Jed Rothwell: Industrial Heat Don’t Believe ERV Report

Well, it is clear to me from his comments that Jeb does not believe the Penon ERV report, and also does not consider Penon a competent tester.

Are you challenging that summary of Jeb's opinion, or the fact that I agree with it? I'll suppose the latter, because the former is easily validated.

The reasons for my having a similar view are as follows:

(1) I have for a long time had strong evidence that Rossi's tests generate fake results. Rossi has a record of inventing energy devices that don't work. And the claimed device in this case is LENR, and hence requires extraordinary evidence.

(2) Jed has a different prior view than me. He is confident that LENR is real, that therefore results such as Rossi claims are quite plausible to him. Nevertheless he will have similar reservations about Rossi that I do.

(3) I am aware that the various rumours are IH's spin (most probably) on the matter. And that Rossi's comments are not compatible with this although when it comes to facts they do not exactly contradict the IH spin. Rossi just leaves things out and so his remarks seem very different. Irrespective of the other matters, given such a disagreement between Rossi and almost any other entity, I would reckon the other entities version to be more likely reliable then Rossi's. In this case claiming Rossi's stuff does not work is very bad PR for IH. They would not do it without strong reasons.

(4) I have specifically here published the reasons why on the basis of his previous Rossi testing record I consider Penon to be a very unbelievable tester.

Tom

This is the nature of my challenge to you, I think you have let the mantle of 'true sceptic' slip, which I think is regretable:

Jeb has an opinion (not substantiated as fact) but you hold a 'position' on that since you agree. You are therefore not a true 'sceptic' in accordance with the 'Sceptics Society's' definition of a sceptic. That is fact.

(1) Strong evidence is not 'fact' as you often claim in relation to LENR claims. You, quite rightly offer alternative interpretations to 'strong evidence' so you are in conflict with your own principles there.

(2) Okay, reservations are fine no problem with that, I agree.

(3) Opinion, at worst you are taking a 'position'. I would say you are just stirring up the mud in the 'rumour mill' rather than exercising the discipline of a 'true sceptic'.

(4) Yes you have published and much of it evidence based and very valuable too, but also some is opinion based on rumour and 'hearsay'. Hearsay as you well know is not acceptable in scientific analysis but much less in a court of law.

I am not criticising you for holding an opinion, we all have that right but I don't think you can claim to be a 'sceptic' since you hold 'positions'.

Lastly if you are not a 'sceptic' you are just an ordinary opinionated 'Jo' like so many of us.

Best regards
Frank

Quote

Jeb has an opinion (not substantiated as fact) but you hold a 'position' on that since you agree. You are therefore not a true 'sceptic' in accordance with the 'Sceptics Society's' definition of a sceptic. That is fact.

Well i'm content in that case not to be a skeptic on the matter of whether Jeb's comments are correct.

It is of course true. Other evidence (articulated here) leads me to the view that with high probability Rossi's stuff does not work. Given that view, and the new evidence from Jeb, I agree with him.

Yet more evidence (also articulated here) leads me to the view that Rossi is highly unreliable. He is on record lying about exactly the matter at issue here - whether he has a working device powering a factory - in 2010. I don't exactly know that IH are reliable, but my judgement is they are not likely to be positively deceitful. Most companies will normally spin things but not lie. This is a matter of probabilities. Therefore on those grounds I am also inclined to believe Jeb.

Thus I have two independent sets of data, prior to Jeb's comments, that supports what he says, and that means I'm more likely to believe it. If that makes me not a True Skeptic it is fine by me.

Tom

Yes, but we, sorry I, would sooner have you here as a 'sceptic' since that carries much more weight and respect, sorry to see you go down this road.

Quote from Abd

this could go either way, depending on facts that are not established

Lest get back to 'facts'.

Best regards
Frank

Quote

Strong evidence is not 'fact' as you often claim in relation to LENR claims.

It is a subtle, almost philosophical, point but that is not quite true. Suppose I observe 100 tosses of a coin and it comes up heads 80 times, tails 20 times. That does not prove the coin is biased, but it is strong evidence. Also, observed 100 tosses are a fact.

Similarly: I may argue the coin was bought from someone who has in the past sold biased coins. Another fact. I may argue from that that my coin is therefore likely to be biased. That is not a fact but a real-world argument based on facts but difficult to evaluate precisely, and so its strength is much lower. How likely is this specific coin to be biased? Therefore calling this factual evidence strong evidence for coin bias relies on something non-factual - the argument that the past biased coin selling will also apply to my purchase of the coin at issue. That argument may be true or false.

