Posts by Rionrlty

Quote from IH Fanboy

Note the present tense.

Yeah, I'm not sure I believe him either IHF.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is untrue ele. Many people with vapourware (let us not get into the matter of deliberate fraud or not, irrelevant to your point here, and to be settled in Court this Summer) have patents. Take, for example, EEStor with a patent for a magic capacitor with energy density higher than a lithium battery that never existed. It is one way that they convince people they have something. In any case Rossi has no granted patents for E-cats. He has a patent for a novel water-heater power source unspecified.

If that "hot water heater" supplied a COP greater than 6 (steam or no steam) and the Jury concludes that the test was GPT (which I think they will) then it's game over for IH.

Quote from THHuxleynew

RR

Your argument has some merit: asking lay people to judge science issues is difficult. All you need is two experts apparently saying opposite things and they go on who has the best haircut / says their bit in the most assured way.

It is difficult for any engineer to lie in Court, or to sound honest supporting something they know is wrong. So, for example, when Wong is challenged on his air speed and tube diameter independent "heat transfer coefficient" which he references from many sources, and asked whether in the light of more accurate calculations it could possibly be correct, he will crumble. The matter at issue is clear: single one-size-fits-all coefficient versus more accurate calculator and a lay Jury can follow it well enough. I'm less sure about the rest of the technical evidence where as we see here it could get sticky. OTOH Rossi has no other experts on his side! Why do you think that is?

Putting the technical evidence to one side, I think IH has a very strong case, for the reasons you carefully avoid which will however convince a lay Jury.

Rossi misdirects, and has misdirected this charade from the start lying about the failure of his previous Hydrofusion test (compare Mats' account with Rossi's e-mail to IH) and then again, repeatedly with a web of subterfuge, about the identity of the customer. That makes the worth of a RossiSays about zero, and Rossi's case depends on Rossi Says:

• Vanishing heat exchanger (Wong) - all RossiSays
• Excuses about customer - RossiSays
• Penon Data - hopelessly contaminated with RossiMakesTheEquipment and RossiSendsTheResults
• Rossi thought this was the GPT and is a hard-working inventor deceived by IH - RossiSays
• ECat works - RossiSays (there is no supporting evidence from a cross-examinable person on this - the Lugano authors don't seem to want to be expert witnesses)

Then there is the missing evidence. Read 299 from the Court Docket:

• Penon - not a third party - key figure - vanished to a country where he cannot even be subpoenaed
• Fabiani - selectively destroys raw data and e-mails after being told it would lead to legal action if he did

None of this stuff is technical, and while you can take select points in a Rossiesque style that appear positive for Rossi, the whole thing examined carefully is damning. Have you done this? I get the impression from your posts that you are believing the Rossiesque explanations without joining the dots. Individual jurors may, like you, not do this, but a whole Jury in deliberations almost certainly will.

Both sides make their points in the MSJs and the Spoliation in limine documents. See here and search summary or limine - Abd's site lets you locate individual documents by title easily. Remember that for each document there may be 3 or 6 versions from the various sides. The difference is that Annesser's points in service of Rossi nearly all rely on bizaare and often Rossieque interpretation with no hard evidence.

The points above (to take a sample that we can see) all rely on hard evidence.

I'd like to understand how you process this. I don't expect you to agree with me on the technical stuff - which we both agree may not be relevant to a Jury anyway - but a close reading of the documents shows the above to me. Which documents, read in context, do you think support an alternate view? For example, read the Annesser MSJ, or the 3rd Party in limine arguments. They sound very convincing, but when compared with the other side's counter-arguments they largely crumble because their validity depends on unsupported interpretation - and often on Rossiesque misinterpretation contradicted by context. They make sense only if you ignore other evidence. A good example of this is Rossi's: "I told IH I was the customer" as examined above, or the false claims of secrecy preventing IH from inspecting the non-existing customer-side equipment.

