10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

>>Regardless, that isn't my position at all. I don't think he is lying because he can't prove himself innocent, I think he is lying because he keeps telling lies.
:: Please demonstrate one lie regarding ECat. Just one.

See, this is your game. You want to limit me to "Just one". By doing so, you can play your game of inventing a POTENTIAL alternate scenario whereby this or that individual example is not a lie. Any child can play your game when explaining a single missing cookie in the cookie jar.

But you are totally ignoring my argument.

Not so. Your argument is that you have nothing, but you have LOTS and LOTS of nothing, so obviously that makes something. I don't accept that weird math. Show me something and we can start talking about adding it up.

[krenshala]

>>Regardless, that isn't my position at all. I don't think he is lying because he can't prove himself innocent, I think he is lying because he keeps telling lies.
:: Please demonstrate one lie regarding ECat. Just one.

See, this is your game. You want to limit me to "Just one". By doing so, you can play your game of inventing a POTENTIAL alternate scenario whereby this or that individual example is not a lie. Any child can play your game when explaining a single missing cookie in the cookie jar.

But you are totally ignoring my argument.

Not so. Your argument is that you have nothing, but you have LOTS and LOTS of nothing, so obviously that makes something. I don't accept that weird math. Show me something and we can start talking about adding it up.

You are clearly missing his point. To use your analogy, seedload does have nothing, lots and lots of nothing. All of that nothing was provided by Rossi, and Rossi is the one claiming it is something. Show us something that isn't questionable about any part of the ECat and we might not think he's lying.

[KitemanSA]

You are clearly missing his point. To use your analogy, seedload does have nothing, lots and lots of nothing. All of that nothing was provided by Rossi, and Rossi is the one claiming it is something. Show us something that isn't questionable about any part of the ECat and we might not think he's lying.

I have no problem with anyone "thinking" he is lying as long as they don't present it as FACT. I think there is a good chance he is lying myself. But I keep running into folk who "know" he is lying and present their "lots and lots of nothing" as "proof". Please, put up, or shut up.

[ladajo]

You have been shown over and over where Rossi has contradicted himself as well as made falsehoods. I doubt anyone is willing to show you again. Your head is in the sand.

I dare you to ask yourself if you exist. I doubt you will accept the answer, what ever it may be.

[ScottL]

The onus is on Rossi to prove that he has something (what he claims he has) not on us to disprove his claim. So until his claim becomes fact, we would hold the default position of nothing.

[KitemanSA]

You have been shown over and over where Rossi has contradicted himself as well as made falsehoods. I doubt anyone is willing to show you again. Your head is in the sand.

I dare you to ask yourself if you exist. I doubt you will accept the answer, what ever it may be.

I have seen over and over where people see a correction in terminology ("UoB" vs "Some professors from the UoB") and the like. That's the "LOTS and LOTS of nothing" that folks seem to think is something.

It is your head that is "decided" without facts. Can it be that your head is so full of sand that it looks like mine is in it?

[KitemanSA]

The onus is on Rossi to prove that he has something (what he claims he has) not on us to disprove his claim. So until his claim becomes fact, we would hold the default position of nothing.

You see, that is where you are just plain wrong. Rossi owes YOU absolutely nothing. I suspect he gives not one fig if you don't believe him or even think him a liar. I suspect he believes (rightly by the way) that the only folks he has to prove anything to is an investor or a customer. To him, you are probably a "snake".

The thing is, I am neither an investor nor a customer, so I know he owes me nothing. I don't gnash my teeth or cry "foul" about that. People keep saying things like "his experiments weren't... something or other". Guess what folks, he is not a scientist. He isn't doing any experiments (in public at least). What he is is a businessman (honest or not) that has done some demonstrations. Live with it.

Your "onus" is bogus.

[ladajo]

Like any good charletan, Rossi markets to whomever he can sway with his theatrics. The onus is on him, for if he can not win over the suckers, he has nothing. He is marketing, and he is trying to convince (offer proof, prove) that he has something to get suckers to part with their money. So the onus is on him to show something. You take issue with those who do not swallow his magick, and are swain by his theatrics. You say that those who do not buy in have no reason not too. I ask what reason do they have to accept? What reason do YOU offer that anyone should believe Rossisays and buy in? You seem to take great issue with those who doubt, those who say Rossi has naught where he claims he has. Would you buy in? Would you critic those who have bought in? If so, or if not, why Fence Sitter?

