Let’s join forces to bring out the truth on Rossi-IH affair #2

This post refers to the original blog post Let’s join forces to bring out the truth on Rossi-IH affair, where over 600 comments has made it too slow to load for many users.

Please continue the discussion here below.

I will soon move the updates here and add some new updates, based on relevant comments.

Advertisements

126 comments

  1. Hi everyone.

    This discussion has started to get too much out of the original scope, to search for and expose facts in a complex situation, and the amount of comments is also becoming larger than I can handle for a fair moderating, so I will close down the discussion, at least for now.

    Meanwhile, my advice to all readers who have not participated in the discussion, is to be careful to trust any claim that has been published in comments here, since the stakes are potentially high and it’s difficult to know the motives behind each individual, or pseudonym.

    However, some things have been learnt, both on what has happened, and also on the positions on some of those involved, and their identities. The continued story is going to be interesting.

  2. The Lugano report is accurate and valid. Hi Thomas Clark.

    Replication will most likely bring out the truth of the Rossi – IH affair before the courts will.

    Or Rossi or IH could leak/release the report.

    Thomas Clark,

    Would you be kind enough to analyze the high temp LENR found by the replications posted in the article “The Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Industrial Heat E-Cat Dispute and Expo 2017 Future Energy Kazakhstan”? http://gbgoble.kinja.com/the-low-energy-nuclear-reaction-industrial-heat-e-cat-d-1772602982

    A thermal analysis expert, unlike me, you could do a good job exposing the errors and fraud.

    Jed Rothwell has described the China LENR syndrome as, “I would not call it a replication yet”.

    The others are:

    Iranian LENR and surface plasmons. (not replication yet)

    “The Study of Cavitation Bubble- Surface Plasmon Resonance Interaction For LENR and Biochemical Processes” Farzan Amini 2013

    The LENR researchers at the Kazakhstan Institute of Nuclear Physics
    “The Question of Excess Heat in Nickel-Hydrogen”
    A.N. Ozernoi, M.F. Vereschak, I.A. Ermakova, I.V. Hromushin

    E-Cat replication by Russian physicist, Alexander G. Parkhomov
    “Исследование аналога высокотемпературного теплогенератора Росси” Доклад на семинаре «Холодный ядерный синтез и шаровая молния” в РУДН 25 декабря 2014 г. Пархомов Александр Георгиевич

    After that, I have others for you as well.

  3. Argon – another classic. DB did ask some great questions that we may or may not get to before court.
    We have plenty of time on our side but all is not well for Rossi. He may need to be reminded that he and his fanboys were the ones that started the PR war using the blogs.

    His character assassination strategy was very short-sighted and is played out with the exception of a couple of knuckleheads who are not capable of understanding logic, truth or checkmate. Also remind him that you can tell the truth the same way every time and never tell a lie the same way twice. Some fascinating evidence has been developed in that regard.

  4. Comm Offcr:
    “Earth to Planet Rossi
    Earth to Planet Rossi
    Come in Planet Rossi”…………….

    Earth to Planet Rossi
    Earth to Planet Rossi”…………….
    ……………………………………………
    “Nothing but indiscernible chatter sir.”

    Chief:
    “Roger that…stand-by.”

  5. Figured Sifferkoll – thank you for the additional blunders, bluster and evidence – very grateful.
    I have all I need from you – no deal.

  6. I apologize for what is going to be a simple character study. Feel free to delete my comment, Mats, if you feel it doesn’t contribute to the larger discussion.

    nckhawk during the past couple days, with his rabid, gleeful, yet anxious behavior, doesn’t strike me as someone who’s feeling comfortable in their skin. He’s previously tried to present himself as the calm voice of an objective insider, yet he’s bursting at the seams. Why? Could it be because he’s more invested in the outcome than any of us? Just chill, dude. You’ve got the truth on your side. Right?

    “Looks like a Rossi-ite posting storm is coming in to attempt and bury the very bad, terrible, awful, disastrous pitful day that Rossi and Sifferkoll had on Mat’s blog.”

    ‘Rossi-ite’? That’s very paranoid language, Mr. Weaver. The whole paragraph reads like projection, tbh.

  7. @nckhawk

    You go voluntarily take down all of the slander that you’ve posted about me on your website and I’ll answer your question. You’re the one with the conflict of interest so you go first. If that mess is cleaned up from your website in the morning (its going on 1am Thur) then I’ll give you an answer to your question. Don’t try to steer the deal – take it or leave it. Deal?

    Oh, sure! I went thru it and I do not consider anything I’ve written to be slander; only asking questions and analysing statements from my point of view. But I did clarify my reasoning by adding some links to some Deep River Ventures investments and partners, ie. http://www.stacsolutions.com and http://industrialdefender.com (which I would say contradicts your statement on lack of resources)

    See: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/the-lenr-ecat-saga-dawey-weaver-goes-ballistic-after/

    So, thereby I consider my part of the deal done! Your move!

  8. @nckhawk

    I knew you’d be back after getting completely man-handled yesterday.

    Maybe you could elaborate on the logic in your reasoning here!!! Check your premises maybe …

  9. @tom

    I realise this is an easy target: from somone he claimed he was biassed in favour of Rossi, then claimed he was even-handed, then says he thinks it is good to pick sides. Human behavior is always central. But difficult to be sure about unless you are god or perhaps sifferkoll. Whereas Test evidence and details are highly revealing and give much clearer results. I realise somone without details analysis can come to a different view of a test, but the details of analysis are open and can be critiqued. Whether one of Rossi’s tests shows excess heat, or something else, is a judgement about facts. There is still some interpretation, but it is more constrained by the evidence. So: “not about science, not about measurements, not about tests” That is 100% false and shows severe bias or severe misunderstanding!

    If you believe it to be 100% false, that explains exactly why you totally fail to comprehend the complexity of this situation. You see my friend, only because you close your eyes to reality it doesnt dissapear …

    You also totally (deriberately?) fail to see the difference of a performing a test and actually doing meassurements from inventing fraud/incompetence/conspiracy scenarios. (which seams to your area of excellence and productive force).

  10. @nckhawk You said, among other low punches, ‘Guest – you might be right about Jacky but I’m not ready to agree with you yet. I’ve gotten pretty good at spotting inhabitants of Planet Rossi. I’ll do a little more homework on that one and see if I owe Jacky an apology.’

    You are so open book that you don’t even recognize yourself. We have a term for it, it is called ‘besserwisser’, I suggest you study the term for a while. Those are people typically making basic mistakes since their own thinking is trapped by their superiority imagination. You ‘spotting’ of ‘jacky’ failed so miserably, while most of the readers here saw it from ‘miles away’.

    Instead of furious bashing, why you don’t you take time to answer DB:s questions, there are few pretty interesting ones, worth re-reading. Or did your ‘testosterone’ fellows send you message: ‘ We are winning boys, press on @nckkhawk Your the man!’.

    Sorry 2 days ago your postings were much more convincing. And, yes me and few others are collecting statistics on how many questions have you actually answered, and when questions have caused ‘testosterones’ to freak out and sending you: ‘All right boys they are closing, lets put shitstorm on again. Should we use Lugano report, insulting or add some new stuff this time?’.

    So I again see lots of reasons to follow this case very carefully no matter if taking a stand to direction or other, or trying to stand narrow and difficult objectivity line.

  11. @nckhawk: Are you aware that by repeateadly trying to persuade Sifferkoll into taking down/”correcting” what he wrote on his blog you are actually only strengthen his allegation against you?

    Assuming everything you write about this case is correct – why all the agitation on your site? Contrary to us, your are obviously in a position of sovereign knowledge and could simply lean back, wait for the lawsuit to proceed and have a good laugh when the “Rossi fanboys” struggle to take all the evidence of fraud presented to the court and either silently disappear or go to great lengths rationalizing their former belief in Rossi.

    Instead, you act more agitated than anyone of us with the fence up our a****. I wonder why?

  12. Thomas – I know this is the complete collection of claims you have put together. Good for the record.
    I will not answer them now, for a few reasons.

    – I simply don’t have the time to analyse them all again.
    – At this point I think it’s wise to have a cautious attitude, since essential facts are still missing (the MW report, IH’s answer).
    – Also at this moment, I tend not to trust anyone involved with regard to their motives, not even you for the simple fact that you dedicate so much time to this that I cannot make it fit with your also having a work and a family (for me that puzzle is difficult, and yet I am in absence of leave from work, dedicating too little time to the work which brings me my income). It’s possible that you’re simply passionate about arguing for what you are convinced is true, and let that take all this time. Impressive, I would say, in that case. But I’m not sure.

    Thanks anyway for collecting your claims for the record.

  13. Sorry for humor. 🙂

    I watched the popular science film “cold fusion,” in which a young man bought a “designer toy” like yourself to do the experiment LENRR. The kit includes a bulb with heavy water, the electrodes and the glass container with a unit of electrical power.
    Perhaps the Chinese will soon organize the business of selling through the Internet “toy designers” A.Rossi device for replication.
    Set of powder of lithium aluminum hydride and nickel powder, ceramic tube, an electric heater and thermocouple. Each student will repeat as the experience of “cold fusion”.
    The Chinese are working on this many millions of dollars and euros in this business.

  14. nckhawk,

    Do you have any technical advice, suggestions, information, or helpful hints for Rossi Effect replicators?