PS - you note Jed's financial and personal links with IH - such as they are - Jed may wish to correct you. Do you also acknowledge E48's stronger financial and personal links with Rossi?

Display More

As a Real Estate Broker/developer I have been involved in a number civil suits, some involving my employees and some involving me directly. One of the things I noticed early on was that expert witnesses, professional or otherwise, will get up in front of a Jury and say just about anything their asked to, if the money is right. Oh sure, they will parse words and dance around the facts in such a way as to make it seem like they're being honest, but the truth is they are being paid to convey a message and the best ones are pretty good at it. Despite this, in virtually every case that involved an "expert witness" a good attorney could almost always expose their special interest in getting paid well, which would pretty much destroy their credibility no matter which side they were testifying for. The fact is that when you pay someone a bunch of money to testify you could just as well be paying them to lie. I had the same excellent attorney in nearly every case and each time he ended up talking me out of using an expert witness. According to him one of the first things they teach in law school is how to discredit an expert witness. For what its worth he graduated from Yale Summa Cum Laude.

As you have no doubt intuited by now I trust very few people to tell the complete unvarnished truth, especially in business matters and particularly when a great deal of money is at stake as nearly everyone involved has a particular point of view to sell. At the very least Rossi had lied by omission and probably outright in a few instances, but he has also been lied to, both by omission and directly and that's his best defense. It seems like a classic "David and Goliath" story to me and if I were Rossi's attorneys that's the way I would lay it out. After all, who could fault David for lying a little to avoid being beat up by Goliath? From what I could tell most Jurors based their ultimate decision on the perceived honesty of ordinary witnesses. Of course that is very subjective at best, but it always surprised me how often they got it right. IMHO no matter whether you're a multi-billionaire business owner, or a lowly inventor, how you come across on the witness stand is 90% of the battle.

One of the most disappointing cases I was involved in was especially discouraging. Right up until the Jury went in for deliberations I figured it was a toss up. To my amazement they got it totally right and found for me, the defendant. I didn't even have time to smile and pat my attorney on the back, before the Judge began lecturing the Jury on why they got it wrong and then proceeded to set aside their decision and found for the plaintiff and against me. Up until then I didn't even know Judges could do that, but apparently they can. It seems I had failed to sign one of the disclosure forms where it acknowledged receipt of a copy, not by the plaintiff, but me, my copy and the Judge decided this was technically an errors and omissions violation from her point of view. Whatever her bias, that was enough for the judge. Of course I could probably have filed for and gotten an appeal, and if the award had been for the 3 million dollars the plaintiff was asking for I certainly would have, but as it turned out she found damages against me for only $18,000. I certainly didn't feel good about paying it, but my legals fees for an appeal and new trial would have been much, much more.

I've actually spent quite a bit of time reading the files available. I love the depositions and have read most of them completely. I can even understand most of the legalese in the motions, but I get so bored with reading 10 pages to say something that could have usually been said in one paragraph that I usually just skim through them. I know everyone here is into detail and sites, but I don't have the time or inclination to play that game. Like I said earlier the Jurors are going to pay the most attention to the main players and ordinary witnesses. If they had to listen to a tenth of the stuff that's in these posts I'm sure they would simply nod off and they will do the same if it gets too technical in court. So, based on my general impression of the depositions I've read I think it's a toss up. I want Rossi to prevail because I have never considered he is a scam artist or even delusional. I think he has what he claims and I'm convince that even with producing only 250KW he still beat the heck out of a COP of 6. I'm convinced that if either side starts trying to explain and rationalize the data in Penons, like you and Jed do repeatedly, then that side will lose. As for myself, I'm still able to rationalize just about everything Rossi has said or done and I've not read anything in the depositions that changes that for me. I think Rossi is opinionated, cantankerous, belligerent, stubborn and a total narcissist, but in every interview I've watched him in he came across as sincere and honest and I believe that's what the Jury will see also. Even with that I believe it's still too close to call. I'm convinced that IH is lying about not having been able to replicate and I believe that is how it will come across to the Jury. As for whether the test was actually the GPT I believe there is no question given the evidence so far that the Jury will see as such.

