Why Cherokee changed its tune?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

It would not matter if he was a professional tester

It would seem from his CV that he is indeed a professional tester. Unless certifiers don't test?

Shane wrote:

Quote

Kind of funny how skeps can argue on the one hand; that if IH says, as they have, that the Ecat technology can't be "substantiated", yeah we trust them on that, but on the other hand, argue that they don't trust IH on their word that LENR is real, as they have also claimed.

I think I missed where IH claimed LENR is real. People submit patent claims on spec all the time, often for procedures that have not even been performed. Patents take a long time to work through the system, so people routinely submit applications to lay claim to protect particular configurations and procedures, in the event that they actually turn out to work, even if they do not yet have proof that they do. I would not take the submission of a patent application as a statement of belief.

What I know is that when Darden spoke at the ICCF19 a year ago, he said:

"We started Industrial Heat because we believed that LENR technology was worth pursuing, even if we were unsuccessful. We were willing to be wrong, we were willing to invest time and resources to see if this might be an area of useful research in our quest to eliminate pollution. At the time we were not especially optimistic, but the global benefits were compelling."

So, they believed it was worth pursuing. They were not optimistic. And the benefits were compelling.

These guys are VCs. They gamble on prospects. And most of them fail, whether they have patents associated with them or not. As I argued from the beginning, IH's investment simply meant they judged the risk worth taking. Skeptics have always thought they had poor judgement on this matter, but that's not the same as regarding them as dishonest (although that possibility was not excluded either).

----

No, it's only the believers that are having this one both ways. Even if what you say were true -- that IH has both claimed LENR is real and subsequently that the ecat is unsubstantiated -- skeptics have not based their position on "trust" in either case. Skeptics are skeptical of the ecat (and some of LENR) because of the lack of evidence for the claims. It's as simple as that. As I said, one can doubt the competence of IH in making the evaluation of the ecat (or in assessing its promise) without questioning their honesty or integrity. At the same time, when they come around to agreeing that the claims are not substantiated, it simply emphasizes the lack of evidence for the claims. There is no contradiction. Skepticism does not depend on IH.

Believers on the other hand, have used little else for 2 years besides IH's investment to support their belief in Rossi's ecat. You yourself said that if it hadn't been for IH you would have abandoned Rossi a long time ago. Now that IH explicitly rejects the technology, they are no longer to be trusted.

So, skeptics don't need proof that the ecat doesn't work. Without proof that it does, it's a good bet that it doesn't. When the issue of IH is raised by skeptics, it's not as proof the ecat is bogus, it is to demonstrate that most cited justification for believers' belief has suddenly disappeared. And therefore, that their belief is visceral rather than logical.

Quote

It would seem from his CV that he is indeed a professional tester. Unless certifiers don't test?

Paradigmnoia.

That is worrying. maybe he is doing a different type of certification? You cannot be a professional tester and not state what equipment you are using to perform the tests! No matter how unserious you are!

Have you looked at the Penon report? It is quite an eye-opener...

Quote

Believers on the other hand, have used little else for 2 years besides IH's investment to support their belief in Rossi's ecat. You yourself said that if it hadn't been for IH you would have abandoned Rossi a long time ago. Now that IH explicitly rejects the technology, they are no longer to be trusted.

The contortions that many believers on ECW are going through to rationalise this negative information are sickening (literally) to behold.

It is just that if you have certain fixed beliefs everything else must move to keep them. I would not mind so much except they are traducing Darden and Vaughn who have been unwise in their evaluation of technical advice but as far as we know both honourable and philanthropic. And given the massive benefits a Rossi miracle would bring you can understand the lack of wisdom - they are both non-technical guys.

Shane wrote:

Quote

None. As loosely as skeps have defined that word, there is not a single graduate of the UOB, or any Italian or Swede scientist, who meets the criteria of independent, or even have the qualifications to do the job...

Actually, a loose definition casts a wider net, not a narrower one. Maybe you mean as narrowly as skeps have defined it.

But of course, the very fact that this has descended to arguing about the independence of the verifier shows that it is almost certainly bogus.

Imagine after the Wrights' flight in 1908, skeptics arguing that the witnesses were not sufficiently independent. How far would that have got them? The fact is that every skeptical witness (and there were several of the most skeptical) capitulated within 110 seconds when Wilbur demonstrated unprecedented control of his flyer.

And 1 MW at a COP of 50 can be made every bit as obvious as powered flight, even if it might take a little longer than 110 seconds. It's just a joke that you can think it's real and that he can't or won't satisfy *everyone* that it is.

Indeed, the claim of a COP of 50 by itself should be enough to satisfy any rational person that it is bogus. If it were really 50, then making it infinite (self-sustaining) would be a trivial matter, by closing the loop, and given the practical and psychological importance of doing so, there is no way he wouldn't if he could.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I'm with you there - which is why I'm against the non-evidence-based supposition that Rossi has ever had anything that works!

Quantitatively, what does "has ever had anything that works!" really mean?

A COP of even 1.5, on any of Rossi's reactors, + thermostatic cooling, would give COP = infinity. And the cooling would provide better runaway protection than an absence of heating.

Quote

Quantitatively, what does "has ever had anything that works!" really mean?

Has ever had a device that generates excess heat that is measurable and beyond that available from chemical means.

@Thomas Clarke
We are assuming that the public reports we have are the same as the internal use reports.
In my line of work, we produce both for the client. All hell breaks out if somebody accidentally posts the internal use document on a website by mistake.

Have you seen the file of photos, Excel files (not a printout), Optris radiometric files etc.?

They must be pretty good then when I rarely post!

Look Shane - just for you I've found one of those nasty skeptics on ECW. Did not think they were allowed:

Quote from e-dog

WHy oh WHY Roosi!!!!! The ERV is from the University of Bologna..

I know he's a skeptic cos you point out only they would think UoB for the ERV was fishy. Otherwise he looks awfully like a wannabe believer!

Shane wrote:

Quote

me:

True I did say that, but what I mean't was that if IH abandoned the the Ecat, and that they would definitively state so in unequivocal terms, that I would turn my back on the Ecat, none of which has occurred yet.

You are grasping at straws to suggest IH's statement is equivocal. They have tried to substantiate the validity of Rossi's ecat claims and failed.

Shane wrote:

Quote

joshua cude wrote:

What I mean't though was Darden *acts* like he believes LENR. OK, you got me on that one. I went and read through his interviews and he makes lot's of allusions to his believing it real, but without outright saying that. Like claiming what a great orgasm he had, but refusing to admit he had sex.

That's funny. You find Darden's obviously deliberate statements avoiding any direct claim that the ecat works, including a statement where he admits he was not optimistic, as acting like he believes it. But you regard a clear statement that he has been unable to substantiate it as equivocal.

Like I said, you are grasping at anything to support your pre-determined conclusion.

Darden did not act like he believed LENR. He acted exactly the way investors act when they think there is potential. He bet money on it, and then of course, talked it up to attract other money.

But someone who believed LENR was real, with the opportunity he had, would not limit his bet to 10 M for a trillion dollar technology. And if he thought the ecat was real, he wouldn't have bet on Brillouin. And if he thought LENR was real, he would have pulled investments from every other renewable energy project. Has he done that?

These new developments in the LENR scene might be hard on Cude. He cannot simply flood this site by using his cut and paste library from his 20 year old collection of material that he as borrowed from Mary. He must now think up new words and new arguments. This will surely be a burden on his originality and creativity if any.

Axil, you are derailing the discussion here with ad homs and insults.

Anyway the "new developments" on the LENR scene are what Josh and I were predicting (Rossi technology does not work) so really only new for you.