Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • I doubt they would, very much.

    "I doubt they would, very much"...break their silence if Rossi made this up is what you mean to say, and that is a bit hard for me to believe. It is like you are saying they will not defend their honor. But then again, they refused to defend themselves, and their scientific credentials after Lugano (will give Hoistad a break as he tried), so I would not put anything past them.

    I know in their shoes I would be very vocal, but that is me.

  • against what / whom?

    Lets see....

    1) Not using the correct 3 phase equation for a delta configuration.

    2) Not dividing the rod power by 2/3 for the Active Run, as they did with dummy.

    3) Not noting that the reactor was painted with high temperature paint.

    4) Conflating total emissivity with spectral emissivity for adjustments to the I R camera emissivity setting, so that the temperature was reported hundreds of degrees hotter than it was, resulting in reporting multiples of the actual radiant power output.

    5) Using an iteration formula that obfuscates the emissivity setting used, and further distorts the incorrect use of total emissivity for the IR camera.

    6) Not noting that Rossi and Fabiani monitored the experiment, while the Professors were absent for long periods of time (days).

    7) Not using a thermocouple to compare the IR camera results, which would have indicated trouble with using total emissivity for the IR camera emissivity function.

    8 ) Ignoring the Type K thermocouple controlling the reactor temperature, and the fact that this thermocouple was almost certainly hotter than the melting point of the thermocouple if the (erroneous) IR camera temperature was correct (and yet the thermocouple did not melt).

    9) Ignoring that the calibrated resistance wire that the heater coil was made from was almost certainly hotter than it's melting point if the IR camera temperature was correct (and yet the heater wire did not melt).

    10) Used the Rods with special stickers to calibrate the IR camera emissivity (at least to around 350 C) but did not analyse the composition of the Rods. Finding that this result did not match the emissivity vs temperature plot for alumina (total) , they claim to have modified the alumina plot they used, but did not show this in the plot.

    11) Analysed the composition of one of the reactor ridges, somehow getting 99% alumina for the composition, even though the reactor body is composed of Durapot 810, which is made from 75 to 85 % alumina. The paint over the Durapot may have been made of 99% alumina, but then that means they managed somehow to only extract paint and no actual ridge material from the ridge...

    That's just off the top of my head.

  • If there is something real, the story about IH is the biggest XXX of history.

    Morally, I have more respect for Maddoff than for the one who did that.

    Anyway the only reason I may consider this awful hypothesis is Alan statements... "Entre les deux mon coeur balance."

    By the way some question...

    What was the terme Rossi used to say the marvelous way he fooled the Swedish investor to dump their investments ?

    He uses this term also for his reactor, ... it is a ... I don't remember.

    Where is in the docket the letter where he is proudly explaining his tactic to Darden ?

    I should take stomach pills before re-reading that.

  • And yet Rossi and Hydrofusion still seem to be friends. Very odd.

    and the mail that was sent and stored on the docket, thus was a lie.

    I did not know that point which add to the lies told to his investor.


    telling to a guy you fool, that you fooled a former partner, is a magnificence...

    of the few certain thing about that affaire are :

    • the main claiming he fooled the Swedish was sent to darden
    • there was no excess heat in doral
    • the method of Lugano test is erroneous

    All the rest is uncertain, but we should always consider all hypothesis as coupled variable (eg if HF is happy with Rossi, but the mail was sent, and no heat in Doral, but XH in lugano, but no answer from professors, but XH in recent test, who was fooled?), and always check they match sure facts that above.

    Once you eliminate what is impossible, keep the improbable, (usually kill some comfortable assumptions).

    now if Darden was fooled thinking Hydrofusion was fooled, maybe we are fooled feeling that Hydrofusion was not fooled, or not fooling us, that our trusted sources are fooled or fooling...

    I'm getting dizzy with too many foo.

    We should be ready to be fooled, but by who?

    You're warned.

  • And yet Rossi and Hydrofusion still seem to be friends. Very odd.

    Why odd?

    Hydrofusion apparently owns an “E-cat Distribution License”, and very likely still hopes (for 6 years now) that eventually they can make high profits with it.

    Did they pay anything for this license apart from developing the website and promoting the e-cat for Rossi?

    In case they didn’t, it makes perfectly sense that they just ‘stay friends’ with Rossi and hope for a miracle which might make them rich.

  • And yet Rossi and Hydrofusion still seem to be friends. Very odd.

    Somewhat strange indeed, yet not totally without logic.

    However, Hydrofusion monitored a test and publicly stated the test was in error and that no excess heat was found, due to measurement techniques! Bad measurement.... sound familiar?

    To my knowledge, there has been no public endorsement from Hydrofusion since. I could be wrong and would appreciate any links showing they are publicly supportive.

    As 42 stated, it is logical and likely that Hydrofusion paid for a license fee to Rossi and has not received that back. The memo of Rossi about deceiving (again, common mode for Rossi)

    Hydrofusion seems to confirm they have a license.

    We never heard a single word from IH during their tumultuous time with Rossi EXCEPT "believe nothing unless it comes from us*" (before the lawsuit) and then court filings afterwards.

    The court filings are NOT like some blog post, but was simply their actions defending themselves in court against a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Why did Rossi not work with IH to commercialize the eCat but bring a lawsuit instead? Rossi wrote the original agreement and signed it.

