Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • AA, you claim to be an experienced engineer and believe blindly Rossi’s fictions 40 MW plant installation, where he has no idea yet what kind of reactor he is going to use? He has not even a QX product shown publicly, manufactured,or sold, but wants to use probably new prototype reactors in his latest industry project? What an unbelievable BS. Do you know what this sounds like to me ? - the marvelous QX reactor will be outdated soon and no one will buy this stuff anymore, but everybody will line up for the new toy. Doesn’t that sound familiar?

    ...

    ..

    .

    damn familiar. And that AA is an engineer, or claims to have been one, requires proof :-P

  • “Because I am good at studying Rossi the man.The April 1 2019 countdown is on for me for Rossi to prove that the Ecat has been succesful.”


    Fair enough. By studying Rossi the man you come to the conclusion that he is to be believed. That is utterly incredible, but you are entitled to your opinion. Best of luck in life with that perspective.

  • Quote

    avatar-default.svg seven_of_twenty wrote: Of course Rossi's past lies, his extensive old criminal history


    Adrian Ashfield wrote:You are a liar. What extensive criminal history?

    Answer the question, sticking to the point.


    That is truly comically tragic. Rossi tells the truth and I, citing reams of evidence (direct from contemporary Italian newspapers) mostly collected by Krivit, am a liar.

    It boggles.


    Here ya go, Adrian Ashfield , study these please, it's a long long list of crimes, documented in news reports:


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…al-Criminal-History.shtml


    And Rossi's long history of crooked, fruitless, useless and misrepresented projects with nothing ever accomplished, emphasis never ever:


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…e-Career-in-Science.shtml


    Those supporting Rossi may want to read these before displaying additional monumental ignorance. I bet Darden wishes he'd paid more attention to those reports and articles before signing a contract with Rossi.


    Now I await the denials. Evidence for those: Rossi-says! And don't forget to insult Krivit. It always helps to kill the messenger.

  • Quote

    anyone who does any due diligence will not purchase anything from Rossi without doing their own testing with their own equipment

    Right. Which is why Rossi is desperately making deliberately insane claims in the hoping of trapping someone like Tom Darden but even more hopeful and careless. I would think it will be difficult but not impossible to find someone suitable for Rossi to fool.

  • The updated position is that Andrea Rossi says he has:


    1. The Qx, now rated at 1 kW, that has been tested for a year and developed into an industrial rector\. A video of it supplying heat to a real customer and an example of the non working reactor will be shown early in 2019.


    2. The SK10, which is the same size as the QX but with a higher output thanks to a novel heat exchanger. It is running under test but not yet ready for commercialization.


    3. The SK, that is ten times larger and rated at 100 kW. It too is running under test and has been used to power a gas turbine. It is still very much a prototype and not yet ready for commercialization.


    4. He is building a highly automated factory to produce the QS and the SKs if they pan out, including the electronics for the controllers.


    5. Rossi's business plan is to sell heat to customers. He will provide the reactor and control them. The customer simply pays for the heat supplied.

    He says he has several companies interested, most recently a major corporation interested in a 40 MW plant. The customers has to get approval just for the plant's connection the reactor. Rossi has hired an engineer to get certification for this plants.


    Following the publication of the original list the babble has been about the meaning in English of "evidence." There is a difference between what Rossi says, as he knows all the details, and the babblers who have no knowledge at all of what's happening, and simply make things up.


    As I said, of course Rossi's claims have to be verified before they can be accepted. But the babblers have zero evidence that they are not true


    7 or 20 writes: " What Rossi has to say is only of interest to you and equally delusional people. For the rest of us, it is utterly meaningless"


    As he is claiming to speak for the babblers, one wonders why they comment on a thread about Rossi's blog.


    The underlying problem is that the babblers are certain the the Doral plant didn't work. Despite Jed's voluminous one sided comments I don't consider that proven. It serves no useful purpose to go on about it and I am far more interested in how Rossi's claims above work out. This requires more evidence and it is useless to debate it until then..

  • Hey, Adrian Ashfield , read from the links I posted. After all, you're the one who challenged me to provide them! Try to learn something about the real Rossi. Those who ignore the past... etc. etc. etc.


