Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: This is, of course, one of the classic hallmarks of the scammer. Many say this; but, to what end? He is not asking for money. Is it just the attention? Was he improperly weaned as a child? T
[Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
He is not asking for money Again? Why someone keeps saying He is not asking for money when it's not true? -Messaggio originale- From: Terry Blanton Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 1:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: This is, of course, one of the classic hallmarks of the scammer. Many say this; but, to what end? He is not asking for money. Is it just the attention? Was he improperly weaned as a child? T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: He is not asking for money Again? Why someone keeps saying He is not asking for money when it's not true? Are you speaking of the people who buy his product? T
[Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
-.- Rossi is asking for money. He asked money to Defkalion in February/March (A LOT OF MONEY) for his technology (deadline of payment around June) Stop saying that he is not asking for money, because is false. -Messaggio originale- From: Terry Blanton Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 1:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: He is not asking for money Again? Why someone keeps saying He is not asking for money when it's not true? Are you speaking of the people who buy his product? T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: -.- Rossi is asking for money. He asked money to Defkalion in February/March (A LOT OF MONEY) for his technology (deadline of payment around June) Stop saying that he is not asking for money, because is false. Okay, Rossi is not asking the uneducated and unwashed masses for money like a true scammer would. T
[Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
So Stanley Meter, a scammer (Ohio court sentence), was not a true scammer? Mmmh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell -Messaggio originale- From: Terry Blanton Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 2:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: -.- Rossi is asking for money. He asked money to Defkalion in February/March (A LOT OF MONEY) for his technology (deadline of payment around June) Stop saying that he is not asking for money, because is false. Okay, Rossi is not asking the uneducated and unwashed masses for money like a true scammer would. T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-05 07:36 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: This is, of course, one of the classic hallmarks of the scammer. Many say this; Because it's true, of course. but, to what end? To point out the annoying and unavoidable truth. I continue to fear that Rossi may turn out to be the torpedo in the engine room of cold fusion. He is not asking for money. Is it just the attention? Was he improperly weaned as a child? Y'got me. It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but I'm not totally sure it can swim like a duck. Actually I find the interlocking companies with funding from ... someplace ..., along with the early claims that Rossi (or was it Defkalion?) had received a great deal of investment money from a substantial number of ex-pat Greeks (Have we forgotten about that, or did we decide it was a lie? Or do we think it all went to DGT for some nefarious purpose, and Rossi never saw any of it?) sufficiently murky that I'm not sure the assertion He's not asking for money can be taken as particularly solid. I'd certainly have to say the situation with DGT doesn't seem to have worked out as Rossi intended, which throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at determining what his goals *were* six months ago. His goals *now* may very well be limited to damage control.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: So Stanley Meter, a scammer (Ohio court sentence), was not a true scammer? Mmmh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell Actually, the book is not yet closed Meyer. Some believe that he did not fully disclose all the information in his patent #4798661. He did have some remarkable demonstrations AND he died the same way as knowledgeable people in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invaders But one should never use wikipedia as a source. One should use it as a source of sources. Here is a good primer: http://amasci.com/freenrg/fnrg.html and, yes, Stan is listed; but, I don't think the book is closed on him yet. Oh, I already said that. :-) T
[Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
He did have some remarkable demonstrations AND he died the same way as knowledgeable people Another free energy conspiracy? So boring... The only fact was that he was sentenced as a scammer and his work was bullshit. -Messaggio originale- From: Terry Blanton Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 3:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: So Stanley Meter, a scammer (Ohio court sentence), was not a true scammer? Mmmh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell Actually, the book is not yet closed Meyer. Some believe that he did not fully disclose all the information in his patent #4798661. He did have some remarkable demonstrations AND he died the same way as knowledgeable people in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invaders But one should never use wikipedia as a source. One should use it as a source of sources. Here is a good primer: http://amasci.com/freenrg/fnrg.html and, yes, Stan is listed; but, I don't think the book is closed on him yet. Oh, I already said that. