Posts by Bob


    You have not said anything wrong, but when it comes to Alan and Stockholm, you have said enough. You have made your opinion known many times, that you are unhappy with his role there, and afterwards. Time to move on. We have plenty of other things to talk about.

    I have said nothing wrong but I am told to keep quiet. :|

    I have watched for 7+ years in detail the Rossi drama. I have seen people come an go. I have watched ECW become a protectorate where Rossi is protected because he cannot protect himself (by his own actions). Defiance against him is not tolerated. What direction is LENR Forum heading? What now needs silencing because of "words that are not wrong"?

    Yes, it probably is time for me to move on......but in a different way. :/

    Hopefully this is the last time we see Alan and Stockholm mentioned in the same breath. You made your point on this many times, and continuing to harp on it will only turn this into something personal. We have enough of that around here as is.

    Personal? Lets see...

    I have been called a troll several times above by W, when I most certainly am not. (I post my REAL name by the way!)

    I have been accused of spreading "fake news" by W when what I have stated is backed by fact and the "fake news" accuser is indeed wrong!

    It has been stated certain people would talk to my dog before they would me!

    My posts are not personally derogatory in that I do not call others "Babblers" every other sentence and deride them as Adrian does.

    I attempt to explain my points in a non-personal method by giving as clear thoughts as I can. Admittedly they are pointed, but not personal.

    I keep my posts pretty much free from derogatory wording.

    If I have said anything that is not factual or is completely illogical, then I am very willing and ready to listen to counsel instructing me point by point.

    If W simply espouses "Fake news", then I do not retaliate in derogatory language, but will stand my ground. I will listen to reason, when backed by fact and substance. So far, "it was a demo" is not.

    If there is anything I have said about Stockholm and Alan's promise of a detailed report that is not correct, then please address that. I will stand corrected. After all, do you think the "Stockhom Event" was a very convincing demo! It sure is being used as such by many, almost every day on JONP. Should this continue unabated?

    But to slap my wrist and not Adrian or others for far worse, makes me think this is becoming ECW, where if you do not fall in line, you get kicked off!

    I hope not. :thumbup:


    How about....

    James Santigo

    May 30, 2016 at 6:31 AM

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi: Tomorrow you start a new important validation test with your new Partner, is it confirmed ?

    Andrea Rossi

    May 30, 2016 at 8:42 AM

    James Santigo: Yes.
    Warm Regards,


    Frank Acland June 7, 2016 at 6:31 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    Without going into specific data (F8), how would you describe the reactions so far of your testing partners to what they are seeing in the E-Cat QuarkX testing?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi June 7, 2016 at 7:48 AM

    Frank Acland:


    Warm Regards,


    and I could go on but my search engine bogged down because there were so many references on Rossi's blog to customer test and validation test1

    What makes you think this one will be any different? No customer, no real tests! :/


    You may accuse me of fake news, but it is you that is spreading it now.

    The Lugano report had the above statement indeed. But then during the depositions of the trial, it came out that Rossi and Fabiani ran the Lugano test in its entirety. The Lugano Profs only dropped in at times. This is fact. If you need, I will take the time to look up the actual facts for you, but you should be able to do so yourself.

    Shane and others here can corroborate this as well as fact, not "invented" trollism.

    No I am not a Rossi hater... I am a person who pursues the truth. The truth is the Lugano test was ran by Rossi and Fabiani. You may not want to believe that but it is correct. Not invented, but factual. I guess you should get your facts straight.

    Bob . A report about what exactly? The things you can see in great detail on the videos in circulation? Scientifically it wasn't proof of anything except that it wasn't proof of anything. The videos in particular make it pointless of me to spend time writing about my own impression of what the pictures show in great detai. what I did write about was the people I met there, and their approach to Rossi, and the general tenor of the crowd. That I thought was interesting.

    I have no idea about any Rossi devices after the the tests in Ferrara, Lugano, and NC. After that it gets weird.

    Thank you for your polite response. I do appreciate the endeavor.

    Perhaps we will simply have to agree to disagree.

    Even not having the advanced formal scientific training nor the experimental experience as yourself, I can indeed see that the Stochholm event was a joke. Given that, I can and do say it was a joke! Not that it proved nothing, but that it proved Rossi's methods are not only lacking, but intentionally misleading. That the event did not only "not prove anything" but that it cannot and should not be used in the same sentence as "very convincing" or "high COP" or "valid evidence that Rossi has a working reactor". I can say that the event could have been setup to prove MUCH more without IP disclosure and made meaningful, but it was not. This therefore, sheds much doubt as to the credibility of the events intentions. ESPECIALLY after several years of suggested improvements have all be willfully disregarded.

