Posts by woodworker

    E = M.C^2

    The SK has a couple of grams of non radioactive fuel in it.

    A nuclear power plant has > 20 tons of uranium in it.

    It is a mistake for you to write about technical things. as it makes you look foolish.

    As you don't actually know what the fuel is, you are just pulling things out of your backside, as usual. Also, my exact point was that very small amounts can be very dangerous. Or does you vast experience and expertise in everything tell you differently?

    And, now that we know you are not ignoring my posts, why do you keep failing to respond to my bet, or is your whole bet offer just another case of you babbling?

    Your anti Rossi bias makes you write total rubbish.

    Most new cars are test driven by a few members of the public before going on sale. The Chevy Volt was so driven for a year if I recall.

    The early SK plants will be monitored 24/7. Rossi has stated he will train several members of the clients to be operators. They can operate the plant if the internet fails (how often does that happen?) and shut the plant down if there is a problem.

    The SK is so small the chances of a catastrophe are negligible.

    AA, this is just a tremendous load of crap. So, according to you, car manufacturers design something, do some test drives with test customers and that is it. I guess the NHTSA and the IIHS would be incredibly surprised by that.

    And the SK is so small the chances of a catastrophe are negligible, but yet it is oh so powerful. OOPS. And size is not necessarily a factor in how dangerous something is -- putting aside the biological sciences, e.g., anthrax or ebola, a very small amount of polonium or plutonium can really ruin a lot of persons' day. And to claim that the SK really can't be dangerous when you can't even describe how it allegedly works is the height of hypocrisy. And no, my concerns about something I believe is a complete fraud are not contradictory to my concerns about it's potential dangers. There are lots of dangerous cancer treatments out there that have absolutely no therapeutic value.

    I notice that you are ignoring my counter bet to you AA. Why is that -- are you too scared to put your money where your mouth is?

    AA: I propose a counter bet to you. You claim that it would be foolish to bet against you with all "the available evidence." As you are so confident, let's adjust the odds so that instead of 1:10 in your favor, the odds are 1:10 in my favor, e.g., I bet 100 dollars and, when I win, you pay me $1,000.

    Secondly, again as you are so confident, if Rossi doesn't prove (to be discussed below) a working widget meeting the performance parameters he has described, you lose. Very simple.

    As to proof, if Alan says Rossi proved it you win. If Alan doesn't say Rossi proved it, you lose. Alan doesn't have to say that it failed, he merely has to not say it was proven or to remain silent.

    Amount: any amount up to US$10,000 on my side. I will happily deposit my bet with Alan or Shane.

    I sure do not see any signs of Rossi backing off. If anything he seems to be pushing faster, and harder on everything. He has named some names, and I have no doubt Gullstrom flew there as he claimed, or that he has an anonymous Japanese prof working with him. I wonder how he is getting around all the regulatory, certification, radiation hazard issues raised here?

    His confidence level seems very high also.

    A few years ago there was an evangelist in Southern California, Harold Camping. who predicted the date and time that the Rapture would occur. Camping had predicted different dates and times over the years and each time he dismissed any doubting questions by simply explaining that he was right and anyone who doubted him was wrong. The predicted dates and times all passed without such event occurring, but Camping always was extremely confident.

    signing the non disclosure turns on them, they then become the proof of... and can not deny without lawsuit.

    Trap step 4

    IMHO, NDA/s, Confidentiality Agreements, etc. are generally much more impressive to non-lawyers than they are to lawyers. Cease and desist letters are cheap to write and, unfortunately, they scare a lot of people off. It seems that most non-lawyers are fairly easily scared off. And threatening a lawsuit is much cheaper than filing and prosecuting one.

    Competent counsel is usually much less impressed. A classic example of this is found, and most eloquently expressed, in Arkell v. Pressdram (google it).

    And based on what I have seen of Rossi's contractual agreements, competent counsel should chew him up. (if the lawyers who represented IH in the negotiations with Rossi feel that I have insulted their work -- they are correct).

