10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:34 pm

ladajo wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
ladajo wrote:BTW, the Army reporting on their adventure paints Rossi as a scam. Give it a read, it is an entertaining exercise is army ass covering after Rossi screwed them and they knew it.
Link?
Try DTIC. It is there. I have linked it before for you.

The only thing I can find at DTIC is this and it seems the validate his story, not yours. Other link?

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:48 pm

Hopefully this works...

March 1, 2012 - BRC Findings - Incident Description states all production, manufacturing, etc., is done overseas.
BRC Page 1 image

December 9th, 2011 - Rossi response to Fyodor about U.S. production
U.S. Production "begun"

November 1st, 2011 - Rossi response to Iggy Dalrymple "Charges already made in USA"
Link to Rossi response, original question down a few posts

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:14 pm

I think that caps off any claims I've made. He's a repeat criminal offender and I've provided evidence of him lying at least once in relation to the eCat.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:45 pm

You were caught in a miss-statement on one.

Show me.

You made many statements I believe to be wrong. Please back them up.

I did. You ignored it.

ScottL has re-iterated the same things I have said before. You self admitted that you didn't even actually read what he posted and linked.

One day I may read thru the very nice list he provided to see if he did anything wrong, of just illegal.

Why should anyone bother with you on this when you continue to keep the same tact? Dismiss the point, ignore the evidence, wash, rinse repeat.

Spoon feed yourself. I do not need to convince you on this. I am satisfied that Rossi is a liar and fraud. I am satisfied that he is full of shit with E-Cat. Rossi himself has spun the story. I have previously provided all the references and links to show it. You choose not to make full use. Not my problem.

You continue to dig your hole. It is not pretty to see you do it. You really should stop. It really does look like trolling. You trolled scottl into re-peating the work again. You continue to think you are taking some sort of high ground when it has repeatedly been shown you are out to lunch and not providing due diligence. Unless you think word lawyering is due diligence. If that is the case then then is no hope for you on this.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:03 pm

Speaking of your Due Diligence.
I forgot to ask you where the "currently" word came from?
Was it from the report summary page that scottl linked?

http://ecatdoteudotcom.files.wordpress. ... pg-015.png

or was it from the full report as posted on the "Gary Wright" page?

http://shutdownrossi.com/certification- ... rc-report/

or the same thing posted at newenergytimes?

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... Report.pdf

And I wonder how it relates with: Lies highlighted

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 60&cpage=2 I#comments
Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 20 II at 3:25 PM
Dear Frank. Di Bianca:
People that really understands our work and knows it and our Customers have no doubt that my reactors work pretty well.
About all the others, honestly, I do not care too much, they are either competitors, sometimes disguised as Research Laboratories anxious to validate, fake journalists sent by the same, or just honest sceptic who are not important for our market. Our universal credibility will come from our working plants that we will sell to our Customers. I leave to others. more supplied of free time. the burden to chatter of LENR, I have to make
them, and I have not time to confront chatters.For example, we had recently a "fake" journalist here who wrote stupidities about the water in the steam: very good, my 300 reactors actually under stress tests are making steam without water. I mean perfectly dry steam. and they will go in operation not in my factory, but in the factory of our Customer: once my Customer has dry steam produced by a I MW plant do you think that the stupidities of a snake are worth something? In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really. really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That's enough.

Prove these are not lies.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:29 am

ScottL wrote:I think that caps off any claims I've made. He's a repeat criminal offender and I've provided evidence of him lying at least once in relation to the eCat.

Do you know what the word "currently" means?

Andrea Rossi
November 1st, 2011 at 3:35 AM
Dear Iggy Dalrymple:
Already did. The charges are already made in the USA. Of course the work is in progress.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
December 9th, 2011 at 4:37 PM
Dear Fyodor:
Begun.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Fyodor
December 9th, 2011 at 11:08 AM
Mr. Rossi

Has production begun yet in your US facilities? Or are they still starting up?