    I say this not because I am a Rossi hater, but because the event is being used to support and further Rossi's fraudulent proceedings! Therefore, it would be somewhat recalcitrant for me not to speak up about this! As someone with training, experience and "stature" in the LENR field, I would think you would hold that responsibility to help guard the field's reputation even greater,

    Thank you for at least sharing some of your basis. I strongly disagree about Lugano. Several people have provided the math, Optris camera tests and

    other facts that refute it. The fact that Rossi ran the test himself, with the professors only dropping in some unknown number of times itself, makes the test completely null, based upon Rossi's history. The Lugano profs silence also speaks volumes in that they do not follow standard academic protocol to defend their results.

    The North Carolina tests have been fully repudiated by IH. There is a mountain of evidence to believe IH over Rossi. I have followed this story and read the court depositions. IH gave Rossi every opportunity to succeed and he only hung himself. It is another prime example of Rossi's lies and fraud. Nothing has been revealed that supported Rossi in any manner. Empty reactors showing high COP and all.

    I cannot speak much about Ferrara. I believe Mr. Rothwell thinks the test showed merit, but it was unconfirmed nor replicated. That while no obvious issues are known, there was plenty of room for error or fraud. The Lugano is a prime example. When first released, the data seemed to show a major break through. We now know it to be null. Rossi himself gave up on it remember! So based upon Rossi's history... nothing is as it first seems to be... Ferrara was very likely null as well.

    So if those are the three reasons you believe in Rossi, I am very confident that two of those reasons have been completely dispelled. (NC and Lugano) Ferrara less so, but so much is unknown about it, that it is not a fully justified positive test. Certainly not enough to excuse all of Rossi's actions over the past years.

    So Rossi does not need anyone's (yours or mine included) support …. he should not need anyone's "protection" either! So reporting on an event such as Stockholm in it's clearest and most accurate form is should not be an issue. The reason the subject of judgement came up is that if in your judgement, "only a demo" is a proper, indepth, scientific and accurate report on what the Stockholm event was, it casts a shadow on your judgement of the Androcles project as well. Both are projects strongly desired to be real and successful..... can bias blind the observer?

    With respect.


    What part of 'it was only a demo, it didn't prove anything' doesn't make sense to you? That has been my position all along, something btw that Bob wilfully fails to grasp despite the fact that I have often said so, leading him to play the old game of keep asking the same question and complaining about the answer.

    Either we are having a true misunderstanding or you are "willingly" avoiding the issue as well.

    You stated before going you would report on all as honestly and detailed as you could. (I do not have time to look up the exact quote yet, but it was inferred far more than "it was a demo".)

    A) Rossi has stated that input power was measured using a 1 ohm resistor. You were there and saw the setup, the measurement and the results. Your experience and training allows you to give MUCH more about this than "it was a demo". You can shed much light on this as to whether it was even remotely a viable measurement. So "it was a demo" does not make sense. You are capable of giving a much more detailed and accurate report.

    By not doing so, you are avoiding criticizing Rossi and thus damaging the support for him. That does not make sense to me why you can only say "it was a demo" unless unduly biased for him.

    B) Rossi is stating that there was a high COP given. You were there and based upon your very long and highly recognized capability, you could give a much more detailed report than "it was a demo". Remember, Rossi is touting the COP. He posts on his JONP that it was a "convincing" test. You can give a respected and relative view as if the setup was capable of accurate measurements. It does not make sense to me that you state "it was only a demo" unless you are willingly avoiding criticizing Rossi.

    C) Yes, I keep asking because you keep giving a "thumbs up" to Rossi. While often subtle, it is always a post of support, implied confirmation or thowing shade at IH. You do this while never seeming to mind his continued rhetoric about his devices. And yet, when Johnny 5 makes some claims, there is quick doubt cast on him. So yes, I do continue this question because you make it clear that you support Rossi, either through subtle "thumbs up" or lack of holding him accountable yet, never give any factual reasons why.

