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

    Quote

    Glad to see you coming around to a definite view. Bear in mind though that sometimes the law is an ass.


    Alan - is that a sarcastic comment? You know it has been my view from when I wrote my comment on it? What I'm not sure about, alas, is whether this will ever be tested in Court. As you say, the law is sometimes an ass.

    Quote from frank

    I think it unlikely the 'Lugano' report will be considered; why would IH bring the Lugano report to court as it would soon be discounted, why indeed would Rossi for the same reason. Beside, the authenticity or otherwise of the Lugano report does not form any part of the 'contract', the ERV report does. The only part it could play is in the early stages when the Judge asks for independent 'expert witnesses' but even then there will be objections on the grounds that they may not be 'independent' and may not be 'expert'.


    I'm inclined to agree that the Lugano test may never enter into Court proceedings. As you say it is not directly relevant. However it could well be part of IH evidence to show that the devices they make don't work (and therefore Rossi has broken license conditions). We will have to wait and see - but I sure hope it is!

    Quote from Sifferkoll

    The only official test that IH/Darden has acknowledged in public is the Lugano Report. This one they cannot talk themselves out of. It has to be presented as Darden/IH has been decieved somehow on this by Rossi and/or the Lugano Team. This is the reason Darden was travelling to Sweden recently; to induce FUD in those involved ... He desperately needs to have the Swedes rolling over."Team" @Clarke working 24/7 with endless essays bashing the Lugano report is most probably a central part of this agenda.


    Your analysis is profoundly flawed, and logically deficient. Of course IH can be deceived by the report, if it contains a subtle scientific error, without being deliberately deceived by Rossi and/or the Lugano team. Since the report does provably contain such an error, and no-one is going to argue that scientists deliberately made a mistake, that is what will happen. If you read it you would perhaps become better informed.


    If I may say so, you are proving exceptionally resistant to ideas contrary to your (illogical) viewpoint on this specific matter. It is not implausible that scientists make a mistake with the complex analysis in the report, and many people (not just me) can tell you that they have done so.


    By refusing to consider this possibility, and the snide "teamclarke" insinuation that I have some hidden agenda, you are showing bias and lack of honesty. If you want to impugn my character you should do it directly. I wrote one (longish) paper "bashing the Lugano report" 12 months ago long before IH and Rossi fell out.

    Quote from Shane

    Yes, he (Darden) can walk that back, get Dr. Clarke on the stand to argue the "highly esteemed professors" -all 7 of them, were wrong. But in cross examination he will have to admit, by his very own calculations, 1 against the 7 esteemed professors, that the Hotcat may have a COP >1, and they could be right. But maybe not. In fact his final best estimate was 1.07, which if true would be revolutionary


    This shows a real lack of understanding:
    (1) in that co-authored paper it is unlikely that more than one of the profs would be responsible for the thermography analysis - I guess Levi since he replied to Mats. Levi would fall to pieces on the witness stand when cross-examined since from his reply to Mats he does not understand that band emissivity and total emissivity are both relevant to the power calculation, and different.
    (2) No scientist can ever prove that such a device does not have COP > 1. If you do NO experiment, then COP anything you like is possible. A loose experiment like Lugano pins it down to maybe COP < 1.5 but that is all. Your misunderstanding is in thinking that lack of exact disproof (in principle impossible) is evidence for.
    (3) my "best estimate" contained error bars that went well either side of 1 and therefore it is a null result. So why say that 1.07 would be revolutionary? It is tautologous that anything well above chemical excess heat would be revolutionary (not sure whether 1.07 qualifies here - but let us suppose it does). That fact is irrelevant to the analysis of the Lugano experiment since that does not show COP = 1.07, it shows COP = 1.07 +/- some large error.

    Sifferkoll - I can see that you read my book recommendation - "The Man in the Mirror".


    You were never man enough to disclose your financial conflict of interest.


    I wonder if Frank is going to be man enough to answer my question regarding ECW?

    Dewey


    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    I wonder if Frank is going to be man enough to answer my question regarding ECW?


    This has been answered, but you were asleep at the time, perhaps 'dreaming' again.


    You know how the moderators dislike repeating text so you will need to research, yes I know its too much trouble but that's what the rest of us who are seeking the truth have to do, best of luck.

    Best regards
    Frank

    Thomas


    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    I'm inclined to agree that the Lugano test may never enter into Court proceedings.


    There is a chance it could be considered. If Darden et al present the Lugano report as being a means by which they were 'deceived' to justify their fund raising efforts only to find out later, thanks to your efforts, that it was 'unsafe' then you could be asked to appear in court to justify your findings. This together with their own failure to 'substantiate' would be particularly helpful to their case.


    So see you in court Tom!


    Best regards
    Frank

    I have been following the e-cat saga with an open mind for sometime now. I started out highly skeptical and then was swayed over to the believer side because of the published 3rd party test results and the investment by Tom Darden and IH. The longer the 1 year test continued the more convinced I became that we might see a positive result. Darden even said that things were looking promising as of last Fall and IH leased additional space and attracted significant investment from Woodford. Things looked good, and an article was posted on e-catworld with my reasons stating so.