Nobody has come out of shower to say it is bad, therefore it must be good. There is no reason to think there could be poison gas. Let's go into the shower.
I also have a bridge that you can buy. Really I do. Just because I got in trouble for selling a tunnel that wasn't mine, doesn't mean the bridge is not mine to sell. I swear. Snakes be damned. They are just part of a great conspiracy to discredit me! Conspiracy! My life is in danger! Ahhhh.......!
So about that bridge...

[Teemu]

another noteworthy post from Jed Rothwell for the doubters to think about as follows:

We all know that Rossi has some personal credibility problems. He has been involved in some dodgy business. As I have pointed out before you can say that about many important people such as Edison and Steve Jobs who got his start selling devices to steal from the telephone company.

That is invalid comparison, there is a huge difference between using a genuine device to perform a scam, and your device being the scam. When it comes to the device being the scam, Steve Jobs's and Edison's records are clear, whereas Rossi already has two previous scams in his record, Petroldragon and thermoelectric device

If I was dealing as a buyer with a person who has solid record of delivering, I wouldn't care as much to what ends he has used his inventions and devices, or if he has record of "idea stealing" within the boundaries of the law, as long as he has solid record of delivering to the buyer. Those are generic ethical mishaps, and they are about as relevant as ethical mishap of cheating the wife would be, when estimating whether the invention is genuine or not.

But if I was dealing with a person who has so many scam inventions in his record I would be really cautious.

[paperburn1]

Never argue with a fool, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.....

[ScottL]

The onus is on Rossi to prove that he has something (what he claims he has) not on us to disprove his claim. So until his claim becomes fact, we would hold the default position of nothing.

You see, that is where you are just plain wrong. Rossi owes YOU absolutely nothing. I suspect he gives not one fig if you don't believe him or even think him a liar. I suspect he believes (rightly by the way) that the only folks he has to prove anything to is an investor or a customer. To him, you are probably a "snake".

The thing is, I am neither an investor nor a customer, so I know he owes me nothing. I don't gnash my teeth or cry "foul" about that. People keep saying things like "his experiments weren't... something or other". Guess what folks, he is not a scientist. He isn't doing any experiments (in public at least). What he is is a businessman (honest or not) that has done some demonstrations. Live with it.

Your "onus" is bogus.

Did your brain burp while reading? At what point in my statement did I say Rossi has to prove anything at all to me? He has made claims, he's allowed to just as I am. If he wants those claims believed, he'll have to provide proof to the individual(s), entities, etc. to whom he wishes to prove the claim. So once again it is all on him to prove his claim, not others such as ourselves here to prove he is wrong. To the world he has nothing until proven otherwise, if that is his goal. Furthermore, any entity, individual(s), etc. that wishes to spread the word as fact that Rossi's claim is true, then it is on them to prove to the world. It's all about your audience and so we here owe Rossi nothing, not even the benefit of the doubt. He owes us nothing unless of course he points his claims in our direction.

Innocent until proven guilty.
Have nothing until proven otherwise. (After all claims are just that, claims)

[Teemu]

another noteworthy post from Jed Rothwell for the doubters to think about as follows:

--

Independent observers tell me that he really did make dozens of prototype devices for his 1 MW reactor, which he then modified and modified again. I think he scrapped a large number of them at one point, and started over from scratch. This must have cost a fortune.

This is not the profile of a scammer. If the equipment was fake, he could produce it quickly with minimal effort. He would not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making prototype equipment which he then trashes. He would make one or two fake, stage-prop prototypes, and he would use them again and again. He would not spend thousands of dollars renting a large workshop, renting a gasoline powered 200 kW generator, or buying a shipping container. You can make a fake energy device much smaller than this, at a tiny fraction of this cost. Putting hundreds of devices inside a shipping container does not enhance your credibility with scientists and investors. On the contrary, most people find that odd.

Or maybe he relies on that there are investors who think same way as Jed Rothwell, and this way he is actually getting more money by using more money.

