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

    Thomas


    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Frank, no I can't see that. I'm not claiming the logical connection you say I am, see above. The pinball issue is because of the 45K and speaks to the lack of independence, also relevant, but not the same as lack of competence.


    There was no mention of the "45K and speaks to the lack of independence" originally, but now you introduce this to justify.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Quote from frankwtu


    But now we know that the ERV provided 3 monthly reports apparently along the lines of the final report and that Darden et al far from raising a red flag used the information in their fund raising and investment programme.Hardly the actions of someone who does not believe Rossi's invention works; unless of course you are involved up to your neck in a 'scam'.


    So this is logically incorrect, because it does not allow the possibility of non-boolean answers to the Darden's belief that Rossi's invention works.


    Darden, we are told by an investor - provided very strong caveats and red flags to other investors over the case of Rossi's stuff. And billed IH as a bet on LENR generally, not just Rossi. But, he also provided the positive evidence: those 6 (7?) independent tests with positive reports. nckhawke thought the caveats were over-done - but I can myself understand why they would be strong. IH investment was billed as a "gamble" and therefore presumably Rossi's place in this even more of a gamble.


    Given the very high rewards if Rossi's tests were as the scientists doing them claimed, you can understand any savvy investor would put up with - in fact also expect - a high level of risk. That includes IH itself.


    I've found, going over this matter, that this logical mistake is the most common one from both supporters and opponents of Rossi. It is actually a type of straw man argument:
    "If Darden knew Rossi's device did not work (Darden could not have been positive) therefore darden must have known it did work".


    The skeptic argument would be that Darden did not know either way, had plenty evidence to be positive about (the independent reports) but ALSO plenty of negative evidence (the many question marks over the test results).

    Quote

    There was no mention of the "45K and speaks to the lack of independence" originally, but now you introduce this to justify.


    This is rather dragging on. I'm not trying to justify what I said. It was a sarcastic comment and vaguely humorous but out of place in any sober assessment of the issues. I could perhaps be understand in the context that I consider there is no longer any doubt about the safety of Rossi's tests - they are all obviously unsafe. I apologised. Then I explained that the Euro 45K is relevant, though not, I agreed, logically connected. And in the original comment I was assuming readers had kept up with the whole Pinball project saga from Mats site - which also made this comment a difficult one.

    @Dewey Weaver

    Quote

    Yeah, kind of takes some of the fun out of it. This seems to have happened recently, as I gravitated here from ECNs only because here was a good balance between respectable decorum, and acceptable polemics -even the occasional lighthearted humorous ad-hom, at the authors discretion. I think that fine edge between the two elevates the debate and brings it to creative levels one can't achieve by "buttoning up" everyone.


    Personally I'm all for stuff as unbuttoned as you like. And I've argued against the site policy that seems to ban people who are consistently nasty when unbuttoned. If you post unbuttoned rubbish it can be treated as such and I may even reply telling you it is rubbish. You'll just have to put up with my normally highly buttoned style - but you don't have to follow it!


    :)

    Quote from joshg

    I want to make a comment that is directed at people like Ekstrom and Joshua. Back in March on ECW I posted a sketch of a new explanation for LENR based on a theory of physics that is in many ways at odds with current models (but is consistent with…


    Quote

    http://milesmathis.com/pi.html


    Josh - the treatise on pi shows a number of logical errors. Depending on how the works are defined, it could be considered either correct (though rather strange) por just wrong. However its claims that conventional math and physics is somehow defiient here are most cetrainly wrong, an I think come from a lack of precise understanding as to what maths is and how it applies to physics. I could expand on that if you like.


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/lc3kkcb4zbkfkkv/Mathisian


    I can't say anything about this because the link is broken.


    Quote

    What has become clearer to me over time is the core irony of that explanation, which is this: fusion/decay and the nuclear byproducts of LENR reactions (whether in the form of free neutrons, alpha particles, tritium, or other radiation like X-rays) are not the (primary) cause of anomalous heat, but rather the byproduct of the processes that cause excess heat (which I call the amplification and tuning of charge).