    I have to say that your remarks on this forum are getting downright vile: your level of hostility against Andrea Rossi and his supporters seems to be growing by the day. Of course you have the right to state your opinions, feelings, and beliefs just like everyone else. But I really hate the fact all this fighting and badmouthing is taking place. In my thinking, the best way to clear the air would be to figure out a recipe that would allow people to successfully replicate the E-Cat and let a wave of replications start to spread. After a few hundred reactor meltdowns posted on YouTube by various replicators, I think we could at least agree that the technology works regardless of other issues.

    If we don’t figure out a recipe that will allow successful replications to become common, I’m afraid the E-Cat will remain on the fringe of the mainstream as a topic of debate and online bickering for a long time to come.

    Sincerely,
    Hank Mills

  15. @paranoia

    Yes, emissivity is spelt with one m (and correct in my paper). I am sometimes aphasic about spelling! Sorry.

  16. I have a firm belief that this whole story is not about science, not about measurements, not about tests, not about certifications and titles, but all about humans (and business/politics). To understand what is happening human behaviour has to be considered central

    I realise this is an easy target: from somone he claimed he was biassed in favour of Rossi, then claimed he was even-handed, then says he thinks it is good to pick sides.

    Human behavior is always central. But difficult to be sure about unless you are god or perhaps sifferkoll.

    Whereas Test evidence and details are highly revealing and give much clearer results. I realise somone without details analysis can come to a different view of a test, but the details of analysis are open and can be critiqued. Whether one of Rossi’s tests shows excess heat, or something else, is a judgement about facts. There is still some interpretation, but it is more constrained by the evidence.

    So: “not about science, not about measurements, not about tests” That is 100% false and shows severe bias or severe misunderstanding!

    “certifications and titles” – I agree those give little useful information (possibly none, depending on details).

  17. @Mats

    This is repeated because there are a few minor corrections and additions.

    Obviously, as Jed points out, the issues re the lawsuit are as yet halfbaked because we have not heard the IH reply to Rossi’s accusations.

    However the issues about Rossi’s long sequence of known flawed tests, and the known unreliability of certain key testers, are factual and known.

    In this situation even countenancing as plausible the statement that IH are lying and Rossi’s contrary statements are correct seems strange? I mean, in the interests of fairness, you can posit that anybody anywhere is lying because a shady character on no evidence claims this. The point is that Rossi has not only no evidence to support his claims, but also a good deal of evidence against them.

    (0) Do you agree the early public tests show no evidence of extraordinary excess heat – all have known errors, and Rossi refuses to correct these even when it is easy to do so?

    (1) Do you agree the 6 Oct 2011 test showed no evidence of LENR? Check the numbers, and the way that every one of the positive points made is clearly wrong by ascoli’s hot core model

    (2) Do you agree the Levi figure for pump flowrate in the test he conducted himself was much higher than could be delivered by the pump? (see ascoli comment for details)
    https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/27/lets-join-forces-to-bring-out-the-truth-on-rossi-ih-affair-2/#comment-5545

    (3) Do you agree the Lugano test temp figures show no evidence of excess heat? You will notice the various online support for the details I’ve given.
    https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/27/lets-join-forces-to-bring-out-the-truth-on-rossi-ih-affair-2/#comment-5561
    You can check yourself what Levi got wrong.
    You can delay the day of reckoning by waiting to ask an official competent thermographer. But, remember, they must have experience of understand the theory relating to surfaces which are not grey body.

    (4) Do you agree the Penon reports show clear circumstantial evidence of average/rms mixup leading to the high COP (1st) and that the electrical measurements for the second are easily got wrong by somone who can write a report as Penon does?

    (5) Do you agree that through his history (Petroldragon, TEG) Rossi has been selling technology which claims great things but is not used, and given its importance if claims are real, does not work?

    (6) Do you agree that Rossi’s license, with a large up-front payment, looks very suspicious?

    (7) Do you agree that this JM Products chemical company with claimed parent that seems identical to JM in UK, but is known not to be JM in UK, looks very suspicious?

    (8) Do you agree that Levi’s rejection of the Lugano correction shows at best extreme carelessness. He must have been e-mailed, 12 months ago, my paper, by one of the other testers. (I was told my comment would be considered):
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf
    Any competent thermographer (aware of the band vs total emissivity issue) would see the mistake.

    (9) Do you agree that Levi has been paid 75K Euro in one year by a Rossi-related company? I’m not saying this is fraudulent – but it does make him very highly biassed in this matter and not independent as stated.

    (10) Do you agree Fabio F is so heavily involved with Rossi he is no way a fair independent tester for IH?

    (11) Do you agree that the 1st sample of ash provided by Rossi for isotopic analysis contained an admixture of copper grains and therefore was certainly manipulated by Rossi, and that this was deliberate? (See Peter Ekstrom comment on LENR world).

    (12) Do you therefore agree that the extraordinary 99% 62Ni sample from Lugano handled by Rossi looks overwhelmingly likely also to have been manipulated. especially because Rossi is on record as buying 62Ni.

  18. huge risk of losing his reputation forever

    “forever” in Italy? Ever considered our politics? They should be best people, and might be someone even is. About others we have actors making tv shows that try to get funny from resl stories. But more often real stories are more funny…

    Reputation is something that has some value only for honest and correct people.

    How much money do you think Galantini may have received to write a letter certifying a ghost (and in any case wrong) probe has been used? Do you believe he cannot sleep at night or he cannot show his face? And the boy-scouts’s ex – colonel
    Fioravanti? Do you believe as per shame he buried himself in Guantanamo? Or might he be conducing his normal retired life in some surrounding of Bologna, with a few more money for a couple of years?

  19. @jedrothwell

    Sifferkoll apparently rejected my message, in which I said, “It is a bad idea to pick sides when you have only read what one side has to say.” If it turns out I.H. is right, for him to reject even this mild suggestion shows that he is closed minded. Most people would agree with me strictly from the point of view of common sense, and grade-school level fairness, without regard for the content of the dispute.
    Sifferkoll has painted himself into a corner. He is certain that he is right, even though he has no inside information, and no idea what I.H. may say in response to the lawsuit. If it turns out I.H. is right, Sifferkoll and other Rossi supporters will look exceedingly foolish, when they might have left themselves some leeway. It never hurts to admit that you might be wrong.

    No. I did not reject it, but had other things to do yesterday evening (10pm CEST).

    I do not agree that it is bad to pick sides. From an ethical standpoint I think it is worse to pretend some level of objectivity when it is obvious that a side has been picked.Thats hypocrisy. I was worried about you Jed for a while, but it seams you recovered by now. I was actully worried you had been threatened, since the change in your style went from many years of stringency (which I respect) to very emotional. I’m still a bit worried since you for some reason use the hint of “looking foolish” and “paint into corner” arguments. I means this is ad-hominem disguised as helpfullness. Creepy!

    I realize that I could be wrong, definitily I believe it is possible that the lawsuit could turn into IH favour from having more muscles, which dont necessarily means being right as you know.

    So I believe waiting for IH to answer is the wroing thing to do. IH is already answering here thru Mr Weaver (head of PR, or maybe only soldier, with someone coaching in behind). So I listen to what is said and how, and put those pieces together.

    I have a firm belief that this whole story is not about science, not about measurements, not about tests, not about certifications and titles, but all about humans (and business/politics). To understand what is happening human behaviour has to be considered central and I tend to like the Jung (and some eastern philosophy), but also the power of incentives (Skinner/Pavlov) and groupthink/authorities (Milligram). All if it apply here.

    I wrote about it some time ago: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/andrea-rossi-an-edisonian-inventor-or-a-scammer/

    I also tend to take the side of the outsider against the establishment. I hade hopes for IH, but when thay start to flash names like Apco Worldwide, JonesDay and whatknows my alarm sets off like a christmas tree. I have also had the “pleasure” to watch Mr Weaver managing damage control here and elsewhere, and to me there is more data in his behaviour than in any test or fraud scenario.This also goes for the excessive ranting of some others here on archeological issues, instead of what is important.

    So no Jed. I believe you are way more close minded, failing to see the big picture and the ethical/psychological perspectives. And maybe also the policital/financial. Take a short break and meditate on what it would mean for large established organisations if a COP 50 MW reactor was acknowledged widely. It’s not too big to fail, it is too big to be true. (for trillions of reasons)

  20. Hi everyone – I don’t know about you, but I have been sleeping. I need a few hours every night. After breakfast and bringing kids to school I will look at all comments, spammed or not (about 50).

  21. Guest – you might be right about Jacky but I’m not ready to agree with you yet. I’ve gotten pretty good at spotting inhabitants of Planet Rossi. I’ll do a little more homework on that one and see if I owe Jacky an apology.

    I am wondering about how Levi feels this morning? He got 75k euro from Fabiani’s Italian and US companies and is at huge risk of losing his reputation forever. Rossi gets $11.5M and is attempting to skate away and pull off his next deal. Everyone who is being used by Rossi needs to do the math and decide if it is worth having your name associated with this guy. Thank God that Focardi isn’t around to have to suffer thru this.

  22. Sifferkoll – I knew you’d be back after getting completely man-handled yesterday.

    You don’t have the guts to answer a direct conflict of interest question yet still think that you have a smidgeon of moral authority left that allows you to ask me another question.

