Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    Quote

    Anyway, how do you say none of it happened? What do you know about it?


    Well, I have a Google news alert for anything about LENR and Andrea Rossi or Industrial Heat. That keeps me informed about news releases, publications and social media.


    And I can be certain that if Rossi had a big breakthrough, he'd have sold it for millions or even billions and I don't think that's happened. I can't prove a negative, of course, but then it's not up to me to prove what Rossi has or had. The evidence I can find, not the least of which is the complete rejection of his products and projects by IH, Prometeon and others is that Rossi has nothing, had nothing, and NEVER had anything worthwhile. Anyone who has ever dealt with Rossi has either dumped him or, and this include as far as I know*only* the Swedish professors and Levi, have kept complete silence about what, if true, would be earthshaking accomplishments.

    Quote

    Mr Paradigmoia..... apparent means not real


    Actually "apparent" has two meanings in English and NEITHER is even close to "not real."


    The first meaning is "clearly visible or understood; obvious." as in "it became apparent that he was talented"

    The second and less used meaning is: "seeming real or true, but not necessarily so. " as in "his apparent lack of concern"
    • Official Post
    Quote from SSC

    You're saying a nonsense. The bio reactors were powered by waste, these wastes were selected and in this operation the small pieces of gold and silver (recovered from the electronic components found in the garbage) were stored. Initially, Petroldragon sold these precious items, then the idea of creating a company that worked and resold them as jewels was born. It is an example of Rossi's entrepreneurial ability, who has been able to create a completely new business starting from another revolutionary business.


    SSC,


    There was no oil produced:


    “The oil from ‘recycled waste’ never existed, the former Omar refinery of Lacchiarella never brewed any marketable product, and all transfers of waste from other storage facilities occurred without the required regional permits"


    That is from an Italian report, so where did the gold and silver come from? You say Rossi "recovered it from the electronic components found in the garbage"...do you have some proof of that? If so, that would be a very tedious, labor intensive, expensive process. And I do not think there is enough gold in various solid components to open a freaking jewelry store with! Plus, I do not think solid wastes like electronics were supposed to be fed into the bioreactors, as his units were called "biomass plants". Nothing "bio" at all about electronics. I think you pulled that out of your you know where. :)


    It baffles me you grow frustrated with me, when I am just pointing out what Italians say about their own Petroldragon mess. Could it be you are growing increasingly upset because you realize you have been fooled, and find it convenient to take it out on others instead of where the blame lies -Rossi? If so, there is a 4 step Rossi withdrawal plan (based on the AA plan) available for Rossi addicts. I went through it, and so did many others. First step is to admit you have a problem, and second is that the problem starts with an R and ends with an I.


    Just say the word, and help is on the way. You will wake up a new man, and start collecting those "ilkes" as a bonus.

    Randombit0: from your post


    Yes and that the guy who is making error is you. You seem the one and the only to have done this test. But you forget that others have done this test also and do not publish the results simply because:

    1) The results say clearly that Total Emissivity is the parameter to use. (so is an obvious result)

    2) People don't want to feed Trolls like you.

    BTW we have done it and the result demonstrate that Lugano was correct, Now feel free to insult us as usual for Trolls.


    I believe you are claiming to have conducted and understood scientific tests, and therefore to be competent to assess the relevant maths. Rather as you claimed a year ago when Paradigmnoia and I debated the matter with you and you could not answer our arguments.


    I welcome this. Let us revisit this matter and see whether you can justify your statements. You make claims about experiment. Who are these others who validate your (incorrect) claims? The parties in line with "band emissivity is not always the same as total emissivity and must be used to determine temperature via Optris camera" to my knowledge are:

    • Paradigmnoia (experiments, described here - P can I'm sure refer you to detailed description)
    • MFMP (experiments published at ICCF)
    • TC (theory)
    • GSVIT (theory described in an early paper)
    • Bob Higgins (theory partially described in an early paper)

    See TC's paper for references to the early papers. This site for many references to the MFMP ICCF paper and further comment on it. (Sorry I don't have a link to hand, but Jed no doubt can find it if no-one else does).


    Those in line with your "total emissivity can be used as in the Lugano Report" that I currently know are:

    • You, here (no theoretical analysis or experimental data published to support your conclusion)
    • Levi (as relayed informally by Mats) again no theoretical nor experimental analysis to support the conclusion


    I should point out that (I believe?) Alain has talked to experienced university IR thermography guys, as (for sure) have I, and in both cases they agree that band emissivity must be used for IR temperature measurement when there is a significant difference between band and total, as is the case here.