    What can you not understand that "its a demo" is not a responsive report of an event that claims many outstanding results such as High COP, measured input, etc. etc.? Does "it's a demo" stand as a valid response to the many claims Rossi makes of this event? It sounds more like W's "fake facts" comment. An event widely touted, widely used as hard evidence and yes, as recent evidence even supports, sock puppeted by Rossi himself as "convincing". You have not even stated if it was a "convincing" demo! :)

    I do understand that you do not want to give a detailed report and that has been your position since the event ended.... but that is entirely different than agreeing to "it didn't prove anything" is a proper and detailed report as promised, to such a event that had several people attend, held in a public forum, with many outstanding and remarkable claims. That if the continued "thumbs up" to Rossi is based upon a belief that he has the real deal, then a proper report from his latest and greatest show should not be a problem to give?

    So actually, I grasp a lot. :/

    just because he is not an AR-hater like you.

    It's time for you to reconcile.


    I did "reconcile" my remarks just a few posts later. See post 7596 above.

    I also made it clear that my post had little to do with Rossi's health, but the continued "thumbs up" support for him.

    Please respond to my questions above..

    Has Rossi not been proven to be a repetitive liar? Both on his JONP and in sworn court depositions.

    Has Rossi not been proven to give nothing but bad demos, erroneous measurements and other misleading "data" in his public demos? Or do you care to comment on the validity of his Stockholm event?

    Has Rossi not spent time in jail for the very same type of actions as recent... fraud, deception and lies?

    Has Rossi not been honest with his partners.

    I am not a Rossi hater, I simply hate seeing fraud and deceit harm the LENR field.

    What exactly has Rossi done that you feel trumps the above known and proven deficits? What has he done that has earned your support and faith?

    That is what my posts were all about. Not medical issues, but exactly what has Rossi done to warrant your support and faith in him? I have given several factual and logical reasons why he is not to be trusted nor supported. What do you give?

    (I see someone moved my previous post to the clearance list. Interesting. :) No explanation as to what improper or non-factual points were involved?)


    Th European LENR science circle believes the older Ecats worked, but are reserving judgement on the QX/SK. Clarification for the new members and guests...Stockholm was Rossi's demonstration of the QX.

    "European LENR circle"? Who exactly is this. Talk about anon!:) Does this consist of Alan, W and Russ?

    I still stand by my statements.

    1) If Rossi had something in the past, it was probably more the work of Focardi or Piantelli. Rossi has shown time and time again his engineering and scientific acumen is quite lacking. Very unlikely he came across the invention of the century. As R. George has been working decades on this and yet has not got a working 20kW reactor, ready for industrialization, robotic factories and many customers! Rossi must be a genius many times over Russ and Alan!

    2) It really does not matter which "model" of eCat they believe in, if they believe they can provide the evidence that their beliefs are based upon. Past or present. I.E. Did they believe Lugano? Why? The 2011 "steam test"? Why. Their repetitive "I have information but cannot tell" is silly after these many years. It is more like "I have my beliefs but will not share them because they are weak reasons".

    3) The "end does not justify the means". Regardless if Rossi had some minor (or major) reaction in the distant past, continued support of a proven lying, deceitful and fraudulent con-man is inexcusable. The "emperor's clothes" cannot cover a multitude of sins. Regardless how badly they wish the eCat to be real. Rossi's character shows he is not going to "save the world", he is going to try and scam as much money as he can. If one truly desires to help the world, then they should expose this as soon as possible!

    4) Reserving judgement? I think not. Alan saw the QX in operation. He saw the setup, the actions, the overall environment. He refuses to give a scientific analysis of it, only saying that it was a "Demo". And yet it is being presented as "convincing" and other remarkable attributes by others and his silence only gives support. What redeeming qualities can the "European Circle" provide, any at all, that warrants continued support for Rossi? His actions these past few years are atrocious. Yet, these actions mean nothing? They must have some real convincing evidence of the "older eCats" to overlook the current deficits! Why cannot they share these so convincing parcels of information to "justify" continued support?

    Some here discredit mainstream science for being closed minded, corrupt and homogenous. Yet this "circle" is willing to overlook fraud and crimes, very bad tests and demos, continued lies and deceptions, no responses to legitimate scientific questions from published test results (Lugano) and a plethora of other deficits. Which is worse? Mainstream or continued support of a known fraudulent con?

    Shane, I think you give them too much leeway on this! :/

    This is the destiny of nameless forum trolls: They will never meet people that are friends, partners of the people they comment on. Alan or myself would certainly tell your dog but no you ...

    The "anon" issue again? :/ Well, as I have said before, I use my real name, same as you I guess. What difference does it make?

    If you believe Rossi and support him, then I challenge you to

    A) state why you support him and what you base it upon.

