Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Nick Palmer]

Mouthy Mary - filtered to junk email folder


Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it

Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer
http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:06 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> If I recall, Uri was tricked once by a scientist controlling the stage
>> props and he failed.  I would like to have seen that one.
>>
>
Off topic:  but here are the images and more discussion of how Geller was
fooling gullible people including scientists with his psychic photography
and how he was caught.  And there is much more about Geller in this New
Scientist article-- nauseating amounts:

*http://tinyurl.com/7dtb82q* 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Jed Rothwell]

Marcello Vitale  wrote:


> So, it should be more "financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash
> from VERY credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy
> agreements IN OTHERWISE VERY WISHY-WASHY CONTRACTS THEY CANNOT ENFORCE",
> and all that because convinced by the shining personality of Rossi and his
> perfectly run experiments, and neglecting to take along a lawyer. OK,
> hypnosis could be an explanation, then.
>

Well said! That's hysterical.

Rossi: the confidence-man who inspires no confidence.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:06 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> If I recall, Uri was tricked once by a scientist controlling the stage
> props and he failed.  I would like to have seen that one.
>

He was tricked by an editor of Popular Photography magazine who used a
fisheye super wide angle lens without telling Geller when he attempted
"psychic photography".  The resulting images showed that Geller was using
sleight of hand and not psychic power to produce the images.  I don't have
time to search for the images but an article about the test appears here:

http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/photb.htm

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[David Roberson]

You know that us technical types would prefer to have a large, accurate volume 
of data to review, but that is not going to happen anytime soon.  We are forced 
to work doggedly on what we are given and much can be learned by what has been 
demonstrated thus far.  A lot of concentrated data would answer all of your 
questions quickly, but I still suspect that more questions would pop up.

If I recall, Uri was tricked once by a scientist controlling the stage props 
and he failed.  I would like to have seen that one.

We might tend to be a little too trusting, but it takes trust to make things 
work.  I have found that you can keep lawyers busy forever if you are making a 
contract that requires absolutely every item to be fool proof and without any 
trust in the other party.  My conclusion is that you should not do business 
with anyone you do not trust.

Rossi is bull headed, elusive, and a lot of other things, but he is a great 
hands on guy that gets the job done.  We need a lot more people with those 
characteristics. (Less bull headed would be better I think)

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.





On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

Lets try to discuss the technical details on occasions instead of the scamming 
part of things.  It is much more interesting to most of us technical types.



Sure.  But the problem is that many essential technical details are mostly 
lacking or are unreliable because they all come only from Rossi.  So I see a 
lot of conjecture just based on what Rossi says.  For example that he has had a 
customer and has made a delivery.  Such conjecture is amusing but not very 
informative.  Jed's input is also interesting but for too much of it, he can't 
produce any reliable documentation and for some of it, he can't even say who 
saw what much less what they said!   

And for some of us, the possibility that after all this time and all the tests, 
this could still be (and is likely to be, IMO) a scam is part of the 
fascination.  Sorry if you don't share that amusement. Technical types tend not 
to be suspicious and they want a wonderful story to be true.  They are some of 
the most easily scammed.  The example that comes to mind again is the ruthless 
and amazing way Uri Geller scammed no less that Puthoff and Targ and even the 
journal "Nature" into believing that he had psychic powers and could bend and 
alter metals with his mind alone.  It's a good story to remember.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:26 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Lets try to discuss the technical details on occasions instead of the
> scamming part of things.  It is much more interesting to most of us
> technical types.
>

Sure.  But the problem is that many essential technical details are mostly
lacking or are unreliable because they all come only from Rossi.  So I see
a lot of conjecture just based on what Rossi says.  For example that he has
had a customer and has made a delivery.  Such conjecture is amusing but not
very informative.  Jed's input is also interesting but for too much of it,
he can't produce any reliable documentation and for some of it, he can't
even say who saw what much less what they said!