    I appreciate your volunteering, and I suspect I know just how much work it takes. I say that because I just came back from a ten day trip to Nevada, as a volunteer poll observer. I didn't get paid, I won't get reimbursed for my flight, my hotel, my car, the donuts and bagels I bought for the poll workers every morning or the lunches I bought or the pizzas I bought for voters waiting line for over an hour because 6 out of 8 voting machines went down. I have done this three times in Las Vegas, Nevada and three times in Cincinnati, Ohio (I live in California). Note I am not saying which party I represented. I also participate, some might say agitate, between elections in both politics and other issues. I completely understand how much time and effort you put in, and I do appreciate it.

    But it seems to the answer to this issue is not less discussion but, if you don't like what someone posts and feel it repetitive, then ignore it.

    And no, I don't believe this is making a mountain out of a molehill, I believe it is stopping going down a slippery slope. We all have seen forums where the discussion is taking over by rabid, insult throwing, non-rationale posters. That is not this forum, thankfully so, in large part due to the efforts of the moderators. But we all have also seen forums where moderators shut down discussions that they deem repetitive or not productive and seen those forums die because posted feel censored and leave. I realize that is a fine line, but I would err on the side of my discussion not less. If people don't like what a particular poster says, they can ignore him (as AA keeps saying he is going to do with me). I disagree with AA on many issues, but I wouldn't want him to stop posting.

    And let us just assume for a moment that Bob is completely wrong and is being a jackass on this point. He isn't using profanity, he remains civil, what harm is he doing? If AS has his feelings hurt, AS is a big boy and should be able to handle. I know I have had far worse said about me by AA. If you don't like what Bob says, ignore it.

    woodworker everybody was expecting it to be a test but Rossi did a demo of how he plans to connect his future reactos to future control box.

    During the demo, the device connected to the power outlet produced measurable heat using unspecified amount of electricity.

    There was also a handsome swedish speaking physics to give a show a bit of credibility and sweeting the pill for those who paid money from the trip.

    I think it is fair to call it a demo.

    So, despite the fact that everyone apparently expected a test and Rossi apparently considers it a successful test, it is now a "demo." Tell me, what was it a demo of? You state of "plans to connect his future reactos to future control box" so we didn't get a demo of anything real that existed at the time of the "demo." You further state that "the device connected to the power outlet produced measurable heat using unspecified amount of electricity." So we don't know the input values, which even I, as a complete geek when it comes to this, can see as a problem. Lastly, you close with "There was also a handsome swedish speaking physics to give a show a bit of credibility and sweeting the pill for those who paid money from the trip." Wow, talk about really selling validity of the widget, there was a handsome swedish speaking physics person. Now I understand. I am ready to invest millions. Clearly, having a handsome swedish speaking physics person is the ultimate key to validating a scientific test.

    Mr. Nozin, I don't believe your arguments are making your case any stronger or really helping.

    woodworker when Alan says just watch the video, maybe he means that experience being physically present in the room is no different.

    This ignores my entire point. Whether in person or video, as a non-technical/science person I am looking for help in interpreting the "demo." If AS is now going to take the position that he was not there as anything other than a passive bystander, why bother going?


    You are not being told to keep quiet. You are free to continue on with your valuable insights of Rossi, and everyone, and all things else. Only exception, is I am asking you to refrain from any further criticisms about Alan and his role in Stockholm. Even that is not an attempt to muzzle you, as you have already stated your frustration about that many times over the past year. It is just getting repetitive, and serves no purpose to belabor the point any further, other than to humiliate a Moderator and valuable member of the forum.

    It may surprise you, but I was taken to task twice by the Mods before becoming a Mod myself. I simply accepted their role, took it as a lesson learned as to what I could say, and not say, and moved on. Now on to other things.

    I have to completely disagree with this. What you are explicitly saying is that if the moderators don't like what someone says, and we are not talking about profanity, ad hominem attacks, doxxing or anything similar, but if the moderators don't like the line of your discussion, you should shut up. I quote your language "took it as a lesson learned as to what I could say, and not say." So, if I am a good little boy (which, trust me, is very unlikely) then maybe someday I can grow up and become a moderator.