    B) Why you think the many proven Rossi lies and deceits should be swept under a rug and ignored? (See my reply to Alan)

    You call me a troll and insult me, but it matters little. I call you and Alan out based upon sound logic and you cannot hold your position. Like Rossi supporter Adrian, you have to fall back on personal insult. Rossi is a proven liar and fraud. Do you deny this? Rossi has never publicly proven any demo to be anything other than bad measurement or out and out fraud. Do you deny this? Rossi has a history of lies, fraud and deceit. Do you deny this?

    Of course, if you believe Rossi has the real goods, you can always provide evidence.... or not. There seemingly is none.

    Call me a troll if you like.... I call you on your bluff. I can provide facts, evidence, history and Rossi's own sworn admissions to support my points and claims. You and Alan provide nothing.

    So, my dog would yawn and fall asleep if you and Alan spoke to him as there is no meat to your words about Rossi. That is all he cares about. :)

    I would imagine that if I ever had a chance to meet the vast majority of people on this blog, we would have very good discussions and enjoy company. It is only the three or four Rossi believers here that seem to think everyone else is "babblers". :rolleyes:

    It is election day here in the states. Feeling very frustrated by people with little logic or aptitude about holding people accountable for their own actions!X( The end does not justify the means. (Except evidently on planet Rossi) Perhaps tomorrow will be better.

    Bob. Who exactly visits who in hospital is hardly anybody's business but their own. for you to think otherwise calls your judgement on other areas into question.

    I respect your keeping health matters private and agree that Rossi's medical issues are none of my business. But that was not my point. I admit I often miss my mark when expressing my frustration.

    As clearly as I can put it.... you will post what I call "thumbs up" to Rossi on a fairly regular occasion. I have never seen you state the character that he has proven to be.... a liar, a deceiver, a fraud. This is without argument. Court deposition BY Rossi himself, show that he has lied, deceived, committed fraud on many occasions. Not only to IH, but to his own fanbase. There was no customer. There was no heat exchanger. There was no real "chief engineer". There was no selling of heat to be used in an industrial operation. He provided data showing the plant ran at 75% capacity when the power was shut off! There was no working Doral 1MW reactor and he tried to scam 89 MILLION dollars for it! The list goes on and on but

    this seemingly does not matter to you. THIS is the judgement I am talking about!

    While not proven criminal in Doral, he did spend time for crimes before, which were the result of the same type of activities.... fraud, deceit, etc. There is no questioning this.

    Yet, you will not give a scientific assessment of a demonstration that you said you would report on as accurately as possible. Because seemingly it would put Rossi in a very negative light and you refuse to do this. You have thrown shade at IH on occasion, yet I do not believe I have ever seen you hold Rossi accountable for anything. And yet you think my judgement is in question?

    This was the core of my post, which I must have not gotten across well. At least "Director" recognizes what Rossi's character is, he simply puts his fantasy that Rossi has a LENR reactor as more important that the crimes. You do not even seem to recognize the flaws, yet will throw the veiled insults towards IH. A company who has done nothing but put money into LENR and credible researchers.

    Hopefully that clears this up. Who judgement is logical? Calling a spade a spade or sweeping major reprobates away and supporting the individual anyway? That is what my point is. If you believe in Rossi so much, give us a scientific assessment about how good his reactor at Stockholm was! This was his shining star and latest and greatest.

    Sorry for any confusion.

    No. It's better than that. I have independent confirmation

    You can take it from me that it's true. To go further would be an invasion of somebody else's privacy.

    That is one of planet Rossi biggest problems. It is always a "secret" that someone knows, but cannot tell. A shadowy rumor that

    seems never to be substantiated. Always an NDA or someone "afraid" to come out of the "pro-Rossi closet".

    Sworn testimony given by Rossi is swept under the rug.

    His out and out lies are ignored.

    His completely irrational behavior winked at and rationalized for him.

    Much factual, data based reasoning regarding deception of heat exchangers, IR camera readings, resistor circuits, air movement, posting socks.... etc, etc. are ignored or "pooh - poohed". After all... he DID have a surgery!

    But oh the "I have confirmation" trumps all! No it does not. Perhaps to some, but to no one else. If I said I had independent confirmation about Johnny 5's claims, would this most likely be discredited? Very likely! Yet Rossi is still given the "thumbs" up for far less facts and much more serious flaws absolutely known.