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Actually I find the interlocking companies with funding from ... someplace ..., along with the early claims that Rossi (or was it Defkalion?) had received a great deal of investment money from a substantial number of ex-pat Greeks (Have we forgotten about that, or did we decide it was a lie? Or do we think it all went to DGT for some nefarious purpose, and Rossi never saw any of it?) sufficiently murky that I'm not sure the assertion He's not asking for money can be taken as particularly solid. DGT is a Cyprian company doing business in Greece. Rumor was it was funded by expats in Canada; but, that was never confirmed. They report that AR failed to deliver a working reactor that remained stable for 48 hours, I assume without intervention. I think that they are relieved that AR failed to deliver by their deadline and had already in their possession the secret of how the reactor worked, assuming this is all true. Could they have come up with the cash had AR delivered per the contract? We might not live long enough to know. T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Another free energy conspiracy? So boring... The only fact was that he was sentenced as a scammer and his work was bullshit. Actually, I find all this exciting and interesting. It's people who killed Tinker Bell that I find boring. Speaking of, who was your favorite Tinker Bell? I liked Julia Roberts; but, my favorite was Ludivine Sagnier. I think it was the movie Swimming Pool which swayed my opinion on Sagnier. Did you know Marilyn Monroe was also Tinker Bell? Well, some say it's an urban legend that the 1953 animated version was modeled after Ms. Monroe. T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-05 10:40 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote: He did have some remarkable demonstrations AND he died the same way as knowledgeable people Another free energy conspiracy? So boring... The only fact was that he was sentenced as a scammer and his work was bullshit. Boy, THAT's a conclusive argument, all right! ..his work was bullshit. Open and shut, rock solid logic; doesn't leave *any* room for doubt, does it? Oh, and the conspiracy theory is boring; that certainly leads inescapably to the conclusion that it's wrong, too. For sure, solid reasoning all through here.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: -.- Rossi is asking for money. He asked money to Defkalion in February/March (A LOT OF MONEY) for his technology (deadline of payment around June) Stop saying that he is not asking for money, because is false. Okay, Rossi is not asking the uneducated and unwashed masses for money like a true scammer would. So Steorn were not true scammers? I suppose the SKDB cult club was asking the public to join something... but their apparent efforts to sell kits were not real because although they got plenty of orders, far as anyone knows, they never accepted an order or shipped a kit. Sort of like Rossi so far. Steorn, like Rossi, claimed secret potential clients who inspected and tested their goods but no evidence was ever presented that they had done so -- like Rossi's anonymous customer. I will tell you again: you have absolutely no way of knowing how much money Rossi has taken and from whom. And Casserino was quite clear that Rossi got money from Ampenergo and that it was a substantial portion the equation in the agreement between them.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I think that they are relieved that AR failed to deliver by their deadline and had already in their possession the secret of how the reactor worked, assuming this is all true. Yes, and that would be a huge assumption. There is not one shred of evidence that anything Defkalion says now or has ever said about their Hyperions and their tests has been true. The only objective evidence about them that I know of is from the local (Xanthi) Parliament member who inquired of his government agencies about whether or not they had ongoing tests of Defkalion's Hyperion and they said they never heard of it. That's in a news report. I'll try to dig up the reference AGAIN if you can't recall it. Other than that, everything about Hyperions is claims. There are no independent tests nor any important facts. Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So Steorn were not true scammers? No, just stupid. And usually drunk. T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear. Are you calling me a believer? Dem's fightin' words madam and I don't care if you *are* a lady, I'll call you out of the Dimebox Saloon at high noon! But first, let's have a drink! So Steorn were not true scammers? No, just stupid. And usually drunk. Steorn scammed 21 million Euros from investors, some of whom were Irish farmers. It's not a joke. Not to them, I'm sure. Sean has been living off of that for six years now. So have accomplices. Sean (Steorn's CEO) isn't stupid. In my opinion, he's an accomplished crook and a sociopath. I suspect in the US he'd be in prison or at least heavily sanctioned somehow but in Ireland, security law is more lax. That's just a guess-- I don't know it for a fact. What I know for a fact is that after all the years and all the forum interchanges and all the scientists who attended the demonstration failure at Kinetica and the aftersession of it, it's impossible that Sean did not know he was scamming. How long does it take to verify that a Minato wheel doesn't work?
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So Steorn were not true scammers? No, just stupid. And usually drunk. What is it so far ~16 million? Not bad for a bunch of stupid drunks.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: So Steorn were not true scammers? No, just stupid. And usually drunk. What is it so far ~16 million? Not bad for a bunch of stupid drunks. It's more than 21 million Euros and what's truly astounding is that fairly recently, someone made an *additional* investment of appx 500,000 Euros in return for a very tiny share of the company. At the time, Sean was relieved as CEO (if I remember right) but remained in all his other company functions including, I think, chairman of the board. Someone with the pseudonym of ping follows the corporate filings and reports back on the Moletrap forum about these things. My report may not be quite accurate but does reflect the trend of happenings with them-- I don't follow it as carefully as does ping. His full sign on name is ping1400 if you care to search for his stuff on Moletrap. Steorn shares spreadsheet per ping: https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pwtWM-p3XIKyaGg6no6xkbg
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-05 12:50 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear. Are you calling me a believer? Dem's fightin' words madam and I don't care if you *are* a lady, She walks like a woman and talks like a man... I'll call you out of the Dimebox Saloon at high noon! But first, let's have a drink! Some club in Soho might be more appropriate than the Dimebox. Dunno how they feel about girls like that in the 'Box. BTW as to Steorn, the guy in the Perpetual Motion Machine Winder tee shirt kind of puts the lie to any claim that Steorn didn't et al didn't know exactly what they were doing. IMO, at any rate. But I've always been *'way* more skeptical (and cynical) than you, Terry...