Of course he had begun. Indeed, by the November post, they were already done.

Time line as I see it:
Before November 2011, charges made in US and shipped to Italy.
By Feb 2012, work happening in Italy, current as of Feb, only production... in Italy.

Where is the lie?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:34 am

ladajo wrote:
You were caught in a miss-statement on one.
Show me.

Just did, about five posts ago.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:55 am

Replies in red.

ladajo wrote:
You made many statements I believe to be wrong. Please back them up.

I did. You ignored it. Where? Honest question. The one thing recently (He does have, he doesn't have US factory) demonstrated you were wrong. The others have never been demonstrated... Unless you mean that list of Rossi's statements several hundred pages ago.

ScottL has re-iterated the same things I have said before. You self admitted that you didn't even actually read what he posted and linked. Do you mean that list of Italian news reports? I read enough to know he was correct about the statement that Rossi was convicted of breaking laws. HE backed up his statement. I thanked him for his data. You have merely listed Rossi's statements, none of which I recall having been demonstrative, and claimed several lies. ScottL did due diligence. Not you.

One day I may read thru the very nice list he provided to see if he did anything wrong, of just illegal.
Just because someone has been convicted of smoking marijuana doesn't mean they have done something wrong. And I feel very differently about an ex-con marijuana smoker than I do about an ex-con rapist.

Why should anyone bother with you on this when you continue to keep the same tact? Dismiss the point, ignore the evidence, wash, rinse repeat. ScottL made a point that Rossi had been convicted several times. He proved that point. Very specific statement, very specific proof. Unlike you who make specific accusations but do not provide proof.

My take is that you figure you CAN'T provide specifics to prove your allegations so you rely on the old "bury them with related minutia" trick that disreputable lawyers use.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:08 am

ladajo wrote:Speaking of your Due Diligence.
I forgot to ask you where the "currently" word came from?
Was it from the report summary page that scottl linked?

http://ecatdoteudotcom.files.wordpress. ... pg-015.png

or was it from the full report as posted on the "Gary Wright" page?

http://shutdownrossi.com/certification- ... rc-report/

or the same thing posted at newenergytimes?

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... Report.pdf

And I wonder how it relates with: Lies highlighted

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 60&cpage=2 I#comments
Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 20 II at 3:25 PM
Dear Frank. Di Bianca:
People that really understands our work and knows it and our Customers have no doubt that my reactors work pretty well.
About all the others, honestly, I do not care too much, they are either competitors, sometimes disguised as Research Laboratories anxious to validate, fake journalists sent by the same, or just honest sceptic who are not important for our market. Our universal credibility will come from our working plants that we will sell to our Customers. I leave to others. more supplied of free time. the burden to chatter of LENR, I have to make
them, and I have not time to confront chatters.For example, we had recently a "fake" journalist here who wrote stupidities about the water in the steam: very good, my 300 reactors actually under stress tests are making steam without water. I mean perfectly dry steam. and they will go in operation not in my factory, but in the factory of our Customer: once my Customer has dry steam produced by a I MW plant do you think that the stupidities of a snake are worth something? In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really. really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That's enough.
Prove these are not lies.

RIDICULOUS!!!! One can't prove the negative. Get real. You claim they are "lies". You should be able to provide specific contradictory statements. You have not done so. ScottL proved his statement and I conceded his point; you have not.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:21 am

ladajo wrote:Speaking of your Due Diligence.
I forgot to ask you where the "currently" word came from?
Was it from the report summary page that scottl linked?

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... Report.pdf

I searched on BRC and went to to first post in the topic containing the first incidence of the term BRC. I followed that link and at the bottom of that page there was a link to the whole report. That report was the same as your third link (above). On the third to last page, in the scan of the provided incident report, is the statement about "Currently all production..." As far as I can tell, this is the ACTUAL incident report by the actual investigator, not others rewording of it.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:42 pm

So, do you want to paint currently as a forward leaning statement, as past imperfect, or present simple?