    I’ve already apologized to you once for anything that I said that offended to you only to be kicked in the face but I like to play the game and I’ll offer you a deal. You go voluntarily take down all of the slander that you’ve posted about me on your website and I’ll answer your question. You’re the one with the conflict of interest so you go first. If that mess is cleaned up from your website in the morning (its going on 1am Thur) then I’ll give you an answer to your question. Don’t try to steer the deal – take it or leave it.

    Deal?

  23. Looks like a Rossi-ite posting storm is coming in to attempt and bury the very bad, terrible, awful, disastrous pitful day that Rossi and Sifferkoll had on Mat’s blog.

    Good for you, good for you! I can see that you are feeling a little better again 🙂 Then perhaps you could answer the simple yes/no question I asked several times;

    Is the Leonardo License Agreement worthless to you/IH in a future business perspective?

  24. @Ascoli65
    I don’t get it. Cut the flow rate by a factor of 10 to 1.76 kg / hr, a decimal shifting error puts the true flow rate near the bottom end of the P18 pump’s rated capacity. That flow requires 1.2 kWh to be converted to steam? Input power was less than 44W. That’s still a COP > 3.

  25. Even I agree with Thomas on the Lugano report emissivity issue. I have also worked out the COP of roughly 2 by using an epislon of 1, and it is also almost certainly wrong, simply because alumina is not a blackbody. Maybe some IR snuck past the Optris in the the transparent band of alumina and where the Optris cannot see, but then it certainly was not measured, and therefore cannot be counted.

    The more IR that leaks out the transparent band of alumina, the less hot it will become, even if it actually makes more (not detectable by Optris) power, because it is not being absorbed by the alumina. Like visible light through a window.
    In the most extreme case, perhaps coherent IR in the shortwave could have been made by some unknown reaction, with an actual COP of >50, but the Lugano Team missed it altogether…because they looked at the wrong IR band…
    Or not…

    (Please Thomas, only one “m” in emissivity).

  26. Hey nckhawk – I think you’re mistaken about “Jacky” – this poster picked the screen name complete with quotation marks as a way of poking fun at Rossi’s perceived posting of questions/comments to himself using pseudonyms.

    So whoever it is is also in the camp of questioning Rossi’s actions.

  27. Jed Rothwell,

    Thanks for the links. Might replications will bring out the truth of the IH Rossi dispute quicker than a court case will? The countries I mention are all attending Expo 2017 ‘Future Energy’, including Saudi Arabia and the U.S. So is Sweden (Sweden has no oil, if they can they will announce it at Expo 2017) Even Norway would like to see LENR replication… like Saudi Arabia they are ready to transition away from carbon energy profits.

    Why the Lugano test in the first place? To encourage replication? What does IH think about this? Are they happy about it? How does it affect their strategy? Do their actions hint that high temp cold fusion is not real?

    Replications

    The questions I’ve posed are unanswerable at this time.

    The following questions you can be reflected upon and answered by someone like you.

    You bring up China, what are your thoughts on the overall chance that each of these replications will reach industrial heat output in time for Expo 2017?

    Thanks GBGoble

  28. Siffercoll apparently rejected my message, in which I said, “It is a bad idea to pick sides when you have only read what one side has to say.” If it turns out I.H. is right, for him to reject even this mild suggestion shows that he is closed minded. Most people would agree with me strictly from the point of view of common sense, and grade-school level fairness, without regard for the content of the dispute.

    Siffercoll has painted himself into a corner. He is certain that he is right, even though he has no inside information, and no idea what I.H. may say in response to the lawsuit. If it turns out I.H. is right, Siffercoll and other Rossi supporters will look exceedingly foolish, when they might have left themselves some leeway. It never hurts to admit that you might be wrong.

    You learn nothing with this attitude. In Bayesian statistics this is referred to as Cromwell’s rule, after the famous quote of Oliver Cromwell, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” Nate Silver summarized this: “Absolutely nothing useful is realized when one person who holds that there is a zero percent probability of something argues against another person who holds that the probability is 100 percent.” (“The Signal and the Noise,” which I am reading at this moment, and which I recommend.)

  29. Jacky – is that all that you have left? Look at it this way – tomorrow is a new day. Get some rest – more fun and games are on the way.

  30. I see we have a new player on the field. I’m kind of mad at myself for not anticipating the “replication manuever” (in your minds eye – picture Heimlich maneuver) . Should have seen that one coming from a mile away. Looks like a Rossi-ite posting storm is coming in to attempt and bury the very bad, terrible, awful, disastrous pitful day that Rossi and Sifferkoll had on Mat’s blog.

  31. As an addendum to my previous comment here is a short translation of the Facebook post:
    ——
    Having met Eng. Fabiani during my work I noted that we have many common interests in the IT and Electronics. For that reason I accepted to work with Eng. Fabiani as consultant for flipper microprocessor boards design . This activity was officially approved by Unibo. Thesis activities are available for students.
    —–
    As you see I do not need to hide behind a nickname as a fearful coward.

  32. Gregory Byron Goble wrote:

    That IH has not said the E-Cat does not work (Rossi claims a much higher COP than they have substantiated…


    Extremely inaccurate and misleading. Here is IH’s actual statement:

    Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success.”

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-statement-on-meritless-litigation-from-leonardo-corporation-and-andrea-rossi-300248066.html?tc=eml_cleartime (also cited earlier by Mats in another thread)

    The only reasonable interpretation of that is that the ecat, in IH’s experience, does not work at all. If it did work, they would have said that they obtained encouraging or maybe “moderate” results, but not to the specifications of the inventor. That is not what they said. They said they could not substantiate the claim. By implication, any part of the claim: “ALL WITHOUT SUCCESS!”

  33. EStorFanFibb wrote: “You telling others not to pick sides yet is really rich. Almost as rich as you and Weaver crapping on Rossi (with no evidence to back it up) and then telling everyone to just shut up about it.”

    You completely misunderstand. I am saying you should not pick my side either! Do not assume that Rossi is correct, and do not assume that I.H. is correct.

    Obviously, Weaver has inside information, which leads him to think Rossi is wrong. Obviously, he cannot reveal that information, because Rossi filed suit. You can be sure that I.H. will reveal it, because otherwise they will automatically lose the lawsuit and be forced to pay $89 million. Unless the two sides settle out of court, you will see the evidence — so just wait.

    To a much smaller extent I too have seen some information from I.H. over the past few years, mainly about other projects. This leads me think I.H. is probably right. You, on the other hand, probably have not seen anything from I.H. So you cannot judge the situation. You should reserve judgement and wait until I.H. makes their case.

    Why is that controversial? How can anyone disagree with it? I am saying you should read both sides before making up your mind. That is common sense.

  34. Less understandable that he did not cross-check temperature with thermocouples.


    Less understandable is a vast understatement considering the controversial nature of the work and the amount of money (tens of millions of dollars) riding on it. How about grossly negligent, incompetent, or crooked? I agree with you, Thomas, that in Levi’s case (not Rossi’s), it is not clear which of those three possibilities it is.

    And at the risk of annoying our host, which I really am NOT trying to do, you can’t mention thermocouples as backup without remembering that there is a huge electrical (Joule) heater in every Rossi ecat or hot cat. If Levi has powered this heater from a well measured power supply with a dummy fuel powder (nonreactive) in the reactor, he could have precisely demonstrated whether or not the measurement method he chose would be accurate with the Joule heater.

    In my opinion, that was the biggest failing of the hot cat experiments, and of course, of *every* demo or experiment from Rossi or his associates that has been made public. Calibration with Joule heat is an absolute gold standard of virtually ALL calorimetry. I would love to ask Levi why it was omitted but of course he doesn’t reply to emails. That alone should tell you quite a bit.

  35. The truth about the E-Cat may be forced out into the by the replications taking place. A few things are for certain. The actions of IH have caused Rossi to not trust them. That IH has not said the E-Cat does not work (Rossi claims a much higher COP than they have substantiated). The lawsuits have caused a delay that may allow others to commercialize before IH can.

    I’m confused about the territory of the (IH) Industrial Heat/Leonardo Corporation Rossi E-Cat licensing agreement. Who is mistaken, Popular Mechanics or SAXO? Last week, 20 April 2016, President Obama met with King Salman of Saudi Arabia. As leaders of the world’s top two oil producing nations; emergent LENR technology, worldwide E-Cat replications, energy/market economy considerations and energy transition strategies are on their minds.

    Popular Mechanics Magazine states:

    “In Cold Fusion 2.0, Who’s Scamming Whom?” David Hambling 20 April 2016

    (IH) “…for licensing rights so they would be able to sell the technology, but only in the U.S.… “
    The Saxo Bank/Saxo Group states:

    In “Saudi Arabia Prepares to Break Oil – Wealth Dependency” Managing Partner Saxo – Stephen Pope 5 April 2016

    (IH) “…has already been granted the license to sell and manufacture energy catalysers “E-Cats” in Saudi Arabia.”

    1) Perhaps KIng Salman and President Obama spoke about Iranian LENR and surface plasmons.

    “The Study of Cavitation Bubble- Surface Plasmon Resonance Interaction For LENR and Biochemical Processes” Farzan Amini 2013

    2) They might have shared concerns about ‘Future Energy’ 2017 and the LENR researchers at the Kazakhstan Institute of Nuclear Physics.

    3) While pursuing the subject of Expo 2017 and LENR in Kazakhstan, the alarming development of the E-Cat replication by Russian physicist, Alexander G. Parkhomov, at the People’s Friendship University of Russia in Moscow, certainly might have been brought up by President Obama or King Salman.

