Perhaps you do, but you have not revealed it to me
I did write about it earlier. I was privy ti a conversation about Rossi with with a politician. Rossi turned down and offer of a grant to help build a factory somewhere else, saying thanks but he was already committed. That is as much as I feel free to say.
I think Tom Darden should have learned more about the Doral test from the begining.
He could have learned from an Engineer what to ask and have shown him by A.R. about the test that where important.
A competent engineer would have told him to ask AR about the heat exchanger and have it shown to him.
The heat exchanger was never mentioned by Rossi until after the Doral farce was completed and taken apart, so how could Darden or anyone else have asked an engineer to ask Rossi, before or during the Doral farce, about a heat exchanger that no one knew "existed" until after it had been allegedly removed. Absent a time machine of course. I, and others, could be wrong about the timing and I am confident that you will be able to show us documented evidence that the heat exchanger existed while the ecats were allegedly running. I would welcome such evidence.
And, just as I previously pointed out to Ascoli, pleadings, e.g., the complaint, are not evidence, they are allegations to be proved by the admittance of competent evidence. And no, even if the defendants don't deny the allegation or don't produce any evidence disproving the allegation, it is still not deemed proven unless and until the plaintiff introduces competent evidence proving that the allegation is true -- a party making an allegation has the burden of proof to show that the allegation is proven. For example, if Rossi claims in his complaint that IH was a Delaware corporation, Rossi needs to prove that IH is a Delaware corporation, which could easily be proven by ordering a "Good Standing" certificate from the Delaware Secretary of State establishing that IH is a Delaware corporation. If Rossi doesn't provide such a certificate, or some other competent evidence, e.g., an admission by IH that it is incorporated in Delaware, then Rossi hasn't proved his case and would have lost.
In a previous posting, Ascoli states that Rossi claims that IH initiated contact with him and that, although IH denies that, they have introduced no evidence to back them up. Firstly, nothing was PROVEN at the trial. Although much of Rossi's depositions would have likely been admitted as evidence against him, establishing him as a serial fabulist and as possibly a forger, as the trial was settled during opening arguments, there had not yet been any evidence admitted. Secondly, as discussed above, IH had no obligation to introduce evidence disproving Rossi's allegations regarding the initial contact. Rossi has the burden to prove it, either by documentary or testimonial evidence. Documentary evidence would be telephone records, etc. Testimonial evidence would be, basically, "he said, she said", who does the judge or jury believe (I am assuming the IH introduces no evidence because it is very difficult to prove a negative, that they didn't call rossi first). Given that IH would be able to show that Rossi routinely lies, e.g., the testimony in all of his depositions, I doubt that Rossi would be believed in a "he said, she said".
I have said this before, but let me repeat. My opinion of Rossi is not based, in any part, on the science. I don't understand it and I won't pretend to understand it. My opinion is based primarily on his writings, his testimony and his actions, especially his testimony in his depositions. If I had been his counsel, I would have advised a settlement, mutual walkaways, from day 1. That is what he ended up with and, if he had settled on day 1, he would have avoided a ton of legal fees. The last thing I would have wanted would be Rossi testifying -- Jones Day would have crucified him on examination. I read his depositions, I read his filings, I read the reports and I have read many of his postings from over the years (that have been reposted -- I was not following filing this until the trial). From all of Rossi's testimony, his posts, etc., it is clear to me that he is a fraud and a liar.
I don't follow this thread, or Rossi, on a daily basis, this is not that important to me. Someone above asked, why do we follow this -- I follow because I enjoy watching frauds, scammers, conmen, etc. get publicly exposed and ridiculed. And it is a pleasant break from my involvement in politics, which is my obsession (due to forum rules, no more political comments). I would truly love to see someone solve LENR because it truly would be a blessing for the planet. I can't and won't opine on who that someone might be -- BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE. But I know it won't be Rossi, all he has is flimflam.
It does bear on the matter. They failed to do due diligence at first, and Rossi lied and took advantage of that. Later, at Doral, they tried to do due diligence but he threw them out, and then published the Penon report. That report is so full of outrageous lies and nonsense, it destroyed his credibility. You are ignoring these facts. Have you even read the Penon report? In all these years, it is the only technical report that Rossi has ever published, and it proves he is a fraud. How can that have "no bearing on the matter"?
That report is the only evidence Rossi supplied in the lawsuit documents. You cite his blog, but he never quoted the blog or tried to use it as legal evidence for his claim. The Penon report is the one and only formal document you have to go on to justify your faith in Rossi. Anyone with common sense can see that it a grotesque lie. As I recall, you and Axil are so blinded by wishful thinking and delusions, you refuse to even look at it.
