eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

Defkalion Interview

June 27, 2012

When Defkalion GT promised to deliver details of their independent tests some months ago, I admit to a certain frisson of excitement at the time. It appeared to me that the company would gain nothing by making such a specific promise if it had no substance. When nothing came of it (so far) that excitement turned sour. It is not that I disbelieve them but that they produced nothing of substance to allow me to believe beyond wishful thinking. It is with that in mind – no accusation and no reason to believe – that I post the following link to an interview between Peter Gluck and DGT management. Peter’s enthusiasm is genuine and the interview focuses on business. With luck, we may learn more at the ICCF-17 where DGT will be presenting – something.

Until then, thanks to Peter [and to Shane D for highlighting the interview in the eCatNews comments section]

The interview is here

Posted by on June 27, 2012. Filed under Business,Defkalion,Hyperion,Media & Blogs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

933 Responses to Defkalion Interview

  1. John Milstone Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    Sorry but in light of National Instruments recent activity I have to comment to the skeptics. NI really turned tail and ran away from Rossi as fast as they could. Not!

    I must have missed something. So, National Instruments is now claiming that they are working with Rossi? Please provide a link.

    The fact that they are selling hardware and software to other LENR researchers is hardly surprising. They sell instrumentation and controls systems to a wide variety of industries and areas of research.

    I think you are falling for the “True Believer” logical fallacy #42: believing that if LENR is legitimate then Rossi must be legitimate as well.

    LENR may be real. However, even if someone does prove it, that won’t vindicate Rossi.

    Carl Tilley wasn’t vindicated when car companies came out with real electric vehicles. Tilley was still a con man and his electric car was still a fraud.

    • Ransompw Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 3:42 pm

      John:

      While everyone recognizes that this site started to cover the ECat, Rossi has always just been the headliner for a much bigger issue, “Cold Fusion”/LENR. You will not be vindicated for your dedication to Rossi only posts if LENR verifies. Further, if LENR verifies I think it unlikely that Rossi is the scammer fraud you claim, but more likely an incompetent researcher/businessman.

      LCD’s point is obvious, whatever NI saw from Rossi didn’t sour them on LENR but more likely encouraged them to get involved with this emerging technology.

      • JNewman Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 4:12 pm

        Ransom, your reasoning here is difficult to understand. Rossi has claimed increasingly implausible performance of his ecat devices involving large amounts of energy production, stability, and other features that don’t even adhere to basic physics. On the other hand, various scientists around the world have reported small-scale, tenuous and difficult-to-reproduce effects for two decades. Yet, you claim that if the results from the scientists point to a real effect, then Rossi is not likely to be a scammer. More perversely, people point to Rossi’s claims as evidence that the scientists’ observations are of a real phenomenon, although I suppose that if Rossi is for real, other people’s results are only surprising as to how unimpressive they are.

        The most rational assessment is that Rossi is completely decoupled from the rest of LENR development. Whatever the case is for either has essential no bearing on the other.

        • Ransompw Reply

          July 7, 2012 at 4:39 pm

          Newman:

          Rossi didn’t make the comments you claim about the higher temperature reactor, Mills extrapolated from a few Rossi comments which has all you guys speculating about what is actually happening and speculating about perceived contradictions. Actually, it is pretty entertaining to see you all scramble to dream up all the alleged contradictions.

          • Thicket

            July 7, 2012 at 4:49 pm

            Ransom

            It’s really entertaining watching you forget or ignore what Rossi has said in the past. Which high temperature reactor are you referring to? The one at 600 deg, 750 deg or 1500 deg? Perhaps you mean the one he actually demonstrated that ran at the boiling point of water. Tell me, oh enlightened one, why these aren’t contradictions?

            It seems that you have to ignore all the contradictions and lies from Rossi to maintain your holier-than-thou ‘open-mind’ illusion and criticize the skeptics.

            It just occurred to me that Rossi and I have something in common. It’s conviction. My conviction is that Rossi is a fraud. Rossi’s conviction is for fraud.

          • Ransompw

            July 7, 2012 at 5:10 pm

            Thicket:

            Rossi did 3 demonstrations that confirmed a power in kilowatts. He could have had a hidden power source, ie, fraud or he could have a LENR reactor. It was very obvious he didn’t have a commercial product. That would require a consistent, controllable, long lasting reactor. He never showed that in any of the demo’s

            Given that LENR seems to be gaining credibility amoung scientists and assuming it does verify, I find your conclusion that Rossi hid a power source a very weak hypothesis. More likely, he has a LENR reactor he can’t control and/or duplicate consistantly.

            As for the temperature inside the reactor, Rossi has said it can reach the melting point of Ni and then will automatically stop, any temperature in between is possible and none would be inconsistant. Your perceived contradiction is just that perceived.

          • John Milstone

            July 7, 2012 at 6:14 pm

            Given that LENR seems to be gaining credibility amoung scientists

            Really? I haven’t noticed any increase in credence among scientists. Just the same old group making the same old claims. Can you name one scientist who has changed his mind about LENR in the last year or two?

            National Instruments appears to be stepping in to the field. Maybe they know something. Or, maybe they just see a bunch of researchers willing to buy their products.

            The Believers are willing to discount the opinions of anyone who works in “hot” fusion, and NI works in “hot” fusion, so if they are consistent, they ought to discount NI’s interest in the field.

            But I guess they have to take whatever support they can find, regardless of from where it comes.

          • Al Potenza

            July 7, 2012 at 6:25 pm

            Rossi’s laconic reply to Mills’ rant was “correct”. Was it not?

        • Ransompw Reply

          July 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm

          Newman:

          I actually find few of your conclusions about Rossi’s place in the process to be rational, emotional yes, rational, no.

          • JNewman

            July 7, 2012 at 5:06 pm

            I see. My reaction to the fact that Rossi’s claimed results are three to six orders of magnitude greater than those of hundreds of scientists working in this field for two decades is an emotional reaction. I guess incredulity is an emotion. The rational person would simply say that Rossi is just much smarter than everybody else. Oh well. That’s what I get for being ruled by my emotions.

          • un passante

            July 7, 2012 at 5:15 pm

            still you all maryyugos haven’t addressed LCD’s point as reiterated by Ransompw.

            whatever NI saw from Rossi didn’t sour them on LENR but more likely encouraged them to get involved with this emerging technology.

            if you think that by talking about something else you’re going to negate the validity of this specific point, you’re deluded.

            I concur with Ransompw that you’re far from being rational as you like to think or portray yourself

          • Ransompw

            July 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm

            Actually, yes since he demonstrated the power. He either hid a power source or has increased power. Given that the use of Nano materials has been a recent development, the earlier lack of power is understandable. It is also explainable by the almost exclusive use of Pd in the past which looks more and more like a poor choice.

    • Dale G. Basgall Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 4:16 pm

      John; LENR is real. Mr. Rossi did the best he could with his own capabilities, I bet he did not think he was a fraud. He is to say one thing for fact hyperactive, he get’s excited and that’s cool in life when something actually excites someone.

      So what if Piantelli was showing stuff to Rossi or Celani or Focardi, the point is that Rossi ran with preliminary research and anticipated the invention coming together with alot of professional assistance in each art of subject matter pertaining to his “e-cat” technology.

      It appears that is working for him now, so where is the evidence “true evidence” that his plan was a scam? Looks like a science problem, find any probability this could be a planned out scam, just sounds like he is trying to capture the market 1st.

      • John Milstone Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 6:22 pm

        Dale: Saying “LENR is real” over and over doesn’t make it so.

        It appears that is working for him now, so where is the evidence “true evidence” that his plan was a scam?

        What makes you think it’s “working for him now”??? Because he posted an entry on his blog??? If I post a message here stating that I’ve developed an anti-gravity machine, are you going to just believe me?

        The short version of the evidence of fraud is this: Rossi spent almost 3 months telling anyone who would listen that he and his “secret customer” were working closely with NI, and that NI was developing a controller for his gadget. NI then categorically denied working with or developing a controller for Rossi.

        The fact that Rossi lied about this makes him a fraud. The fact that he lied about it while he was collecting money from investors almost certainly makes it criminal fraud.

        • Dale G. Basgall Reply

          July 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm

          John; the way I was looking at it I saw the word scam and tried to understand how Mr. Rossi appeared early on to be running like a man with one foot nailed to the floor, and also how a scam would be initiated.

          It does not appear there was a plan involved to scam, like for instance a chain letter or other scam which there is a goal in mind most likely. I have not seen that in Mr. Rossi he is simply flying by the seat of his pants and now as I understand from the posts, directed and making progress on new reactions for LENR.

          So I am asking what proof do we have he actually was initiating a scam ?

          Telling people in a business market something you intend to take place or illusion of a product is common. Does TV tell us the truth? Does a companion tell us the truth? It’s who is on the receiving end who determines what the truth is to them. If you asked Mr. Rossi did he plan a scam I would imagine he would answer no, so what I am really trying to understand is how perpetuating untruths regarding something like a new invention or product differs from the picture of a dinner at a fast food place. You see really good looking plates until your burger is served and you go that does not look anything like what I just got.

          I would say in business most are willing to add or subtract fact on a basis of making money or more profits.

          Do we have any evidence that Mr. Rossi has scammed anyone out of their money ? I understand he has only offered a product for sale that he does not have yet. I am sincerely trying to grasp the scam plan thing out but I have seen no evidence of Mr. Rossi having the brainpower to make a plan for what has happened the past year and a few months.

          Help me on this one John, what do you believe his motivation or bottom line goal was in this scam, was it to gain money, fame in a science that isn’t proven? Just doesn’t add up to be an obvious scam.

  2. LCD Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    Nonsense I think its pretty clear to everybody else what I’m saying John.
    Lol

  3. GreenWin Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Here is a story that will send chills down the spines of ALL skeptopaths:

    http://bit.ly/NMEoNQ

    It is amazing how accurate a picture of the “LENR-is-not-real!” campaign is… submerging.

  4. JNewman Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    For newbies on this site (if there are any…):

    The overwhelming majority of posters here fall into two camps: “skeptics” and “believers”.

    Skeptics spend their time here pointing out inconstancies and outright falsehoods in various claims by LENR advocates and practitioners or asking for evidence for those claims.

    Believers spend their time here accusing skeptics of close-mindedness, being paid shills of oil companies, and committing crimes against humanity.

    As a result, what appears to be a dialog is actually two monologues. As for why any of us bothers at all, that is probably a more interesting question than the reality of the alleged technology development under discussion.

    • Ransompw Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 5:46 pm

      Newman:

      The reason we continue the monologue/dialogue is because all of us realize the significance of this if true. It demands consideration.

    • un passante Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 5:47 pm

      you seem really convinced to have a vast audience out there unable to read and make their minds on their own and that your mission is to educate them.
      this is telling that you have a propaganda attitude rather than a “let’s discuss LENR” attitude.

      dear world, the so called “skeptics” (aka maryyugos) are actually “pathological skeptics” who are unable to see how their view on the LENR issue is dominated by the belief (resembling more a religious dogma) it can’t be true. they are on a mission.

      the so called believers are actually those without a preconceived dogma who think LENR would be wonderful and not an evil to fight. some of them are more optimist than others but they share an open mind and no opposition to LENR research.
      they incidentally tend to trust more NI, NASA, University of Missouri etc etc (long list) and the dozens scientits working on LENR research worldwide than a bunch of anonymous pathological skeptics trying to save the world from LENR. this fact saddens the maryyugos a lot.

      I think that’s a fairer assestment of the 2 groups. how’s that Jnewman?

      • JNewman Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 10:02 pm

        Whatever else I may be convinced of, it isn’t that there is any vast audience for the chatter on this website. I would be utterly amazed if more than a few hundred people spend any meaningful amount of time here. So obviously my mission in life is to change your beliefs, un passante, and therefore I am a failure. Alas.

    • AB Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 6:38 pm

      For newbies on this site:

      A few particularly vocal extremist posters here try to separate everyone into two camps: “skeptics” and “true believers”.

      The “skeptics” are basically those who accuse Rossi of fraud.

      Everyone else is labeled as a “true believer”. In reality though there are a wide variety of opinions and you don’t have to pick a side or have a firm belief on this matter.

      • Bettingman Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 11:06 pm

        I believe that LERN is real, and I also think that Rossi is a scam artist. What camp should I report to? Or am I left in no mans land?

        • 123star Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 2:41 am

          Just let yourself be shot in the middle of the two trenches :P

    • JNewman Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 7:16 pm

      I’m glad I started this newbie thing. It lets people express their views in such colorful ways. Our always righteous friend AB is correct in the regard that there are variations in the nature of the beliefs of the two groups here. I characterized them by their actions here rather than their opinions on the subject. I think those definitions hold true.

      Nevertheless, it is true that the believer camp ranges between those who vigorously defend every LENR claim against any and all criticism on the basis not that those claims are necessarily true but that it would be great if they were and one should always be open-minded (meaning non-critical); to those whose actually think Rossi always tells the truth. Either way, their primary concern is attacking skeptics because they believe that somehow what anyone says on this obscure website actually matters.

      The skeptic camp, on the other hand, ranges from those who are certain that Rossi is a fraud to those who don’t know what the deal is with Rossi but still haven’t seen anything resembling a good reason to believe any of this nonsense. Apparently, believers think that skeptics here are paid to express their opinions on the subject. I am not sure which ones those might be, but have continued to ask for contact information and prevailing rates. A little extra cash never hurts.

      Newbies should also keep in mind that believers have the option to spend their time on several other websites where expressing skepticism on these matters is forbidden, so the fact that they frequent this place demonstrates that the ridiculous battle that goes on here is the main attraction.

      • JKW Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 8:24 pm

        I have no explanation why I spend time on reading stuff here and there about Rossi and bothering to post sometimes as nothing has changed since two years, but I totally agree – extra cash would be nice. Can anyone reimburse me, please?

    • Anonymole Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 11:14 pm

      I’m neither. No, no, wait, I’m both.

      I’m a Rossi skeptic,
      I’m a LENR believer.
      I’m a commercially viable
      “wait and see’r”.

      I’m a DGT skoffer,
      I’m a Brillioun champion.
      I’m a NASA follower,
      I’m a fossil fuel papillon.

      I’m a nickel investor,
      and hydrogen’s the bomber.
      I’m a “the world needs something”,
      or we’ll all buy the farm’er.

      I’m a PathoSkeptoWannaBeliever.

  5. Al Potenza Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    “daniel maris Reply
    July 7, 2012 at 10:00 am
    For Al P. –
    No, you are misleading people about that report. The report clearly shows that the monitoring consultants CTC also were testing LTI’s/Rossi’s claims: “

    CTC tested the devices Rossi supposedly mass produced (all 27 of them, all hand made, all badly made, no mass production, LOL). There is nothing I could find in the report that they ever tested the devices that Rossi claimed produced 20% efficiency and 100 W of power. There is nothing to suggest ANYONE other than Rossi got such a result. There is nothing to suggest, other than “Rossi says” that the University of New Hampshire ever tested anything from Rossi. Rossi’s proposal says the original high power devices were tested by the people who run the University’s power plant! That’s laughable. What I want to know is why nobody at DOD ever checked Rossi’s original claim. I guess they had never heard about Petroldragon.

  6. Al Potenza Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    “Ransompw
    July 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Actually, yes since he demonstrated the power. He either hid a power source or has increased power.

    Many people who are technically competent disagree with you about this. They think it was “mis-measurement”. In the case of the original ecats, it was that the steam was not dry. The errors from this were discussed by a very good technical group related to the Naval Research Lab:

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2011/ICCF16/pres/ET01Grabowski-RobustPerformanceValidation.pdf

    In the case of the heat exchanger (October 6) ecat, the thermocouple placement on the output side of the heat exchanger was very wrong, leading to too high a reading by far.

    Nor were these measurement errors likely to be accidental. Rossi most likely did those deliberately and with premeditation and planning. Why else would he never allow anyone to use a correct method to measure the output energy? That would have been complete condensation (sparging) of the steam or a heat exchanger with *proper* thermocouple placement and a calibration test to prove the placement was correct.

    Rossi has always evaded the best methods of testing his ecat, most likely because such methods would reveal that *all of the heat* comes from that illogical electric heater he always requires.

    • Ransompw Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 6:14 pm

      Al:

      I never said there wasn’t debate about the power but even the most skeptic skeptic couldn’t explain the findings with only mismeasurement. They would make their point that the measurements weren’t accurate and then pretend that ended the discussion. In the Kullander demo the power added shouldn’t have raised the temp above 60C but the skepts concentrated on how much steam was actually created 40C later. Lewan’s 2nd test showed half the water vaporized but again the skepts concentrate on 10 seconds of video. In the October test the reactor was still boiling water hours after it was unplugged and the skepts concentrate on slight differences placement of thermocouples would make.

