,
As I said, IH failed to do due diligence and blew it afterwards.
I'm not interested in rehashing the whole thing, it has already been beaten to death.
I has nothing to do with determining whether the QX works as claimed.
Pity my post was at the bottom of the previous page.
As I said, IH failed to do due diligence and blew it afterwards.
And Rossi lied. You cannot deny this, so you refuse to look at the lies or comment on them.
I has nothing to do with determining whether the QX works as claimed.
How could the fact that Rossi lied have "nothing to do with determining" this?? That makes no sense. There is no other basis to judge his claims. He has issued only one report: the Penon report, which is a blatant lie from start to finish. He lied before, so surely it is likely he is lying again. He has given you no evidence that the QX works! His demonstration showed nothing. You have no reason to believe him, yet you do believe him, and your belief is so fragile you refuse to even look at his previous lies in the Penon report. Your faith in him is a house of cards.
I don't know if it is because you are stupid or are technically illiterate.
Coming from you Adrian, that is a hoot!
All evidence points to Rossi as a habitual liar and deceiver. You have NO evidence that Rossi has ANYTHING other than "ROSSI SAYS".
Now "Rossi Proven Liar" and you "Believe what Rossi Says without external evidence?
Who is "stupid or technically illiterate" ? 
Seems like this is getting a little too personal for you, so I will take the high road and lay off. You have proven that you cannot judge evidence anyways.
Let's see what happens in six months, just like you said six months ago! 
I don't know if it is because you are stupid or are technically illiterate.
It would be dead easy for a potential investor to measure the real performance of the QX set up in a similar fashion as in Stockholm. One would just have to measure the things that weren't measured at the demo. The power into the power pack and the volts & amps across the QX itself. Also look at the waveform with a 'scope to see if anything else would be required.
Just because IH failed to do proper due diligence, or blew it afterwards, has no bearing on the matter.
That would only be easy if Rossi let it happen. Rossi, however, will have some reason why it can't be measured directly. He will say, of the power supply input, that the PSU is not efficient and therefore measurements prove nothing. And he will at this stage only attract invetsors who think a gamble on a paranoid inventor who appears to have something, without all the correct measurements, is OK.
Those who accept this gamble will probably, like IH was, be BOTH risk tolerant and technologically naive. After the Rossi debacle IH greatly tightened up their evaluation - you remember their PR saying they needed to do that well before the Court Case but after they discovered Rossi's stuff did not work.
It is a sign of naivety about people if you do not understand this. Rossi can perhaps still attract investment because there are people like you around who also have money to play with. But, we don't actually have any evidence he has attracted new investment. He has not even said this to my knowledge.
QuoteThey [SPAWAR LENR projects] were closed down abruptly because a blogger associated their names with Rossi.
I find that hard to believe. I think they had been on the Command's (Admiral et. al.) radar for sometime for spending a lot of money and giving back very little that the Navy's advisory scientists found useful to the military.
QuoteRossi has a creative attitude towards the truth.
I believe the current vernacular for this is "alternative facts" 
QuoteSenior White House aide Kellyanne Conway appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday and spoke to host Chuck Todd about a briefing the new press secretary, Sean Spicer, had held earlier in the weekend. Spicer claimed Donald Trump’s inauguration had attracted record numbers of spectators. Conway denied the statements were lies, instead branding them ‘alternative facts’
@Adrian Ashfield
QuoteIt [Doral and all the Rossi lies and failures] has nothing to do with determining whether the QX works as claimed
Yes, and in the same sense, it has nothing to do with determining whether flying pigs work as claimed. But when a person has lied extensively about related matters, you can not trust them about anything to do with similar issues.
What possible reason could Rossi have had for not properly instrumenting the Stockholm "QX" test/demo? Did he forget Ohm's Law?
That would only be easy if Rossi let it happen. Rossi, however, will have some reason why it can't be measured directly. He will say, of the power supply, that this is not efficient. And he will at this stage only attract invetsors who think a gamble on a paranoid inventor who appears to have something, without all the correct measurements, is OK.
