What is the professor doing with the money at this moment and what has he accomplished thus far?
Clearance Items
-
-
What is the professor doing with the money at this moment and what has he accomplished thus far?
nda
-
Nonsensical Demonstrable Avoidance?
-
Nonsensical Demonstrable Avoidance?
So Sorry. Its managed now by I.H. and you can't get at it. It still lives. IH has propagandist far more skillful than you are at their disposal...look at what they did to Rossi.
-
I did have inside information from Defkalion, which sometimes included stuff about what Rossi was doing, For example, the ,meltdown that occurred in first third party test was one using a reactor that was simulated by arc discharge,
Why is one side hotter than the other in the photo? How was the tube internally arranged?
-
Defkalion provided feedback on the theory I was developing based on nanoplasmonics. I have moved beyond the stage of just trusting the word of a developer. I use an understanding of theory associated with the underpinning science to generate an expert opinion on information that is provided.
... MOVED BEYOND THE STAGE OF TRUSTING THE WORD OF A DEVELOPER ?
AND NOW YOU are superhuman ? Or what Do You want to say ?
I use an understanding of theory associated with the underpinning science to generate an expert opinion on information that is provided.
NO. You try to use it, and You fail and all people in here are very good witnesses how often You have failed.
You are simply psychic (a statement, not offending)....
We all in here have seen, how often You INSIST to introduce pseudo-scientific particles, forces, theories, experiments to "explain, how LENR MIGHT WORK".
You must suffer from a real disease, and If so, I will not make any jokes out of it.
You should go and find a doctor, really, this seems to be a very serious problem.
associated with the underpinning science ???
Besides some links in Your posts NOTHING YOU POST HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
-
Could this be the Ecat SuperX?
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.Axil might like the spark plugs.
-
Which don't appear to be connected.
-
So Sorry. Its managed now by I.H. and you can't get at it. It still lives. IH has propagandist far more skillful than you are at their disposal...look at what they did to Rossi.
Don't you think perhaps that Rossi might have just a little bit of responsibility for behaving like a deceitful fraudster over the Doral test? There is no doubt that his behaviour strongly points to such an interpretation, because he states in Court documents that he misled both Hydrofusion and IH. Such blatant deceit needs no propaganda. rather it is the other way round, to spin Rossi's story thus far positive you need a good propagandist: of which I note Rossi has many.
-
There is no doubt that his behaviour strongly points to such an interpretation,
Maybe not inside your little head (and a few selected others perheps), but please don't generalize stuff you know absolutely nothing about.
Me myself would say there is NO DOUBT that the behaviour of IH/Darden in their dealings with Rossi were deceitful and that they tried as hard as they could to steal his IP without paying.
-
@Tony
I've read over the Meadowlands material -- well actually II've read the first 30 or so pages which is outline everything. You have characterized Darden et al(perhaps libelously ... so be careful!) as making $300 million "disappear". I don't see that in the report, and when I ask you about it you have not made any sort of concrete case for it either. But what I do see in the report is an account of Darden being a typical money man with little engineering know-how, lots and lots of self-confidence, and a willingness to use the system to push the envelope in favour of ever larger payouts. There is an overall gloss of being eco-friendly but I don't really think that attitude runs very deep. A passage from the report prepared for the New Jersey Governor sums it up well " Representative of some private entities believe they can engage in misleading hyperbole, puffery, and secrecy, and that it is up to the party on the other side of the deal to discover what is true and what is not". I don't think anything described in the report is illegal or even a fit subject for a civil suit. In fact, I think it is exactly the sort of attitude and actions widely admired as business-like in the US. It was no surprise to me when I learned that the person who stepped in to fill Darden's shoes on the Meadowlands deal was one Donald J Trump.
What does this mean for the IH-Rossi deal? I think it was just the same. I see no indication that Darden and others at IH were out to "steal" Rossi's IP. They were out to acquire the rights at a low price and then sell them at a high price. And it was the same mixture of greenwashing, overconfidence, and lack of engineering competence as at Meadowlands. I could say all the same things about Rossi though.
-
While I am not accusing Cherokee of playing the games described here, there is a scenario being played out in the UK and in the USA where no longer useful and badly contaminated land is sold on for pocket-change by the contaminators. Such sites are often the property of large corporations who abandon them after decades of extraction of minerals, or serious contamination with noxious substances.
