Posts by DNI

Quote from Tom Paulsen

Quote from Argon: “Is there link to full 'Proposed Second Amendment' document (Exhibit D in complaint), which IH refers in their response”

License Agreement:
<a href="https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">animpossibleinvention.files.wo…sdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf</a>

First Amendment:
<a href="https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-3.pdf" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a>…

It seems to me that the second amendment isn't signed by Leonardo either.

Quote

...but I can tell you that I DO know.

Now you sounds a bit like Mats Lewan

Well in this case I don't trust you and I don't trust Mats Lewan until further evidence is presented.

Stephen. I like much of what you write. And I have followed this story for many years. But speculations about who might be Rossi is in my opinion just stupid. Just as stupid as Sifferkolls speculations about who might be paid by IH.

Quote from stephenrenzz

How do I seem obsessed Monty? It is now known that randombit0 is actually Rossi. How would calling out a person using a fake name be "seeing rossis everywhere"? Finding one fake Rossi account is seeing them everywhere? I am not sure if you are confused or if you have a communication barrier... odd.

How do you know it's Rossi? The evidence for this I have seen so far is on the same level as Sifferkolls wild speculations.

Quote from Rigel

DNI this is not directed to you okay?

---------------------------

On the sanity issue I will not comment but I have to ask a question on both sides.

What does all the personal attacks bring to the table? How does either side of the 'advocates either for or against' think this type of discussion accomplish?
I really want to know. I have been honest when I have been asked a question. I would respect an honest answer.

I think for us poor folks that follow the saga would like to know. How or why, does any of this help decide what happens in the courtroom?
I may be being naive, but it's a real question. So anyone here that can help I would appreciate it.
Anybody? Help me understand.
I have beat the being polite horse into the ground. So I am trying to understand. I will not bring it up again. (I kinda hope)
TIA

Display More

I tried to show the failed logic in Sifferkolls statement: "If not, I take as another direct confirmation of my hypothesis."

I tried to do this by making an example that i think shows how absurd it would be to take the failure of Weaver to produce an official statement from IH as confirmation for sifferkolls hypothesis.

I tried to do it in I humorous way but maybe I crossed a line and failed. To my defence Sifferkoll and I have discussed for many years in another forum and I actually thought he could see the fun in my comment. But if not I apologise to Sifferkoll. I don't think he is insane.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Mats reported Levi's reply to him when Mats put the thermography issues to Levi. This was (I think) on Mats comments to his second long IH vs Rossi thread but it now seems to have been deleted (Mats has closed his blog comments after they developed into a damning reprise of teh scientific flaws in all of the Rossi tests).

Maybe somone else can find it? Or you could ask Mats. He will do what he can to promote Rossi's case, given he is certain this is true and believes the harm from Rossi not being believed would be immeasurable, but I don't think he will directly lie.

https://animpossibleinvention.…uth-on-rossi-ih-affair-2/
Search for "I have now been in contact with Levi"

Quote from sifferkoll

No need to crawl about whining Dewey. You could easily prove me wrong by showing me an official statement where IH/Darden states he still believs in and have seen "more than hope" of fully working LENR (could be Brillouin or Miley or anything) and totally stands behind and have full confidence in IH's other investments. That should be easy! Or?

If not, I take as another direct confirmation of my hypothesis.

Can you please show me a medical certificate stating that you are sane. That should be easy! Or?

If not, I will take it as another direct confirmation of my hypothesis that you are insane.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The hose normally goes into a drain/bucket, and water falls out. When it is held up the water can collect in the hose. I may be missing something, don't remember the details, but that is my hazy recollection...

Your memory seems fine Thomas. At 11:05 in the video below you can see how Rossi rises the hose which will empty any water inside it before taking it out of the wall.

Then the hose is removed from the wall for half a minute. During that time about 6 cl of Water is pump in to the e-cat. It would fit inside the hose with no problem.