In all fairness, Rossi generally would not be able to use statements made by him on his blog as they would almost certainly be hearsay. Hearsay is, generally, an out of court statement being introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If Rossi said something on his blog or in JONP and wanted to introduce that at trial to prove something, that would probably be hearsay and not admissible. However, IH could introduce something Rossi said on his blog or on JONP if their purpose was not to prove that what he said was true, but to prove that he claimed something. For example, if Rossi said he had 22 employees on his blog, Rossi could not introduce that to prove that he had 22 employees. That would be hearsay and likely inadmissible. But if IH wanted to prove that Rossi lied to and defrauded them (and assuming payroll records showed less than 22), they could introduce that statement and it would not be hearsay because it was not introduced to show that Rossi had 22 employees, it was introduced to show that Rossi claimed he had 22 employees, and thereby lied to them and possibly defrauded them.
When looking at out of court statements you always have to consider why someone wants to introduce them as evidence and who is seeking to have it introduced.
I can't and won't opine on who that someone might be -- BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE.
And I cannot understand the law! This business about hearsay makes my head spin. I am glad someone understands it.
And Rossi lied. You cannot deny this, so you refuse to look at the lies or comment on them.
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.
Jed, I have to partially disagree with your statement I bolded. If Rossi were to produce a product that he claimed worked and subjected it to independent testing that confirmed that it worked, that would be a basis for judging his claims. I would rephrase your statement as "Given that Rossi has consistently refused to allow any independent testing of his claims, the only basis for judging his claims is his success record, or lack thereof, his past behavior and his credibility."
I would also add that, given his record, to accord Rossi any amount of credibility, without independent testing, exhibits an amazing ability to whitewash the past.
Display MoreComing 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!
My understanding of AA's deadline was June 1, 2019.
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.
Other than "Rossi says" do you have any independent evidence to support your claim that you "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." Have you personally met, talked with, or otherwise communicated with any such possible investors or is this something you "heard" in the ether? Have you personally seen the factory, talked with any of the engineers or construction folks building the factory, seen any of the building permits, etc.? Have you seen any of the offering materials or subscription materials that Rossi would have had to give to any such investor, e.g., an offering memorandum, prospectus, subscription agreement, share/stock/llc membership interest purchase agreement, joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, etc.? Have you seen any filings with the SEC related to Rossi or to Leonardo Corporation?
Let's assume for the moment that you had to state, under oath, on what do you base this "good chance." Is there anything you can provide other than "Rossi says" or "I heard about it from sources"? Because if it is primarily Rossi says, then is credibility is definitely relevant and material.
Me: "There is no other basis to judge his claims."
Jed, I have to partially disagree with your statement I bolded. If Rossi were to produce a product that he claimed worked and subjected it to independent testing that confirmed that it worked,
We do not disagree. Your statement is hypothetical. "IF Rossi were to produce a product . . ." Yes, I agree that if he were to do that, it would be another basis to judge his claims. But he hasn't done that. So, at present, the only technical basis to judge his claims is to look at his technical report. His one-and-only Penon report.
Okay, I guess we should also look at the two papers from Levi et al. As I have said many times, the first one seemed okay, the second one was bad, and given all that has happened since they were published, I no longer know what to make of them. Also, they never answered questions put to them by experts, which is a bad sign.
The non-technical way to judge Rossi is to read the contracts and legal stuff, which is over my head. I leave that to you.
Display MoreThis is exactly what I do (1).
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?
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
I find it interesting that you seem very willing to craft an image and an opinion of Jed, his credibility, his positions, etc., but on the other hand you seem curiously unwilling to apply the same scrutiny and the same tests to Rossi. Note that I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you re: Jed and I know, based on his posts, that Jed will be the first to tell you that he has definitely been wrong and made mistakes at time. But the only time I am aware of Rossi admitting that he is less than perfect is when he admitted to defrauding his former partners in order to get out of an agreement, and that was less an admission and more of a boast. You attack Jed based on his old statements, but you always seem to give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. Why is that?
And as to your puzzle. One of the few fundamentals of scientific experimentation I remember is that you don't pick and choose the evidence to satisfy your hypothesis, you adapt your hypothesis to fit the evidence. However, you seem to pick your image of what you want to achieve and throw away or ignore the pieces that don't fit. Interesting approach.
Display MoreThis is exactly what I do (1).
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?