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-12-05 12:50 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear. Are you calling me a believer? Dem's fightin' words madam and I don't care if you *are* a lady, She walks like a woman and talks like a man... Perhaps you have never met the diminutive feminine US Air Force officer I encountered recently at an Air Show. She was captain in command of a C-17 and was conducting the tours of the aircraft. She doesn't talk like a man unless maybe to ATC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 11-12-05 12:50 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear. Are you calling me a believer? Dem's fightin' words madam and I don't care if you *are* a lady, She walks like a woman and talks like a man... Here are some females who walk and talk like women but accomplished a great deal in what may be mostly a man's world. http://www.patricksaviation.com/forums/thread.php?t=1283p=46 And I'm pretty sure this is the woman I mentioned previously meeting and who is a C17 pilot. http://www.northwestmilitary.com/news/articles/2010/05/northwest-military-ranger-newspaper-mcchord-airlifter-cassandra-fortin-female-c-17-pilot-4th-airlift/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
(sorry this was my first post here, should've sent it to vortex address) Charly: What I fail to understand is how Defkalion fits in the scam theory ? Rossi definitely has the profile, but assuming it's a scam is Defkalion part of it as well ? As accomplice or rival scammers ? It seems a little bit far fetched to me, but maybe you have a good explanation ? Mary Yugo: My suggestion is that Defkalion believed Rossi, was originally legitimate, secured investments, and prepared to make machines. I suspect that they took Rossi specifications and designed and perhaps built some devices (Hyperions) using electrical heaters to simulate the active core. I further think they never got an active core because Rossi defrauded them. That would explain why they refused to pay him back last June. I am further speculating that they are now continuing as a possible scam, maybe hoping that someone else, maybe Piantelli, will provide them with the technology they so desperately need. Of course the above is just a wild guess. Maybe Defkalion was just a part of some Rossi deceptive maneuver from the start. And I suppose there is the vanishingly minimal possibility that they are what they say they are. I don't really see how that's possible.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I keep giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt. Things keep going down hill. I have to ask myself, would I buy a used car from this man? Have you just noticed that he is hard to deal with? Is this a revelation to you? I could have told you this any time in the last 18 months. I believe I have mentioned it from time to time. His behavior toward NASA was what prompted me to remark that I would not buy a toenail clipper from this man. This incident also confirms my belief that he is the world's worst con-man. He could not con candy from a baby. He could not sell water to someone dying of thirst. In a perverse way, this gives me confidence in his claims. As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been) I consider it totally believable because he is no good at setting up fake demonstration or at fooling anyone. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
/snip/ As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been)... /snip/ What tests have been performed by others? Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:21:13 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I keep giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt. Things keep going down hill. I have to ask myself, would I buy a used car from this man? Have you just noticed that he is hard to deal with? Is this a revelation to you? I could have told you this any time in the last 18 months. I believe I have mentioned it from time to time. His behavior toward NASA was what prompted me to remark that I would not buy a toenail clipper from this man. This incident also confirms my belief that he is the world's worst con-man. He could not con candy from a baby. He could not sell water to someone dying of thirst. In a perverse way, this gives me confidence in his claims. As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been) I consider it totally believable because he is no good at setting up fake demonstration or at fooling anyone. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This incident also confirms my belief that he is the world's worst con-man. He could not con candy from a baby. He could not sell water to someone dying of thirst. In a perverse way, this gives me confidence in his claims. As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been) I consider it totally believable because he is no good at setting up fake demonstration or at fooling anyone. Yet people on forums and blogs keep offering to contribute or invest money despite the lack of independent verification that he has something worthwhile. He must be doing something correctly.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Yet people on forums and blogs keep offering to contribute or invest money despite the lack of independent verification that he has something worthwhile. He must be doing something correctly. Yes indeed. He showed irrefutable proof of a nuclear reaction on several occasions. That is why people believe him, and why some organization bought his gigantic reactor. For example, he demonstrated 30 L of water that remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input. Despite his personality and despite all of the flaws in these test, he did this correctly. Neither you nor any other skeptic has ever given us a single viable, scientific reason to doubt these results. You have had months, and you have given us NOTHING other than blather and handwaving. You do not realize it, but you lost this debate. Conventional physics and thermodynamics are still valid. You are still wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: /snip/ As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been)... /snip/ What tests have been performed by others? Ampenergo, before they signed a contract. Mike McKubre discussed them in a recent lecture. See the lecture and slides here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf See p. 32. As you see this is Run II. There were several others. McKubre remarked that he knows a highly qualified person who was present. I know several, and I know of other independent tests. Some of them failed, like the NASA test. Others succeeded. As I have pointed out here before, if this machine was fake he would make it appear to work every time, on demand, especially when he has important visitors such as NASA. If he wanted to give it versimillitude perhaps he would have it fail when unimportant people come, or he would have it fail at first and then the next day start to work. That is not what has happened. In some cases it has gone for days without saying boo. That is characteristic of genuine cutting-edge prototype new technology, such as the early incandescent lights, internal combustion engines, transistors, and rockets. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-05 01:23 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-12-05 12:50 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Believers seem to have the fundamental problem that they don't differentiate between claims and facts or evidence and they don't require independent testing before they accept things they like to hear. Are you calling me a believer? Dem's fightin' words madam and I don't care if you *are* a lady, She walks like a woman and talks like a man... Here are some females who walk and talk like women but accomplished a great deal in what may be mostly a man's world. Eh?? Did you completely miss the reference, or what?? Sure sounds like it. Did the mention of Soho mean also mean nothing to you? I guess you really completely missed the reference. Tant pis. If you didn't insist on going under a pseudonym things like this wouldn't come up. Tant pis, encore une fois. (FWIW I'd be surprised if Terry didn't get it...)
