Hi All,
It is an absolute disgrace to still mention Rossi as a scammer and for example not the party he fought a lengthy court battle with. It was them who (knowingly or unknowingly remains to be seen) facilitated Woodford to inflate the equity stake in them and by doing so delaying the demise of his fund.
Mind you, ordinary working class people face a haircut of around 40%, while most of you still see the clowns from Raleigh as the good guys. Shame on you.
Cheers,
JB
Display MoreHi All,
It is an absolute disgrace to still mention Rossi as a scammer and for example not the party he fought a lengthy court battle with. It was them who (knowingly or unknowingly remains to be seen) facilitated Woodford to inflate the equity stake in them and by doing so delaying the demise of his fund.
Mind you, ordinary working class people face a haircut of around 40%, while most of you still see the clowns from Raleigh as the good guys. Shame on you.
Cheers,
JB
Mind you, and for the record, I have to state that I have never said or implied il dottore is a scammer, just that I realized that putting confidence in the accuracy-validity of his statements was not rewarding, and therefore I lost any interest in following his endeavors, but otherwise, I wish him well. For a while I harbored a minute hope he could still give a surprise, but that was completely quenched by the SK cat demo.
My comments about the Nigerian scam were in response of the apparent misunderstanding of Pegeto, but I never implied or stated that il dottore is a scammer, just that the SK demo, as was my opinion already stated elsewhere, was the end of the road of my interest for the e-cat, and therefore I conclude that anyone still interested on this topic has to be a special kind of person with disregard for obvious cues.
To make it further clear: During the SK demo It became clear and obvious to me that il dottore had no intention whatsoever of providing any kind of proof of whatever he claims to have, and thus anyone still believing he will ever come up with a proof of the e-cat, is as gullible as the people that fall for Nigerian Scams.
I hope this clears my position.
I hope this clears my position.
Hi Curbina,
It does. Thanks. However, my post was never specifically aimed at anyone in particular . "Whom the cap fits, let him wear it".
You are, in my opinion, one of the most reasonable on this beautiful forum.
Cheers,
JB
One could always say that 'il dottore' just follows the same business model and tactics as other free energy / low carbon start ups which all seem to promise the earth to investors for years and years and years but never actually deliver anything useful. 
There are stylistic differences between sections 1-4 of Rossi's Researchgate paper, and sections 5-6.
Sections 1-4 are written in solidly grammatical English, often using the first-person plural "we" (i.e., "In this paper we propose..."), and adopting the active voice for clarity. Sections 5 and 6 use fractured English and lack the narrative feel of unfolding logic established in the earlier sections. The active voice is abandoned too, often resulting in odd constructions (eg., "The E-cat SK has been put in a position to allow the lens of a spectrometer...").
Sections 5 and 6 suffer from far more severe problems that style, however. For instance, section 5 begins "The plausibility of these hypotheses is supported by a series of experiments ...". This is exciting because section 4 has just finished predicting that the SK should have line at 437 nm and it would be fun to see this prediction checked out. It is not to be, however, there no search for a spectral line at this position. Instead, section 6 launches a calculation of SK power based on a peak in black-body radiation that is supposedly emitted from the glowing plasma of the SK. It is claimed that this bb peak is at 357.5 nm. Rossi uses the Wien equation to first turn this wavelength into a temperature and then turns the temperature into a calculation of SK radiative power. The problem here, though, is not so much the mismatch between the 437 nm predicted line and the 357.5 nm observed bb peak as is is that Rossi does not seem to realize that a spectral emission line has nothing to do with black-body radiation. I think he is treating a discrete spectral line as a "peak" in the blackbody spectrum but this is totally, totally wrong. It is an undergraduate-level error in understanding. Not very suitable for someone who considers himself a potential Nobel-winning genius! And, more to the point, not as informed as whoever wrote the first 4 sections.
OK. So I don't buy that Rossi wrote sections 1-4. He doesn't have the writing skill and his physical knowledge isn't good enough either. But now that that point is made here is something I wonder about how he wrote up sections 5 and 6. If Rossi is faking all of his SK results, why does he claim observe (in section 6) a peak 357.5 nm instead of the theoretically meaningful 437 nm? If he wants to claim that his E-cat SK experiments are producing empirical support for some of the theories in the early sections of the paper, why not just pretend to find a peak at 437 nm? Well here, I think, is why. If you follow through with the calculations of section 6 for a bb peak of 437 nm you will find a predicted SK power of a little under 10kW. This isn't enough to heat the room that Rossi claims he is heating. Instead of 10kW you need around 20kW. This drives the need for a peak at 357 nm or so and (ta da!) that is what Rossi says he sees.
