Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Yes and the other particles?? And how could he add the unnatural Lithium... to a pure Ni62 particle or wasn't it that pure at all...

    The way he added it was the same way a magician does the long term 'mind reading' trick of what's in a closed envelope. In every performance of the trick, the envelope is opened in the middle time and 'inspected' to make sure there is still a written note in the envelope. That is when the magician performs his trick.


    In Rossi's case it could be as simple as opening the reverse side of the dogbone where the planted ash was there all along and no one remembers that the 'actual reactor' was on the opposite side.


    I'm not saying Ross is a con artist 100%, but if he is, he is one of the biggest con artists of our time, ever. Truly a great con artist. So great that it begs the question of how the hell did he get caught in Petroldragon?

  • I'm sure there's a rational explanation that would explain why some people spend a good part of their waking hours on a niche internet forum, repeating over and over that there's a conman who's been identified as a conman for decades, and whose invention is an unfunctional gadget, as it always has been. Surely if they were convinced it has been true for years, they would not spend so much time repeating it? ha, the mysteries of life.

    The thing that's different about Rossi if he's a con man is that he used LENR as the hook. A lot of those internet niche forum dwellers are anti-LENR, not just anti-Rossi.


  • Well, I assume you now concede that the Uppsala MS analysis yielding 99% Ni62 applies not just to the surface, but to the whole sample. So, hopefully, you learned something from me. In order to move you to that new place of knowlege, I took the time to carefully cite the source and quote it in order to convince you. So in this example, you personally are in an ideal place to rate that particular contribution of mine. How do I rate? But I won't wait too long for your thanks, or for an apology or even recognition of your mischaracterization that I was 'spreading FUD'.


    Instead, now you have 'moved the goal posts' as it were, by demanding new explanations regarding Li. But I'm not interested in that potentially unending goal moving game. Especially since my point is that because we now know that Rossi is extraordinarily deceptive, one reasonable explanation for the Uppsala ash is that he tampered with it.


    You seem to disagree, and believe the Li isotopic profile demonstrates that somehow. So, please explain, with logic or evidence, why you think that the Uppsala ash analysis cannot be reasonably explained as the result of Rossi tampering versus transmutation.


    I sincerely and earnestly am interested in challenges to this conclusion, as it helps me and others on this forum learn.


    Thanks for your consideration in putting some work into your contributions by citing sources or at least explaining your perspective.


  • ele if Rossi was required to operate his device then it means the tests were not independent by any means. Did the test plan say


    Step 1. Get Rossi?


    Are you sure these are the same guys who give out the Nobel Prizes? If so, I now dispute Relativity. Now I will not let the fact that old Albert has been taken for granted and proven by experimental evidence for over 100 years, I will now assume that Einstein had to be along for taking those so called 'independent measurements'.


    So now I dispute Relativity and you dispute Reality same boat kinda is it not? Sure seems like it around here.

  • You don't have to worry about the relativity Rigel :-) None of the professors in the Lugano report are involved in deciding who gets the Nobel prize. That's just more of Rossis BS.


    Kulander was in the Swedish Royal Academy of science. And hence he might have been involved in deciding about the Nobel prize. But he was not an author of the Lugano report. None of the authors are members in Swedish Royal Academy of sciences and have nothing to say about the Nobel prize.

  • Interesting! This sort of consequence, probably multiplied hundreds of times, is why many people hate con men in general and despise Rossi in particular. Wasted time, wasted resources, wasted money-- an d all of it to enrich a crook. Over the last six years, I have been criticized for attending to Rossi's case and I've been asked why I bother. That is why I bother.

    You're just anti-LENR. If you were really bothered by wasted time, wasted resources, wasted money, you'd go after the hot fusion guys who have wasted hundreds of $billions. Just a few of those billions dropped onto a few of the 153 replications of the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect would have given us some real cheap energy sources. But instead, you chase after small stuff in LENR while ignoring big stuff in the hot-fusion fiasco.

  • A bunch of swedish scientists tested Rossi's device as a black box. They didn't find any evidence of fraud, they found plenty of anomalous heat.


    Well, you need to read the literature when examining scientific reports. They found what they thought was anomalous heat and what was undisputably found to be a specific and identified calculation error. When correctly calculated the anomaly vanishes. They have never replied to multiple groups who have published this error. The papers showing the error are well written and competent: one from a group strongly in favour of LENR (since you seem concerned about that). Also note that the scientists were using a test setup suggested and largely controlled by Rossi, who was in a position to recommend incorrect analysis methods.


