Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Alan Fletcher

We (LF/Vortex et al) haven't seen ALL the facts from discovery. For example, we've only seen parts of some of the depositions.

How about you (Dewey/IH) release all the key depositions in their entirety?

This fits well to the general theme on ECW...there almost everybody is in line with Rossi's story-telling, like this one from yesterday:

"...The validity of the customer was never tested in court as IH agreed to an out of court settlement after the opening arguments on the first day of court. They subsequently relinquished all rights to the ecat, probably because the Expert Responsible for Validation (ERV) agreed to by both parties said the test was a complete success and IH owed Leonardo $89 million. Your comment about a sham customer is pure conjecture as you will never know what Rossi would have argued in court.."

Ignorance to have a closer look at the available documents (Rossi under oath!) and the documented facts...many of them have been shared here in this forum as well.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Rossi has to build a production line and sell working E-Cats with a COP >6

Rather different from you description.

I looked at page 109 and didn't see anything from you.

If you )or anyone else) have a sensible suggestion list it under the bet.

Adrian: it is not entirely your fault, since you seem not to have followed this story in any detail, but your conditions above are suitable only for Rossi PR. Why?

• Rossi has already demonstrated devices agreed by scientists to have COP > 6
• Rossi has already sold at least one of these devices (to somone)
• Rossi has had a production line for a long time (he claims). He and his team have been working hard. He signed off the robotic line years ago, only then we heard nothing. Now it seems he is signing off on another one, for different devices.
• Not to mention: Rossi has been saving money heating one of his factories for 10 years (only this one was proven false by his own deposition evidence).

So the issue is:

(1) How is COP > 6 validated. With secure validation of that i would not myself need anything else: Rossi has it. But, secure validation must be from a party completely independent of Rossi, not chosen by Rossi, using a calorimetry method not recommended by Rossi, with a reputation for competent calorimetry on the line: thus a serious department or company, not one maverick nuclear physicist working outside his areas of expertise, not one of the members of research staff of a company working on their own pet obsession. Such a validation would be major world news.

(2) Real sales would be fine, as long as this would allow independent validation from a skeptical buyer. How can we know this? Suppose Rossi sells something, in small quantities, and vets buyers...

Here you are: enjoy!

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…en-docket-and-case-files/

Warning: you need to read the depositions; not the lawyers summaries.

You would not expect these to be sticking points; but then you have not looked in detail at quite how slippery Rossi is (on the record of sworn depositions and Court-required e-mails).

Tony - I see that you have 3C and sunshine for your weather today. Enjoy the day.

I should also mention that your definition of submission can only be correctly interpreted on Planet Rossi.

Nonetheless, enjoy your day.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Rossi has to build a production line and sell working E-Cats with a COP >6

Rather different from you description.

I looked at page 109 and didn't see anything from you.

If you )or anyone else) have a sensible suggestion list it under the bet.

Adrian,

I don’t really care if Rossi builds a factory and has “robitized” production lines by any date etc. Under these terms he could be making electric toasters.

As I suggested before,

Rossi’s contraption, whatever it is called and wherever it is built MUST be proven to produce Energy Out > Energy In,

by your agreed to factor of 6.0 for an uninterrupted agreed to time frame, say 100 hours non stop, (I am open to discussion here though).

This is to be measured, validated and replicated by multiple trusted sources. These sources must include UL & various other US based National laboratories, that get the same results.

The results must be printed in a peer reviewed journal that is open to criticisms and, if requested due to errors found in any kind of testing/measuring protocols used,

be run again.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

THH,

I'm not talking about the past, but what Rossi may produce in the coming year.

An automated production line and customer(s). They should know if they are getting the heat they paid for and that is a better test than any demo/experiment that history shows the skeptics would never believe.

If the skeptics are right, and Rossi has nothing, there should be no problem, as nothing good would be written about it. On the other hand, I don't expect to get paid, because the skeptics would find fault with anything good published. If Rossi does what he says, in time there would be lots of customers and no doubt about it, but that would probably be too late to win the bet.

Adrian, I guess you are familiar with SMART performance management. Rossi falls down on most of the criteria here, but your proposal is also deficient until you can deal with the M bit: how do can you measure whether Rossi has an automated customer line and (real - not friend who is bound by NDA and will keep quiet about non-working device) customers?

If your criteria is something good written about it - well, Rossi has had positive writeups plenty over the last 7 years. No bet. And no validation of Rossi, either.

You are alas still showing that naivetee which a careful reading of all the deposition evidence would perhaps correct.

@Shane: AA claims to only be 10% confident that Rossi has something. Imagine how he would be if he was nearly certain!

Shane D has earned accelerated placement to the next level of WCS management training.

@AA: Ok, I have done you a grave injustice. I said you were only 10% confident that Rossi has something whereas your exact words were:

"I think there is better than a one in ten chance he has something. That should tell you where I stand."

So let me rewrite my post to Shane:

AA claims to be only something greater than 10% confident that Rossi has something. Imagine how he would be if he was nearly certain.

Better?

Nobody on earth would spend endless amounts of time and energy vehemently defending something they think has only slight chance of being true. Like many other Rossi fans throughout the years, you pretend to be “open minded” and just “waiting to see what happens” when it is obvious to everyone who reads your posts that you are utterly convinced that Rossi has the goods and has leapfrogged the efforts of hundreds of researchers who have sought a miracle energy device for decades. Why don’t you just man up and admit it? Frankly, it would improve your reputation here.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I didn't start with the premise skeptics were uncertain that Rossi has nothing. But as they repetitively write that he is a total fraud and has nothing, but are not prepared to wager on it without even putting any money down (except Woodworker has to as he didn't trust my check) it is easy to make that deduction.

You falsely assume failure to bet on something as a sign of uncertainty. You make too many assumptions in general.

Quote from oldguy

You falsely assume failure to bet on something as a sign of uncertainty. You make too many assumptions in general.

Correct. I'm close to 100% certain that Rossi has nothing. I'm also close to 100% certain that he will come up with some BS that *looks* like he has something within your (AA) boundaries. Whether it secret robotic factories a secret customer a fudged "test" or whatever.