Clearance Items

  • Do you know what happened as a result? I am looking for evidence that Darden et al made public money "disappear".


    I guess the state got to collect the collateral... Which was mostly future projected income from the project ... and I guess they got the land back (but they already had that.)


    Quote

    ... After what EIT representatives believed was full disclosure by EnCap, and EIT and DEP staffunderstood that EnCap had no other resources it could pledge in addition to a bank letter of credit, EIT and DEP staff agreed to accept some collateral that was not likely to materialize for many years. For instance, EnCap pledged its rights to Brownfields reimbursement that would not materialize until after successful completion of the vertical development. ... ... became aware that EnCap had failed to disclose to EIT/DEP a potentially significant source of income that could have been used as additional collateral.

  • I've been thru this with Eric already who compared with Higgins who is areal scientist and which is shown his presentation of his paper, ie. no ad-homs and not anonymous.


    And I showed conclusively why your assertion about TC's paper being conspiracy theory was both tendentious and manifestly incorrect. It is the technical details that matter. They place Bob Higgins's analysis and that of TC on the same level. You will not be able to counter that argument with one about the reputability of the source, which is ad hominem, as you demonstrably know.


    Please stop trolling this place.


    If your assertion is that TC's conclusions are defeated by illegitimate ad hom arguments, you will need to point out the specific arguments and how they undermine his conclusions.

  • Quote

    When will we be able to buy a domestic E-Cat QX?

    Interesting question. The thing Rossi showed, even assuming it worked, would be of little use due to low power, no practical means of extracting power in useful amounts and unknown efficiency (COP). What exactly would this person think they were buying were this person most probably not Rossi talking to Rossi? We need a name for that. Rossigasm?

  • Quote

    Beaten to it [lost reputation <-my insert]only by Krivit.

    Nonsense! But irrelevant if true. Any infelicities on the part of Krivit hardly excuse Lewan's terminal gullibility and the harm he and Rossi have done to legitimate LENR research. Simple logic: there is no connection.


    Anyway, Krivit exposed Rossi early on for the lying crook that he was proven to be by the sworn depositions in the Rossi vs IH vs Rossi case. IH would have saved millions in legal fees and would be in a much better position now to continue to research LENR had they bothered to read Krivit's Rossi pages and had they bothered to do a proper test as he, I and many others continually asked for.

  • And I showed conclusively why your assertion about TC's paper being conspiracy theory was both tendentious and manifestly incorrect. It is the technical details that matter. They place Bob Higgins's analysis and that of TC on the same level. You will not be able to counter that argument with one about the reputability of the source, which is ad hominem, as you demonstrably know.


    Please stop trolling this place.


    If your assertion is that TC's conclusions are defeated by illegitimate ad hom arguments, you will need to point out the specific arguments and how they undermine his conclusions.


    Well, as I said before. I do not agree with you Eric. I believe your bias is blurring your ability to make the correct judgment in this case. But that's my opinion of course. As I also said my opinion is that it is a HUGE difference that TC is anonymous and that he implies both Rossi as "handling" the fuel in ways that (and thereby nullifies those evidences) and accuses the scientists of being "not independent" of Rossi without supplying any proof of there dependence. These are serious accusations from an anonymous handle you seem to take as seriously as a real person. Also I conclude that these ad-homs seriously affects the bias of the report. We can thereby safely assume that TC would leave out any evidence of a working reactor from the report. It is a simple hit job done on limited data from a distant wannabe. Nothing more to it.

  • Also I conclude that these ad-homs seriously affects the bias of the report. We can thereby safely assume that TC would leave out any evidence of a working reactor from the report. It is a simple hit job done on limited data from a distant wannabe. Nothing more to it.


    When a paper has been pored over and debated as much as the TC paper, we can safely conclude no such thing, unless we are only now coming up to speed on the matter. Many electrons have been sacrificed here and elsewhere picking apart that paper. If it were a simple hit job, as you tendentiously contend, it would have been called out as such by people at the technical level within days or weeks of it being made available. This has in fact happened to other analyses.


    The handling of the fuel is an obvious problem with the Lugano test. It does not show that Rossi did something underhanded. It shows that one cannot conclude one way or the other whether Rossi did something underhanded. That is not ad hom. That is pointing out a basic methodological flaw.


    Your contention will find no purchase unless you can drop to the level of technical details.

  • Another absolute? I believe it is for the future to tell, don't you?


    Readers will be the judge of whether you have successfully shown that TC's paper is a simple hit job, different in kind from Bob Higgins's analysis, by arguing at the level reputation, anonymity and conclusions about experimental methodology in the section on isotope changes in the fuel.

  • Quote

    ...implies both Rossi as "handling" the fuel in ways that (and thereby nullifies those evidences) and accuses the scientists of being "not independent" of Rossi without supplying any proof of there dependence.


