A Reflection On Rossi / IH Dispute

1st Official Post

    One of the most important scientific concepts is: all is relative to the measure unit.
    This is true in science, but it is especially true for our mind and for the patterns that it uses.


    I think, when all is confused and difficult, it is necessary to order to reason correclty. If we are immersed in the details, we lose sight of the "big picture". He can't see the wood for the trees.
    We must, therefore, get on a "mental airplane" for changes our perspective.


    Now we are in the airport, we see people, houses, trees, cars. Everything looks great. Everything seems important.
    And indeed it is. Relatively to that system of measurement.
    the airplane takes off and climbs. The things that sooner filled our eyes and mind seem to disappear. The picture changes. Simultaneously, everything becomes smaller and everything gets bigger.
    We see that the place where we started is just a small piece of a larger reality. We see mountains and seas (that were hidden before us), we understand that our mind was absorbed in a thousand details inessential. Details that hid us a greater reality.


    This long preamble is only to invite you to take "mental airplane" before reading me, to invite you to use the correct measuring system.
    We proceed, then, to reason by following conceptual blocks of the basic values (using the 0-1 method that is false-true) and let's review the% statistical chance.


    A)
    E-cat is not work (0)


    E-cat works (1)


    In the case (0), everything is simple. Rossi will not produce any technology. No one will produce its technology. In a few days or months..... game over.
    In the case (1), all is enormously complex. To produce this technology means totally change the world. It means clashing with forces that have enormous power. It means upsetting the balance of industries, large capitals, Countries.


    B)
    In case A (0) who takes damage and who acts? In the end, in addition to disappointment for many who hoped for this idea, the damage does not exist. IH does not have to pay. Rossi can not dispute. No one acts.


    In case A (1) who suffer damage and who acts? In this case the Entities that could suffer huge damage would be many and powerful and they they would have the means, the opportunities and the reasons to act. Clearly that secretly.


    C)

    In case A (0) there would be entities or individuals interested in owning the technology? NO.


    In case A (1) there would be entities or individuals interested in owning the technology? YES.


    D)
    In case A (O): IH (Cherokee) which subsidizes and collaborates on the project for years and, (and if they are not crazy, they have always monitored and evaluated the thing for which they paid) , waiting to withdraw from the contract the last time? The objective's confirmation time ? After 1 year of testin which they were present? Either they are crazy or would have gone a LONG time ago.


    In case A (1): Why IH (Cherokee) which subsidizes and collaborates on the project for years (and if they are not crazy, they have always monitored and evaluated the thing for which they paid), waiting to withdraw from the contract the last time? Because, if the test is valid, they understand that the technology (of which ONLY IN PART are owners) worth so much that they want to walk alone.


    E)
    In case A (0) industrial forces, political, lobbies, act and intervene? NO


    In case A (1) industrial forces, political, lobbies, act and intervene? YES


    F)
    In case A (0) did so by IH (Cherokee) request/maintain/obtain patents? NO


    In case A (1) does so by IH (Cherokee) request/maintain/obtain patents? YES

    G)
    In case A (0): The superior technology developed by E-cat quark has value? Certainly not. If the "mom" is a scam, the "son" is a scam.


    In case A (1): The superior technology developed by E-cat quark has value? YES, HUGE



    Hot-cat is not E-cat quarks. The stakes are raised.


    Worldwide scientists are making experiments on LENR. Not only we are close to a breakthrough, but this change is absolutely necessary the world.
    Read this interesting article:
    https://ourfiniteworld.com/201…f-energy-and-the-economy/


    The change that will result from LENR will epochal. It will create a new world, but it will destroy an old world.
    It will create a paradise. But for some it will be hell.
    Rossi and/or other scientists will come soon to the final result (or are we have already arrived).
    But Rossi "sings out from the choir". He upset the applecart. He's not in the political schemes / economic / industrial. He can not be managed / directed / controlled.
    If the hypothesis A (1) is right, he has a head-start over the others. Not huge, but he did.
    He has only one defense "flood the market". Others have only an attack: stop him.
    How? I believe that often he had feared for his life. "Make it disappear him" would be an option (often used). But it is easier to discredit him and meanwhile "to use him."


