Posts by DNI

Quote from [email protected]

If it is a claim, in writing and in public by him, then his lawyers would be allowed to ask him about it. From what I have gathered about his lawyers so far, they probably would neglect to ask such a thing.

It's not in writing as far as I know. It's just something Rossi told Mats Lewan.

Quote from [email protected]

If Rossi's stuff doesn't work then how did he dupe so many highly trained scientists and a seasoned venture capitalist? Why does that venture capitalist want to retain Rossi's IP even after Rossi has offered to refund him? Some of this stuff simply doesn't add up.

My point is that it's pointless to base an opinion on an alleged offer to refund. Since we only have Rossis word that the offer was made.

Quote from SSC

It does not seem to me that objections have been raised to the first three reports he has provided. I would say that at least three have been accepted.

How do you know IH didn't object to the first reports? I think it is incorrect to claim that IH have accepted the Penon report. That fact that IH didn't complain in public doesn't automatically mean they accepted.

Quote from [email protected]

Howard:

Both Rossi and IH set things up so that an independent 3rd party would test his device and write that ERV report. IH accepted the report. How is that going to play in court?

What is your source to the statement that IH accepted the report. I have not seen any such acceptance from IH.

Quote from [email protected]

I read it last year on EcatWorld

This is just Rossie say.

Rossie claimed this in a interview with Mats Lewan. But it has never been confirmed from any other source. It has been denied by Dewey Weaver.

Quote from Alan Smith

I find a 9X measurement error by IH hard to comprehend, at the kind of power levels I presume (from the typical dogbine protocols) they were using. Mistaking 1W for 9W is easy to do, mistaking 100W for 900W is just about feasible, but mistaking (say) 500W for 4.5kW seems impossible assuming sober experimenters with even limited experience. I can only assume that 9X is a typo.

I agree. I gues 3 times could come from error in measuring input energy and 3 times from error in measuring output. But I still find it very strange if IH would have measured this much wrong.

I'm convinced Rossi is a fraud but this is one of the things I find very hard to explain. Another strange thing is that the professors in Uppsala still seems to belive in Rossi. Or at least in his technology.

Quote from Rends

Even if there are sufficient indications inside the tons of court papers that the Ecat may not work, there is at the same time the same amount of evidence that it is highly efficient and functioning future technology. In the jury will sit most probably no studied physicist and why should they not not believe in Rossi et.al , if the for the Nobel Price responsible Sweds, the U.S. Navy and even the NASA have Rossi's ECAT on the top of the list (even if the first 'fact' is more or less a legend)?. The lawyers on both side have only a few days (hours) to create an image and my opinion is and was (even if this mistakenly assigned me to camp allegiance) that Rossi's picture and overall impression is simply more convincing and above all more sympathetic if you do not have all the facts and no time to get more details.

The Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. http://www.kva.se/en/priser/nobelprisen.

But none of the authors of the Lugano report are members of this academy and hence they are not in any way responsible for the Nobel prizes. That's just something Rossi made up. However Sven Kullander was a member of Royal Swedish Academy of Science. But he is no longer alive and was not an author of the report.

Quote from Argon

Maybe we could stop this endless speculation if some one would pay a visit to High Service Glass -office and zip cup of coffee there. Shouldn't take long to find someone who has been doing some window work in Rossis factory. I'm pretty sure that window job is not under NDA.

Anyone living close by?
https://www.google.fi/maps/pla…d25.8912175!4d-80.3252291

What can they say that would change anything. Even if they say that they removed the panes the day before Wongs visit. Do you really think it would change anything to the people still believing in Rossi. I very much doubt it would change anything. They will just say that the glases can have been removed and replaced before.

Quote from ele

Another day another troll. No my dear 1 MW can't cook a warehouse. 1MW is the thermal power that a surface of approx 1000 square meters (50 x 20) receives from the sun. Quite normal for any warehouse.

So no cooking.

Hi ele,

I see that you are using the phrase "No my dear" in a patronizing way. The only other person that I have seen doing this in the forum is Randombit. Is he a idol of yours?

Quote from IH Fanboy

There you go again.

Yes they have. It was IH's exhibit, submitted in proceedings, which in no uncertain terms states that the piping was DN40.

Not so. You might want it to be so, but that doesn't make it so.

Yes, it is clear. Grammar doesn't lie.

But it sure was trumpeted here by Jed and others as proof certain that Rossi is a fraud. Once I demonstrated that the DN40 claim is very likely false, all of the sudden Exhibit 5 is inconsequential and shouldn't be given much weight.

Because he sensed something was amiss with IH and decided to remain silent toward the end. Had I been in his position, I would have probably done the same and let the testimony be given later at the appropriate time.

I transformed nothing. That is what IH claimed!

Only if it turns out that it wasn't DN40. I've left open the possibility that IH may be vindicated.

They did say it! Do you think Darden himself must state it and sign it for it to come from IH? And if IH mis-states something, it is merely a mistake. But no such treatment is afforded Rossi from you.

No, I suppose I know the reason.

Display More

Exhibit 5 is questions from IH to Rossi/Penon. As far as we know those questions have not been answered. I think that speaks for itself. IH can not be obliged to pay 89 million without getting answers. This is the purpose of exhibit 5.