And for some of us, the possibility that after all this time and all the
tests, this could still be (and is likely to be, IMO) a scam is part of the
fascination.  Sorry if you don't share that amusement. Technical types tend
not to be suspicious and they want a wonderful story to be true.  They are
some of the most easily scammed.  The example that comes to mind again is
the ruthless and amazing way Uri Geller scammed no less that Puthoff and
Targ and even the journal "Nature" into believing that he had psychic
powers and could bend and alter metals with his mind alone.  It's a good
story to remember.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[David Roberson]

Fun it is.  But you must realize that saying something does not make it so.  
Why should both sides of this discussion have to repeat or shout their 
positions over and over?  Lets try to discuss the technical details on 
occasions instead of the scamming part of things.  It is much more interesting 
to most of us technical types.

Just call it a truce and move on.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.





On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:32 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

Rossi's machine has been shown to work to me.  It has been discussed on many 
occasions which you do not accept.  So, I guess we should realize that there is 
not possible compromise except for the future ahead.
 
We all know that the skeptics believe that Rossi may be scammingleave it at 
that.  Why repeat it?  Do you believe that we have not heard you enough times?  
Please respond.
 



I responded to other such comments.  I think it's important to answer believers 
whenever they say something strange or wrong in support of Rossi.  Not to do 
that would leave the wrong impression.  Not everyone reads every post as is 
evident from the continuing rash of unsupported claims -- that Rossi has a 
customer, that he's turning down investments, that he never accepted money, and 
so on.   This is a discussion.  Some points bear repeating especially since so 
many people don't seem to grasp them.  Sometimes, saying it again a slightly 
different way helps to clarify the issue further.  Admittedly, sometimes it 
doesn't seem to.

What's interesting about Rossi's story is that there seems to be a new twist on 
it every day.  Now we have the Swedish company with a nuclear physicist that 
admits they didn't do due diligence and have some sort of undisclosed contract 
with Rossi.  And there is Rossi's association with Schneider who makes 
extremely bizarre claims that Peter Heckert was kind enough to provide in 
English from the German original.  It's tons of fun, this story!

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:32 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Rossi's machine has been shown to work to me.  It has been discussed on
> many occasions which you do not accept.  So, I guess we should realize that
> there is not possible compromise except for the future ahead.
>
> We all know that the skeptics believe that Rossi may be scammingleave
> it at that.  Why repeat it?  Do you believe that we have not heard you
> enough times?  Please respond.
>
>

I responded to other such comments.  I think it's important to answer
believers whenever they say something strange or wrong in support of
Rossi.  Not to do that would leave the wrong impression.  Not everyone
reads every post as is evident from the continuing rash of unsupported
claims -- that Rossi has a customer, that he's turning down investments,
that he never accepted money, and so on.   This is a discussion.  Some
points bear repeating especially since so many people don't seem to grasp
them.  Sometimes, saying it again a slightly different way helps to clarify
the issue further.  Admittedly, sometimes it doesn't seem to.

What's interesting about Rossi's story is that there seems to be a new
twist on it every day.  Now we have the Swedish company with a nuclear
physicist that admits they didn't do due diligence and have some sort of
undisclosed contract with Rossi.  And there is Rossi's association with
Schneider who makes extremely bizarre claims that Peter Heckert was kind
enough to provide in English from the German original.  It's tons of fun,
this story!

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[David Roberson]

Rossi's machine has been shown to work to me.  It has been discussed on many 
occasions which you do not accept.  So, I guess we should realize that there is 
not possible compromise except for the future ahead.

We all know that the skeptics believe that Rossi may be scammingleave it at 
that.  Why repeat it?  Do you believe that we have not heard you enough times?  
Please respond.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Mary Yugo 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.





On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:16 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

Actually, we are getting bored by her continued repetition of the same old 
arguments so we are resorting to the same methods


It's not boring but it is certainly amazing and amusing that people keep 
counting chickens that are as far from hatching now as they were last January.  
On the other hand, it's boring to hear theory after theory about *how* Rossi's 
machine works before it has been properly proven *that* Rossi's machine works  
(Rossi is creating "cold" now, is he?) .
 


Why do we have to keep repeating the same lines just to keep her old points 
alive? ...


