They are. Civil discourse is important. However, 10 onto 1 seems too much like bullying.
-
-
One does wonder, however, if bullying is really bullying when it appears to be completely ineffectual.
Edited in response to Alan and fair enough
-
You cannot know what effect things have. You missed out the words 'appears to be'.
-
You forgot to take into account that Lenr Forum has still a giant photo (as Home Page) of a Rossi's "reactor", in particular this picture:
nothing else, therefore I think that the Rossi's fans and supporters here are still a lot more than 1, very powerful and well protected.
-
Alan I like fresh vegetables and I found a solution, I blocked this user Adrian Ashfield.
That's good for your blood pressure.
-
I can see it coming. AR will use the excuse of no reactor in a conference room to go back on the promise of an open demo. My question is why does it have to be in a conference room instead of some other venue.... say even a parking lot or soccer field and a single metered extension cord.
old,
Because then the input power and energy could be properly metered, in Other words
It’ll never happen
-
AA. Typical blabber spin, What has that got to do with soectra? Try again.
Hun. On the contrary you are so smart and so skilled (expert of spectrum from 1970s) that immediately you saw that the spectrum visible on demo's video (mainly due to ambient light) has been shown to you with the reactor in OFF.
Next time you could be more lucky telling about your professional life.
AA. I never claimed to be an expert in spectography. I never said anything about the spectrum except that Rossi reported later that it
was in error due to the cooling system blocking the view, and that we should wait for the official version to analyze.
You accused me of not understanding. Not understanding what? You still haven’t answered that question. You lie. Stop making things up.
AA. And you are quite wrong about saying I didn't understand the Stockholm demo too. I said the demo showed the characteristics of the QX,which it did, but you would nave to take a couple more measurements to prove it wasn't trickery. As this is so easy to do, any investor would do it.
Hun. Which significative QX characteristics (QX the alleged nuclear reactor of which the "inventor" claims it would produce a large excess heat) it has been really shown in this demo?
(demo comes from demonstration, it was held in order to demonstrate)
Probably the QX weight?
Maybe the controller box color and marking?
AA. The demo showed that it worked. Any working LENR is quite an achievement. The small size of the reactor and the COP, taking Rossi's word for the impedance of the QX. . It is about what one would expect from a small plasma and you have no proof that it wasn’t. As stated many times, that must be measured to prove he is telling the truth
Neither did we need the babble about what demonstration means
AA. You are full of insulting, ignorant BS and should apologize.
Hun. I suggest to you to look yourself into a mirror.
AA. it is clear from your comments about Rossi you think liars should never be believed in the future.. You lied.
-
Before lodging a complaint, those choosing to participate in this thread should keep in mind that it is not a place for the feint of heart. Different standards apply as to what constitutes acceptable. Enter at your own risk.
-
So this thread now consists almost entirely of posts trying to convince Adrian that his unwavering support for Rossi has no basis in reality (which is utterly obvious) and posts from Adrian denying his mindless support of Rossi and accusing everyone else of being babblers. Rinse and repeat. Are we having fun?
I must disagree. I am not trying to convince AA, that would be a futile and wasted effort. I ask AA the questions I do in the hope that people reading AA will realize that, at least in this context, he is not an honest broker and most definitely has biases. By his failure to address the issues raised I hope that people will not blindly follow him.
-
You forgot to take into account that Lenr Forum has still a giant photo (as Home Page) of a Rossi's "reactor", in particular this picture:
nothing else, therefore I think that the Rossi's fans and supporters here are still a lot more than 1, very powerful and well protected.
That is an MFMP Dog Bone test unit.
Note the thermocouples tied on, and high emissivity paint on the RH side.
-
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.
Given that AA has macular degeneration (which my father had and AA has my best wishes in that regard), I would hope he is viewing using an extra large monitor.
-
I have read them You continue to assume he is guilty until proven innocent. You re welcome to your opinion.
It was my impression, and recollection, that up until very recently you had disclaimed any reading of the trial materials, including the Penon report. Has that changed and have you now read the Penon report and the Rossi and Rossi side depositions?
-
Display More
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.
I'm sorry Jed, but you must show not less than 200 lies. Anything lower merely proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Rossi is NOT a liar.
-
THHuxleynew, Apart from a dew cases like his Krivit demo and shenanigans withe customer for the 1 MW plant, I don't find his various demos implausible.