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
I find it interesting that you seem very willing to craft an image and an opinion of Jed, his credibility, his positions, etc., but on the other hand you seem curiously unwilling to apply the same scrutiny and the same tests to Rossi. Note that I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you re: Jed and I know, based on his posts, that Jed will be the first to tell you that he has definitely been wrong and made mistakes at time. But the only time I am aware of Rossi admitting that he is less than perfect is when he admitted to defrauding his former partners in order to get out of an agreement, and that was less an admission and more of a boast. You attack Jed based on his old statements, but you always seem to give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. Why is that?
And as to your puzzle. One of the few fundamentals of scientific experimentation I remember is that you don't pick and choose the evidence to satisfy your hypothesis, you adapt your hypothesis to fit the evidence. However, you seem to pick your image of what you want to achieve and throw away or ignore the pieces that don't fit. Interesting approach.
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.
I don't care if you believe me or not.
I completely agree with you argument that people should do proper due diligence before investing. Investing to me means not only money, but time, effort and granting favorable reviews.
So, AA, what due diligence have you done to support your "good chance."
So where are the trolls, ne're do wells, cynics, outright haters, and henchmen of Rossi's competitors with regard to Parkhomov's apparently astonishing replication of Rossi's hot dry cat experiments. One old but skilled in the art retired Russian scientist working in his kitchen sink seems to deliver the truth that exposes the usual armchair miscreants and what they are worth. What say ye.
QuoteSo where are the trolls, ne're do wells, cynics, outright haters, and henchmen of Rossi's competitors with regard to Parkhomov's apparently astonishing replication of Rossi's hot dry cat experiments.
Really? Criticizing a guy who photoshops his graphs is being a troll? In fact, criticizing in general is the same as trolling to you? And everyone who questions a result you like is a ne're do well (whatever that is), cynic, outright hater or a henchman of Rossi's competitors? Rossi has competitors? When did he get them and who are they? Do they lie as glibly and consistently as Rossi has done for more than seven years since 2011?
Signed: Armchair Miscreant
Hey, that's be a good handle for the forum.
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.
Logically, Rossi needs no money to continue. He was given $10M by IH and will not have spent too much of that on (family connected) lawyers. We know he has money because of the multiple Florida condos that he owns.
No doubt he's hoping for more money. How does he get that? By saying the right things, doing the right demos, even perhaps organising some sort of pseudo-factory (just as Doral was not a Johnson Matthey industrial plant, although billed as that, don't expect Rossi "factories" looked at close to be real factories).
So where are the trolls, ne're do wells, cynics, outright haters, and henchmen of Rossi's competitors with regard to Parkhomov's apparently astonishing replication of Rossi's hot dry cat experiments. One old but skilled in the art retired Russian scientist working in his kitchen sink seems to deliver the truth that exposes the usual armchair miscreants and what they are worth. What say ye.
Russ - it would help if you were to provide evidence (details, experiment writeups, critique of same) to support these claims. Then you might get some discussion here. This place is actually relatively well focussed on technical details, and does not much rate bald claims without these.
In absence of a good new writeup let me remind you of Parkhomov's two previous published experiments:
(1) Phase change calorimetry. Should be bomb-proof. But, his eqpt was later found to be fast boiling without proper lid and splashing liquid out that explained the results.
(2) Temperature graph with cal. The critical published sections of data that showed excess heat were later found to be photoshopped, because, P said, his laptop that took readings needed a new battery during this period. This shows an extraordinary disregard for experimental accuracy and must therefore cast doubt on his future results unless very well attested by others.
Wow - wasn't it Parkomov who filled in the data gaps in his "replication" with his own interpretation of what might have been?
Isn't it Parkomov who has not been able to successfully replicate when outsiders are in the lab as witnesses?
And how did Piantelli get left out of this conversation as the father of Ni/H2 anomalies?
Having asked these questions - I do wish Parkomov the best moving forward. He seems to be better resourced these days and I'm hopeful that some of his work can be successfully verified.
I did write about it earlier. I was privy ti a conversation about Rossi with with a politician. Rossi turned down and offer of a grant to help build a factory somewhere else, saying thanks but he was already committed. That is as much as I feel free to say.
Rossi would NEVER touch a government's offer for money at this time.
You can bet if a government had been footing the bill for the Doral fiasco, Rossi would have been in jail by now. The government would have pressed and followed through with criminal charges.
Rossi learned this from his oil refinery days! No, Rossi will not get involved with governments again! That resulted him in spending time in jail.
I see this as the opposite of Adrian. This does not prove that Rossi has a supporter and is building a factory. No more so than Rossi refusing proper testing means he already has had proper testing done. It means he is NOT going to risk getting federal or state prosecutors involved when:
The customer turns out to be fake.
The building mysteriously burns down.
The Fuel charge gets changed out during the late night before anyone has a chance analyze it.
The plumbing gets removed right before filling a lawsuit.