The linked story from the UK's Guardian newspaper columnist George Monbiot describes a game where the buyers of the land play 'pass the parcel' until nobody is responsible for paying for the promised remediation. It is just one act of many plays put on by the 'theatre of environmental responsibility' , where everybody makes money and the cost of clearing up is passed back to the taxpayer. The myth that these new 'shell companies' are 'out to acquire the rights at a low price and then sell them at a high price' is often peddled, but is seldom if ever made into a reality
.
In the UK nationwide, the unfunded liabilities counted so far amount to £469m. That’s likely to be just the beginning. This is a price we pay for limited liability. Why should the people who own and run these companies be allowed to walk away with millions, while shrugging off the costs they leave behind?. It is not illegal, but it is certainly immoral.
-
Perhaps all that is true. But how is it, in any way, relevant to the Rossi story and the Rossi FACTS as opposed to Rossifiction by Rossi?
QuoteMe myself would say there is NO DOUBT that the behaviour of IH/Darden in their dealings with Rossi were deceitful and that they tried as hard as they could to steal his IP without paying.
For the love of Newton, can someone explain to me why IH would ever do that? If it worked, Rossi supposed technology would be among the most valuable in history! And you think the response to being allowed rights to that would be to pretend it didn't work so as to steal it? First, no matter how greedy, nobody would do that. What they would do instead would be to develop it and make so much money that the $89 million payment to Rossi would be loose change. Not only that, but the rights that IH would have been able to steal were limited geographically. Rossi still had what? Rights to half the world? And if the ecat worked, why did Rossi create a sham (fake, pretend) customer, a sham plant and sham data when he could just as easily have provided real proof that the ecat worked? Had he done that, prevailing in court would have been easy and he would not have had to walk out of his own law suit with nothing except legal bills and the rights to what he now says is obsolete technology! THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL ON ANY LEVEL! IT NEVER HAS.
@TTH
Quote"Rather it is the other way round, to spin Rossi's story thus far positive you need a good propagandist: of which I note Rossi has many."
Gosh no. Rossi has a FEW propagandists and their persuasive powers are dreadfully lacking. They can't even deal with the simplest logic issues and fact checking. For example IHF and Tony and Adrian. Good propagandists? I don't think so.
-
Same joke as before. Pass a huge current through some helpless piece or drop of metal and guess what: large flash and bang. And then state the power but never the energy in vs the energy out, properly and independently measured? And anyone believes that this is a revolutionary new source of energy? Absolute, complete drivel. Total nonsense. It's what BLP has been doing for a couple of years now. In ten more years, they may have some new razzle dazzle tricks but I am willing to bet they won't have a generator which makes energy from hydrino physics. So far, they have consumed more than what -- $60 million? $100 million? And going on 30 years? And still nothing useful, nothing for sale, and nothing properly and independently confirmed.
-
But I bet you never read it.
-
I read the abstract you posted. Why would I read their paper? What would I learn from that expenditure of time? If the abstract had the slightest thing new or promising, I'd be happy to read the paper. And as usual, your response is tangential and does not address the critique.
ETA: 124 pages of dense prose, complex equations, and cryptic figures. No, I didn't read it and I bet you, Alan, didn't read and/or understand it either.
-
Perhaps all that is true. But how is it, in any way, relevant to the Rossi story and the Rossi FACTS as opposed to Rossifiction by Rossi?
It has nothing to do with Rossi at all, but has everything to do with some outfits promising the same things as Cherokee. If you actually read what was written, instead of reaching for one of your limited stock of default responses, you would have realised that.
-
Mary, what you wrote is not a critique. It is simply infantile rejection, totally tangential, based not on your knowledge of science but upon your prejudices. You might be right about BLP, but reading your response would never convince anyone with a shred of curiosity that they had nothing. I notice that you missed the fact that the abstract mentions 'moles of gunpowder.' That is rather like talking about moles of cake.
-
You have characterized Darden et al(perhaps libelously ... so be careful!) as making $300 million "disappear".
Sorry, as I wrote earlier it seems it was only $212M, although they tried to print another $450M bond for themselves but it never materialized. In my mind Darden/Cherokee the behavior described in the report is extremely close to defrauding the tax payer of this money. Maybe this normal behavior among this kind of people but does that make it better?
-
Looks like the libel party invitations can be ordered after all. I'm staying away from the brakes this time.