 
You skeptics need to find real issues to harp upon instead of rehashing the 
same old lineRossi did not test it wellHe is scamming...etc.

Those responses are only presented when people keep insisting and writing as if 
 Rossi's device has been properly proven to work.  It most certainly has not.  
And the response is that Rossi *may* be scamming, not that he has been proven 
to be scamming -- perhaps this subtle distinction isn't clear for you because 
you continue to misstate the skeptical position.

If determining whether Rossi's machine works or not is not a "real issue" to 
you, what is and why? 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:

> not investing for two basic reasons
> - I have no money, hence I cannot benefit from your generous laying out of
> your life to protect the rich and stupid
>

Many people who contributed money now lost to the scams I named were
neither rich nor stupid.  They were bamboozled and flummoxed by clever if
somewhat standard methods.  Some were retail (Lee and Otto).  Others were
pretty wholesale-- they involved large stock deals (Sniffex).  Steorn
involved substantial investors some of whom contributed more than a million
Euros.  Yes they did not do due diligence.  Neither did the guys who set up
ecat.com.  They admit it in the NyTeknik article.  And they won't reveal
the nature of their contract with Rossi.  One of those people is a
qualified nuclear physicist, who of all people, should know better.


> - Daniele Passerini, whom I could go through to invest, has stated that
> Rossi refused to take money from willing investors
>

And Passerini gets his information from where?  Rossi of course.  For
release on his blog, of course.  I say again:  please support your position
that Rossi isn't taking money by naming one large company or investor who
has been turned down by Rossi and who has complained about it.  Maybe there
are some out there but so far we don't know about them.  I suspect he's
turning down orders (or putting them on backlog) for megawatt plants by the
drove but that's because I suspect they all require due diligence and
proper testing before money is handed over.  I will guess he says he has
too many orders already.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Marcello Vitale]

not investing for two basic reasons
- I have no money, hence I cannot benefit from your generous laying out of
your life to protect the rich and stupid
- Daniele Passerini, whom I could go through to invest, has stated that
Rossi refused to take money from willing investors

I'd also like to note that none of the examples you gave include secrecy,
and most involved "retail sale" to small guys, not well lawyered up.

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:
>
> However, it does not fit the available information, which seems to
>> indicate that Rossi is refusing investments because he wants to maintain
>> control.
>
>
> Really?  How do you know?  Do you have Rossi's word on it?  What
> legitimate large investor who offered money has Rossi turned down please?
> If there is such an entity, could it be that the reason they were turned
> down was that they required due diligence and proper testing and knew how
> to do it?  Apparently that may have happened with both Quantum and NASA.
> On the days they showed up to do due diligence, Rossi's machine apparently
> did not work.  Strange.  I suspect more about this has not been heard
> because the people who tried to do the testing had to sign some sort of
> silencing agreement.
>
>
>> And it requires numerous leaps of faith.
>>
>
> Not as large a leap of faith as to believe that Rossi has what he claims
> and can't be bothered to do a simple, quick, safe and cheap independent
> test to prove it.
>
>
>> My experience with R&D financing is also inconsistent with the secrecy
>> hypothesis. Lots of companies get (have gotten in the past and will get in
>> the future) private investment money for projects in an R&D phase, with
>> failure to deliver not being automatically a scam: investors put money
>> there for the potential large payoff, related to the large risk. That means
>> they want a large share of the resulting profits, usually written as shares
>> in the company itself. The financed company likes to publicize investment,
>> in order to attract more investments. Even more so should be true for a
>> scammer, who needs to get money quickly, before he is found out. There is
>> anyway no legitimate reason for the R&D company to ask for secrecy from the
>> investors, as any lawyer would point out.
>>
>
> I have no idea what that means.  Failure to deliver is not automatically a
> scam.  In Rossi's case, self-delusion can be ruled out at this point
> because of his behavior and his statements.  That means that in Rossi's
> case, if the machine doesn't work, it has to be either a scam or I suppose
> Rossi could plead insanity.  I don't see any other choices in the event
> that the device does not work.  I don't understand the rest of the
> paragraph.
>
>
>> So, it should be more "financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash
>> from VERY credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy
>> agreements IN OTHERWISE VERY WISHY-WASHY CONTRACTS THEY CANNOT ENFORCE",
>> and all that because convinced by the shining personality of Rossi and his
>> perfectly run experiments, and neglecting to take along a lawyer.
>
>
> That theory, which you present sarcastically I think, actually explains
> the cases of the convicted felon fraudsters Tilley and Lee.  It also
> explains how Steorn's investors got sucked in.  Stock fraud explains the
> Sniffex explosive detector (convicted) scam.  And a joke was the reason
> some guy calling himself Mylow fooled Sterling Allan into running all over
> the country after a free energy motor that actually ran on the mains via a
> monofilament fishing line!  It is not beyond belief that Rossi has fooled
> some wealthy investors.  People get fooled all the time which is why the
> independent testing is so needed.
>
>
>> OK, hypnosis could be an explanation, then.
>>
>
> How?
>
>
>> With your permission, I will keep thinking that a scam seems highly
>> unlikely from a business case point of view.
>
>
> Sure.  If you're so certain, I suggest you invest.
>
>