    But I have finally come to the conclusion that the e-cat doesn't work. Reading the latest thread on Vortex with Jed Rothwell fending off arguments from the members there as to why he thinks it doesn't produce excess heat, it's just too difficult to not end up with the same conclusion. I suggest anyone one the fence to read through that Vortex thread. Does anyone think that Tom Darden wanted to throw $11MM down the drain on an exercise to prove that the e-cat doesn't work? They had more vested interest in Rossi succeeding than anyone.


    Rossi is continuing his bold statements about the e-cat x. But what does any of this mean if he is using poor calorimetry? He is conducting his research under the guise of bad measurement. Maybe he knows this maybe he doesn't. He may be a strange combination of someone with delusions of grandeur, and a stubbornness to believe that his sloppy measurement techniques are wrong and leading to bad results.


    We may see an energy breakthrough of some kind, but I am certain that it will not come from Rossi, and it very may well may not be in the field of LENR. I want to believe so and I continue to hold out hope. Maybe Brillouin has something, or maybe Mills has something. I will definitely continue to keep tabs on them. But I think it's time to stop believing in the e-cat. Rossi has had enough time to show a conclusive over-unity device, and after years of proclamations, he has failed to do so. It took a big risk by Tom Darden to get to the bottom of this, but we don't need to wait years for a lawsuit to get resolved. The writing is on the wall. In the end, it was the skeptics who were right on this one. I really do commend Mats Lewan for his reporting on all of this. He deserves to find a big story out there that he can put his name on.

    Thomas


    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Any competent expert witness can read the report, and my critique, and destroy the report conclusions.


    But will both sides be able to agree on a competent expert witness, no I think you will be required to defend your own critique. And then your competency will be questioned perhaps by both sides depending on what they want to hear.


    First, Dr Rossi's attorney will want to know what qualifies you to make such a critique, and why you think you are competent enough to be an 'expert witness'.


    No Tom, I think you are the man!


    Best regards
    Frank

    Deleo


    If you are right, then the court will find Rossi's invention to be 'illusory'. When this happens, the case will be judged to be 'Information Property' and a 'Contract' that is based on nothing at all; and the case will be dismissed.


    However, if the court does not find the invention 'illusory' .........................................


    Best regards
    Frank

    Quote


    Frank,I never said "snide teamclarke insinuation".


    For clarity, I said it in response to:

    Quote from Sifferkoll

    This is the reason Darden was travelling to Sweden recently; to induce FUD in those involved ... He desperately needs to have the Swedes rolling over."Team" @Clarke working 24/7 with endless essays bashing the Lugano report is most probably a central part of this agenda.


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


    Perhaps I'm overly sensitive here - I just think someone who's whole argument depends on absurd character assassinations of other posters should be called out.


    It is implausible that my "Lugano bashing" is a part of an IH agenda because I did the real work on this (and it was a lot of work, writing that comment) at a time when IH was fully in bed with Rossi. Everything since then is just following through, which I admit to enjoy doing with some vigor.

    Thomas


    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Perhaps I'm overly sensitive here - I just think someone who's whole argument depends on absurd character assassinations of other posters should be called out.


    Like you did with Mary Yugo?


    I understand Darden may have flown out to Sweden to try and get the Lugano testers to change their stance, thereby giving him some leverage on his 'I have been mislead' position. If he cant achieve this then I think he may come knocking at your door.


    Best regards
    Frank

    • Official Post

    Deleo,


    Nice post. I think lots of us Rossi believers are coming to the same conclusion as you...Rossi is a con artist. Hard to ignore the signs. Jed's tough talk is really just one voice among many LENR insiders talking the same. My conversion came mostly after reading Marianne Macy's Infinite Energy Magazine article. This is one clip I thought sums it up best:


    "Brian Scanlan was a software entrepreneur and LENR supporter who had figured into early Rossi chapters that I maintained the requested discretion on...until he posted about them on a LENR bulletin board, which he gave me permission here to reproduce (below). I still didn’t…and wouldn’t...know what to think of Andrea Rossi until I saw the evidence on both sides of the case. Scanlan wrote on the forum:


    I am not sure how many of us in this group have met either Rossi, or IH’s Tom Darden. I’ve met both and came away with very distinct impressions.


    In June 2011 I met Rossi in Miami along with his partners from Leonardo. Mike Melich and Marianne Macy were also present. Prior to the meeting I had constructed a consortium committed to funding $15mil provided we could establish mutually agreed-upon test conditions. We didn’t get far. The meeting lasted about two hours but from the beginning was fraught with conflict. I mentioned that Ed Storms would design and run the calorimetry of our proposed test, which in hindsight I realize ended the negotiations. A real scientist and experimentalist such as Ed was too risky for Rossi. Soon after Rossi threw a tantrum, set a series of absurd conditions and left the room, followed by a train of his partners hoping to sooth the genius’ hurt feelings. Although I wasn’t amused at the time, I should have been. Rossi is a character sprung from Hollywood central casting."


    He ended with saying "time to move on". Put as much distance between Rossi, and us as we can so that hopefully the damage he has wrought on the field's already fragile image is minimized. Sad thing about this, is that for Rossi to get this far with nothing, he needed to fool many good scientists along the way into believing in him. He was very successful at that too. In so doing though, he has basically ruined their reputations. Only a sociopath can do that without remorse. To Rossi they were just useful idiots.


    Now, without missing a beat, he continues on his JONP with the Ecat Quark, with the help of his few remaining fans, looking for new suckers to take the bait. If what he says is true, he may have caught another one too. Amazing if so.

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.