10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

http://ecatdoteudotcom.wordpress.com/20 ... n-control/
links to brc finding
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... Report.pdf
the las two pages are the findings of BRC flordia
NO factory

This is the second hand report I mentioned. The draft of the day before says that "at this time" all production... So right there we know it is not a quote, but someone's interpretation of what was said. It does not say there never was a factory, nor does it say that parts or assemblies or ... were not made in Florida. I give this report very little credance when it comes to defining Rossi's timeline. It is hear-say, pure and simple.

[paperburn1]

This is the second hand report I mentioned. The draft of the day before says that "at this time" all production... So right there we know it is not a quote, but someone's interpretation of what was said. It does not say there never was a factory, nor does it say that parts or assemblies or ... were not made in Florida. I give this report very little credance when it comes to defining Rossi's timeline. It is hear-say, pure and simple.

From a copy of the report online just look it up
I spoke with Dr Rossi conceming the construction and operation of his E-eat device. He stated the active ingresients arepowdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hdrogen gas during the process. The output thermalenergv is six times the electrical energy input. He aeknowldged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process andthat onlv low energy photons in the energv range of50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiationreadings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not havejurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the constructIOn and no radioactive waste is generated by it,
the State of Florida. Bureau ofRadiation COntrol has no jurisdiction. Currently all production, distribution and use ofthese devices is overseas. Dr Rossi has arranged to meet \\-ith Undern-Titer Laboratories (UL) to seek approval formanufacture in the United States. I thanked Dr. Rossi for histime meeting with me.
NOT hearsay, from the inspector.
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.
For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town" as her evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. Since the witness does not offer in this statement the personal knowledge of the fact, this witness statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. Only when Susan testifies herself in the current judicial proceeding that she saw Tom in town, that Susan's testimony becomes admissible evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. However, a witness statement "Susan told me Tom was in town" can be admissible as evidence in the case against Susan when she is accused of spreading defamatory rumors about Tom, because now the witness has personal knowledge of the fact that Susan said (i.e., pronounced the defamatory words) "Tom was in town" in the presence of the witness and it is an opposing party’s statement that constitutes a verbal act.[1][2]

[ladajo]

http://ecatdoteudotcom.wordpress.com/20 ... n-control/
links to brc finding
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... Report.pdf
the las two pages are the findings of BRC flordia
NO factory

This is the second hand report I mentioned. The draft of the day before says that "at this time" all production... So right there we know it is not a quote, but someone's interpretation of what was said. It does not say there never was a factory, nor does it say that parts or assemblies or ... were not made in Florida. I give this report very little credance when it comes to defining Rossi's timeline. It is hear-say, pure and simple.

Kite...Oh my. Are you that far gone on this Rossi thing that you can not recognize the report as firsthand of the Inspector?

You are wrong again. The inspector is clearly reporting first hand what Rossi told him. How you leap that to be second hand is going to be an interesting explaination. <munch munch>

The toothpick is pointy my friend.

[KitemanSA]

Kite...Oh my. Are you that far gone on this Rossi thing that you can not recognize the report as firsthand of the Inspector?

Then why did it change from one day to the next. Someone edited it and changed the meaning. Is it the original author? In the case HE is the liar. Most probably it was the supervisor editing the report, but the supervisor didn't conduct the interview... second hand.

[KitemanSA]

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.

This is exactly the case in point. The inspector said that Rossi said something about a subject about which the inspector had no first hand knowledge. In the absence of corroborating evidence, the statement is here-say.
If the inspector has recordings, produce them. Until then, I KNOW how badly such communications can get screwed up.

The only thing the inspector wanted to know was whether he had anything to be cognizant over and it seems he decided no.

Remember, this was as a result of someone who made an accusatory (and fairly nasty) report to the NRC who palmed it off on the FBRC. I suspect they weren't much interested in being dragged into it.

[ScottL]

Kite's argument is pretty easy to break down to if Rossi didn't say it on video or audio, it's purely hearsay. That would also include all articles on his convictions, fraud charges, including court papers as they would at best be hearsay of a judge. This makes the argument pointless and further discussion with Kite on this topic as a giant waste of everyones time. I'm ok with it, the Rossi horse is dead, we don't need to beat it any further. If Kite wants to continue to knit-pick, let him do so with himself and not waste your own time.

[paperburn1]

I believe that to be hearsay!

[paperburn1]

And just to be clear i am not ruling out LENR. I am just saying Rossi does not have it.

[Stubby]

And just to be clear i am not ruling out LENR. I am just saying Rossi does not have it.