-- 
Marcello Vitale
via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY
phone: +39 338 484 9724
skype: marcello_vitale_UK
email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:

However, it does not fit the available information, which seems to indicate
> that Rossi is refusing investments because he wants to maintain control.


Really?  How do you know?  Do you have Rossi's word on it?  What legitimate
large investor who offered money has Rossi turned down please?  If there is
such an entity, could it be that the reason they were turned down was that
they required due diligence and proper testing and knew how to do it?
Apparently that may have happened with both Quantum and NASA.  On the days
they showed up to do due diligence, Rossi's machine apparently did not
work.  Strange.  I suspect more about this has not been heard because the
people who tried to do the testing had to sign some sort of silencing
agreement.


> And it requires numerous leaps of faith.
>

Not as large a leap of faith as to believe that Rossi has what he claims
and can't be bothered to do a simple, quick, safe and cheap independent
test to prove it.


> My experience with R&D financing is also inconsistent with the secrecy
> hypothesis. Lots of companies get (have gotten in the past and will get in
> the future) private investment money for projects in an R&D phase, with
> failure to deliver not being automatically a scam: investors put money
> there for the potential large payoff, related to the large risk. That means
> they want a large share of the resulting profits, usually written as shares
> in the company itself. The financed company likes to publicize investment,
> in order to attract more investments. Even more so should be true for a
> scammer, who needs to get money quickly, before he is found out. There is
> anyway no legitimate reason for the R&D company to ask for secrecy from the
> investors, as any lawyer would point out.
>

I have no idea what that means.  Failure to deliver is not automatically a
scam.  In Rossi's case, self-delusion can be ruled out at this point
because of his behavior and his statements.  That means that in Rossi's
case, if the machine doesn't work, it has to be either a scam or I suppose
Rossi could plead insanity.  I don't see any other choices in the event
that the device does not work.  I don't understand the rest of the
paragraph.


> So, it should be more "financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash
> from VERY credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy
> agreements IN OTHERWISE VERY WISHY-WASHY CONTRACTS THEY CANNOT ENFORCE",
> and all that because convinced by the shining personality of Rossi and his
> perfectly run experiments, and neglecting to take along a lawyer.


That theory, which you present sarcastically I think, actually explains the
cases of the convicted felon fraudsters Tilley and Lee.  It also explains
how Steorn's investors got sucked in.  Stock fraud explains the Sniffex
explosive detector (convicted) scam.  And a joke was the reason some guy
calling himself Mylow fooled Sterling Allan into running all over the
country after a free energy motor that actually ran on the mains via a
monofilament fishing line!  It is not beyond belief that Rossi has fooled
some wealthy investors.  People get fooled all the time which is why the
independent testing is so needed.


> OK, hypnosis could be an explanation, then.
>

How?