      Sorry, but I think Rossi either hid a power source or demonstrated Kilowatts of power.

      • daniel maris Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 6:26 pm

        I agree Ransom. The sceptics’ claims are always far too convoluted (e.g. mass conspiracies involved numerous people in both Rossi’s outfit and DGT). Either it’s a straighforward “hidden cable” scam or there is real power. The involvement of Focardi – for me – tilts things towards Rossi having something genuine, but I freely admit there is as yet no definitive proof.

        • AB Reply

          July 7, 2012 at 6:49 pm

          Stremmenos is also still strongly supporting Rossi. A former ambassador to Greece in Rome and physicist at University of Bologna who attended multiple e-cat demos.

          Of course maryyugo in his delusion thinks that only the “skeptics” are competent and capable of judging the situation from the comfort of their computer chair, while everyone else is a gullible incompetent fool.

          • Al Potenza

            July 7, 2012 at 8:16 pm

            Stremmenos could be honest and wrong. I think Stremmenos is going to be in for the shock of his life when it comes to Rossi.

      • AB Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 7:34 pm

        The thermocouple placement is only relevant when one wants to quantify the exact amount of excess heat.

        That it did produce significant amounts of heat is out of question as evidenced by the fact that it was boiling hot hours after input power was cut (verified by touch and hearing of boiling by outside observers)

        • Al Potenza Reply

          July 7, 2012 at 8:05 pm

          No. The thermocouple placement was deliberately chosen to maximize the heat.

          That suggests only that Rossi hid a “thermal mass”, such as molten metal, inside the device. That is probably the reason he would not allow close interior inspection of the October 6 ecat.

          • AB

            July 7, 2012 at 8:23 pm

            That suggests only that Rossi hid a “thermal mass”, such as molten metal, inside the device.

            The temperature increased for a while during self sustaining mode which suggests that heat was being produced in an active manner rather than released by a thermal mass undergoing cooling.

            Also, the reactor was opened at the end to reveal the core.

          • Ransompw

            July 7, 2012 at 8:36 pm

            Al:

            All you are doing is proving my point, Rossi either had a hidden power source or demonstrated kilowatts of LENR power. Just sdmit it you’ll feel better.

          • John Milstone

            July 7, 2012 at 8:48 pm

            The temperature increased for a while during self sustaining mode which suggests that heat was being produced in an active manner rather than released by a thermal mass undergoing cooling.

            Not necessarily. If the thermal mass were insulated from the surrounding water, the temperature of the surrounding water would depend on how much the water and the mass were allowed to come into contact. A simple solenoid valve could produce a wide range of thermal profiles (including increasing the temperature of the surrounding water, and/or keeping the water boiling, for some considerable time after the external heat source had been turned off.

            Also, the reactor was opened at the end to reveal the core.

            The outer vessel was opened, but the core (which comprised most of the volume of the E-Cat) was not.

          • John Milstone

            July 7, 2012 at 8:52 pm

            Rossi either had a hidden power source or demonstrated kilowatts of LENR power.

            Yes. And, given the numerous tricks and flaws in Rossi’s demos, it is reasonable to assume that he was feeding in more power and/or producing less power, than he claimed.

            None of the demos were sufficiently examined to eliminate fraud, and all of the demos were sufficiently flawed to hide fraud.

            I think it’s safe to say that Rossi was not mistaken about the power output of the E-Cat. Either it’s real, or he knows it’s fake.

            After 18 months since his first demo, the fact that we still don’t know the E-Cat is real is, all by itself, pretty good evidence that it’s a fake.

          • Ransompw

            July 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm

            It wasn’t most of the volume, do You even care to be accurate.

          • Al Potenza

            July 7, 2012 at 9:15 pm

            “Ransompw
            July 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm
            It wasn’t most of the volume, do You even care to be accurate.”

            -
            The images I saw only showed the top of the entire machine lifted to allow a glimpse into the (badly illuminated) interior. Other than some fins, I saw nothing of note. Most of the interior space was not visible in these images. If you have better ones, please link them.

          • John Milstone

            July 7, 2012 at 11:36 pm

            It wasn’t most of the volume, do You even care to be accurate.

            According to Horace Heffner’s estimate (HERE), it was just slightly less than 50% (24 out of 56.7 liters). However, Heffner is assuming that the unseen bottom of the core has the same radiating fins as the top, so if that assumption is wrong, the core volume could be closer to 25.5 liters.

            You can piss an moan about a few percent, but you’re still wrong about anyone seeing what was inside the core.

          • Ransompw

            July 8, 2012 at 5:06 am

            Milstone:

            You can’t even graciously admit you were wrong. You said the core comprised MOST of the volume of the ECat. Then you have the audacity to say 24/56.7 is slightly less than 50%. Are you so dishonest you can’t even be accurate. And I never said anyone saw inside the core. Do you even care about honesty, you sure seem to require it of Rossi.

        • John Milstone Reply

          July 7, 2012 at 8:05 pm

          That it did produce significant amounts of heat is out of question as evidenced by the fact that it was boiling hot hours after input power was cut (verified by touch and hearing of boiling by outside observers)

          Your conclusion depends upon the assumption that the only contents of the E-Cat was water at normal atmospheric pressure.

          If there was anything inside the E-Cat that was significantly hotter than 100C (including possibly water at high pressure), then your assumption is false.

          Since Rossi has never allowed anyone to see the inside of his “reactor” we have no idea what tricks it might have contained.

      • Tony Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 1:03 am

        Ransom,

        We’ve all seem to forgotten about the “variable frequancy device” that was present in the early ecat demos. The variable frequency device was nothing more than the switch that tripped the solenoid to divert the flow of water to make it look like more was actually heated.

        He didn’t hide the power source – the ecat was plugged into it all the time – the wall outlet. He simply managed to make everybody think that more water than was actually heated was heated.

        Tony2

        • Ransompw Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 4:52 am

          That’s hilarious. Do you often make up imaginary facts to fit your agenda? Why don’t you try dealing with actual facts.

        • GreenWin Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 5:34 am

          So umm Mary, what is it you call yourself?? Tony?? Or as you signed, Tony2?? Clown. Hoaxer. Scammmer.

  7. Al Potenza Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    Just happened to find this in Krivit’s blog:

    “Sept. 16, 2003 Rossi’s U.S. patent on thermoelectric generator US6620994 B2 issues. (Applied Oct. 4, 2001) (Expired for non-payment on Sept. 16, 2007) ”

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/20070916Rossi-TE-Patent-ExpiresUS6620994-b2.pdf

    Even Rossi doesn’t think those thermoelectric devices ever worked, does he? Else why would he allow such a valuable patent to expire for non payment of trivial fees?

    • John Milstone Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 6:42 pm

      The timing of this is interesting.

      He was arrested in Rome on 6/1/2000 (considered a fugitive for the previous year, while he was working on his Thermoelectric Convertor in the United States). LINK

      Interestingly, although the DOD document claims that Rossi had returned home to “continue his work”, Rossi actually had a Rome-to-Boston return ticket for 6/5. So, it appears that the version in the DOD report is less than honest.

      Rossi was then convicted to 8 years in prison on 10/19/2000. LINK

      So, the patent was filed months after he was arrested, and just days before he was convicted. What dedication!

      BTW, I’ve searched everywhere, and I’ve never been able to find any evidence that this 8-year conviction was ever overturned (as some of his other convictions were). I did find a 2004 newspaper article which specifically mentioned that this conviction was still upheld at that time. LINK

      I don’t know the details of criminal prison sentences in Italy, but I seriously doubt that Rossi was allowed to go free after being considered a fugitive for the previous year, nor that he would avoid prison time for his 8-year conviction.

      • un passante Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 9:22 pm

        • John Milstone Reply

          July 7, 2012 at 9:48 pm

          Posting Rossi’s autobiography web site as though you could find actual facts there is laughable.

          • un passante

            July 8, 2012 at 5:08 pm

            what’s wrong in reading his version of the facts? actually one should accept his version and prove where he is not being accurate, not the other way.

  8. Harry Perini Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    Rossi was eventually acquitted.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 9:12 pm

      Link please (other than to Rossi’s claims)? I think some of the convictions were upheld. Several charges were only dropped due to statutes of limitations.

    • John Milstone Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 9:48 pm

      Rossi was eventually acquitted.

      He was acquitted of some of the convictions (in particular, the pollution-related ones).

      The business fraud convictions, in particularly the bankruptcy fraud conviction in 2000 never were, as far as I can tell.

      If you have any actual evidence that the 8-year conviction for bankruptcy fraud was overturned, please provide it.

      I spent hours tracking down every newspaper article mentioning Rossi, and I never found any indication that it was overturned. I did find evidence that it was still in force late in 2004.

  9. Al Potenza Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    “Dale G. Basgall Reply
    July 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm
    So I am asking what proof do we have he actually was initiating a scam ?”

    -

    We’ve been over this many times before. We don’t have PROOF that Rossi is scamming. If we did, he’d be in court or in jail.

    However, his behavior pattern is classic for a scam. It’s not a product scam like HHO generators for cars. HHO doesn’t work but it’s difficult to test so some people get away with fooling the customers… for a while. Some, like Dennis Lee and Jeff Otto, get caught and prosecuted but it’s so much trouble for the involved agencies that it’s fairly rare that they bother.

    But if Rossi is scamming, it’s an INVESTOR scam, like Steorn, Tilley, Sniffex, Priest, Sun Cube and many others. The trick is to get investor money up front. Rossi claims he has sold distributorships in dozens of countries. Even if only part of that is true, it means millions of dollars. He also received investment money from Ampenergo about a year ago. The president of Ampenergo said the amount was “significant”. BTW, Ampenergo has never said or done anything you can find by searching about it.

    Anyway, getting lots of money from investors by deceiving them about a novel concept or product is a very old con game. That is what some of us suspect Rossi is doing.

    Proving it is very difficult. Investors tend to remain fooled for long periods of time, don’t like to have their failures made public, and may not be able to file lawsuits due to “best efforts” and non disclosure types of agreements. At least not yet they can’t. Maybe some day.

    • Methusela Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 9:54 pm

      LENR is not a scam.

      THAT is the important thing here.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 11:11 pm

        Nobody said LENR is a scam. It is highly unlikely that the thousands of investigators involved in LENR are all scammers. In fact, it’s impossible.

        However it is possible and even likely that many investigators hype their claims, others are deceiving themselves honestly and yet others are simply not as good at measuring things as they think they are, especially at measuring heat/thermal energy which is tricky unless you are specifically educated in it, and are both clever and careful.

  10. Harry Perini Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    In the past 17 years, Rossi has been in 56 trials, forcing him into deep debt because of the financial disaster, and it is still not completely paid off.

    Of all 56 prosecutions, the ones which led to imprisonment ended with acquittals; only 5 of the prosecutions for tax crime ended with convictions (with some custody imprisonments). All of the other prosecutions ended with acquittal or for statute of limitation. The same Petroldragon and Omar customers, even those who suffered factory seizures or prosecutions because of involvement with Rossi’s companies, testified as witnesses in favor of the defendant.

    • John Milstone Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 9:51 pm

      You state that as though it was factual, but you provide absolutely no actual evidence.

      Please provide links to credible source material (i.e. newspaper accounts, court records, etc.).

      Don’t wast our time regurgitating Rossi’s version of events.

      • Harry Perini Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 9:58 pm

        I can’t post the link here.

        The forum software says it is “Spam”

        Censorship

        But it is a long article about Rossi.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          July 7, 2012 at 11:22 pm

          Sometimes the forum balks at more than one link per posted message. Did you try posting a single link? You can also disguise the original URL using http://tinyurl.com/

      • Methusela Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 10:00 pm

        Why should he? You waste inordinate amounts of our time posting the same old repetitive crap.

        Someone once wondered whether you suffer from OCD.

        I would say that you don’t – it’s everybody else that suffers because of your OCD!

        • Harry Perini Reply

          July 7, 2012 at 10:05 pm

          You snakes are getting testy as Andrea Rossi reaches his goal of a commercial Ecat.

          Success is very near.

          • JNewman

            July 7, 2012 at 10:22 pm

            Snakes, eh? You know, come to think of it, you are most assuredly the only person on this site who accepts absolutely everything Rossi says without reservation. Even the most committed supporters here have fessed up at one time or another to Rossi’s inconsistencies and exaggerations. Therefore, perhaps the simplest explanation for all of this is that Mr. Perini is actually Mr. Rossi incognito. Wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

          • Al Potenza

            July 7, 2012 at 11:21 pm

            Success? Says who other than Rossi? Name ONE verified customer. Name one lab, university or other reliable person who has done a single independent test not involving Rossi. Can’t, can you? The only progress comes from Rossi’s jawbone.

        • John Milstone Reply

          July 7, 2012 at 11:09 pm

          Sorry, I spoke out of turn.

          Harry, feel free to waste as much of Methusela’s time as you wish regurgitating Rossi’s spin.

    • JNewman Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 10:07 pm

      Harry, the tale you weave is remarkable. Today you tell us that Rossi’s legal battles have left him deep in debt even to this day. I remind you that a day ago, you told us that Rossi has not taken money from investors but has paid for his product development and factory construction with his own money. Does any of that strike you as difficult to swallow?

  11. Harry Perini Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    Another excerpt from the censored document:

    Until 1987 the raw materials used by Petroldragon for the production of fuel oil was considered secondary refuse matter, meaning waste from processing of raw materials, or other materials resulting from the recovery and recycling of waste. At that time, products derived from these materials were exempted from requiring any permission for waste disposal.

    Without any warning and any explanation, suddenly all secondary materials similar to those obtained and used by Petroldragon were considered toxic waste. Consequently, all products derived therefrom were considered toxic waste as well. The activities of acquisition, storage, handling of such materials and products suddenly required government permits and government concessions. Since before that date, this never had been a requirement, Petroldragon obviously did not have permits or licenses for waste treatment.

    Up to then, Petroldragon activities were always in conformance from a public authorities point of view. They were now suddenly considered illegal and unauthorized. By legislative decree, in a very short time, all equipment was sequestered. The government then determined that tanks used for storing incoming raw materials were illegal dumps of toxic waste.

    From this moment on, and for many years to follow, Rossi was subjected to an endless number of arrests and prosecutions.

    It is interesting to note that right from the start of business, all incoming raw materials and all outgoing final products of the Petroldragon and Omar plants had always been subject to rigorous monitoring by the “Guardia di Finanza”, since the final products are subject to a production tax. This means that all incoming and outgoing waste products had been steadily and continuously sampled and analyzed by the Ministry of Finance.

    During its period of activity, Petroldragon-Omar paid the state more than 2 billion Lire in production taxes, because their end product had always been considered a fuel, subject to a specific production tax on fuels.

  12. Harry Perini Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    For more google “Andrea Rossi convicted”

    • John Milstone Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 11:16 pm

      For more google “Andrea Rossi convicted”

      That results in over one million hits. LOL

      Let me guess. You want us to only look at the ones from Rossi fans, who believe every word from Rossi about his innocence?

      • dsm Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 5:43 am

        3/4 million of them really allude to ‘Andrea Rossi Convinced” :)
        .
        DSM
        .
        (Convinced he can pull off the greatest smooth deal of a lifetime)

    • John Milstone Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 11:24 pm

      HERE is a documentary that includes the Petroldragon story. The relevant part starts at about 12:00.

      Rossi, of course, claims innocence and honest mistakes, but they also present the authorities who state that Rossi never produced a single drop of oil from the toxic waste. He only stored it in abandoned refineries, where it eventually leaked out and poisoned the areas.

      • John Milstone Reply

        July 7, 2012 at 11:45 pm

        I don’t believe the documentary mentions one of the best bits: Rossi’s customers continued to claim that they were buying fuel from Rossi for over a year after he was shut down.

        It was clearly a money-laundering scheme.

