​New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)​

  • Quote

    You have never been worried about inform anyone about Cherokee and its unhealthy habit of taking money to do remediations jobs that it does not perform, the fact that it creates affiliated companies who declare bankruptcy just after receiving a Order for what they did. These things do not disturb you at all, as I see. I recommend you however to read again what Sifferkol told us, it is an educational reading....

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…d-the-tax-payer-investor/


    Actually, I did reference some publications suggesting that Cherokee Fund and Darden are far from benign. I obviously don't have time to pursue it all and don't much care. If it turns out that Cherokee Associates are crooks, that doesn't make Rossi any more honest!


    On the other hand, I called out Darden and Vaughn (and Woodford) for their gross incompetence and negligence in vetting Rossi immensely poorly. I did that in several places and venues.

  • Quote

    Zeus wrote:


    maryyugo wrote:

    I am a crude skeptopath



    zeus


    Citing deceptive supposed quotations doesn't do your case any good-- in fact nothing you do does!


    Here is the full quote, which is sarcasm that should be obvious to anyone with the comprehension of a six year old:


    Quote

    Quote Why not pay Dr Celani the courtesy of reading the paper before asking questions?


    Because I am a crude skeptopath as opposed to a refined Rossiphile such as yourself. My previous disparaging remarks about the paper were made prior to Dr. Celani's kind appearance on the forum. That changes things. If the Swedish blind mice were to respond on this forum, I would greet them politely. I would extend politeness to anyone posting who does not insult me. That does not mean I might not disparage their views but even Rossi would be greeted kindly by me if had the gonadal fortitude to post here.


    Recent updates from Francesco Celani

  • Quote

    It would be interesting to see MY trying to fake running around a 400m track for 24h... Hint - It is really really hard to make a scam out of that performance.


    I have no idea. Was that the same Andrea Rossi? The name "Andrea Rossi" in Italy is about like the name "John Smith" in English speaking countries. Can we see the whole article, Siffer? Are there other identifiers that suggest it's the same Rossi? I am happy to admit he set a record but the evidence so far is still weak. I'd be happy to write that Sports Association but I think an Italian speaker would have better luck.


    I have a Google alert out for "Andrea Rossi." I get several hits a week. Some are for sports figures, others are from local news articles, and almost all are from entirely different Andrea Rossi's than "our" Andrea Rossi. It's an extremely common name and I would certainly not put it past "our" Rossi to steal that report of a record as his own just as he once purchased a PhD diploma from Kensington University (a complete fraud and a diploma mill).


    Just in today's news, Andrea Rossi is the mayor of Montepulciano http://www.ansa.it/english/new…b1-8520-2be8aad46df9.html


    -a member of the Swiss shooting team: http://www.insidethegames.biz/…an-shooting-championships


    - prize winning journalist who won The Carlo Casalegno Prize, http://www.lastampa.it/2017/07…7BQSKLkZUfigP/pagina.html


    - in a Canadian cooking contest Andrea Rossi of Spruce Grove took third spot in Chicken. http://edmontonjournal.com/lif…s-take-winners-down-south


    - and he is also active in politics as organizer and national secretary of the Democratic Party somewhere in Italy http://www.varesenews.it/2017/…ta-alla-schiranna/638981/


    So in summary, maybe Rossi did win a sports contest back in 1970 or whenever... before accepting the assertion, one should make sure that a) the person in question really is the same Andrea Rossi making the claim AND b) the record is indeed the same as he claims to have broken. Do you mind doing that?

  • Quote

    Your reference to the full quote doesn't do you any favours either.


    Sure it does. It says that while I had and still have HUGE reservations about the significance of Dr. Celani's work, I am happy to treat him with courtesy and politeness because he is kind enough and courageous enough to participate in an open discussion of the work. Hey, I would treat Levi and the three blind Swedish mice the same polite way if they had the courage to engage us here, which clearly they don't.

  • [ I composed this last night in response to a post saying I should care about the pump results .. and other stuff. Can't find it right now. Sorry if it interrupts the current "flow" ]

    MY (me, that is, not Mary Yugo) problem is that Rossi still hovers on the threshold between proven/disproven -- which I'll call "undecided". In some of his trials the experiment clearly failed, without producing a result at all -- "invalid".

    So we have a bunch of true,false,undecided,invalid


    For example, IH couldn't find a flaw in the $11.5M 1MW "acceptance test"


    The 1MW GPT is pretty much the same architecture (with Big Frankies dominant, Fatcats not working).


