Tom Paulsen Member
  • Member since Apr 23rd 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Tom Paulsen


    I appreciate your efforts, because I did the same. I had implemented a LTSpice simulation of the Lugano test environment, but recognized, that this only raises more questions without relevant answers.

    You'll never be able to prove that the cabling really has been changed between dummy run and active test. And the same applies to other hypothesis.

    A plausible explanation for the values could only be given by the authors of the Lugano Report.

    Maybe you should simply ask "randombit0" to explain the joule heating values.

    The relevant point is that there exist no plausible explanation for the joule heating values of the Lugano report!

    And this alone says everything about the test/report.

    I would recommend a publication in book form. By using a pseudonym your privacy would be maintained.

    - You could self-publish your book using a pseudonym via Amazon.
    - You will not be bound to any formal scientific style
    - You can explain your experiments and findings in very detailed form to prevent patentability and also mention some possible applications
    - You can give background info and tell the readers about your way to your discoveries, if you'd like to so
    - You keep the copyright to your book
    - You can obtain sales revenues for funding your further research
    - A patentability of the content will be prevented

    Furthermore you can decide anytime later whether you want to publish your real name to your pseudonym.

    Barty: This answer below from Rossi seems related to having a self sustained e-cat. Maybe it needs to be clarified?

    It seems that Rossi doesn't really knows what's possible with his newest creation.

    Barty had asked him directly about the topic and got an explicit answer.

    The Specifications of his device and his statements seem to change in a magical way when his fans alerting him that his statement is not matching his former announcements.


    Thank you for the suggestion. There are scientific issues, though, that need a deeper knowledge.

    Let’s walk on solid ground and, for now, make basic experiments on the specific field, then see what happens. This branch of R&D is very interesting, this is a fact.

    The work we are doing now is focused also on the industrialization, beside the science. We are working on it.


    Warm Regards,

    @Tom Paulsen,
    I thought the original quark image resembled a badly focussed photo of a full moon behind some thin clouds. I was hoping to try and take a photo tonight to see.
    Or maybe a photo of a spark.
    Hmm... spark... quark. Bah. Coincidence probably...

    One thing is sure: an image which is causing so many speculations and connotations such as the original image, must be regarded as modern art and the creator must be some kind of artist. :D

    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.

    It has not to sound reasonable.

    Fact is that they didn't pay and that Rossi tries to enforce the payment.

    We do not know whether this had been planned so but it can be assumed because the complaint has apparently been prepared long before.

    Well to be fair Rossi did spend a lot of time with the 1MW plant... (according to him, 16 hours a day)

    This brings up a possible scenario in my mind:

    Would you stage an 89m $ show and then go fishing?

    Remember that IH employees had been present there. Someone had to supervise them, so that they didn't came up with the idea to have some talk with the "customer" or to take a look behind the curtain (wall).

    the patent EP2702593, which was under "intent to grant" state, recently suffered an opposition on May 25 2016 by Leonardo Corporation.

    I imagine Piantelli will subsidize my rope.

    Piantelli is the real discoverer of the NiH effect and in the end of the dispute he will be Rossi's rope.

    I refer to my following comments, which contain the facts behind this statement.

    Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    To discuss the relevance of any 'verifiable evidence' that may be available which may be relevant to the Rossi et al v. Darden et al case.

    IH's own Motion to Dismiss characterise the extension as such, and their argument against it was that it needed other parties to sign, when in fact clause 5 makes clear that only IH needed to sign, as it was a right and benefit of the contract to IH not Rossi. IH chose to exercise that right and so signed away the grounds of their motion to dismiss.

    From §5 original LA:


    as such time period may be extended by the Company in its sole discretion

    A time period may be extended ...

    From the MTD:


    Compl. ¶ 59. Plaintiffs’ purported “Guaranteed
    Performance Test,” however, was not commenced until “on or about February 19, 2015”

    I hope, that you agree that the extension of the time period for an already running test (that's also very clear by using "time period" not "point in time") is not the same as a delay of the start date for the test.

    Therefore, your argumentation is pointless.

    Dear Peter Gluck,

    using your metaphor I would think it's indifferent to her, as long as she will get the money.

    Maybe it's a little bit comparable to IH's employees who have been working in the plant. I don't mean that they only were interested in their paycheck, but that they simply did what they were supposed to do. And that was the operation of the plant, not a judgment about the COP.

    This had been the job of the ERV, who also wasn't truly sovereign, because the insufficient test procedure had already been defined in the license agreement. And we know from Mats interview, that the ERV had been instructed by Rossi how to calculate the results.

    Then add the huge red flag, that none of IH's people had been allowed to see the "production of the customer".

    I can't help, when this is not recognized as what it really is.

    It's simply a farce (and maybe the staging of an experienced magician).

    But also an 89m $ farce.

    No one can seriously think, that anyone would consensually pay 89m $ for a farce like this.

    I'm very amazed what people select as their believe system.

    With best wishes


    However now his opponents are trying to build a retro-history in which IH knew from the start that nothing works.

    No one tries to build a retro-history.

    For me it is very clear that Rossi has been underestimated by IH and that they couldn't imagine how skilled he is in all his efforts (inclusive formulating a license agreement with test procedures in his favor).

    It may take some time to figure out what conceals behind the tricks of a real magician.

    Take for example someone like Uri Geller. By claiming that he has extraordinary abilities he was fooling millions of people. If he would have presented his tricks as a magician, then the effects wouldn't have been the same.

    Some of his fans compare Rossi with people like Tesla. I'd prefer comparing Andrea Rossi with Uri Geller. Not immediately seeing through his tricks is not a shame.