FIRST FREE ENERGY DEVICE REACHES MARKET IN OCTOBER -- The Game Changer is Here

[chessnyt]

fuzzytomcat,

You say it is a no brainer. That suggests that you without doubt believe the sceptic Mr Smith to be a guy with good intentions.
How do we know this?

If testing the Rossi e-cat really would be worth giving away 1 million dollars, why didn't he just buy a 1 MW unit???
It costs one and a half million dollars, and the whole unit would be his to do whatever he wanted with.

That would have solved all his questions.  He would have got it delievered to any adress within 4 months, and he could have performed whatever tests he wanted.
And best of all, he could sell the MW unit if it worked, and get money back to use for his other projects.

This whole thing with Mr. Dick Smith smells funny, and I´m sure this is the reason Andrea Rossi has declined involvement in any test projects with this guy.

Gwandau

@Gwandau:
Dick Smith is an infamous skeptic and wealthy (eccentric) tycoon.  If there's one thing an extremely wealthy man hates more than anything else, it's having been proven wrong publicly.   

And so I must agree with you here.  After all, Dick Smith would have been left with a tangible piece of equipment in the end.  One he could donate to the science museum of his choice to ensure that millions of people could see it for themselves.  He could have even turned a profit by setting up a 6 month live demonstration in which he could have sold tickets to.  I know I would be willing to pay $1000.00 U.S. dollars cash just to see an E-Cat in operation for just 15 minutes along with all of the chart recorders and professional test equipment hooked up to it.

And as for the matter of Rossi's reasoning in refusing the offer (assuming that the question is legitimately and sincerely being presented here and not for purposes of an indirect attack on Rossi);If Fuzzytomcat really wants to know why Rossi refused, then why in the world is he asking me?  Why isn't he asking Rossi?


Regards,

Chess

P.S.  Am I missing something here? 

[fuzzytomcat]

fuzzytomcat,

You say it is a no brainer. That suggests that you without doubt believe the sceptic Mr Smith to be a guy with good intentions.
How do we know this?

If testing the Rossi e-cat really would be worth giving away 1 million dollars, why didn't he just buy a 1 MW unit???
It costs one and a half million dollars, and the whole unit would be his to do whatever he wanted with.

That would have solved all his questions.  He would have got it delievered to any adress within 4 months, and he could have performed whatever tests he wanted.
And best of all, he could sell the MW unit if it worked, and get money back to use for his other projects.

This whole thing with Mr. Dick Smith smells funny, and I´m sure this is the reason Andrea Rossi has declined involvement in any test projects with this guy.

Gwandau

@ Gwandau,

Your correct in your assumption that I do believe that Mr Don Smith has made a "public and verifiable" good will intention to have the ROSSI e-cat device tested as indicated in the letter that was posted.

My understanding of the letter context when reading it is if the device works as advertized, with the same testing done for a "successful" repeat of the March 29, 2011 demonstration, ROSSI gets a BLUSTERY FREE "one million BUCKS (USD)" 

The idea of spending what ever the cost for a 1MW e-cat unit "without" the claim results repeated from the March 29, 2011 demonstration, Mr Don Smith may be buying a very expensive "paper weight". I would put this in the same type of venue on purchasing a multi million luxury yacht or home for cash from a magazine, newspaper article or a ten minute YouTube video without you actually physically steping on board or checking out what your getting "first'. 

What happens if you purchase the ROSSI e-cat device and doesn't work ..... do you get your money back ? There's a multitude of excuses that can be used by any inventor when it doesn't work just like we see from every other experimental device, from being installed improperly to sun spots and every excuse in between why it doesn't work. 

Just remember Mr Don Smith was contacted by Mr Sol Millin of the Byron New Energy Trust on behalf of Andrea Rossi in regards to an agreement for the Australian “rights” to ROSSI's invention.   

What I think smells funny is 99% of everything we see published on the ROSSI "e-cat" is second hand information from reporters like at http://ecatnews.com/  http://www.ecatnews.net/  http://www.e-catworld.com/ always "quoting" what Andrea Rossi has said ( maybe ) in their, the reporters words. This tactic is knowingly used by some inventors to cloud the true story if experimental device problems or errors appear stating the reporter misquoted or misunderstood what was said, it's a easy out and always used.