    Just one question about what you wrote:


    Quote

    Rossi has hired an engineer to get certification for this plants.

    Is he one of the famous "certificators" that Rossi has had working in secret for five years? I hope he's a new one who is quicker than those. Don't you?


    Q. what is a certificator?

    A. he's the guy with the desk between the verificator and the prevaricator.

  • As I said, of course Rossi's claims have to be verified before they can be accepted. But the babblers have zero evidence that they are not true

    Oh come now. We have the evidence published by Rossi himself, in his report and his sworn testimony in lawsuit. For example, we have the photos from him showing that the Mezzanine heat exchanger did not exist. You should not say we have zero evidence. You should say:


    "I do not agree that the evidence cited by the babblers is valid." You are not saying there is zero evidence; you are saying that a photo showing no equipment is not proof there was no equipment.


    Or you could say: "I do not believe any of the evidence that Rossi has provided that disprove his claims. I only believe his positive assertions."


    Or: "I refuse to look at any of the evidence Rossi uploaded to the lawsuit docket."

  • The underlying problem is that the babblers are certain the the Doral plant didn't work


    Sure it worked. It worked while using more electricity than supplied by FPL for almost two weeks.

    It worked through power outages.

    It worked with nearly half the resistances unplugged.

    It worked without even a hiccup when entire banks of reactors were unplugged.

    It made more heat by the time it reached the Customer than the Amazing Container was producing. For a month. A 25% increase in heat just by going through the outlet pipe!

  • It worked without even a hiccup when entire banks of reactors were unplugged.

    Unplugged, disassembled and in pieces according to some witnesses, and according to Rossi's log. The report shows it continued to produce heat at precisely the same daily rate, even in that condition. That is astounding performance!


    Rossi said it worked even then. Penon said so. So Adrian Ashfield believes it worked.

  • AA: As I said, of course Rossi's claims have to be verified before they can be accepted. But the babblers have zero evidence that they are not true

    I don't think Rossi is vindictive but there would be justification for legal proceedings against the owner of this blog for publishing so many libelous comments.


    Fair comment, what we are doing here, is not libellous. Where we argue that Rossi's statements are unreliable we give specific reasons why, which any reasonable person would agree.


    On the other hand your assuming that Tom Darden's deposition contains direct lies possibly is libellous. You have given no reason to suppose Darden inclined to perjury.


    THH

  • Adrian,


    Thanks for keeping track of the different Ecat versions, and what Rossisays comes next. You save me , and others the trouble. I would throw you a like for it, but babble this, babbler that, so I can't.


    BTW, twice now you have thrown in the "libelous" word, and twice now I have had to edit it out. Those type legal words come across as threats, and are not good for open discussion.

  • Don't think anyone has commented on this yet:


    1. DvH August 8, 2018 at 5:23 AM

      Hello Mr. Rossi,

      some of the posts in the recent days refer to the delivery of heat to a customer, for which he is charged. How is that measured? By some calorimeter ? Or by indirectly measuring temperature and estimating the flow?

      You are aware that you’d need a calibrated approved calorimeter-device in most countries?

      greetings

      DvH

    2. Andrea Rossi August 8, 2018 at 8:24 AM

      DvH:

      It will be a forfait: for example, we are going to supply a system for a total power of 40 MW to a Customer and the Customer will pay 40 MWh/h, even if he will not use in part or in total this amount of energy. Obviously the Client will not pay the amount due for the quantity of energy we will not supply for malfunctions deriving from our responsibility ( errors of us, lack of our maintenance, breakages due to our fault et similia ). Therefore if, for example, we will have a blackout of 10 hours due to our errors, the Customer will not pay 400 MWh, that will be deducted from the bill at the end of the month.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

    and this


    1. Italo Romano August 8, 2018 at 10:39 AM

      Dear Dr. Rossi, the lump sum payment may not be convenient for a customer.

      If, for example, the power used varies between 40 MW and 10 MW over time, he will still pay as if he were constantly receiving 40 MW. Even with the 30% discount on the cost of energy, he will pay a lot more.