[KitemanSA]

Kite's argument is pretty easy to break down to if Rossi didn't say it on video or audio, it's purely hearsay. That would also include all articles on his convictions, fraud charges, including court papers as they would at best be hearsay of a judge. This makes the argument pointless and further discussion with Kite on this topic as a giant waste of everyones time. I'm ok with it, the Rossi horse is dead, we don't need to beat it any further. If Kite wants to continue to knit-pick, let him do so with himself and not waste your own time.

Really ScottL, this is beneath you. Certainly you read:

In the absence of corroborating evidence, the statement is here-say.

All those ridiculous comparisons you made certainly had corroborating evidence, didn't they? There are court records etc. to show the articles that claimed there were court proceedings were not fabricated, aren't there? What would you say if an article said a proceeding took place and there were no court records, or more the point what if court records say one didn't happen?
If you have a statement WITHOUT corroborating evidence it is hear-say. And drawing conclusions from contradictory statements by the same person is ... an odd thing to do.

[ScottL]

Kite's argument is pretty easy to break down to if Rossi didn't say it on video or audio, it's purely hearsay. That would also include all articles on his convictions, fraud charges, including court papers as they would at best be hearsay of a judge. This makes the argument pointless and further discussion with Kite on this topic as a giant waste of everyones time. I'm ok with it, the Rossi horse is dead, we don't need to beat it any further. If Kite wants to continue to knit-pick, let him do so with himself and not waste your own time.

Really ScottL, this is beneath you. Certainly you read:

In the absence of corroborating evidence, the statement is here-say.

All those ridiculous comparisons you made certainly had corroborating evidence, didn't they? There are court records etc. to show the articles that claimed there were court proceedings were not fabricated, aren't there? What would you say if an article said a proceeding took place and there were no court records, or more the point what if court records say one didn't happen?
If you have a statement WITHOUT corroborating evidence it is hear-say. And drawing conclusions from contradictory statements by the same person is ... an odd thing to do.

Appealing to some level of non-existent lowerness in my aptly provided argument is not a valid argument. I fail to see how quoted court documents are any more or any less hearsay than a quoted official report whether formally edited after the interview or not as they simply do not come from the original source. You knit-pick sir, and you've done so repeatedly. You've attacked grammatically and semantically, which is unbefitting a discussion on any topic. You remind me of Bill Clinton's remark of "define sexual relations" as though it's a valid argument and in all honesty, if you're going to pick/choose which evidence is hearsay and which is not, then I have little to no use of you on this subject. As far as I'm concerned, it simply is not worth my time any further and I think pointing out your bias towards some official evidence and not other official evidence states far more about you than it ever will about me. You don't get to pick and choose the facts of this discussion.

And with that I'm formally bowing out of this discussion until some miracle occurs that provides some sort of tangible evidence in favor of this ridiculous claim. Until that time, I firmly believe Rossi is con man and a crook.

[ladajo]

Kite...Oh my. Are you that far gone on this Rossi thing that you can not recognize the report as firsthand of the Inspector?

Then why did it change from one day to the next. Someone edited it and changed the meaning. Is it the original author? In the case HE is the liar. Most probably it was the supervisor editing the report, but the supervisor didn't conduct the interview... second hand.

I spoke with Dr Rossi concerning the construction and operation of his E-cat device.

So very sad Kite. Very sad indeed.

<munches more popcorn>

[paperburn1]

I defer to Mr twain on this subject
Mark Twain - "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"

[KitemanSA]

And with that I'm formally bowing out of this discussion until some miracle occurs that provides some sort of tangible evidence in favor of this ridiculous claim. Until that time, I firmly believe Rossi is con man and a crook.

I recognize your belief and basically agree that it is probably correct. Though I do also allow as how there is a significant possibility that he is mentally impaired and a small chance that he is on to something.

What I keep asking for and keep getting cr@p about is EVIDENCE, solid evidence that justifies folks statements as FACT. So far you have demonstrated that he was convicted for tax fraud. Other than that, shoddy reasoning and innuendo. The whole FBRC is a case in point. Oh whell!.

[KitemanSA]

Kite...Oh my. Are you that far gone on this Rossi thing that you can not recognize the report as firsthand of the Inspector?

Then why did it change from one day to the next. Someone edited it and changed the meaning. Is it the original author? In the case HE is the liar. Most probably it was the supervisor editing the report, but the supervisor didn't conduct the interview... second hand.

I spoke with Dr Rossi concerning the construction and operation of his E-cat device.

So very sad Kite. Very sad indeed.

<munches more popcorn>

Your point? Be specific if you can. Are you saying that YOU yourself spoke with Rossi? Or are you pointing out that the investigator spoke with Rossi? If that is the case, so what? Nobody ever argued with the contention that the investigator spoke with Rossi. So what is your point?