He can produce no records for major components that do not seem to exist.
Remember, ROSSI filed the lawsuit NOT IH. He thought they would settle. A government agency would not only not settle, they would pursue criminal charges.
Rossi will NOT touch a deal with a government now and I think it is clear why. Just like he would not touch a deal with a company who would do significant due diligence up front, but only "take his word for it".
So where are the trolls, ne're do wells, cynics, outright haters, and henchmen of Rossi's competitors with regard to Parkhomov's apparently astonishing replication of Rossi's hot dry cat experiments. One old but skilled in the art retired Russian scientist working in his kitchen sink seems to deliver the truth that exposes the usual armchair miscreants and what they are worth. What say ye.
I say show me some evidence. A reasonable chunk of data would be nice.
The summaries and highlights aren't good enough for me.
The fact that Parkhomov's work is inspired by the Lugano demonstration does not inspire me at all, and these are not replications in the strict sense. I do like that Parkhomov seems to done some things to improve the experiment, but less data is being supplied with each iteration it seems. I am looking forward to his paper on the last reported work.
A little flashback for those here who refuse to admit that Rossi's recent history is just a series of unsubstantiated promises, claims and often lies...not much has changed from the old days. Rossi is still today avoiding anything that would give "strangers" a real chance to verify or measure his claims or look behind his curtains (or under the cardbox cover on the Stockholm table...)
A little flashback for those here who refuse to admit that Rossi's recent history is just a series of unsubstantiated promises, claims and often lies...not much has changed from the old days. Rossi is still today avoiding anything that would give "strangers" a real chance to verify or measure his claims or look behind his curtains (or under the cardbox cover on the Stockholm table...)
I must agree.
From the information that Rossi gives himself, there has been no change since before Doral. None. Zero.
Why would anyone expect there be any change?
Rossi has followed the exact same pattern, only substituting:
A new young, inexperienced theorist (Gullstrom) for his previous expert. No reason given why. He has not even mentioned the fact that Cook is completely out of the picture! Very strange for someone whom Rossi himself stated had written the theory of the eCat.
A food processing company is now the possible customer. (Possible as he never actually states anything) This new customer substituted from the one during the lawsuit. Which by the way, in his depositions, he admitted that there was no new partner or customer at that time, yet he was extolling these on his JONP.
The "old" eCat has been replaced by the QuarkX, just as the hot cat was replaced. Now the QuarkX is being prepped to be replaced by the SK cat. By the way, the SK Cat could be pronounced :
[skat]
noun
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scat?s=t
If that animal was a "Bull", the name fits perfectly! The new model is complete Bull SH__! 
His employee count has been published again at 22. However as some have posted here, in the past, he has extolled various numbers over the years. None of which have been true according to tax records.
His industrial certifications were replaced with "Sigma 5" (although no actual meaning to this was EVER given). This has now been dropped as the SKCat is now being prepped to delay rollout. He has stated that it is not ready but MUCH IMPROVED!
The same story he has given his other multiple iterations.
Some ask why people follow this story if one is so skeptical?
For me anyway, it is multi-fold.
1) It irks me that a con-artist gets such adulation. He is not deserving of it.
2)He has damaged the LENR field. Hopefully this has been corrected by the Doral fiasco. We will see, but hopefully these callouts warns others.
3)It is a drama worthy of a movie. People being suckered in. The intelligent, the naïve and in many cases the uninformed. It is quite interesting to see how it will turn out. It is kind of like an interactive movie. I can post questions to the person in the drama who is swallowing hook, line and sinker! It is interesting to try to understand their lack of logic.
4)Early on I was a supporter / had high hopes for the eCat. Rossi surely took me for a ride for a period of time. I do not like being lied to and Rossi lied all the time!
I have seen no redeeming qualities in him in this story! What will his reward be in the end?
Unwarranted riches (such as he got from IH) or justice?
Who knows, for life certainly is not always fair or just! 
In all fairness, Rossi generally would not be able to use statements made by him on his blog as they would almost certainly be hearsay. Hearsay is, generally, an out of court statement being introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If Rossi said something on his blog or in JONP and wanted to introduce that at trial to prove something, that would probably be hearsay and not admissible.
I am not a lawyer, but (in part due to fogbow, plus a lot of corporate contract stuff) I think that a blog COULD serve a useful legal purpose.
My understanding is that if you have contemporaneous notes on some subject, when you are being questioned, that you can refer to and read from these notes during a trial ... and that having them gives greater credibility than just recalling from memory.
So information in the blog, as a set of contemporaneous notes, could be used in a trial. They themselves would not become part of the record, but what the witness said about or read from, would.