Quote from JedRothwell

Did you read Penon's report? How can you claim he might have "crushed" the test? Anyone can see it was a failure, and the report itself was a joke. Rossi tacitly admitted that by coming up with the imaginary, invisible mezzanine heat exchanger long after the fact.

JedRothwell I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, only a lay person like probably most of the Jurors will be. As a result I must take analysis from folks like you and Engineer48 over on ECW. Since you cannot agree on much that poses a problem for me. The fact that you have financial and loyalty ties to IH doesn't make it any easier for me to determine the truth of the matter.

The ultimate fact is a number of folks much like me will listen to a number of folks much like you and Eng48 and decide the situation. That must make you more than a little nervous about the outcome. While I may not be a Scientist I do know a great deal about business, mostly that it is down and dirty and anything but honest and above board. Any who aren't willing to play that game should not join in.

Quote from sigmoidal

Well, let's take a look at Rossi's emails in June 2014 on the Docket, to see exactly what he said (Document 236-28):

On June 3rd, 1pm (excerpt):

[unrelated]

...

p.s.

I have found a Customer that will use the 1MW plant in his factory in Florida, paying Industrial Heat and also I am in contact with the health Care office for the authorization. I think in short time we can have the 1MW plant in operation. We must stay extremely focused on this now.

• Rossi has found a Customer, and 'he' is none other than Rossi himself. (BTW, Isn't this the highest level of Masow's hierarchy of needs, 'self discovery'? Rossi has found himself!)
  
• Rossi states that he is also in contact with the 'health Care office' for the authorization. (Does anyone believe he actually was in contact with such an agency?)

On June 3, 3:39pm (excerpt):

... it is necessary to have:

1- A Customer that uses the energy of the plant

2 - The necessary authorizations

If you have found the solutions, welcome. If not, I have and it is necessary we talk about these issues to establish a roadmap.

Warm Regards to all,

Andrea

• Rossi has 'found the solution', and he points out IH has not. Rossi's solution is to pose himself as the 'real customer' to IH.

Leonardo Corporation [controlled by Rossi] has found this solution:

On June 20th (excerpt):

...

a- a Customer has been found who will rent the 1MW plant to use it as a dryer for his chemical additives and catalyzers.

b- the Customer will install the plant in a factory of his in Florida.

c- the Customer will pay 1,000 $/day of rental fee starting from when the plant will be declared from me ready to operate. [Rossi is clearly talking about the 1MW plant here]

d- the director of the plant will be made by Andrea Rossi, for free, for the first 350 days of operation of the plant. [Again, Rossi is clearly talking about the 1MW plant here - any other meaning would be absurd - like he's going to operate the "real Customer's" plant for free?' that would certainly raise suspicion by IH]

e-Andrea Rossi will be assisted by Fulvio Fabiani who is a consultant of Industrial Heat. [Note that Fabiani has said he was not allowed on the JMP side. So this further supports the context that Rossi is describing how he will be supported in running the 1MW plant (not the JMP 'plant' - which was really just a crude serpentine pipe radiator - not any kind of 'plant').]

f- the Customer will have no access to the technology [of the 1MW e-cat], but his workers will be instructed to use the plant [again, this can only be construed to mean the 1MW plant] Maintenance and recharge will be made by Industrial Heat with the direction of Andrea Rossi. Since I have already started the operation regarding this plan please let me know if you agree upon all. [Rossi states that he 'had already started', but actually didn't have a warehouse, factory, real customer, or any reason for a 1 MW dryer (or dryer of any size energy)]

On June 10th and 23rd, Rossi sent emails that I already dissected in my previous post. The only statements describing 'direction' (excerpts):

June 10:

...