    We took our mental plane.
    We left below the dust.
    Now it's up to you to look at.

    @Stephania, I don't think case A) in your analysis is as simple as 0 or 1. Suppose Rossi's devices do work sometimes, and for unexplained reasons, other times they just stop working. Is that a 0 or a 1? It is very intriguing technology, one that deserves research, but it is not ready for product if it cannot run reliably and stably.


    Rossi, like most inventors, is anxious for commercialization. On the other hand, if your technology cannot be engineered to operate reliably, what to you do? You don't start building product that you would have to recall. Instead, you continue the research until the key components are found to provide continuous, controllable reaction with a COP that is high enough that the market will buy it.


    The hotCat technology has not demonstrated a COP>2, and is not marketable at that low COP. It must have further research to demonstrate higher COP. It is very interesting, just not ready to commercialize.


    The eCat technology is probably closest to product, but I suspect not reliable enough for product yet. The 350 day test was supposed to demonstrate well developed, stable output with COP(average) >6. I suspect that data will show it was not stable. Why else would Rossi have been babysitting at the reactor for 18 hours a day?


    IH has a minimal staff for being taught the technology so that they can commercialize it under license from Rossi. BUT, Rossi must teach them to build a commercialize-able reactor, so IH can create the products and sell them. Either Rossi hasn't taught them the technology to build a stable high output eCat, or Rossi has not invented it completely and so cannot teach them.

    @Stefania Conti


    I agree that it would be good for everyone to take a step back and look at the big picture.


    I agree with Bob that your analysis below does not help us to do that..


    The problem is that you require everything to be black or white.


    Unless we are completely prejudiced, your first question “does the e-cat work” – which you allow a 0 or 1 answer – must surely have a sort of in-between answer. That will then change – but never get to exactly 0 or 1 – as more evidence from Rossi’s tests comes in.


    Binary thinking makes you go seriously wrong when it comes to analysing IH. I expect they did, when they signed the License agreement, have a view that Rossi’s technology was a good bet. Worth $1.5M after the first test, $10M after the second test, and (for them to cough up $89M) worth $100m or so after the long-term test.


    Part of that cost/benefit evaluation is “what are the chances of it working at all?”. I’m sure after the first 6 independent tests they thought it did. I’m equally sure that their thinking was not binary and given enough evidence of it not working during their tests they would modify their view and decide on balance that it appeared not to work (though they would still leave open the possibility it could be made to work – why not?).


    You just can’t capture that with your argument so you come to erroneous conclusions.


    Binary argument does not do justice to the difficult real-world decisions that people like IH need to make. They can never be sure their investments are good (in fact usually they come to nothing). They can never be sure that the evaluation of an investment will not change, positive or negative. If they have a possibility of a X100 payback they will accept a 90% chance that it will not work.


    Maybe in this case the very high possible payback, and the unique nature of the opportunity, caused IH and other investors to be initially over-enthusiastic in evaluating Rossi's not very independent tests? But the gamble is worth it even if there is a high chance they are wrong, because the return is so high.

    Dichotomus keys never really illustrate reality. There are many 'in between' answers you don't cover. By far the most likely scenario playing out is simply a 'negotiation' over the payment of that spectacular $89 million in hard cash! Bult there is a very real possibility that all this is part of a long running conspiracy to keep cold fusion from becoming deployed and thus making stranded assets of all of the world of other energy resources and technologies! http://atom-ecology.russgeorge…sformational-energy-tech/

    @'Thomas
    Our mind works according to binary code. Our neurons are working with 0-1.
    Despite that our minds create symphonies and philosophies.
    To understand we must try to sort the data.
    The first assumption is necessary:
    A)
    E-cat is not work (0)
    E-cat works (1)
    This does not imply that everything is perfect. Remember the Popper's principle of falsification
    Beyond the possible improvements / enhancements or Rossi technique works or does not work.
    Try to get around this point leads to not properly evaluate the IH actions.
    If I think like you, "though they would still leave open the Possibility it could be made to work - why not?" then I have to assume that HI is still "stealing" ideas to improve them.
    Those who make high-risk investments working on percentages. They reason of R: R.
    Game theory. Rosss-black. All-nothing. 0-1
    I'm not 0-1. I go up on the plane. But before I make order in the mind

    Quote from Stefania


    Our mind works according to binary code. Our neurons are working with 0-1. Despite that our minds create symphonies and philosophies.To understand we must try to sort the data.The first assumption is necessary:A)E-cat is not work (0)E-cat works (1)


    I think we will have to disagree at this point. Both about how brain neural networks do things (which I know a little about) and about the issue here.