    For it to be true, it needs to pass a number of tests:


    Water flow IN (Prominent) : undecided 50% (Another pump?? unknown)

    Water flow OUT (Flow meter) : hmmm. HALF true if half-full ... actually IN & OUT are not what was claimed, but consistent, so 75% true

    ... Note that Murray didn't follow up on his 'stain' evidence in his first report. We never saw his supplemental report.

    Steam Quality and Circulation : not tested : undecided (Pressure/temp inconsistent) 50%

    Electric Power IN : Penon/vs Flavio/vs Florida power ... : undecided 50%

    1MW Dissipation : false (I don't believe his mezzanine heat exchanger ... so set it LOW probability) 10%


    If you apply boolean logic the : undecided * half_true * undecided * undecided * false = FALSE

    If you factor the "probabilities" it's 0.5 * 0.75 * 0.5 * 0.5 *0.1 = 0.009 ... small but non-zero.

  • ... Note that Murray didn't follow up on his 'stain' evidence in his first report. We never saw his supplemental report.

    He did follow up as far as I know. We never saw the supplemental report, but that does not mean he did not follow up. Just because you don't see something, that does not mean it does not exist.

  • Quote

    avatar-default.svg maryyugo wrote: Sure it does. It says that while I had and still have HUGE reservations about the significance of Dr. Celani's work, I am happy to treat him with courtesy and politeness....


    To his face.


    I have been following Celani's and MFMP's works for years. I first asked politely about the OBVIOUS issue of more wires, what maybe three years ago or more. Always excuses, never answers. And Dr. Celani did not involve himself in those discussions. I grew weary of the baseless claims constantly reverberated around about how Dr. Celani's work proves LENR. I was indeed rude to him in my internet writings. He probably doesn't deserve it. But it's not and never was behind his back. He is welcome to read it on the internet simply by searching maryyugo and celani. And I certainly acknowledge writing it. Why would I be rude to Celani "to his face" when he is patiently attending to my questions? You live in a very strange world.


    Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn, actually appeared on the Moletrap Forum several times. He was abrasive and exhibited sociopathic behavior and he blatantly lied. I can guarantee you I and many others were rude to him to his face. On the other hand, I met the CEO of Sniffex. He was pleasant and cooperated with my testing of the device. Would I be rude to him? Of course not. But I was objective in writing up that the device was lethal and I also wrote him that if people died from the use of Sniffex, he would be responsible. The way I treat people depends on circumstances. It is certainly true that I suffer fools (or what I see at the time as foolish behavior) and con men poorly.

  • I have no idea. Was that the same Andrea Rossi? The name "Andrea Rossi" in Italy is about like the name "John Smith" in English speaking countries. Can we see the whole article, Siffer? Are there other identifiers that suggest it's the same Rossi? I am happy to admit he set a record but the evidence so far is still weak. I'd be happy to write that Sports Association but I think an Italian speaker would have better luck.


    Wow! Maybe he doesn't exist at all? Maybe he's just one of your usual nightmares? Maybe I'm a part of it too? Could that be it? A bit disappointing actually realizing my whole existence is made up by a genderless psychotic Internet troll... Could be worse I guess but what will happen to me when you wake up? :D

  • Most of the involved people know it. It was very hot inside Doral except the last day, where the nice Mr. Murray visited after the system (restart) run only for 1/2 hour - in Winter!!

    This was the typical attitude of IH during the process: they claimed to have overwhelming evidence but, in a deeper analysis,those were always misleading interpretations of reality. They accepted the settlement because they were perfectly aware of it .....

  • Actually, I did reference some publications suggesting that Cherokee Fund and Darden are far from benign. I obviously don't have time to pursue it all and don't much care. If it turns out that Cherokee Associates are crooks, that doesn't make Rossi any more honest!

    I'm not surprised that you do not have time to deal with Cherokee's wrongdoing, since you devote it completely to fundamental things like discovering what people of the same name of Rossi do around the world daily. But it's a pity, because Cherokee never ceases to amaze you ... you could fill your days if you wanted to be interested in the story of Darden and his affiliated companies. Meanwhile, if you want to catch a breath between an attack on Rossi and the other, you can refer to these links:

    The Playground

    The Playground

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…d-the-tax-payer-investor/

  • Hey, I would treat Levi and the three blind Swedish mice the same polite way if they had the courage to engage us here, which clearly they don't.

    Courage? Do you believe that they lack the courage to discuss with you about their work ?! I think they have better to do than devote their time to a forum. They are devoting themselves to the replication of the E-Cat and probably try to make a test that is reproducible and reliable because they know that there are so many people like you who will even analyze it in punctuation in the hope of being able to find errors. This is how they will answer you, certainly not wasting time on the internet.