  13. Harry Perini Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Petroldragon

    In 1974, he registered a patent for an incineration system. In 1978, he wrote The Incineration of Waste and River Purification, published in Milan by Tecniche Nuove. He then founded Petroldragon, a company for developing oil from waste, which collapsed in the 1990s amidst allegations of dumping toxic waste.[10]

    In the early 1990s the company was disbanded following accusations of dumping environmental toxins, as well as tax fraud. Its assets were seized, together with Rossi’s personal assets, and Andrea Rossi was arrested and imprisoned. Subsequently released, Rossi emigrated to the United States, and went on to found Leonardo Technology Incorporated. More than 10 years after his imprisonment, Rossi was acquitted. The government of the Lombardia region spent over forty million euros to dispose of the 70,000 tonnes of toxic waste that Petrol Dragon was storing on site.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_%28entrepreneur%29

  14. un passante Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 10:44 pm

    really, who cares about petroldragon? that’s an old story and unrelated to LENR. he was acquitted in most of the trials (those involving pursuing a real criminal intent with his invention) except few minor ones.

    he had more problems with the financial side of it after the collapse of his enterprise.
    I don’t know if the appeal to the 1st degree bankrupt sentence is still pending or if it has matured the period for prescription (statute of limitations). he is free so I guess that’s a good indicator.
    keep also in mind that when he says that “waste business” is often mafia territory he is unfortunately right.

    I concede that that past could and should make people a bit more cautious (irrespective of the fact he could be right when saying he suffered persecution, what do we really know?) but on the other hand we have focardi, stremmenos all testifying that his lenr reactor works.

    and that’s what really matters now, his LENR reactor works or not? time will tell, we have a good amount of hints it could work. enough hints to keep us watching, not conclusive enough to start drinking champagne. I am referring of course to those of us interested in LENR.

    let’s put the discussion back on track

    whatever NI saw from Rossi didn’t sour them on LENR but more likely encouraged them to get involved with this emerging technology.

    • John Milstone Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 11:13 pm

      whatever NI saw from Rossi didn’t sour them on LENR but more likely encouraged them to get involved with this emerging technology.

      According to Julia Betts, spokesperson for National Instruments, they never saw anything from Rossi. They only got as far as pre-sales discussions of what NI could provide to someone trying to do what Rossi was claiming he wanted to do.

      There was no contract. There was no “working with” Rossi’s “secret” customer. There was no work on a controller.

      Rossi lied about all of that.

      • Ransompw Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 4:45 am

        Citation? Or just another of your fabrications!

        • John Milstone Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 11:59 am

          Julia Betts first email is posted HERE. In part, it says:

          Per our previous statement from November, we were only in discussions with the Leonardo Corporation regarding the use of National Instruments engineering tools. Currently Leonardo Corporation/Andrea Rossi is not a customer of National Instruments.

          Although Rossi had been spending the previous three months proudly proclaiming that NI was “working closely” with him and his “secret” customer, and that NI was building a controller for his E-Cat, when the email linked above came out, he abruptly changed it story.

          His new story was that his “secret” customer decided not to work with NI, and that NI “taught” him useful things over a period of weeks.

          One of the other E-Cat “fan” web sites sent her a single quote from Rossi which left out everything he had been claiming except the comment that NI had “taught” him over a period of weeks, and she agreed that was a reasonable description of their relationship with Rossi.

          Apparently, she started hearing about Rossi’s other claims, because she then asked to clarify her comments by saying that she was only commenting on that one statement, not the numerous other statements he may have made, and that NI had made “preliminary suggestions on the platform that could be used for the control sysstem.” LINK

          Then, Ms. Betts sent THIS followup email, which included:

          In November of 2011 the agreement referenced should be clarified as a series of discussions including NI making preliminary suggestions about which NI platforms could potentially be used for the control system. These discussions are the same discussions we would have when initiating with any customer and can include signing confidentiality paperwork or logo placement, but is not a definitive agreement to work together. We are a tools provider so again I want to emphasize these types of discussions are part of standard practice in order to assess if we can meet a customer’s needs. Rossi and the Leonardo Corporation are not currently a customer of NI. Our interactions did not go beyond initial discussions and we did not design a control system for them. We are not currently, nor have been for some time, in current discussions or working with him.

          • daniel maris

            July 8, 2012 at 12:19 pm

            What you’ve failed to do JM is give any quotation from Rossi to back up your claim he lied, as opposed to say, over-egged the pudding, to use an old pudding (something nearly all start up businesses do). You’re simply giving us your interpretation of what he said.

            The Betts responses do not deny that preparatory work on a control system might have been done – it simply states no “definitive” agreement (ie a contract) to work together was ever entered into.

            Rossi may have overstated the level of co-operation but it is not clear he told a bare faced lie and it’s pointless pretending he did unless you have some evidence.

          • Ransompw

            July 8, 2012 at 12:20 pm

            Milstone:

            So I see you again have provided proof of your prior inaccuracy. I hope you see how you misstated what NI said. As I recollected at NO time did NI state they had not seen anything from Rossi. Preliminary discussions don’t exclude face to face discussions or in anyway indicate NI never saw an Ecat. That is your fabricated twist on what they said.

            You really don’t know how to be honest do you?

          • daniel maris

            July 8, 2012 at 12:26 pm

            An old quotation not an old pudding! LOL

          • un passante

            July 8, 2012 at 1:58 pm

            @Ransompw

            Preliminary discussions don’t exclude face to face discussions or in anyway indicate NI never saw an Ecat.

            actually it would be weird to discuss what engineering tools to use on a device without knowing anything about that device. that would be even more useless than some of maryyugos points, and we’re talking about excellence there.

            so this statement remains logically untouched:
            whatever NI saw from Rossi didn’t sour them on LENR but more likely encouraged them to get involved with this emerging technology.

            let’s remind what we mean with involvement in LENR research, NI is sponsoring or collaborating with:
            Prof. Kim, Purdue University
            Prof. Hagelstein, MIT
            Los Alamos National Lab
            University of Missouri
            University of Bologna, Levi (mentioned as focardi’s successor – Levi only worked with the e-cat)
            ENEA
            INFN Frascati (Celani)
            Kobe University
            Osaka University
            Texas University, Austin
            Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA)
            Stanford Research Institute
            Naval Research Laboratories

            National Instruments made a selection (for budgetary reasons) and chose what they thought to be the best ongoing LENR research.

            NI were not shy to talk about their involvement with LENR research in front of the EU.

            there will be 3 speeches on LENR in the coming NIweek (august 2012)

            the mention of Levi is an obvious signal they want to stay in touch with the e-cat.
            my impression is that NI still is strangely reticent about their relations with rossi. if you couple that with their mention of Levi it leaves a lot of space for wild guessing.

          • John Milstone

            July 8, 2012 at 2:08 pm

            What you’ve failed to do JM is give any quotation from Rossi to back up your claim he lied

            And I am often criticized for repeating myself. Since the True Believers simply ignore the evidence I present, I must repeat myself.

            HERE Rossi claims to be working with National Instruments on 1/16/2012.

            HERE Rossi claims to be commissioning a controller from NI.

            HERE is a audio interview of Rossi by Sterling Allan on 1/14/2012, where at 1:11:00 Rossi talks about working with NI to develop the controller.

            HERE Rossi’s business web site (ecat.com) had a story about Rossi entering into an agreement with NI.

            HERE Rossi is claiming (in the January 2012 timeframe) that NI and his “secret” customer were working together. Note that this was in response to Rossi’s earlier lies about the disposition of the “Megawatt” E-Cat, still sitting in his garage in Bologna.

            HERE is another comment from January about how NI is working on the design of the E-Cat.

            HERE is yet another comment about how NI is closely working on the controller for the E-Cat, which directly contradicts Julia Betts’ comment.

          • John Milstone

            July 8, 2012 at 2:16 pm

            The Betts responses do not deny that preparatory work on a control system might have been done – it simply states no “definitive” agreement (ie a contract) to work together was ever entered into.

            I’ve worked for companies like National Instruments. The sales people work “on spec”. The engineering people do not.

            It’s clear from Julia Betts’ comments that Rossi never got beyond the sales people. They would have asked general questions (how many inputs, how fast a response, etc.) and they would have determined which NI system was the best match for what Rossi described.

            That’s as far as it would have gotten without a signed contract.

          • John Milstone

            July 8, 2012 at 2:53 pm

            As I recollected at NO time did NI state they had not seen anything from Rossi.

            You are really slipping, Ransompw.

            You’re now trying to peddle the lack of evidence as evidence.

            NI has never stated that they had not seen: Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, UFOs or the Tooth Fairy.

            According to your “logic” that means that they have seen all of those.

          • un passante

            July 8, 2012 at 5:30 pm

            maryyugo milstone, your logic in the last post is a monument to fallacy and trickery.

            fallacy:
            since you admit there is a lack of evidences you should realize it goes both ways.
            you have no evidence NI didn’t examine the e-cat. that’s what you like to think, even though any thinking person should see how much implausible it is.

            we have one fact that could tell us more, though.
            strangely enough, after contact with rossi NI decided to start a programme of collaborations and sponsorship with a good number of scientists and authoritative scientific institutions working on LENR research worldwide.

            that’s the giant point in front of you you’re pretending not to see.

            trickery:
            putting in the same message LENR and Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, UFOs or the Tooth Fairy. as if they are someway related and in order to induce people into making an automatic thought association.
            that’s maryyugo trademark. also maryyugo Jnewman uses that tactic. you should differentiate.

          • John Milstone

            July 8, 2012 at 6:16 pm

            un passante said:

            you have no evidence NI didn’t examine the e-cat.

            Wrong as usual.

            Julia Betts said:

            Per our previous statement from November, we were only in discussions with the Leonardo Corporation regarding the use of National Instruments engineering tools.

            That is definite statement about the nature of their relationship. It was ONLY about the use of NI engineering tools.

            Nothing Julia Betts said even suggests that they did anything more than provide Rossi with information about their products.

            Any assumption that Rossi “must have” shown then anything (when he refuses to show his E-Cat to anyone) is pure fantasy.

          • un passante

            July 8, 2012 at 8:16 pm

            a dense fog, I see.

            where does Betts say “our people never saw an e-cat when discussing which engineering tools to use”?

            so if speculating they did see is just guessing, the same is valid for the contrary.

            but we have an indicator suggesting us (apart from common sense I mean, something you seem to be allergic to, sometimes) they much probably did see something, ie the fact they decided to start a worldwide program of collaborations and sponsorships on LENR research soon after.

            one of the sponsorships involves Prof. Levi, University of Bologna. Levi’s only involvement in LENR is with the e-cat.

      • GreenWin Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 5:27 am

        Mary YugHO – at times one must marvel at the sheer vacuity you represent!! Astonishing.

  15. Bettingman Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Below a link to a report from Jim Dunns about the conference in Willamsburg.

    I understand that this is the person that told DSM he saw a working LERN reactor at DGT.

    It is interesting to note that he wants Hank Mills to make sure that Rossi gives evidence to back up his claims…

    http://pesn.com/2012/07/07/9602127_Jim_Dunns_Report_on_LENR_conference_in_Williamsburg/

    • Al Potenza Reply

      July 7, 2012 at 11:19 pm

      Jim Dunn is an advocate for Defkalion and is not a reliable source for this sort of information. I suspect he’s sincere enough but I doubt he would know a working reactor from a fake. Far as I know, Dunn has never made or presented test results on anything.

      • dsm Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 1:21 am

        Al
        .
        It is fair to say that no one is a reliable source if we apply your measure.
        .
        What you are saying, is that because Jim Dunn made a positive remark to someone else about what he saw at DGTG, this in your eyes immediately disqualifies him as an objective commentator even if he was part of a NASA team evaluating both the eCat (with Dennis Bushnell on 23 Sept 2011) and Defkalion (also in 2011) and NicHenergy (also in 2011).
        .
        Al, it is clear to me that no one but you is going to be believed by you & even then you must be in some doubt :)
        .
        Cheers DSM

        • Methusela Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 1:38 pm

          Touché

        • un passante Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 2:13 pm

          DSM are you aware of the fact that if defkalion has a working reactor this automatically means that also rossi’s reactor works?
          defkalion themselves clearly state their own device is a development of the first e-cat.

          BTW I have the same attitude with rossi and defkalion. claims are interesting but nothing more than that. let’s see the devices in the market or let’s see a kind of validation only fools can reject.

          • dsm

            July 9, 2012 at 12:47 am

            un passante
            .
            Yes that is a fair deduction.
            .
            The difficulty with Rossi, is that today he is trying to claim he now has working exactly what he claimed he had working 2 years ago.
            .
            The logical conclusion from this is that 2 years ago he was not telling the truth & even today what he claims can be doubted.
            .
            Rossi repeatedly muddies the waters with his claims and whilst he may deserve some kind of kudos for getting attention for LENR, it may be the wrong type of attention.
            .
            Sadly Rossi just keeps coming across as an opportunist & that started when he filed his Apr 2008 patent for a Ni + H reactor and wrote it without any acknowledgement that Piantelli had invented it. Rossi actively encourages everyone to believe he Rossi did it all. That in itself is one issue but it strikes right to the heart of Rossi’s motives and credibility. His credibility took bigger hits every time he told us he was about to get certification for his eCat then every time he walked from it (as in Celani, UniBo, Uppsala & NASA, etc: ).
            .
            DSM

        • John Milstone Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 2:20 pm

          What you are saying, is that because Jim Dunn made a positive remark to someone else about what he saw at DGTG, this in your eyes immediately disqualifies him as an objective commentator even if he was part of a NASA team evaluating both the eCat (with Dennis Bushnell on 23 Sept 2011) and Defkalion (also in 2011) and NicHenergy (also in 2011).

          I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this is no different than what the True Believers do to any researcher critical of LENR if they have any connection, no matter how tenuous, to the “hot” fusion world.

          • dsm

            July 8, 2012 at 10:00 pm

            John
            .
            Despite my teasing, Al may be more right than anyone. Certainly based on today’s available facts Al is right.
            .
            I just couldn’t resist tweaking his tail on that bit of logic :)
            .
            We are all somewhat at the mercy of the claims & counter claims of the various players.
            .
            DSM

  16. Al Potenza Reply

    July 7, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    @Harry

    Thanks for the references. The Wiki article refers to this link:

    http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2004/novembre/27/Riciclaggio_rifiuti_tossici_Assolto_Andrea_co_7_041127020.shtml

    Which seems to be an Italian blog. I am not sure about their authority. However, even they conclude: “To clean up the approximately 70 000 tons of waste accumulated in ‘system, in ten years the Lombardy Region has paid about 41 million euros.

    (The) acquittal of Rossi clearly demonstrates how the principle of “polluter pays” is often applied in reverse: the polluter earns and gets away, “said Silvia Ferretto Clementi, regional advisor of An. G. Gua.

    However one looks on it, Rossi caused immense cost and distress with Petroldragon and I don’t believe his persecution claims for one instant because they make absolutely no sense.

    • 123star Reply

      July 8, 2012 at 4:14 am

      It’s the archive of a (big) Italian newspaper, “Il corriere della sera”, http://www.corriere.it. So that’s a quite authoritative source.

    • GreenWin Reply

      July 8, 2012 at 5:24 am

      But Al… you don’t seem to get it – NO ONE CARES what you believe. Simply because you have ZERO credibility.

      • dsm Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 5:41 am

        Hmmmm
        .
        Pot calls kettle black.
        .
        D

        • GreenWin Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 5:43 am

          Hehe, infants are best seen and not heard.

          • dsm

            July 8, 2012 at 10:01 am

            GreenWin (or is it Roger Green ???)
            .
            Is this like the pathetic child who in particular called Jim Dunn a liar because this idiot went to the wrong CTC web site to try to check Jim Dunn’s NASA CTC former director credentials.
            .
            You are a pathetic joke when it comes to questioning anyone’s credibility. I would have forgiven you if you had the intestinal fortitude to realize you screwed up & apologized but no, in your immature and ‘I am never wrong’ way you decided to double dare & call him a liar again.
            .
            You have no credibility on any claim you make because you are a proven liar and a coward in to boot.
            .
            The sooner you either apologize for your blunder about Jim Dunn or preferably you just shut up, the better all LENR blog sites will be. We don’t need lying fanatics.
            .
            DSM

          • Methusela

            July 8, 2012 at 1:40 pm

            @dsm: calm down, dude.

          • dsm

            July 8, 2012 at 10:01 pm

            Methusela,
            .
            Thanks for your calming suggestion :)
            .
            Cheers
            .
            DSM

    • daniel maris Reply

      July 8, 2012 at 12:24 pm

      No one I think is going to defend Rossi’s behaviour in relation to Petroldragon in the sense that clearly things went wrong. I think Rossi’s version is that vested interests (and we know how the Mafia run waste in Italy and the USA) stymied the operation which was why there was a waste build up. I’ve no idea if that was what happened, but looked at another way, taking 70,000 tonnes of waste is an odd way to set up a scamming operation isn’t it? It’s not as though you’re not going to get found out at some point.

      It sounds much more like a business and/or technology failure than a scam.

      • John Milstone Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 2:59 pm

        I’ve no idea if that was what happened, but looked at another way, taking 70,000 tonnes of waste is an odd way to set up a scamming operation isn’t it? It’s not as though you’re not going to get found out at some point.