    I also note your reference to "other than to humiliate a Moderator and valuable member of the forum." One can only be humiliated if there is something about which to be humiliated. Are you saying that you believe AS should be humiliated or that there is something about which AS should be humiliated? I don't, at least not yet.

    Bob has been attacked for making a rational, well-reasoned argument. If you disagree with the postulates of his argument, then state your disagreement. But to suggest that he shut up because it bothers you, that doesn't border on censorship, that rides a panzer across the line of censorship.

    This approach concerns me that different standards are being applied to certain people. Bob is attacked for revisiting, what to me, is a legitimate issue that has not been resolved (as I discussed in a post above) and is being told to shut up. AA engages in ad hominem attacks, including against me, and, AFAIK, no moderator has told him to shut up. I may be wrong, I hope I am -- but the recent responses to Bob greatly concern me.

    I realize that the owner/administrator/the powers that be of this forum have the absolute right to do anything they want here, subject to civil tort law, e.g., defamation, etc., and that, despite what many may believe, there is no First Amendment issue here. But I also believe that the utility, social or personal, of a forum such as this depends on their being allowed a generally free exchange of thoughts and opinions. But if this is going to start only allowing "approved" thought, then this will turn into an echo chamber of no utility or value to anyone.

    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.

    I have to completely disagree with you here Alan. I have repeated stated that I don't understand the engineering or science involved here, which makes me rely on those with the expertise to interpret and explain what happened/did not happen and why and how something was supposed to happen and if it didn't, why not. IMO this is made worse by your continued insistence on the "it was a demo" despite Rossi's statements to the contrary. If you sole role is to state that you are merely a bystander, then you have no basis to criticize anyone who says something negative about Rossi/his widgets. After all, if you rationale for not commenting/explaining re: Stockholm is that anyone can just watch the video, then there is no need for you to criticize anything posted that is negative about Rossi -- after all, we can all read the posts ourselves.

    You do yourself, and your arguments, no good by adopting such an obvious pretext for your silence. That is the approach of a judicial nominee who says, "no, I have never though about whether or not [__________] is constitutional" when we all know that claim is a load of manure. Don't degrade yourself to that level.

    That is the most preposterous claim. There is not one shred of evidence that a production line is being built. "Leonardo Corporation" does not have a facility to build a production line in. The address is his condo. Don't you think there would be some evidence if in fact a manufacturing site existed?

    The factory and production line are being built in RossiVille, a land so enchanted and magical that nothing being built requires permits or other bureaucratic hindrances advocated by babblers and where anything can be built without the aid or use of engineers, contractors or even construction workers. Unfortunately, RossiVille is difficult to locate: some claim that it is adjacent to FantasyLand and across from TomorrowLan, but, as with much of what RossiSays, there is no proof of its actual existence.

    I think we all can agree that Rossi has "testicoli" (or "cajones", for english speakers here) ;)

    I disagree. If he had cojones and the personal sense of honor and integrity that he so likes to brag about, he would admit that most of what he proposes is a scam and a con. IMO, he is just a clever conman who has to continue conning people because that is all he knows.

    I think it is clear that I hold no affection for Rossi. But, if Alan says Rossi had surgery and Alan is backing that up with independent confirmation, I trust Alan. And refusing to disclose personal medical information about an individual without that individual's permission is not a cop out or a sham or any such other rot -- an individual's health is a personal matter and publicly disclosing details thereof without a damned good reason is morally wrong. For example, if I knew a poster on this forum had surgery in connection with a sexually transmitted disease (this is obviously a hypothetical so no one get their panties in a wad), unless that knowledge was directly relevant to the subject being discussed, it would be morally abhorrent to disclose that information. Kudos to Alan for not disclosing it.

    And AA: I know when you read this you will immediately be tempted to write something snarky, e.g., to the effect that as I am a mere babbler what would I know of morals. So AA, to save the time of reading your attacks, let me respond now: See "Arkell v. Pressdram.