[seedload]

Not so. Your argument is that you have nothing, but you have LOTS and LOTS of nothing, so obviously that makes something. I don't accept that weird math. Show me something and we can start talking about adding it up.

"Nothing"??????????

Not so. My argument is that we have something, LOTS and LOTS of something. If you insist that a "possible lie" or a "likely lie" is equal to ZERO ("nothing") then of course the math won't work. But that is ridiculous. I suspect that you insist that not knowing everything is the same as knowing nothing because you know the math WILL WORK if you admitted otherwise. Your just using debate team tactics which is a pretty clear indication that you don't have any desire to achieve any level of common understanding. You are obfuscating. You are arguing to argue. Concede nothing because you don't care about agreeing, just winning.

Next thing you know, your gonna go back to the meaning of 'fact' debate. Oh wait, just read down a few posts, you already did.

[seedload]

What he is is a businessman (honest or not) that has done some demonstrations. Live with it.

Why do you think he is doing demonstrations? To convince people the thing works. So, the onus is on him to be convincing. If the amount of steam doesn't match the pressure he claims, if he overtly pours water out of a tube, if he is caught working the controls at exactly the same time that measurements change, then he isn't being convincing and it is perfectly legitimate to stand up and shout BS! If he ignores this perfectly legitimate reaction, doesn't try to explain, and just cries snake, then there are additional reasons to doubt him - ie, he isn't interested in being convincing (which would be easy), just in shutting you up. If the thing works, being convincing would be super easy. Since it doesn't work, then being convincing is hard, except to convince those that are willing to be fooled.

[KitemanSA]

>>=ladajo
::=me

>>Like any good charletan,
:: Careful, you are entering into the realm of libel.

>>Rossi markets to whomever he can sway with his theatrics. The onus is on him, for if he can not win over the suckers, he has nothing. He is marketing, and he is trying to convince (offer proof, prove) that he has something to get suckers to part with their money. So the onus is on him to show something.
:: BUT NOT TO YOU.

>>You take issue with those who do not swallow his magick,
:: False. Ridiculous in fact. I take issue with people who make statements of fact that cannot be substatiated.

>>and are swain by his theatrics.
:: "Swain by his theatrics"? What does a male admirer or lover have to do with his theatrics?

>>You say that those who do not buy in have no reason not too.
:: False, libelous in fact. You can search through these 600ish pages and never will you find that stated or implied. Please do not lie to me about what I have said.

>>I ask what reason do they have to accept?
:: None that I have seen, as I have stated numrous times. Can't you read simple English?

>>What reason do YOU offer that anyone should believe Rossisays and buy in?
:: IBID.

>>You seem to take great issue with those who doubt, those who say Rossi has naught where he claims he has.
:: Balderdash! I am one who doubts. I take great issue with those who make absolute statements that cannot be backed up with fact. It started with cr@p like... "it can't work, the reaction would be endothermic" and "it can't work, there is no way to overcome the coulomb barrier"; and then devolved into i"it can work cuz... ... unh... cuz he's a liar, yeah, thats it, it can't work cuz he is a liar".
SHOW ME THE LIE (related to this, not the Italian national pass-time, which is to lie on your taxes).

>>Would you buy in? Would you critic those who have bought in? If so, or if not, why Fence Sitter?
:: You last two words give lie to your own accusation. How can I be a "fence sitter" if I have "bought it"? Are you losing your grip on logic too?

>>Nobody has come out of shower to say it is bad, therefore it must be good. There is no reason to think there could be poison gas. Let's go into the shower.
:: OMG, the HITLER CARD!!!! We know your arguments are totally devoid of content when you stoop to playing the Hitler card. SHAME ON YOU!!

>>I also have a bridge that you can buy. Really I do. Just because I got in trouble for selling a tunnel that wasn't mine, doesn't mean the bridge is not mine to sell. I swear.
:: More idiot ramblings. Have I ever suggested even once (other than maybe a joke way back when) that I thought buying ANYTHING from Rossi was a good idea? No? Then why are you so moronic as to pull the old "bridge to buy" cr@p on me?

>>Snakes be damned. They are just part of a great conspiracy to discredit me! Conspiracy! My life is in danger! Ahhhh.......!
So about that bridge...
:: Sell it to Axil.