I'm looking for "first hand' credible and verifiable information straight from Andrea Rossi ..... you have to look hard and long for anything directly from Andrea Rossi is what I've been finding. 

Like I posted earlier Mr. Don Smith's letter is not the only oddity or discrepancy that can be found, some are in Andrea Rossi own words. 

Regard's
Fuzzy
   

[fuzzytomcat]

@Gwandau:
Dick Smith is an infamous skeptic and wealthy (eccentric) tycoon.  If there's one thing an extremely wealthy man hates more than anything else, it's having been proven wrong publicly.   

And so I must agree with you here.  After all, Dick Smith would have been left with a tangible piece of equipment in the end.  One he could donate to the science museum of his choice to ensure that millions of people could see it for themselves.  He could have even turned a profit by setting up a 6 month live demonstration in which he could have sold tickets to.  I know I would be willing to pay $1000.00 U.S. dollars cash just to see an E-Cat in operation for just 15 minutes along with all of the chart recorders and professional test equipment hooked up to it.

And as for the matter of Rossi's reasoning in refusing the offer (assuming that the question is legitimately and sincerely being presented here and not for purposes of an indirect attack on Rossi);If Fuzzytomcat really wants to know why Rossi refused, then why in the world is he asking me?  Why isn't he asking Rossi?


Regards,

Chess

P.S.  Am I missing something here? 

@ chessnyt,

I was under the assumption that being you were the one that started the thread and has posted the majority of information on "ROSSI" and specifically his e-cat "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" ( LENR ) device that you were "his" go to person for this device technology here at Over Unity. 

My mistake from what you are indicating  ... I will now be contacting him directly with a challenge to have his "e-cat" ( LENR ) device shown at http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/Home.html for a 24/7 "LIVE" streaming broadcast with the interactive chat room for the world to see first hand. 

There has been many that has been asked, and no one has excepted the challenge as of today, they all have refused to give a "LIVE" 24/7 conformation of claim broadcast  .... all of them being able to use a web cam at their choice of location and testing their own device with a chat room audience with them answering questions on the broadcasted demonstration. 

Those that have "refused" or ignore the "conformation of claim" broadcast at this point the general public and open source community will consider it a fraudulent device. 

FTC

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear MileHigh
Always entertaining to read your posts.  I never called you a troll.  On the contrary.  I only mentioned that our trolls, as a rule suffer from a certain vacuity of intellect.  And I drew the distinction that your own intellect seemed 'open' rather than vacuous.  If you then chose to INFER that I IMPLIED that you were a troll - then that's an unsubstantiated and unverifiable allegation - which speaks to your own confusions rather than mine.  An open mind is a desirable thing.  Even when it shares nothing more substantial than the vacuum of space - or the thin, thin air in our stratosphere... up there mile or so high.

So it's like you want a form of Apartheid around here.  There are the "regular" contributors and there are the "trolls."  The trolls are people that have a differing opinion than yours.  The trolls are second-class citizens and they should be restricted to "townships," right Rosemary? Trolls "pollute" the environment and "regular" people like you have to "manage" them.

This is indeed an interesting point.  Trolls are NOT second-class citizens.  Trolls are those contributors who OPPOSE the forum topic.  I've just taken the trouble to read through your posts including those that you managed before you were banned.  I see no evidence of you supporting this forum or indeed this thread topic.  I would, therefore, with respect, suggest that perhaps, surprisingly, you ARE that TROLL.  Who would have thought?  Perhaps you can offer some evidence to the contrary.  And I was always an advocate of property ownership to take our townships OUT of government control.  Which made me an UNDESIRABLE to our erstwhile National Government.  So.  I was, INDEED, that troll AGAINST apartheid - that you are AGAINST energy efficient technologies.  And I was ACTIVELY engaged.  Unlike you, I believe, on the whole, I was rather effective.

Don't you dare ever call me a troll again.  Do you understand me?  Don't you dare.