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-05 03:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: /snip/ As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been)... /snip/ What tests have been performed by others? Ampenergo, before they signed a contract. Mike McKubre discussed them in a recent lecture. See the lecture and slides here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf See p. 32. As you see this is Run II. There were several others. McKubre remarked that he knows a highly qualified person who was present. I know several, and I know of other independent tests. Some of them failed, like the NASA test. Others succeeded. As I have pointed out here before, if this machine was fake he would make it appear to work every time, on demand, especially when he has important visitors such as NASA. Did you miss Mary's comments on this? (Of course you did; you've blocked her.) Have you read nothing of how psychics operate? Not all that Randi has written was of no value, you know. Having the equipment just happen to not work when there happens to be someone on hand who's equipped to perform what might really be a rigorous test, rather than a friendly oh-sure-that-seems-good-enough sort of test, is *not* a sign of honesty. Oh, well, it doesn't seem to have been working today, too bad, perhaps it'll work next week when you (and your nasty looking instruments) are far away... If he wanted to give it versimillitude perhaps he would have it fail when unimportant people come, The unimportant ones are most often the ones who are easy to fool. Fool enough people, even unimportant ones, and the occasions when the equipment didn't work will be viewed as the exceptions, obviously caused by some fluke condition. Then the Nasa failure becomes just bad luck rather than something conclusive. or he would have it fail at first and then the next day start to work. That is not what has happened. In some cases it has gone for days without saying boo. That is characteristic of genuine cutting-edge prototype new technology, such as the early incandescent lights, internal combustion engines, transistors, and rockets. And also characteristic of bogus claims, when someone was watching a little too closely.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
OOPS -- Sorry, Jed, you obviously have *NOT* blocked Mary, and the rest of what I said is therefore of little consequence, because you've read the arguments already. On 11-12-05 04:46 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-05 03:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: /snip/ As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been)... /snip/ What tests have been performed by others? Ampenergo, before they signed a contract. Mike McKubre discussed them in a recent lecture. See the lecture and slides here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf See p. 32. As you see this is Run II. There were several others. McKubre remarked that he knows a highly qualified person who was present. I know several, and I know of other independent tests. Some of them failed, like the NASA test. Others succeeded. As I have pointed out here before, if this machine was fake he would make it appear to work every time, on demand, especially when he has important visitors such as NASA. Did you miss Mary's comments on this? (Of course you did; you've blocked her.) Have you read nothing of how psychics operate? Not all that Randi has written was of no value, you know. Having the equipment just happen to not work when there happens to be someone on hand who's equipped to perform what might really be a rigorous test, rather than a friendly oh-sure-that-seems-good-enough sort of test, is *not* a sign of honesty. Oh, well, it doesn't seem to have been working today, too bad, perhaps it'll work next week when you (and your nasty looking instruments) are far away... If he wanted to give it versimillitude perhaps he would have it fail when unimportant people come, The unimportant ones are most often the ones who are easy to fool. Fool enough people, even unimportant ones, and the occasions when the equipment didn't work will be viewed as the exceptions, obviously caused by some fluke condition. Then the Nasa failure becomes just bad luck rather than something conclusive. or he would have it fail at first and then the next day start to work. That is not what has happened. In some cases it has gone for days without saying boo. That is characteristic of genuine cutting-edge prototype new technology, such as the early incandescent lights, internal combustion engines, transistors, and rockets. And also characteristic of bogus claims, when someone was watching a little too closely.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Have you read nothing of how psychics operate? Actually, I have read a lot about that, possibly more than Yugo has. I have also read about stage magicians. In both cases their methods could not begin to fool anyone looking inside a fake cold fusion device. Any engineer or scientist would see the method at a glance. It is not possible to hide a source of energy on this scale. The components are macroscopic and instantly identifiable. Not all that Randi has written was of no value, you know. I have corresponded with Randi directly, and I saw his recent video. Nothing he says about cold fusion has any merit. He knows nothing about this subject. Having the equipment just happen to not work when there happens to be someone on hand who's equipped to perform what might really be a rigorous test, rather than a friendly oh-sure-that-seems-good-enough sort of test, is *not* a sign of honesty. Ampenergo supplied and operated all of the equipment in these tests, as did other people in other tests that have not been made public. They decided the method. Rossi only operated the machine. The mystery customer on October 28 also supplied and operated all of the test equipment. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: (FWIW I'd be surprised if Terry didn't get it...) Cherry-cola champagne? Kinky! :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Am 05.12.2011 22:56, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: Have you read nothing of how psychics operate? Actually, I have read a lot about that, possibly more than Yugo has. I have also read about stage magicians. In both cases their methods could not begin to fool anyone looking inside a fake cold fusion device. Any engineer or scientist would see the method at a glance. It is not possible to hide a source of energy on this scale. The components are macroscopic and instantly identifiable. Watch this magician: http://youtu.be/VsYDRRGmpXU At 6:00 he makes steam and he allows more access than Rossi ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Peter Heckert wrote: Watch this magician: http://youtu.be/VsYDRRGmpXU At 6:00 he makes steam and he allows more access than Rossi ;-) His Japanese is pretty good. Do you seriously think that a chemist examining that cup would not find the source of heat? Get real. Once you look inside the magic trick stage prop, the trick is always instantly obvious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: For example, he demonstrated 30 L of water that remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input. [...] Neither you nor any other skeptic has ever given us a single viable, scientific reason to doubt these results. You have had months, and you have given us NOTHING other than blather and handwaving. Irony, anyone.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: I have corresponded with Randi directly, and I saw his recent video. Nothing he says about cold fusion has any merit. He knows nothing about this subject. Have you corresponded specifically with Randi about Rossi? I wonder what he had to say. One does not need to know a single solitary thing about cold fusion to evaluate what Rossi is doing. One only needs reliable and credible input and output data in an experiment that does not involve Rossi's venue, his input power source, his pump and flow circuit, his hands on the controls and especially not his generation of steam and evaluation of enthalpy. Having the equipment just happen to not work when there happens to be someone on hand who's equipped to perform what might really be a rigorous test, rather than a friendly oh-sure-that-seems-good-enough sort of test, is *not* a sign of honesty. Ampenergo supplied and operated all of the equipment in these tests, as did other people in other tests that have not been made public. They decided the method. Rossi only operated the machine. The mystery customer on October 28 also supplied and operated all of the test equipment. We don't know what tests Ampenergo did -- perhaps it was more of the uncalibrated and error prone heat of vaporization of steam type experiments that Rossi is so fond of doing even though liquid coolant as used by Levi is much easier and better. If you know what they did and what results they got, I'd love to read about it. What reason could there be to keep such a result secret if it's positive? Same reasoning for the other non-public tests. Why have secret tests anyway if they give positive results? No trade secrets are revealed by giving the results of black box testing. As for the mystery customer, I still would like to know how you can be sure it isn't Rossi or someone employed by Rossi. And I'd like to know why none of the scientists and reporters were allowed to see any of the data being taken from the run on October 28.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Heckert wrote: Watch this magician: http://youtu.be/VsYDRRGmpXU At 6:00 he makes steam and he allows more access than Rossi ;-) His Japanese is pretty good. Do you seriously think that a chemist examining that cup would not find the source of heat? Get real. Once you look inside the magic trick stage prop, the trick is always instantly obvious. That's the point though, isn't it? Nobody was ever allowed to see the inside of Rossi's ecats -- not the little ones and not the Ottoman sized one either. I know you claimed people looked inside but they saw nothing except a large finned box. Nobody knows what's in the sizable volume of that finned box. Given no further inspection than allowed, the Youtube video could be a chemical trick or real psychic power. There's no way to tell because the magician, like Rossi, carefully avoids any test that would tell. That's the point you refuse to acknowledge. One of my favorite illusions is this one by Angela Funovits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNcgi4dndmk It takes a bit of patience -- see it through to the end. No language issues if you do.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Am 05.12.2011 23:25, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert wrote: Watch this magician: http://youtu.be/VsYDRRGmpXU At 6:00 he makes steam and he allows more access than Rossi ;-) His Japanese is pretty good. Do you seriously think that a chemist examining that cup would not find the source of heat? Get real. Once you look inside the magic trick stage prop, the trick is always instantly obvious. I think he uses a secret catalyst and will not disclose it. At least he lets us look inside ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Have you corresponded specifically with Randi about Rossi? No, this was years ago. However, he has not changed is views. He says that Rossi and all other researchers are scammers, frauds, lunatics and criminals. That is also what Robert Park and many other prominent opponents say. I wonder what he had to say. You can see what he has to say about Rossi in his recent video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BemTGkjl6Ufeature=emailemail=comment_reply_received One does not need to know a single solitary thing about cold fusion to evaluate what Rossi is doing. That is true. you need only understand fundamental physics, thermodynamics and some rudimentary calorimetry. One only needs reliable and credible input and output data in an experiment that does not involve Rossi's venue . . . You are wrong about that. His venue and his tests are perfectly okay. You can ignore his instruments and whatever they read. He has no magical ability to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law. We don't know what tests Ampenergo did . . . You do not, but I do. If you wish to ignore that test, go ahead. You need only look at the tests that have been made public. You have never given any valid reason to doubt those conclusions. You think you have, but you have not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Do you seriously think that a chemist examining that cup would not find the source of heat? Get real. Once you look inside the magic trick stage prop, the trick is always instantly obvious. That's the point though, isn't it? Nobody was ever allowed to see the inside of Rossi's ecats -- not the little ones and not the Ottoman sized