    I think we all can agree that Rossi has "testicoli" (or "cajones", for english speakers here) ;)

    I disagree. If he had cojones and the personal sense of honor and integrity that he so likes to brag about, he would admit that most of what he proposes is a scam and a con. IMO, he is just a clever conman who has to continue conning people because that is all he knows.


    How will you react when Rossi has passed and the Ecat and all of its variants has not been released as an Over unity device?

    That's a simple one -- AA will blame all of us babblers and Rossi haters because if we (pardon me while I dry my eyes) hadn't been so mean to Rossi he would surely, out of his great, noble and magnificent heart, given the world, as a gift, all of his works and knowledge. But, alas, that is not to be, and I admit that the prospect of Rossi passing and not gifting all his knowledge to humanity bothers me, and it bothers me even more that I may have contributed. I am so distraught over this that I shall immediately go to church and say three "Hail Diet Dr. Peppers," along with one "Crispy Onion Rings." I hope thereby to atone for my sins against the "Great One."

    I suspect that in RossiLexicon, industrialized means a heavy duty extension cord.

    Adrian, Paul Agabi wants to send you 50% of $15.5 Million Dollars from Nigeria!

    If you don't respond, you may live to regret walking away from $$$millions, just like Dewey.

    Hmmm, I think we should do a grammatical and word usage analysis -- after all, we know that Rossi is a man of many hidden talents, and he does need money to survive.

    If a team got serious I suspect we could have a working example of a QX in a month or two at the most.

    My guess is that if you don't mind the electrode burning out rather quickly, the QX is a fairly forgiving design.

    Well, if you believe that it is a "fairly forgiving design," you should easily be able to provide a copy so said design to the whole forum. Can't wait to see it.

    I suspect that Rossi has moved up/down/sideways from Home Depot to Lowes, or maybe he is getting his precision parts from OSH at a discount because of they closing up business. Maybe AA, Axil or Sam has some insider information re: that.

    The Director explained why it was necessary on a thread that aimed at discussing the possibility that the QS and SK reactors worked.

    You are not being censored and can comment about his thread here if you want to. To have that thread interrupted by the babble found on this thread would spoil it. You may enjoy babble but others don't.

    So he is not being censored but he is not allowed to post critical posts there -- but he is not being censored. So if AS and the other moderators deleted all of your posts and didn't allow you to post here, that would not be censorship because you can post elsewhere. Is that correct?

    And please note that I am not making any First Amendment arguments because the First Amendment doesn't apply to any of this.

    The fact is that there are individuals on this forum who find it fun and exciting to interrupt all conversations that are in the least, smallest way positive about Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology. That's why I requested that such individuals stay out of the thread I created. Repeatedly, they would have simply interjected, "Why are you supporting such a criminal fraud? I can't believe there are such gullible people on this forum!" Apparently, they don't care one bit about allowing threads to remain on topic, common courtesy, or allowing others to express their opinions. I don't care if others on this forum have opinions different than mine. However, I have the same right to express my opinions as they do.

    IMHO, you are conflating the right to express your opinion with your perceived right to be immune from criticism. I completely support your, Sam, AA's, etc. right to express your respective opinions. But that doesn't mean I have to refrain from mocking those opinions based on the facts as I see them. After all, you choose to draw your own conclusions but that doesn't mean you have a monopoly on the conversation.

    Oh, go on then I'll be a Rossi supporter to keep the discussion going, I'm half-Italian so can understand where the guy is coming from. I really think he is sincere in what he is trying to achieve but doesn't have the scientific training or discipline to follow one line of thinking through to any logical conclusion, consequently flitting around like a butterfly from one idea to the next. Obviously landing in trouble with his first project in Italy, ending up on a fraud charge while trying to extract fuel from rubbish. Was that such a crime against a background of the Naples Comorra dumping dioxin waste all over the countryside poisoning buffalo milk to make the cheese for pizzas? Maybe he had to take a fall at the time, nobody knows. Then he moves to the US and screws up on some thermoelectric project, and now after years and years of working on cold fusion has come up with the e-cat QX. Well all I can say is good luck to the guy, hope it all works out, he's clearly sandwiched between the FBI on one side and the Italian mob on the other-not an enviable tightrope to walk if he makes a slip. Hence the lack of transparency in his demonstrations etc he never has been free in my opinion to just get on with the job at hand without being pressurized all the time. Or maybe I'm wrong, but I feel sorry for the guy he 'aint had it easy' as they say.

