Now IH have lost E-Cat License and IP, who will manufacture E-Cats in the US?

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    There is a line running from the customer area into the reactor, and it's apparently and supposedly carrying a whole lot of water.


    Rossi claims it is carrying steam, but I am pretty sure it is water.


    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    My understanding is that the interface to the customer area was through a heat exchanger. [I don't have the reference at hand].


    Nope, it is just a pipe exiting the room, as Rossi explained to Lewan.


    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    Calorimetry can be done on the primary circuit without the need to know what's on the secondary.


    There is only one circuit, and as I.H. explained the instruments in it are unsuitable.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Alan Smith

    BTW, if you think I am accusing you of fabrications, you would be totally wrong. I have never done such a thing, you would be thinking of somebody else.


    Jed. Why do you fail to quote the last line of my post - repeated above - before accusing me of impugning your honesty? You certainly quoted plenty of the rest of it. Now that is selective use of data.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Jed. Why do you fail to quote the last line of my post - repeated above - before accusing me of impugning your honesty?


    Please stop the sophistry and pettifoggery. You claimed I was reporting hearsay. I don't care what British courts say, in conversational English on both sides of the Atlantic, that means "spreading unfounded rumors." You have no reason to accuse me of that. I resent it. I also resent being held to a much higher standard that Rossi.


    Enough said.

    Jed is expressing an opinion about the test. This opinion includes the specification that the opinion is derived from first hand data as reflected by the judgment of the opinions source. My reservation about the opinions is the coloring of the opinion by the beliefs and prejudices of the opinion's source.

    I know nothing about the objectivity and judgment of the opinion's source. so I will discount the judgment expressed by the opinion maker. I will wait to make my own judgment of the situation based on first hand data.


    Quote

    HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others. 2. As a general rule, hearsay evidence of a fact is not admissible. If any fact is to be substantiated against a person or situation, it ought to be proved in his presence by the testimony of a witness sworn or affirmed to speak the truth.

    Quote from axil

    ed is expressing an opinion about the test. This opinion includes the specification that the opinion is derived from first hand data as reflected by the judgment of the opinions source.


    In this instance I was not expressing an opinion. I was reporting an incident described to me by Jim Dunn during a conference in Virginia. He told me about the time he and some people from NASA visited Rossi to evaluate Rossi's technology on behalf of some investors. Rossi did not realize the reactor was plugged up, which almost led to a disaster.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Please stop the sophistry and pettifoggery. You claimed I was reporting hearsay. I don't care what British courts say, in conversational English on both sides of the Atlantic, that means "spreading unfounded rumors." You have no reason to accuse me of that. I resent it. I also resent being held to a much higher standard that Rossi.

    Simmer down, Jed. Hearsay does not mean that, though hearsay can shade into that. There are two definitions. There is the legal definition (which Axil has given, stating he chooses to abide by the legal, while he himself commonly presents what he does not personally know, as if it were fact) and there is the everyday definition, and which one is operative can depend on the person. It is not, however, as used here, a claim of "spreading unfounded rumors." It could become that if the information passed through a number of hands before you obtained it, and the more hands, the more unreliable it is. But you do have some foundation, or at least claim you do.


    Nevertheless, you cannot tell us the source, only that you deem it reliable, and you draw conclusions from it, which you present. So to say that this is "unfounded" would be an insult. But that was not said in this case. It was called hearsay, which possibly accurate legally, at least. Now, if you saw an actual report, this is a step up. If you are careful what you report, attributing it clearly, it's not hearsay, but testimony. Testimony based on personal knowledge is not hearsay. Even if it cannot be verified independently.


    If it's the ERV report being described, we cannot verify it today, but may eventually be able to. Then you look good or otherwise. One of the problems here is that we want to make immediate judgments of good and bad, and one of the devices to do with a person is to accuse them of some offense. Like "presenting hearsay." But presenting hearsay is not a moral offense unless it is incautious and conveys what is not true. A careful witness may present what would otherwise be hearsay, accurately.


    It may still be legally hearsay, it can actually be a complex issue. A court -- or a conversation like these -- will obviously prefer primary sources over secondary. But I, for one, can appreciate what you write, without needing to conclude that it is fully accurate. It might be, but no witness is totally free from the possibility of error.


