Yeah whoever thought it was a good idea to let Andrea Rossi speak without a
microphone in a room full of hum (I've tried processing it, it's hopeless
and I don't have the time or inclination to go deeper into it) should be
sent a microphone a day for the rest of their life.

On 26 November 2017 at 17:44, Brian Ahern <> wrote:

> I think Jones was too kind. It was not a demo. It was three hours of
> dithering.  Mats should be embarrassed by the sound control if nothing else.
> I wondered what Rossi's trick would be this time. It was acting like a
> person who has no clue what he is trying to accomplish.
> I guess this makes me a 'pathoskeptic'.
> I think A.R. owes all of us three hours for the amateur hours he presented
> to us.  The Swedish Academy has little to be proud of here.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Adrian Ashfield <>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 25, 2017 1:18 PM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24
> I don't agree.  The measurements of energy out & in were good enough to
> demonstrate the basic characteristics of the QX.  That was the purpose of
> the demo.  I t would be impossible to to do a replicable experiment without
> giving the IP away.
> The pathosskeptics make much of the crude power pack with 60 W of cooling
> But I don't believe that power could be magically transferred to heat the
> water.  What could Rossi possibly get from such a scam?  It's not to get
> money from the general public but possibly to interest venture capitalists:
> they would do their own due diligence, such as measuring the voltage across
> the reactor.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JonesBeene <>
> To: vortex-l <>
> Sent: Sat, Nov 25, 2017 10:16 am
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24
> Video of demonstration:
> <>
> Funny that few comments are coming out on this - other than from Mats, who
> would benefit if this demo meant anything positive.
> In fact, it is not a demo in any real sense … it is disappointing theatre
> to all but the Rossi-flock.  In no way does this salvage Rossi’s
> credibility with scientists, nor that of Levi and the Swedes, who still
> look like dupes who should, but will not, retract their egregious errors at
> Lugano.
> There is no useful information being supplied which can lead to
> verification or replication. Voltage appears to have been estimated from
> resistance… with pulsed power, that is a no-no and thus the input could
> have been hundreds of times greater than suggested. Why not measure input
> power at the plug and include the cooling power since it is required?
> Given Rossi’s three decade long record of fraud and deceit as a backdrop –
> either independent replication or a commercial product will be the only
> thing that can help.
> So far, this is little more than a crude repeat of the past 6 years except
> now there is even less relevant information to use in replication than with
> the past failures. Few will waste their time.

-- // // //
+358403703659 // // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage // // // //

Reply via email to