Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

Quote from Thomas Clarke

does not exactly have to be lying - just spinning things the way people do. I've noticed this about Rossi.

Quote from joshg

Now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is...

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Well Dewey claims to be an investor and therefore privy to more info than us - but not an IH super-insider. And his very imperfectness, for me, is plausible. Take what he says with a pinch of salt as always, and ignore his speculation, as always. But while you can make a story for the facts he has brought to the table being lies the simplest case (usually true) is that they are more or less true.

Just to confirm, is this a deduction you can affirm from Bayesian logic Tom, seems quite a departure from your usual requirement for fact and evidence?

Hmmmm.....

Best regards
Frank

What are the facts that DW has brought to the table? Just to summarize.

I only recall one item (unsubstantiated).
That the 1MW unit has two padlocks on it.

I may have missed some others.

100.1C

Quote from paradigmnoia

What are the facts that DW has brought to the table? Just to summarize.I only recall one item (unsubstantiated).That the 1MW unit has two padlocks on it.I may have missed some others.

• The IH investors briefing contained strong warnings about Rossi, and teh mission statement that IH would invest broadly in LENR research.
• The IH tech people were kept away from the long term test by Rossi who allowed non-tech high ups in but not detailed technical inspection
• The IH approved setup shipped in the container was removed by Rossi and a different test setup inserted (this is rather vague - we don't know which bits this pertains to except a claim that the flowmeter is one).
• IH has not been able to get Rossi's devices to output any excess power - at all. With the caveat that no-one can rule out small amounts within the errors of the tests.
• IH contacted Rossi several times duting the long-term test asking for help to get his stuff to work and Rossi refused saying he was too busy with the test and they should ask again after the $89M payment.

In this I'm collating stuff from all claimed "close to the sources" people including "guest" who may or may not be the same as DW?

DW feel free to correct any inaccuracy.

Quote from Sifferkoll

@TeamClarke

I realise that for people wedded to a "Rossi is a world-changing inventor" philosophy these matters must be difficult, and perhaps you are one such, so I make allowances.

Nevertheless the epithet "teamclarke" is an unwarranted ad hom. Unwarranted because you can have no evidence (it is not true) and an ad hom because whether I'm a robot, individual, or heavenly choir makes no difference to the evaluation of my posts here.

It is also a snide hint - if you are going to insult people far more honest to do so explicitly.

I can see from the posts on your blog that in order to reconcile recent developments with your prior views you have engaged in pretty heavy conspiracy theories. My having some nefarious conspiratorial objective is I guess part of this viewpoint.

It is however also highly impolite and a very poor show.

Quote

Just to confirm, is this a deduction you can affirm from Bayesian logic Tom, seems quite a departure from your usual requirement for fact and evidence?

Frank - I realise the phrase Bayesian logic holds power with you - and if it encourages you to consider non-binary answers to apparent yes/no questions that is all to the good.

In this case I'm struggling to see the relevance?

Your second quote from Josh was directed at DW, not me.

The first quote was what I had noticed, direct observation no logic. Do you disagree? Perhaps you have cases where Rossi has directly lied - or can think of none where he has misdirected?

The last quote was just my evaluation of DW's posts in the context of his being an investor and therefore close to the action but not a true insider. For example, I don't take as Gospel anything he says about the precise ERV report errors - I'd not expect him to have more than an overview "hey there are big errors". You'd expect such a person with partial info not always to be right but have still something to contribute new. I'm welcome to be corrected by DW.

PS - the up/down vote system here seems a bit inconsistent with Sifferkoll's snide and insulting remarks being upvoted and my contentious but in no way insulting comments about DW being downvoted into oblivion?

Which shows I guess that I'm out of tune with the audience here

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Which shows I guess that I'm out of tune with the audience here

Who digs into dirt will become dirty. I would never discuss with people that only have monetary interests. Use Your brain for more important things...

Re list of facts:
Seems like a decent list.

What does "100.1C" refer to?

I am having trouble quoting your list of facts, Thomas, but I don't think you've got them all right.

