It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
I am quite frustrated by eth inability (or unwillingness??) of Rossi to have this thing properly analysed and tested, and fraud remains my mostly likely explanation.
Caution there, I respect you and your opinions deeply.... opting to call what I wrote as BS - as opposed to simply disagreeing and claiming I am mistaken seem obtusely provocative.
In the NASA case they insisted on disclosure to which Rossi objected... NASA refused to restrict its request to observe operational performance, and demanded full access to the devices inner workings... you may call it BS but many independent inventors purport this to be EXACTLY how many patents are STOLEN. I don't enjoy believing that this is how people lose their inventions; but I am far from naive enough to think one should not worry about that kind of loss of control over one's creations.
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I can only imagine the difficulty one would have in attempting to patent something that doesn't obey the conventional laws of physics, and that is the reason the patent has been denied for this device.
originally posted by: ANNED
Sorry but the independent test was NOT spelled out as what really happened and who ran what and if the inventor was allowed to touch anything during the test.
The report does not show where the meters came from as they should be supplied by the testers and the make and modal along with the collaboration dates recorded.
It does not show a line drawing of how and where the meters were connected.
Years ago some inventor tried to pull a fast one and changed the meter face from a milliamp meter to a amp meter.
He was claiming that his invention increased power by 100%.
Using the inventors meters it looked like the input was 10 milliamp and the output was 10 amps.
When in fact the power through the invention was the same 10 milliamp in and 10 milliamp out. with 0 power gain.
originally posted by: boncho
What some have forgotten is:
1. He made a so called "scientific journal", that was a blog, he claimed that it was peer reviewed, it even had a dead reviewer on its board.
2. He never had a real engineering degree it was from a diploma mill.
3. He claimed he would never ask for money for the eCat but did so from industrial private investment shortly after making that statement.
4. He has never let any independent verification of his system happen. He has claimed as much a number of times, it has never been validated, tested or anything of the like by an independent/unbiased body of scientific/engineering examiners.
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I can only imagine the difficulty one would have in attempting to patent something that doesn't obey the conventional laws of physics, and that is the reason the patent has been denied for this device. And if he cannot patent it, then I completely understand not divulging how it operates.
1. This may or may not be an issue (the dead reviewer), but a blog is nothing less than a public electronic journal, so if you're trying to demean his journal just because it's a blog, I'm missing the logic there.
2. So what? Diplomas are not a reflection of one's intelligence, regardless of what modern western society says.
3. Again, so what? This is not necessarily indicative of someone being willfully dishonest--maybe he just got hard-up for cash and didn't want his dream to die because of some arbitrary 'promise' not to ask for money.
If you had something that you claimed could change the world--something that people have been seeking for generations--would you let some people poke and prod at it before you owned the rights to the technology?
He'd be a damn fool to do that. So, again, I see this as smart business-
originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: SlapMonkey
He was claiming his blog was a peer reviewed journal. One of the original reviewers was dead. Others had no scientific background. First understand the peer review process, then understand this was nothing like it, suggesting otherwise is fraud. And a very critical type of dishonesty as millions of dollars are given in investment funds solely based on peer reviewed research.
Maybe not, but what are fake ones?
What dream, the one of making money? He declared "NO I WILL NOT ASK FOR ANY MONEY" and claimed a whole bunch of other things, but it was obvious in his actions it was all planned from day 1. That along with his history of fraud does not bode well. There is a reason people still tell the boy who cried wolf story.
He had a company that did millions in environmental damage claiming to have a process that turned garbage into oil. It was fake. The government had to clean up his mess.
He had a thermocouple device that was supposed to deliver 20x the power put in, it showed to deliver something minuscule like 5%, given a US DOE grant for that and a purchasing order, it was fake (he claims bad craftsmanship from a contract company)
He was caught crossing the border in some weird scheme with bars of gold.
He made a number of claims, outright lies about the eCat for the first 2-3 years and then just vanished from making public claims as they were all torn apart. There was no question of him being "intentionally dishonest", even his biggest supporters like Jed Rothwell et al on Vortex all called him out on that. They just made apologies for him. At one point wrote him off, eventually leaning back to hoping (probably because of their own work, not wanting the dream to die).
You know, patterns begin to develop and it's simple as that. I give anyone a second chance but he's had his, he's on his 99th chance and he will blow it next time as well. Its called being a pathological liar. And with him, money is always involved. They have another name for that too...
Yes, its called an NDA. And with public press there is no way its going to be stolen. With something this revolutionary it doesn't matter though as I already explained. Its an instant nobel prize. And no matter what it can be monetized, even if someone stole the idea.
Because you don't know anything about business. Sorry to be crass but simple as that. There are billion dollar ideas that go to production everyday, and its not by someone hiding them in their basement. A normal persons idea of business is really absurd, you either have people who think they came up with an idea, no design, prototype, production, sales plan, anything, and think that is worth millions of dollars, or people on the opposite side who think after they have patents and royalty checks they would still lose their idea/product.
I own a dozen trademarks, I have another company under development of one of the largest consulting firms for that industry in the US. I would not make a cent or move forward in any way if I hid everything I have in my garage. It doesn't work like that.
The whole "big oil showed up and stole my invention" was part of a list of scams used to target gullible people in the 60s, and it still carries on today...
originally posted by: sheepslayer247
ETA: In your opinion, what would be the best way to get this tech out to the public without falling prey to those that may want to suppress it?
At a meeting of the American Nuclear Society in November 2012, the theory’s co-developer, Lewis Larsen, speculated that LENR may occur naturally in lightning—not only on present-day Earth, but also in the primordial cloud of gas and dust that became our solar system. If true, LENR might solve a mystery uncovered by NASA’s Genesis mission, that the pattern of oxygen isotopes on the sun differs greatly from that of Earth.
The theoretical underpinnings of LENR are complex, but the basics are pretty easy to understand. Instead of splitting an atomic nucleus apart or ramming two mutually repelling nuclei together, Widom-Larsen’s LENR simply offers a very slow-moving neutron to a nucleus. According to Zawodny, nuclei presented with sluggish neutrons slurp them up like a hungry Texan with a bowl of firehouse chili. But like many a chili consumer, the nuclei can find that their indulgence makes them, shall we say, unstable. And while I am too polite to continue the chili metaphor past this point, the nuclei do find that emissions relieve their distress.