(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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> 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 > > > >