        Not if it was a money laundering operation.

        These other companies needed to get rid of their toxic waste, and they didn’t want to pay to do it properly.

        So, they used a bogus company (Petroldragon) to generate fake “recycling” expenses, and they dumped the waste. As long as no one looked too closely, everything went along just fine.

        One comment from the relevant trial was telling: one of Rossi’s “customers” was claiming the cost of having their toxic wast “treated” by Rossi for about 18 months after Rossi’s operation was shut down. Someone didn’t get the message to stop producing fake invoices.

        • un passante Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 6:00 pm

          All you need is love, all you need is love,
          All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
          Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
          All you need is love, all you need is love,
          All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

        • Methusela Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 6:06 pm

          There’s also something python-esque about JM’s posts.

          I think it’s got something to do with spam…

          • un passante

            July 8, 2012 at 7:03 pm

            when he can hypothesize the worst about rossi he becomes poetic. he turns creative and inventive.

        • Tony Reply

          July 9, 2012 at 3:45 pm

          Bada-bing. That’s just what I said over a year ago and is exactly what was going on with Petroldragon. There never was a plan to convert anything other than toxic waste into an acceptable form of currency. This alone shows that AR is a professional fraudster. It’s all he knows how to do.

          Tony2

  17. GreenWin Reply

    July 8, 2012 at 5:29 am

    Milstone – answer truthfully – are you being paid or compensated in any way for your postings??

    • Frank Reply

      July 8, 2012 at 1:03 pm

      Why should anyone waste his money and pay some sceptics for Rossi-critical comments on e-cat blogs? (I’m for sure not paid for commenting here)
      If someone/some organization sees Rossi as a threat for them, they would have to buy his technology, global licence etc.

      But on the other hand, for Rossi, Rossi associates and e-cat licence holders, which intends to sell licences/sub-licenses, it would make much sense to spur the e-cat saga (e.g. by enthusiastic, exaggerated posting on e-cat blogs) and fight against sceptics.

      • Methusela Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 1:48 pm

        Because this site doesn’t have a small audience. It, and e-catworld, is referenced in other comment pages associated with the mainstream press (James Delingpole’s articles within the telegraph.co.uk, for example).

        Point is, the grassroots scorn that Milstone/Al project is enough for the casual observer to be turned off this subject, and it has a far wider reach than you might think.

        • JNewman Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 3:17 pm

          If you are genuinely concerned about what casual visitors here think about all of this, perhaps you LENR fans should consider actually defending your views against factual criticism rather than calling people various weird epithets and posting pictures of snakes. On the other hand, you probably do realize that it really doesn’t matter what anyone says here and you just enjoy having schoolyard fights.

          • un passante

            July 8, 2012 at 6:14 pm

            I thought you were a LENR fan yourself, only the kind of fan swimming in a vast sea of pessimism and negativity. and being the selfless guy you are you want the rest of the world to swim in your same sea.

          • JNewman

            July 8, 2012 at 7:10 pm

            un passante, you do nothing more than endlessly prove my point. Just continue to spew insults and other pointless personal attacks. I’m sure that will help LENR become a respected technology. Your contributions are priceless.

          • Methusela

            July 8, 2012 at 7:32 pm

            @JNewman:

            I think you’ll find that personal attacks aren’t pointless.

            After all, you, Milstone, and Al, dedicate a large proportion of your time launching personal attacks on the character of Rossi and occasionally, Focardi, Levi, Lewan, Storms, et al.

            Your hope, in producing such a deluge of mud, is that some of it will stick whether warranted or not.

            So, it’s only fair that we question your motivations, and ridicule your repetiveness.

            Quid pro quo, lads, quid pro quo!

          • un passante

            July 8, 2012 at 7:54 pm

            you have spoiled my tactic, Methusela. I wanted JNewman to realize it on his own in a cathartic moment when he really becomes a LENR fan. his own road to damascus moment.

          • JNewman

            July 8, 2012 at 8:21 pm

            @Methusela, please give me an example where I have made personal attacks against Rossi, Focardi, Storms, etc. I think you will be hard-pressed to find any. If you paid any attention to what is written instead of running around in a blind rage against the perceived enemies of LENR, you would perhaps notice that I question people’s claims, attack their logic, and discuss the ramifications of their statements. I have not personally attacked any of your heroes. But I understand your confusion. Anyone who disagrees with your world view is a maryyugo and they are all alike.

    • John Milstone Reply

      July 8, 2012 at 2:28 pm

      GreenWin, you are the least useful poster here. Why should I waste my time responding to a clown like you?

      However, for the benefit of other readers I will state the following:

      I have never received any compensation of any sort for anything I’ve posted here (or anywhere else, on any topic). I am only here as an interested bystander.

      I am not involved in the physics “industry” or “research” in any way.

      I have never posted anything in any E-Cat or LENR related forum using any screen name other than “John Milstone”. In particular, I am not “Mary Yugo”.

      • Methusela Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 2:51 pm

        That’s grossly unfair!

        I thought that I was the most useless poster on this site?

        You certainly write in the “maryyugo/George Hody” style, and use the same examples as he does, and post in the same voluminous amounts :)

        • John Milstone Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 3:20 pm

          I am not George Hody.

          (Methusela, thanks for posting your reply. I had forgotten his last name, so I didn’t include it in my earlier post.)

          Of course, there are a number of “True Believers” who post the same content in similar styles. But I’m not paranoid enough to think that they are all the same person.

        • Methusela Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 6:10 pm

          This is the “reverse spartacus” effect. Nobody wants to stand up.

      • un passante Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 5:49 pm

        maryyugo milstone, being a maryyugo is a concept, a collective definiton so it’s easier for people interested in LENR to relate with you.

        you shouldn’t be ashamed of being a maryyugo, that’s what you are and you should be proud of it (otherwise you wouldn’t be posting and thinking the way maryyugos do).

        one day you could organize a maryyugo pride and parade through all the LENR blogs in the net shouting your maryyugo slogans against the easter bunny, the lochness monster and bigfoot.

        • GreenWin Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 7:37 pm

          Excellent suggestion un passante. MaryyugHO Pride Parade – I shall wave the Flat Earth Flag in support!

        • Al Potenza Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 9:09 pm

          @un passante and GW

          Maryyugo makes sense and seems to know about science and technology. Neither of you does.

          • un passante

            July 8, 2012 at 10:14 pm

            that’s what I call a proud maryyugo!

          • GreenWin

            July 10, 2012 at 10:39 pm

            Al, I will look for you at the head of the YugHO Pride Parade! He’ll be proud of you.

      • Steve W Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 8:07 pm

        Milestone, here’s a simple question. If LENR were to succeed, would it be to your benefit.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 9:08 pm

          Nobody knows for sure but if LENR were real, it’s likely everyone would benefit. Even the oil companies who would use a low cost heat source to power refineries which make pteroleum-based products which would remain indispensable (for example chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics and fuels for high energy/light weight apps like aircraft).

          Almost everyone wants LENR to be real including all the skeptics on this forum.

          The problem isn’t wanting it to be real. It’s that there is no really good, obvious, convincing, replicable, reliable evidence that it is.

          • GreenWin

            July 10, 2012 at 10:42 pm

            “everyone wants LENR to be real including all the skeptics on this forum.”

            Al, how is it you speak for ALL the skeptics?? Is it just one big ole hydrocephalus you all inhabit??

        • John Milstone Reply

          July 9, 2012 at 10:33 am

          Milestone, here’s a simple question. If LENR were to succeed, would it be to your benefit.

          Yet another “anyone who isn’t a Rossi fan must be in the pocket of Big Oil” question.

          Yes, if LENR were to succeed, it would almost certainly be to my benefit.

          If Santa Claus were real, that would be to my benefit as well.

          So far, we have rather poor evidence that LENR exists at all. We have no credible evidence that it can produce significant amounts of energy.

          There have been a couple of recent stories that demonstrate that scientists get things wrong sometimes. The best recent example in physics was the story about faster-than-light neutrinos. Any time an experiment appears to violate the existing laws of physics, it should be treated very skeptically.

          One of the reasons to be so skeptical of LENR results is the sloppy way in which the testing has been done, and the across-the-board refusal to follow normal scientific practices, such as independent replication of tests.

          • Methusela

            July 9, 2012 at 10:53 pm

            God, not the old maryyugo ‘santa claus’ argument AGAIN!

  18. GreenWin Reply

    July 8, 2012 at 5:41 am

    Potenza, Millstone, and Newman discussing their next move…

    http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3302/3445302049_ea6b95ac27.jpg

    • un passante Reply

      July 8, 2012 at 11:27 am

      yes, it’s obvious they resented the fact that the recent influx of news on LENR research put in jeopardy what was fact accomplished. ie a LENR/rossi blog where the casual viewer looking for infos would be exposed to a desert of news with a totally negative spin on LENR.

      the maryyugo squadron is reacting to that with their ultimate FUD weapon: rossi and petroldragon. I suggest to ignore them on that issue (or any other past issue) and continue to post news and developments on LENR research.
      ie don’t let them dictate what it should be discussed.

      • DvH Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 1:37 pm

        yeah, posting news and developments in lenr research IS more useful than citing AR’s blog and speculating about the manufacturing/certification/licensing progress of ecat and the greeks…

    • Methusela Reply

      July 8, 2012 at 1:51 pm

      @gw: LMAO :)

    • 123star Reply

      July 9, 2012 at 4:20 am

      This is instead the typical expression of GreenWin when he posts.

      http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/100582-bigthumbnail.jpg

      :D

  19. Bettingman Reply

    July 8, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    On E-Cat world there was a link to an article about LERN. Nothing really new but apparently some people in the oil industry are picking up on this.

    Quote:
    To read the article you will need to go to this link, http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=116298 and choose ‘Contents’ from the menu at the top. The article begins on page 18.
    end quote

    • DvH Reply

      July 8, 2012 at 1:52 pm

      no really exciting news in there.
      i wonder if it is really helpful for AR to be placed in the limelight of the readership of this kind of magazine…

      • Methusela Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 1:57 pm

        It is helpful, because people will begin to take the subject more seriously.

        • DvH Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 2:15 pm

          the question is ‘helpful for AR’ – when some reader takes things more seriously and sends questions from a solid technical background to AR – those folks will be not very satisfied with AR’s quick shallow answers…

          • Mahron - A4 B2

            July 8, 2012 at 2:55 pm

            Correct. Warm regards.

  20. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    July 8, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    How does a CEO (Mr. Rossi)operate a factory like the one in the first video where the place looked kind of vacant and that he was heating the place up with the e-cat’s being tested at that time, and have a team or employees build the mega e-cat, while making agreements and licenses to others and whatever else he may have going on like a family life and answer all the plakating comments on a website with some comments that are technically based and or somewhat factually straight forward questions.

    That is totally amazing how he can continue his research after being bombarded with intranet comments and questions on his site. Even on this site when some of us probably have a job to go to and limited time on the puter posts get personal and really affect ones attitude sometimes, we care.

    A small bit of logistics here, that does not fit into the norm, but what has in this episode LENR to now. I have known quite a few CEO’s with factories and products and usually the only time a CEO will spend anytime sharing info is when they are trying to sell something but that is usually done at the pre marketing or marketing level one. So the question is why would a CEO with intellectual property take the time to answer really plakating e-mails or comments from the general public that are simply fishing for info to rip apart on posts.

    Another scenario of a CEO spending time with you is when they want something you have and will spend time and talk, talk , talk and promise and say whatever it takes until they have what they want from you and then they become generally unavailable to communicate with.

    So there has to be a reason a CEO/inventor like Mr. Rossi spends so much time answering comments and if he won’t give the catalyst or his secrets to the USPTO in disclosures why would he have a site called Journal of Nuclear Physics? Should be Journal of Unclear Physics, is he fishing for answers or just being helpful?

    That does not make any logical sense to me right now and then Defkalion was the second wierd CEO/ company divulging information regarding an emerging company that obviously had contact with Mr. Rossi prior to them having their own LENR team.

    Both CEO’s seem to release information like they were not the original researchers that observed and began the technology but moreover were releasing information that had been shown to them by someone else that spent the years experimenting with the Ni + H but just about were at the stage to develop a product and so that entitiy whoever it may have been is still standing silent.

  21. Al Potenza Reply

    July 8, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    “The sooner you either apologize for your blunder about Jim Dunn or preferably you just shut up, the better all LENR blog sites will be. We don’t need lying fanatics.”

    @DSM

    Lying fanatics aside, wasn’t Jim Dunn the person who was trying to make a deal with Defkalion and Smith? Do you know what that deal was? Would it have been a good thing for Smith?

    • dsm Reply

      July 8, 2012 at 10:12 pm

      Al
      Yup, he was & at the moment, I believe Dick Smith did the right thing in staying put with his reward offer. I fear no one will collect that reward.
      .
      LENR still has too long a way to go before it can be take seriously. I believe the LENR effect is real but as of today believe it got grossly exaggerated by Rossi then that in turn whipped up hysteria & that led to other organizations all chiming in with wishful thinking or their own exaggerations.
      .
      I still have great difficulty with any claim by any organization, that they could have invented a kilowatt output LENR device from go to whoa in 6 months.
      .
      DSM

      • Al Potenza Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 10:39 pm

        Do you recall what it was Dunn was trying to get Smith to do with Defkalion? And for how much?

        • dsm Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 10:59 pm

          Al
          .
          Can only tell you that privately.
          Can you email me dsm at internetage.com please insert a keyword ie “keyword=” & I’ll confirm that 1st then we can discuss.
          .
          DSM

          • Al Potenza

            July 8, 2012 at 11:58 pm

            That’s OK, thanks. I’d only be interested if it could be posted.

  22. Harry Perini Reply

    July 8, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    A Cynical Infarction

    Of course, due to the very bold claims made, the cynics and pseudo-skeptics came out in full force. They continue to attack the E-Cat and Andrea Rossi to this day. Every time I go online to view the latest news about the E-Cat, I read posts made by these cynics. They try to attack Rossi in every way they can, and even go so far to often tell flat out lies, make up problems that do not exist, and try in every way to influence the public into thinking that he is a snake oil salesman that is perpetuating a scam.

    The good news is that the days are numbered that these pseudo-skeptics and cynics will be capable of continuing to attack the reality of the E-Cat. This is because the E-Cat technology is flat out real. It is as real as conventional nuclear fission, as real as the internal combustion engine, and as real as antibiotics.

    Yes, despite what the cynics may say, I feel no hesitation whatsoever proclaiming the reality of the technology. I defy their closed-mindedness and lack of ability to cope with the emergence of a paradigm-shattering technology. As time passes, the evidence continues to accumulate that the E-Cat technology is going to change the world.

    http://pesn.com/2012/07/08/9602129_Ultimate_E-Cat_Cold_Fusion_Transmutation/

    • Al Potenza Reply

      July 8, 2012 at 9:03 pm

      Could you please tell us *why* your belief in the reality of Rossi’s ecat is so strong? Other than what Rossi said and a handful of very badly done tests, all involving Rossi directly?

      -

      Put another way, why does not one know anything about the million ecat robotized factory? Why are there no independent ecat tests? Why will no customer of Rossi’s speak up? Why will no regional/country distributor be interviewed or identify themselves?

      • JNewman Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 9:09 pm

        Why is the belief so strong? That little diatribe Harry posted is a direct quote from none other than Hank Mills, who is unquestionably one of the great authorities on what is real and what isn’t in the world. If Hank say it is so, you can take it to the bank.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          July 8, 2012 at 9:12 pm

          Oh yeah. The guy who thinks that Obama went to Mars and that there is an underground 10,000 mph train that ferries secret members of some occult organization from coast to coast. Was it the guy that thinks that free energy scams with magnets out of the Phillipines and Africa will save the world tomorrow or “soon”? That guy? Or was that Sterling Allan? I get them confused at times.

    • Frank Reply

      July 8, 2012 at 10:20 pm

      Harry,
      no wonder one’s replies to statements like “The results of these tests were positive again and again” get cynical when you have a closer look at that ‘tests’

      Just take the ‘famous’ 6th Oct test and the report
      from Mats Lewan
      http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+(pdf)
      and check if the energy going from the e-cat into the heat exchanger (primary loop) is equal or higher than the energy increase in the secondary loop.
      (Obviously that should be the case, otherwise the heat exchanger would be a magic over-unity device)

      According to Lewan’s report the condensate flow (drained out from the primary loop of the heat exchanger) was measured as 0,91 g/s. (Increased to 1,92 g/s only half an hour before end of the test).