    “The Question of Excess Heat in Nickel-Hydrogen”
    A.N. Ozernoi, M.F. Vereschak, I.A. Ermakova, I.V. Hromushin
    RSE INP Institute of Nuclear Physics of Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Translated to English by Bob Higgins of Accuiti Science & Engineering) (Original in Russian)

    The duration of the testing was limited to 100 hours. During this time the “delta” remained constant (around 25°C), and according to our estimates for the entire test period, the vessel with the fuel produced more than 2 kWH of excess thermal energy. The appearance of the original, and spent “fuel” (ash), which is in the form of a speckled rod having a diameter of about 3 mm, is shown in Figure 7.

    Our experiments have shown convincingly that excess heat was actually produced in the nickel-hydrogen system.

    4) Such an important LENR energy discussion between the rulers of the world’s leading oil producing nations would take on global dimensions, the conversation would certainly cycle thru to China.

    Yes, another E-Cat replication.

    载氢金属异常放热实验

    本报告描述了 E-CAT 装置的复制实验,观察到了明显的异常放热现象

    1、实验反应容器
    容器采用不锈钢制作,圆柱形容器,直径 68mm,桶体长度 150mm,容器壁厚 10mm,

    容器壁上加工一个测温孔,用以插入热电偶测量容器温度,尾部焊接一根不锈钢管,管长 600mm,用以连接真空设备和氢气发生器,容器内置镍制坩埚,坩埚内径 20mm 外径 34mm 高 100mm 深 93mm,坩埚螺纹盖,坩埚内放入 12.7 克燃料,其中氢化铝锂 1.46 克,镍粉 11.24 克。

    “New Songsheng Jiang LENR Tests: Excess Heat for 7 days (Update — New Chinese Replication Announced)“ (E-Cat World article)

    Who is Talking to Who?

    King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is 80 years old. I speculate that the ‘go to guy’ for this type of discussion would be his son, ‘Mr. Everything’, Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, in attendance at the April 2016 US-Gulf Cooperation Council Summit.

    Consider these talking points in the Bloomberg article and you will likely concur.

    “The $2 Trillion Project to Get Saudi Arabia’s Economy Off Oil – Eight unprecedented hours with ‘Mr. Everything’ Prince Mohammed bin Salman” by Peter Waldman 21 April 2016 Bloomberg Businessweek

    Quote

    …King Salman took the throne, he issued a decree naming Prince Mohammed defense minister, chief of the royal court, and president of a newly created council to oversee the economy.

    Prince Mohammed was given control over Saudi Aramco by royal decree 48 hours later.

    …President Obama met the prince at Camp David last May, he said he found him “extremely knowledgeable, very smart, and wise beyond his years.”

    The prince visited Obama at the White House in September…

    …the two men were likely to meet again on April 20…

    a new kind of Middle East potentate—one who tries to emulate Steve Jobs…

    aiming to fulfill what he calls his generation’s “different dreams” for a postcarbon future.

    We believe women have rights in Islam that they’ve yet to obtain,” the prince says.

    On April 25 the prince is scheduled to unveil his “Vision for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” an historic plan encompassing broad economic and social changes.

    …will technically make investments the source of Saudi government revenue, not oil…

    …the gargantuan sovereign fund will team up with private equity firms to eventually invest half its holdings overseas, excluding the Aramco stake, in assets that will produce a steady stream of dividends unmoored from fossil fuels.

    Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has said that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has considered how to face a future where it is no longer so heavily reliant on oil revenues. -end quotes

    News of Obama’s 2016 Gulf State Visit

    “A Look Inside Obama’s Saudi Arabia Visit” by Chris McGonigal
    Huffington Post – 21 April 2016

    US-Gulf Cooperation Council Summit

    Photo left to right: Saudi Defense Minister and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman; Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, crown prince of the Kingdom of Bahrain; Emir of Kuwait Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah; Emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani; Oman Deputy Prime Minister for the Council of Ministers Sayyid Fahd bin Mahmoud al-Said; Obama; King Salman of Saudi Arabia; King of Bahrain Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa; Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan; Saudi Interior Minister Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Gulf Cooperation Council Secretary General Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani pose for a photo during U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Riyadh.

    ‘US, Gulf to work together to deal with low oil prices’ Obama said after a meeting in the Saudi capital with the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council.

  36. @ Thomas Clarke,
    (2) do you agree the Levi figure for pump flowrate in the test he conducted himself was 60% higher than could be delivered by the pump?

    Just for the sake of precision and with reference to the updated version of the jpeg of the pump (1):
    – Water flow rate declared in the Levi’s report: 17.6 kg/h (in the form 143.4 g per 30 s)
    – Maximum capacity of the dosimetric pump: 12 kg/h (=100 stroke/min x 2 cc/stroke)
    – Maximum possible flow rate at the test pace: 7.2 kg/h (= ca. 60 stroke/min x 2 cc/stroke)
    – Minimum possible flow rate at the test pace: 1.52 kg/h (= ca. 60 stroke/min x 0.4 cc/stroke)

    So we have that the flow rate written by Levi in his report was:
    47% higher than the maximum capacity of the pump (at maximum speed),
    144% higher than the maximum possible flow rate at the test pace, and you should consider that this pace was clearly hearable and recognizable for someone, as Levi, who spent two weeks calibrating the pump;
    1050% higher than the minimum possible flow rate at the test pace, and we have no evidence at all that the volume per stroke was set at its maximum possible value of 2 cc, and not at its minimum of 0.4 cc, or in between.

    But we know for sure, by his words, that Levi was aware he was reporting a wrong datum!

    The so-called Macy interview (2) contains this quote by Levi: “After this calibration period I have checked that the pump was not touched and when we brought it here for the experiment it was giving the same quantity of water during all the experiment.”

    Therefore he confirms that the flow rate of the pump has been always constant throughout the entire experiment, and at the value he set during the calibration. But when he explained the procedure of the January 14, 2011, to the guests he said that the flow rate was 12 kg/h, that is the value corresponding to the maximum capacity of the pump, even if he should have easily recognized the lower pace at which the pump was running. Anyway, after his words in the interview, we should assume that he calibrated the pump at his maximum flow rate (12 kg/h), and that this flow rate should have been remained constant during all the experiment.

    Levi’s calorimetric report has been issued after a week from the test, so he had the time to check with his collegues all the data he was going to announce to the world. How is it possible that he wrote a figure (17.6 kg/h) so higher than the datum (12 kg/h) he anticipated during the presentation of the test?

    The quoted Levi words show clearly that he was aware to write a wrong flow rate on his report. But did he decide himself those data. I don’t thik so. Probably the solution of this mistery hides in the very unusual exchange of information on the test data that took place across the Atlantic during that week (3).

    Often, a wrong datum can be even more meaningful of a right one when you look at the times, ways and circumstances of his first appearances.

    (1) “http://i.imgur.com/2GanyYO.jpg”
    (2) “http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf”
    (3) “https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/12/and-heres-the-opposite-hypothesis-on-the-rossi-ih-affair/#comment-4808”

  37. Dear Cimpy and nckhawk here is my post on Facebook searching for students for the Pinball project that is going on. As you see I have NOTHING to hide. Infact all that activity is public.
    Three students have already participated to that activity
    BTW positions for thesis are still open.
    About the figures you published Cimpy, you are making confusion among a contract with an industry and a internal allowance for the two courses that I teach in Cesena, making 160 km every day to go and return to Bologna.
    About the technical issues I had already answered to Mats.

    Giuseppe Levi
    14 settembre 2015 ·
    Avendo conosciuto l’ing. Fulvio Fabiani nel corso della mia attività professionale e condividendo con lui numerosi interessi nel campo dell’informatica e dell’elettronica decisi di accettare un incarico di consulenza presso la sua azienda nell’ambito della progettazione di schede con microcontrollore per Flipper. Tutti gli incarichi sono stati autorizzati dalla Università di Bologna e sono registrati.
    In questo ambito saranno date anche TESI di Laurea. Gli interessati mi contattino.

  38. mats,

    re levi mentioning ‘set emissivity = 1 still gives overunity’ just now fully buried his credibility as a competent tester.

    levi’s statement will go down in the history of this story as an instance of a ‘complete reveal’: levi’s credibiltiy simply does not survive his own statement.

    putting it simply, the issue is how to correctly use the instrument to obtain a power reading, and levi just revealed he fully misunderstands his measuring equipment and resulting measurements.

    this conclusion even holds if we put aside the fact the abysmally inaccurate calorimetry method chosen already strongly gives the indication of incompetence.

    cheers mats. clue, anyone?

  39. Did you watch Perry Mason as a child?

    No, I have no idea what that is.

    Wait for the re-prompt to Mats to monitor his blog for miscreants – that one is overdue.

    If this is referencing what I think you are referencing you can go back to the old thread and see that I was well aware that the person calling for ‘monitoring of the comments’ is not as independent as they would like people to believe. The same person, with the same username is now active at LENR-Forum if you’d like to have a look at their comments there.

  40. Jacky – glad that you’ve come to your senses and I now see that its now comedy central on “animpossibleinvention” – lets just say its comedy happy hour and have some fun. At this pace, the gang will all be here in no time flat and we can have a big truth party.
    Did you watch Perry Mason as a child?

    Wait for the re-prompt to Mats to monitor his blog for miscreants – that one is overdue.