    Gee, the guy gets caught breaking the law, committing fraud, lying and cheating, and we should all feel sorry for the guy. Nope, don't think so. As for bringing in the Italian mob, I fail to understand how that justifies the rest of the BS that he has pulled. Please enlighten us, or at least me, how the actions of a murderous group of thugs explains Rossi's actions.

    That, IMHO, is a load of codswallop. I won't pretend to understand the science, so I cannot and will not comment on that. But when I look at and compare Rossi to Alan Smith, I see a conman, a liar and a cheat in Rossi who constantly brags about what he has accomplished but refuses to show any evidence thereof. I look at Alan's behavior and, although I don't know if he will be successful, I have no doubt that when (if) he is, he will not suffer from "inventor's disease." I hope that Alan, or someone else, is successful. I know it won't be Rossi. I suspect that in most of the instances of so called "inventor's disease," it is used as an excuse for why that particular person never produced the anticipated and promised wonderful new widget, what ever it might be.

    You claim that a certain percentage of inventors who are successful are swallowed up by larger concerns seeking profits. I don't see how you get profits if you don't develop and exploit the technology. I am 100% confident that once someone cracks the problem, they will be deluged with offers of money, assistance and publicity.

    I also question your repeated analyses of how Rossi's widgets work. IIRC, you have never been directly involved in their design, manufacture, etc., you have never had access to the widgets themselves and you have not been made privy to any secret or confidential information. So you have watched a bunch of videos and read Rossi's public statements and then invested that with how you want the widgets to work. Regardless, I believe you are wrong because Rossi's widgets are a con.

    That brings me to the little rebellion brewing about this thread, and how moderated: There are looser standards applied on this thread, than others as has been mentioned by Alan and I before. It is a special thread in that regard. Why?...well, we need this discussion to go on, and the only way it will, is if we allow greater leeway. Rossi is either a crook, a great inventor, or a blend of the two, so the stage is set for some spirited debate, so we let it happen.

    Of course, for a debate there has to be two opposing sides represented. At one time, we had quite a few Rossi fans here, and they put up a good, relatively clean fight with what they had to work with. Unfortunately, most of them were purged, and some just disappeared over time. No one else left, or willing, or able to defend the hard to defend Rossi, so we make do with who we have.

    Shane D:

    Perhaps a major reason that there are fewer Rossi acolytes on this thread now is what you expressed in your first paragraph -- "You are just not going to get them to talk much about it though, as understandably it is a hard viewpoint to justify with facts, . . (emphasis added)." Yes, it is more difficult to make a convincing argument when you have few, if any, actual, real life facts to argue and when almost all, if not all, of the facts are against you argument. If the only basis for an argument is the word of a self-admitted liar and cheat, it is not hard to understand the decline in the number of acolytes.

    And the SOLE basis for your conclusions is RossiSays.

    What evidence is there that the "power" is going up, other than, of course, RossiSays?

    Maybe the Court had no way of knowing (or maybe they did via the counter case which of course was not presented) but Rossi ripped off IH to the tune of $11.5 Million. In my world, that's a bit out of the piddly ass range. Certainly not Judge Judy range of claims.

    Considering the level of Medicare, Medicaid, etc. fraud (remember Governor Scott's company, while he headed it, paid a fine for health care billing fraud of over a billion dollars), boiler room securities fraud ripping off widows and orphans, the illegal drug trade in Florida, the real estate scams, etc. 11.5 million is piddly ass. No one was killed or injured, the defrauded party was an out of state corporation and nobody important in Florida, other than the parties, gave a damn about this case. No reasonable and sane prosecutor with too many cases and not enough resources is going to get involved here (unless someone involved in IH is politically connected in Florida).