one either. That is incorrect. Many people have looked inside these devices. The photographs of the Ottoman size device instantly rule out any possibility of a chemical or other conventional source of heat. The size of the inner-cell alone rule this out. You do not have to know what it is made of. You can estimate the necessary volume of a chemical or electrical source of heat sufficient to produce approximately this much energy. It would be much bigger than this. I have pointed this out many times. Evidently you do not understand it. This point is fundamental to cold fusion, so I suggest you make an effort to grasp it. We do not know what is going on inside a cathode or piece of metal. No one can look inside it at the subatomic level where the reaction occurs, except by indirect means. Nevertheless, we know from the volume and mass of the cathode alone that the reaction has to be nuclear. Mme. Curie new the same thing about her radium samples, for exactly the same reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: He has no magical ability to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does you no good if the foil has an emissivity of 10% or less. That would give less than 50W emission for 60C surface temperature in a 30C room. Try again. You have never given any valid reason to doubt those conclusions. You think you have, but you have not. This is called playing to your fans. You can't possibly think it is a persuasive argument for anyone else.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-05 04:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: Have you read nothing of how psychics operate? Actually, I have read a lot about that, possibly more than Yugo has. I have also read about stage magicians. In both cases their methods could not begin to fool anyone looking inside a fake cold fusion device. Any engineer or scientist would see the method at a glance. It is not possible to hide a source of energy on this scale. The components are macroscopic and instantly identifiable. I think you're thinking of the wrong kind of magic. Don't think David Copperfield and huge mechanisms for producing brute force effects. Think sleight of hand, and misdirection while the magician moves a control that's supposed to remain fixed, misdirection as to how a thermocouple was placed wrong, that sort of thing. Not all that Randi has written was of no value, you know. I have corresponded with Randi directly, and I saw his recent video. Nothing he says about cold fusion has any merit. He knows nothing about this subject. No disagreement there! I was thinking specifically of stuff he's said about psychics. Having the equipment just happen to not work when there happens to be someone on hand who's equipped to perform what might really be a rigorous test, rather than a friendly oh-sure-that-seems-good-enough sort of test, is *not* a sign of honesty. Ampenergo supplied and operated all of the equipment in these tests, as did other people in other tests that have not been made public. They decided the method. Rossi only operated the machine. The mystery customer on October 28 also supplied and operated all of the test equipment. The data for the non-public tests is unpublished, AFAIK. From where I'm sitting, it doesn't count for anything, because I have absolutely no way to evaluate it, and I have no idea what really happened during those tests. Maybe the fate of the world really is being decided behind closed doors here, and the tiny crumbs of factoids which we get in the form of rumours regarding the blacked-out tests are all we'll ever have, so we should treat them as the precious morsels they are ... or maybe the claims about closed-door tests are worth no more than most hearsay. Time will eventually tell (and I hope it tells in less time than it's taken to tell regarding Randy Mills, to name one particularly long-running example of an is-it-or-isn't-it situation).
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
At 02:30 PM 12/5/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: We don't know what tests Ampenergo did -- perhaps it was more of the uncalibrated and error prone heat of vaporization of steam type experiments that Rossi is so fond of doing even though liquid coolant as used by Levi is much easier and better. If you know what they did and what results they got I'd pay more attention to your rants if you actually READ the reports that are pointed to. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf See p. 32. As you see this is Run II. There were several others. McKubre remarked that he knows a highly qualified person who was present. I know several, and I know of other independent tests. AmpEnerco Run II September 25, 2009, New Hampshire 64 liters H2O TIn 23 °C, TIn (actually Tout) 46 °C, time 4 hours Average PIn 40 W, POut ~400 W, Gain ~10
RE: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
That's the evidence of testing performed by others? It's some sort of a detail-less, single-phase test from September of 2009! •AmpEnerco Run II –September 25, 2009, New Hampshire –64 liters H2O –TIn 23°C, TIn 46°C, time 4 hours –Average PIn 40 W, POut ~400 W, Gain ~10 This, in and of iteself does nothing to further confidence. And you do nothing to alleviate concerns with: As you see this is Run II. There were several others. McKubre remarked that he knows a highly qualified person who was present. I know several, and I know of other independent tests. Some of them failed, like the NASA test. Others succeeded. If this was really a spectacular, definitive, independent test with qualified observers, and you have access to all of the details... great. For those of us playing the home game, it's blather. Forgive me for not seeing this block on the PowerPoint slide as the missing piece of the puzzle. Was the water flowing (and how was it measured) or was this a 64 liter basin? How was the input power measured? Was it continuously monitored, or only at the beginning? Was he using the big blue box? Did he adjust the power levels during the test? Was the input power measured again after any power controls were changed? You said Rossi was at the controls and these were AmpEnergo measurements with their own devices? Which variant of E-Cat was this? Did it have one or two heaters (resistors)? Was he using a Radio Frequency Generator at any point? Was anything recorded? Was any document produced? Are there names available for any observers that can be consulted? _ Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:45:09 