    Quite amazing indeed. Even if Rossi did have some minor reaction in the past, probably more from Focardi or Piantelli than Rossi himself, how can people still defend him? It is appalling and truly calls into question one's world view..... industrial investment capitalist.... why, across the board they are evil and any action against them is warranted! A lying, deceiving individual who has stolen millions from ….. an industrial investment capitalist.... good for them!.... He deserves my "thumbs up!" but not a scientific report on a personally witnessed event that has been widely promoted as "convincing" and "impressive", etc. :/ No of course not, that would be damning and we cannot do that can we?

    It calls into question reasoned judgement which can spill over into other areas. :|

    Very unfortunate.

    Glad you enjoy them. I wish I could say the same.

    You and IH may live to regret walking away from a $trillion.

    From Trillions? Perhaps the January demo will give us a good look.

    Please advise then, of what you expect we will see in the January "demo". You state Rossi is to be believed until proven otherwise.

    He has stated he will show an "industrialized" SK Cat. Please offer your opinion of what we can expect to see. Again, you have much faith

    in Rossi and Rossi has said he will show an "industrialized" SK Cat. What is it that you expect we will see then?

    Please advise.

    Thank you.

    Rossi spiced it up a bit tonight, by answering he has invited a potential business client to the demo. Thankfully Acland will be there to witness if this client attends, and if so, is he a crony/friend, or a legitimate businessman.

    Unfortunately, Acland being there will make no difference.

    There was truly a qualified and capable witness at the Stockholm event and look what came from it.... absolutely nothing. No report, no list of who was there. No scientific evaluation of the presentation. Nada. Yes, it was said "many" prospective business entities were there but nary a peep of who they might be. Acland is not nearly as qualified as the Stockholm visitor, so why would we expect anything?

    We will hear nothing from this demo from Acland of import or detail. He will either have to sign a NDA that prohibits him from saying anything or he will not know who is in attendance anyway. (I doubt they will be wearing name tags with company names on them!)

    Remember, Acland went to Doral at one time. He reported seeing "convincing" evidence, but was not allowed to publish anything of value or proof.

    This will likely be the same.

    Interesting about a "prospective business client". Rossi has been espousing that he has a new partner for a long time. One that has "fire power". :)

    Hmm... has he "lost" this new partner now? It is doubtful that if a partner, who is building and helping design the reactor, would allow a potential competitor to come to the demo. While some might say, oh it is a customer looking to purchase heat etc., do you think this January demo is the best forum a real and legitimate industrial company would put on for a potential customer.

    This is another blatant example of how naïve Rossi and some of his followers are. He stated the Stockhold event was a demo for potential investors. It was a joke! Any real company, with real engineers, with real "firepower" would never put that up to a potential multi-million dollar customer. That is simply beyond belief. That demo was an absolute joke! (Of course I would certainly entertain a formal report showing that it was not! :/)

    Let's see what the Jan. demo is like. If it is another "Stockholm event" , you can rest assured that any new partner is not one of major "firepower" or experience in industrial sales/service.

    Still waiting for the believer's response with some details on what they expect to see in January. A working, ready for industrial use, viable piece of equipment ….. or some Home Depot sprinkler parts? Come on guys, you believe in Rossi, he has said "industrialized" and you believe what Rossi says is to be believed. What is your expectation of industrialized SKCat?

    Surely you believe enough in Rossi to give us an opinion.... otherwise your lack of conviction is telling that you in truth know you cannot believe what Rossi says! Can you believe him or not? :?:

    I have no idea what the demonstration will show Bob.

    Jan. will be here before we know it! (Unfortunately, time flies)

    However, my question was what do you BELIEVE he will show. Most Rossi believers state they believe he has something.

    They must have some idea as to what they believe? Otherwise it is wishful thinking and pie in the sky dreaming!

    A.A. What do you think Rossi will show in January. He says an "industrialized product". What do you decipher Rossi as saying here?

    Surely an "industrialized" product will not be what the Stockholm event showed. That arrangement of plastic parts was anything BUT ready

    to be of any use to anyone.

    Does anyone think we are going to see a 20kW heat exchanger?

    Does anyone think we are going to see 20kw of output? How will the heat be dissipated?

    Or do you think he will only show a very small change in temperature due to "safety and video streaming presentation"? I.E. very little power.

    What to you believers EXPECT to see? Or, as over the years has taught us, that Rossi disappoints every time and disappoints big! That you will not

    now say what you hope for or expect as you know the historical track record would leave you looking silly, stating that Rossi will actually show something

    that is in an industrial setting.

    A.A. Again, you state since Rossi says something, it should be taken as legitimate until proven otherwise. OK, then, what do you expect to see at the

    Jan. demo based upon Rossi's own words. You have stated he is the expert and only one that knows, so when he states an "industrialized product", what are we going to see?