But you are trying to make this into something it's not. To your defence you where not the first doing this.

When IH claime something for a fact it will look different.

Quote from Shane D.

DNI,

Where are the pictures? Gary Wright, after Rossi "outed" Fioravanti, posted on his "ShutDownRossi" site a "wanted poster" (from the old US wild west days of "wanted dead or alive") with the only known picture of "the Nato Colonel Domenico Fioravanti" I have ever seen.

He's in a picture with Rossi in the article I linked to above.

And here is another one that has been on PESN.com

Quote from Shane D.

Para,

It only sounds woven together because I was a bit long winded. Should of had my coffee first. Pretty simple actually. There was a colonel who accepted the 1MW for the military on 28 Oct 2011, and then there was a Colonel that directed the first successful Hotcat test 8 months later. Penon was definitely the Colonel who signed off on the first Hotcat, so likely he was the same one who played the Nato Colonel who took possession of the 1MW.

Note to newbies: The 1MW accepted by the Nato Colonel after the acceptance test, never went anywhere. Stayed in Rossi's Bologna garage until IH bought it. Put simply, Rossi lied, and lied big.

Is Penon also Cures?...well Alan is certain he is not. If so...well, you can't weave them all!

Display More

Shane, there are pictures of the Nato Colonel Domenico Fioravanti. I assume IH personel must have met Penon. I think they would have recognised him if it was the same person. And I think it would be an unnecessary risk for Rossi to use the same person for two different roles.

http://www.focus.it/scienza/sc…o-cliente-di-andrea-rossi

Quote from Rionrlty

I certainly wouldn't consider them unbiased.

Has anyone claimed that Dewey is unbiased? Being biased is definitely not the same as being a troll.

Quote from Rionrlty

Knowing now about this business relationship between IH and Deep River I'm sure he does have special information, but how he uses it is still up for conjecture. If he is being paid by IH and his income stream depends on representing them only then why would he be honest with any of us on here. I am strongly suspicious that he is being directed by IH on how to respond to comments posted here, in which case he is not just a 'trollbot', but a "super trollbot" because he has so much more at stake than just a paid FUD poster

Of course he's a part in the case. That has not been a secret since he stoped writing under the name NcHawk. Dewey has never denied being a part in the case. But that doesn't make him a troll. If Rossi, Pennon or Fabiani came here and write about theire side of the story. Under theire real name, would you consider them as trolls as well?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Do they if they didn't pay for it yet?

If there has been a successful GPT according to the agreement. Then IH has broken the agreement by not paying. And then I don't think they can keep the license unless they pay 89 millions.

If the GPT was a failure or in any way not in compliance with the agreement then IH owns the license after paying 11.5 millions. The agreement is very clear that the cost for the license is 100.5 millions but if the GPT fail the cost for the license is reduced to 11.5 millions.

And since IH and Rossi/Leonardo don't agree about if the GPT was a failure or not this will be settled in court. But until their is a judgment in court IH still owns the license.

Quote from SSC

I don't think so. If you think for a moment that IH never wanted to pay for the test in Doral, you can easily realize why they began asking so many questions about the ERV data just approaching the end of the test. They created a justification to be used in the lawsuit to come, since it was now clear to both parties that there would be a complaint. Maybe this is not your point of view, but I think that it was Rossi's point of view. So why answering the questions if you think that those questions are just a way to create an alibi for not having to pay

Not answering the question is what created the alibi for not having to pay.

If Rossi had good and valid answers to the questions I think he made a big mistake not answering.

Quote from JedRothwell

You can see that the plastic reservoir has to have a gravity return.

Since you keep repeating this argument I think it would be nice to know how you know that the plastic reservoir was just in Doral.

Is this something you assume since it was used in pictures from Italy. Or do you have this information from a source you don'the want to disclose?

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, I am sure.

May I ask how you know? Do you have insider information on this issue?

Quote from Alan Smith

Not illegal at all. Tax evasion is illegal - but that is not the same thing. An example. Starbucks Luxembourg office ( a low tax jurisdiction) invoices other Starbucks in the EU for millions - the invoices are for'royalties' on the Starbucks concept. It is an entirely artificial construct, but apparently not illegal.

But then it's not fake invoices.. It's legit invoices for royalties.

I'm 100% sure it's illegal to make fake invoices, at least in Sweden.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@DNI

Dewey is calling them "fake." It doesn't mean they necessarily were. I mean, if you own both companies, you send invoices between them. Not fake ones. And not sure how one evades taxes by simply sending invoices between business entities. Double entries are (or at least should be) kept in both ledgers. Again, more allegations, but NO evidence.

If you have a profit in one of the companies and a loss in the other you could end up paying less tax in a total if you were allowed to send "fake" invoices from one company to another.

Quote from IH Fanboy

If you happen to own two companies, there is nothing criminal or wrong with sending an invoice from one to the other. If he was trying to disrupt the energy market with a waste-to-oil solution (which, by the way, is common-place today), and wanted to have a part in the narrative with a publishing company, then all the power to him. It is clever and crafty? Yes. Is it criminal? Not that I'm aware of.

Sending a fake invoice is illegal even if you own both the sending and receiving company. Otherwise this could be used to evade tax in on of the companies. At least it's illegal in Sweden and I would be very surprised if it isn't the same in USA.