That's unconscionable. I can give examples if you like but I'd rather
not waste more space. . . .
Please do. That would not be a waste of space. You tend to make blanket
accusations without specifics. Let's hear some specifics. It may be that
what you consider unethical, others consider
Krivit seems to have good contacts who are willing to talk to him,
including some at the U of Bologna and U of Uppsala and many scientists who
work in cold fusion and LENR.
So do I. As far as I know, the people in Bologna and Uppsala have been
telling Krivit just the opposite of what he
to note that.
Where are the moderators of this forum?
2011/11/12 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
Whoopee. I have to rush to put up an order form for my pink, invisible
flying unicorns that make free energy. When you can name and preferably
interview a customer, that sort of news will become
That seems unlikely to work. I may have missed it (it's not my field)
but I don't know of any proven and properly tested and documented catalysts
that facilitate fusion or any other nuclear reaction.Do the other
claims involve catalysts?
Yes, I think most experts would say they
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course nothing. But there is a lot wrong with misleading and
deceptive advertising.
Rossi has not done any advertising as far as I know. Perhaps you are
talking about
You seem to have some difficulty with logic.
No. It seems that you are disregarding the original intent of the link to
the order form. It was to suggest that Rossi is legitimate and his device
is real because such a form is available. It was implied that now, for
sure, properly qualified
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Not everything there is a scam. At least one is not, which is plasma
focus, which they frequently feature among the top 5 and is based in an old
technology. But they never claimed overunity, just 1/10 of the input
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
I'm beginning to see why you've been banned from so many forums.
Sorry, I don't keep track. How many was that and which ones if you know?
And were they all run by fervent believers in Rossi?
If you don't know which ones and
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I think most experts would say they do.
That I would like to know more about. It should be easy to show -- add
the catalyst and get
Any scam must obey the laws of physics.
Oh yes. But you don't necessarily know which laws are used to deceive you.
All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to
testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that
somewhere, someone might
Mary, you seem to love to find ways to scam scientific tests or do magic
tricks or whatever. Let me ask you a question. Can you name one
scientific experiment that is impossible to scam from the past? I tried
and can not come up with one, so give it a try. There are many ways to
suggest a
I think there is a consensus that Rossi was the control mechanism for his
earlier devices. If this is the situation, he will not be able to leave
for any extended length of time. The self sustaining mode, if that is what
they witnessed, will require careful control if operated for very long.
By the way, has anyone heard any peeps out of Mr. Parks lately? I bet he
and a lot of his cohorts are keeping a low profile. ;-)
Why would anyone keep a low profile because of Rossi?
Both Levi and Lewan were given a second-shot at testing.
Do you mean Levi was given a chance to repeat and record properly his long
high power experiment and refused? If so, WHY?!?!
| With the possible exception of the Oct 6 run, all of the investigators
(not Krivit -- that was a
OK Mary, you are correct in realizing that Rossi could be attempting a
fake. Many of his supporters have reviewed the sparse data supplied during
his demonstrations and have convinced ourselves that it is real. I am
confident that we are seeing a real LENR device.
I'm happy for you, David,
You can't have it both ways. Either the steam is dry (complete
vaporization), in which case the temperature and pressure of the effluent
are independent, or it's not. Your assertion that the output temperature
depends directly on the pressure is a tacit statement that it's not
producing dry
Well, if I had been so confident that cold fusion or LENR or what ever you
want to call it is impossible, I would feel quite foolish at the moment.
He spent many years of his career making fun of the serious researchers
operating within the field.
I'm not sure who will end up looking foolish
This is a completely different subject. Please do not mix up unrelated
topics. I asked how a person can test or falsify *your* assertion about
stage magic. I did not ask how Rossi can falsify his claims.
If you will not cite a specific stage magic technique, there is no way
anyone can
Faking experiments is beginning to become boring so let's call it a day.
That is the game I made reference to.
Sorry if it bores you. The possibility that everything Rossi has shown is
fake and that all the people who have endorsed it are being flummoxed is
fascinating to me. So much of life,
The deal with Rossi sounds much more like an OEM contract, and they are
very
likely to have done some diligence on it. Just the risk of adverse PR
(which they are already experiencing,
I suspect) would require a reasonable return on the cost of the perceived
risk.
What due diligence do you
The total heat contained within the mixture of water and vapor entered the
heat exchanger. The output of the exchanger was plain old fashioned cool
water. The heat was extracted to the cooling water flow.