I confirm all I already said: we have a Customer who pays 1,000 $/day to rent the 1MW plant, put it in his factory in Miami, produce catalyzers that he sells; I will direct the operation of the plant for the first year, the contract will be for 3 years, renewable. The customer will not have access to the reactors.

...

• The Customer is Rossi - he had no factory, produced no catalyzers to sell.
• The only mention of the word 'plant' in this email is the 1MW plant, which of course someone had to 'direct' - so obviously, Rossi is stating that he will direct the 1MW plant, not "the Customer's".
• It's easy, however, to see how Rossi could confuse himself about these issues, given that he is talking about himself in the second and third person all the time.

June 23:

... He needs to prepare the factory in Florida with a dryer to be coupled with our plant, under my direction, and this work has to be started as soon as possible...

• Rossi is clearly stating that the 1MW plant will be under his direction, not the "Customer's" dryer. (Of course, we now know that he was directing everything, since this was all part of his scam.)
• Rossi cannot reasonably argue that this sentence, in context, is stating that he 'informed IH that he would be directing the plant in JM' for (at least) two reasons:
• 1) 'JM' has not even been mentioned yet, and is not stated in the email. Rossi didn't 'reveal' Johnson Mathey or JM until July.
• 2) At most, the sentence could be meaning that 'under my direction' would apply to the 'coupling' of the 1MW plant to the customers dryer, not to directing the customer's dryer (which Rossi does not call a plant). Rossi only uses the word 'plant' to refer to the 1MW plant. He makes this clear when he references it as 'our plant'.

Based on the evidence on the docket, Rossi's statements on JONP that he informed IH that he would be directing 'JM' are untrue. There are no emails in June (or any other time) where Rossi informs IH that he is the director of JM. Of course, we now know that he directed everything. And it is clear from the emails, that this was his pre-conceived plan to deceive and scam IH.

Display More

It seems clear to me, at least without your added explanation in bold print, that he is referring to the JM plant. Why would he have to inform them that he would operate the 1MW plant for free. Obviously they already knew this and I think anyone with an open mind would interpret it this way.

Quote from LENR Calender

Paraphrasing Rossi's emails to IH:

"[...] something about the 1MW plant [...] I will direct the plant"

Then in his deposition he says that he meant he would direct the JMP plant.

Seemed pretty clear to me that he meant JM's plant.

Quote from JedRothwell

1. He just commented. He said "I cannot comment" and then he commented.

2. In his messages to I.H. he repeatedly described the management of JM in the third person; "they" did this or said that. He was talking about himself. Either he was being deceptive or he is stark staring bonkers. Who has conversations with himself?!?

Do you think Darden (IH) might ever refer to Cherokee investments as they, or some of the other shell companies he's responsible for?

Quote from BobHiggins

So, after all of this debate about the trial, I am still left with a question of Rossi's motive in filing the suit.

Let's say you are Rossi, you believe your technology works and is valuable, but you realize your supporting company/licensee has lost faith. Would you sue to complete the payment terms of the contract, or would you sue to get your license rights back? Let's say Rossi wins, the $89M is due, and it gets paid by IH. IH would pretty much own rights to everything Rossi had created and will create (derivatives) in most of the world. There would be very little Rossi could make and sell that would not have to go through IH. Does that sound like a desirable situation for Rossi as the positive outcome of the the suit he filed? Would an inventor that believed in what he had created just take the money and wash his hands of his creation, leaving it to a company who claims it cannot be brought to product?

Personally, I think there is 0 chance a jury would award the $89M to Rossi AND give him back his license. So the Rossi-positive outcome would be Rossi gets the $89M and everything he has developed and all of its derivatives are licensed to IH; OR, Rossi loses the bid to get the $89M (the primary purpose of the suit) and also doesn't get his license back; OR, Rossi loses, has to pay back the $11.5M to IH, and gets his license back. If Rossi really believed in what he had invented, and knowing that IH has lost complete faith in that invention, it seems Rossi would be happier if he lost his lawsuit. If Rossi were to win his lawsuit and get the $89M, it would seem that the only way he would be happy is if he knew the eCat didn't work.