  41. Does anyone doubt that Levi is incompetent or lying in his statements about the Lugano experiment, or the early experiment flowrate (I rely on ascoli for that – but it is very convincing)?

    The Lugano issue is quite complex – understandable that he made the mistake. Less understandable that he did not cross-check temperature with thermocouples. Also less understandable he got an obviously wrong flowrate.

  42. Mats,

    Levi may be competent at pinball microprocessors, but not at understanding thermography.

    I accuse him of inaccuracy (again) yes. Whether incompetence or something else I’d not be able to say. However I’m certain no colleague with relevant competence would agree with him. Would you like to select a neutral competent party to review this? They need to understand that total emmissivity and band emmissivity are different in non-grey bodies.

    It beggars belief that you accept Levi’s statement over my statement, carefully written paper, and support from multiple on-line reviewers and GSVIT experiments.

    You are clearly not competent to evaluate Levi’s argument here, which is wrong. You are however competent to understand why it is wrong if you take the time to read any of:
    (a) GSVIT
    (b) my paper
    (c) Bob H’s paper (but his final calculation is wrong, for reasons I can explain if you want).
    (d) this post

    The fact that Levi talks about setting emmissivity to 1 shows he has no understanding of the key issue. Emmissivity is NOT a single (temperature dependent) number as he assumes. Even you can understand this – but I want to point out that had you read GSVIT or Bob a few years ago you would realise this already.

    The emissivity has two effects:
    (1) obviously it determines the radiant output power. Here higher emmissivity means higher COP.
    (2) it alters the detected temperature. Here higher emmissivity means lower temperature and hence lower COP.

    They are two different emmissivities for these two purposes (1) and (2). Levi’s argument assumes they are the same (wrong), though he understands that they are temperature-dependent.(right)

    For output power you need total emmissivity. That depends on temperature as shown in the report. No disagreement with Levi.

    For setting into the Optris to determine detected temperature you need band emmissivity. That is the spectral emmissivity in the Optris detector band of 7-13um (far infra-red). This is known and has been measured to be about 0.9 and in fact varies very little with temperature. MFMP, GSVIT, I all agree.

    Many materials have total and band emmissivity the same, but alumina is unusual. It has much higher band emmissivity than total emmissivity because at near IR frequencies it changes from higher spectral emmissivity to low speactral emmissivity. This frequency dependent spectral emmissivity combines with the Planck curve to make a varying total emmissivity with temperature, as in the Lugano report. But the band emmissivity depends only on the far infra-red value and that does not change (much) with temperature.

    BTW – Levi is no thermography expert or he would realise that a few materials like alumina are not grey bodies and have very different total and band emmissivities. Or, he is lying. Like, possibly, Rossi’s inability to realise that spiky waveforms make average power measurement wrong? You choose in both cases incompetence or deceit.

    Levi has no excuse for continuing this error after my correction was sent to him. What did he do, just bin it without reading?

    The band emmissivity error from the report was 0.9/0.4. This reduces the temperature by roughly the square root of the ratio – because the Planck curve at the relevant frequency of 7-13um and temperature scales as roughly T^2 (it varies with temperature).

    The reduction in temperature changes total radiant power by T^4. So the overall effect is that the 0.9/0.4 ratio is roughly squared to get the reduction in COP. (A reduction of 5X). This is not the whole story. At a lower temperature the total emmissivity is higher (0.5ish) so we get a factor of X1.25 (0.5/0.4). There are a whole load of other more minor corrections when you do it exactly, and the result ends up close to 1.0.

    The same phenomena accounts for the acceleration in COP with temperature. The real temperature is much lower but the relationship is square law whereas the radiant power relationship is 4th power.

    You can check the band versus total issue with MFMP, though they are pro-Rossi biassed obviously. You can get a fuller easy read intro to this from GSVIT (they have done some further experiments and their work agrees with my theoretical work reanalysing the Lugano data).

    Levi suggests setting emmissivity to 1, to get a COP of 2. That is because he is not realising that the total emmissivity for the alumina is very different from the band emmissivity and from his own graph typically 0.5. We get down to COP=1.

  43. @Mats

    Hermano Tobia asked these questions yesterday. Did you miss them? I didn’t see a response from you. Maybe I missed it. I rely on comments being emailed to me.

    “While we wait for nckhawk answers, I have two questions for you about pre – IH test:

    – in your book you write about a positive test on the ecat performed by ENEL (italian main electric company) , do you have any further detail about that?

    – there is a rumor of an important test performed by Rossi and Focardi in ENEA nuclear facility of Brasimone … do you know anything about that? “

  44. I encourage anyone who finds interesting information to SAVE IT. In of case things being deleted, you will have a copy. A good site to do this is archive.is, or you can simply press CTRL+S to save on your computer. When things like tweets or blog posts are relevant in a court case, they have a tendency to disappear. Just a heads up.

  45. EEE – this is priceless. I didn’t realize that Mats blog was also a home for unemployed comedians.

    Was that a crow I just heard on Planet Rossi?

  46. @Jed Rothwell,

    You telling others not to pick sides yet is really rich. Almost as rich as you and Weaver crapping on Rossi (with no evidence to back it up) and then telling everyone to just shut up about it.

  47. @ Cimpy Ma non hai vergogna?

    Shame is on those who support the scam, shame is on those who expect a miracle from a fraudster, shame is for sparrows who admire a boiler dreaming it could be the Eighth Wonder because of “so said a UNIBO researcher, a retiree of Uppsala confirmed and many have shown their face”. For a few thousands of dollars someone, or even less others, someone even paying for the pleasure, very few for millions.

    Completely free of charges you, who for sure can fly high and wait 3/6/12 months more before blow a raspberry to all those who refuse to believe Santa Claus has come among us in a convict disguise…

    Fly, sparrow, fly. Do not forget:”soon on the market”, soon in your home – but better you check your old boiler will be able to wok this winter: Rossi said there would be no changes on his delivery plan, which means you can wait for…wait, and wait, and wait, and…

  48. But either you accuse Levi for being incompetent, or for making errors on purpose.

    Either or both perhaps? I see no problem with such an accusation because Levi is the guy who had the opportunity to correct his errors in the February 2011, liquid cooled testing and Levi is the guy who wouldn’t share his test records and raw data with Krivit at that time and would not respond to Dr. Josphson’s emails about the issue 2 years ago or so..

  49. @Mats

    Jed was saying there was not enough info on the IH position since they have (naturally) not yet made their reply.

    When I raised the Lugano issue with you last year you said you would wait for the 1 yr test result. That has gone about as bad as possible.

    On the issue of whether Rossi’s stuff works the detailed data here paints a very definite picture of tests all of which are seriously compromised, and a key tester, Levi, who is known unreliable.

    Let us check:

    (0) Do you agree the early public tests show no evidence of extraordinary excess heat – all have known errors, and Rossi refuses to correct these even when it is easy?

    (1) do you agree the 6 Oct 2011 test showed no evidence of LENR? Check the numbers, and the way that every one of the positive points made is clearly wrong by ascoli’s hot core model

    (2) do you agree the Levi figure for pump flowrate in the test he conducted himself was 60% higher than could be delivered by the pump?

    (3) do you agree the Lugano test temp figures show no evidence of excess heat?

    (4) do you agree the Penon reports show clear circumstantial evidence of average/rms mixup leading to the high COP (1st) and that the electrical measurements for the second are easily got wrong by somone who can write a report as Penon does?

    (5) Do you agree that through his history (Petroldragon, TEG) Rossi has been selling technology which claims great things but is not used, and given its importance if claims are real, does not work?

    (6) Do you agree that Rossi’s license, with a large up-front payment, looks very suspicious?

    (7) Do you agree that this JM Products chemical company with claimed parent that seems identical to JM in UK, but is known not to be JM in UK, looks very suspicious?

    This information is all negative for Rossi. When you nput iy together, if you don’t see it as very negative, you are IMHO biassed.

    (8) Do you agree that Levi has been paid 75K Euro in one year by a Rossi-related company?

    (9) Do you agree Fabio F is so heavily involved with Rossi he is no way a fair independent tester for IH?

    (10) Do you agree that the 1st sample of ash provided by Rossi for isotopic analysis contained an admixture of copper grains and therefore was certainly manipulated by Rossi, and that this was deliberate?

    I’ve been collecting these issues – all are previously noted (though I was not aware of them all) but they get lost in the noise.

  50. nckhawk, I guess that you are making a funny somehow but I’m not really sure how (I’m not a native English speaker). I was never a Rossi believer and I’m only using this name because it’s the name one of Rossi’s sockpuppet accounts 🙂 What is this important role that “H” has to play? I am intrigued

  51. This has been such a stellar day on Mat’s blog. We now need evidence to corroborate statements. I guess that was to be expected and is only appropriate after the fanboys had their turn with complete support and encouragement from Mats. Where are all those guys anyway?

    You can hear a pin drop and a snake crawl on Planet Rossi this afternoon.

  52. Jacky – is that you? Leaving the dark side in such haste? I understand that shuttles have been ferrying mutants from Planet Rossi at regular intervals. I’m going to miss some of these characters that we’ve gotten to know and love so well. Tell Rossi that he needs to try and preserve “H” – he still has an important role to play. Also, please tell Rossi that he should keep on eye out for double-agents – you never know who is helping who these days.