I would offer that the word currently is NOT used in the executive summary, and that matters. This was written by a seasoned investigator well versed in his job (as noted by his superiors) and with notes and probably a hand recorder. I would take that the confidence shown in him by his superior would indicate he is certainly not "lacadaisical" in how he words reports that become legal documents.

I purposely asked you this question because "currenlty" is used in the detailed report, but then not in the summary. I wanted to see if you noticed.

I spoke with Dr Rossi conceming the construction and operation of his E-eat device. He stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hdrogen gas during the process. The output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowldged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low energy photons in the energv range of 50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste is generated by it, the State of Florida. Bureau of Radiation COntrol has no jurisdiction. Currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas. Dr Rossi has arranged to meet with Underwriter Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufacture in the United States. I thanked Dr. Rossi for his time meeting with me.

The other key point you would note with due diligence is the date of the interview.

16. Date/time incident investigated: 29 Feb. 2012 15:27

Then you would look back at Rossi's own date/time stamped public statements and see where it directly conflicts.

I would also note that Rossi is noted as stating that he

has arranged to meet with Underwriter Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for
manufacture in the United States.

and in the executive summary it is noted to be "when the time comes."
http://ecatdoteudotcom.files.wordpress. ... pg-015.png

I have previously showed you where the Rossi claimed University collaboratoins were directly refuted by said Universitys. With dates.

I have showed you both Rossi claims, reversals, and external denials of collaborations and you ignored it. This is not my problem.
Scottl did it again, and this time you chose not ignore it.

You are inconsistent and without real purpose on this topic.

I used this posting of the report for the above:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... Report.pdf
and compared it with this summary version:
http://ecatdoteudotcom.files.wordpress. ... pg-015.png

I gave you the tools. You ignored them.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:11 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
ladajo wrote:Speaking of your Due Diligence.
I forgot to ask you where the "currently" word came from?
Was it from the report summary page that scottl linked?

http://ecatdoteudotcom.files.wordpress. ... pg-015.png

or was it from the full report as posted on the "Gary Wright" page?

http://shutdownrossi.com/certification- ... rc-report/

or the same thing posted at newenergytimes?

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... Report.pdf

And I wonder how it relates with: Lies highlighted

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 60&cpage=2 I#comments
Andrea Rossi
June 18th, 20 II at 3:25 PM
Dear Frank. Di Bianca:
People that really understands our work and knows it and our Customers have no doubt that my reactors work pretty well.
About all the others, honestly, I do not care too much, they are either competitors, sometimes disguised as Research Laboratories anxious to validate, fake journalists sent by the same, or just honest sceptic who are not important for our market. Our universal credibility will come from our working plants that we will sell to our Customers. I leave to others. more supplied of free time. the burden to chatter of LENR, I have to make
them, and I have not time to confront chatters.For example, we had recently a "fake" journalist here who wrote stupidities about the water in the steam: very good, my 300 reactors actually under stress tests are making steam without water. I mean perfectly dry steam. and they will go in operation not in my factory, but in the factory of our Customer: once my Customer has dry steam produced by a I MW plant do you think that the stupidities of a snake are worth something? In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really. really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That's enough.
Prove these are not lies.
RIDICULOUS!!!! One can't prove the negative. Get real. You claim they are "lies". You should be able to provide specific contradictory statements. You have not done so. ScottL proved his statement and I conceded his point; you have not.

Well they certainly have been proved as positive in past postings, and yet you insist they are not. Still.

Have you seen any of the dated videos showing "dry steam". Have you seen any of the calorimetry discussions about these videos on this very board?

Did you bother to read the previous links showing emails/letters and statements by the referenced Universities dening collaboration with Rossi (more than once)?

Did you read any of the poseted Rossi quotes where he has redefined "I have customers" and "deliveries" over and over? Rossi had no customers, that is why he kept chainging who they were.

How about previously posted Rossi coments regarding radiation?

