Timar Member
  • Member since Dec 2nd 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Timar

    Timar, over on ECW asked if it was perhaps related to the number of cycles of operation. In which case if Q-X had a base frequency of say 1Hz then 3.5M cycles would take 40 days, not very good from an end-user point of view. :(

    No, that wasn't me. I just noted that Rossi made it quite clear that it refers to reliability, not effect size and that it would of course require a timeframe to make any sense.

    Trust, being predictable and being able to predict what will partner do is key to business. (Same for driving)

    <a href="https://www.schneier.com/books/liars_and_outliers/" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">schneier.com/books/liars_and_outliers/</a>

    Quote from Bruce Schneier: “
    <b>Liars and Outliers</b>
    <i>Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive</i>
    <i>A book</i>…

    Alain, I may have limited experience in business, but let my share a general experience I made in life: More often than not, things don't go according to the books...

    Yes, MY, to be a good impersonator, one must know these oddities well. I have no idea if…

    Note that these post came up shortly after I sent my comment to Rossi. You know that I'm still very open minded about Rossi and as suspicious about IH's motives as you are, but it seems hard to deny now that Rossi is indeed the likely author of all these fake handle posts.

    Does that tell us that he is a genius fraudster? Certainly not! If anthing, it tells us that he is a very poor fraudster, lacking the cunningness to produce even remotely convincing fake posts on his JNOP. Yet most people here seem to assume that this is the same person who defrauded not only defrauded a group of shrewd investors also dozens of proficient scientists and journalists. Think about that discrepancy for a moment.

    I have to say that I'm rather annoyed with Rossi's constant soliloquizing on his blog, so today I wrote a post to him explaining why it has become very obvious by now to any half-intelligent reader of his blog with good English skills that he writes all those questions himself (e.g. his use peculiar, non-standard phrases, the equally non-standard habit of inserting spaces before paranthesis, exclamation and question marks and so on), trying to convey everything as diplomatically as possible and also mentioning the split personality Jed/Mark post as the final proof of my assertions.

    Well, of course he "spammed" my comment, but soon after writing to him these posts appeared:

    Well, you can say what you want, he does stick to his guns...

    a lawyer suggested I document and study Rossi v. Darden. And we communicate about it. So ... I don't want to disappoint him!

    I can't help but wonder whether that laywer who suggested to you to study the case and whom you don't want to disappoint may in some way be affiliated to IH/APCO/Jones Day, and whether it has been part of his "suggestion" to use your writing skills to flood forums such as this with walls of truthy lay-legalese...

    TC gave broad tolerances for the reasons he stated (one of which was transparency) so he was certainly not wrong on this matter.

    Are we pretending to the majestic plural or are we suffering from a split personality? Either way, why should the authors of a peer-reviewed paper respond to criticism by 1) someone(?) who obviously lost their marbles, and more importantly, 2) stated before reading even a single paragraph of the not-yet-published paper?

    I have to say that thanks to Frank's reasonable moderation the Rossi/IH-related discussion on E-Cat World is on a much higher level and much more interesting to follow lately than this forum, in which any factual discussion has been (almost) successfully drowned in the humungous amounts of FUD produced by the likes of Lomax, Huxley/Clarke, Yugo, Rothwell et al. This is probably why Mats and most people providing substantial contributions (Engineer48, LENR G et al) don't bother to post it or or even follow the discussion here.

    Anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics should know that any COP >> 1 produced by thermal feedback-controlled nuclear reaction can pontentially be engineered into a COP that approaches infinity. From an engineering standpoint, the QuarkX is a radical but highly plausible advancement: the very purpose of the miniaturization was to decrease the thermal inertia of the reactor as much as possible, thus enabling much more precise control with greatly reduced response time, which allowed Rossi to raise the COP by two orders of magnitude. The light is nothing new, it has always been characteristic of the reaction, but only the QuarkX with its sapphire tube lets the light shine through.

    If you think about it with an open mind, the developmental process of the E-Cat actually makes a lot of sense.

    This is the full text of the order:


    ORDER Setting Trial and Pretrial Schedule, Requiring Mediation, and Referring Certain Matters to Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan: Jury Trial set for period of 6/26/2017 in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Calendar Call set for 6/20/2017 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Motions to amend pleadings or join parties due by 8/11/2016. All discovery due by 2/27/2017. Proposed order scheduling mediation due by 7/21/2016. Mediation Deadline 3/13/2017. In Limine Motions due by 4/18/2017. All pretrial motions due by 3/21/2017. Pretrial Stipulation due by 4/18/2017. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 6/30/2016. (ps1)

    So much for those claiming that IH's motion to dismiss didn't fail. It failed on the very day Mrs. Altonage signed this order.

    (As far as I recall, Abd produced volumes of text explaining why IH's motion was bound to succeed. I'm still impressed by his brilliant prognosis.)

    I also want to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt condolescence to the remaining members of "Team IH" for the loss of their great cheer-leader Dewey Weaver. His last activity on this forum dates from 6/30/2016, which I am sure is a matter of pure coincidence (after writing an avarage of 13 post per day since joining this forum two months ago).

    But do not despair, Jed, Abd, Renzz & co: Your saviour Dewey may be resurrected when IH thinks they could use some more cheerleading during the trial. I am sure you will do your best to spread the Gospel in the meantime :)

    Dewey, I am honoured & humbled to be so prominently featured in your fiction writing despite not being a very active poster in this forum. My few short comments surely must have made a lasting impression on you. It is well known from psychology that fiction writing is, as well as other creative arts, an excellent way of self-administered trauma therapy, so I encourage you to continue. I'm looking forward to read your forthcoming fabulations on both the Timar/Mowgli and the Rossi/IH story. :thumbup:

    Ascioi65 - I spoke with another of the US Navy researchers who were involved with the Rossi investigation years back. They reached the same conclusion as IH. Rossi's mysterious sale to the US military did not go to Navy and his test / demos did not work…

    It's great to hear that IH/DRV is now finally beginning to engage in some due dilligence, three years after signing the $100.5 million contract with Rossi and almost one year after collecting $50 million from Woodford and presumabley even more from Chinese investors with Rossi's IP and 1MW plant as the main asset and incentive. I'm affraid I have to say that if I had some spare millions lying around, I would make sure to invest them somewhere where I could be certain that nobody involved with IH/DRV/Cherokee could ever possibly be in any position to decide what do with even a single dollar of my money...

    Don't be too hard on Mary, Alan. She clearly has a penchant for conspiracy theories but is affraid of coming out on chemtrails, moon landing, Elvis and so on. We should not begrudge her having found a socially acceptable way to live out her preferences (Well, at least it seems socially acceptable for now).

    I wonder whether anyone still reads all these lengthy and fact-free legal musings by Abd? I really tried to take them into account but the sheer volume (now commenting every single sentence with a page worth of text) of his ramblings that could be condensed down to less than 1/10th of their length without loosing any significance is off-putting to the extreme - at least for anyone who has a life besides participating in this and other forums. Even the forum software seems to agree with that. I think forum posts have a maximum length for a good reason. Circumventing that limitation by writing several wordy posts in a row doesn't help anyone's case.

    "Everything that can be said can be said cleary." - Ludwig Wittgenstein.

    And briefly, to the point, I dare to add.