Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Dewey,

    I see what you are saying. If you are indeed right about everything, letting the test continue to record more and more of his wrong doings would have been a very intelligent strategy. Actually, that makes a LOT of sense trying to think from YOUR perspective. Wow. Very interesting! Yep, that explains a lot to me. In that scenario where it was obviously a scam from the start of the test, all of you must have had a ton of patience to let the faux test play out. I'm not that patient once I feel for absolutely certain beyond any doubt someone has seriously betrayed me in such a serious manner -- or even more so people I care about. But in the situation I'm thinking about (which you really helped clarify) patience would have been critical.

    Thank you very much for clearing that up. I think I may understand your perspective better.

  • Hey Dewey,

    The whole situation is a combination of tragic, tiresome, frustrating, and, I guess, hilarious along with many other adjectives. Hilarious that sometimes you have to laugh about things rather than cry. It is enough to boggle the brain and drain the soul. If he ever had a real technology or not (we all have our different opinions), the fact after all this time we're having conversations like this is really sad and depressing. Rossi claimed to have the Holy Grail from the start. This has all taken too long. Honestly, laugh at me if you want, but if your perspective is correct you had the patience to maximize the collection of evidence when many would not have been able to last. So if the worst case happens and you turn out to be completely right, thanks for having more endurance than I could have ever had.

  • Eric, I agree with your posts more than I disagree. In a perfect world I agree with your statement 100%. But again lets be realistic. Our world, and humanity as a whole, is anything but perfect, and especially when this much money is at stake these high ideals almost always go out the window. People will scratch, bite, lie and brawl to protect what they believe is theirs by right of creation. Others will do the same out of greed. Again AR owes us nothing.

    AR may not owe us anything per se, but he may be found to owe IH something. He could eventually be found to owe a debt to society if criminal charges are brought against him. So far, his menace has been on a smaller scale compared to what was done in Italy, but not insignificant. A lot of people have been harmed.

  • No, I'm not looking for a specific name to propose. For my experience, giving a specific name to an initiative like this could be misleading. Because you start mixing up the characteristics of both. I prefer a generic name such as bluff, and defining better the role and awareness of people and organizations involved.

    When you start suggesting that this bluff may be coordinated by people with military ties a PsyOp is one of the first things that would probably come to mind for many people.

    Anyway, funnily enough I do suspect too that there are several "poker players" in the LENR field. As for their motive, however, I'm not sure. Are they trying to divert attention from something else? Or perhaps hoping that by making skilled people focus on the subject someone will eventually come out with a truly working LENR reactor? Or are they just playing a confidence game for their own personal benefit?

    What's your take?

  • Dewey,

    I understand. I'm burnt out from years of following this saga with all the twists, turns, oddities, occasional bursts of excitement, let downs, and mysteries. The best thing for my emotional health and well being would be to leave this forum and not come back for a few months. If I have ever personally offended you are behaved in a way you consider inappropriate, I apologize. And I humbly accept you apology, although I'm not offended. I realize how emotional I must seem to you and others.

  • Mr. SS,

    I recommend that you reconsider. You and I had a decent discussions here. It is a shame to lose someone in anger. Besides you pointed out a bug in the software. My new username will be

    supercalifragilisticexpialidocious-muhahahahaha and with that I will place my stamp.

    But really take a day off and come back. If being simply challenged bothers you, come back with a different more readable username.

  • @Dewey,

    You challenged me and I responded with 6 options and oldguy gave 2 more. You should consider if you ask someone to do something it gets a response. Give up a number please.

  • No Dewey, I am still out there, I was meaning to become real but I found myself with a search though. Even though I am not on google or other engines if you know where to look. I have made a mistake. I have or had a clearance. I may be going back to work for a while, but I have my reasons.

    So that will have to do for now.

    You asked for options and several gave them and as always honestly. If you can not answer just say so. You were the one that asked for options.

  • Still seeing planet rossi behind every shrubbery are you Dewey?

    Well if it keeps you going fair enough.


    "if they had told Rossi early on that they would not pay for the results the way the test was being conducted."

    It would have saved a lot if Rossi had just stated that the work in FL was to be the GPT and everyone signed off on that idea instead of hiding the issue for so long by cloaking it in some supply to customer issue. There was no reason that a customer needed to come into the GPT testing.

    Edited once, last by oldguy ().

  • Do we know how many sets of measuring instruments there were.

    (Note this post is not about if the measurements are correct or not just about the devices themselves)

    I thought I read somewhere there were 3 sets at least.

    1 set for LC

    1 set for The ERV (Penon)

    1 set for IH

    If this is correct is the data attributed to Fabiani on the recent diagrams from the LC instruments or from the IH ones?

    I was under the understanding that the data from all 3 sets of measurement equipment agreed. Is this correct?

    Do we have access to the data from the third set of instruments.

    Or were the 3 sets of data from the same instruments but just measured independently?

    Was one or more of these sets instruments used in the control loop or were independent instruments used for this?

    I could see the value of having either an ultrasonic or vortex flow meter to measure the steam flow in the steam pipe if the steam was dense enough do we know if such a device was used or not?

    Just some factual questions about what was present. If anyone knows. I'd prefer to avoid stirring up arguments about validity of the devices or not etc.

    Edited 2 times, last by StephenC ().

  • As an interested observer, I have a question for most of the folks here. As far as I can tell, every single demonstration of e-cat technology has been discredited by whatever efforts at real analysis have taken place. Even long-time supporters now discount pretty much anything Rossi has ever claimed. Despite that fact, it appears that most people here - regardless of their opinion of Rossi - believe that at least some version of the e-cat actually does produce excess energy. Can anyone explain why they think so?

  • interested observer ,

    It is a mix of hope and denial.

    Hope that a clean energy technology can make the world better in many ways.

    Denial that they may have wasted years of their lives following baloney, making complicated hypotheses based on baloney, telling their friends and business partners about baloney, and in some cases wasting thousands of dollars testing baloney.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.