    Gossip is hearsay, but not all hearsay is gossip.


    Further, Mat's Lewan's blog is full of hearsay of unclear provenance. It's obvious that he is repeating rumors, and there is no sign that he's being careful.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Nevertheless, you cannot tell us the source, only that you deem it reliable, and you draw conclusions from it, which you present.


    I did tell you the source! I said I heard it from Jim Dunn and Mike Nelson, during a conference in Virginia. I said you should contact Jim yourself if you have any questions.


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    It could be that if the information passed through a number of hands before you obtained it, and the more hands, the more unreliable it is. But you do have some foundation, or at least claim you do.


    It was passed through one hand, from Jim to me. As I made very clear, repeatedly. I told you exactly who and where I heard it from. If you don't believe me, ask them yourself, for crying out loud.


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    If it's the ERV report being described, we cannot verify it today,


    Nothing to do with that. I am describing NASA's visit to Rossi.

    The exchange I was talking about lost context. I looked back, but didn't look back far enough, apparently. My apologies to Jed.


    Jed has pointed to a very specific piece of hearsay, and this is still and clearly hearsay. It is attributed, and verifiable through Jim Dunn. But is it an accurate account of what happened that day? Jed cites what may be a confirmation, but this is still all though one source: Jed, interpreting both. I know Jed reasonably well; well enough to know that he will not lie. But he also has strong opinions and reports passed through him might possibly take on a color.


    Nevertheless, his report about Jim Dunn's experience rings more-or-less true to me. If I were writing a book about this, I would definitely want to check with the more original sources, and then what Jed wrote about it would become almost irrelevant. However, this is discussion in an informal forum. I suggest that people recognize what is obvious. Ye,s this is hearsay. And so what? Some seem to be going after it, as if it were bad or wrong, because they don't like the implications. If that is so, it's an obvious bias.


    I think it is fine to leave mysteries in place, and that, in fact, has become a central part of my approach to cold fusion. There are mysteries. Get over it.


    Jed


    Quote from JedRothwell

    I don't care what British courts say, in conversational English on both sides of the Atlantic, that means "spreading unfounded rumors."


    If you don't care, why go on to care about what you think it means?


    Wikipedia:
    Hearsay is the legal term for certain statements—offered as evidence during a trial or hearing for the purpose of attempting to
    prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statements—that were not made while testifying at the trial or hearing itself. In general, the witness will attempt to make a statement such as, "Sally told me Tom was in town" (for the purpose of proving that Tom was indeed "in town"), as opposed to "I saw Tom in town." Hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States, unless one of nearly thirty[1] exceptions applies to the particular statement being made.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Quote from axil

    The Lugano report was published in the open and was discussed in many blogs in hundreds of posts. That Lugano report and the information that it contained is open source and in the public domain. Then there is all the replications of the Lugano reactor. They as also open source. How can IH patent that system as described in the Lugano report as their IP?


    I just had occasion to look at that patent. IH filed the original patent application before the Lugano test, the Lugano report data was added later as an updated filing.


    The question was coming up why this patent was filed by IH. It would be precisely because the Lugano test was planned. It appears that the Lugano report's prior mention of the use of LiAlH4 has torpedoed some worldwide Rossi applications, but IH headed this off in their case, and that Patent has Rossi's name on it as inventor. And the name of Dameron as co-inventor, which got Rossi all bent out of shape, but if Dameron added any ideas to that Lugano design, that was legitimate (and this was all specifically allowed in the Agreement).


    And if this stuff actually worked, IH"s application might have saved Rossi's ass.


    Details matter.


    Lugano works when it is in the interests of IH that it works, and it does not work when it is in the interest of IH that it doesn't work.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    but if Dameron added any ideas to that Lugano design, that was legitimate (and this was all specifically allowed in the Agreement).


    If Dameron added any ideas, his name must be included in the application, or the application will be voided. You are not allowed to leave out any names, even for trivial contributions. My name is included in a (failed) patent application because I made a small suggestion adding to it. I had to sign an intimidating form.

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.