I am encouraged by news about the QX and Sk reactors that improves as time passes.
Don't get too excited and wait for what surfaces in early 2019.
"shenanigans." You make it sound as if someone added an extra shot of hot fudge at a sundae shop. His "shenanigans" were out and out fraud, with an intent to defraud. Or are you arguing that someone accidentally and UNINTENTIONALLY set up a dummy corporation with a name very similar to the name of a prominent corporation, that they accidentally and UNINTENTIONALLY represented to their business partner that the dummy corporation was completely independent from them, that someone accidentally and UNINTENTIONALLY created fake invoices, that someone accidentally and UNINTENTIONALLY had a person represent themselves as the, IIRC, CEO of this dummy corporation to their business partner, which CEO was actually, shall we say, a co-conspirator?
I am glad to hear this AA, as I am now certain that if someone created a dummy corporation and siphoned money out of your accounts, you would just chalk that down to shenanigans. Words have meaning and import AA, but that never seems to bother you when in defense of Rossi.
-
Jed , I only read the first half dozen and dispute all of them. You assume that everything Rossi says is a lie and that is the basis for your proof. Rossi said it so it must be a lie.
If that's the vest you can do, you could never come up with 200.
What are your bases for disputing the comments? Do you have any basis other than RossiSays and/or JustBecause (a close cousin of RossiSays).
-
I love Lewan's figure/circuit diagram in the image provided by @hunter above. How difficult would it have been for Rossi to put a voltmeter across the one ohm resistor? From grade school physics/electricity, that would measure the current in the circuit and assuming the resistor was accurately 1 ohm, the power dissipated in it. But naturally, Rossi did not allow or do that. The claim that to do it might reveal IP is ridiculous. If there was a problem with showing waveforms, which is extremely doubtful, the voltmeter input and/or output could have been suitably averaged or filtered. Lewan's failure to ask Rossi in public why this was not done and to insist on a meaningful reply is inexplicable (though I expect Ascoli65 to profer a reason). Surely, Lewan knows Ohm's law and the simple power rule!
The power rule -- One Ring to Rule Them All. Sorry, just got back from surgery and still a bit loopy. At least that is my story and I am sticking to it.
-
Jed, most of the heat from the 1 MW plant was carried as the latent heat of evaporation. It is relatively easy to remove this heat near100C by a dry "cooling tower," with a fan blowing over the bundle of pipes, to condense the steam. This is all Rossi had to do.
It takes a MUCH larger cooling tower to reduce the water temperature to a lower (like ambient) temperature, and that is possibly why you are confused about the size needed.
Please provide a citation to the evidence that such a design was the design used for Rossi's alleged cooling tower. I know that, IIRC, Professor Wang said that the type of cooling device claimed by Rossi could work. Please note that I, and Professor Wang, said "could" because Professor Want never actually saw any evidence of the claimed cooling device, never saw any evidence that the claimed cooling device had ever been installed or even ever existed and never saw any paper trail evidence of said claimed cooling device, e.g., photographs or receipts for the materials claimed to have been used in the construction of said claimed cooling device. I am especially taken by the lack of photographs, although I can understand that given the difficulties associated with taking photographs. After all, it is not like you can take a picture with a smart phone -- Oh, wait.
-
A cooling tower is the generic name for such devices and come in all manner of shapes and sizes.
There are two stories about what was there. Your opinion and the one described by Rossi, who built it. There is no proof which is correct.
There is his opinion, which is also the opinion of many, many other people. You say, and I quote "the one described by Rossi, who built it." Let me amend and add a few points to that last clause to "the one described by Rossi, who allegedly built it, but (1) which has never been seen or its existence verified by any human being other than Rossi, (2) for which there exist no photographs, either in location, being assembled or disassembled, (3) which was never mentioned, prior to the issue arose in the run up to the IH trial IIRC, in any of the design drawings, schematics, proposals, literature, presentations, etc., (4) the existence of which was never necessary until the exposure that the JM company was a fake and a sham, along with the related "shenanigans," (5) for which there exist no confirming documentary evidence, (6) for which there photographs of the space where said machine was allegely located, taken both before and after the test, none of which machines show any evidence that said machine was ever there, e.g., holes in the floor to secure the machine, (7) for which there is no evidence that Rossi ever hired any day laborers or casual manual labor to install said machine and (8) for which there is substantial testimonial evidence by persons who visited the site of the alleged machine prior to and after the test, to the effect that there was no evidence that said machine ever existed.