    Rossi handling the fuel and doing most of the testing is well documented in the depositions in the case Rossi vs IH vs Rossi. Those are sworn statements attributed to real people under their real names. Not only were the Swedish scientists dependent on Rossi, they also failed to develop their own methods for testing the high temperature ecats. In fact they used exactly the same instruments and methodology developed by Penon and described in the earliest supposedly independent test (Penon's) of those devices. That was several years ago-- in July of 2012 actually. THAT far back! Same crappy work more recently. Essentially nothing about the defective method and measurements by Penon on that date has changed up to now as far as the work done by the Swedish scientists is concerned. This is the original report: https://www.scribd.com/doc/105…ctradius&medium=affiliate Note that Penon used a method and the same instruments as Rossi so he was not independent either, if anyone was foolish enough to suggest that he is/was.


    As I wrote many times, there was a reliable way to test hot ecats instead of the flaky nonsense devised by Rossi, Levi and Penon. It was Giancarlo and his group and their high temperature mass flow calorimeter. https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…te-calorimetria-a-flusso/ (Google translate works well with this document, at least for an English translation)


    So to summarize yet again: The Swedes and Levi used the wrong method and were in no way whatever independent of Rossi in ANY of their published test protocols and results. There was a much better way to test high temperature ecats by high accuracy mass flow calorimetry instead of ridiculously error prone thermal camera measurements and they did not avail themselves of it. I will also add that the fact that Rossi built the hot cats without any sort of safety barriers, other safety systems or even forced cooling strongly suggests that he knew full well that they were harmless electrical heaters and not potentially extremely hazardous nuclear fusion reactors.

  • As far as I can tell it looks like they were happy showing potential investors the Doral plant at least halfway through the test or something, and that they had nothing bad to say about the test until after Rossi sued for payment.

    How far can you tell? Did they offer to show you the site halfway through the test? I was in contact with them and they did not seem happy to me. Who told you they were happy?

  • My reply is in the clearance thread here: Clearance Items


    Well, as I predicted, a bunch of non-sequiturs. However I didn't expect some self-contradicting copy-pasta containing several appeals to authority, before you finally admit that you don't really understand any of it.


    ...And in doing so, you even stole "Andrew Palfryman"s "joke" about playing a physicist on TV. Nice one.




    It's total bollox. You start by extracting work which cools down the sample and suddenly there's no more work to be had.


    Seeing as how we are just stealing things from Moletrap Forum today, I'm surprised you missed the eminently sensible (and IMO correct) reply from "Trim" of "Until it heats up again". Which begs the question of why you your organ-grinder keeps assuming it's a closed system?


    And then here's you parroting some anonymous person that you claim is a professor of physics:


    2LoT
    ETA I think 1 LoT as well.


    (NB: this is his whole post)


    Which is highly enlightening... No wonder you are floundering. The complete lack of any argument on his part suggests he is unprofessorially happy to appeal to his own supposed authority, before - brilliantly - you compound that fallacy by appealing to his here.




    Alan, I have no idea who "Hal" is other than the computer in the movie 2001.


    Then why are you mentioning Hal Puthof's name in your first comment? ...Another hazard of unenlightened copy-pasta, I suppose.

  • Readers will be the judge of whether you have successfully shown that TC's paper is a simple hit job, different in kind from Bob Higgins's analysis, by arguing at the level reputation, anonymity and conclusions about experimental methodology in the section on isotope changes in the fuel.


    Yes they will. At least I got the opportunity to hear myself talking, as a lawyer once told me after doing his best at a seemingly hopeless task. Hint: it did turn at well in the end... ;)

  • Nobody has denied that IH/Darden brought both Woodford and potential Chinese investors to demo the Doral facility, have they?

    Yes. Were you there? Do you know what they told Woodford? I know what they told other visitors at that time, and what they told me. It was a negative appraisal. I think it is unlikely they would have told Woodford one thing and many other people (including me) the opposite. I think Woodford would have discovered that quickly, from other people. I do not know the man and I have not heard from him, but I am sure he is in contact with many people who at that time had a low opinion of Rossi's test.


    I do not know whether Woodford has technical knowledge of calorimetry and HVAC, but if he does, five minutes after entering Rossi's warehouse, he would have seen the test was fake and the claimed results were preposterous. He was not being cooked alive, so the machine could not have been performing the way the instruments indicated. It makes no difference what IH told him -- he would have seen that for himself. Anyone reading the Penon report can see it.

  • Like I said, engaging with Zeus is distasteful so someone wake me up when graphene power generators achieve a continuous 20W indefinitely using no fuel. No fuel includes no variations in ambient temperature. If you allow variations in temperature, there are already a number of mechanisms for extracting some energy, though not much.

  • If you want to argue more about this, you may want to do it at Moletrap:


    Nah, it will be far more amusing to have you act as an internet go-between. (I believe the actual technical term is a 'dumb pipe').



