him.


    That thought is contrary to the evidence. Actions speak much louder than words, and IF as you speculate Rossi had what he says he has, he has time and again done all he can to avoid going down in history as its discoverer.

  • Actions speak much louder than words, and IF as you speculate Rossi had what he says he has, he has time and again done all he can to avoid going down in history as its discoverer.


    Yes. He has avoided this, even though he could easily accomplish it. He has often passed up opportunities to prove his claims, with NASA and others. He could have done that in one day. I do not mean the NASA people would have been completely persuaded that day, but they told me they were prepared to look carefully as his demonstration and then take a machine back and evaluate it. He could have done his part in one day, and the rest would be up to them.


    It isn't as if he would have to do months of work to go down in history as the discoverer. He claimed it took a year to demonstrate the gadget in Doral, Florida, but that made no sense.

  • I don't think he would (take it to his grave). He has asserted several times that the tech is in good hands in the event of his demise. Sure, you can disbelieve that and whatever else, but I think if he has what he says he has, he would want to go down in history as being the discoverer. It might actually be in better hands anyway if anything were to happen to him.


    You have more faith in the man than I do. Even you must agree it is not an unreasonable position to disbelieve whatever he says? That is not to say he does not have a little something. I keep reading testimonials supporting that. Not many, but some, and those are very passionate.

  • You have more faith in the man than I do. Even you must agree it is not an unreasonable position to disbelieve whatever he says? That is not to say he does not have a little something. I keep reading testimonials supporting that. Not many, but some, and those are very passionate.


    Nearly every one of Rossi's actions over the years can be explained and placed into a certain context that makes sense, including the deceptions. For whatever reason, I (and a few others) can clearly see it, what likely motivates his actions, and what has brought us to the present situation today. If it turns out that Rossi has that little something as you and I suspect, I (and a few others) have provided the reasons for his actions, nearly every one. There will be no excuse for anyone who has followed along on this forum to cry that none of it made sense along the way.

  • IHFB,


    We shall see if Rossi rewards his supporters with something he has been lacking for years...loyalty. He owes a great deal to those like myself during his early years, and you in his latter, who have covered for his many questionable actions. Without, it is doubtful he would have enough public attention to keep up whatever it is he is up to.


    Here, another ardent supporter (Lewan) comments on the recent Huw Price article. A quick reminder; we are trying to get Mats to participate here, so go easy on him:


    "Thanks Huw for an excellent overview and an important discussion, honouring the 30th anniversary of Fleischmann and Pons' presentation in 1989.

    As for ongoing efforts and the bets you got involved in, I agree with your view on Godes' Brillouin Energy, and also on your observation that Andrea Rossi has not yet provided convincing and undisputed evidence for the validity of his E-Cat technology.

    However, I don't agree in your description of evidence for Rossi being dishonest, having followed the lawsuit between him and his former licensee IH, which in turn never provided any convincing evidence for the E-Cat plant of 1MW not being effective.

    And I find it interesting to note his recent commercial offering of energy sale from his E-Cat SK to industrial customers in the US, Sweden, and Japan, allegedly not involving any economic risk for the customers who essentially only pay for the energy delivered at least at 20 percent below market price, thus making it essentially impossible for Rossi to use fake technology without losing economically.

    As I note in my blogpost My take on the E-Cat SK presentation—Rossi now takes orders, we cannot know anything for sure until one or a few of his customers step out and talk publicly. Personally, however, from what I have observed and from what I have learned through testimonials from people working with Rossi, I find the fraud hypothesis very hard to make credible.

    Time will tell."



  • I would advise Mats against it though, since you only want him here for fishing and "honey pot" purposes. His current approach of "not feeding the trolls" and instead sharing his opinion on his blog (which is read by everyone interested in the topic anyway) is way smarter.


  • I have great respect for Mats. He comes from a conventional scientific reporting background, and has put himself out there like few others. Hopefully he will chime in here in the future, but he already has a voice that is heard far and wide.

  • Quote

    However, I don't agree in your description of evidence for Rossi being dishonest, having followed the lawsuit between him and his former licensee IH, which in turn never provided any convincing evidence for the E-Cat plant of 1MW not being effective.

    Seriously? How about thousands of pages of testimony and test results? How about a complete absence of any evidence in the test year that it actually worked? How about the fake client that turned out to be Rossi? How about... ?? where to stop?



    Quote

    we cannot know anything for sure until one or a few of his customers step out and talk publicly. Personally, however, from what I have observed and from what I have learned through testimonials from people working with Rossi, I find the fraud hypothesis very hard to make credible.

    Nice idea except that Rossi has never had a customer who received a working product nor a distributor who received any product to sell. If you know otherwise, Mats or IHFB, please let us know who it is and what they said. Any hypothesis other than fraud at this point seems completely untenable to any real world dweller.


    Quote

    His [Mats'] current approach of "not feeding the trolls" and instead sharing his opinion on his blog (which is read by everyone interested in the topic anyway) is way smarter.

    I don't know about "smarter." But his blog is completely censored and strongly dissenting opinions are deleted prior to "publication" so actually, that is a dishonest and highly biased approach.


    Quote

    I have great respect for Mats. He comes from a conventional scientific reporting background

    In the distant past, Mats worked for NYTeknik, a legitimate technical journal. But far as I know, he has no longer contributed to them since he waxed fanciful in his approbation of Rossi.

  • [Quoting Lewan] However, I don't agree in your description of evidence for Rossi being dishonest, having followed the lawsuit between him and his former licensee IH, which in turn never provided any convincing evidence for the E-Cat plant of 1MW not being effective.

    Wrong. They did provide convincing evidence. It convinced me, anyway. More to the point, Rossi himself provided convincing evidence that the E-Cat does not work, in the Penon report.


    Seriously? How about thousands of pages of testimony and test results? How about a complete absence of any evidence in the test year that it actually worked? How about the fake client that turned out to be Rossi? How about... ?? where to stop?


    Were there thousands of pages? Not to nitpick, but I think we have the opposite of "a complete absence . . . that it worked." We have positive proof that it did not work, from Rossi himself (as I just wrote above).


    The fake client is evidence that Rossi is dishonest, but that does not prove the machine did not work. People with real technology sometimes lie. That happens a lot in the computer business.

  • I don't know about "smarter." But his blog is completely censored and strongly dissenting opinions are deleted prior to "publication" so actually, that is a dishonest and highly biased approach.


    By putting it that way you sort of explain it well :D Unless having wet dreams or an obscure fetish about trolls like you I would consider keeping the blog that way a very sensible decision.

  • I would advise Mats against it though, since you only want him here for fishing and "honey pot" purposes. His current approach of "not feeding the trolls" and instead sharing his opinion on his blog (which is read by everyone interested in the topic anyway) is way smarter.


    It is not all about us wanting to feed Lewan to our animals...although they have not been fed in a while. :) We do have our altruistic reasons for wanting him here too. We love insiders, and there is no better informed on Rossi than him. He knows more than all of us combined.

  • It is not all about us wanting to feed Lewan to our animals...although they have not been fed in a while. :) We do have our altruistic reasons for wanting him here too. We love insiders, and there is no better informed on Rossi than him. He knows more than all of us combined.


    Nah. They're fed alright ... It's more like they are getting pretty old and toothless or maybe just fat and happy craving only fat n' sugar - but unable to digest the proteins and vitamins so much needed to think properly :D