But, maddeningly, what Rossi says he sees in the SK spectrum is not what we actually see in the January 31, 2019 SK demo! Even though the data in the researchgate paper are supposed to be from the same system. During the demo Rossi showed a spectrum. And in tat spectrum one cannot find peaks at either 357.5 nm or 437 nm!. Nor is the spectrum in the demo a black body spectrum. So everything falls apart in many dimensions all at once! I suspect what has happened is that that Rossi, who appears to be battling cancer and underwent surgery in the summer of 2018, was not at the peak of his powers in January 2019 when the paper and the demo came out. It must be rough on him and I think he simply doesn't have the energy to keep all the fakery internally consistent.
Display MoreHi All,
It is an absolute disgrace to still mention Rossi as a scammer and for example not the party he fought a lengthy court battle with. It was them who (knowingly or unknowingly remains to be seen) facilitated Woodford to inflate the equity stake in them and by doing so delaying the demise of his fund.
Mind you, ordinary working class people face a haircut of around 40%, while most of you still see the clowns from Raleigh as the good guys. Shame on you.
Cheers,
JB
Wrong.
Inflating the IH equity price actually makes Woodford's problems WORSE - it increases the percentage of illiquid assets and it was a regulatory limit on that being breached that forced the fund to close.
Maybe your analysis of IH is as accurate as your analysis of Woodford funds?
Rossi a scammer? His actions might point to such a conclusion; but, not the science.
In the past, the two we're conflated, and thankfully now it is no longer the case.
Let's be thankful, that we have other people who rehabilitated the field from the incompetence of a presentation that came off as a farce.
Rossi a scammer? His actions might point to such a conclusion; but, not the science.
What science?
There are stylistic differences between sections 1-4 of Rossi's Researchgate paper, and sections 5-6.
Have you considered that all this excessive attention to Rossi paper is free advertising for Rossi ?
Wrong.
Inflating the IH equity price actually makes Woodford's problems WORSE - it increases the percentage of illiquid assets and it was a regulatory limit on that being breached that forced the fund to close.
Maybe your analysis of IH is as accurate as your analysis of Woodford funds?
Hi THHuxleynew,
This is perhaps the dumbest post from your hand. “Cobbler, stick to your last”?
Cheers,
JB
Have you considered that all this excessive attention to Rossi paper is free advertising for Rossi ?
Hi Walter Pegeto,
So what?
Have you ever considered that your continuous dumb posts will eventually lead to a big dent in self confidence?
Cheers,
JB
Yes, but this is exactly why he wrote it in such a way as to present a puzzle for physics buffs to try and solve - nothing like creating meaningless conjecture to gain further notoriety - very clever free advertising!
Quote“By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his favor.“
It works with free energy scams like Rossi's as well. Before November 2011, it was not quite clear what Rossi was doing and he claimed he would set all doubt to rest with a spectacular and transparent demonstration of a one megawatt device he weirdly called a "plant." But when the time came for that demo, Rossi showed a leaky piece of junk, clearly powered with a massive Diesel generator. Rossi did not allow his guests to have a close look during a run for "safety considerations." He then trotted out a mysterious "NATO Colonel" (probably a paid actor or criminal accomplice of Rossi's) who certified the demonstration for a mystery military customer who in 8 years has not shown up or been revealed.
After all this and much more evidence that e-cats and derivatives were at best sketchy, it required monumental negligence and incompetence to give Rossi millions of dollars. But Rossi found someone who did. Eagerly. And then the two together found an investment group to provide yet more money. That was a "Nigerian" scam if there ever was one.
QuoteTHH said:
QuoteWrong.
Inflating the IH equity price actually makes Woodford's problems WORSE - it increases the percentage of illiquid assets and it was a regulatory limit on that being breached that forced the fund to close.
Maybe your analysis of IH is as accurate as your analysis of Woodford funds?
JB said:
Hi THHuxleynew ,
This is perhaps the dumbest post from your hand. “Cobbler, stick to your last”?
JB:
You said IH nominal (it is illiquid) Share Price of IH going up helps Woodford funds
I said it makes his problems worse.
Since the holding (like his various other VC holdings) cannot simply be sold the book SP is a bit fictional but any further equity sold in IH pushes up the book price of the company and hence the existing shares.
Normally, in any fund, that would be a welcome NAV increase although a bit fictional since the gain cannot be realised.
However Woodford's problem with his Equity Income fund is that that was supposed to be low risk and was not allowed more than a small amount invested in unquoted stock. Woodford's main problem was underperformance of his quoted holdings (most of the fund) which caused loss of confidence and many people to withdraw from his fund. That resulted in a sale of quoted holdings and therefore increased the fraction of unquoted stock he held beyond that permissable.
But, of course, any revaluation of those unquoted holdings upwards would make this happen quicker. If the increase in SP was real - with easy buyers, there would still be no problem: he could sell part of the unquoted holding. But finding buyers for IH, or his other unquoted holdings, is difficult.
My comments about your analysis stands. I don't think you do it on purpose, just some combination of bad information and bad judgement.
Display MoreJB said:
Hi THHuxleynew ,
This is perhaps the dumbest post from your hand. “Cobbler, stick to your last”?
