Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Bull! Whatever their qualifications, which I think you significantly inflated, these people earned their Moletrap nickname of the "three blind mice."

    That Nickname was given by people like you Mary and the guys of the self proclaimed (no connection with no institution !) GSVIT group you are citing ! You think I have inflated the qualifications...... BAAAAAH ! Just check !

    Just one of them ...... https://www.mech.kth.se/~hanno/MyScientificBiography.pdf

    The Rossi case may be complex legally but it is piss simple scientifically.

    Wow what a professional language ! No Mary.

    If we look at your history in Internet as a blogger we see that your comments were always of that kind of level and tone.

    So your long blah blah contains no surprise or useful new information.


    Ele, you should know better than attempt to doxx someone. Eric

  • Ha ha ha ha ha........ So you can have prejudice against Italian (or why not Americans, Israelis or whatever) freely ?

    I call Racism any prejudice against any group of people (Afro Americans, Jews, Italians.....)

    Also is well known that on a scientific basis humane races do not exist. We are all humans....... except Racist of course.

    Of course people can have prejudice against a nationality or religion. But you should not call it racism.

  • Really interesting ? Why don't you invite him in Court to testify under Oath ? So we will know if he is really certified :).

    Wow! Really reaching with the trolling there. I have previously posted my general work history already to you in a previous post. The specific certification is NCCER certification. For new people, I worked for twenty years as an industrial pipefitter with most of it working for a company called Austin Industrial. I quit pipefitting in 2008 because of an industrial accident and became a teacher. Since it is summer and I am off work, I would be happy to be a paid consultant for IH or Rossi. However, I don't think they would waste money flying me to Miami when you could hire someone locally. I believe my posts themselves have shown my expertise in the practical side of pipefitting. If you want to challenge my credibility, do so with facts instead of innuendoes. If you don't want to debate facts return to your bridge.

  • Wow! Really reaching with the trolling there. I have previously posted my general work history already to you in a previous post. The specific certification is NCCER certification. For new people, I worked for twenty years as an industrial pipefitter with most of it working for a company called Austin Industrial. I quit pipefitting in 2008 because of an industrial accident and became a teacher. Since it is summer and I am off work, I would be happy to be a paid consultant for IH or Rossi. However, I don't think they would waste money flying me to Miami when you could hire someone locally. I believe my posts themselves have shown my expertise in the practical side of pipefitting. If you want to challenge my credibility, do so with facts instead of innuendoes. If you don't want to debate facts return to your bridge.

    Don't worry too much with Ele. He/she will start complaining and saying others don't have credentials, or accuse them of being paid by IH and try to dox them if it is against his/her blind support of Rossi. Of course all the time never giving any info about self.

  • Quote

    BAAAAAH ! Just check !

    Just one of them ...... https://www.mech.kth.se/~hanno/MyScientificBiography.pdf


    Like I said, you write dishonestly. Hanno Essen is by far the most accomplished of the blind mice. The rest are mainly unknown. If you read what Essen and the late Dr. Kullander wrote about their conclusions on early ecat tests, he is the least convinced of all of the usual suspects that the ecat works. What he said was that they saw something anomalous and unexplained and more research was needed. What they should have researched more was Rossi's background of crime and deceit and Levi's interest in sleight of hand magic. Also, they should have looked into how one does one's own experiments without relying on a shady and untrustworthy inventor.

  • Ele is bored, and frustrated. The trial has been delayed, and the evidence against Rossi looks overwhelming for when it resumes. So what to do...well, accuse racism against Italians, and question qualifications it appears!


    BTW, is it possible to be racist against an Italian? You guys have too many historical, and academic accomplishments for that it seems to me. And are you sure Ahlfors is not Italian himself?


    Sounds like I am bored also, as I am responding to you being bored. :) Oh well, hopefully after our "4th of July" holiday ends, the trial begins again.


  • SSC ,


    Well done. It seems that Thomas Darden has been very sloppy (negligent?) with his SEC paperwork as well. Mmmm..it must be a pain for Thomas Darden that his reputation is further tarnished by this court case. Once one has the SEC on its back it is hard to focus on anything else..