      Do make it easier, lets just check the 5h periode between 14:00pm (from there on the e-cat output temperature was above 100C and we – even – assume dry steam from the e-cat) till 19:03 (just before the flow from peristaltic pump got increased)

      In this 5h about 16,4 kg steam gets condensated in the primary loop of the heat exchanger and cooled down to 24C – this calculates to a energy feed to the heat-exchanger of about 45MJ.

      For that same 5 hours calculate the energy increase in the secondary loop of the heat-exchanger. You can it do very accurate and sum up the ‘produced’ energy between each sampling point, or just take an average flow of secondary cooling water of 178 g/s (for 5h) and an average temperature increase of 5,74C.

      Any way you calculate it, you will find out that Energy-IN to the heat exchanger is just about half of Energy-OUT from the heat exchanger.

      So much to the credibility and professionalism of that ‘test’!

      • Al Potenza Reply

        July 8, 2012 at 10:37 pm

        Thanks for that, Frank. It’s is absolute evidence that the output temperature thermocouple in the heat exchanger’s secondary loop was grossly (and I say DELIBERATELY and CALCULATEDLY misplaced).

        In other words, the results of that test are due, at least in part to MISMEASUREMENT. This is what happens when you don’t do a calibration run before the experiment. Rossi repeatedly has been asked and has vehemently refused calibration runs because they are, according to him, unnecessary and a waste of time.

        In reality, calibration would have revealed Rossi’s deliberate deception and misdirection.

        Don’t expect the believers to understand ANY of that discussion and calculations. I don’t think Ransom, who is smarter than your average believer, will get it either. I hope I’m wrong.

        Thanks again for that calculation. I have not seen it before. I didn’t even know primary loop flow and temp data were available.

      • Ransompw Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 5:34 am

        Frank:

        The flow in primary loop was not measured, just sampled, a short sample in a five hour test is hardly enough to even raise a question, certainly not enough to make absolute statements like you did.

        • Frank Reply

          July 9, 2012 at 6:20 am

          Not enough to raise a question ???

          This can only be the view from believers who apply very, very low standard on the professionalism, credibility and evidence/proof for extraordinary claims…

          • Ransompw

            July 9, 2012 at 1:48 pm

            I said hardly, it obviously raised some questions with Horrace who did a careful analysis.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          July 9, 2012 at 6:22 am

          The correct way to tell if the heat exchanger (or any measurement method) is working properly is to calibrate. Rossi was advised of the need for this by many people before this test. He always refused claiming it would be a waste of time. In fact, it can be done easily and reasonably fast using Rossi’s own built in electrical heater in the ecat. And not having done it is why we’re having this argument.

          I say he was aware and afraid that the result of a calibration would show that his measurement was way overestimating the output energy. That’s why he refused, in my opinion. It’s also why he never allowed or performed calibrations of heat output measurement methods used on *any* of his lousy demonstrations.

    • un passante Reply

      July 9, 2012 at 9:26 am

      Hank Mills must be a nice man but I’d suggest him to wait for far more certainties before start dreaming.

  23. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    July 8, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Hope Pekka LCD or some physicist on this forum can comment on this one.

    After Celani called the reaction chamber a reflector chamber I thought of photons not the electromagnetic emissions like the gamma and x rays so I wondered what about gold coating inside the chamber itself and how is gold for a shield. I looked up all the atomic numbers and melting points for the copper, nickel, carbon, stainless steel 316L and so on along with lead and I found this NASA article.

    Maybe gold is the key to shielding and enhancing reflections inside the nickel chamber, here is an interesting link.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApPhL.100w2111G

  24. daniel maris Reply

    July 8, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Re Rossi and NI, given the enthusiastic approach NI seems to take to LENR, I don’t think we have to accept the sceptics’ view that no work was done with NI. It sounds to me that Rossi was giving the impression of more active involvement than there was, which certainly doesn’t add to his credibility. But on the other hand, NI have never criticised his behaviour (I mean apart from in the fevered imagination of the sceptic community).

    In general I don’t think this makes much of a dent in the case for Rossi.

    More important, I think, has been the absence of credible progress reports since the tests of 2011.
    For me that has put quite a large dent in Rossi’s bodywork.

  25. Tyler Reply

    July 9, 2012 at 1:31 am

    It may be worth pointing out the comments from Julia Betts, NI spokesperson that came out in Feb a few days after their public statement about no longer working with Rossi. These statements affirm Rossi’s version of the story that there was deeper collaboration. (link below)

    Since that collaboration, or whatever you want to call it, NI seems to have significantly ramped up its efforts in LENR. This includes making public statements affirming LENR, holding a public conference on LENR, donating equipment for LENR research, working with LENR leaders across the globe and launching software and control systems for LENR. All this seems to me an affirmation for Rossi, the other players and higher power (but hard to control) LENR in general.

    I wonder what Siemens is up to?

    Tyler

    http://e-catsite.com/2012/02/21/ni-corroborates-rossi-statements/

    “In order to get more clarity on the matter, I contacted Julia Betts, Corporate Communications and Investor Relations Manager for National Instruments, regarding NI’s relationship with Leonardo Corp. She in fact was very friendly and helpful, and did in fact provide a very important clarification that many of us missed and others perhaps intentionally obscured.

    While Ms. Betts reiterated once again that Leonardo Corp was not currently a customer of National Instruments, there have been ongoing discussions between the two parties. Discussion is the key word here. Many, including myself, have taken this to mean there have been merely some preliminary discussions regarding a business relationship between the two parties. After my conversation with Ms. Betts, it would seem that the word “discussion” as used in this context has a meaning with somewhat more depth, with that meaning being ongoing technical collaborationbetween the parties. This collaboration has been at the level that Rossi has frequently alluded to in his comments on JONP and, specifically, to comments he made earlier this week. Over the past several months he has frequently stated that he was working with National Instruments on E-Cat development. I specifically asked Ms. Betts if these statements were exaggerations or outright lies on Mr. Rossi’s part and she informed me that THEY WERE NOT, and that indeed Mr. Rossi has been portraying Leonardo Corp’s work with National Instruments accurately. She e-mailed me this link specifically as an accurate accounting of the relationship that has existed between the two parties. It of course is Rossi’s accounting that he posted on his blog earlier this week, as it appeared in article on Independent eCat News.”

    • John Milstone Reply

      July 9, 2012 at 10:11 am

      It may be worth pointing out the comments from Julia Betts, NI spokesperson that came out in Feb a few days after their public statement about no longer working with Rossi.

      No, you have that backwards.

      The email came out first, then people started posting questions about it on Rossi’s blog.

      Then, after a day or two, Rossi came out with a new version of the story, in which NI “taught” him things (but left out all the other claims he had been throwing around for the previous three months), along with suddenly claiming that his “secret customer” had decided to work with a different company.

      So, instead of supporting Rossi, it clearly shows that Rossi changed his story in response to the release of the email.

      Rossi was still claiming that NI was designing a controller for his E-Cat as late as mid-January, but NI stated categorically that they did not design a controller for Rossi.

      • daniel maris Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 12:25 pm

        Accroding to ecatsite, this is what NI said about their article:

        “1.NI generally concurs with the characterization of their relationship with Leonardo Corp as portrayed by Andrea Rossi, and as outlined by his statements made recently and linked to above. However, they cannot vouch for EVERY statement he has made regarding their relationship in the last couple of months as it is difficult to be aware of everything he has said.
        2.The discussions and technical collaboration that NI engaged in with Leonardo Corp included NI making preliminary suggestions on platforms that could be used for the control system. These types of discussions are part of standard practice in order to assess and accurately meet a customers needs.”

        So, it seems to me that while Rossi was perhaps overstating the relationship, it did include an element of preparatory work.

        It certainly isn’t a case of NI damning Rossi for his lies as you and others are trying to make out. Also, please note that as Rossi has not continued with involvement with NI, it’s certainly not in NI’s interest to “big-up” Rossi. It’s not surprising they would want to put a bit of distance between themselves and Rossi in such circumstances.

        • AB Reply

          July 9, 2012 at 12:49 pm

          So, it seems to me that while Rossi was perhaps overstating the relationship, it did include an element of preparatory work.

          According to Julia Betts, Rossi was accurately describing his relationship with NI:

          I quote from her email:

          She e-mailed me this link specifically as an accurate accounting of the relationship that has existed between the two parties.

          • John Milstone

            July 9, 2012 at 2:15 pm

            Interestingly, the link you provide is the “after” version from Rossi. He drops all of the claims he made about NI “working closely” with Rossi and his “secret” customer, and he drops his claims (made numerous times) that NI was developing a controller for him.

            It’s also interesting that the author of this link, unlike Krivit, failed to provide the actual email. He didn’t even provide a single quote. He only provided his interpretation and opinions of the contents of the email.

            Even if you ignore everything else, you have the clear contradiction between Rossi numerous claims that NI was developing a controller for him and National Instrument’s flat denial that they ever did such a thing.

      • Tyler Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 12:51 pm

        Mary Yugo-Milestone,

        The timeline (below), which you state did not happen like this, could not be simpler and is one of the few facts we do have.

        You have called Rossi a liar hundreds/thousands of times, yet from what you say in your comment vs. the actual timeline…. (I’m just sayin’)

        Timeline:

        Feb 19, Julie Betts at NI says they are no longer working with Rossi as reported by Krivit – http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/new-energy-times-national-instruments-state-rossi-currently-not-a-customer/

        On Feb 22, and in response to questions about the Feb 19 information, Julie Betts at NI says Rossi’s version is accurate.
        http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/national-instruments-spokesperson-corroborates-rossis-account-of-relationship/

        On Feb 25, Rossi publicly states that he is working instead with Siemens, something that Siemens has never denied (or confirmed to my knowlege).
        http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/rossi-siemens-ag-helping-with-leonardo-corp-with-efficient-electricity-generation/

        tyler

        • John Milstone Reply

          July 9, 2012 at 1:13 pm

          Tyler, you are being dishonest about the actual timeline.

          You use a 2nd hand reference, rather than the original Krivit story to try make it appear that the later than it actually did.

          I have posted the actual timeline, with original links.

          • AB

            July 9, 2012 at 1:57 pm

            Tyler is referencing e-catworld.com’s article which came a whole day after Krivit’s article.

            Outrageous dishonesty, right Milstone?

          • John Milstone

            July 9, 2012 at 2:11 pm

            Tyler’s original point was that Rossi stated that he had “dropped” NI before Julia Betts’ email went public.

            He is wrong. The Betts’ email came first, then Rossi changed his story the next day.

            A one day difference is significant in this case.

            You can ignore all the facts you want, but that doesn’t make you right.

          • AB

            July 9, 2012 at 2:24 pm

            This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion…

            Tyler’s original point was that Rossi stated that he had “dropped” NI before Julia Betts’ email went public.

            I see nothing of that sort in Tyler’s posts. The one part you got so upset about says the same thing that everyone here has repeated. Here it is:

            It may be worth pointing out the comments from Julia Betts, NI spokesperson that came out in Feb a few days after their public statement about no longer working with Rossi.

            You seem to have serious issues to distinguish between your paranoia and reality.

    • AB Reply

      July 9, 2012 at 11:25 am

      Watch Milstone constructing his alternate reality of these events. It’s always funny.

      He is confusing Krivit’s damning article (“NI denies relationship with Rossi” with Julia Betts email which clarified that indeed, Rossi was saying the truth about his relationship with NI.

      The sequence of events is

      1) Rossi starts mentioning collaboration with NI throughout December/January.
      2) Towards the end of February, Krivit publishes the article “NI denies relationship with Rossi”.
      3) People start asking questions and Rossi gives this answer: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=580&cpage=4#comment-187119
      4) Julia Betts from NI is contacted by e-catsite.com and confirms Rossi’s version of events.

      • John Milstone Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 1:09 pm

        Here’s the real chronology:

        Mid-January 2012: Rossi claims that NI is designing a controller for him. (See my post at July 8, 2012 at 2:08 pm above for the numerous links).

        2/18/2012: Krivit publishes email from Julia Betts, stating that Ni was only in discussions with Rossi about using their tools, and that had been in November. Krivit includes Betts’ phone number and all but begs someone else to contact her to provide another verification of the story. (LINK

        2/19/2012: Rossi responds to several comments on his blog about the Krivit story. He now states that both the new “owners” of Leonardo Corp, and his “secret” customer have decided to go with a different company to develop his controller. He drops his earlier claims that NI was designing a controller for him. (LINK)

        2/21/2012: the “e-catsite.com” web site contacts Julia Betts with Rossi’s latest comment (the one that only says that Rossi “learnt” from NI for a period of weeks, but leaves out his numerous statements about NI designing a controller and working closely with his “secret” customer for months).

        There are no direct quotes from Betts, but only the assumptions and paraphrases of the article author. He claims that Betts confirms the one statement from Rossi where he claimed to have “learnt” from NI, and the article author assumes that “discussions” meant “technical collaboration”

        A later update to the article states that Betts only confirms the one statement from Rossi that excludes any of his earlier claims, and reiterates that they engaged in “preliminary” discussions about which NI systems might be appropriate, and that these discussions were the same that they would use with any potential customer. (LINK)

        3/2/2012: Julia Betts sends out another email, elaborating on her earlier comments. She specifically states that they never went beyond initial discussions, and that they did not design a controller for Rossi. LINK)

        un passante and ab, either provide actual evidence that Rossi made a statement about dropping NI prior to the Krivit story, or apologize to the group for making false statements.

        • AB Reply

          July 9, 2012 at 1:18 pm

          Here we go again. You see wild contradictions and lies when the story is consistent.

          Betts in the last email says that they did not design a controller for Rossi. That is consistent with the Rossi version of the story that a different supplier was chosen for the control system in the end.

          provide actual evidence that Rossi made a statement about dropping NI prior to the Krivit story,

          He didn’t as far as I remember, but so what? Questions to him about NI and his comments about the relationship with NI stopped a month before the Krivit story and he isn’t obliged to keep the public up to date on everything despite your sense of entitlement.

          • John Milstone

            July 9, 2012 at 2:30 pm

            Except that Julia Betts’ emails make it clear that their only interactions with Rossi were in November, that they never signed a contract and that they never developed a controller for Rossi.

            This directly contradicts Rossi’s claims for almost three months.

          • un passante

            July 9, 2012 at 6:01 pm

            maryyugo milstone, you seem to think that if you use 1000 times the same faulty logic (on useless minutiae and vague phrases open to any interpretation) it will eventually become valid.
            no, it won’t.

            your attempt to strain out a fantasy gnat won’t convince anyone to swallow the camel you are trying to hide behind your back.
            your attempt to hide the news of NI involvement with LENR research behind a barrage of repetitive logical garbage is futile.

            again, noone really knows the details of the interaction between NI and Rossi at the time. they only know. both of them have been carefully vague on that.

            NI NOW say they have sponsored Levi’s work. Levi’s only work in LENR is (has been) with the e-cat. I think any person with a minimal dose of common sense can see how much your idea NI never saw an e-cat is plausible.

            you seem to be stuck to the good old times when news on LENR were much fewer and the only enemy was rossi. you should move on and refresh your arsenal.

        • Methusela Reply

          July 9, 2012 at 1:26 pm

          That’s the problem with John, always has to be right even when he’s wrong.

          Perhaps he is my wife: always has to have the last word, and has a tendency to go on about the same point until I comply.

          Must check what she’s doing on that laptop…

          • John Milstone

            July 9, 2012 at 2:27 pm

            Methusela, if you have any evidence to contradict my posts, please present it.

            Personal insults and innuendo don’t help your case.

          • Methusela

            July 9, 2012 at 3:14 pm

            @John: Meh.

          • John Milstone

            July 9, 2012 at 7:20 pm

            One final point about the Julia Betts’ emails;

            The Rossi supporters have to rely exclusively on an email we haven’t seen. They rely entirely on the 2nd hand opinions of a Rossi fan.

            They ignore the emails we do have.

          • AB

            July 9, 2012 at 10:23 pm

            One final point about the Julia Betts’ emails;

            The Rossi supporters have to rely exclusively on an email we haven’t seen. They rely entirely on the 2nd hand opinions of a Rossi fan.

            They ignore the emails we do have.

            You’re imagining things. We do not have the email Betts sent to Krivit either, only some quotes. http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/18/national-instruments-denies-relationship-with-rossi/
            No full emails posted there.

            As for who is trustworthy, Krivit clearly has the agenda of discrediting Rossi and he isn’t afraid to play dirty.

