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.

  • 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.


    "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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

    That's easy to answer. Since the early 90s peer reviewed papers have claimed anomalous heat in the Ni/H system. In contrast, Rossi doesn't have a single peer reviewed paper to his name and has not permitted any successful independent validation the Ecat technology.

  • I was the first in the IH network to communicate with Michael and Marianne starting back at ICCF-18.

    OK, thank you.

    There still remains the problem of who was the first phone caller who gave rise to the establishment of the IH company. At this point we could think at whoever other person along the command line, up to nearly the top.


    I've learned a lot about the early US E-Cat demonstrations and several of the Navy folks believed that they witnessed at least one credible demonstration back in the early days.

    That's also very interesting. So in the middle of 2013 (at ICCF-18) you got firsthand information on the early Ecat tests coming from "several" Navy folks operating in the field.

    You also said that all of these folks are very smart. I believe it. They are for sure first class scientists. Most of them have REAL PhD obtained in the US universities, which boast the highest world ratings. Moreover, they worked for many years in the most famous scientific and technological laboratories of the world.

    But after being present at some demonstrations of the most incredible object you can imagine, held by an Italian philosopher, with an "engineer" degree released by a US diploma mill - "a person who has an almost 40 year history of deceiving people" (your words) – the only thing they said is: "at least one [was] credible".

    You may easily understand that there is something that doesn't fit! Unless .. Unless for them, the word "credible" means "which has some chances to be believed by somebody else".


    No one was ever able to dig into the setup / experiment details […] We're still working on those forensics and may have the answer to how everyone was fooled.

    Probably, there was no need to dig very deep INTO the setup, they had just to see what was in front of them, if they really wanted it.

    Look at the following slide (sorry, I already post it in the past (1), but I need to be sure that you are in front of the right one). How long you take to realize that the probe "B" is different from the probe "C"?


    Got it? Fine.

    The "C" probe, the one cited in the Levi report, was (should have been) the most important instrument in the most important public demo of the CF/LENR history, but it wasn't there! At its place there was the very different probe "B". Many videos and pictures show this probe. It was just in the middle of the lab, on top of the Ecat. With its long stem and the bright yellow cable, it was one of the most visible object in that room. Do you think that Rothwell and Melich were not aware, since the beginning, of this glaring inconsistency in the experimental setup?

    It happened in January 2011! Well before the IH engagement in this affair.


  • @Dewey,

    I misread what you said then, I apologize for that. I am a person that believes what a person tells me about themselves, until I have reason to believe otherwise. Hence I don't give a f*&^k who they are in real life.

    You have been throwing everything at everyone, even those that are sympathetic to your cause. You may view me as a threat. I am not. Just that I maybe ugly honest. Anyway I made a promise and will keep it.

    To restate my purpose here at LENR-F is to learn. I have a very time consuming habit of drilling down on ideas and the history and evolution of them. Rossi is not worth the time or your dime.


  • @Ascoli65,

    To you this maybe obvious but to me it, is one of the most well thought out and documented questions, I have seen. I may be joking but I am in <3. I will hazard to guess that this is new information and will need to be validated.

    So if so this will take some time, do not expect an answer.

    But outstanding job sir. If this has been brought up before I missed it. Any by your references it was there all along, it is a very good question but your premise may not be true, It maybe based on unknown information at this point.

  • Well, so far the responses to my question have not been very illuminating. Of course wanting the e-cat to be real is a powerful inducement to thinking it is real. And of course already being convinced that Ni/H anomalous heat is a real phenomenon helps. However, if one looks at an analogous situation for superconductivity, one can see the fallacy in that way of thinking. Superconductivity is a well-established phenomenon with over 100 years of rock-solid experimental (and practical) verification. Nevertheless, back in the late 80's and early 90's, there were plenty of badly-mistaken as well as totally fraudulent reports of breakthroughs in it around the world. Once those were discredited, nobody took them seriously any more. However, I get the impression that no matter how discredited Rossi may become, plenty of people will still hold on to the belief that he really has something. I was hoping that somebody who still thinks the e-cat is real could explain why they think so - assuming they have a rational basis for their belief.

  • If this has been brought up before I missed it. Any by your references it was there all along, it is a very good question but your premise may not be true, It maybe based on unknown information at this point.

    You can take advantage of the exchange I had last summer with Abd-Ul Rahman Lomax, starting from the link (1) in my comment above, and concluded on August 4 with the following comment of mine, which remained unanswered.…D/?postID=31022#post31022

  • interested observer ,

    Okay I will respond. Ack if you get this and welcome. The Rossi saga background can be found on Kivrits website. Google it. Here a user we call T.C. a while ago who did a review which is available on the website. Look for Thomas Clarke. Then read it very carefully. Then you will get up to speed.

    I am personally open minded but skeptical of NiH based CF, not that it does not seem possible or that it works but that if it does it does not provide a useful way to get any out of band CF. In a word why COE. But this is my opinion only and I have been wrong before so please get a grain of salt.

    To address does CF exist? Yes it does, you need to learn about it so that you get the "bug" goto the database above then wikipedia each and every one of these topics.

    sonofusion, muon catalyzed fusion, pyroelectric fusion. This is mainstream so you can google it to death and then choose to believe for yourself. As was once said "Make up your own GD mind". I have and will debate it.

    Does this give you a beginning? We are debating Rossi and his methods in this thread, not if CF works. Just that he has borked data. Both sides are slowing coming to the same conclusion. This thread is just about the case and what has been presented.

    Hope this helps.