  53. Ok Thomas, so I have now been in contact with Levi regarding Lugano. Here’s the situation:

    – He disputes your analysis and he says that he has shown the report to several colleagues with different expertise and they have endorsed it. This is supported by the fact that the report is still online at Bologna U.

    – He also says that the simplest way to dispute your analysis is putting the emissivity to one (1), which according to Levi still gives COP clearly above 1. I have not controlled that calculation, but the logic seems reasonable to me. Emissivity cannot be higher than one, and putting it to one should give the lowest possible temperature calculation, and lowest possible COP. Or?

    – I don’t consider my competence to be enough to assess possible errors in your analysis so I couldn’t make a claim on who is right. I don’t have the time either (I don’t know where you get the time from). But either you accuse Levi for being incompetent, or for making errors on purpose. The second is serious of course, and would need more evidence. But even so, it seems unlikely, as you often say, that several people with different expertise at Bologna U would make the same mistake as Levi in that case.

    So – what about emissivity=1?
    Next step would be an external peer reviewer, not involved with anyone in this story.

    Now I need some sleep.
    Ordinary work + moderation of overflowing blog + fact checking/phone calling + answering questions and comments + family=…

  54. I don’t read Passerini and I only visited Cobraf a few times. There’s too much to follow (I don’t understand how you folks have time – I’m already dedicating way too much time to this story). Furthermore, Cobraf is a horribly bad designed web forum. Really cannot stand it.

  55. @ Cimpy Ma non hai vergogna? Sonno anni che denigri Levi,Rossi,Fabiani,Focardi,Srtemmenos,Piantelli ecc ecc.Abbi vergogna di te.Io sono Italiano e mi sto vergognando per te.Finiscila.

  56. “Your info on Levi needs an explanation of course, and I want you to be careful with conclusions before having and answer from Levi.”
    In the maintime, you could translate that post from Passerini for the readers here around.

    And by the way, nckHawk,
    I did not find that information yesterday, but read it back in october 2014 when Nevanlinna from Cobraf posted about Quantum Leap LLC and later, when he posted links to University transparency files; and then after, when Passerini posted his post in September 2015. I simply paid attention and did not forget.
    Mats has been on Cobraf forum, too, but might be he did not payed attention, and might be he does not read about what Passerini write and wrote.

  57. Ok Cimpy, now I saw the explanation Levi gave at the time. I agree that it might seem strange, but before accusing Levi you would definitely need more evidence. In any case it’s worth following up. Will see what I can do.

  58. A bit more infos:
    Those are links to file that list income of Bologna University professors and researchers (like Levi is) in the years 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015, that for transparency matters are online; if you get the files and search inside for “Levi” you will find for example that in the 2014-2015 year, Giuseppe Levi got 35 thousand euro from “Quantum Leap LLC” (USA) (and 40 thousand euro the year before from “Q.L.T.”)

    when this piece of information has been discovered, Levi posted a tweet on twitter asking for students that would have accept to do a thesis on pinball – that’s what he should have been paied for by Fabiani, who sent pinbal from Italy to Usa on a cargo like the one that is supposed to transport the 1 MW plant. In few time, Daniele Passerini published an article in his blog with Levi quest:
    http://22passi.blogspot.it/2015/09/cercansi-laureandi-unibo-per-tesi-di.html

    There you can read: “Questo pomeriggio Giuseppe Levi ha pubblicato e condiviso questo annuncio sul proprio profilo facebook:
    Avendo conosciuto l’ing. Fulvio Fabiani nel corso della mia attività professionale e condividendo con lui numerosi interessi nel campo dell’informatica e dell’elettronica decisi di accettare un incarico di consulenza presso la sua azienda nell’ambito della progettazione di schede con microcontrollore per Flipper. Tutti gli incarichi sono stati autorizzati dalla Università di Bologna e sono registrati.
    In questo ambito saranno date anche TESI di Laurea. Gli interessati mi contattino.
    Considerato che il Dr Levi ha conosciuto l’ing. Fabiani (Quantum Leap LLC) grazie all’E-Cat di Andrea Rossi, possiamo dire che si tratta di una ricaduta inaspettata dal mondo delle LENR a quello del pinbal… del resto proprio a Bologna si trova il Museo del flipper!

    Ma non è uno scherzo. Il progetto di tesi per l’Alma Mater sui microcontrollori per flipper è estremamente serio e si cercano laureandi in gamba!

    Passerini himself i writing that ing (oh yes, Eng, ingeniun, of course) Fabiani is from Quantum Leap LLC and the connection is: pinball

  59. Cimpy – checked the spamfilter (which I never did before) and found some more old posts. Your info on Levi needs an explanation of course, and I want you to be careful with conclusions before having and answer from Levi. I will check. Therefore I wait to pick up your previous similar comments from the sam filter.

  60. nckhawk – I saw your post on him playing the medical card the other day, and it appears he is setting himself up for exactly that.

    It is well known by now that he posts questions to himself on JONP. I won’t rehash all the signs that makes this obvious here, but yesterday he “asked” himself this:

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    I saw a recent photo of you: compared to the photos of you we saw one year ago, you appear 10 years older. It is impressing how much you consumed yourself in this year inside the 1 MW E-Cat. How is your health ? You are too important to us, everybody has understood that LENR without you are at zero level, with or without IH.
    God bless you,
    Jeff

    His answer was:

    Jeff:
    No recent photos of me are supposed to have been made, let alone to go around: where did you find it, please ?
    Thank you for your sympathy: I am recovering well.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  61. As to my understanding, to move forward towards a clearer picture there are very few here that have information they can or are allowed to share.

    Mr nckhawk is apparently one of those people who is sitting on more information than others who seems to be able to speak freely.

    In light of some previous comments, on this blog, and on other blogs, it seems to me that Mr nckhawk answers to open questions, because the answer can be unsubstansiated, however direct leading questions are often avoided.

    So – in an attempt to get a clearer picture of things, I would like to ask Mr nckhawk a few direct questions:

    1: The statement of IH in March stated: “We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have verified our results in repeated experiments.” I interpret this as you acting on your own behalf and that your claims should not be relied upon.
    Do you agree this is IH’s standpoint in terms of things you write and say on the Internet? Y / N

    2: Is the Leonardo license agreement worthless to you / IH? Y / N

    3: Assuming there is no NDA or legal consequences from IH prohibiting you from speaking about Rossi and IH relationships – can you please specify the date when Tom Darden and Jt Vaughn decided to believe that Rossi’s technology does not work.

    4: Have you yourself measured and performed tests with e-cats built by Leonardo, or Industrial Heat, and if so, can you please share this data with us.

    5: You are one of the persons who stated (as we’ve seen) that the technology works. And admittingly claims to have had vested interest in the technology. Do you understand why I scratch my head when YOUR company group is being sued by Rossi? Should it not be the other way around?

    6: On what basis do you make the claim that the technology does not work? Please be specific.

    7: Do you personally believe that LENR works in general, or that no LENR technology works?

    8: Based on your claims on the E-cat, how much (LITTLE) money would it take for someone to purchase IH”s E-cat licenses for Saudi Arabia, Russia, America etc.

    9: It is clear that IH and CO want to purchase a lot more IP, we’ve seen that because I shared the information about a web page that was being constructed. If these companies that are being bought up are able to pass through several layers of INDEPENDENT REPUTABLE THIRD PARTIES – do you still think it’s cool not to carry out contractual obligations?

    10: Do you feel that A.R has held back any IP from IH that he was contractually obligated to hand over, and in such case, what?

    11: What feedback if any have you had from Tom Darden and JT Vaughn on your public discussion?

    12: Can you guarantee to me, and all of us, on your honour, that IH will make the claim that the technology does not work at all. Or – do you simply not know?

    Looking forward to getting to the truth, whatever it might be –

    Kindly /

  62. Cimpy – know anyone who understands Italian that can better dig out these links purportedly implying that Fabiani paid Levi for a pinball consulting contract?

    Darden knew the risk around the bet on Rossi and cleary explained that to all of us. We’re big boys and bet with our eyes wide open. Fortunately, we also spread our bets. Can’t win them all.

    Rossi may have larger problems than IH on his hands and I’m not talking about his upcoming playing of the medical card. He has seriously miscalculated this time around. That crow he was dreaming about doesn’t represent or belong to a private company. His character assisination campaign has backfired on him. Watch for him to move JNOP back to QuarkX, massive productions, new customers, orders , orders, orders, etc…. Maybe some of his fanboys can help him better interpret his tennis court hallucinations.

  63. the two lines you’re looking for inside those files are
    (reearcher, payer, due for, competence time from-to school year, euro)
    “LEVI GIUSEPPE RICERCATORE Q.L.T. CONSULENZE TECNICHE 01/08/2013 31/07/2014 40000

    and
    “LEVI GIUSEPPE RICERCATORE United States Quantum Leap LLC ( U.S.Q.L.) CONSULENZE TECNICHE 01/08/2014 31/07/2015 35000”

    compare with normal budget: for example:
    “2014 32592 LEVI GIUSEPPE RU RU 12 INGEGNERIA E SCIENZE INFORMATICHE HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING 60 0 02/03/2015 05/06/2015 2.260,50 2.999,68”

    “2014 32592 LEVI GIUSEPPE RU RU 12 INGEGNERIA E SCIENZE INFORMATICHE LINGUAGGI VISUALI PER IL CONTROLLO DEI SISTEMI 60 60 02/03/2015 05/06/2015 2.260,74 3.000,00

    around 6K – less than one sixth…And it was better than previous year…

  64. Let me repeat something I posted at Siffercoll’s blog:

    I do not think you should take sides in this argument between Rossi and I.H. until you have had a chance to see what I.H. says in response to the lawsuit. It is a bad idea to pick sides when you have only read what one side has to say. There is a great deal about this situation that you do not know.