Different people can disagree as to the strength of evidence, when its applicable is argumentative. But the evidence itself is factual.

Much of the stuff about "I think IH would or would not have done X, which I can't imagine", seems highly tendentious to me. Maybe my arguments seem tendentious to others.

Quote from Abd

In normal commercial relations, Rossi would have completely shot himself in the foot by filing as he did. Alleging fraud, he was burning the bridges. He was essentially inviting IH to allege fraud back.

That is true, and I'm not saying it is unlikely for Rossi, who responds emotionally to what he considers betrayal - look at his reaction to Krivit - might do this.

It is also possible that he would calculate that it would be so embarrassing for IH to contest his action that they are likely to settle. Personally I don't see this as Rossi's way, but we none of us can know, and it is a possible motive.

Quote

This is not going to be decided in public. He has created a picture of fraud in the Complaint, and it will be difficult to prove. That could backfire, i.e., if the jury is unconvinced by the fraud claims, they may decide something is very off about Rossi. But I'm not a laywer, and the lawyer I've spoken with says that this could go either way, depending on facts that are not established.

Yes. I can be pretty confident what some of those facts are, as I've articulated here. But how they affect this case I have no idea. Also how willing IH will be to use them I've no idea. The more they contest Rossi's own tests the more they look foolish. I'm not saying that a high risk high reward gamble is foolish, but the way it appears is bad PR.

Quote

Lastly if you are not a 'sceptic' you are just an ordinary opinionated 'Jo' like so many of us.

Well I'm definitely an opinionated Jo like many of us. I suppose I'd say that some of those opinions are backed by technical work that is less usual here (though I don't claim I'm unique in this), but only some.

In my defence you might say that I aspire to be truly skeptical. I guess most people would say that.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Maybe my arguments seem tendentious to others.

I think that is an understatement, certainly not a characteristic of a 'true sceptic' I think!

Best regards
Frank

I should mention several points that are relevant to this discussion:

• The assessment of the ERV, that there was a COP > 6, and sometimes ~ 50, and that of IH that we are acquainted with through Jed, that there was a COP of 1, are not reconcilable. One party is correct and one is incorrect. According to the second amendment to the license agreement, IH would have been liable for anything above a COP of 2.6 and up to 6, on a graduated scale. On the basis of what information we have we can conclude that if the measured COP is a point of contention for IH, and this is one reason they didn't pay anything, then they are contending that it was less than 2.6; and what we know from Jed is that they think it was 1 (i.e., the 1MW E-Cat is a Joule heater). Whether one agrees with IH's reported assessment, it is consistent with their behavior that they believe the COP to have been 1.
• Jed's account of what he's heard from IH is not in principle more unreliable than reporting by Mats Lewan or a New York Times reporter. People rely upon information reported in the New York Times all the time, and this is a reasonable thing to do. Information is not "hearsay" from one second-hand source and "fact" from another, simply as a function of who does the reporting. It is up to readers to determine which sources they trust.
• In this connection, on March 11, 2016, Rossi said that there was no divorce between him and IH. Unbeknownst to us at the time, he would have been in the middle of preparing a lawsuit. It seems implausible that preparations for the suit were started later than that date. So at the time we were given to understand that the relationship between him and IH was good. In retrospect we must interpret the word "divorce" very carefully to determine whether Rossi was simply being misleading or straight-up lying. This is one example of why, even though what Rossi says is not hearsay, it is something to be approached warily in trying to understand.

I suggest that optimistic assessments of Rossi's account are misplaced at this point. We should wait for more information to come to light before arguing on Internet forums that he is the aggrieved party, as his suit contends. It will obviously be for the courts to determine what the facts are, and, once those facts are decided, what provisions of the license agreement will remain in force and which ones will be set aside. It is similarly premature to conclude anything about IH's legal obligations at this point.

Eric

I know this is 'conjecture' which I do not like, but do you think; from Rossi's point of view, based on his previous experience with Italian courts and his subsequent successful appeal as I understand it, he would always approach any new arrangement with caution. If you agree, could he honestly say his relationship with IH was good whilst still preparing a 'case' as an insurance policy?

He would not then need to be a 'liar' in this respect just 'paranoid'.

