Posts by DNI

Quote from Mats002

DNI, I think this was a good summary against Rossi. However the list of demonstrations and operations in front of knowledgable people (professionals, engineers) is much longer over the years. For example how come Fabiani and West endorse E-Cat after one year with it?

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…lvio-fabiani-e-cat-photo/

Cherry picking is not enough to explain this story.

I agree I was cherry picking. I just wanted to refute the statement I heard a couple of times that Rossi must be very lucky to not have had his trick revealed if it is a fraud. In my opinion many of Rossis trick have been reveled.

I can't explain the behavior of Fabiani and Levi. I find it very hard to belive that they could have been fooled by Rossi. Regardning the rest Foccardi, Kullander, Essen, West, Penon and many more. I think they very well could have been fooled by Rossi. In some cases I even think I know how.

Of course I have no proof that the e-cat doesn't work it's just my conviction after following this since 2011. If everything was crystal clear there would be no intrest in following the story.

Quote from Shane D.

Jack,
he was in great jeopardy of being discovered a fraud, but somehow, remarkably, he avoided that.
So much luck, it makes one wonder.

In my opinion, Rossi has been revealed with incorrect measurements or shams several times already:

• Rossi began by measuring the emitted energy with steam he claimed to be dry. Which Mats Lewan showed was wrong when he connected a jar at the outlet of the first version of the fatcat (http://www.nyteknik.se/play/ny…n-testar-e-cat-i-italien- part-2-6352943 4:13 into the film).
• Rossi then switched to measure energy by a heat exchanger. But it turned out that Rossi had mounted the temperature sensor on the heat exchanger instead of on the hose. Which probably gave false readings.
• Rossi then switched to a completely new cat and let SP (Technical research Institute of Sweden) measure the input energy. It turned out that Rossi measured the energy input incorrect by a factor of three because he had not used instrument that measures RMS.
• Rossi then switched to measure the radiated energy. In the way that was done in Lugano. But after a while Tomas Clarce and MFMP revealed that they had used an incorrect emissivity value in the report from Lugano.

And every time Rossi incorect measrurmenst where reveled he changed to something completly new instead of corrceting the error and measure again.

Other exposed shams from Rossi concerns the asch samples.

• Rossi sent a sample of ash to Kulander. When it turned out that the sample could not be correct Rossi admitted that he bluffed with the sample in order to preserve its trade secret.
• Also in the Lugano test they made an analysis of the ash. And when also this analysis showed that it could not be correct Rossi admitted that the sample was not representative.

I would say if Rossi was lucky his luck is that he finds people whom belive in him in spite of being busted many times.

Quote from Walker

Hi all

In reply Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

This can all go away if IH publish the ERV's report.

Kind Regards walker

Display More

I don't think anything will go away if the ERV is published. I think the ERV will claim that the 1MW test was successfull. But I also think there will be a lot of valid criticism against it as soon as it is published. And then the discussions will continue.

Frank. As far as I know IH has never said Rossi told them nothing about building an e-cat. Just that they haven't got anything to work.

But if Rossi know that it doesn't work he would also know that IH would not be able to replicate. Remember that IH had more than one year to test the IP from Rossi before the one year test would be finished.

Did Roosi really think IH would pay 89 million even when they could not get the IP they got from him to work. That does not sound reasonable to me.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing in this story is the 1MW test. What was the purpose and who wanted the test. If Rossi has something that works fully or partially, I can not understand why it came about.

I have read three different explanations to why it happened.

(1) In order to test the reliability of the product.
But as many have pointed out, it is a very strange way to test a product composed of several units together before they have been tested completely separately.

(2) In order to convince potential customers to the 1MW power plant.
But who else than possibly the secret customer may have become convinced by the tests that were carried out? And if you have one of the biggest inventions in 100 years there must be better ways to convince customers that it works over than a one-year test at an undisclosed customer.

(3) After the agreement was released, we found out that the test was a condition for full payment to Rossi.
But who came upp with this very strange ide? According to Dewey, it was a demand from Rossi to have it this way in the agreement. I do not know if it's true. But I wonder why Rossi accepted or wanted it this way. If he really does have something that works, I think he's taking a very big risk with the one-year test. If he failed to keep the reactor running 350 out of 400 days because of reliability problems, which would not be strange with a completely new product, he is not entitled to more than 11.5 million of 100 millions. If I understand the agreement correctly Rossi is not even entitled to the commission of up to 1 billion if the one-year test fail. And IH still keeps the same license rights and do not have to pay commission. It is not reasonable to risk revenue of 89 million and commissions of up to 1 bilion on single test. Why not instead sign a contract in which Rossi get his 89 million when IH has been able to verify the product on there own. And if IH claim they can't verify the product there could be a clause stating that the license is returned to Rossi. This ought to be a much safer way for Rossi to receive full payment. And safer also for IH because they can be 100% confident that it work before they pay the greater part.

Quote from StephenC

Nice picture Walker. Certainly looks like a lot of testing going on. And apparently a presentation too judging by he cameras and chair.

It looks to me like "Wendy" and "Cindy" were there too. I wonder if they are there to test and validate or there to monitor and control?

Incidently do we know what the 4 blue boxes on the roof of this older container are for?

In the first version of the 1MW not all reactors fit inside the container. Some had to be placed on the roof. I think that is what you see on the roof on this picture.

Quote from Walker

Glad you are clear that you are just voicing an opinion, quite a refreshing change from those who claim insider knowledge which they never support with evidence.