    Cheers,


    JB

  • What I think is that all the observations against Lugano and the Swedes are strongly biased by "the voice of IH" that is trying to disseminate FUD.


    I arrived at the conclusion that the Lugano IR protocol is terribly wrong using math (by two different methods) and confirmed the math by actual experimentation.

    Work by Higgins and Clarke were very helpful (I even argued with Clarke until I understood what he was saying properly).

    That was trying to prove the thing worked as reported.

    However, I discovered that the device can work as reported without any fuel whatsoever using the Lugano IR protocol.

    That was before I even knew anything about International Heat.


    I have no explanation for the water flowing up hill perhaps a metre (either at 0 PSI or maybe even against a vacuum) from the condenser return hoses on the ground without filling the condensers with water to the same level as the reservoir, in Bologna, October 2011 (leaving only the top 20 to 30 cm of the condensers for condensing steam, and maybe even filling the lower steam pipe with water).

    That seems to defy math and experiment.

    And I have no affiliation with IH, and that event has nothing to do with the Professors (OK, maybe one Professor).

  • Spoken as a true peanut-gallery worker, who has never run a business, or created a single job or product; if so, you would know that every business deals with these hoards of bureaucrats and paperwork that police every aspect of one's business, waiting to find some technical violation of paperwork or whatever, to fine the business and justify their existence--they are, in fact impossible to avoid at one time or another. In fact, I would wager that in addition to never running a business, or ever creating a job or product, you all are probably one of these public dole bureaucrats (or similar). But, everyone knows that you are simply grasping at straws to somehow draw some moral-equivalence to all of Rossi's dubious behavior and claims--keep jousting at them ecats, quarkxxxx's and invisible heat-exchangers.

  • I arrived at the conclusion that the Lugano IR protocol is terribly wrong using math (by two different methods) and confirmed the math by actual experimentation.

    Work by Higgins and Clarke were very helpful (I even argued with Clarke until I understood what he was saying properly).

    That was trying to prove the thing worked as reported.

    However, I discovered that the device can work as reported without any fuel whatsoever using the Lugano IR protocol.

    That was before I even knew anything about International Heat.



    My opinion is that the "protocol" mentioned in the Lugano report is possibly incomplete and that additional steps needed to understand what they really did where left out.
    I tried to fill these steps in and can state that even without calibration at high temperatures you can arrive at the correct temperatures using another protocol of which the "protocol" in the Lugano report is only a sub part and not even correctly written down.
    Using a part of the derived protocol I did a test adjusting some Optris temperature values as reported by the MFMP and after correction they had exactly the same values as the Williams pyrometer. The differences between the two had disappeared ! For me that proves that indeed it is possible to use the Optris to obtain correct temperatures without calibration (The calibration is basically part of the literature data used in the protocol).
    Does that mean the Lugano testers made no error ? Sure they made errors as you and I would also have made. Did they use the wrong emissivities ? Maybe, but in my opinion too much weight is given to the possible emissivity errors by people who do not know if the methods in the Lugano report where reported correctly or where even reported complete.


  • Interesting. You are speaking about a Professor Emeritus with a brilliant Curriculum, a Professor in Chemistry that is also a valued Police consultant, a Professor or Theoretical Physics and also another group (including a former faculty Dean).

    Which is your curriculum to write in this way. You should at least a Nobel Prize. :)

    What I think is that all the observations against Lugano and the Swedes are strongly biased by "the voice of IH" that is trying to disseminate FUD.


    Perhaps this is the time for you to consider how you decide what to believe? if, as you imply, you rely on credentials in irrelevant areas (none of the above constitutes expertise in IR calorimetry) you are vulnerable to being misled. for example, by Rossi.


    Would you trust a brain surgeon to mend your gas boiler?


    Rossi has, from his CV, some expertise in the history and philosophy of science combined with (he has demonstrated this) a facility with DIY electricity and plumbing (I don't say expertise because of the known gaps - like not understanding RMS voltage and current, thinking polarity does not matter in 3 phase AC measurements, etc). I'd guess he has a wide and superficially impressive but non-expert largely self-taught grasp of a wide area of science.


