Either Rossi or IH are lying. I hope the ERV's report will shed some
light on who is telling the truth.
On 8/14/2016 11:31 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
(1) Rossi might not be telling the truth. (2) Rossi does not really
answer Rends's question. :)
Eric
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:05 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Eric, I had read your comment before answering.
Further to my comment about the negative things written about
Rossi and the ERV on this blog, particularly by Jed giving IH's
point of view, it might even up the score a little to show what
Rossi wrote recently.
1.
Andrea Rossi
August 13, 2016 at 5:45 PM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=151#comment-1216786>
Felix Rends:
I have dedicated to this work the second part of my life and
part of my health. I am no more the same of one year ago.
About the Lugano Report: the test has not been made by me, nor
has been the report and for the truth of it speaks the life of
the nuclear physicists that made it, their honesty, their
professional skill matured in two among the highest rated
Universities and in the CERN of Geneva where all of them have
worked. About the test of one year of the 1 MW Plant, the
measurements have been made for one year by a nuclear
engineer, who got his doctorate in nuclear engineering when he
was 23 years old in the University of Bologna with 110/110
summa cum laude, then worked as a nuclear engineer in a
nuclear power plant, then, taking advantage of such
experience, became a professional specialized in
certifications and validations of industrial plants and
industrial products. He has been chosen, as proven by copious
documents, in agreement between IH and us to make the ERV and
he made it with all his professional skills and with the
integrity that characterized all his life, that is immaculate
under any point of view, as I investigated when I knew him
because I had to choose a trusted professional to make the
safety certification of my products years ago; he resulted to
be the best in absolute among all his colleagues for
preparation, honesty, confidentiality. This is also the reason
why he has been chosen to make the ERV, in agreement between
IH and us. By the way, IH has totally agreed upon his report
released after 3 months of test, and has cited such report in
interviews released by Tom Darden. Same thing happened after 6
months of test, when the second quarterly report has been
released by the ERV, same thing again happened after 9 months,
when the ERV released the third quarterly report: please note
that during 9 months of the test IH repeatedly accompanied to
visit the test their investors, explaining to them how the ERV
was measuring the performance, showing the seals of the
flowmeter, showing the temperature measurement system ( agreed
upon directly between Mr Tom Darden and the ERV) and IH
collected many million dollars of investments from Woodford
after the officers of Woodford visited the test twice, during
the first 9 months, and repeatedly accompanied Chinese top
level investors and engineers to visit the test. The results
of the first three quarterly reports, obviously, were
substantially equal to the results of the fourth and final
report, that IH now is renegating. Eventually, IH paid the
first three quarterly reports, but did not pay the final one.
The first three reports determined the allowance to IH of
enormous investments and they loved them. The fourth report
determined the obligation of IH to pay us and they discovered
the results were wrong: what a strange coincidence.
You have my honour word that what I wrote here is the truth.
I totally sympathyze with you and with all the persons like
you and also this is why I work like a beast, even now that is
Saturday, as tomorrow Sunday, and always on this endevour..
After all these years you merit to go in a shop and buy an
E-Cat, damn !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S.
Let me add that both the tests of Lugano and Doral have been
performed for long timespans, respectively 1 month and 1 year,
with the obvious consequent considerations.
On 8/13/2016 8:29 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Aug 13, 2016, at 19:21, a.ashfield<a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
Come on Eric. The basic case is that Rossi said IH failed to pay him.
Obviously if there had not been a contract IH would have answered it that way.
Have you had a chance to read the answer yet? If not, I highly recommend
you do. The denials of allegation are for the most part extremely succinct, and
they are numerous. Despite that, IH straight up say that Rossi did not meet the
terms of the GPT. Perhaps they are lying in their Answer, presumably a very
dumb thing to do. I'm not betting on that.
Eric