Unlike you, I have no problems with people claiming insider infromation without being able to substantiate them with evidence. I trust that readers can make their own judgments and take the information for what it is. Evidence is obviously better but I think we have to wait long for proof.

It is doubtful if there are any more than Rossi, Levi, Fabiano and perhaps Penon who really knows whether the e-cat really works or not. IH can only know if it works. And I'm convinced that they do not know that. Because then they would have paid the 89 million. They could of course know that the 1 MW did not work as claimd but that doesn't prove that the IP is worthless.

Quote from Walker

Hi all

So your opinion, based on the following statment:

...is that Rossi does not have a working IP, based on no evidence you have seen, but in your opinion, that IH wants the IP based on what they have seen as real evidence.

No, that is not my opinion. I think Deweay tells the truth when he say that IH have not been able to get any result in there one labs. And that they have seen big problems with the 1 MW test. Hence IH think Rossi is a fraud. But they can't be sure the IP is worthless. There might be something that works. And then there is no reason for IH to give up the license they have paid 11,5 millions for.

I know there is no proof for what Dewey tells us. But I think this is the most reasonable explanation to the current situation. My conclusion is of course affected by the fact that I am since before very convinced that Rossi is a fraud.

Quote from Walker

Hi all

In reply to DNI

Are you saying Rossi's IP works?

Kind Regards Walker

Display More

I personally don't think so. But my guess is as good as anyone else's.

I think IH think Rossi don't have anything but they are not sure. And that's way they are not prepared to give up the license they paid 11.5 million for. And not prepared to pay an additional 89 millions. But this also just my guess.

But I can't see how this affects you legal conclusions above.

Quote from Walker

Either they have to accept Rossi has removed them legally from their license or they have to argue the contract is valid because the IP works.

I'm not educated in contract law but I run my own company so I'm fairly used to contracts. As far as I know Rossi can't remove IH legally from their rights in the contract by a press release. At least it's not possible in Sweden. I would be very surprised if it was possible in the U.S. If Rossi want to remove IH from their license he have to go to court to cancel the contract. As far as I know Rossi has not done this.

You state many things. I have asked you before if you have any experience or education to back up your statements. Because I'm quite sure your contentions are wrong.

Quote from Walker

If they try to claim the contract still subsists their motion to dismiss fails.

What do you base this contention on?

Quote from oystla

And I will be surprised If Steam quality measurement using a separating and throttling steam calorimeter where not used...

And I will be surprised If Steam quality measurement using a separating and throttling steam calorimeter where used...

Maybe we will find out whos right some day.

Since this is the playground I guess it's ok to link to this old song from 2011.

Quote from Walker

Hi all

In reply to Tom Paulsen

Start date is moot, that is what the clause of extension is for, only that the date from required test commencement to finish of test is within the extended period is relevant.

Kind Regards walker

Display More

You often require evidence from Dawey. Do you have any evidence that you interpretation of the agreements are the correct one? Or is this just your personal opinion? And if so do you have any relevant education or experience to back it up.

Everyone is entitled to express their opinion but you seems so certain both above and in the title of the thread that I have to ask.

Quote from quizzical

(1) As I understand it, there may have been an agreement with the customer not to allow access

(2) It doesn't matter whether or not there is a real customer if the ERV report is accurate

While not allowing IH to visit the customer site is a "red flag", as many have pointed out IH's behavior also includes many "red flags" . So, we wait for the ERV report.

(1) Well it doesn't make sense to me too have a customer that wouldn't let IH access.

(2) As I written before this is correct if the ERV report is accurate and indisputable. But even if this is the cases it still doesn't make sense to me not to give IH access.

I agree we have to wait for more info.

Quote from nobody

As far as the identity or purpose of the "customer" is concerned, all that should matter is an accurate measurement of the input water and output steam with verification of whether it was wet or dry steam.

Shouldn't matter if there was nothing in the…

I agree. But since Rossi don't have a history of accurate measurements. A real customer might have been important.

And the fact that it could be possible to prove performance without visiting the customer doesn't make it reasonable that IH wasn't allowed. They where to pay 89 million. Why on earth would Rossi not arrange this if the customer was real. It doesn't make sense to me.

Quote from frankwtu

Quote from DNI: “I think it is strange to defend a set-up where IH's is supposed to pay 89 million without being allowed to see the customer side.”

What would have been important is to ensure both Rossi and IH were never in a position to interfere…

No matter what's in the contract (wich don't mention the customer). If Rossi have good intentions in his cooperation with IH he would have arranged for IH to see the customer side. For me this is so obvious I have a hard time taking someone arguing against it seriously.

Interesting but I'm not sure your interpretation is valid since the second amendment in it self say that it has to be signed by all parties to be valid. Better wait and see what the court say.

Quote from Timar

No need to defend anyone. IH contractually agreed to those conditions. I suppose they are big boys and knew what they were doing.

To me it sound like franktwu defend the idea that IH's expert was not allowed to see the customer side. And I still think that is a strange thing to defend.

Quote from frankwtu

Eric

Why is it important to know this, surely it is important only to know the quantity, flow rate and temperature in and out? what it is used for is irrelevant, don't you think.

Best regards
Frank

Display More

In theory you might be right (although I think you have to add pressure to your list). But in practice it would be important too see the customer side to make sure there was no trickery or invalid measurements.

I think it is strange to defend a set-up where IH's is supposed to pay 89 million without being allowed to see the customer side.