    A direct honest question that deserves a honest answer.

    Thank you.

    From ECW :


    Drew G.

    November 2, 2018 at 4:30 PM

    Dr. Rossi:

    You may have already answered this question so forgive me if you previously did so. Will you have an independent engineer present at the 31 January industrialization demonstration responsible validating the accuracy of all the test and measurement equipment utilized as well as the resulting measurements? I’m sure all your followers on this website can suggest one if you haven’t already done so. Continued success and I look forward to 31 January after following your progress since 2011.

    Andrea Rossi

    November 3, 2018 at 3:51 AM

    Drew G.:

    No, we will not have any engineer to validate anything. It will be a presentation of a service supplied by means of an industrialized product, not a validation test.

    Warm Regards,


    A sincere question for the Rossi believers. In Rossi's reply above, what do you think he means by "a presentation of a service supplied by means of an industrialized product." As usual, Rossi never seems to give a straight forward answer with any discernable meaning.

    Do you think he is going to show a SkatCat that is in it's

    A) industrialized form? One that is putting out 20Kw, with needed industrial controllers, monitors

    and safety devices?

    B) Stockholm event form? A few pieces of Home Depot plastic parts, a white "power" box and Fabiani in front of a couple of digital displays?

    C) Anything remotely looking like a product ready for "industrialization"?

    To me, an "industrialized product" is one ready for being put into production at a working facility. One that has the necessary controls, safety and

    operating functions to be used by commercial interests.

    Please advise of what you think we will see and then we can compare what is actually shown and what "industrialized" means!


    We will probably hear about it rather quickly after they determine themselves it is real. Someone will crack.

    Surely you mean "if they determine" not "after they determine"? :)

    Your statement is worded like something AA would state. I.E. That it is already a given that the SkatCat is real and working. After all... Rossi says it is!

    Again, I have to state it... Rossi ALWAYS disappoints! (For AA, this is based upon a continuous 7+ year history of statements, announcements, demos and lawsuits that have ALL ended the same, VERY DISAPPOINTING way. Not simply "Babble", but sound historical reasoning. AA continued support is the only babble I see WITHOUT fact or logic. ;))


    A bottle of Mac12 Double Cask says the customer is an unknown never heard of

    or a Rossi sock puppet


    We will not know. Rossi will not reveal the customer according to his latest statement as far as I remember.

    Have you heard differently?

    He never tells who his "customers" is. :rolleyes:

    I am getting a little excited about the "firepower" of this client.


    You have to remember two things...

    1. Rossi ALWAYS disappoints! Always.

    Remember, he stated IH was a "major" US company. He stated Bass was a "Chief Engineer". He stated the 1MW plant customer was very satisfied!

    Just go back and look at ALL of Rossi's demo's, statements and claims. His "Certification" was actually a meaningless, non-production review of the electrical box controls. ALL of his dealings disappoint greatly and have always been far from what his statements would "lead" someone to believe.

    2. I really doubt that ANY "major" company would touch Rossi with the proverbial "ten foot pole" after Doral. At least not without very clear and independent verification of Rossi claims. We know Rossi will never allow that. So therefore, no "major" company. He may have charmed another angel investor into some type of "Deal" without due diligence, but it will not be a "major" company that has significant engineering experience at their disposal.

    No, this will simply be another Rossi disappointment.... I would not get too excited.

    I am not sure what the real issue here is. Logic is logic, lack of it is lacking. Good commentary is good and bad is bad. A name does not make it so.

    Does Adrian's "babble" have any more weight because he uses his name? Yes, one does have to have certifications and permits regardless of how many years of "engineering" he says he has. Knowing his real name adds NO value to his illogic and sometimes outright wrong statements.

    Sam12 does not use his real name, but even if he did, his stance would not be any more meaningful. So we have Sam12 (anon) and Adrian (known),

    what truly is the difference here?

    Alan Smith uses his real name, has very good credentials but still will not give a proper report on the Stockholm event. He still thinks Rossi has "something" but will not say what supports that reasoning. So his "name" gives no more credibility to Rossi than Sam12! (This is because of the MOUNTAINS of factual evidence against Rossi's legitimacy against NO revealed factual support from Alan.)

    I go by Bob. Does anyone here know if that is my real name or not? Does it really matter? Yes it is my real name. I have it on my profile and where I am from and my general background. If my posts are logical, does knowing my last name make them more so? If my posts are ludicrous, does knowing my last name make them more "reasonable"? Hardly.