  26. LCD Reply

    July 9, 2012 at 3:59 am

    Jim Dunn is not the only one at NASA and other govt labs who know first hand about DGT. Dunn calling out Hank.on Rossi makes petfect sense. As far as.i know DGT has had legitimate 3RD party testing whereas Rossi has not. I know nobody at this point who knows firsthand about Rossi. But there are now plenty of people aware of DGTs viability and truthfullness.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      July 9, 2012 at 4:28 am

      How do you know DGT has “legitimate 3rd party testing”? Who are they? Have they said they’re testing? Do they have any results? Far as I know, all DGT has is hot air. Just like Rossi.

      “Viability and truthfullness”? Certainly not based on their posts on their now dead forum. Certainly not based on their unsupported claims, promises of serious accomplishments for long overdue dates, press releases and public documents!

    • un passante Reply

      July 9, 2012 at 12:24 pm

      as I already said, we have to keep in mind that defkalion always said and keeps saying that their reactor is a development of rossi’s reactor.

      so if defkalion’s reactor works so does the e-cat.

      I still want both of them to show they have a device ready for commercialization before drinking champagne.

      • buffalo Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 3:10 pm

        pop that champagne cork buddy.i got here in my lab a nickel-hydrogen system spittin out continuous energy without needing any input energy whatsoever.freaky science in action but seeing is believing,at least 4 me.

      • DvH Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 3:28 pm

        when you keep the champagne bottles in a cool place they (their content) will stay in good condition for quite some years…

      • un passante Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 6:15 pm

        I took note of buffalo’s eureka moment and DvH’s prophecies. be it joy or sorrow, I will think of you.

    • andreas Reply

      July 9, 2012 at 6:15 pm

      LCD,

      Do you known what Jim Dunn witnessed at DGT?

      • LCD Reply

        July 10, 2012 at 3:35 am

        Please.read my other posts andreas. Jim Dunn is not my contact. I dont know him personally. I only know of the NASA group in general he probably knows and the other govt groups.

        But I can assure you with 100% certainty of 3RD party testing of DGT and people may still be at it.

        This is why Jim knows. Its also true that they have not yet been given permission to publically acknowledge this.

        Jim is not the only one who has spoken out in private. Other NASA folk have as well. I think the silence is prudent at the moment.

        Those people that know also know that the control is not fully there so they doubt Rossi has control, fully anyway, and thats where you get this show me attitude towards Rossi.

        • Bettingman Reply

          July 10, 2012 at 11:31 am

          LCD,

          So Nasa has observed a working, but hard to control, LERN reactor at DGT? With a capacity in the kilowatt’s range and a cop of more then 6?

          • LCD

            July 10, 2012 at 2:32 pm

            No, not NASA specifically. But close enough and thats really all I can say right now. Publically Im bound by these silly NDAs too.

            I am waiting myself to find out the specifics of the test. I just have the summary highlights.

        • Bettingman Reply

          July 10, 2012 at 10:31 pm

          Well LCD,

          I guess I will have to wait until you can give me more information. :-(

          • Dsm

            July 11, 2012 at 11:24 am

            Or wait until ICCF-17

            ;)

            D

  27. Thicket Reply

    July 9, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    Things are currently slow on the Rossi/Defkalion front. It’s been reported before, but here is an excerpt from the “Magic of Mr. Rossi”. It refers to his Petroldragon scam.

    Acerbi: “In the years where he was working here, he didn’t produce a single drop of oil, as far as we know. What he did was creating just a media event. He was able to persuade – in a way that I cannot explain – a good portion of public opinion, and that’s exactly what is hard for me to explain. He persuaded technicians in the field, scientists and important institutions, the region of Lombardia, that he was able to do magic.”

    Rossi did the same with his bogus thermoelectric devices. He is doing it now with his bogus eCat.

    • Frank Reply

      July 9, 2012 at 5:10 pm

      Even the LENR librarian Jed Rothwell seems to re-consider his view about Rossi:
      A quote from him on ‘vortex’:
      “Now I wonder . . . could it be that he is a con-man, and he is using a predation strategy similar to these fake Nigerians.”
      http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67254.html

      • un passante Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 6:32 pm

        and still all we can do is to wait and see if his device works. all the guessings serve little.

        I surely won’t put any money till I see a working device.

      • daniel maris Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 6:33 pm

        Rossi casts doubt upon himself by his behaviour. We will have to wait and see whether he can dispel the doubts.

      • un passante Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 8:28 pm

        relax, don’t need to alarm, Jed still thinks the e-cat works.

        Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
        Problem is, if there were *one* independent test, by one reliable person, we don’t know about it or have any reliable report of it.
        ——-

        Yes, we do. Mike McKubre and I both described this. It was discussed at a closed meeting. If you consider McKubre and I reliable then yes, there are reliable reports, albeit fragmentary ones.

        - Jed

        noone noone wrote:
        He is not a conman because his technology has been tested too many times by too many people.
        ——

        I agree. But it is unnerving.

        - Jed

        patience is a virtue. I am patient but I can see why people could lose it.

        • Frank Reply

          July 9, 2012 at 10:24 pm

          Don’t worry – I anyway don’t care much what Jed believes.

          But his insight and his comparison of the strategy of the “Nigerian e-mail scammer” with Rossi’s potential strategy is remarkable. ;-)
          Maybe you didn’t get what he (unintentionally?) was suggesting:
          Likewise as the Nigerian scammers make outrageous, hackneyed unbelievable stories in order to filter for only the most gullible’ marks’, Rossi might follow with his behaviour the same strategy – to attract only the most uncritical and gullible ones.

          Quite unflattering for the Rossi followers, isn’t it?

        • CuriousChris Reply

          July 10, 2012 at 4:13 am

          Both Jed Rothwell and Mike McKubre are vested interests.

          fragmentary reports discussed behind closed doors is proof of nothing.

          Initially I was very impressed with McKubre. but alas no longer. when looking for motives it always pays (sic) to follow the money trail, McKubre is heavily invested in CF/LENR without it much of his funding dissolves.

          For this reason and his admitted altering of data I no longer give him the credibility I once did.

        • JKW Reply

          July 10, 2012 at 8:18 am

          Hey, I just happened to get a working Ni-H reactor yesterday, too! I have to give my dog a credit for it, though. If he didn’t accidentally knock the pile of nano Ni particles from the bumper filings off my 70′s Chevy bumper (which I polished the other night) into the bucket of fermented yeast I use for wine dregs ecat RV research, I would have never accomplished it. I’m so glad I had a window thermometer handy at the moment. Extrapolating the measurements I will have a cup of tea boiling in 8 months, 3 days, 7 hours and 32 seconds now, if the atmospheric pressure stays constant. Rossi needs to catch if his robotized factory is to compete…

    • un passante Reply

      July 9, 2012 at 6:29 pm

      there’s a reply to this on vortex-l

      Rossi was able to convince “technicians in the field, scientists and important institutions” because the technology was real. There is in fact a gasification technology in existence today that can turn waste into “Synthesis Gas” which can be made into Biofuel and mixed with Gasoline.

      A few years back, I was asked to invest in such a technology and I asssure you, it works. When you start seeing trash being gasified into synthesis gas, you will believe.

      The question for me at that time was whether I considered the process economical enough to invest in it. I decided not to invest as I had other things I was considering investing in.

      Jojo

      • Al Potenza Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 6:59 pm

        Bad answer. As someone else noted before, the fact that there are real electric cars does not make Tilley’s electric car scam real. There may be real LENR. That does not make Rossi’s weird circus real.

        Tilley:

        http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Tilley/fraud/

        Someday, there might be a web page like that about Rossi and Defkalion.

      • Thicket Reply

        July 9, 2012 at 7:40 pm

        un passante

        This answer is irrelevant. Of course gasification is real. It’s been real for over a century. I worked as a gasification development engineer in the 1980s.

        Similarly, thermoelectric conversion is real. Fusion is real.

        It’s Rossi that’s the fraud. His Petroldragon scam was all talk. He processed nothing. He used no technology, no gasification, no Fischer-Tropsch synthesis gas conversion, nothing. He just stored the waste.

        Rossi’s trick is that he sounds convincing, even to people who should know better. He’s a skilled con artist. He’s had lots of practice at it.

        • un passante Reply

          July 9, 2012 at 8:20 pm

          the fact he never was sentenced for his technology is telling that petroldragon (his own technology) was not a scam.
          his real problems were financial and came after his enterprise collapsed because of new legislation.

          if multiple trials (where obviously the validity of his technology was put into question) is not enough for you, I think nothing will convince you.

          but are we still discussing this? people should accept that when there is no news there can be no comment.
          you seem like you can let a day pass without a given number of anti-rossi posts. and gosh, are they repetitive…

          • un passante

            July 9, 2012 at 8:33 pm

            can’t let a day pass

          • Al Potenza

            July 9, 2012 at 8:36 pm

            It doesn’t matter whether Rossi was imprisoned or not, etc. etc. What matters is that he never demonstrated any technology for converting waste to oil and he never produced “a drop of oil” as the local official in the video says. He’s just a crook. And he has you bamboozled.

          • Thicket

            July 9, 2012 at 9:36 pm

            un passante

            There you go believing Rossi again. You’re parroting his explanation of events. Gosh. Where have I heard that before? The convicted felon says that he was wrongfully convicted. Rossi says “I’m innocent. It was the legislation. It was finances. It was the other guy.” Anyone who believes the words of a convicted felon and a proven pathological liar will never be convinced.

            Where do you get the ‘multiple trials’ from? As far as I can see, the charges that were dropped happened before there was a trial. The charges he was convicted for were the ones that went to trial. So you’re right. Referring to trials that didn’t happen will never convince me.

            Yeah. My anti-Rossi posts won’t stop. Quit your whining and live with it. I put up with the mindless drivel of Rossi believers. You guys are repetitive too.

          • JNewman

            July 9, 2012 at 9:59 pm

            Thicket, you post here much less often than other skeptical types. Obviously that must mean that you get paid much more for each post by the evil overlords. That is so unfair!

          • John Milstone

            July 9, 2012 at 10:15 pm

            the fact he never was sentenced for his technology is telling that petroldragon (his own technology) was not a scam.

            The fact is he wasn’t in an investment scam with his bogus “fuel from waste” business. He was in a money-laundering scam.

            His “customers” were in on it. They were also convicted of various business fraud crimes, along with Rossi.

            And, I’m still waiting for any evidence that Rossi’s 8-year conviction for bankruptcy fraud in 2000 was ever overturned. We know that it was still in force in late 2004, and I searched for, but never found any further news articles about it.

            And, no, Rossi’s claims are not evidence.

          • Methusela

            July 9, 2012 at 11:00 pm

            @JNewman: No. It means he’s too busy performing the CTRL-A, CTRL-C, CTRL-V mantra on other blogs and forums…

          • Methusela

            July 9, 2012 at 11:06 pm

            Milstone, you make some outrageously libellous remarks about the character of a real person.

            You’ve now directly accused Rossi of being part of a money-laundering scam.

            That’s a step too far (I’ve saved a snapshot of the screen, should you decide to delete it).

          • Mahron - A4 B2

            July 9, 2012 at 11:32 pm

            I don’t think he gives a shit.

          • Al Potenza

            July 9, 2012 at 11:41 pm

            “Methusela
            July 9, 2012 at 11:06 pm

            Milstone, you make some outrageously libellous remarks about the character of a real person.”

            If someone has been convicted, it’s hardly libel to mention the conviction! LOL. Anyway, do you see Rossi suing anyone who calls him names? Considering all the silly stuff he calls and says about others?

          • John Milstone

            July 10, 2012 at 12:51 am

            HERE is an news article describing how Rossi’s “customer” was still claiming it was paying for fuel from Rossi’s company for more than a year after Petroldragon was shut down.

            HERE is a newspaper article that specifically mentions the money laundering charges.

          • CuriousChris

            July 10, 2012 at 4:07 am

            Don’t forget the Mafia!

            According to Rossi the timing of the Mafia’s entry into waste products and the new legislation was a timely coincidence.

          • un passante

            July 10, 2012 at 9:45 am

            thicket wrote:
            There you go believing Rossi again. You’re parroting his explanation of events. Gosh. Where have I heard that before? The convicted felon says that he was wrongfully convicted. Rossi says “I’m innocent. It was the legislation. It was finances. It was the other guy.” Anyone who believes the words of a convicted felon and a proven pathological liar will never be convinced.

            you seem not to know: 1. why trials are made 2. what being acquitted means.

            you seem to think that if one is arrested he is guilty. that’s not how justice works and for good reasons.

            rossi has been acquitted in all the trials involving his technology, his only problems were with the financial side. like it or not you should accept it or go and live in some undemocratic place where people like you decide if one is guilty or not based on his impressions without that useless thing we call trial.

            you seem also the kind of people who thinks he can accuse people of crimes without having any evidence of it.

            also the fact you think one should not listen to what the accused person has to say is telling of your attitude.

            you get a 0 in basic democratic principles.

            thicket wrote:
            Yeah. My anti-Rossi posts won’t stop. Quit your whining and live with it.

            LOL. don’t worry, I won’t stop you coprophiliac mission. just be aware I know what’s that brown matter you like to play with.

            just hope your love goes unnoticed.

            now that you have spat out some more hate can we get back to discussing LENR?

          • un passante

            July 10, 2012 at 10:11 am

            JNewman, be aware of who you side with, when and where, if you don’t want to be put in the group of the devoted haters throwing fecal matter around. if you want to be considered a single user with his own view you should differentiate and not foolishly associate to seek protection and comfort.
            there is a reason why noone has called DSM a maryyugo even though he has a lot of criticism to make here and there.

            to the admin: you should be careful of the accusations people do in this blog. one thing is to ponder whether it could possibly be a scam etc etc another thing is to accuse a real person of being a criminal like it was a 100% certainty. that should be a no-no.

          • John Milstone

            July 10, 2012 at 12:02 pm

            rossi has been acquitted in all the trials involving his technology

            Rossi was never charged with any crimes involving his alleged technology.

            His convictions were in two areas: environmental crimes (i.e. dumping the toxic waste he claimed to be converting into fuel) and financial crimes (money laundering and racketeering).

            The environmental charges were later reversed because the relevant laws hadn’t been in effect when Rossi was creating the $50 million worth of toxic waste sites.

            I have spent a considerable amount of time researching Rossi’s criminal history, and I have been unable to find any evidence that Rossi was acquitted of all of the financial convictions

            It was determined during the trial that Rossi never converted any toxic waste into fuel. There is no evidence that Rossi actually had any “technology” to do so.

            Your repeated statement that because none of Rossi’s convictions were directly related to his device somehow means that his device must have worked is specious. He wasn’t trying to sell his “invention”. He was “selling” fake invoices to allow his partners to commit tax fraud.

            This is all based on the contemporary reporting of the trials. If you have any actual evidence to contradict any of this, please present it.

          • John Milstone

            July 10, 2012 at 12:10 pm

            if you don’t want to be put in the group of the devoted haters throwing fecal matter around

            un passante, I’m simply repeating the newspaper articles from the time were reporting.

            It’s funny that you call reporting the facts as “throwing fecal matter around”

            If you have any evidence related to Rossi’s criminal background, please present it.

            If all you have is name calling and insults, you may want to re-think your rabid defense of the honesty of man repeatedly convicted of fraud.

          • un passante

            July 10, 2012 at 12:37 pm

            hey maryyugo milstone you should perform a golpe in the italian justice system so you can start some more trials (56 are not enough to decide) where you’re the PM, the judge and the jury (defense will be abolished together with the statute of limitations) and you can come out with the sentence you like and evil rossi will end his life in prison.
            ok? now let’s go back discussing about things related to LENR.

          • John Milstone

            July 10, 2012 at 1:12 pm

            un passante:

            I take it from your hysterical response that you don’t have any actual evidence to contribute.

          • un passante

            July 10, 2012 at 1:24 pm

            you actually got it, maryyugo milstone. I won’t contribute to the trial based on lynch’s law you want to set up.

  28. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    July 9, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    Is anyone else seeing the Done word flash on and off while making comments, my puter does not do that unless I get on this site, and on the comments section.

    It is really anoying and I just wondered if anyone else here noticed it. Mine is in the lower left on the screen.

  29. Bettingman Reply

    July 9, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    Nope

  30. Quax Reply

    July 10, 2012 at 2:37 am

    I guess it was just a matter of time until the new wonder-material graphene would find its way into the LENR field:

    http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-on-hydrogenated-fullerenes-and-graphenejuly-6-2012

    • spacegoat Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 8:03 am

      “Both groups observed essentially the same anomalous post-experiment results; namely, that stable metallic elements (both reported detecting substantial amounts of Fe; BARC also found detectable Ni, and Cr) that had not been previously present anywhere inside apparatus and appeared to have somehow been created ab initio during arcing processes.