> With your permission, I will keep thinking that a scam seems highly
> unlikely from a business case point of view.


Sure.  If you're so certain, I suggest you invest.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Mary Yugo]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:16 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Actually, we are getting bored by her continued repetition of the same old
> arguments so we are resorting to the same methods
>

It's not boring but it is certainly amazing and amusing that people keep
counting chickens that are as far from hatching now as they were last
January.  On the other hand, it's boring to hear theory after theory about
*how* Rossi's machine works before it has been properly proven *that*
Rossi's machine works  (Rossi is creating "cold" now, is he?) .


>  Why do we have to keep repeating the same lines just to keep her old
> points alive? ...
>


> You skeptics need to find real issues to harp upon instead of rehashing
> the same old lineRossi did not test it wellHe is scamming...etc.


Those responses are only presented when people keep insisting and writing
as if  Rossi's device has been properly proven to work.  It most certainly
has not.  And the response is that Rossi *may* be scamming, not that he has
been proven to be scamming -- perhaps this subtle distinction isn't clear
for you because you continue to misstate the skeptical position.

If determining whether Rossi's machine works or not is not a "real issue"
to you, what is and why?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Marcello Vitale]

"financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash from credulous investors
who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy agreements" and remain silent
after they have been swindled because they are too ashamed, or something.
Sure. That is about as good a scam hypothesis as I can come up with.
However, it does not fit the available information, which seems to indicate
that Rossi is refusing investments because he wants to maintain control.
And it requires numerous leaps of faith.

My experience with R&D financing is also inconsistent with the secrecy
hypothesis. Lots of companies get (have gotten in the past and will get in
the future) private investment money for projects in an R&D phase, with
failure to deliver not being automatically a scam: investors put money
there for the potential large payoff, related to the large risk. That means
they want a large share of the resulting profits, usually written as shares
in the company itself. The financed company likes to publicize investment,
in order to attract more investments. Even more so should be true for a
scammer, who needs to get money quickly, before he is found out. There is
anyway no legitimate reason for the R&D company to ask for secrecy from the
investors, as any lawyer would point out.

So, it should be more "financial fraud based on secretly accepting cash
from VERY credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure secrecy
agreements IN OTHERWISE VERY WISHY-WASHY CONTRACTS THEY CANNOT ENFORCE",
and all that because convinced by the shining personality of Rossi and his
perfectly run experiments, and neglecting to take along a lawyer. OK,
hypnosis could be an explanation, then.

With your permission, I will keep thinking that a scam seems highly
unlikely from a business case point of view.

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:

> see -- you start with a big ad hominem blast, full of pure speculations to
> justify ignoring Mary's cogent points, which have many times advanced my
> own thinking, such as the possibly of financial fraud based on secretly
> accepting cash from credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure
> secrecy agreements -- hence, no evidence for skeptics to cite...
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:
>
> now, now, Rich, don't be silly. Just because Mary is obviously a shut-in
>> with nothing else to do but write the same superficial drivel on every blog
>> devoted to this topic, over and over again, and just because people just
>> stop wasting their time answering her, that does not mean she is "winning
>> the argument". She is just shouting the loudest, the others are leaving her
>> alone, not stopping to do what they did before she started her yelling.
>>
>> I follow blogs to gather information from other people taking different
>> views of an argument. Participate only when I have some contribution to
>> give. My expertise in industrial B2B, intellectual property and research
>> makes me really wonder how this could ever be a scam. The arguments of the
>> skeptics don't make sense from a business point of view, as I wrote in a
>> long post before: I am still waiting for a reasonable hypothesis on how is
>> Rossi ever going to make money unless he is truthful. Whereas the
>> intellectual property position partly explains the (risky) business
>> strategy.
>>
>> Finally, the objections to the experiments and demonstrations, not just
>> of Rossi but of many others in the LENR pursuit, are just ludicrous for
>> somebody like me who works every day through the fog of the always
>> inconsistent experimental results to try and get to salable products. He
>> who shows you pictures of a perfectly clean lab with perfectly clean
>> devices is unbelievable, in the lab duct tape is king!  And she who asks
>> for something without having an agreement to buy on agreed-upon specs is
>> just white noise :-))
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:
>>
>>> Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the
>>> level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>>>
>>>> You really know how to cause injury to someone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Marcello Vitale 
>>>> To: vortex-l 
>>>> Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
>>>>
>>>> All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way
>>>> to twist any