    Now, against this, please detail your evidence to support your contrary assertions? If you claim experimental evidence it will need to be properly documented to stand up against the existing detailed evidence the other way.


    I've asked you previously, because it matters, with no reply. I'll repeat here:


    Do you claim the that the surface band and total emissivity are the same in the Lugano case (of 99% Al2O3 as noted in the report, and from the AremCo IH paint?)? Or do you claim that theoretically to use band emissivity to make IR temperature measurement is erroneous, whereas to use total emissivity is correct? Logically you must assert one or the other.


    Thank you.

    The gold in electronic components is in very thin coatings and is highly adherent to the base material. I don't think there is any biological process that could separate the two. It's only marginally profitable to recover the gold chemically from e-waste, and the process uses pretty nasty chemicals.

    Here is a brief summary of Etiam's history in 2016-2017 from the below link:


    http://www.etiam.fi/news/


    March 2016 : Etiam released an in house report claiming they had achieved CF/LENR in

    the range of a few dozen watts excess energy. It doesn't seem that there is

    a 3rd party independent verification of results although I might have missed
    seeing it.


    April 2016: Etiam announces a new share issue to fund their LENR work.


    July 2016: Etiam announces the new share issue failed


    August 2017: Etiam announces they have been terminated as a company

    Quote

    AR + IH application "US20160051957A1 - Energy-Producing Reaction Devices, Systems and Related Methods" non final rejection.


    Thank God it's "non final!" The Human Race still has a chance.

    • Official Post
    Quote from lenrisnotreal

    August 2017: Etiam announces they have been terminated as a company


    Quite correct. This is Etiam's final message, which actually suggests that their work may be continued elsewhere.


    Dear LENR friends,



    It is our sorrowful duty to inform you that Etiam Ltd has been terminated as a company and all its operations have been discontinued.


    It has been a wonderful epoch for us to study and develop the machinery and reactive materials for LENR processes. On the other hand, it never fails to amaze us how difficult it is to find funding for the development of disruptive technology in Finland. Generally speaking, the funding of any R&D has taken a nosedive here during the past two years due to short-sighted budget cuts commanded by our sitting government.


    Etiam Ltd’s main intellectual property asset, specifically, the European patent EP 2783369 B1, granted on the 14th of June 2017, has been sold to the highest bidder.


    We sincerely thank you all the people and companies that have provided us with crucial support during the past several years. Sometimes the finish line is just too far to be reached in time. However, the dream will survive.


    Our research reports published during spring 2016 will remain in existence and hopefully will give some insight and ideas to people who will continue working with systems and processes related to LENR. Be resilient and hopeful. New and surprising phenomena are to be discovered in non-equilibrium physics on solid state surfaces.


    Any further inquiries related to the IP should be directed to the following e-mail address:


    [email protected]



    Sincerely,

    • Official Post
    Quote from Ahlfors

    Another null result arising from capable people


    Ahlfors,


    I read the Etiam reports LINR provided, and did not notice "another null result" from them? Their results looked good, and as you say they are capable people. They did just sell their European patent (USPTO pending) to the "highest bidder", after failing to attract enough investment to continue on as a going concern.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Ahlfors

    Date: 08-30-2017

    REEL: 043448 FRAME: 0548

    Assignment: Patents US 9,115,913 FLUID HEATER

    >>>> from "Leonardo Corporation" to "Andrea Rossi and its successors".


    That DL R200-000-50-203-0 on the notary form looks to be Rossi's driver's licence number. Must have provided that to the notary to verify his ID.


    So Rossi's one and only US patent for a "Fluid Heater" -that may in one embodiment be used with an "energy catalyzer wafer", is now transferred from Leonardo to he, and his heirs. Maybe he is setting up to dissolve Leonardo? I have suspected from his writings lately that he is laying the groundwork to slowly fade away. That became apparent shortly after the IH settlement, when he announced the LT 1MW plant now "obsolete" as his "customers wanted the QX instead". That was followed by his signaling his fans that the QX would take a long time to hit the market.


    This one patent, along with his one Italian patent may be all he has to show for his 10 years on the LENR scene. At least he will walk away with something, as the LENR field he profited from may be left in tatters for some time to come.