    Where is the delineation? What do you NEED to know? Do you need to know if I am a college grad or not? Do you need to know if I worked at an Ivy League University or not? Possibly you need to know if I am a Democrat or a Republican? Atheist or baptized? How about Asian or Middle Eastern?

    Where does it stop? What really matters?

    Here is the crux of the matter... 2 plus 2 equals 4 no matter who states it. If Einstein stated that 2 plus 2 equals 5, published his name, credentials and what he had for breakfast... he better still have the data / math / logic / experiments to back it up or his statement is still BullShit! I do not care who he is!

    So you asked and the above is my opinion. A person's posts should be judged on it's merit, it's logic, it's historical backing, it's math, it's data/facts, it's relevance to topic, not the color of their skin, the religion, the nationality, the league of alma mater, political affiliation or Anglo-saxon name.

    Ivy League assholes can make just as big a blunders as do small school grads. Democrats can be just as stupid as Republicans. Germans had Hitler and Chinese had Mao Tse-Tung. So what is in a name? Very little. Show me one's worth by your knowledge, facts and aptitude!

    I.E. When was the last time ANYONE really saw "Lovely Dancing Gammas"? Does a particular name make them more real? (One has to know what they are first!) :/

    From ECW, F. Ackland states he has booked a flight to the January demo.

    "The date of January 31st, 2019 for the presentation has been confirmed, the location was a surprise to me (that’s all I can say at the moment.)"

    As usual, the plot becomes clearer and is the same as always. . Some say that "the location was a surprise" is a positive. However, one must remember... Rossi always disappoints. So I assume that the demo will be held in a place that is completely meaningless, thus the "surprise". I.E., not at a customer, not at legitimate facility. It is in the state of Florida. (No surprise there!) I wonder if the engineering society is watching? :) Some was convinced it would be Illinois as the rumors of a major "food company" and sighting at O'Hare airport. Rossi of course, did nothing to squelch those rumors. Another was California.... oh boy!.....must be aerospace! But alas, poor Rossi followers were disappointed again.

    No, the "demo" will be held in Florida, the state with the most lax fraud laws in the country! Yet Rossi will not even announce the city. Hmm.... could it be Doral?:huh:

    Taking the cue from several posters, Rossi was able to claim his demo cannot be public due to "Safety concerns"! He truly should thank posters for giving him so many ideas for escaping reality. Remember, he ran a "plant" for a whole year in Doral without ANY permits, approvals or licenses! Just ask Adrian, he doe NOT need any of these! What? Why now?

    Yes, this is progressing just as many expected. No customer, no input power measurement, no reasonable independent review, no real information, nothing but hot air. (Hot air that was NOT produced by the eCat either.)

    I have another month to go before I re-post my predictions to Adrian where he posted his belief was that much would be shown in January and production shortly there after. He stated the "babblers" would be running away.... :rolleyes: but history has clearly shown Rossi is very repetitive in his actions... very.

    If Mr. Weaver is around, can you share any thoughts? I am sure that IH is keeping at least some tabs on Rossi.

    The last post from Johnny 5 was 10 days ago on this thread. Has he dropped from sight?

    This was an interesting venture and Magicsound a most capable replicator.

    Just because a first attempt was not successful in replication does not mean a project should be dropped.

    As J5 had stated, this was supposedly a very simple and inexpensive test to conduct that was highly repeatable. Just what is needed!

    Why drop it so quickly?

    One has to then ponder if it is dropped so quickly, was it real to start with. Alan Smith does not think so.

    Which will it be?

    One of several "Eureka, I definitely have it" claims (such as ME356, LION and others) that disappear once investigated

    or will the endeavor march on until a clearer understanding of what happened is found?

    J5, are you still convinced with your tests and are working with Magicsound towards a successful replication?

    If J5 disappears, will this leave us with only the "Androcles" project to watch and see how it ends. Like the others mentioned, "big claims

    but no results in the end" or "finally, a repeatable and confirmed LENR reactor"? Unfortunately, neither is very clear at the moment.

    Thank you for sharing!

    I have no expertise in radiation monitoring, so please forgive me if this question is rudimentary.

    The background counts have a large spike and is reflected in the other charts. Is there a known or suspected cause for this background increase? Specifically, is it suspected that the other reactor(s) in the bank may have produced radiation and thus was picked up as background?

    I was unsure as to the location or shielding of the "dead reactor".

    Thank you again.

    THH wrote...