    If Rossi is right you will have plenty of time to attack I.H. later on. If he is wrong, defending him will not do him any good, and it will make you look like a fool. I advise you to suspend judgement and wait.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    I do not understand this rush to judgement. WHY does anyone think it is okay to pick sides when you have not yet given I.H. a chance to make their case? What reason do you have to assume that Rossi is right, and I.H. is wrong? I am not saying you should support I.H. now. You should remain neutral and wait. Do not try to judge a situation you know nothing about.

  65. Let’s try again: from here:
    2013_2014
    http://www.unibo.it/it/ateneo/amministrazione-trasparente/archivio-amministrazione-trasparente/archivio-personale/archivio-incarichi-conferiti-e-autorizzati-ai-dipendenti/archivio-incarichi-conferiti-o-autorizzati-a-docenti-e-ricercatori/incarichi-conferiti-o-autorizzati-a-docenti-e-ricercatori-anno-2013/

    and here:
    2014_2015
    http://www.unibo.it/it/ateneo/amministrazione-trasparente/archivio-amministrazione-trasparente/archivio-personale/archivio-incarichi-conferiti-e-autorizzati-ai-dipendenti/archivio-incarichi-conferiti-o-autorizzati-a-docenti-e-ricercatori/incarichi-conferiti-o-autorizzati-a-docenti-e-ricercatori-anno-2014/

    you can get some files, expecially those where you can read “Incarichi extraistituzionali autorizzati dall’Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna”.
    There will be the files where Levi money from Fabiani has been registered.
    You will find a line for 2013 about 40k euro and a line in 2013 for 35K.
    You can compare those with other files in same pages where you can still find Levi with ordinary moneu fom ordinary courses and see how Fabiani gave him around 7 times what he usually got to play with in a whole year each time. And for a nicer job: cheating in front of a camera for some days of the year, and play around for the rest of time, instead of keeping boring lessons and unwanted students examinations…

    There were more detailed links in previous comment, but it seems as if they are not allowed to be posted.These are public information from University of Bologna, and are facts.

  66. No way fro my previous comment to spring out? A mater to find out Levi has really been payed by Fabiani?

    In any case:

    more significantly evidence and data

    ! More than Rossi’s criminal story? More than this criminal story? What do you need, Mats? It is true that it was not eough for you to be in front of Hyperion, but at least you could claim there were few infos on Greek team (at least in our both countries) while Gamberale sounded honest (and then, now you know – as he did not even get money – how much smart and clever…)

    nckhawk,
    Several fascinating projects that we’ve picked have ended up being good technical bets that work at the equation / prototype level then get paused at the scale stage waiting on a material science solution

    Like TEG, which worked only if handcrafted and notgiven to anyone.
    But I am sure you have seen something better. In any case, Haven’t lost much money on related bets though, I am glad for you – or it might be you realy have a lot of money to waste, who knows? What is not too much for one could be a treasure for someone else who could be temted to lie, like Gantini did, for what you could think is a plate of supper…

    Forget other scams, focus on this one: do you really believe Darden was not aware E Cat did not (as does not today, too) work back in 2013? And in 2012? And in 2011?

    You know he stated one of the paper that conviced him was TPR1? Have you read it and critics that arose around it? Try a second reading, now that it seems you know you’ve been fooled.

  67. @MisterMitte:

    Yes!

    It would be interesting to also find out from the neighbours what has been going on over the last year at that location!

  68. Argon, it is not about previous tests. The aim ot the thread is to understand the IH-Rossi affair, who is good, who is bad. Basically, it dependes on if the Rossi effekt is real or not.

    I realise I set more store by the tests than others – mainly because I’m confident in my ability to look at the reports, and the existing analyses, and come to a decent conclusion.

    But surely whether the Rossi effect “works” must be ralated to whether it has ever been shown to work in these tests?

    All the “who did what when can clearly be read both ways” – if you try hard enough to find pro-Rossi theories.

  69. Cimpy – I’m not aware of the projects that you mention and not sure why you want the conversation to go that way. I’ve seen some pretty darn interesting and inventions machines over the years. Haven’t lost much money on related bets though. Several fascinating projects that we’ve picked have ended up being good technical bets that work at the equation / prototype level then get paused at the scale stage waiting on a material science solution. Stronger and lighter materials mainly. There are some really cool old guys out there who can do the math by hand and really understand electricity, chemistry and physics. These are the guys that solved big problems such as RMS power, triggering, superfast high power switches, etc…

  70. Mats,

    While I applaud your search for the truth with these blog posting, unfortunately they appear to have generated more infighting then useful information.

    With that being said, I’m curious about the company location that was used to test the 1MW E-Cat, I’ve seen on other sites that Rossi says the location is still used by his client, but apparently this location is available for rent: http://warehousespaces.com/warehouse-for-rent/United-States/FL/Doral/2082

    Is this the wrong address?

    Is the web listing wrong?

    Or is Rossi wrong?

    Also see: http://www.yellowpages.com/doral-fl/mip/jm-products-corp-503126960

    You decide, maybe someone that lives close to this location could drive out and take a look, as that would end much of the speculation and provide some insight as to if Rossi “might” be lying.

    I will try to call WAREHOUSESPACES.COM – (888) 979-5899) today and inquire is the location is currently available for rent.

  71. Gunnar, I really don’t think we’ll reach a conclusion here without having more significantly evidence and data. It would surprise me if you don’t agree.

  72. Argon, it is not about previous tests. The aim ot the thread is to understand the IH-Rossi affair, who is good, who is bad. Basically, it dependes on if the Rossi effekt is real or not. In the end, Mats has to decide how to reach a conclusion.

  73. Meant to say ‘So ‘voting’ based only on old reports, would not be intelligent thing to do.’
    @Matts maybe you edit my original and remove this.

  74. @Gunnar Lindberg while I accept principles you propose if we would ONLY talk about scientific studies, or past E-cat test reports. Unfortunately we are not quite yet there that we could just analyze reports, there are so much other factors in play. This is not just scientific facts question, since there might be business interests, secrecy, competition reasons etc. that could lead two parties have so different story and bending the truth. If both parties would be truthful there would not be court case. Yes?

    Before we see court hearings and evidence put up there, we don’t quite know what are the facts that allowed each party to end up to so conflicting conclusions. So ‘voting’ based only on old reports, would be intelligent thing to do. Just take wait and see position and enjoy the ride.

  75. Everyone – try sticking to the subject with essential facts please. We’re starting to go astray.

  76. About Levi and Fabiani I send a reply with some links to pubic documents hosted by University of Bologna. It i up to Mats to bring out that comment from moderation and let you follow links to money to see with your own eyes.
    I also included a small comment on KiteGen, which, the way it is told by Ippolito, is clearly a scam.

  77. Heinz – you made a comment on Torkel which was a personal insult a clearly over the limit. Don’t cross that line again or I’ll have to block you from commenting here.

  78. CimPy. Lets not turn this into a huge off-topic discussion, but how is KiteGen a fraud?! It’s basically just a collapsable kite and a generator. What’s the issue?

  79. @guest

    The reason for the hostility and aggressiveness of his posts now becomes clear.

    Maybe you should have told @nckhawk that, when he was running around hinting me, Mats (and others I guess) with consequences on our reputation and stuff if we were not to back off our positions.

  80. So far, we have tried to find the truth without thinking much about what kind of truth, how do we recognize the truth, who have the ability to contribute to the truth.

    Truth is a complicated thing. In science, we do not talk about truth. What we are looking for is the best possible explanation for what we observe. This is a quite straightforward when things are studied but become complicated when humans are involved. The best we can hope for is to arrive close to a consensus. So, how close is close enough and who can contribute?

    Traditionally we accept less then five percent risk to be wrong as good enough. Maybe we will have to vote to establish our kind of truth. We know the truth when more than 95 precent agree.

    To contribute, you must be prepared to accept any outcome when you find the evidence compelling. Thus, individuals who under no circumstances will give up ther a priori belief can not participated in searching for truth. Let’s call them pathosceptics and pathobelivers. They are out.

  81. @Tom

    You might want to take a more even-handed and responsbile attitude for the sake of the larger LENR community?

    Well, I believe that is what I’m doing actually. What about you?

  82. I am quite sure Vaughn and Darden already know.
    As those who put moneywill not sue Darden, he has already win half battle to put his piece of treasure secure.

    Nchawk, if you still want to invest in some scams, you could always try with a lot of revolutionary machines, and even with old ones renewed, which have even more support by science than cold fusion. KiteGen, for example, is another fraud that promise to save the world. Or you could follow Hydromoving or even discover that vibrational motors projects are still out there, waiting for someone to imvest on them, knowing it is a high risky investment…

  83. @plazma_max

    I can not respond directly to the question, I do not know what solves Industrial Heat.

    Good. That was to be expected. I suspect @nckhawk could give a better aswer actually since he is directly involved.

  84. Cimpy,
    I know that some time ago it became public that Fulvio Fabiani contracted Levi to support/consult him in his “pinball business”. However this information mainly circulated on Italian blogs only.
    Can you give a summary (preferably suported by links to documents) for the ones who don’t speak Italian?