Those who accept this gamble will probably, like IH was, be BOTH risk tolerant and technologically naive. After the Rossi debacle IH greatly tightened up their evaluation - you remember their PR saying they needed to do that well before the Court Case but after they discovered Rossi's stuff did not work.
It is a sign of naivety about people if you do not understand this. Rossi can perhaps still attract investment because there are people like you around with money to play with. But, we don't actually have any evidence he has attracted new investment. He has not even said this to my knowledge.
If I were a investor thinking of investing $millions, I certainly would not invest in he QX without doing due diligence. Fools and their money are soon parted.
I think there is a good chance you are wrong, that Rossi did allow an investor to do due diligence and is indeed in the process of building a factory to mass produce reactors.
Just relying on projecting the botched efforts of IH is not proof, although popular with some like Bob, who was quite unable to answer my comment in a logical way.
Askie (
) didn't you previously claim that you are just trying to fit pieces of ‘evidence’ into a puzzle, rather than promoting your own overarching conspiratorial narrative?
only if the puzzle forms the proper picture that allows he correct conclusion to be drawn
I find that hard to believe.
So do I, but I have talked to several people and seen some documents, so I know that is what happened. It was most unfortunate.
I think they had been on the Command's (Admiral et. al.) radar for sometime for spending a lot of money and giving back very little that the Navy's advisory scientists found useful to the military.
It was a trivial sum of money. A few hundred dollars worth of equipment, and a few people close to retirement working part time in between their official duties, mostly on weekends. The expense had nothing to do with it. The admiral did not cite the expense, but only the damage to the reputation of the Navy for doing discredited research and being associated with Rossi. (They were not, in fact, associated with Rossi in any way.)
I think there is a good chance you are wrong, that Rossi did allow an investor to do due diligence and is indeed in the process of building a factory to mass produce reactors.
You think there is a good chance based on what? You have no evidence. This is your gut feeling, based on wishful thinking. Rossi has never allowed any investor to do any due diligence, and his only publication is a fraud. You cannot give us a reason to believe him. You have not even tried to give a reason. All you say is "I think" or "there is a good chance." None of your statements can be justified, and none has any ground in reality.
You think there is a good chance based on what? You have no evidence
Well I do have some evidence. Also, logically Rossi needs money to continue and I find it hard to believe that anyone would invest in Leonardo Corp without doing due diligence, given the history.
QuoteJust relying on projecting the botched efforts of IH is not proof
There is nothing to suggest IH or Darden did not follow Rossi's instructions or botched anything to do with supporting Rossi. They surprisingly botched vetting Rossi because that should have been easy. And they botched properly monitoring the progress of Rossi's work for them. But that is not what @Adrian Ashfield was writing.
@Adrian Ashfield
QuoteWell I do have some evidence
That does nothing to help your argument unless you present that evidence.
That Rossi did not stop but continue to work is the only indication that I find that support my continuing interest in his works. But the attention is
now much more to other news of CF and hydrino which continue to march on. I'm glad of the good news regarding CF research, the continuing interest
and that there are backers. But my main point in this post is how my experience as a PHD differes from the discussions on the internet.
Sure hell I got a lot of critique when working on my thesis, some where well founded and some where wrong but always the discussion was professional
helpful and well meaning. My experience of the 2018 way of interacting is different. I find the physics theoretical community on the
internet the most hostile place, pure mathematics is much better and computer science and open source fantastic. I've been wondering on why this is so.
I note that crackpot is a common use in physics sites and there is a bit of "über mench" mentality in the group. For example I am considering me as a creative
person and likes to find patterns in physics models. One pattern was simply that variations in maxwells equations was transported with the speed of light but we
can't limit a steady magnetic flow (there might be a limit). When honestly asking for comments on this observation I was basically called out as a crackpot and got
basically kicked down in their school yard. Another time I mentioned that we can't prove or disprove a local steady point in our physical laws because simply
they where Lorenz invariant which means that we can't detect it. Here the common tale is that it does not exist and I was again a heretic and crackpot for observing
something. I found it very hostile simply. Today My hobby time is mostly spent on open source and math stack exchange.
