Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Rossi is not here to defend himself, but you would find it more difficult to make your point if you actually quoted what he said in context.

Not true. Rossi boldly lied again, and again, and again both in his testimony and in the Penon report. I can give you hundreds of examples in context. You refuse to look at them, but that does not make them go away. For example, he lied about the invisible heat exchanger in the mezzanine. He lied about that to cover his previous lies in the Penon report, which is one long compendium of outrageous lies and nonsense.

Quote

Rossi is not here to defend himself

I wish he were! And it is no coincidence that he is not! He'd be shredded.

Rossi has always studiously avoided any forum in which he could be asked such questions as "where are the robotic factories?" "who were your customers in 2011 and 2012?" "who are the mysterious 'certificators' who you claimed have been working on certifying a home ecat since 2012?" "why not market the megawatt plant or at least provide a black box version for study, if it works?" and many many others.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

You are good at writing long insulting pieces based on generalizations. I suppose that gives you pleasure but it adds nothing useful to the debate.

Rossi is not here to defend himself, but you would find it more difficult to make your point if you actually quoted what he said in context. Also, as the facts change people change their minds, so it maybe disingenuous to show ancient quotes that don't apply to the current situation.

On the contrary - the context: the masses of correspondence from IH v Rossi discovery - is damning. I and others have suggested you read this, and we have from time to time drawn your attention to specific instances, such as the hydrofusion lie, or Rossi's reaction to the mistake that made a control and therefore revealed all Rossi's reactors were in fact not working on IH premises. It is all nicely indexed on Abd's site.

People do change their minds, but lies stay lies, and when the only evidence for Rossi is a whole load of things he has said, not-so-ancient history that relates to the reliability of his statements is highly relevant.

THH

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Hundreds? You are exaggerating.

Adrian,

If he can only find 50 cases of Rossi boldly lying, does that make him any less of a liar?

Of course not,

Sooner or later you are going to come to the same. Inclusions we have, that Andrea Rossi

is a liar and a con man.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

So you caused me to waste time looking up your comment 5194, that I answered.

You then duplicate it.

Talk about babble....

Not true. You have not given a reference within the patent you quoted that shows where IH did the testing and research on a working cell. I have given a direct quote from the patent "research in this field has largely been inconclusive." which is clearly NOT what you claimed:

You claimed that IH "researched and tested a working reactor in their recent patent." direct quote of you.

Where do you fine reference and why do you claim it was a "working reactor" and that the testing was by IH and not referring to LENR testing by others. (I gave paragraph numbers in the patents you referenced 31,33.

Yes, talk about babble, that is all you ever do- no data, no experimental results, no direct reference or quotes for all your wild claims.

You need to look up patent law and constructive reduction to practice. 34 Fed. Cl. 532, 584. I see nothing in that patent that says they tested a working device.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Hundreds [of lies]? You are exaggerating.

Nope. Hundreds. Okay, in some cases the same lie repeated in the testimony in different places, but hundreds of repetitions of at least ~50 distinct lies. Such as, for example, several lies about the customer: that it was independent; it was related to Johnson Matthey; it was paying for the (imaginary) heat; and using the imaginary heat; and making a profit. That's six right there. The Penon report has about 20 outrageous claims. The imaginary heat exchanger was supposedly installed (one lie) and then removed overnight (a second), that it could have removed 1 MW of heat, and there are several more relating to it. I could go on. You could read all of this for yourself, but you refuse to do so.

By the way calling this "ancient" is absurd. This is the most recent account from Rossi. I emphasize: From Rossi himself. All blatant lies.

Quote from Shane D.

Adrian,

Look at the upper right hand corner of any post. There you will see the post # in RED, that OG is referring to. They are sequential for each thread. So go back about 4 pages on this thread and you will find #5194.

BTW, my iPad doesn't show the post # unless I rotate it so that the screen is wide horizontally. Probably something similar happens on phones and other small screen devices.

Anyhow, did we ever get to the bottom of what the "COP" of the device at Stockholm demo, using the spectrometer?

I recall that the spark gap or plasma stick or whatever was changing size a bunch of times via various reports, so the exterior dimensions were jumping around.

Was it 500?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Anyhow, did we ever get to the bottom of what the "COP" of the device at Stockholm demo, using the spectrometer?

I recall that the spark gap or plasma stick or whatever was changing size a bunch of times via various reports, so the exterior dimensions were jumping around.

Was it 500?

Para,

The COP is the same as John Blutarski’s grade point average

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Jed, I doubt you could support 20 lies , let alone 200.

I listed 8 already! Off the top of my head, here are 14 more from the Penon report and Rossi's comments about it:

The pressure was zero (impossible).

Steam can flow at zero pressure, with no pressure differential.

There was no need to know what happened to the fluid outside the room (ridiculous).

The fluid must have been vaporized.

The flow meter was the correct type.

The circuit was closed not gravity return (a glance at the photos shows that's a lie).

The exact same amount of water flowed through the system day after day for weeks (impossible).

The exact same amount of water flowed when half the pumps were turned off.

The exact same amount of water flowed and the same amount of heat was produced on days when the entire system was turned of an disassembled for maintenance according to Rossi's log.

1 MW of heat was released into the room (no, they would be dead).

No, it was swallowed up by an endothermic process.

No, it was removed by an invisible heat exchanger.

The windows were removed (Google shows that's a lie).

There are dozens more, and they were repeated many times. Hundreds all told.

Quote from Roseland67

Para,

The COP is the same as John Blutarski’s grade point average

It seems to me that it was settled at a 500 "COP" for the radiant spectrography demo.

10 X what the water demo managed, using the same input, waveform, and periodicity.

Indicating that the water demo version, in failing to deliver the remaining 450 W to the water, must have driven the tiny device temperature to (probably) 20000 C.