Quote from barty

We know by <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/330-Mats-Lewan/">@Mats Lewan</a> that Rossi's latest visit to sweden was planned to visit the Lugano professors and to make a bid for a manufacturing builing.

But why met Rossi with the scientists?

We also know that the Lugano professors tried their own…

That could be it. Or maybe the Lugano Professors realized the temperature measurement was wrong in the Lugano test and intends to release a correction. And Rossi was there to try to convince them otherwise.

Quote from sifferkoll

Wow Thomas! Are you actually using the UFO analogy ... Have you fallen that deep into the FUD!

BTW! If anyone is doing his best working overtime to help Darden prove he is a complete idiot. That is you. Dont you see that?

I find it quite funny that you have used UFO in you arguments at energikatalysatorn.se numerous times. And now when used against you its suddenly FUD. Or was it FUD when it was coming from you as well?

Quote from Rends

<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1390-DNI/">@DNI</a> <a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf</a>

That is not the test i refer to.

Thomas you are correct, the test you refered to was 2011.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Yes, Mats obtained reports from a number of observers, including Jed, who thought it (for different reasons in each case) impressive.

Only some considered the issue of thermocouple errors and therefore discounted any output heat - but in the end most agreed this this was significant therefore there was no evidence of output heat.

None of the observers considered Ascoli's: "active core model", and therefore most felt the long "no input" boiling period was evidence of LENR.

Unfortunately this long period of heat flow can easily be explained by a massive hot central core, decoupled thermally from both the heater and the primary liquid (you need this to explain the time constants, again this possibility was not considered by the one reporter who felt time constants proved the device must have LENR). The numbers from the weight fit.

This was a supremely clever test. And its analysis unusually complicated. But no evidence of LENR when you open your mind to a "loosely coupled 3 element heater/hot core/primary" model.

It does show the care needed when inferring LENR from apparently otherwise impossible results. In science, just as with magic, it is not natural for even technically astute humans to think of all possibilities.

Display More

Thomas I think Hank and you talk about different occasions. Hank speeks of a test performed by Levi in 2011. A test with no released protokoll and no other witness. I think it is this test Hank means http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…cludes-combustion-6421304

You are talking about a test performed in oktober 2012 2011 in front of Mats and many more. http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…ces-proof-of-heat-6419717

Quote from sifferkoll

Wow! You IH folks really do need to prove your endless stupidity in court now, dont you?

I have waited five years for Rossi to prove his endless stupidity. Let's see if he can prove anything in court.

Quote from frankwtu

sifferkoll

I have read your link, I think this is essential reading for everyone here. Excellent.

<a href="http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/lenr-ecat-jed-rothwell-transforming-into-a-primary-ih-spinner-or-simply-lost-in-emotions/" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/lenr-…-simply-lost-in-emotions/</a>

Best regards
Frank

Display More

I find it very strange that you endorse sifferkolls rants, accusations and wild speculations. Considering the strong opinion you have expressed here earlier against accusations and speculations from Thomas and other.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

The comment string appeared to be getting to close to the truth and was deleted. Mats is now deleted NCKHAWK comments on the other strings as well. Doesn't look good for him at all.

Maybe the discussions can continue at http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1577 It's uncensored and unmoderated. Up to now mostly in Swedish. But that could change.

Quote from Richard Cheek

I'm just wondering, if IH has some evidence that the e-cat actually does not work, then are they withdrawing their patents that claim it has a COP of 10 or better?

IT would seem that if it genuinely does not work then they must withdraw the patent claim, but if they dont, then it sounds like legal maneuvering to me, not something driven by testing results.

And what exactly did IH fail to confirm? a COP of 50? That there was a COP over 1?

These rumors and idiotic hyper-skepticism of everything from the Lugano report to now the ERV report that Darden himslef paid for, is just silly stuff.l

Display More

Thomas Clarke has showed that the authors of the Lugno report used the wrong emissivity when calculating the temperature. And when the correct value for the emissivity is used the COP turns out to be 1. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf. This is not rumors or hyper-skepticism it's fact.