    In order to get nuclear-level excess heat in a solid state you need to increase the kinetic energy of nuclei in a lattice beyond that which would be expected from chemical stuff. The nuclear enthalpies are however so much higher than lattice energies that any specific nuclear reaction will lead to extremely high kinetic energy products unless it has many thousand products. Hagelstein has spent much time trying to show how the high energy interactions could couple to low energy (phonon = heat) ones to get this transformation. he has not succeeded but worth pointing out that his work is well motivated and were he near to succeeding it would be of high publishable interest.


    So: I'm not sure what you mean in this context. While excess heat could perhaps be viewed as the byproduct of high energy particles, it would be very difficult for high energy particles to be the byproduct of anomalous heat since this breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

    Thomas


    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    That is a legal deadline. You mean "on or before"!


    I don't expect any 'Fog' will clear before the legal deadline, as this is the deadline for IH to 'answer to the complaint' once they have answered, the court will consider (before a jury) both the claims and counter claims of each party, that could theoretically take months if not years. Note, the case has been re assigned as a 'patent case'


    "CLERKS NOTICE REASSIGNING CASE. Case re-categorized as PATENT case and reassigned to Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga for all further proceedings. Senior Judge James Lawrence King no longer assigned to case (vp)



    This in itself suggests the court' considers this case to be predominantly about 'information property' and 'patent law'. This suggests the issue regarding who owns the 'information property' will be considered before any judgment regarding breach of contract. If Rossi's invention is considered by the courts to be a 'fraud', a 'scam' or simply 'does not work' then the 'patents' are likely to be judged 'invalid'. This will then have an impact both for Rossi and for Industrial Heat as they will both be liable for further court actions by persons who have suffered 'damages'. However, if the court decides the 'Information Property' and particularly the various 'Patents' are valid (they have to 'work' and be 'useful') then this will be a judgement that both Rossi and Darden et al will capitalise on.


    Then, and only then, will come the issue of 'breach of contract'. At this stage, the court having ruled the IP and Patents are sound, IH will be able to afford to pay Rossi his $89 million if indeed they are found by the court to be in breach. Equally likely is that Rossi will be found to be in breach by not providing 'assistance' and further IP. But either way they will both be riding on a 'Patents' court having 'rubber stamped' the invention.


    Here I disagree with you Tom, neither side has any interest in settling 'out of court' since both require the publicity that the 'Patent Court' case will give to the 'validity or not' of the 'Rossi Effect' invention.


    Best regards
    Frank


    PS: If one or other sides in the dispute believe the Rossi Effect is not real the none believer, will press for an out of court settlement. In the case of IH, not to do so would expose themselves to further claims from their investors.

    Going back to the original cast of this thread ... IF IH is truthful in their claim that they cannot make any of Rossi's technology work (and this will probably be tested in court along with evidence of IH due diligence), then either: 1) Rossi has no real technology, or 2) he has failed to transfer that technology to IH (which I presume is a fundamental part of the contract). Failing to teach IH how to make the technology work is failure to meet the most fundamental part of a license agreement (unless the license agreement was written by morons). Rossi's claims that IH's attempt to get IP protection is evidence that the technology has been transferred is a very weak argument that won't stand up to court scrutiny. How can Rossi expect to move on to the next phase of the license agreement and get paid for further milestones without transferring to IH the know-how to build high power, high COP LENR reactors? This is the whole point of a paid license agreement - enabling the licensee to manufacture a product that will produce a profit. Rossi is reaching a real "put up or shut up" moment in this saga.


    If Rossi really has a working technology, then this whole drama could be eliminated by going back and working closely with IH's engineers to make the technology understood and reproduced within their staff. I hope the courts order exactly that. If Rossi is uncomfortable with releasing his "secret"; too late - he should never have signed the license agreement and accepted the $11M.


    @Peter Ekstrom ... I have not changed my thinking - I still believe the N in LENR is for nuclear.


    This is probably the wrong thread for the [fun] discussion of how LENR may work.

    Para: Want to re-write the song to an updated interpretation? Seems like an opportunity for fun unless that is not allowed around here. I'll go first on this stanza:


    He stands like a statue,
    Listening to his machine.
    Feeling all the heat
    If only he'd played it clean.
    He plays by intuition,
    Its $100M in all.
    That amazing Team Rossi
    Sure plays some mean pinball

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.