  85. Hey, Sifferkol, what do you think about this? It blows the hot cat tests completely out of the water.

    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/

    The conclusion:

    Conclusions
    The MFMP experimental data are in agreement with those reported in the literature and confirm that the procedure and the Emissivity values, used by the TPR2 AA for measurements by the thermal imager, are incorrect. The GSVIT experimental test further showed that the pure Alumina Spectral Emissivity, in the reading field of the camera used to testing the Hot-Cat, is greater than 0.90. These data are very different from those plotted and used in the TPR2 by the AA that appear to be those related to Alumina Total Emissivity. In the 1200-1400°C temperature range, the TPR2 Plot1 considers an emissivity of about 0.40 while, according to the literature, the Spectral Emissivity, in the camera reading field, is stable around values close to 0.95. This kind of error can lead to a significant overestimation of the surface temperature and to an overestimation of thermal Power by a factor 2 or more. An error of such proportions (which appears likely in the light of the measurements) makes not reliable, in our opinion, the TPR2 measurement results of the heat produced by the Hot-Cat; on the contrary, a simple Mass Flow Calorimetry, similar to the one shown in a previous Post of ours, would have been feasible and most accurate.

    I hope IH follows some blog or other that covers these papers. I doubt it though. So maybe someone who has the time can make the effort to send this information to Darden and Vaughn.

  86. sifferkoll
    “So, I’m asking again;Is the Leonardo License Agreement worthless from a IH future business perspective?”(с)
    ——
    I can not respond directly to the question, I do not know what solves Industrial Heat.
    But I can imagine that if you lose A.Rossi trial in this case, Industrial Heat may nominate a counter-claim and withdraw the money paid for the license agreement and make A.Rossi bankrupt.

  87. Talk about endless repetitions

    Sorry I have to be the bringer of bad news Mary. But at this forum you have been totally trashed by Tom in your productivity contest, You might have to subscribe to one of his LuganoConspiracyBots® … I heard they are awesome 😀

  88. @plazma_max @nckhawk

    You will be throwing them out the window on the highway?
    Or just put it in a paper folder and uncheck on a shelf in the closet, as a reminder to himself that he acted rashly? Observes Industrial Heat license agreement or reject it, in fact it is the decision of the owner over his property They are free to do whatever you like with the license and it is not proof device works or not.

    Ok. Of course I understand that a valid agreement might have some value from the sole fact that it has a value for someone else (ie. Rossi) maybe in a settlement discussion or whatever. But that is something different and not what I’m asking. Is this clear enough for you?

    So, I’m asking again;Is the Leonardo License Agreement worthless from a IH future business perspective?

  89. @Siffrkoll

    @Tom
    if you give me names at Bologna U who disagree with my analysis I’ll happily communicate with them privately and explain to them why they are wrong.
    ——-

    Well, if I want someone to be drowned in endless repetitions, I’ll let you know … Come to think of it, why dont you and MaryYugo become penpals; it’ll be like an perpetuum mobile, it’ll never stop … Maybe you can patent it.

    Why don’t you say what you mean? Either there is nobody at U of B or they didn’t say what you cite or they did an incompetent job. Why else would you not reveal their names. Could it be Levi? The coffee-maker expert?

    Talk about endless repetitions, look at Rossi’s hiding behind NDA’s, rehash of robotized plants, cheap manufacture of isotopes, and ever better and more powerful, nonexistent prototypes such as the “Quark”. Now that is boring yet you don’t complain about it!😀

  90. It seems clear that Sifferkoll does indeed have a direct financial interest in either Leonardo, HydroFusion, or some other Rossi affiliated company given his refusal to answer that direct question.

    The reason for the hostility and aggressiveness of his posts now becomes clear.

  91. @Sifferkoll

    BTW. If you didn’t notice I’m biased pro-Rossi in this saga.

    You might want to take a more even-handed and responsbile attitude for the sake of the larger LENR community?
    🙂

  92. sifferkoll,

    Good.
    Let’s say you bought on the stock exchange securities in $11 million.
    And then they are impaired in one day.
    You will be throwing them out the window on the highway?
    Or just put it in a paper folder and uncheck on a shelf in the closet, as a reminder to himself that he acted rashly?
    Observes Industrial Heat license agreement or reject it, in fact it is the decision of the owner over his property.
    They are free to do whatever you like with the license and it is not proof device works or not.
    Yes, I know that you are on the side of A.Rossi and accuse opponents of deliberate misinformation, based on the financial interests of the enemies in the Industrial Heat.
    But when you were asked about a financial interest in the companies A.Rossi You did not answer directly.

  93. @plazma_max

    As I understand it, a license fee was paid huge sums of money. This property. Regardless running or not running. Even if you bought a useless thing, you can get it in the attic or in the closet, but do not throw away.

    Ok, lets put sentimental values and other nonsense aside and focus on the business value. Is it worthless or not?

    BTW. If you didn’t notice I’m biased pro-Rossi in this saga.

  94. @Andrea.S
    What else is needed to convince you that emissivity was flawed in the Lugano report?

    Really my point was another one [I fully agree with the emissivity issue in Lugano report].

    If you have doubt about how emissivity is to be evaluated [as IH had], then you must have good physics knowledge and good measurement practice [like you, GSVIT, Bob Higgins, Tom Clarke, etc]. But if you do, it’s very hard to believe you did not try the most obvious thing that sorts the issue out, that is a ballpark differential test with ad empty dogbone with an electric heater inside and a thermocouple.

    Besides nckhawk told us that Rossi did not allow any pre-test, which does not match with the above reconstruction, maybe he can clarify.

    There’s one thing that puzzles me. Calorimetry to assess a COP, let’s say, greater than 2 is not rocket science at all. Every medium skilled HVAC technician could perform it in hours. There are very simple setups (like the one I proposed here, 1) where errors and/or deceptions are pratically impossible, Rossi or not Rossi.

    If you are going to shell out 10M [but even 10K i’d say], you’re supposed to hire the best expertise to be 100% sure that you’re not buying an electric heater, being that check very, very easy. And if you do not, and the gadget turns out to be an extravagant electric stove, well, boy, you deserved it.

    (1) https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/20/lets-join-forces-to-bring-out-the-truth-on-rossi-ih-affair/#comment-4905

  95. I understand you when there is an attack on A.Rossi need to protect.
    But there is a question about the “independence” of judgment in this case.
    Accusing some of being biased opinion, it is impossible to assert that there is no prejudice to the other party. Is not it?

    As I understand it, a license fee was paid huge sums of money.
    This property. Regardless running or not running.
    Even if you bought a useless thing, you can get it in the attic or in the closet, but do not throw away.

  96. What’s the shame?

    Completely agree. No shame at all.

    But it is even more important to know if @nckhawk considers the Leonardo License agreement worthless, or not. Don’t you think?

  97. Well, if I want someone to be drowned in endless repetitions, I’ll let you know

    That is a bit off. We are talking here about clearly written science that refuted the Lugano calculations and is supported by multiple independent groups (me, GSVIT, Bob H). They’d just need one refutation of the work – but because this is just hearsay from mats with no published material we cannot evaluate it.

    No-tech guys think sometimes that maths is arguable like other speculative stuff. it is not – any mathematician who is honest (and there are not that many dishonest) will end up agreeing whether things are correct or no, though they may need a bit of to and fro before this happens because people often leave things out, and so make mistakes, unless made to write up everything clearly.

  98. It is clear that Tom’s considerations are identical to ours [our wotk is referenced by Tom].
    The approach followed by TPR2 authors cannot be considered valid. They were simply wrong.

    Absolutely: GSVIT and Bob Higgins both noticed the issue and I am indebted to them, and references there work explicitly. Bob however did not follow through with a correct quantitative adjustment, which confused matters.

    If there is somone at UoB saying we are wrrong then I’m sure they have not looked in detail at the existing literature, or else are operating outside their domain of competence (both can happen!).

    Mats – who is this UoB guy?

  99. @NewGuest

    Since you did not answer the question ‘Do you hold shares in Hydrofusion or any other entity with LENR related business?’ with a straight NO, I take this as that you are not only emotionally invested in the e-cat affair. Feel free to correct me if that is a wrong understanding.

    Do you have problem with deductive logic?

    If you read my blog though, you will know that my main strategy since the start has been buying otm puts in oil and energy related products, like solar, fracking, etc. Needless to say it has been profitable, a LENR industrial scale official break-through would certainly be even better …

    From oilprice.com March 13:
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/crude-lenr-brief1.pdf
    From this january.
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/even-at-below-35-oilprice-big-oil-banks-are-short-252000-contracts-in-wti-crude/

  100. @guest

    also important given that Sifferkoll blasted NCKhawk for making this same statement as being “an ad hominem attack” which now has a proven factual basis

    As you might realize there is no contradiction here. There could be loyalty and doing an excellent job incl being loyal to his customer. Only when fraud is hinted it becomes ad-hominem.

  101. @Tom

    if you give me names at Bologna U who disagree with my analysis I’ll happily communicate with them privately and explain to them why they are wrong.

    Well, if I want someone to be drowned in endless repetitions, I’ll let you know … Come to think of it, why dont you and MaryYugo become penpals; it’ll be like an perpetuum mobile, it’ll never stop … Maybe you can patent it. 😀

Comments are closed.