JB:
You said IH nominal (it is illiquid) Share Price of IH going up helps Woodford funds
I said it makes his problems worse.
Since the holding (like his various other VC holdings) cannot simply be sold the book SP is a bit fictional but any further equity sold in IH pushes up the book price of the company and hence the existing shares.
Normally, in any fund, that would be a welcome NAV increase although a bit fictional since the gain cannot be realised.
However Woodford's problem with his Equity Income fund is that that was supposed to be low risk and was not allowed more than a small amount invested in unquoted stock. Woodford's main problem was underperformance of his quoted holdings (most of the fund) which caused loss of confidence and many people to withdraw from his fund. That resulted in a sale of quoted holdings and therefore increased the fraction of unquoted stock he held beyond that permissable.
But, of course, any revaluation of those unquoted holdings upwards would make this happen quicker. If the increase in SP was real - with easy buyers, there would still be no problem: he could sell part of the unquoted holding. But finding buyers for IH, or his other unquoted holdings, is difficult.
My comments about your analysis stands. I don't think you do it on purpose, just some combination of bad information and bad judgement.
Hi THHuxleynew,
You better stop now, Buddy. Else people start to doubt other posts / opinions from your hand as well. It makes me smile to realise that you are so stubborn. Even when you position yourself on the slippery slope of finance. An area you are not very familiar with, it seems.
"Nominal" has nothing to do with illiquid or liquid. You think you know the subject, but the essence eludes you.
"Since the holding (like his various other VC holdings) cannot simply be sold the book SP is a bit fictional but any further equity sold in IH pushes up the book price of the company and hence the existing shares."
The above sentence is incomprehensible. But let's leave it at that. What is more important is that you are not able to distinguish head from side issues. Woodford screwed up and made too many wrong bets. That was his biggest problem. Secondly, his investment structure was sub-optimal leading to imbalances between listed and unlisted stocks once investors started redeeming.
I am not sure that Woodford did not use IH to artificially inflate NAV to dampen losses elsewhere. It would make sense for a fund manager to create such a mechanism, especially once the weak spots by the design of the fund become a threat. Investors, especially the retail investors present in the Woodford funds, are prone to sell at bad press and buy at good press. If you off-set the losses in the listed holdings with (inflated) profits in the unlisted holdings, one creates a different problem, but one that buys you time and is much easier to deal with than an avalanche of redeeming investors and the need to sell more listed holdings.
Cheers,
JB
PS: I doubt that the FSA has the expertise and / or resources to investigate the afore mentioned thesis, but i would find it interesting to investigate. Would it be possible that Thomas Darden and Neil Woodford made a shady deal? Could it be that the case with Rossi was closed because there was a chance of leakage and Woodford shut it down? Stuff for movies, dear friends. Game on!
WCG: how does attacking IH provide the slightest reason to believe anything positive about Rossi? Let’s stipulate that IH are a bunch of crooks. So what? Rossi is still a pathological liar who has done nothing but crude parlor tricks. Instead of telling us what is wrong with IH, tell us what is right with Rossi that there is any reason to believe. All you have to offer is the logical fallacy of whataboutism and it is futile.
WCG: how does attacking IH provide the slightest reason to believe anything positive about Rossi?
The WGC mindset is like a juvenile version of sports team rooting, where the thought is "this is my team and I will root for them and against all of their enemies regardless". I find this kind of thought process fairly repugnant when extrapolated away from fantasy endeavors like sports. It is particularly noxious when applied to politics and political parties, when people can't or don't bother think for themselves on any individual issue and just start parroting what they perceive as the party line.
JB says:
Woodford screwed up and made too many wrong bets. That was his biggest problem. Secondly, his investment structure was sub-optimal leading to imbalances between listed and unlisted stocks once investors started redeeming.(fluff deleted)
So you are now agreeing with me. There is no way that inflating the IH SP would help Woodford, and in fact because of the regulatory issues it actually harms him.
Glad we are now on the same page with this, my work is done!
JB says:
Woodford screwed up and made too many wrong bets. That was his biggest problem. Secondly, his investment structure was sub-optimal leading to imbalances between listed and unlisted stocks once investors started redeeming.(fluff deleted)
So you are now agreeing with me. There is no way that inflating the IH SP would help Woodford, and in fact because of the regulatory issues it actually harms him.
Glad we are now on the same page with this, my work is done!
Hi THHuxleynew,
Sure! Spin it baby..if you think we agree you are half way there.
Cheers,
JB
Mind you, and for the record, I have to state that I have never said or implied il dottore is a scammer, just that I realized that putting confidence in the accuracy-validity of his statements was not rewarding, and therefore I lost any interest in following his endeavors, but otherwise, I wish him well.
Please let's use elementary logic.
Even if only 10% of what he says was true, it would be the most revolutionary scientific discovery in the field of LENR, and would be presented as a breaking news by all mainstream media!
Compare this with a non peer-reviewed paper with zero citations!