Or Rossi crushed it on the GPT and IH knows it, but still doesn't want to pay the money. So rather than settle with him they make a roll of the dice.

Quote from Alan Smith

Go for it Dewey, a Pulitzer is surely within your reach.

Or not.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

TrueTrollman - your APCO shill remains swill. It is shattered, in tatters, splattered all over Planet Rossi.

Dewey, while I remain convinced there are APCO (and others) astroturfers posting here I don't believe you are one of them. You seem far too amateurish and obvious for that. I think any prospective Jurors who look in here will be as turned off by your rhetoric as much as I am and would more likely think worse of IH for it. No wonder "they" wanted you to back off. However IMHO you are the very epitome of a "troll".

Quote from ZenoOfElea

Rionrlty

"APCO is infiltrating this website". You state your opinion as if it is a fact. You need to distinguish the difference.

APCO may or may not be infiltrating this site.

I see no evidence and think they have bigger fish to fry, but that is only my opinion (you see the difference there).

"Dewey is IH". Yes, that is an acknowledged fact.

This means that Dewey can be a valuable contributer, unfortunately mostly he seems to post florid insults with not much information.

I think if APCO were paying attention to this site they would probably ask Dewey to back off.

"The whole Idea behind "astroturfing" is not to leave evidence behind."

Well then we are heading towards conspiracy theory land.

APCO/space aliens have infiltrated and we know this because they leave absolutely no evidence, so that proves it.

What I will say is that I am of the view that this site is too insignificant to bother with, albeit interesting to "we happy few".

However I have slightly shifted my view when some poster (may have been joshg) pointed out that any jurors may run an LENR search and discover this site. That does make sense.

I still don't think it warrants a significant APCO effort. In fact I think most people not interested in LENR would be put off by the huge amount of verbiage for the small amount of facts.

Personally I want an open debate and am pleased to have moderators from all opinions such as Rends, Alan, Eric etc.

The efforts of some to target certain moderators, such as Rends or Eric is something to be resisted in my view.

Display More

Zeno, I believe they have asked Dewey to back off and that is the explanation of his absence here lately. The problem for them is that he just can't resist.

Quote from Eric Walker

Wyttenbach, welcome back. Please do not troll this forum with the whole APCO astroturf schtick unless you can muster more than circumstantial evidence. What you mention here, hoping someone will "out" himself, is not going in a good direction.

I believe it is barty, AlainCo or David Nygren that sends out the emails. I'm sure it was a misinterpretation of what information is available.

Eric, The whole Idea behind "astroturfing" is not to leave evidence behind. Companies like APCO, and there are many, do not send out the first bozo they find willing to take money for spreading falsehoods and lies. The operatives in question are hired for their talent and go through rigid and involved training so as to come across as sincere and knowledgeable posters, whether on facebook, twitter or here on LENR Forum. The fact is you would probably never know it if one posted here and if you thought you did they probably aren't. You should not be surprised that when nearly $270,000,000 is at stake folks will go to great lengths to influence the outcome. Even though I've heard it expressed here that LENR Forum is too insignificant to be bothered with in this regard, I disagree completely. If someone becomes newly interested in LENR, perhaps because they've seen a chance reference in a magazine, on the internet or because they are being considered as a juror in a trial involving same they're probably going to google it out of curiosity. In that case this is one of the first four or five places they'll wind up, and companies like APCO (and many more) will also know this. Their whole approach is extremely well thought out and targeted.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

joshg

If you want to ban astroturfers and shills how do you go about that?

Wyttenbach has declared me a shill for the APCO astroturfers on his site.

No evidence just Wyttenbach has a feeling.

So does that mean I should be banned?

If I was to declare that joshg was a shill should joshg be banned?