To sum up, on the "Never Existed" side of the argument, there is not only one person's opinion, but the opinions of many persons, along with there being no evidence, other than RossiSays, supporting the existence of said alleged device. On the "Absolutely Existed (and was the best ever and most efficient)" side of the argument, there is RossiSays.
You tell me AA, you are sitting in the jury box, don't know anything about the case or the people involved, add in the fact that they can prove, in court, that Rossi has repeatedly lied about a number of relevant things and that, regardless of who has the burden of proof, all they need is to prove by a preponderance of evidence, i.e., a hair over fifty percent, you tell me who wins the argument of whether or not the cooling device existed. You can't wait for more evidence -- this is a trial and you have to decide based on the evidence presented. RossiSays versus all the other stuff. What is your decision?
-
I didn't need a wall of solid text. You are not being paid by the word count. Despite your efforts to disprove it, even in a civil case you are not considered guilty before the trial starts.
No I haven't.
In my previous response to you I answered your five questions. Questions that you implied I couldn't answer. You also stated you would respond if I did. You haven't.
Firstly, I am not being paid at all.
Secondly, IIRC, I have refrained from calling you ignorant. No longer. Despite my using too many words to explain it to, I obviously didn't succeed. You just said, and I quote: "Despite your efforts to disprove it, even in a civil case you are not considered guilty before the trial starts." That is an ignorant and stupid position (of course there will always be exceptions to the language used, but none relevant here).
As I explained, there is no "guilty," "not guilty," or "innocent" is a civil trial. One is guilty, etc. of a crime. A civil action is not a criminal action -- that is why it is called "civil." You may think this is a trivial point, but in actuality it is very important. If you lose in a criminal trial, the "State" can lock you up. In a civil trial, the winning party cannot lock you up, even if it is the "State." That is a big fucking difference and if you can't understand that basic babbling point, you should shut up.
And there is no presumption of innocence or guilt. One is either liable or not liable. And if you are found liable, by a preponderance (for non-lawyers and persons who are expert in everything, that means a majority of the evidence), the winning party doesn't get to send you to jail. The penalties are usually monetary (I will not discuss other penalties in order that you can complain that I purposefully didn't want to talk about them and so I must be avoiding something).
And lastly, about your response to my comments, a few thoughts. You claimed that I implied you wouldn't answer (I believe that was Bob, but I can understand the confusion -- all we Babblers look alike in the dark). Please AA, have I shown any hesitancy or reticence about saying what I think. If I wanted to say you wouldn't answer, I would have said that. As someone on the board said recently, don't put words in my mouth.
You complain that I have not yet responded to your response, claiming that I said I would. First, you are so fond of demanding that we mere babblers quote your exact language, so, please quote the exact language where I said, not implied, that I would respond. I don't owe you a fucking thing, much less a reasoned response. But I will provide one in the next several days or week. Also, I just got home an hour or so ago from Stanford Hospital, where I was since noon today. I spent several hours with a scope, a laser and a giant tweezers shoved up my dick to remove the first of several very large kidney stones. I go back in two weeks and do it all again. I have been in excruciating pain for the past two or three months, which has resulted, in among other things, dramatically increasing my daily intake of morphine. I AM SO SORRY AND APOLOGETIC THAT I FAILED TO RESPOND, ON YOUR TIMELINE AND AS YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE. If the moderators wish to ban, censure or suspend me for my prior and/or following comments, so be it. AA, you are a wretched, base, hypocritical and fucking poltroon.
My apologies to everyone else for my intemperate language. You AA, ESFOAD.
-
So he admitted that the “reactor” shown in the conference room at Stockholm was a fake.
You see Hunter, that is why you need exactitude in language. RossiSays that "No, it is impossible to get the authorization to light up a reactor in a conference room. We will show a video of it in operation and, of course, will show the product, like a “sleeping beauty”."
Obviously, as RossiSays that he demonstrated a working model, then that could not have been a conference room. Rossi never says you need an authorization to light up a reactor in a hallway, or a demonstration room or any sort of room other than a conference room. RossiSays the magic machine worked, and one must never ever doubt the One Rossi, then quod erat demonstrandum that room was not a conference room. Please be more careful in the future with your language, Mr. Hunter.