    "I'm not really understanding why so many here seem to react to it so strongly."

    It seems to be a common trait with some in many,many circles. A prime example is religion... a large percentage of the earth's population believe in a single God. Jewish, Islam and Christian. Yet they have often killed each other over the ages and even argue that the others do not "really" worship the same god. (No, I am not getting into religion here, just presenting a factual example)

    So even while most here claim the "scientific method" is valid, logical and supports thier views, if one uses this method to point out that said view is lacking or not "yet confirmed", then you are a "blasphemer" and worthy of excommunication!

    By defintion, science is "from Missouri", the "show me state". The state motto is if one makes a claim, the response is "show me". Yet, when applied to areas of deep desire, "show me" is often interpeted as "you are in error AND misguided". This is not the same.

    Same with climate change, kids vaccinations, vegetarianism, copper braclets, aliens and ghosts. No matter which "side" one is on, the scientific method only seems applicable when it supports one's interest! :/

    Have you dropped the strange radiation tests? Are you working with Magicsound.

    Do not follow the path others have taken, jumping from one target to another.

    You stated the radiation test was very highly repeatable. Work with Magicsound to replicate and change history.

    Otherwise, this will be just another LION, ME356, Orbo and others. 😖

    Have you digested fully the manna ' titbits' here?…r-and-particle-physics-20

    It may take a few years for the Gospel of Androcles to be written...but I prefer to be a disciple like John rather than Peter

    I have looked at it... as well as BLP's, Widom/Larsen, some of Storm's work and a few others. I also looked at Rossi/Gulstrom and Rossi/Cook.

    They all have a few things in common...

    1) They are all well above my formal education in math and nuclear science. I am not qualified to critique the math or theory.

    2) They all share the matter of not being through a multi-discipline peer review. Meaning I do not have any expert's review to rely upon.

    3) For whatvever reason, none of these theories have gained any attention in mainstream circles. (Even European ones!:/) Not a deal breaker but not supportive eithetmr.

    4) To my kmowledge, none have been confirmed experimentally by third parties.

    Which puts them still in the theory status and "still leaves room for doubt"

    We will see I guess! The question is, will it be the 10 years or the sooner than later?

    Again, many have put forth these concrete claims....none have been realized so far.

    Hopefully, perhaps this time is different, but I am still a doubting Thomas. I will need to be shown as bold claims have become a dime a dozen in this field, with little to no data facts nor with results seen.

    Unfortunately! :(


    I am certainly not an LENR denier. (Rossi yes, but not LENR) Yet even as a pro-LENR advocate, I cannot say there is no more room for serious questions. Can you elaborate on what public data in the past six months is now available that I can use to spread acceptance? I am not aware of any major public experimental logs / documents in the past six months that are revelatory.

    We have seen theories over the years. Mills, L&W and several others. They do not seem to have panned out, even though the authors are confident. Until confirmation is publicly available, all is still just theory.

    It has been alluded that recent tests have been successful, but no data. Unfortunately, following the pattern of Rossi, only cryptic posts, secret experts and unsubstantiated data tidbits have been posted. This does not build confidence NOR remove room for denial.

    Time will tell for sure. But I would like to point out that I have only seen positive remarks and questions towards such as Magicsound, Bob Higgins and such. They do an excellent job of communicating. A good model to emulate. :thumbup:

    There is a widening divide growing here. I hope reason and logic will prevail.

    This forum is being fed little tidbits of information. Sometimes contradictory, such as "sooner than later" versus "10 years and 10 million. What actual data that has been released is insufficient to make sound conclusions on.

    So, as true science normally involves, rational questions are posed, the answer (from some at least) is along the lines of "how dare you imply such. Of course we have covered every angle and more than you would ever know anyway".

    This is not the way forward. A logical, impersonal question should be answered with a factual and impersonal answer. If we do not have data details, these are the first logical questions to ask. There are no mind readers and the information released does,not yet back the claims.

    One of the glaring red lights with Rossi is that when a valid question or problem is pointed out, he storms off in a tizzy. We do not want to follow that path!

    This is not personal, it is science. The data needs to stand review. Harder questions than this will be asked. And at some point, the "un-named expert" (which is impossible to disclose ? not), will have to come forth. Or he is no more than one if Rossi's "areo space engineers".

    W gave a reasonable reply. It was not pointed nor evasive. THH simply then proceeded down one path of logic based upon the data released. This is healthy. For some reason, it seems to be taken personally. It is not.

    The more data available, the less first order questions there will be. I saw no antagonism in the questions.