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 1#comments

Andrea Rossi
June 19th, 2011 at 4:12 AM
Dear Italo A. Albanese:
Thank you for your insight: as you know, I cannot give information about what happens inside the reactor.
To work without a drive is very dangerous, anyway, in my lab I am making with a reactor 14 kWh/h without energu input, but, again it is very dangerous. When I make this I have to be alone on the reactor, even if on the 14th of june in Bologna I did this for about 1 hour at the presence of Dr Bianchini, of the University of Bologna, asking him to check the radiations outside the reactor: the Gieger I always work with had an increase of emission, but it turned out that we were inside the acceptable limits. Bu it is out of question that I can accept to use the reactors this way in public or for the Customers. To be safe, totally safe, we must have a drive and we must not exceed the factor of 6 (I mean producing 6 rimes the energy consumed by the drive). Which is what we guarantee to our Customers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

or do you prefer the Florida BRC version?

He acknowldged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low energy photons in the energv range of 50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation.

Due Diligence Kite. Because you ignored previous references and proofs does not give you the right to demand them again and again. It also does not give you the right to proclaim "falsehood". It just makes you look silly to those that actually did read them.

Go back and do your homework.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:20 pm

Here is one of Rossi's latest:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... ent-439857

Rosemary Ainslie
December 5th, 2012 at 8:36 PM
Dear Andrea,

I have been busy on my own projects and have lost touch with your development. Could I impose on you to tell us where you are with your development? Do you envisage that any version of the E-Cat will be up and running in the near future? I believe you saw late 2012 – early 2013 as being on the table? Or is this time line extended a little?

Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie

Andrea Rossi
December 6th, 2012 at 7:55 AM
Dear Rosemary Ainslie:
We are on our way to respect the scheduling we already anticipated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So what happened to the Secret Customers who have already been delivered? The Secret Military? The Other Secret who will eventually allow public access?

You would think that over a year has been long enough to get a purchased "tested and accepted" machine delivered and operating. Especially one that comes pre-packaged in a shipping container.

Rossi is full of shit.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:25 pm

Replies in red.

ladajo wrote:I would offer that the word currently is NOT used in the executive summary, and that matters. Absolutely true. The report is first hand hear-say, the summary is second hand hear-say. Neither of which is valid evidence of a contradiction by Rossi. But at least the first hand hear-say provides an explanation for an appearance of contradiction.
This was written by a seasoned investigator well versed in his job (as noted by his superiors) and with notes and probably a hand recorder. I would take that the confidence shown in him by his superior would indicate he is certainly not "lacadaisical" in how he words reports that become legal documents. Bureaucrats have their own languages (jargon) and that is the language they write in. Their languages are not always identical to those used by others not in their bureau. This happens because people get lackadaisical about writing out full expository phrases when shorthand phrases will do. But folks not up on the shorthand can get the wrong meaning. None the less, the inclusion of the word "currently" in the fuller write-up indicates to me that such was the gist of the phrasing used by Rossi.

I purposely asked you this question because "currenlty" is used in the detailed report, but then not in the summary. I wanted to see if you noticed. Yes, I did, and it tells me that the gist of Rossi's statement included that statement. The summary subsequently dropped it. But the summary is SECOND hand hear-say.

I spoke with Dr Rossi conceming the construction and operation of his E-eat device. He stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hdrogen gas during the process. The output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowldged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low energy photons in the energv range of 50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste is generated by it, the State of Florida. Bureau of Radiation COntrol has no jurisdiction. Currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas. Dr Rossi has arranged to meet with Underwriter Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufacture in the United States. I thanked Dr. Rossi for his time meeting with me.
The other key point you would note with due diligence is the date of the interview.
16. Date/time incident investigated: 29 Feb. 2012 15:27
Then you would look back at Rossi's own date/time stamped public statements and see where it directly conflicts. Nowhere that I can find. See my comment above to ScottL.