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Rich Murray]

see -- you start with a big ad hominem blast, full of pure speculations to
justify ignoring Mary's cogent points, which have many times advanced my
own thinking, such as the possibly of financial fraud based on secretly
accepting cash from credulous investors who sign iron clad nondisclosure
secrecy agreements -- hence, no evidence for skeptics to cite...

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:

now, now, Rich, don't be silly. Just because Mary is obviously a shut-in
> with nothing else to do but write the same superficial drivel on every blog
> devoted to this topic, over and over again, and just because people just
> stop wasting their time answering her, that does not mean she is "winning
> the argument". She is just shouting the loudest, the others are leaving her
> alone, not stopping to do what they did before she started her yelling.
>
> I follow blogs to gather information from other people taking different
> views of an argument. Participate only when I have some contribution to
> give. My expertise in industrial B2B, intellectual property and research
> makes me really wonder how this could ever be a scam. The arguments of the
> skeptics don't make sense from a business point of view, as I wrote in a
> long post before: I am still waiting for a reasonable hypothesis on how is
> Rossi ever going to make money unless he is truthful. Whereas the
> intellectual property position partly explains the (risky) business
> strategy.
>
> Finally, the objections to the experiments and demonstrations, not just of
> Rossi but of many others in the LENR pursuit, are just ludicrous for
> somebody like me who works every day through the fog of the always
> inconsistent experimental results to try and get to salable products. He
> who shows you pictures of a perfectly clean lab with perfectly clean
> devices is unbelievable, in the lab duct tape is king!  And she who asks
> for something without having an agreement to buy on agreed-upon specs is
> just white noise :-))
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:
>
>> Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the
>> level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> You really know how to cause injury to someone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Marcello Vitale 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
>>>
>>> All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way
>>> to twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :-
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where
>>>>> the customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an
>>>>> expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail
>>>>> snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam
>>>>> victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo
>>>>> normal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Not sure what you're saying here.  It seems as if Rossi is asking a
>>>> scammer to sell his ecat.  Why?  He can't get a legitimate sales company
>>>> for heavy equipment or power equipment to do it?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Marcello Vitale]

now, now, Rich, don't be silly. Just because Mary is obviously a shut-in
with nothing else to do but write the same superficial drivel on every blog
devoted to this topic, over and over again, and just because people just
stop wasting their time answering her, that does not mean she is "winning
the argument". She is just shouting the loudest, the others are leaving her
alone, not stopping to do what they did before she started her yelling.

I follow blogs to gather information from other people taking different
views of an argument. Participate only when I have some contribution to
give. My expertise in industrial B2B, intellectual property and research
makes me really wonder how this could ever be a scam. The arguments of the
skeptics don't make sense from a business point of view, as I wrote in a
long post before: I am still waiting for a reasonable hypothesis on how is
Rossi ever going to make money unless he is truthful. Whereas the
intellectual property position partly explains the (risky) business
strategy.

Finally, the objections to the experiments and demonstrations, not just of
Rossi but of many others in the LENR pursuit, are just ludicrous for
somebody like me who works every day through the fog of the always
inconsistent experimental results to try and get to salable products. He
who shows you pictures of a perfectly clean lab with perfectly clean
devices is unbelievable, in the lab duct tape is king!  And she who asks
for something without having an agreement to buy on agreed-upon specs is
just white noise :-))

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:

> Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the
> level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts...
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> You really know how to cause injury to someone.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Marcello Vitale 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
>>
>> All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to
>> twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :-
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the
>>>> customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an
>>>> expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail
>>>> snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam
>>>> victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo
>>>> normal.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Not sure what you're saying here.  It seems as if Rossi is asking a
>>> scammer to sell his ecat.  Why?  He can't get a legitimate sales company
>>> for heavy equipment or power equipment to do it?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Rich Murray  wrote:
> Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the
> level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts...