    Quote from Shane D.

    That DL R200-000-50-203-0 on the notary form looks to be Rossi's driver's licence number. Must have provided that to the notary to verify his ID.


    So Rossi's one and only US patent for a "Fluid Heater" -that may in one embodiment be used with an "energy catalyzer wafer", is now transferred from Leonardo to he, and his heirs. Maybe he is setting up to dissolve Leonardo? I have suspected from his writings lately that he is laying the groundwork to slowly fade away. That became apparent shortly after the IH settlement, when he announced the LT 1MW plant now "obsolete" as his "customers wanted the QX instead". That was followed by his signaling his fans that the QX would take a long time to hit the market.


    This one patent, along with his one Italian patent may be all he has to show for his 10 years on the LENR scene. At least he will walk away with something, as the LENR field he profited from may be left in tatters for some time to come.


    I'd expect Rossi wants to find funding for the quarkX but can survive on gains so far without that, and values his status as inventor extraordinaire, with a nuclear physics Journal and scientists all over the world as friends.


    None of which helps the LENR field.

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'd expect Rossi wants to find funding for the quarkX but can survive on gains so far without that, and values his status as inventor extraordinaire, with a nuclear physics Journal and scientists all over the world as friends.


    THH,


    Yes. I would suspect that if he left the LENR scene abruptly, his fan base will see he is a fake and abandon him. He needs them to protect his "legacy", or status as you call it, and the only way to keep their loyalty is a slow fade out. Pretty cheap to do, as all he needs is his JONP, and his Miami condo to carry on the farce once he shuts down Doral. Everyone thinks scam artists do not care what other people think of them, but they have egos that need feeding too. Then there are those "heirs to his patent"...he does not want them knowing he is a fraud, so important for him to keep up appearances for their sake.


    He must be pretty well positioned financially, as he bought those Miami condos at a market low. Probably rentals, and in a pinch he could always sell one if need be.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'd expect Rossi wants to find funding for the quarkX but can survive on gains so far without that, and values his status as inventor extraordinaire, with a nuclear physics Journal and scientists all over the world as friends.


    Yes, he's searching the next chicken and a new accomplice somewhere.

    We don't know Rossi's motivation. He may not know it himself. But he is behaving as if he wants to lure ever more naive investors, like the Nigerian scammers do. That's why the claims for the QuarkX are so incredibly outlandish. Nobody with a whiff of scientific know how or engineering/technical sense would believe them. The investor Rossi is now looking for ideally would have money and no sense -- maybe inherited wealth or wealth earned in an entirely different field, maybe sports or entertainment or consumer goods. Because any investor who does their homework will look through (or hire someone to look through) the trial documents and then Rossi's nonsense and lies will be exposed.


    Quote

    He must be pretty well positioned financially, as he bought those Miami condos at a market low. Probably rentals, and in a pinch he could always sell one if need be.


    Well, he started with around $11M after taxes *if* he paid taxes, which the IRS will find out because the referral has been made, if someone is telling me the truth. And then he has only what remains after his lawyers finished fleecing him. Preparation for that trial is more work than the trial itself and you can bet it wasn't cheap. Con men, traditionally, tend to be easy prey for other con men, somewhat paradoxically.

    Well, apparently, the MFMP has received pledges of over $1million if their latest international trip results in a successful test. I am not 100% certain about the details, but that is a fairly high sum from a community such as this. My prediction is that one of three things will happen: 1) the test won't happen. (See NASA and Ecat) 2) the test will happen but fail (see hydrofusion and Ecat) 3) this initial test will pass but later, stricter, more exact testing and replication attempts will find issues that were missed and nothing will come of it (see many examples). This is my opinion which I am entitled to. I have an extremely high threshold for believing something that violates the laws of physics and lacks a proven theory.


    Yes ShaneD, MY, Ahlfors, I'm putting together a collection of items to make my point. I haven't posted links yet because I want to do more than show items individually. I want to be able to post a conclusion from a body of work.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Ahlfors,


    I read the Etiam reports LINR provided, and did not notice "another null result" from them? Their results looked good, and as you say they are capable people. They did just sell their European patent (USPTO pending) to the "highest bidder", after failing to attract enough investment to continue on as a going concern.

    It did not clearly say in the report if the results were replicated or not. Until those results were replicated or tested by someone else, I would put a "question mark" next to them them.

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.