Posts by Mark H

    Oh, how does my speculation differ from other speculations using patterns to evaluate the state of things in this saga?

    Not quite sure how to parse that. You attack and criticize people for criticizing Rossi. However, their criticisms of him are based on his proven (by himself) lying and obviously deceitful practices. Your staunch support of him is based on *what* evidence? Don't bother answering. There is none. He has never had any independent replication or verification and never allowed any measurements but his own (flawed) ones.

    I guess you know better than I the reasons for your actions (I can only speculate). I can see that you try hard to paint your speculation as "technical issues" and "facts" even though you obviously have no idea about them since you are still sitting in the armchair far far away... You are probably becoming delusional; deceiving yourself into believing that the patterns you see are facts.

    Perhaps you could educate yourself more by reading the court documents and Rossi's own contradictory comments rather than the baseless assertions and veiled insults?

    I disagree completely. Lately Ascoli has been arguing "you're right - I'm wrong" and trying to say that he has won the argument (because he says he has) or based on twisting the replies of others asking him questions.

    I have no idea based on the available "evidence". I'm no physical scientist. I certainly wouldn't have the hubris to criticize the work of respected scientists who couldn't even rebut criticisms.

    Remind me again how much has been spent on "hot fusion" and how successful that has been...

    I don't often comment here. I'm more of a lurker. I had to respond to this though. This response by Alan is, at best, disingenuous. Russ HAS been downright obnoxious. And not because anybody inferred *anything*. He attacks the person who asks a reasonable question based on the crime of not including their life and work history and real identity along with the question.

    Given that you refer to him as “Dr Rossi”, you clearly siimply accept anything the man says as truth without regard to any facts. Good luck with that.

    Agreed. You know he doesn't have a doctorate right? And he's already making noises about abandoning the QX for the SK. Thereby continuing his pattern (hey! Why fix it when people like you still believe in it?)

    Although if you ask you may get quizzed by Russ on what your qualifications are and why you think you have a reasonable right to ask.

    I think it's hilarious that the Rossi'ites are just lapping up the E-Cat SK. We all knew he was just going to come up with a "better" E-Cat instead of actually producing the supposed masterpiece of the QX.

    He wasn't being beat up for not divulging all the data. He revealed data and was asked intelligent questions about it. If he didn't want those questions he shouldn't have posted the data.

    So what you are asking for is for me to give to anyone who asks, all of the fruits of my labors without even the courtesy of knowing the identity of the person or persons asking for that gift. Is that what you are saying? Is there any implied threat of being dissed here for not complying to any and all anonymous demands for such value to be given. Such dissing is not an uncommon feature of this forum. And no of course I would not consent to a work around being to make the same demands on a friend and colleague. As stated this is very preliminary raw data and while it is exciting data it is not ready to be dissected with questions from anonymous unknowable entities. When more information is ready to be shared it will be!

    That's how forums work. If you don't like it. Don't participate.

    This is encouraging if true. Seems like they got over 15. If this can scale...


    However, I note that there's no analysis of the used fuel for nuclear reactions. There's also no measurement listed for how much heat was applied. Any calculations used seem lacking in information which is not encouraging.

    I think I am giving balance to the Dewey, Shane D discredit Rossi campaign .

    Please. Rossi doesn't need Dewey, Shane or anybody else to discredit him. He does perfectly fine all by himself. Sam12 - have you read the court transcripts yet?

    You falsely assume failure to bet on something as a sign of uncertainty. You make too many assumptions in general.

    Correct. I'm close to 100% certain that Rossi has nothing. I'm also close to 100% certain that he will come up with some BS that *looks* like he has something within your (AA) boundaries. Whether it secret robotic factories a secret customer a fudged "test" or whatever.

    Wiser minds than mine have spoken... Neither Kirk nor Jed will move a whit from their position. I don't have the math (or time or inclination) to refute Kirk's CCS/ATER theory. I'm not as gung-ho as Jed on proving Kirk wrong. But I don't believe in ninja rats outside of TMNT and if a reputable scientist says the bucket evaporated I think you should have had good cause before calling him a liar.

    You postulate an airflow that is irrelevant to the experiment. There was no massive fan moving air over the bucket.

    Jed is not the only one to notice this. You said it was only hot because they heated it. Then you ignored Jed when he told you it was three days later. You constantly avoid the facts. Unless you say it is anecdotal and wasn't repeated. At least these two points give you some credibility.

    You're on, assuming Alan Smith will agree to hold the money and act as as referee. I will send him an undated check for 50 pounds if you will send him one for 500 pounds.

    The only snag I see, if production materializes, is that the first units will probably be sold with a NDA and the results not known until later. But I would accept Alan Smith's judgement on this.


    Sam12. Be careful. You are likely to be banned for being boorish if you defend Rossi.

    Im in. With all the stipulations above. Not Rossi selling to himself. COP>1. PUBLIC customer. Ie.i could go to a store and buy the (UL certified) unit. By March 22, 2019.


    Although, since Alan has established himself in Rossi's court. Perhaps somebody more impartial? No offense to your integrity Alan but you have shown bias towards Rossi.

    A theory is used to make predictions about how to configure the next test to further explore the consequence of the theory. You can never prove a theory, you can only disprove a theory through additional experimentation.

    Are you being deliberately provocative? Your theory is chirality and you propose an experiment where nothing happens to prove it?


    I theorize that if I stick my head in a bucket a boiling water it will get burned. Since, as you say, I can't prove this. Perhaps you would like to prove me wrong?