Ad hominem?  LOL!  You wanna see ad hominem?  Go read some transactions here:

http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[David Roberson]

Actually, we are getting bored by her continued repetition of the same old 
arguments so we are resorting to the same methods.  She needs to come up with 
new complaints to air if she is really serious.

Why do we have to keep repeating the same lines just to keep her old points 
alive?  I have requested that she make a list of all of her questions and post 
them once daily for us to review and then we can address anything new that
comes up.   

You skeptics need to find real issues to harp upon instead of rehashing the 
same old lineRossi did not test it wellHe is scamming...etc.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Rich Murray 
To: vortex-l ; Rich Murray ; Rich 
Murray 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.


Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the level 
of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts...


On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

You really know how to cause injury to someone.




-Original Message-
From: Marcello Vitale 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.


All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to twist 
anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :-



On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:




On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale  wrote:

Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the 
customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an expert 
of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail snake-oil peddlers 
to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam victims themselves. The 
figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo normal.
 


Not sure what you're saying here.  It seems as if Rossi is asking a scammer to 
sell his ecat.  Why?  He can't get a legitimate sales company for heavy 
equipment or power equipment to do it?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Rich Murray]

Mary, you're doing many things on target, to reduce other players to the
level of having nothing to respond with except ad hominem retorts...

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> You really know how to cause injury to someone.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcello Vitale 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.
>
> All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to
> twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :-
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:
>>
>>> Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the
>>> customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an
>>> expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail
>>> snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam
>>> victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo
>>> normal.
>>
>>
>>   Not sure what you're saying here.  It seems as if Rossi is asking a
>> scammer to sell his ecat.  Why?  He can't get a legitimate sales company
>> for heavy equipment or power equipment to do it?
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[David Roberson]

You really know how to cause injury to someone.



-Original Message-
From: Marcello Vitale 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:55 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.


All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to twist 
anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :-



On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:




On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale  wrote:

Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the 
customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an expert 
of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail snake-oil peddlers 
to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam victims themselves. The 
figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo normal.
 


Not sure what you're saying here.  It seems as if Rossi is asking a scammer to 
sell his ecat.  Why?  He can't get a legitimate sales company for heavy 
equipment or power equipment to do it?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Marcello Vitale]

All I can say is that you have an uncanny ability to always find a way to
twist anything in a negative direction. A sitcom mother-in-law :-


On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:
>
>> Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the
>> customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an
>> expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail
>> snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam
>> victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo
>> normal.
>
>
> Not sure what you're saying here.  It seems as if Rossi is asking a
> scammer to sell his ecat.  Why?  He can't get a legitimate sales company
> for heavy equipment or power equipment to do it?
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Mary Yugo]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Marcello Vitale wrote:

> Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the
> customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an
> expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail
> snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam
> victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo
> normal.


Not sure what you're saying here.  It seems as if Rossi is asking a scammer
to sell his ecat.  Why?  He can't get a legitimate sales company for heavy
equipment or power equipment to do it?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Marcello Vitale]

Oh, come on, you guys are so hard on Rossi because you don't consider other
real-time examples of choosing badly one's associates.

In Italy, the most rigorous law-and-order party ended up selecting, and
having elected, the most ridiculous of self promoting crooks in the current
Parliament, and that is quite a title, who at the moment when his vote was
worth the most jumped ship to support our beloved comedian in chief, Silvio
Berlusconi. Non-italians can google "Scillipoti" for a laugh. We can only
cry.

More seriously, these choices all keep seemingly demonstrating Rossi's
honesty, not the opposite. A scammer does not split the hard-won illegal
profits with new people just because.I can't come up with a good reason.