    Ref (sorry I no longer have the will to find the references, some are here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1589)

    TC report on Lugano

    MFMP 2nd report on Lugano thermal analysis

    GSVIT report on Lugano (less complete but still worthwhile)

    • Joanne June 16, 2017 at 8:32 PM

      Dr Andrea Rossi:

      Let me inform the readers of the JONP of what is happening in the blog paid by IH ( Lenr Forum): a guy presented himself as an attorney of the USA, expert of litigations like yours with IH. He wrote a lot of stupidities, like you will lose the case because of a lot of issues that still have to be discussed in court. Since no serious attorney would ever discuss publicly about a litigation on course of which he is not part, I asked an attorney my friend if he could check if this guy is really an attorney. My attorney, after one hour, informed me that:

      1- in the USA does not exist any person with that name that has ever participated to a case in a court

      2- this fake attorney has stolen the identity of a person that never appeared in any court (this is why I prefer not to name him)

      3- at the address indicated on Lenr Forum of this “attorney”, there is a post office!

      This having been said, since he cites particulars that only the gang of the ventriloquist of Raleigh can know, it is clear that this clownerie has been organized by IH in their home-blog.

      Certainly IH must be scratching the bottom of their barrel… The comic aspect of this squalid thing is that a puppet of the ventriloquist -obviously on Lenr Forum- has commented that a NEUTRAL (!!!) attorney, at last, has explained to us the truth about the litigation.

      Comments?

      Ad majora,

      Leanne

    • Andrea Rossi June 16, 2017 at 9:22 PM Joanne:
      No comment.
      By the way, I do not read LENR Forum.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.



    @woodworker: Now, you are on the screen and observed :-)
    And what "Joanne" makes up in point 1 and 2 can't IMHO work together, but that's the usual Planet Rossi logic ...


    BTW: Many thanks for your contributions to the LENR forum!



    Edit: Typos and "Thank you"

  • bang99

    Points 1 & 2 are not (necessarily) conflicting at all. With improved grammar they say:-


    1. This persons (self proclaimed) identity is not that of a practising litigation attorney. (May or may not be true).

    2. This persons (self proclaimed) identity is not his real identity. (May or may not be true).

  • bang99

    Points 1 & 2 are not (necessarily) conflicting at all. With improved grammar they say:-


    1. This persons (self proclaimed) identity is not that of a practising litigation attorney. (May or may not be true).

    2. This persons (self proclaimed) identity is not his real identity. (May or may not be true).


    Wow - you sound even worse than me Alan!

  • That was Rossi writing to Rossi or in other words sh*t writing to sh*t. Rossi is such a flaming prevaricator! And why would anyone care what Rossi thinks about the commentary regarding his moronic case?


    Woodworker's real identity is a non-issue. Read what he/she wrote. Evaluate it on its own merits. If it's wrong, simply say why.


    For what it's worth, I have several attorneys in the family and as friends and I know how they talk. Woodworker writes like they talk. I don't know if Woodworker is an attorney but for sure, this person is familiar with legal matters.

  • That was Rossi writing to Rossi or in other words sh*t writing to sh*t. Rossi is such a flaming prevaricator! And why would anyone care what Rossi thinks about the commentary regarding his moronic case?

    Your violent and angry reaction show that probably this "Leanne" has told the truth and hit the target.

    The same argument could be applied to what "Leanne" writes...... let's evaluate what he/she writes....... seems quite interesting.

    Maybe that this "Woodworker" or whatever his name is simply IH writing to IH. And note that I don't use your wording...... too technical for me.

    You are the expert of that matter. ;)

  • OBJECTION, mischaracterizes earlier testimony

    Woodworker ...... how many Perry Meson TV series you have seen ?


    If you are really a Lawyer (of course you are not) I would like to suggest to you this nice reading from the American Bar Journal

    https://www.americanbar.org/co…ppendorf.authcheckdam.pdf


    It contains considerations about Ethical obligations of Layers when using Social Media.

    A nice reading for everyone just to understand that you are not a Layer.



    POST MOVED FROM RvD 2. Less OT here. Alan.


  • Ele, you don't need much research to see that woodworker is indeed a lawyer, or if not is doing a remarkably credible impersonation of real lawyer


    He does seem to have hit a nerve? For that matter LF seems to be #1 on Rossi's hit list. Can't see why, it is pretty Rossi-friendly.


    Abd's site (link)


    POST MOVED FROM RvD 2. Less OT here. Alan.