Rossi Blog Bloviation

On Rossi’s blog:

We see comments on the Rossi blog, frequently, with single-name users that show up nowhere else, asking him questions that say what he has been instructed by his attorneys not to say, and most of us suspect the obvious. This one is face-palm nuts. The filings in the case — so far — are the direct opposite of what “Shayne” says.


Dear Andrea,
From what we can see reading the papers in the “Pacemaker” of the litigation, it appears that all your points are substantiated with solid evidence, while the complaints of Cherokee Fund and IH are based on assumption without any evidence. Can you comment on this?

Andrea Rossi

No comment.
Warm Regards,

Rossi decides what posts to keep on his Blog. Others have analyzed this and it seems clear that many or even most posts are fake, Rossi himself, asking questions he wants to be asked or using this as a way to make comments about the case when his lawyers have told him not to. Does he know that his server logs could be subpoenaed if it makes a difference? Has he asked his attorneys about commenting like this?

This “question” is considered crazy on lenr-forum. . See this report of it and what follows.  Of course, Rossi has claimed that lenr-forum is bought and paid for. That’s even funnier!

Rossi filed his Answer to the Counter-complaint on December 18, four days ago. It has been covered here on Rossi answers the countercomplaint and linked from there is coverage on lenr-forum and a Merge document which gives the Countercomplaint and Answer paragraphs together, for easy comparison. Rossi has provided almost no evidence, it is mostly denial. Clear evidence provided by IH as Exhibits to their Countercomplaint receive responses like “the email speaks for itself, coupled with a denial of the obvious conclusions, without any contrary evidence provided. What is going on?

There has been, so far, no notice of the Rossi Answer on Some, there, had been hoping for Rossi to Answer with something hard-hitting, a bombshell. Instead, in fact, Rossi effectively admits that he didn’t give all the “secrets” to IH, he fully displays his paranoia.

On lenr-forum, I find only the following positive comment about Rossi’s Answer:

Rends. Thinks that a simple denial and demand for “strict proof” is a strong response.

There are some comments that are pointing to one or two allegations by Rossi — possibly based on evidence found in discovery — that establish things that are likely irrelevant, such as an alleged list of “mantras” provided by APCO for Rossi to recite if asked certain questions. This was supposedly evidence that Rossi did not break confidentiality, but the existence of such a list would not show that it was actually followed. Only if the Rossi blog comments were as prescribed would it be that, and from what I looked at, this was completely irrelevant, just something Rossi scraped up to at least say something.

One apparent fan pointed out that the evidentiary phase of the trial had not begun. That’s true, but not the point here. Rossi simply did not provide what the blog commenter claimed.

So, perhaps, given that his fans are not praising him and his attorneys and pointing out that “all his points are substantiated with solid evidence,” Rossi, who knows that many of them read his blog, decided to point it out, given them a hint. So far, it’s fallen flat. Rossi’s lost his mojo. Maybe it’s locked in the blue container, he forgot and left it there.

E-catworld normally hangs on every word “Rossi says.” Here is an entire document, very official, from him, and … ignored. How long will this go on?

Instead, E-catworld is focusing on this brilliant topic:

Would using a Dummy Make for an Effective QuarkX Presentation?

They are getting uppity on ECW. Rossi just told them that using a dummy would be useless. It’s not that the thinking here is sound, because a dummy is essentially a calibration, needed to verify that measurements are not suffering from some artifact. A “presentation” or a “demonstration” is not about that, in fact. It would simply show a device in operation. It would use simple calorimetry, probably.

I was writing already in 2011 that any “demonstration” could be faked, because the inventor is in control. If there is simultaneous operation of a dummy reactor (everything the same as the operational reactor, except some critical element is missing, and ideally replaced by something with similar characteristics, but not nuclear-active), then this could be a part of a decent demonstration, under well-designed conditions. However, it would be trivial to fake this, so arranging demonstrations in an attempt to prove that results are real is useless. Rather, one of the things Rossi has said, often, is that truth is with the market. I.e., if he actually sells devices and the customers are satisfied, that’s his proof.

If he wants something short of that, he would need to arrange fully-independent testing, and the only full-independent testing we are aware of is those done by IH of the E-Cat technology, and we know how that went!

If he wants to please his fans, a dummy is probably not necessary as part of the actual demonstration. It would be part of an independent study. Had Lugano run the “dummy reactor” at full input power, this would have been far more convincing if it showed far less heat, but from what we know of the Lugano test, what the dummy would have shown was that there is not much difference, if any, between the no-fuel and the fueled reactor. Because of various factors, it is possible that a dummy does not match the thermal distribution of a reactor that is fueled, so there could be some difference, but that difference should not be large.

Reading over the ECW discussion there, enthusiasm for ROSSI! seems to be quite a bit damper than I remember.

This question is interesting:


  • Logan

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Several weeks ago a reader told you he had evidence that the puppet who is libelling you in the blogs has been paid hundreds of thousand dollars from Industrial Heat and said he was sending you evidence of this fact.
    Did you receive such evidence?

  • Andrea Rossi

    My Attorneys demanded of me not to comment on issues to be disclosed in Court.
    Warm Regards,


Who could this be? There is an obvious possibility. Dewey Weaver is, I have understood, a consultant for IH. So he’s been paid, I’d expect. And all this is meaningless. Dewey has not been paid to “libel” Rossi, that I’m sure of. Dewey is not a “puppet,” he is openly an investor in and supporter of IH, a real person, unlike the parade of socks we see on the blog, with a few elsewhere, quite likely.

Jerry C

but it bares repeating ..

Indeed they used the plant in Doral as a show room for their rich friends, and they collected a lot of money in this way. They began to complain about the test only when the time to pay had come for them.

Andrea Rossi

Jerry C:
No comment,
Warm Regards,

A stuttering nudist bares repeating. Don’t like my puns? Grin and bear it!

This line “when the time to pay had come” originally came from Rossi before he started echoing it from puppets — or his fans started telling him what they think he wants to hear. It is simply not true. We know that IH was claiming Doral was not the GPT by the beginning of December, 2015, and Rossi certainly knows that. They might have complained before, that was probably a lawyer letter. The only money we know of for sure was Woodford, and Woodform certainly knew that IH was having problems with Rossi’s technology. This is all Rossi Says. It may be what Rossi believes, he would think like this, from long-term patterns.


Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


Leave a Reply