    WRT the philosophy science is necessarily an inductive process. Popper was never happy with that, and specifically he did not want to consider scientific hypotheses as having a probability. But in this case of course it is true, and it is only by judging how evidence changes those probabilities that you can do sound inference (Bayesian if you must).


    Quote

    If I think like you, "though they would still leave open the Possibility it could be made to work - why not?" then I have to assume that HI is still "stealing" ideas to improve them.


    As I understand it the license agreement gives IH Rossi's technology + the ability to improve it as they can. They are saying they cannot duplicate Rossi's positive tests, so the license conditions are not satisfied. I think that IH would be happy to keep on trying in the hope that they would eventually get Rossi's results as specified in the license (not some new thing). And they would pay up when that happened and they were therefore confident that his stuff worked.


    Of course Rossi is claiming that they have breached the terms of the agreement and if that is true they will no longer be able to keep trying. Although I guess that is not much loss to them, since they say they cannot substantiate the licensed technology.

    @ Thomas
    Neurons transmit by means of the action potential
    Sodium and potassium (both have one positive charge, +), calcium (has 2 positive charges, ++) and chloride (has a negative charge, -).
    Closed- open.
    0-1


    As regards legal disputes, I leave the arguments to the lawyers.
    I just wanted to analyze scientifically and rationally.
    Every one draw their own conclusions
    In the end, who will win or lose? .... We be all us. Will be the world

    individual synapses have a firing rate that is modulated by analog chemical concentrations. Although firing is a discrete event, the rate of firing is analog. Cognition comes from redundant patterns of firing over linked modules of neurons and therefore is definitely best modelled as analog variables. Of course it is very complex and not all understood - but 0-1 it aint.

    @'Thomas


    Yes I know. If you want to increase the scientific detail, a few days ago researchers discover the on / off button for inheriting responses to environmental changes. An Biological mechanism passes on long-term epigenetic 'memories'.
    But the goal was not to teach my neurophysiology's University exam
    It was a simple example.
    And if you want to analyze the particular and not all the reasoning .... it means that you do not care to take the airplane :)

    Stafanie Conti said "We must, therefore, get on a "mental airplane" for changes our perspective"


    What about a mental "Flying car" using an Amerindian perspective


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    We need to be able to fly..


    there is a reflection video sequel

    Here is the down to earth reflection video . No comment from Andrea Rossi yet.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    individual synapses have a firing rate that is modulated by analog chemical concentrations. Although firing is a discrete event, the rate of firing is analog. Cognition comes from redundant patterns of firing over linked modules of neurons and therefore is definitely best modelled as analog variables. Of course it is very complex and not all understood - but 0-1 it aint.



    Come on Tom, um I mean Dr. Clark, "firing is a discrete event"! LOLs.


    Stefania, I think your points are well taken, as most here with science, and ONLY science, on their minds do. Your post brings to mind my reading a Wall Street Journal article in the late 1990's. There was an influx of actual "rocket scientists" to Wall Street, as they had figured out the "mathematics" of how the markets worked. Developed algorithms to take it all into account, and make rich firms even richer.


    Worked for a short time -a very short time, and then it all crashed...sending many of the companies hiring those rocket scientists into bankruptcy, or at the least, losing billions. What they found was that there is a human emotion, or factor, to the market. Humans with their emotions, who do all the trades, buying/selling, are not quantifiable in their actions like atomic particles as they discovered.


    Same here in this case. Rossi, IH, whomever, you just can't reduce them into 0's and 1's, and make sense of it all...although we all try in some way.


    Great first post by the way. Seems to have triggered a lot of *thought*. Better than my first.


    Take care.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.