I would also note that Rossi is noted as stating that he
has arranged to meet with Underwriter Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for
manufacture in the United States.
This is consistent with his statements concerning the Home ECat.

and in the executive summary it is noted to be "when the time comes."
http://ecatdoteudotcom.files.wordpress. ... pg-015.png ...to build the Home ECat...

I have previously showed you where the Rossi claimed University collaboratoins were directly refuted by said Universitys. With dates. Rossi used shorthand (like everyone). The University basically say stop. He did, as far as I can tell. So where is the contradiction?

I have showed you both Rossi claims, reversals, and external denials of collaborations and you ignored it. This is not my problem.
Scottl did it again, and this time you chose not ignore it. ???

You are inconsistent and without real purpose on this topic. I have been rock solid consistent. I have asked for proof of allegations, ScottL has provided proof, you have provided hand waving and bias interpretation. Man up and emulate ScottL.

I used this posting of the report for the above:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... Report.pdf
and compared it with this summary version:
http://ecatdoteudotcom.files.wordpress. ... pg-015.png

I gave you the tools. You ignored them.

And??? You have given me two reports, a first hand report and a summary. The first hand report is not inconsistent with Rossi's statements. The summary changes the meaning to make it plausibly (but not definitely) inconsistent by dropping one word. What is your point?

PS: See my post to ScottL, posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:29 am

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:57 pm

Replies in red.

ladajo wrote: Have you seen any of the dated videos showing "dry steam". Have you seen any of the calorimetry discussions about these videos on this very board? No. I have seen wet steam. Your point? Specifically.

Did you bother to read the previous links showing emails/letters and statements by the referenced Universities dening collaboration with Rossi (more than once)? Rossi used shorthand (like everyone). The University basically said stop. He did, as far as I can tell. So where is the contradiction?

Did you read any of the poseted Rossi quotes where he has redefined "I have customers" and "deliveries" over and over? Rossi had no customers, that is why he kept chainging who they were. How do you know whether he had no customers? Have you hacked into his computer system? Or are you just hand waving your opinions as fact... AGAIN?

How about previously posted Rossi coments regarding radiation? He said there was none, subsequently clarified to mean "above background levels". I'll bet you have said something wasn't radioactive when in fact it was. Are you a despicable liar too?

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 1#comments

Andrea Rossi
June 19th, 2011 at 4:12 AM
Dear Italo A. Albanese:
Thank you for your insight: as you know, I cannot give information about what happens inside the reactor.
To work without a drive is very dangerous, anyway, in my lab I am making with a reactor 14 kWh/h without energu input, but, again it is very dangerous. When I make this I have to be alone on the reactor, even if on the 14th of june in Bologna I did this for about 1 hour at the presence of Dr Bianchini, of the University of Bologna, asking him to check the radiations outside the reactor: the Gieger I always work with had an increase of emission, but it turned out that we were inside the acceptable limits. Bu it is out of question that I can accept to use the reactors this way in public or for the Customers. To be safe, totally safe, we must have a drive and we must not exceed the factor of 6 (I mean producing 6 rimes the energy consumed by the drive). Which is what we guarantee to our Customers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

or do you prefer the Florida BRC version?

He acknowldged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low energy photons in the energv range of 50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation.
How are these two contradictory? In the first, Rossi explained that though research items were dangerous, commercial units are restricted to be safe. In the second, as bolded. Again, where is the contradiction?

Due Diligence Kite. Because you ignored previous references and proofs does not give you the right to demand them again and again. It also does not give you the right to proclaim "falsehood". It just makes you look silly to those that actually did read them. I have responded via rejection of numerous of your past hand wavings which proved nothing. I keep hoping you will provide specifics like ScottL did with his attempt to demonstrate a contradiction in factory, no factory. I believe I showed him the error in his logic. I don't know yet whether he has understood and accepted it. You obviously either refuse to read such rejections or are so wed to your decision that you can't accept them. To bad.

Go back and do your homework.

Your contention, your homework. So far, D- at best.