Clearance Items

  • 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.


  • 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 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?

  • 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...

    Quote from Moletrap Mary

    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.

  • The Rossi believers here will tell you that the demo was not supposed to prove anything or provide any insights. The entire purpose was to impress and attract potential investors. You have to admit that a piece of apparatus that looks like it was put together in a couple of hours in a high school shop class is mighty impressive.

  • Can it be that since Rossi already said that the EcatQX produces its own electricity, this cooling is needed because the QX gives back a current to the control unit which then needs to be dissipated as heat?

    Can you nearly imagine what may happen with the controller box and the heat to be dissipated, if Rossi is about to combine (??) ca. 20.000 (!!) QXes in case he wants to realize a 1MW plant?

    I agree with Rends, that his Sigma 5 bullshit blabla doesn't make any sense at all for such a garage-made murky installation of home-depot and radio shack equipment. It is alomst impossible to understand that there are still believers in a Quark X "product" on the promised verge of a robotized mass production to flood the market...

  • A very good target this time... COP=1 is the only goal that can be really reached by the hoax of Quark-X.

    :D :D :D