Never mix your own speculation with facts. Or if you do, you should say, "this is mere speculation but . . ."
This is exactly what I do (1).
QuoteEverything you have said about me regarding these events (and other events, such as what happened at ICCF-21) has been completely wrong. Not just wrong, but a preposterous fantasy, without a shred of evidence.
Speaking about the Ecat issues, I have mentioned you many times along these years, because you have been a major protagonists of this story, and it's impossible to ignore your role. However, I have said nothing about you, just quoted your sentences along with the corresponding links to the original documents on internet from where they were extracted. You have such a vast set of comments on the subject that I don't need to express any personal opinion about you.
In any case, can you indicate some of my comments in which you have been cited without quoting your own sentences?
QuoteYou have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to me, so I suppose you have no idea what you are talking about with regard to I.H. and others.
I have the idea that can be derived from the huge amount of documents available on internet. Unfortunately, this public information only partially reflects the more complex reality, so I'm trying to fill the gaps by participating in the discussion on this public forum. Of course, you have much more information than me on the LENR and Ecat subjects, and I always found very interesting what you wrote about them, so I have often taken note of it.
I also find it fascinating how sometimes your narrative changes over time, and adapts to the circumstances. For instance, with reference to the money spent by SPAWAR on LENR activities, you just said (2): "It was a trivial sum of money. A few hundred dollars worth of equipment, and a few people close to retirement working part time in between their official duties, mostly on weekends."
Well, in 2015 you wrote (3): "Government has also been nearly the only source of funding for cold fusion since 1989. Fleischmann, Pons, Miles, McKubre and nearly all others were funded by the British and U.S. governments, mainly from DARPA and other military sources." Considering that hundreds of M$ have been spent on CF/LENR since 1989, it means that the organizations you mentioned have spent huge amounts of money in these researches.
At this point I'm perplexed. How can I reconcile the two statements of yours? Or eventually, which version should I believe in?
(1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion
(2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion
(3) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…eskimo.com/msg103252.html
There is nothing to suggest IH or Darden did not follow Rossi's instructions or botched anything to do with supporting Rossi. They surprisingly botched vetting Rossi because that should have been easy. And they botched properly monitoring the progress of Rossi's work for them. But that is not what Adrian Ashfieldwas writing
If I had been running things at IH either I would have walked a LOT earlier or there would be a working reactor now. If they had done proper due diligence and it didn't work, then walk. If it worked, develop a decent relationship with Rossi and help him.
Cherokee started out on the wrong foot by springing IH on Rossi the day before he signed the contract. Going from a multi-billion dollar company to one with very limited funds. I don't blame Rossi for being skeptical if he knew Cherokee's track record. Then expecting to manage the project without a single experienced engineer on board was asking for trouble.
That does nothing to help your argument unless you present that evidence.
I don't care if you believe me or not.
Adrian, if you don't care if anyone believes what you have to say, why bother saying it at all?
Adrian, if you don't care if anyone believes what you have to say, why bother saying it at all?
Some of the brighter, less biased people will.
Well I do have some evidence.
Perhaps you do, but you have not revealed it to me. I cannot imagine what it might be. Whereas the evidence against what you say is massive.
At this point I'm perplexed. How can I reconcile the two statements of yours? Or eventually, which version should I believe in?
Ascolii, I would never trust any assessment from anybody who has ever defended Rossi’s e-cat claims.
This guys have shown that their judgement is ill-affected by “wishful thinking”.
Or would you trust a financial adviser who got once fooled by a Nigerian scammer?
Speaking about the Ecat issues, I have mentioned you many times along these years, because you have been a major protagonists of this story, and it's impossible to ignore your role.
There you go again. That is a completely fantasy. Not even slightly true. I wish it were true. The history of cold fusion would be quite different if anyone had listened to me. Heck, it would be different if they had listened to Martin Fleischmann! As you see from his letters to Miles, he had no influence. If he had no influence, what makes you think I do?
Only people with money have influence.