Golly.  I MUST NOT DARE TO CALL YOU A TROLL?  I think your readiness to identify with this description speaks to your own branding as troll.  NOTHING to do with what I've inferred- implied - or alleged.  Sadly.

You are clearly out of your element and your points above make very little sense or you don't understand the issues.  Somebody else can discuss it with you if they want to.

You are on the money here MileHigh.  I do NOT know the quantum effect of global warming resulting from multiple applications of the E-Cat.  NOR would I EVER expect you to answer this.  Which is precisely why I referred the question to Chess or Loner.  What I suspect is that actually - with the extraordinary efficiencies offered by our Genius experimenter - Andrea Rossi - we'll be able to apply that technology to our 'global hotspots' - and perhaps COOL down those scars on our planet that are liable to explode in catastrophic volcanic eruptions.

There have been no conclusive tests done.  An analogy is the RomeroUK fake magnet motor.  Hundreds of people believed it was real without any conclusive proof.  It's time to take off the rose coloured glasses and demand hard and verifiable data.  Using alleged steam production was one of the worst possible things that Rossi could do and you should do some soul searching about that.

I don't think you can number those believers in the hundreds any more.  More in the tens of thousands.  The goal is to get it known by the millions.  And that belief is NOT based on good faith but on the expert advices of those who HAVE accredited these remarkable results.  And I see that you've extended your DENIALS as per engagement TROLL - to RomeroUK.  Have you EVER supported any evidence of Over Unity?  MileHigh?   When all evidence is dismissed as 'laughable nonsense' then you're asking us to dismiss the foundations of good science - based as it is on experimental proof.  Isn't that what one would expect from a TROLL?

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@ chessnyt,

I was under the assumption that being you were the one that started the thread and has posted the majority of information on "ROSSI" and specifically his e-cat "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" ( LENR ) device that you were "his" go to person for this device technology here at Over Unity. 

My mistake from what you are indicating  ... I will now be contacting him directly with a challenge to have his "e-cat" ( LENR ) device shown at http://www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org/Home.html for a 24/7 "LIVE" streaming broadcast with the interactive chat room for the world to see first hand. 

There has been many that has been asked, and no one has excepted the challenge as of today, they all have refused to give a "LIVE" 24/7 conformation of claim broadcast  .... all of them being able to use a web cam at their choice of location and testing their own device with a chat room audience with them answering questions on the broadcasted demonstration. 

Those that have "refused" or ignore the "conformation of claim" broadcast at this point the general public and open source community will consider it a fraudulent device. 

FTC

Hello again FTC
You should, perhaps, try and find out the difference between the words 'accepted' and 'excepted' if you expect anyone at all to make sense of your posts.  But from what I read here I take it that you are seriously proposing to engage our Andrea Rossi in the live broadcast of his E-Cat technology?  And this on that defunct link that died after the only replication it ever made public being an erstwhile claim of COP>4?  Since the OWNER of that Open Source Research and Development site is also widely known to DENY the benefits of his own earlier well publicised claims - then I have a real problem with this proposal.  Because based on that pattern of behaviour he's just as likely to DENY the benefits that he makes publicly accessible in EXACTLY the same way as he DENIED the benefits to his own earlier test. You remember that test?  Where he variously claimed it as a REPLICATION of a COP>17 test and, confusingly, also claimed it as his own independent DISCOVERY?  And then... that was subsequently DENIED in either capacity?   

I think the real problem here is nothing to do with the proposal so much as with the proposer.  And I'm not at all sure that you represent public opinion - on any level at all.  So.  IF you're inclined to doubt the efficacy of the E-Cat - then I think you must learn to live with those doubts.  I'm reasonably satisfied that - in the fullness of time - our Andrea Rossi will be able to show everyone the benefits without any need to reference that rather sad little address - and its equally sad little owner.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose


Bye the Way (BtW) I will also take the trouble to caution Andrea Rossi as to the identity of that owner - lest he be tempted to rely on any of the presentations in that proposal of his.  God forbid that he be conned into thinking that this could be a reliable venue.

Again with the utmost respect,
Rosie Posie pudding and pie