I honestly agree with Eric that my common sense tells me APCO are not infiltrating this website.

If they were monitoring it they may well come across some useful snippets dug up by the busy bees here, but I would not be surprised if they are not even doing that.

IH have decided to stay silent (other than Dewey with his florid threats) this seems a sensible approach given the court case.

On the other hand it does seem evident that Rossi uses sock puppet accounts and may have one or more for accessing this site. But even if I knew for a fact this was true and which accounts it was I would not ban those users, it all adds to the fun. Nor do I think Dewey should be banned, his insights are valuable and mostly appreciated.

People should only be banned for being offensive or especially rude or doxxing, or otherwise disrupting an energetic and hopefully civilized discussion.

Display More

Zena, just two flaws in your assessment. APCO is infiltrating this website and Dewey is IH,

Quote from Bob

They do not even have to do that.

Simply just go to e-catworld.com! Mr. Ackland, the site owner has set the policy that no "continued" anti-Rossi posts will be allowed. Either sing his praises (long term) or be banned. He has done it repeatedly, including with me.

The following types of comments are subject to moderation:

• Comments that state openly or by implication that LENR/cold fusion/E-Cat is a fraud or hoax

http://www.e-catworld.com/posting-rules/

If there is no counter views, then there is only dictates! As in dictatorships. Want to have a good golf game? Go to North Korea where the big chief shot numerous holes in one playing his first game! Of course, if you dissent on that, he will shoot you with an anti-aircraft gun.

http://worldtribune.com/worldt…2004/ea_nkorea_06_16.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…vents-answering-back.html

Yes, squelching free speech is really a wise thing! ..... not!

Display More

Stating that LENR is a hoax is a much different than stating Rossi is a fraud or scammer. There are many comments on ECW which express doubts in Rossi's veracity. I find the bias here in favor of IH much more troubling than that.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Correction accepted. Schaflander has a profile more of a people person than a nerd and no doubt was good at what he did using his social psychology training to great effect. We have no obvious information who was providing these 100X better than industry metrics. I guess some technical guy now lost? Or, perhaps Schaflander was just guessing. It sounds to me like an idea written down on a cigarette packet and marketed without anyone actually working out the real costs.

It is common for startups to be overly optimistic about their technology but this one goes a bit far. The other problem is the £350 conversion to H2 operation, since IC engines do not simply convert to H2 for the obvious reason that it burns very differently from gasolene.

Here is part of a reply that I made to a poster over on ECW who found some posts about this process on an obscure forum from over 10 years ago. The conversion was at first accomplished with a "cracker" located in the engine compartment to convert the liquid Hydrogen/ammonia to a gas prior to injecting it into the carburetor using a device similar to CNG or propane conversion. Later they went to directly feeding the fuel into the carburetor and simply re-jetting it for the change in fuel. This eliminated the cracker and saved a lot of money. It was not a difficult conversion. See my reply below for further clarification:

"Some of what the OP says demonstrates to me that he knew little about the automotive technology of the day. I on the other hand have been a car guy for over 50 years now and knew the right questions to ask even back then. In the late 70’s cars had been artificially de-tuned as a bandaide method of reducing emissions, especially in California. Only ten years earlier, in the late 60’s some performance cars had run as high as 11.5 to 1 compression ratios and pumped out 400 hp or more. By 1978 the peak compression ratio was about 7 to one, and the same displacement that had netted 400hp in 1970 was only producing a little over half that much. The ones that remained from the 60’s had to be detuned as around 1980 leaded gas became unavailable except as Avgas, only available from airports. On top of that fuel efficiency had dropped by at least 20% over that same period. In talking to one of the auto technicians in the shop area of CSEP I learned that Hy-fuel only netted less than 80% of the BTU output of gasoline, but was much higher in octane than currently available gasoline. This enabled them to advance the timing on the test cars to the point they were only losing about 10% power efficiency. In this regard the comment about camshaft duration has some relevance, in that valve timing could have been very much more advanced, supported by a higher available compression ratio due to the higher octane of the fuel, sort of like having a racing cam in your car. They had estimated at least as high as 14 to 1 and probably higher. This would have effectively doubled the horsepower output, or conversely have doubled the fuel efficiency."