1. I don't remember Dewey saying that Darden warned them about Rossi specifically, or said they doubted him, but just warned them of the riskiness of an investment in LENR overall.

2. I don't remember where it was claimed that Rossi didn't allow IH tech people. In fact two of them were there the whole time.

3. I am not sure if it was Rossi who changed the test setup/flowmeter. I believe Rossi said that the ERV is the one who did this, with IH's knowledge and approval.

4. Sounds correct.

5. In addition to this, it was claimed that in the entire year prior to the test (and possibly earlier) IH tried to get Rossi to prove to them that any device could produce any verifiable excess heat.

Thomas, don't feel bad about the votes. You're only out of step with the people who care enough to use the voting system here.

100.1C
Would this be "Modify old clues" or is it "The Target looks where you look" ?

Quote from Joshg

I am having trouble quoting your list of facts, Thomas, but I don't think you've got them all right.
1. I don't remember Dewey saying that Darden warned them about Rossi specifically, or said they doubted him, but just warned them of the riskiness of an investment in LENR overall.
2. I don't remember where it was claimed that Rossi didn't allow IH tech people. In fact two of them were there the whole time.
3. I am not sure if it was Rossi who changed the test setup/flowmeter. I believe Rossi said that the ERV is the one who did this, with IH's knowledge and approval.
4. Sounds correct.
5. In addition to this, it was claimed that in the entire year prior to the test (and possibly earlier) IH tried to get Rossi to prove to them that any device could produce any verifiable excess heat.

Thomas, don't feel bad about the votes. You're only out of step with the people who care enough to use the voting system here.

Display More

So, 4. & 5. we agree, and are I hope uncontentious? 5. sort of backs up 1. I'm not sure who said 1. but I think it was nckhawk on Mats site. And I'm lost as to whether DW is nckhawk or not, but nckhawk did go through a period of saying quite a lot.

2. One of the tech people was Fabio - technically paid by IH but Rossi's man. (v clear comment on that from those close to sources and obvious from other evidence too). The other guy no-one seems to know much about - maybe not a techie? Or maybe not there much.

3. Rossi vs Penon - I'm afraid Penon has made very bad errors on Rossi tests previously (proven) so whether him or Rossi it is an issue. "With IH's knowledge and approval" - we will have to wait and see. Onepossible is that IH - not being very clued up - did not realise at the time that there was a big issue with flowmeters. Personally I'm not sure there is now - Rossi's tests going wrong have normally been other stuff than flowmeters.

So - the point is that I cannot know how to evaluate these points - they may be more or less relevant - but you do not have convincing reasons for dismissing them.

Quote

On February 1st, 2015 a question is asked by Paul

Andrea, What do you do all day when babysitting the 1MW plant?

On February 1st, 2015 at 9:07 PM Andrea Rossi replies

Paul: control of temperature, steam, flow rates, correct operation of pumps, electromagnetics, just to give an example

So there appears to be a requirement to control the electromagnetics.

Display More

IH is in a pickle. They are in a position that the first plane designers would have been in if asked to replace the pilot in their bi-planes with a fully automated robotize control system.

They cannot get their pilotless designs to work because they need Rossi to control their reactor minute by minute, second by second. Rossi would not have spent every waking second inside those shipping containers if he did not have to.

Rossi has spent years learning how to keep his cats under control, but IH is faced with a wild cat stampede and cannot get those headstrong tigers to do what they want them to do. So Sad...

Tom

In the interests of reducing 'fog' contributors opinions must as you have said many times in support of Mary Yugo, be accepted even though they may be 'critical' by the application of 'freedom of speech'. Now and in the past with particular regard to one of my posts, you seem to be invoking 'censorship' and intervention by the moderators on your behalf when things are not going your way. When challenged in the past (since you were clearly in error), you sidestepped this by claiming - this was a 'joke' so how are we to take you seriously.

Maybe you should return to the discovery of 'fact' by the application of 'verification disciplines' but I forget, this may not be 'fun'.

Best regards
Frank