      Since chemical processes cannot create new stable elements where no such elements had been present before, either both teams’ experimental observations were erroneous, and/or contamination may have occurred, or nuclear transmutation processes had produced the observed results.”

      Both teams’ reported data were published in 1994 …

      these retrospectively important experimental results simply languished, largely ignored”

      Yes, science programmes are rational and not political. (NOT)
      Earth shattering results can and will be ignored.

      Only now do they get published in Nature, 8 years after the event, and probably only to save face because the LENR wave will prove all deniers to be political puppets or stupid.

      Excrutiationist disclaimer: yes, it could be experimental error or contamination. It is known.

      • CuriousChris Reply

        July 10, 2012 at 10:31 am

        So if it proves to be experimental error or contamination. What does that mean for LENR deniers? Was that disclaimer just to “save face”?

        The truth of the matter is until someone comes out with absolute proof LENR is real, it will always be possible. You cannot prove something doesn’t exist. Only that it has not been ‘reliably’ observed to date (like mermaids). So LENR supporters will never say “we were wrong”. Its only the brave who can look at the known facts and say that on the basis of probability LENR is unlikely.

        Of course Rossi apologists can and have been proven wrong, they just refuse to give up on their dream.

        • spacegoat Reply

          July 10, 2012 at 9:42 pm

          CC,
          the disclaimer was to parry the usual repetitive posts from the pummeling skeptics pointing out the obvious.

          “What mean for LENR deniers if it turns out to be experimental error or contamination?”

          It will mean nothing more than science proceeding as it should.

          You exaggerate as usual with your comparison to mermaids. There are many reputable scientists in the LENR camp but none in the fairy tale camp.

          • CuriousChris

            July 11, 2012 at 12:32 am

            What Mermaids a fairy tale? you shock me. surely they cant be. But there has been reports of them since ancient times, from many different countries in the world. Did they all collude to create this fairy tale? That would be outrageous.

            What about God? billions believe in a god in one form or another, surely that is proof positive, many of the believers are reputable scientists. That must surely prove god exists.

            What about free energy from gravity wheels? Bessler proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you could get energy from a gravity wheel with no input energy. He had it inspected by the some of the best minds of the day.
            http://www.besslerwheel.com/accounts.html
            Surely these eyewitness accounts who saw it running for hours could not be easily fooled. they are as intelligent and trustworthy as all of Rossi’s witnesses.

            You claim a group of reputable scientists cannot make a mistake, That LENR must be real. At the same time refusing to believe a thousand fold larger group of just as reputable scientists who say that what that small group of ‘invested’ scientists say is garbage.

            So you tell me all about fairy tales.

    • Bettingman Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 1:46 pm

      Quax,

      I think Lewis Larsen was discussing this already in 2009.

  31. daniel maris Reply

    July 10, 2012 at 9:11 am

    Yep, some very good points there Spacegoat – the bigger picture liable to get lost while others take us down a different memory road, attempting to focus on Rossi alleged (and much contested) misdeeds of the past.

  32. un passante Reply

    July 10, 2012 at 10:49 am

    for those still looking for confirmations on the validity of LENR

    the wording from “EUROPEAN COMMISSION – Directorate-General for Research and Innovation – Directorate G – Industrial Technologies – Unit G3 – Materials” is interesting

    http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf

    ENEA, SRI and NRL have been involved within review programs in the US and in Italy. The main task was to demonstrate, on the basis of signals well above the measurement uncertainties and with a cross check, the existence of the excess of heat production during electrochemical loading of deuterium in palladium cathodes. The target was achieved and the existence of the effect is no longer in doubt.

    (…)

    The research is currently limited by economic and technical reasons, particularly in Europe. Funding the research should be the target to achieve a critical mass on a multidisciplinary level. There are only few academic institutions working on this research field and an increasing number of these institutions need to be involved, along with a network, particularly in Europe.

    (…)

    Recommendations to the Commission

     Include LENR in FP7 calls as
    research on materials as it has
    unlimited and sustainable future
    energy technology potential.

     Support the study in material
    science as a strategic approach to
    achieve the control of the
    technology.

     Support workshops, meetings,
    visiting exchanges in Europe and
    between European and US research
    institutions.

     Focus on the fundamental research
    aspects because of the synergy with
    other disciplines.

    and this document didn’t examine Ni-H LENR

    Now we can see why National Instruments were invited to hold their presentation to the EU.

    also, people should start reconsider the pons & fleischman saga. what it really was. and if it was why was it? can it happen again? “something’s rotten in denmark”.

    • JNewman Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 2:06 pm

      un passante, I can’t honestly say that this little workshop’s report constitutes confirmation of the validity of LENR, but at least it is a piece of favorable publicity. More importantly, I wish to congratulate you on actually posting something that isn’t just an attack on other posters. You managed to do an entire post without using the word maryyugo. Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

      • daniel maris Reply

        July 10, 2012 at 7:09 pm

        So you’re now saying we have to add a new category of “publicity seekers” to scammers, liars, the deluded and the incompetent?

    • JKW Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 2:15 pm

      un passage, I’m not sure where you pay your tax money, but I’m glad Directorate-General doesn’t get mine..

      • JKW Reply

        July 10, 2012 at 2:45 pm

        un passante*
        Darn spellchecker. I’ll figure out how to turn the thing off any day now.

      • daniel maris Reply

        July 10, 2012 at 7:10 pm

        Why? Don’t you trust SRI or the other two orgs who did the research?

    • LCD Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 2:53 pm

      Un passante thanks for bringibg that to our attention.

      JKW
      And
      JNewman

      Youre probably not going to get the proof you want by blogging on this site so you have to wonder if maybe ypu are going about it all wrong. Im assuming u are looking for proof one way or another correct?

      • JNewman Reply

        July 10, 2012 at 3:54 pm

        LCD, since LENR is generally not reported in the mainstream or professional press, this site is about the best one can do if one wants to keep up on developments. Unfortunately, most of what is reported here is insubstantial or hearsay, but it is the best one can do. As an analytical person, I can’t just take in information and nod and smile. I tend to subject it to analysis. That sort of thing is not popular among supporters here and is apparently the mark of a “maryyugo”. As I have pointed out before, there are websites completely devoted to saying hooray for every bit of news out there. I suggest people stick to those if asking questions is too unpleasant.

        As for the European workshop un passante cited, the facts of the matter is that it was an event attended by 12 people, essentially each an expert in a specific field and each of whom wrote a summary of their area. The LENR report was presented by Vittorio Violante, a researcher who has been reporting anomalous heat in LENR systems for 17 years. The fact that he states that the phenomenon is not in doubt is hardly a surprise. I am not discounting or discrediting his work because I am not familiar with it. However, when somebody who has been an LENR researcher for years states that LENR is real, that does not represent a confirmation. It is old news.

        As for looking for proof, yes I certainly am. And not one way or another either. As has been beaten to death here by the evil skeptics, there is no such thing as proof that something does not exist. Nobody is going to prove that LENR doesn’t exist. However, if it does exist, then it surely can be proven to do so. And such proof does not simply entail long-time proponents saying so. Given that there are so many strong advocates of LENR here and some of them actually are willing to ask questions, this seems like a fine place to keep tabs on the field. And so here I am.

        • un passante Reply

          July 10, 2012 at 4:47 pm

          maryyugo milstone wrote:
          I am not discounting or discrediting his work because I am not familiar with it.

          aha-aah-ahha-ha-haa-hah

          I was drinking coffee you terrorist

          • un passante

            July 10, 2012 at 4:54 pm

            oops it’s jnewman. sorry for that.

          • JKW

            July 10, 2012 at 4:55 pm

            Coffee?

          • JNewman

            July 10, 2012 at 4:59 pm

            other than not having a clue what you are talking about and pointing out that Milstone was not the source of the quote, I should clarify my comment so that you can calm down:

            Perhaps I should have said that I am not discounting, discrediting, criticizing, praising or commenting on his work at all because I am not familiar with it. Get it? I am not saying anything about his work positive or negative because I don’t know anything about it. Now breathe slowly…

          • Methusela

            July 10, 2012 at 5:59 pm

            @JN: the meaning’s clear: mouth full of coffee combined with reading a hilariously stupid statement leads to expulsion from the mouth, nose, or both.

          • Al Potenza

            July 10, 2012 at 7:05 pm

            What is hilariously stupid at this point, is believing Rossi, or for that matter, Defkalion.

          • JNewman

            July 10, 2012 at 9:20 pm

            You fanboys really do take the cake. I pointed out that the ringing endorsement of LENR came from somebody who has been reporting that it works for 17 years and then took pains to mention that I was not attacking the guy’s work itself but only was pointing to its existence. The fact that you find that hilariously stupid is… well, curious indeed. But, on the other hand, if I have somehow brought joy to your day, then I am glad to have done so.

        • daniel maris Reply

          July 10, 2012 at 7:23 pm

          That’s philosophical nonsense. Evidence is no more stronger for proving something is than it isn’t. Proof is simply a very satisfying matching of various data – a bit like doing a jigsaw. I can certainly prove to my own satisfaction, and probably just about everyone else on the planet apart from you it would seem, that there is no elephant in my room.

          But any scientific discovery is as we know contingent…even the best ones seem to get overtaken in time by other more satisfying proofs, so an “is” is never an absolute proof either.

          If you wanted to be more convincing in your rebuttals of LENR I think you should show why matter can’t “leak” energy as it were. I’ve never heard of any convincing theory as to why such leakage should be impossible in all circumstances. IN fact it seems pretty clear that matter can leak energy.

          Also it would be nice to have a few demonstrated cases where faulty measurement has been shown to have been the reason for reports of excess anomalous heat.

          Finally in terms of scams it would be good to have some real indication of fraud, not interpretation of evidence. Despite 25 years of ongoing research I don’t think any team which had at their heart a proper scientist or engineer has yet been convicted of a fraud. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall one.

          • JNewman

            July 10, 2012 at 10:00 pm

            Philosophical nonsense? I don’t think so. Proving to your satisfaction that there is no elephant in your room is pretty simple. Proving that there is not an elephant somewhere on the surface of the earth is a much harder task. Are you really arguing that you can prove that an elusive physical phenomenon does not exist? How would you do so? Perform every possible experiment that would reveal its existence with null results?

            As for rebuttals of LENR, I have none. Nor do I seek to find any, if rebuttal is even a sensible concept here. I have no desire to prove or demonstrate that LENR does not exist. In fact, difficult as it is for you to accept, I genuinely hope that it does. The fact that I demand convincing evidence for its existence is apparently unacceptable to you and somehow you think translates into being “against” the phenomenon. After all this time on this site, it is clear that many folks mesmerized by the prospects for LENR cannot see the world in any other way than “pro-LENR” and “anti-LENR”. I doubt if anything anyone can say can set such people straight. So believe what you will.

          • JKW

            July 10, 2012 at 10:34 pm

            Philosophical nonsense exactly. Like demanding to provide proof that tooth fairy does not exist.

          • daniel maris

            July 11, 2012 at 12:51 am

            So you’re saying it’s impossible to prove unicorns don’t exist? I think that’s easier than proving one does exist.

            It’s easier to prove phlogiston doesn’t exist than it does.

            It’s easier to prove all the billions of people on the planet (apart from one) are NOT the President of the USA.

            You just have a very closed mind, which is why you can’t see it can be just as easy in principle to prove things don’t exist as it is to prove they do.

            Science really kicked off by showing lots of things don’t exist. There is no cliff at the edge of the world, there is no sun orbiting the Earth, there are no crazy-moving stars, the Earth didn’t begin 5000 years ago, God create all organisms over a few days, bleeding does not cure the patient…These are all negatives that reasonable people have come to accept.

            It really depends on the nature of the problem as to how difficult or easy it is to “prove” – bearing in mind proof is never absolute and is more a matter of psychological satisfaction than anything else (which is why we are happy to work with the laws of nature that have no “proof” in any meaningful sense, except they seem to fit into a pattern).

            The reason it’s not easy to prove LENR is a delusion is because firstly there is no theory I have heard of that explains why it should be considered a delusion, despite references to the Columb Barrier. And then, secondly, there appears to be no experimental evidence to show it is not happening when the LENR procedures are followed (well none I am aware of).

            If there was a strong theory that it was impossible (e.g. in the same way that there is a strong theory that says travelling beyond the speed of light is impossible or that perpetual motion is impossible) and if there was no or very little experimental evidence then you wouldn’t be having such a problem with what you call an “elusive phenomenon” (it can only be elusive if it exists).

          • JNewman

            July 11, 2012 at 1:06 am

            Daniel, I think I will just let you have the last one on these existential topics. You choose to take an overly broad view of what is intended as a narrow assertion and that’s all there is to it. So fine, in your interesting view of the world, since LENR has not been proven to not exist, it must therefore exist. Whatever…

            For the rest of us, LENR will be judged as most things in the physical world are: let me examine one with whatever tools (senses, instruments, etc.) I have and then I’ll believe it exists. Until then, all bets are off. (and please… please don’t start yakking about Higgs bosons. I think LENR falls into a totally different category.)

          • daniel maris

            July 11, 2012 at 1:48 am

            J Newman –

            Misrepresentation is not argument.

            I never said that, so I don’t know why you are saying I said it.

            I was simply pointing out the philosophical error in your assertion (not unlike the weak argument that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof – nonsense, they just need the same level of proof as for any claim).

          • JNewman

            July 11, 2012 at 3:24 am

            Daniel, I am not sure what it is I misrepresented in your argument. I think the problem is that we are dancing around what it means to prove something. In the case of your example about unicorns, I believe that you are simply wrong. You cannot prove that there are no unicorns. You can state with great assurance that nobody has actually seen one despite the fact that no doubt many have looked for them. As a result, it is a very plausible theory that in fact there are no unicorns. I certainly think there are no unicorns. However, that does not constitute proof that they don’t exist. On the other hand, if I happened to have a unicorn munching on carrots in my garage, it would be quite easy for me to lead him over to you and say “voila, there are unicorns. QED.”. Proving that they exist is quite easy..if they happen to exist.

            I think that the existential issue of LENR is fairly similar albeit far more favorable than for unicorns. There are assuredly people who contend that LENR exists while there are others who are unconvinced at this point. As in the case of the unicorn, there is really no way to prove that LENR does not exist and in fact it very well may. There are only possible reasons to reject individual claims of its existence. Comparing the case of the unicorn, I contend that there has yet to be anything comparable to leading the unicorn over and saying voila. What we have so far is many people showing off horses with a bag over their head that may or may not have a horn under it. The demonstrations have just not been good enough.

            If that hasn’t beaten this particular metaphor to death, nothing will. Peace out, as the youngsters say.

          • daniel maris

            July 11, 2012 at 2:38 pm

            J Newman,

            No, it depends on the nature of the problem. Proving the existence of a unicorn if one existed and was nearby you would be easy indeed. But trying to prove the existence of some very rare extremophile that is only to be found in the Antarctic in underground lakes is going to be very difficult.

            In terms of the unicorn, the analogy with LENR would be that there are seven or eight eminent zoologists who report having seen, touched and smelt a unicorn, whereas the International Zoology Society denied their existence and various zoological journals refuse to print any reports of their existence. The EU has decided to put the Unicorn on its list of endangered species and NASA has reported its analysis of a claimed unicorn bones find shows it is a distinct species fitting the unicorn description.

          • JNewman

            July 11, 2012 at 3:28 pm

            Daniel, if I am following our bizarre conversation accurately, I think we may in agreement about the philosophical issue at this point. As for the most accurate unicorn metaphor for LENR at this point, I think the eminent zoologists should have shot, captured or at least extensively photographed the unicorn instead of just issued reports. But I think we can now give this a rest…

    • daniel maris Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 7:08 pm

      Un passante –

      I think you win the prize for best post of the last six months! Wonder when others like E Cat World will catch up with this fantastic news.

      The list of people that Dick Smith, Al and others want us to believe are deluded, liars, scammers or incompetent now includes the Directorate General for Research and Innovation for the EU, based on research by three respected organisations (one of whom I note is already linked in with Brillouin).

  33. X-prize Reply

    July 10, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Updates.
    Peter Gluck left a long reply to some questions in the article “Peter Gluck, Christos Stremmenos, & Defkalion” at http://www.ecatworldnews.com/?p=18

    The hot topic relating to Rossi is the new 600C e-cat.
    Gary wrote a very interesting article called: 600C e-Cat Decoded.
    .
    *****************************************

  34. Loonyman Reply

    July 10, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Hi guys, just doing my bi- monthly flyby… How is the E-cat business? How is Rossi’s factory coming along? Lots of photos published of all the equipment being set up by now no doubt? Defkalion sold anyone anything yet? Rossi fixed his leaky seal problem and sold another 5 megawatt units yet??????