Quote from THHuxleynew

Schaflander makes claims that technically don't make sense, and are too good to be true. He had apparently invented a solar cell in 1980 manufacturable for $0.27/W. That is 3X cheaper than the current cost, and 100s of times cheaper than the 1980 cost:

https://cleantechnica.com/2014…el-cost-trends-10-charts/

He also claimed some way to make fuel for cars out of hydrogen that could be used with minimal conversion. You can do this with methane, but not with hydrogen.

Instead of developing his technology - worth billions - He never disclosed his secret and dies with non-one able to replicate. He was convicted of fraud.

The case report is damning.

Now - whether the fraud conviction was fair or not I don't know, but I go by the duck test for these things. This one walked and quacked like a duck - it was probably a duck.

There is a whole media industry of conspiracy theorists - who look at these one-off stories of incredible inventions never independently tested and see suppression.

The overwhelmingly likely solution here, as with Papp, is an inventor with nothing, who either deliberately or because of delusion claims they have a miracle. The parallels with Rossi are strong so it does not surprise me that those who support Rossi find this guy also interesting.

Display More

I must make an exception to my abstinence from posting to correct some misconceptions written here by THH.

1. Schaflander never claimed to invent Galium Aluminum Arsenide solar cells, only to have used them and devised a way to manufacture them orders of magnitude cheaper than then current technology.

2. He was not an inventor and never claimed to be. He simply organized and funded a scientific team to accomplish a set of goals.

3. And yes you can do it with hydrogen, as has been demonstrated many times since.

4. He was not only trying but succeeding in developing his technology when the powers that be brought pressure to bear and closed him down. My own opinion derived from insider information via my wife's involvement was that when the oil company offer was rejected the US government was persuaded to step in and quash the technology on behalf of the oil company. His proprietary information was actually confiscated by the US government so it could only be further developed at their prerogative. In all fairness I don't believe this could occur in this manner in this modern era, what with the internet. Today it would need to be far more nuanced and subtle, but I have no doubt it could be orchestrated, and may well be in the case of the Rossi and the Ecat. I'm sure the government is not ignorant of APCO or astroturfing.

Quote from joshg

Where does 'paid shill' fit in your list of options?

#joshg. If you will email me at [email protected] I will relate to you a particularly compelling example of how the "energy industry" reacts to potentially competitive new scientific breakthroughs. I would relate it here, but I am already under threat from Eric for my negative and insulting posting.

Quote from Eric Walker

This is just a heads-up that I find that the signal to noise ratio in your posts to be especially low. Please stop trying to turn the discussion of this thread away from the topic at hand and towards the members of this forum, either directly or through vague innuendo, such as in this case.

Eric, I have no idea what you're trying to say here, or even why. I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, so all I can comment on are the semantics or subtle innuendo contained here. I believe this stuff is far more pertinent and will turn out to be a much larger part of the case over all than all the technical gobbledegook, which is likely to put the jury to sleep long before they are able to digest even a small part of it. Since you don't like the high "signal to noise (?)" ratio in this category I will now stop posting here altogether and limit myself to pushing the like button once in a while. Lord knows I don't want to be banned again.

Quote from guest111

He, and everyone with a 6th grade education understand that science and technology are not based on proving NEGATIVES, as is the basis of virtually every argument in support of Rossi's claims, and these forum topics.

Another APCO employee?

People whose contributions are little more than annoying innuendo will not last long here. Eric

Quote from THHuxleynew

Rossi briefed his own expert - who got it wrong. If finds mattered, Rossi would have told Wong about them. Unless he does not want $89M.

He doesn't want the $89M, he wants the rights to his IP back.