    I'm going to be very generous to him and suppose his two recorded bad mistakes in the area of electrical power measurement, both of which directly lead to false positives in exactly the measurements setups he has used, are just down to his lack of understanding and a character that puts his ideas first before contrary facts. By this reading he would be honest (as far as physics) but narcissistic and without the insight that would lead him ever to question his own idee fixe. That questioning, seeing an observation a bit off and worrying at it till you understand more fully what it is, is a prerequisite for a good experimental scientist. Rossi's lack of curiosity, and his inability to accept correction from others, is therefore what dooms his work in technology to disaster, even though his engagement and work rate are admirable.


    If you think the previous paragraph speculative - well then it is. But it would show a very likable person (unless you see him going mad and attacking friendly critics as snakes). Perhaps, for people like Ele, who are blinded by apparent expertise, a very impressive person. and somone whose only lies were business ones (those are on the documentary record) and the rest was just deep stupidity of the type that clever people in love with their own ideas often have.


    Ele might extrapolate from this, together with an engaging character, quick wit, and disposition to engage in deep conversations on topics you don't know much about, that Rossi was expert on any topic he claimed expertise.


    Big mistake.


    In the Lugano case you do not need to rely upon experts. You can read the Lugano report, and TC's paper. Wikipedia, High School physics, the internet and a bit of tenacity are then enough for you to work it out, as many here have done. And if you want experimental validation you could ask Paradigmnoia here, or MFMP (specifically Bob Higgins). Given MFMP have been from the start of this matter inclined to be pro-Rossi you can hardly paint them as IH stooges.


    PS - how do i do the acute accent on idee fixe? I tried inline code &eacute - it did not work...

  • If during trial, unless it related to the issues on trial, it wouldn't be admitted as evidence. So QuarkX would not be admitted as it has nothing to do with whether or not Rossi satisfied the conditions precedent to IH's obligations in the time period required. Having said that, if he demonstrated and PROVED a working device, I would bet that Rossi and IH would come to a mutually beneficial settlement agreement and the trial would be mooted. I wouldn't hold my breath.

    I think Rossi's bloviating blog entries could be admissible as evidence. It just takes one witness to say that that's what Rossi said on his blog. Then all of his blog stuff would be admissible. I'm surprised IH's lawyers haven't already angled in that direction.

  • I think Rossi's bloviating blog entries could be admissible as evidence. It just takes one witness to say that that's what Rossi said on his blog. Then all of his blog stuff would be admissible. I'm surprised IH's lawyers haven't already angled in that direction.


    My guess about IH lawyers (and what they do is not to my taste, but they are experts and probably right).


    In a Jury Trial, when you know very well you have the right of it, but there are so very very many details, and mountains of evidence, the problem is getting lost in the detail.


    So here, the more stuff you introduce that can be argued (however wrong), the more the Jury gets the idea that everything is argued and neither side is right. That is in Rossi's favour, since the plain bones of the case go so strongly against him.


    So I'd expect Annesser to try to derail every argument into trivial detail, and IH to try to stick to the plain and important facts. That means often they must just leave out arguments (especially technical ones) that they in theory win but in practice would cause the Jury's eyes to glaze over.


    If Abd has enough money to stay with his excellent Court reports the whole way, we will know whether this guess is correct within 3 or 4 weeks!

  • Spoken as a true peanut-gallery worker, who has never run a business, or created a single job or product; if so, you would know that every business deals with these hoards of bureaucrats and paperwork that police every aspect of one's business, waiting to find some technical violation of paperwork or whatever, to fine the business and justify their existence--they are, in fact impossible to avoid at one time or another. In fact, I would wager that in addition to never running a business, or ever creating a job or product, you all are probably one of these public dole bureaucrats (or similar). But, everyone knows that you are simply grasping at straws to somehow draw some moral-equivalence to all of Rossi's dubious behavior and claims--keep jousting at them ecats, quarkxxxx's and invisible heat-exchangers.

    Whoah there!


    In my many years owning business and creating jobs, I have generally found that a) many of the regulations are necessary to protect the public, the consumer, and the workers from predatory and negligent practices; and b) that the vast majority of the bureaucrats responsible for administering those regulations are helpful and constructive when you are trying to keep up with the paperwork. The LAST thing they want to do is to sit on your shoulder waiting for you to make a mistake - that would mean more work for them.