    BTW, Tony, like Zeus, is getting less and less worth engaging.


    Now, where have I heard that before?....


    it is a waste of time to communicate with this person as well as with Zeus

    Zeus claims are specious and this individual is not worth addressing,

    As usual, I am going to ignore Zeus for the most part.

    Zeus, you're a waste of time to respond to.

    Zeus isn't worth the bother to address


    At some point Mary, you need to stop flapping your gormless gums, and live up to your own empty promises. Hypocrisy much?


    Of course, it's still true that what the above quotes really mean is "I'm well out of my depth, and unable to formulate any relevant counter-arguments", but, c'est la vie, I suppose.

  • I had the same reaction. We are told that there were many serious investors, none of whom were named and none of whom were recognizable, apparently, to Alan. The term I would use is shills, to make the mark believe that is a great deal of interest and he better invest soon or lose out on the opportunity. Also seen in many auctions from time to time, used to drive up the price to the mark.


    ETA: And we know that Rossi has previously used persons, whom I will refer to as stunt doubles, in the Doral affair.


    But I am sure he is not proud of it, so it is all okay.

  • What can I say: $10 million just doesn't buy what it used to.

  • What? TC is not a scientist. There is nothing that indicates he is. He is an anonymous nobody on the Internet writing something that is supposed to look technical, but the only important information in the article are the ad-hom accusations of Rossi, Levi et al. Those both reveals and are the whole purpose of it. I've been thru this with Eric already who compared with Higgins who is areal scientist and which is shown his presentation of his paper, ie. no ad-homs and not anonymous.


    That would appear to be a non-technical judgement of TC's paper? And based not on its scientific merit but your subjective views of the author? How, in any case, would you define a scientist? Personally I'd go by the quality of the work - and if you cannot judge this yourself you should not throw stones.


    There are, here, a few here who can judge TC's paper. You could, if you had high school maths and were prepared to read it. So you don't have to rely entirely on your own judgement, unless you believe all these are conspirators.


    Comparing Higgins (1st) paper with TC's paper neither has ad homs - perhaps you could point me to them? The postlude in TC's paper is not an ad hom but directly relevant information explaining why it was published - there would have been no need if the original authors has corrected or refuted TC's work. However, Higgins' paper does have one error corrected by TC (he references it, builds on its work, and as often happens in such cases improves). You could ask Higgins here whether he agrees with TC - he has certainly never said he disagrees. The later MFMP/Higgins paper is orthogonal to TC's and broadly in agreement with it. it has experimental not theoretical arguments and where both new experimental and theoretical arguments say the same thing (that Lugano was badly wrong) it is doubly convincing. And many others (GSVIT, Paradigmnoia here, etc, agree, all with well-written cases).


    BTW - invoking TC as an "anonymous nobody on the internet" is an ad hom in the context of reviewing a scientific paper where the content is relevant, not the identity of the author.


    THH

  • I named two groups of investors who were present. None is not correct.

    I assume one of this two “investors” is the license holder Hydrofusion.

    They set up the ecat.com website, but are you sure that they ever invested any money / did they ever have to pay any money to Rossi?


    I guess another “investor” might have been this one, which also is supporting OU magnetic motors, Bessler wheel type gravity gadgets etc. Am I right?

    http://vital4lifefoundation.com/?page_id=163

  • And in doing so, you even stole "Andrew Palfryman"s "joke" about playing a physicist on TV. Nice one.


    Oh no, is he really still around? So funny. I gave up reading Moletrap because of "Annndddreeew" back when I was a Rossite on ECNs. :)


    Couple of other comments on some other posts:


    Mary, I think Lewan took a sabbatical leave from NYTeknic, and was not fired. You may be confusing him with Mark Gibbs, the Forbes Magazine Science Reporter who *was* fired for his Rossi infatuation.


    Tony, TC was not anonymous. That actually was his problem, we all knew who he was. So of course, Siffer and a few of his buddies decided to use that against him with his employer. So he had no choice but to erase everything, and vanish...sort of. BTW, I get the strong impression you really are not very familiar with the story, but pretend to be so. Just having some fun stirring the pot.


    Dewey, I do not think Tony is Siffer. He may be Swedish though, although his English is perfect. Hmmm...but then so was Siffer's. :) No, can't be, because Siffer erupts at least once every day, but Tony has not even come close, and appears good natured. Good to see you back BTW. I won't ask you if IH is still involved with LENR, because you never answer my questions anyway. Take care.

  • Mary, "your" issues are really just other peoples issues that you repeat but don't fully understand, as such you are unable to judge whether they have been refuted or not...


    Moletrap Mary wrote:

    And tell me again what's wrong with this article, pls... Some wacky chap on LENR Forum suggests the above is like a heat pump somehow.


    As for "pet flumoxings" - on the off-chance you are referring to me - you need to link some examples, otherwise, it's just more of your gormless gum-flapping.