The issue of vapor versus liquid did not remain.
Yup-- that was true October 6 but on
To prevent federal funds from being spent on research is going to
slow down the research. Do you not agree?
Yes. That's a pity. But it's sort of circular. If the evidence was
convincing, the funds would be there. You have to start somewhere. And
before we start on it, I don't know
Here is my point. if you do not know how he might be cheating, then it
is not logical for you to propose this as a hypothesis to be debated here.
You can say it is your gut feeling he is cheating. That's fine. That's an
informal judgment. We welcome that here. But let us not confuse a gut
I doubt that. In my experience, large corporations do not authorize press
releases without checking things out carefully. Anyone can do a Google
search and find out in a few seconds that Rossi is very controversial. I do
not think it is likely that the public relations department at National
I like that expression jumping the shark. Does it mean the same as
screwing the pooch?
It means the voice entry system has added its own improvement to the
original statement.
An obvious guess is that the shark was supposed to be something a train
rides on.
Too bad. It was fun the
When you apply for any cold fusion related patent, they automatically
reject it with a form letter. . . .
Let me upload a copy:
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/PatentOfficeMemo.jpg
That is a copy of their policy, not the form letter. Sorry for the
confusion.
I tossed out my copy
Mary, your requirement for blank test run is unreasonable, but you are
misunderstanding the reason why blank tests are used in science. Blank runs
are used when we are measuring effects that may consist on multiple unknown
variables and with controls we try to eliminate those variables that we
Thank you Sterling for allowing us to review. We approve the
text, especially the National Instruments portion of the story that
includes Stefano’s quote and information.
Oops. I see that memo is written to Allan. I guess he circulated it. I
though it was to David Ledin. If it is forged,
-FP, 1989. Nothing was done about about any of the rejections. What
could be done?
I don't know. I do suspect that you can sue if a worthy patent is
denied. Maybe someone who is a patent attorney can comment? That's out of
my area and I don't want to discuss it as I already said.
My
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo wrote:
And it (emphatically) does NOT follow that if FP are right, Rossi is
right, as some people have irresponsibly and foolishly claimed in several
forums.
Fleischmann and I think it does follow. So do
Data: 05 novembre 2011 10.01.45 GMT+01.00
A: Ufficio Stampa Alma Mater ufficiosta...@unibo.it
mailto:ufficiosta...@unibo.ithttp://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ufficiosta...@unibo.it
Oggetto: PRESS RELEASE - E-CAT: UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA IS NOT INVOLVED
E-CAT: UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA IS NOT
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
http://www.leonardo-ecat.com
Gee. I looked all over for an order form, a price list and a PayPal Logo
and darn... no luck. Oh and:
Page posted by Sterling Allan http://sterlingdallan.com/, PES Network,
Inc.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
For me this looks like a bad joke. It is not nice to do a fan page
that superficially looks like authentic page.
It does look like a bad joke but look at this from there:
Welcome to the homepage of Andrea Rossi,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Major kewl!
Yah. Looks like a camp stove.
Uhho... this is going to cause a lot of trouble for sure. Wait until the
universities hear about it!
Now I really do wonder if Rossi ever saw it before it went live. Ah
well... we'll know soon.
Leonardo Corp Personnel
Ing. Andrea A.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
I find this very interesting. Where is there a scam here?
Oh ok. Let's order one. How do I do that exactly? (medium to small
please, one each)
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
Site says 100 kw min.
Rossi gets nothing until the unit meets specifications.
Right. Steorn said something like that too. They never delivered and they
have kept and spent €20 million of investor money along
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
An addition to the Forbes article, QUOTE:
Update #2: A followup statement from National Instruments’ John
Pasquarette, Vice President of Corporate Marketing and eBusiness:
We did not buy a 1 MW cold fusion plant.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
Nice to see the web site is registered to Rossi but what the heck does the
validity of the E-Cat have to do with the software that was used to create
the web site or who the web site was created by or who it is
Spin this any way you try but your time here claiming scam / fraud is over.
Sure. When you can name one customer with some reputation for credibility
and they prove they've done a proper test -- but not before, OK?
Someone at Ecatnews.com pointed out that the web site is so bad that
someone
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
If Steorn was operating a scam, why have they not been charged?
I don't know. If you look at their history, it's clearly a scam. They
also have contempt for their marks because they joke about them tacitly.