    Most companies do not post their legal wrangling's on a public blog. I do not expect Hydrofusion to do so either. Again, the ONLY public announcement from them that I remember is "the eCat did not work*".

    If there are other public postings, I would be interested in seeming them if anyone has links.


  • “magnificence”

  • “magnificence”

    If someone can find the mail cited in the docket about this Magnificence about the Swede...

    Maybe I misunderstood something, because from my souvenir of various documents and trusted sources like Alan, it is hard to build coherent theory. Maybe is there a narrow corridor of something rational happening.

  • New patent assigned to IH.

    BURGESS, Darren, R. (5431 Pepperdine Drive, Charlotte, NC, 28226, US)

    GREENWALD, Michael, Raymond (5008 Tremont Drive, Indian Trail, NC, 28079, US)

    BARBEE, Brent, W. (4211B Renee Ford Road, Stanfield, NC, 28163, US)

    Application Number:

    Publication Date:

    Filing Date:

    View Patent Images:
    Download PDF WO/2017/176334A2         PDF help

    Export Citation:
    Click for automatic bibliography generation


    IH IP HOLDINGS LIMITED (44 Esplanade, St. HelierJersey, JE4 9WG, 9WG, GB)

    BURGESS, Darren, R. (5431 Pepperdine Drive, Charlotte, NC, 28226, US)

    GREENWALD, Michael, Raymond (5008 Tremont Drive, Indian Trail, NC, 28079, US)

    BARBEE, Brent, W. (4211B Renee Ford Road, Stanfield, NC, 28163, US)

    International Classes:



    What is claimed is:

    1 . A method of investigating an exothermic reaction process within a reactor, comprising:

    placing a coupon on an interior part of the reactor; depositing a reaction material on the interior part of the reactor; removing the coupon coated with a sample of the reaction material; triggering an exothermic reaction inside the reactor;

    after the exothermic reaction, removing a portion of the reaction material from the reactor; and comparing one or more properties of the sample coated on the coupon with the one or more properties of the material removed from the reactor.

    2. The method of claim 1 wherein the one or more properties of the material removed from the reactor and the sample coated on the coupon are analyzed using one or more of atomic force microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, scanning tunneling electron microscopy, X-ray tunneling electron microscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and X-ray diffraction.

  • Industrial cooling water treatment uses coupons for determining corrosion rates. Precisely weighed coupons of different metals are inserted into the water stream for a period of time then removed, cleaned and weighed to measure loss (corrosion) of that particular metal in that water chemistry. One can tell how long metallic components of the system are expected to last. Pix here:…8QsAQIYg&biw=1600&bih=809

    Perhaps it is a similar method to gain insight?

  • Quote

    Look at Piantelli as a good example. He has been at this 20 years now and look what his secrets have brought him...nothing! He will probably go to his grave without the satisfaction of knowing his technology helped humanity one iota

    Could that be because it doesn't (help humanity)?


    Yes, I know I am starting to sound like GeorgeHants from ECW,

    You really REALLY do not want to emulate George Hants.


    I have followed Rossi since 2011. I have learned one thing from experience. Rossi always disappoints and you cannot believe what he says. As you state, "it's all essentially correct" is Rossi's mode of

    operendi. Yes, there was a "Factory", it turned out to be the Doral facility. Certainly not what the painted picture was. Yes, technically there was a customer..... "Rossi himself". Yes there was an engineer... a software consultant that Rossi hired.... Yes, there was a satisfied customer.... Rossi himself after getting $11.5 million dollars from IH!

    Exactly. The rest of the M.O. is to act eccentric and exotic. Also to make ever more absurd and extravagant claims (ie. QuarkX) so as to snare ever dumber and less competent investors. And to arrange what appear to be rigged demos in which there maybe observers but the observers have no access to every necessary parameter involved in the test. And as an old con man once said, in a con, it's the part you don't get that gets you.

    Also everything that Paradigmnoia said about the Swedes.


    And yet Rossi and Hydrofusion still seem to be friends. Very odd.

    What Bob wrote... plus everything is odd about Hydrofusion. They are supposed to be instrumental to Rossi's sales in Scandinavia, right? Also maybe in the UK if memory serves? And they have been around almost from the start in 2011? When have they actually sold anything? In fact, have they ever actually shown a Rossi product in "working condition" to anyone who could evaluate it? Well... sort of. ONCE!…energi/article3535258.ece ... and the test failed! So indeed very odd. Theories as to why? Maybe they are in on the "long con" (they get paid by Rossi) or maybe they are still silly enough to hope Rossi will make good. Not very savory for their investors, either way.

  • Between Alan' sources, BG having seen the calorimetry set-up a while ago, the persistent rumors going back 2 or more years, I myself conclude the Swedes did in fact attempt to replicate Lugano. It remains to be known how long ago this took place, if it was successful or not, and when/if, they will publish?

    My guess is that they started shortly before Fabiani's arrival, which I believe was this past spring, or winter. I do not know why they would bring him in, unless it was for that purpose. Interesting anyway you look at it, yet very frustrating that they would let leak out so much, yet remain so publicly silent.

    If they were successful as Alan has heard, it obviously has yet to be peer reviewed.