Best regards
Frank

Questions for the forum:
Does IH want to get out of the contract altogether? If they walked away, could Rossi make 200 of his E-Cat 1 MW units and have a profit of $89 million?
Is an E-Cat 1 MW unit only practical if it comes with a clone of Rossi as support? Does accomplishing SSM require a Rossi at the controls? Was SSM mode present when Rossi slept?
When the analysis of the ash from the 352 day trial comes in, will it be made public or wait in line with the ERV report?

Frank, what you say may be possible. I do not mind speculation, myself, as long as it is called out as such. If Rossi were doing what you describe I would suggest that even if he wasn't lying, he was acting in bad faith. It is like a husband having divorce papers drawn up in preparation for a possible divorce, unknown to his wife, even when he represents to the world that things are going well. There's something implausible about the scenario.

Now we have two reports.
1. The ERV, which we have not seen. However AR says it is positive COP>50.
2. The parallel IH report, which we have not seen. However, IH has leaked that it shows COP<4 or even <1.
Nobody presents any material as it is not so 100% clear in either case. If that is from technical point of view or legal does matter very little.
I think both party will benefit from a mediation and an out of court settlement.
The LENR community wants to know what is scientifically coming out of this one year test.
That is understandable but just a want.
Resolving the issue quickly would be of value to everybody involved.
If AR is the problem as many thinks - IH will benefit from paying a little to get free.
If IH just are being a problem because they do not have the control they require, then the obvious solution is to find a middle ground, which includes IH has control, which is better than today.

A lawsuit going through all the hoops will take years and both parties will lose credibility. A good negotiator is required and is probably already in place.

Eric, would it also be bad faith on the part of IH to have a 'second ERV' in addition to Penon without the knowledge of Rossi. I note that Penon was agreed by both Rossi and IH. I know other observers were witnessing I understand from Woodford, China and Cherokee and perhaps others, following substantial investments were apparently made, but witnesses were not in the official or agreed capacity of ERV. Would a second ERV constitute a 'breach of contract'. But if Rossi was suspicious that there was information being gathered that might challenge Penon's findings would a court conclude he was 'reasonable' to take out an 'insurance policy'?

Eric, I have no strong views one way or the other but I am conscious a prevailing 'unfair' opinion might 'jinx' a decision by the jury, so treat this as a 'balance' not an 'opinion' of mine.

Best regards
Frank

From everything I have read, the problem with the plant was not the COP but the (slightly) radioactive ash that may have been discovered at the end of the test. This would reduce the commercial value and give cause for IH to file suit to not pay the 89 million.
I hope the report will tell.
Regards
Rob

I think the part about there being a second ERV was a misunderstanding that is still floating around. What we know of IH's objection (which is very little) does not require that there have been a second ERV. What is needed is a dissenting opinion from a technically competent person, possibly an observer, which the license agreement allowed for. How the opinions of any additional parties weigh against that of the ERV is a matter for the courts to decide. But hopefully common sense will prevail, whatever the facts end up being.

Quote from Robert J. Honders Sr.

From everything I have read, the problem with the plant was not the COP but the (slightly) radioactive ash that may have been discovered at the end of the test.

Do you have a link to this discussion?

Dartin

Quote from dartin

Does IH want to get out of the contract altogether? If they walked away, could Rossi make 200 of his E-Cat 1 MW units and have a profit of $89 million?

This is what the case will be about.
(I) Can IH retain ownership of the IP without paying Rossi the $89 million.
(ii) On the other hand can they successfully claim that Rossi's invention does not work and so they don't owe him the last instalment.
(iii) I prefer this - Will IH accept Rossi's invention works but that he has broken the contract by withholding IP which is rightfully theirs under the contract.
With scenario (iii) Woodford, the Chinese investors and Cherokee will not have a case against IH. Investor's will be particularly aggrieved with IH if they now claim Rossi's invention does not work after securing large sums of investment monies claiming the contrary.

Best regards
Frank

Robert

Quote from Robert J. Honders Sr.

This would reduce the commercial value and give cause for IH to file suit to not pay the 89 million.
I hope the report will tell.

Well if radioactive material was found it would be interesting. But IH has not filed such a suit, so I suppose that has answered that question. Anyway, if they did it would indicate two things:

1. That LENR was real
2. That it is not yet commercially viable and potentially unsafe.

I don't expect a suit from IH along these lines.

Best regards
Frank