    Any of the true believers and gullible folks managed to change their minds yet? And if not, how long will it take before you do?

    Just asking…..

    • JKW Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 3:55 pm

      Loonyman, the situation is stable. All parameters constant. You can reduce your flyby schedule to semiannual. Talk to you in January.

    • un passante Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 4:15 pm

      hi, no meat from rossi a part from claims (a report from a third party is due to be released this summer, we’ll see) but lot’s of good signals in the general LENR camp.
      National Instruments collaborating with an impressive list of scientific institutions and scientists on LENR research being the most positive news I’d say.
      so far from being boring times for those interested.

      see ya in 2 months.

      • Alain Reply

        July 10, 2012 at 5:24 pm

        knowing this company, and business rule, the 3 conference on LENR at NIWeek 2012 is Great.
        much more that “Rossi says”.

        Stremmenos moans against defkalion,
        http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=61&start=90#p958
        and Peter Gluck answer, are giving credibility to both business, yet you can understand that it is shark war, and where there are battling sharks, there is food.

        note also the swiss startup lenr-cars.ch

        journal of petroleum technology article (the news is not the article of a fan, but the non rejection by editor)…

        If you want to study the hypothesis of LENR being as Defkalion says (and as rossi says sometime) , there are studies of feasibility/cost of :
        electricty production with turbines, cars (data from lenr-cars SARL), planes (from NASA/Boeing 2040 prospective), boats (from old nuke boat article), rockets (from nuke rocket prospective)…
        all seems feasible
        http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=97#p1026

        • JKW Reply

          July 10, 2012 at 5:50 pm

          Ecat did make a lot of stirr in the last two years. I just wish the inventor gets what he is due. But it might be wishfull thinking, though. The guy is smart despite his appearences.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          July 10, 2012 at 6:17 pm

          LENR cars? Hilarious web site!

          http://ecatcar.org/

          Qualified persons run the company, LOL: “Kick-boxing elite athlete, musician and portrait artist.”

          • Methusela

            July 10, 2012 at 6:43 pm

            That must be quite something, if performed simultaneously.

          • daniel maris

            July 10, 2012 at 7:11 pm

            You wouldn’t want to criticise his portraiture – or his playing…or his kick-boxing for that matter.

          • Mahron - A4 B2

            July 10, 2012 at 8:25 pm

            Something is being witnessed here … what exactly I don’t know.

          • artefact

            July 10, 2012 at 9:24 pm

            Didn’t Defkalion say something about their product and transport???
            WOW(?)

    • daniel maris Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 7:32 pm

      Going very well thanks. The Directorate General of Research and Innovation at the EU has just confirmed the reality of the LENR phenomenon.

      Lots of players are moving into the market. National Instruments – remember them? they were involved with Rossi – have confirmed their strong interest in LENR and are funding a number of research efforts including at UniBo.

      SRI are linked up with Brillouin and seem to be ploughing their own interesting furrow. Hoping for something strong from them.

      A respected oil journal has just rung the alarm bell about LENR.

      Of course we await news of NASA’s LENR patent application.

      The jury us still out on Rossi, but I am certainly not ruling him out. But the great thing now is that this is such a wide field.

      Hope all is well with you.

  35. Bob D Reply

    July 10, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Just happened to see “Gadfly” Sterling Allan is on Coast to Coast with George Noory tonight. The advertisements on the show are aggravating but it might be worth a laugh or two. Supposed to be about Tesla but I would guess other topics like Rossi will come up.

  36. GreenWin Reply

    July 10, 2012 at 10:33 pm

    It is not entirely true that a quartet of skeptics Al X. Milnewman have proved LENR is the result of contaminated data:

    http://bit.ly/NmkMAb

    But they do prove there are (hidden) strings attached.

    • GreenWin Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 10:48 pm

      Ever since Generale Zarsnuff was fired – guys haven’t left the hole of self-importance. Lighten up! Enjoy life – and abundant low cost energy!

    • JKW Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 10:52 pm

      Nice job, Greenie. Good boy. Mommy has a cookie for you.

  37. Shane D. Reply

    July 10, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    Above X-prize quietly mentioned an interesting piece Gary Wright wrote where he (Gary) carefully timelines, using Rossis own words from JONP, the evolution of the ecat from the beginning to this latest 600C version. It is interesting and just so no one misses it, here is the link:

    http://shutdownrossi.com/?page_id=619

    Gary may be a little too much for some, but I will say that he does provide good documentation that backs up most of what he claims, or in many cases, alludes to. Although we all know Rossi is all over the place on just about any topic; i.e robotized plants, NI, 1MW plant deliveries etc. Gary excels in piecing together the evidence to make him look downright deceiving.

    In this one article called “600C e-cat decoded” Rossi states well over a year and a half ago that his e-cat could produce 550C heat output, but only, emphatically, in series. Pretty basic operation in series; water at set temp enters one end and after the first ecat leaves at higher temp, then higher still after second and so on til one hits 550C.

    In parrallel each ecat he states, individually, outputs only 110C.

    Well, then Gary shows how some obvioulsy knowledgable posters asked then; why not cut the flow of water by a fifth (5 ecats in series to reach 500C), and get each to output less power but still 550C… considering the reactor temp for individual ecats claimed by Rossi was 1500C?

    Thats when Rossi came to the stability problem, explaining that going over 100C made it unstable using self-sustain and needs a “drive” all the time over that temp.

    Then the article muddles on, with Rossi periodically claiming ecat operating temps, secondary shielding temps, primary reactor temps -each of which Rossi seems to have a different definition of at varying times based on different questions- ranging from 400C, 550C, 200C, 100C.

    Then there is a focus on the questioners regarding the “reactor” operating temp of 1500C which they claim would melt the shielding, or that such a temp should have no problem producing turbine quality steam, etc. and to each then Rossi fell back on the “confidential”.

    Then with the latest 600C development, and Rossi claiming this would deliver, individually per ecat, 600C, Rossi is shown in several answers putting back the time frame for him to show the results from a week to months. (Note from Shane; today, July 10th, on JONP Rossi seems to have put it back even further to “september”)

    Gary seems to be very interested in pointing out the patent aspects of the debate, as if he is publicly trying to help the patent agencies in denying any ecat application by showing the inconsistencies of Rossis statements, which makes me very wary of siding with him.

    Then again, for the most part, he just lets Rossis own words do the talking. Maybe all us believers should just accept the fact that Rossi doesn’t hold up very well to scrutiny? Wright doesn’t deliver a knockout punch here, but he does show what we all realy know, and that is that Rossi lies for some reason. Maybe a good reason in the end, but he does lie.

    Again, good read for us addicts.

    • daniel maris Reply

      July 10, 2012 at 11:41 pm

      Who knows if Rossi is for real, but this post is not helpful.

      Rossi is most definitely NOT the only researcher to describe these very similar stability problems. I also think people sometimes confuse his claims about experimental results with claims re sustained running of prototypes.

      I haven’t got the time to investigate whether Gary Wright has been deploying selective quotation but given the examples I have seen of that with other people, it seems quite possible – we’ve seen how people have misrepresented what has been said about Rossi’s relationship with NI.

      I would agree Rossi hasn’t been v. impressive over the last six months, but in the absence of evidence of fraud I am willing to wait and see. The longer it goes on of course the less credible he is. One hopes some other outfit will pick up the baton if he falls by the roadside.

    • Thicket Reply

      July 11, 2012 at 1:41 pm

      Yup. Rossi lies. He’s a pathological liar. There is no consistency in his lies. He makes things up as he goes along. He’s also an obvious and very bad liar.

      That’s why it’s funny that true believers scramble to explain, rationalize or ignore Rossi’s lies. If Rossi lies so much, how can anyone believe that he’s not lying about eCat technology being real?

      I get a giggle from all the absurd explanations given by true believers when Rossi lies. My favorite is that Rossi lies intentionally to protect his technology from competitors. The tin foil hat force field had to be at maximum to come up with that one. :)

      Also funny but more pathetic are non-technical true believers using ludicrous ‘technical’ explanations to rationalize Rossi’s lies. My favorite is Ransom’s buffoonery explaining the wildly contradictory Rossi statements about the eCat reactor operating temperature. I laughed all the way home at that one because I realized that Ransom actually thought he was making a cogent argument.

      • daniel maris Reply

        July 11, 2012 at 2:12 pm

        You’ve never come up against a businessman who spreads misinformation about his company’s plans? Or a football manager of a side that is favourite for teh final who doesn’t come with reasons why the other, inferior side, is the one that’s really favourite to win and has the pressure on them? You’ve never come up against a politician who doesn’t tell the whole truth about his plans for an austerity package?

        You are either very lucky or very naive.

        There is no logical reason why Rossi could not have a real device and yet still tell lies.

        • Thicket Reply

          July 11, 2012 at 4:27 pm

          Daniel

          The one I’m very familiar with is the businessman. I don’t recall any competent business man deliberately spreading misinformation about company plans. What a competent business man does is keep his mouth shut. That’s the only way to keep things confidential.

          I’ve seen many instances of ‘loose lips’ in business. If it came from competitors, it alerted me that something could be going on. Under the euphemism ‘Surveillance’ this prompted me to search for all information that gave my company a competitive advantage.

          As we know, Rossi doesn’t keep his mouth shut. He spreads misinformation because he’s a liar enticing stupid people to part with their money.

          You think I’m naive? :) Lol. You and your fellow believers are the credulous, gullible and naive ones. Some folks know that they are clueless. You don’t even suspect that you’re clueless.

      • Ransompw Reply

        July 11, 2012 at 3:20 pm

        Thicket:

        What do you think I said that has you rolling in the aisle. I think my point was that Rossi has claimed the reaction will stop at the melting point of Nickel so any temperature he uses can have just an element of truth. For example the 40-550 degree quote from Rossi doesn’t have to apply to the cooling fluid, it could mean the ecat lead shielding temperature will swing from 40-550 depending on the amount of water run through the thing. Wright interprets Rossi’s comment to apply to the cooling solution suggesting that Rossi means an ecat that produces thermal energy in the cooling fluid from 40-550.

        Rossi constantly confuses (probably on purpose), the core, the thermalizing shield of lead if you believe him on that, the cooling fluid etc. I don’t believe Rossi but if you look at what he says, it can mean lots of things.

        Wright’s expose is a waste of time. Rossi clearly doesn’t have a commercial product, last I saw which was in October 2011, whether he has anything today is completely unknowable and one can only speculate based on a whole lot of circumstantial evidence. I am not holding my breath with Rossi.

        But claiming he is lying about the temperature is like trying to catch a greased pig. Rossi’s BS is slippery.

        • Thicket Reply

          July 11, 2012 at 4:45 pm

          Ransom

          Stick with lawyering.

          Rossi says many things at different times. His ‘explanation’ of the 1,500 deg. C being the natural limit due to the melting point of nickel came after repeated questions about the high temperature. His initial statement was clear. The reactor operated at 1500 degrees. He made that up out of thin air. He then tried to recover with BS backpedalling. A pathological liar doesn’t think about things such as metal melting temperatures. He just makes things up.

          What makes your analysis so funny is that you’re playing the role of Rossi apologist where you have no technical knowledge. It took me a split second to realize that Rossi’s 1,500 deg. C was BS. That’s because I’ve worked with nickel catalyst in reactors most of my career. No competent person would ever make such a dumb statement. Rossi isn’t a competent person. He’s a liar and a fraud.

          Also, the whole concept of a reaction being limited by the melting point of a catalyst metal is incredibly stupid. I could get into kinetics, LHSV, flow maldistribution and numerous other explanations, but frankly I prefer not to get into a technical discussion with a Google technical hexpert. Suffice it to say that uncontrolled reactor temperature excursions can exceed 1500 deg. C. If it’s short term, then you get serious catalyst sintering and reactor shell damage. If it’s prolonged, the reactor shell will fail. There’s no such thing as being limited by nickel melting temperature.

          • Ransompw

            July 11, 2012 at 5:18 pm

            Thicket:

            If LENR takes place in a NiH environment, how do you know what parameters limit the reaction. You have worked with Nickel catalyst in reactors your whole life, ones that produce a LENR event? So you are saying these reactions take place when the Nickel has melted?

            Pray tell then what is the theory behind the LENR event so you can enlighten us?

    • Shane D. Reply

      July 11, 2012 at 4:19 pm

      Rossi has a new interview with a new website called Free Energy Systems:

      http://www.freeenergysystems.com/Andrea_Rossi_Discusses_The_E-Cat_Part_1/

      In this part one (part two still to come), he states that his “reactor” is made of 310 stainless steel alloy.

      Looking it up, that alloy does have a melting point of 1426C, so maybe his claim of 1500C is a round-up. Although the specs seem to indicate 1149C as a working limit.

  38. Dsm Reply

    July 11, 2012 at 11:29 am

    A long time ago, came across a saying that hit a nerve.
    .
    “The more I learn, the less I know”.
    .
    Since then, have been on an accelerated determination to know even less :)
    .
    It works :) but it is scary :)
    .
    Cheers DSM

  39. Harry Perini Reply

    July 11, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Rossi is a genius. He has solved the stability problem. The ecat now automatically stops its reaction once it reaches 600 deg F. If a coolant is introduced the reaction begins again, allowing the ecat to generate live steam. This can drive a turbine.
    Our electricity generation problems are solved !

    • daniel maris Reply

      July 11, 2012 at 2:46 pm

      Great, well he should have no problem getting it to market then.

      • Frank Reply

        July 11, 2012 at 5:04 pm

        … and he shouldn’t blame the certifiers for any delays bringing the e-cat to the market . – He just would have to give a convincing public demonstration of this alleged (almost) free energy generating machine, and millions of people eager to buy an e-cat would push the guys from UL to work with several teams 24hours, 7 days a week on the certifications.
        Or should we assume that Rossi is already preparing lame excuses for delays ???

        Andrea Rossi
        July 11th, 2012 at 4:35 AM
        Dear P.G. Sharrow:
        For the domestic we have to wait the certification, which will take more time.
        Warm regards
        A.R.

  40. daniel maris Reply

    July 11, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    JOhn Milstone,

    Just interested in your claim about Rossi’s Petroldragon project:

    “It was determined during the trial that Rossi never converted any toxic waste into fuel.”

    Do you have a citation for that? Did you choose the word “fuel” carefully because my understanding is Rossi claims that there were various oils created that were sold? Surely the substantive point is whether any kind of oil subsitute was generated…

  41. JKW Reply

    July 11, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    The e-cat’s secret “sauce” finally revealed!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8yW5cyXXRc&feature=player_embedded

  42. Ransompw Reply

    July 11, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Hey everyone:

    Thicket has been holding out on us. He has worked with LENR NiH reactors his whole life and understands how they work. I think everyone should encourage him to reveal his heretofore hidden knowledge.

    • JNewman Reply

      July 11, 2012 at 5:44 pm

      Such a tiresome strategy, counselor. Damaging testimony? Attack the witness. Hohum.

      • Ransompw Reply

        July 11, 2012 at 5:52 pm

        Why don’t you require reasonable comments from your fellow skeptics instead of supporting even ridiculous ones. I agree this has gotten rather boring with each side trying to support every BS statement made by one of their own.

        I actually thought my comment which elicited Thicket’s response was pretty reasonable but I guess when sides are taken, one must support the BS from one’s perceived mates.

        • JNewman Reply

          July 11, 2012 at 6:05 pm

          I see. You think your point is reasonable but Thicket’s isn’t. Therefore, the only reason to see things the other way is skeptic solidarity. I guess that settles it then.

          • Ransompw

            July 11, 2012 at 6:08 pm

            Newman:

            Did you read my post, if so why do you think it is unreasonable?

  43. Thicket Reply

    July 11, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    Ransom

    You lose. Your post has no content other than personal jabs. With your inability to control reactionary emotions, you must really suck at lawyering.

    Only a Google hexpert would equate uncontrolled, nickel-melting operation at 1500 deg. C with ‘low-energy’ LENR. :)

    • Ransompw Reply

      July 11, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      Thicket:

      Where is the personal jab? Your point was you knew immediately that Rossi was a liar when he said the reaction stopped when the Nickel melted. If you don’t even know if LENR exists, how can you know he is wrong and a liar? I just don’t see your point. Can’t you discuss anything reasonably?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>