      It would be better, I think, to measure the real energy supplied.

      Kind Regards,

      Italo R.

    2. Andrea Rossi August 8, 2018 at 6:02 PM

      Italo Romano:

      We adopt the lump sum. Obviously our Clients must order an amount of heat they are sure to consume.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.


    Sounds like he's warming us up for no output measurement by the 'customer'...

  • BTW, twice now you have thrown in the "libelous" word, and twice now I have had to edit it out. Those type legal words come across as threats, and are not good for open discussion.

    SHane,

    What I said "...there would be justification for legal proceedings against was not a threat but a statement of fact. Deleting it implies a certain amount of collusion with those making libelous statements and would not look good.

    Surely a gentle warning that folk should be more careful is not out of place.

  • Because I am good at studying Rossi the man.The April 1 2019 countdown is on for me for Rossi to prove that the Ecat has been succesful.

    To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me

    Isaac Newton

    Sam,


    “Because you study Andrea Rossi the man”?

    How do you study?


    Do you know Andrea Rossi personally?

    Do you know anyone that does?

    We’re you present at any of his demos?

    Do you know personally anyone who was?

    We’re you privy to his testing procedures?

    Do you know personally anyone who was?

    Have you seen his Ecat operating?

    Do you know personally anyone that has?

    Have you ever directly asked him questions?

    Do you know personally anyone that has?


    I could go on with this line of questioning,

    But you get the idea.

    My guess is that you would have to answer “NO” to all of the above questions,

    Yet somehow you know, based on nothing other than “Rossi Says”, that the Ecat provides Energy Out > Energy In?


    My god man, have you ever thought how incredibly gullible this sounds?

  • Adrian,


    Like I said, we do not like armchair legal experts determining what is a legal threat, and I consider you, and your comment just that. Then suggesting my "deleting" is tantamount to "colluding" (with owner nonetheless) is taking it too far. No need for that kind of talk here. As IO noted, you already have liberty to speak freely...maybe more so than others, so it baffles me why you want to push it.


    Let this serve as a warning.

  • Obviously the customer will know if he is getting the ordered heat. Not only from the process result ut I Imagine from his instrumentation to measure the quantity and quality of the steam. Rossi won't charge him for heat ot delivered.


    Adrain, are you saying Rossi is lying about this? I've some sympathy with that approach, but still...


    Rossi says the customer must determine in advance the power they need, and will be billed for that power, whether they use it or no. See #5810 for details. In this specific case, how Rossi intends to charge a customer, I'd be inclined to go along with your mantra of "Rossi knows more about what he is doing than anyone else".


    Interestingly, with this charging policy, Rossi could probably charge 80% of commercial rates and make a profit on a conventional heater. Does he say what his pricing strategy will be?


    THH

  • Adrain, are you saying Rossi is lying about this?

    No. What makes you think that?

    Rossi says the customer must determine in advance the power they need, and will be billed for that power, whether they use it or no.

    This is similar to what utility companies do. The rate you pay for electricity depends on your usage above an agreed amount. A supplier needs to know you will cover the cost of his equipment.

    Rossi also said the customer would not be charged for the fill amount when the reactor is down or not working properly ("in error") but only for heat supplied.

    say what his pricing strategy will be?

    No. Rossi says that is confidential.


    40 MW is a LOT of heat and I don't see how that could be faked.

  • Roseland, and Adrian.


    Probably some of our non-US members, and guests are a bit confused about "Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe". They may see "Dewey", and think we are referring to our very own Dewey Weaver (where have you been BTW?), but we are not. This goes way back in US literature, as a joke about lawyers. Linguistically, English speakers would pronounce this as "Do we cheat them, and how?". Not bashing lawyers, but simply trying to give our friends some background.

  • Huey, Dewey and Louie ...

    Rends, Zorud and Barty might remember them, EHAPA, Berlin, Disney, Lustiges Taschenbuch. Maybe also Wyttenbach.

    But yes, "Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe" is not common in non-english countries, I suspect.

    Three stooges?! Larry, Moe und Curly? What's up, doc.

    Okay. That's enough ...