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: /snip/ As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been)... /snip/ What tests have been performed by others? Ampenergo, before they signed a contract. Mike McKubre discussed them in a recent lecture. See the lecture and slides here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf As I have pointed out here before, if this machine was fake he would make it appear to work every time, on demand, especially when he has important visitors such as NASA. If he wanted to give it versimillitude perhaps he would have it fail when unimportant people come, or he would have it fail at first and then the next day start to work. That is not what has happened. In some cases it has gone for days without saying boo. That is characteristic of genuine cutting-edge prototype new technology, such as the early incandescent lights, internal combustion engines, transistors, and rockets. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That is incorrect. Many people have looked inside these devices. The photographs of the Ottoman size device instantly rule out any possibility of a chemical or other conventional source of heat. Only to your satisfaction. Not to anyone else's. The size of the inner-cell alone rule this out. You do not have to know what it is made of. You can estimate the necessary volume of a chemical or electrical source of heat sufficient to produce approximately this much energy. It would be much bigger than this. Nonsense. You can buy a 10 kW propane water heater from a camping store that weighs 10 kg. Nevertheless, we know from the volume and mass of the cathode alone that the reaction has to be nuclear. Nope. It doesn't even have to be chemical. Ordinary thermal storage (or phase change) is more than enough -- maybe that's chemical. Mme. Curie new the same thing about her radium samples, for exactly the same reasons. Nonsense. Curie identified radiation first. Only later did she measure heat. And it was a very different experiment. No input energy needed at all. A small sample of radium salt simply remained warmer than its surroundings indefinitely. Days, weeks, months, years... See how that's not the same at all?
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Do you seriously think that a chemist examining that cup would not find the source of heat? Get real. Once you look inside the magic trick stage prop, the trick is always instantly obvious. That's the point though, isn't it? Nobody was ever allowed to see the inside of Rossi's ecats -- not the little ones and not the Ottoman sized one either. That is incorrect. Many people have looked inside these devices. The photographs of the Ottoman size device instantly rule out any possibility of a chemical or other conventional source of heat. The size of the inner-cell alone rule this out. You do not have to know what it is made of. You can estimate the necessary volume of a chemical or electrical source of heat sufficient to produce approximately this much energy. It would be much bigger than this. I have pointed this out many times. Evidently you do not understand it. This point is fundamental to cold fusion, so I suggest you make an effort to grasp it. We do not know what is going on inside a cathode or piece of metal. No one can look inside it at the subatomic level where the reaction occurs, except by indirect means. Nevertheless, we know from the volume and mass of the cathode alone that the reaction has to be nuclear. Mme. Curie new the same thing about her radium samples, for exactly the same reasons. That may have been true for MMe.C but it is not true for Signore Rossi. I go with the proposed running times in the NASA slide. Or do you think they're full of ssteam too?
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I keep giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt. Things keep going down hill. I have to ask myself, would I buy a used car from this man? Have you just noticed that he is hard to deal with? Is this a revelation to you? I could have told you this any time in the last 18 months. I believe I have mentioned it from time to time. His behavior toward NASA was what prompted me to remark that I would not buy a toenail clipper from this man. This incident also confirms my belief that he is the world's worst con-man. He could not con candy from a baby. He could not sell water to someone dying of thirst. In a perverse way, this gives me confidence in his claims. As long as a positive test is based purely on physics rather than his personal credibility, or it is performed by others (as some tests have been) I consider it totally believable because he is no good at setting up fake demonstration or at fooling anyone. - Jed Don't mind me. I'm just depressed. I had high hopes for Rossi. Rossi's perpetual circus drives me to periods of disgust and then depression. I especially feel foolish having spent so much time discussing his antics at the expense of my own projects. This should be a lesson to me to stop the chit-chat and get back to work - at least for a while. 8^) Nonetheless, I still hope for Rossi to be spectacularly successful, despite how increasingly unlikely that appears. I fully expect Brian Ahern and other serious folks to soon relegate Rossi to the backwaters of history, if Rossi doesn't get his act in order very shortly. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 02:30 PM 12/5/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: We don't know what tests Ampenergo did -- perhaps it was more of the uncalibrated and error prone heat of vaporization of steam type experiments that Rossi is so fond of doing even though liquid coolant as used by Levi is much easier and better. If you know what they did and what results they got I'd pay more attention to your rants if you actually READ the reports that are pointed to. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf See p. 32. As you see this is Run II. There were several others. McKubre remarked that he knows a highly qualified person who was present. I know several, and I know of other independent tests. I read it. I guess I didn't recall it when I wrote the response because it's hard worth remembering. It's not even as good information as the inadequate data provided by Levi from February 2011. Without blanks and calibrations such experiments are highly prone to measurement errors and that's before you even get to cheating on Rossi's part.
[Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/04/slides-from-sept-22-nasa- lenr-innovation-forum-workshop/ Quote: “Rossi changed the game totally.” the witness said. “From the test plan, the device, everything. There was nothing there that we had agreed on. He had a 30 liter reservoir in there and he wouldn’t even let us see what was in the box or weigh the box.” On the second day, when the former NASA staff member asked Rossi if his device had an internal reservoir, Rossi became enraged. Quantum’s engineers left but NASA engineers offered to come back in a few days to give Rossi time to fix the flow. Rossi declined their offer. He said he was “too busy.” End quote. I keep giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt. Things keep going down hill. I have to ask myself, would I buy a used car from this man? inline: Scowl.jpg Photo from video by Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik. Look Rossi gave Lewan after Rossi was videoed with his hand on or near the controls during a test. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Or Krivit is simply lying or telling half truths and is being caught with pats now that these slides are available. He ddin't post the full slides until ecatbuilder uploaded them. 2011/12/5 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/12/04/slides-from-** sept-22-nasa-lenr-innovation-**forum-workshop/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/04/slides-from-sept-22-nasa-lenr-innovation-forum-workshop/ Quote: I keep giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt. Things keep going down hill. I have to ask myself, would I buy a used car from this man? Photo from video by Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik. Look Rossi gave Lewan after Rossi was videoed with his hand on or near the controls during a test. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Dec 4, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Or Krivit is simply lying or telling half truths and is being caught with pats now that these slides are available. He ddin't post the full slides until ecatbuilder uploaded them. The video speaks for itself. Are you saying the video was faked? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
What video? I am talking about what happened to when NASA personnel visited Rossi. 2011/12/5 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 4, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Or Krivit is simply lying or telling half truths and is being caught with pats now that these slides are available. He ddin't post the full slides until ecatbuilder uploaded them. The video speaks for itself. Are you saying the video was faked? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/12/04/slides-from-** sept-22-nasa-lenr-innovation-**forum-workshop/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/04/slides-from-sept-22-nasa-lenr-innovation-forum-workshop/ ... On the second day, when the former NASA staff member asked Rossi if his device had an internal reservoir, Rossi became enraged. Quantum’s engineers left but NASA engineers offered to come back in a few days to give Rossi time to fix the flow. Rossi declined their offer. He said he was “too busy.” ... Gee, why would Rossi not want to talk about a reservoir in his box?
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Dec 4, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: What video? I am talking about what happened to when NASA personnel visited Rossi. Oh! Sorry! 2011/12/5 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 4, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Or Krivit is simply lying or telling half truths and is being caught with pats now that these slides are available. He ddin't post the full slides until ecatbuilder uploaded them. The video speaks for itself. Are you saying the video was faked? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: What video? I am talking about what happened to when NASA personnel visited Rossi. 2011/12/5 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 4, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Or Krivit is simply lying or telling half truths and is being caught with pats now that these slides are available. He ddin't post the full slides until ecatbuilder uploaded them. If Krivit is lying about what NASA people said or did or saw and heard, you can bet they will set him straight publicly. And probably quickly. I would guess he has a credible source.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
Why are you so sure of his honesty? 2011/12/5 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: What video? I am talking about what happened to when NASA personnel visited Rossi. 2011/12/5 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 4, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Or Krivit is simply lying or telling half truths and is being caught with pats now that these slides are available. He ddin't post the full slides until ecatbuilder uploaded them. If Krivit is lying about what NASA people said or did or saw and heard, you can bet they will set him straight publicly. And probably quickly. I would guess he has a credible source. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why are you so sure of his honesty? Krivit's? First, I have no reason to doubt it. It seems likely that NASA people did that, saw that and said that. It's consistent with Rossi's history. Second, if Krivit is lying about what NASA saw and said, he's going to get caught and very soon. He doesn't seem stupid therefore I don't think he'd risk it. Rossi on the hand, strikes me as what the French call louche. On his blog and in interviews, he's evasive, tangential, and seems, to my view, insincere. His behavior to date corresponds entirely with that impression. He could have removed most if not all doubt about his demonstrations and he consistently did the opposite each and every time. Rossi can get away with it for now because he holds secrets nobody so far has been able to inspect. If Krivit lied about what other people told him, they could call him on it and make him look like a crook. It isn't so much a matter of trusting him. It's that it would be easy for him to get caught if he lied about what he was told and I don't think he's so excruciatingly stupid as to try it.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Krivit article on NASA Forum
On 11-12-04 09:53 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/04/slides-from-sept-22-nasa-lenr-innovation-forum-workshop/ ... On the second day, when the former NASA staff member asked Rossi if his device had an internal reservoir, Rossi became enraged. Quantum's engineers left but NASA engineers offered to come back in a few days to give Rossi time to fix the flow. Rossi declined their offer. He said he was too busy. ... Gee, why would Rossi not want to talk about a reservoir in his box? Becomes angry when questioned about details of the device This is, of course, one of the classic hallmarks of the scammer. (Jed may want to jump in at this point and explain why Rossi's anger when pressed over details is really quite reasonable...)