Perhaps
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
Please tell me how Rossi can scam a engineering firm
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I suggested he may have scammed investors, not an
engineering firm. Was some part of that in need of further elaboration?
You have suggested Rossi may have scammed investors? Bold statement there
Mary. Care to disclose your proof as otherwise you may have just committed
Defamation and I'm sure the Vortex administrators will not wish to be
involved in hosting defamatory comments.
A bit of advise Mary, if I may,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
You claimed Rossi may have scammed investors. Prove it or stop making up
statement that you may wish to be real.
You're making stuff up. I already said I wish Rossi would be real. And
yes, he may have scammed
Yikes!
Defamation would be: Rossi is a scammer
A personal opinion and perfectly legal: Rossi may be a scammer (also he
may not be one). Freedom of speech on that one, I think.
Really -- I had this issue come up before and I checked with an attorney
who specializes in it. There's no
Next Few Months
* New customers of the one megawatt E-Cat plant reveal their identity
publicly.
* Location of first E-Cat factory in the United States revealed.
And why do you believe that will happen? Because Sterling Allan wrote it?
He's the same guy who had Obama in Mars for
Is this credible to anyone? If so, why and how?
Rossi can't rely on anyone else at all to help make the wondrous
machines? If he's afraid of reverse engineering, he'd better not sell any
at all! How does he know what his customers will do with them? Or maybe
he's relying on that
In the older small (but allegedly powerful) E-cats, the main (largest and
probably most powerful) heater has always heated the cooling water! This
is evident because it's wrapped around the *exterior* of the E-cat. This
never made sense, by the way, unless the objective was to use electricity
Welcome to Vortex, MY!
Thank you.
Even if he's concerned about that, he could disassemble all the way to
the final core and stop there.
He did that, several times. Even with the big reactor people say they
could see the whole thing, under the cell. You can't see much in the
photos, but you can in person. It would be a
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/
According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A.
Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy
Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his
And most of all, it seems to be a serious problem for Rossi to get an
E-cat to one of the two universities he promised them too. I wish Rossi's
butt were somehow a bit more resistant to pain.
He ran out of money and couldn't pay Bologna. If he really collected E2M he
should be able to pay
However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has
never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all
the necessary calibrations with their own instruments. Therefore bad
calorimetry is not likely source for the cheat, because that cheat
would depend on
It is
irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when
you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven.
I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that. The
only absolutely determinative test is an independent one that rules
out
I just wish Rossi would pay more attention to needs of customers and to
PR.
I just wish he'd get a single independent and credible test done. Never
mind the PR stuff. As for the needs of customers, how do we know he ever
had one or has one?
If he has teamed up with NI, that is exactly the
Even if Rossi were to run the thing for 40 hours or 40 days, I am certain
you would demand more. You would still be finding excuses not to believe it.
There may be other reasons not to believe in it but certainly a 40 hour run
is more persuasive than a 4 hour one, especially when there is no
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
The entire empty volume of a shipping container? Since the energy
produced is N * the number of modules, the TIME should be the SAME as a
single eCat at the same power.
Well said.
Indeed
Might be their motivation is neither technical nor scientifical but
political?
A serious motivation could be to protect their own knowledge and research.
Are you talking about NASA? How would that work? What is it they are
protecting? How does what they say about Rossi protect anything? If
Col. (Ret.) Domenico Fioravanti
Thanks. I hope there is a tough journalist interview with him soon. I
doubt that there ever will be.
I wish Rossi would make a gift of one of his ECATs to Mary so that she
could perform all of the tests that she desires. I suspect that she would
complain that it did not look nice enough for her to dirty her hand upon
it. What is your agenda Mary?
Well, I do wish the devices didn't look
Does anyone seriously doubt that if Fioravanti is telling the truth, there
can be any doubt the 1 MW reactor is real? Are you seriously suggesting
that a measurement using standard industrial techniques, performed by an
expert, showing 66 kWh input and 2,635 kWh might be in error?!? You can't
I think you understood that is what I meant. Please do not be
argumentative. Please do not use straw man arguments.
I am confident there are no hidden wires or tubes going into the reactor.
If you are not confident of that, fair enough, but please do not bring up
that issue when we are
You go, Mare! (But careful, you're running close to your 40 post per
minute limit on Vortex ;-)
Thanks. I'm done. I actually have to work on something else for a living
some of the time.
Meanwhile, I notice that when NASA came up, the enthusiasts on
ecatnews.comstarted talking about
801 - 863 of 863 matches
Mail list logo