Having agents or other sales organizations is normal for B2B, where the
customer wants support for the product, asks a lot of questions, is an
expert of what he/she is buying. Again, it is not normal for retail
snake-oil peddlers to also recruit agents, unless those are the scam
victims themselves. The figure of the scamming agent is, instead, sooo
normal.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:50 PM,  wrote:

>  On 11/17/2011 8:51 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> This is the English version:
>
>  http://www.gammamanager.com/index.html
>
> 2011/11/17 Daniel Rocha 
>
> His representative in Switzerland is very, to put mildly, suspicious:
>
>
> Indeed - this company is in the business of selling gigantic Steorn style
> magnetic motor/generators!  But these ones don't generate a mere milliJoule
> of energy per revolution, but hundreds of Joules  - 300 Joules per
> revolution from their EBM-720 (from 15kw excess and assuming 50Hz).
>
> I notice that they do not to state how much of the total output power
> appears as waste heat and how much appears as useful electrical power.  I
> guess the fact that nowhere can you find any mention of a self-runner
> (despite being 14% overunity), it must be the case that the
> electrical/mechanical/electrical COP is well under unity and only measures
> overunity when they include the heat losses.
>
> It would not seem a wise choice by Rossi to be affiliated with what is
> basically a *perpetual motion machine* manufacturer - that doesn't
> actually have a self-runner to display and does not appear to have sold any
> units to any customers yet!
>



-- 
Marcello Vitale
via Cavallotti 5, 20093 Cologno Monzese, MI, ITALY
phone: +39 338 484 9724
skype: marcello_vitale_UK
email: mvit...@ucsbalum.net

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[jwinter]

On 11/17/2011 8:51 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

This is the English version:

http://www.gammamanager.com/index.html

2011/11/17 Daniel Rocha >


His representative in Switzerland is very, to put mildly, suspicious: 



Indeed - this company is in the business of selling gigantic Steorn 
style magnetic motor/generators!  But these ones don't generate a mere 
milliJoule of energy per revolution, but hundreds of Joules  - 300 
Joules per revolution from their EBM-720 (from 15kw excess and assuming 
50Hz).


I notice that they do not to state how much of the total output power 
appears as waste heat and how much appears as useful electrical power.  
I guess the fact that nowhere can you find any mention of a self-runner 
(despite being 14% overunity), it must be the case that the 
electrical/mechanical/electrical COP is well under unity and only 
measures overunity when they include the heat losses.


It would not seem a wise choice by Rossi to be affiliated with what is 
basically a /*perpetual motion machine*/ manufacturer - that doesn't 
actually have a self-runner to display and does not appear to have sold 
any units to any customers yet!

Re: [Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Daniel Rocha]

This is the English version:

http://www.gammamanager.com/index.html

2011/11/17 Daniel Rocha 

> His representative in Switzerland is very, to put mildly, suspicious:
>
>

[Vo]:Rossi feeding skeptics with much more skepticism.

[Daniel Rocha]

His representative in Switzerland is very, to put mildly, suspicious:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transaltec.ch%2Ffacma%2Fdesign.php%3Fdesign%3D2

Due to physical *conditions, such systems* are *only economically viable in
the MW range.* Since no fuel is required classical, there are*over* an
operating period of *say 40 years, substantial savings and profits* for the
plant operator.
Currently, facilities can be ordered with a *power range of 3, 10 and 150
MW.* The delivery time is about 16 to 18 months from receipt of order, with
50% of the financing of Professor Szabo's finance company EEL can be
provided. The pure *investment costs* - excluding land and building power
plants - are calculated for the specified performance levels at *8, 20 and
245 million USD.* *
*When 3MW power
plant
 is the *payback period* of capital (50% of total costs) at *2 years.* The
size and weight of the entire magnetic material (core sheet), which charges
50% make up the final price of the system can be controlled by a
parameterized formula to simple way to
calculate
 .



So, Rossi got a guy ,to resell his ecat, that has a financing company
which, unlike Rossi's escrow method, can indeed run away with a lot of
money.

So, skeptics will say that while he cannot cheat ,
his commercial representatives can do that, and in this way, Rossi can
cheat, by proxy.