Industrial Heat Files Motion to Dismiss Rossi Lawsuit

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Keiu - grow-up.

Hello Doobie Waiver, and thanks for your answer

Unfortunately, we have been unable to correlate it with the various enquiries about your identity, unverified and bothersome in the sense that it sounds more botlike than human

Interestingly enough, IH warned not to listen to any unverified source pretending to speak on their behalf, and there you are, unverified source speaking on their behalf, on what concerns the Rossi affair

Could you please elaborate on this particular aspect?

Hoping that all light will be shed on this subject

Your concerned friend,

Keieueue

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Rends - I'm starting to really wonder about you. IH is clearly capable of placing big bets on the possibility that high impact breakthrough technologies can be characterized / verified then made ready for market. If the E-Cat would have worked as Rossi presented then $100M was chump change.

Perhaps we should try another angle and see if we can make some progress. In your opinion, where would LENR research be today without the ongoing IH investment to date of $70M into the field?

Good question.

What is "LENR research"? Is this about the science of LENR, i.e., CMNS? Science is a collective human enterprise, and the process of science involves publication of results, critique, confirmation, all that. What exists that is secret might be "scientific" in some way, or, more accurately, of possible interest to science, but this is not science. If we know about it at all, it is rumor, generally unverifiable.

So, speaking about the science, and so far, the investment of IH to date has produced no results. That doesn't mean that it's been wasted, but only that we, the public, don't know. A great deal of interest was generated by Rossi -- before IH was involved -- and my assessment, matched by some of the scientists in the field, is that the overall impact was harmful. The largest impact might be in the loss of funding for PdD research, it moving to NiH on the idea that Rossi was claiming kilowatts, so why bother with watts?

Well? What do we know? So far, IH's investment has not generated scientific knowledge on NiH, as I have defined it. IH may know much more, but is not sharing this. Results are not being published in the journal system. It's all perfectly understandable, but ... the result is ... nothing verifiable, nothing actually known and independently confirmed, and so no change in the overall condition of LENR as a largely rejected field, which I'll get to.

Both U.S. Department of Energy reviews recommended modest research under existing programs, to resolve open issues, and to be published through the journal system. The DoE never followed that recommendation. We know that there was some level of effort by the APS to actively discourage some funding, which may have come from the personal belief of Robert Park, who was thoroughly offended in the early days. Offended by what? Secrecy on the part of Pons and Fleischmann.

Secrecy, caused by legal concerns about IP, heavily damaged cold fusion from the beginning.

My estimate of the lost opportunity cost to humanity of delay in the practical application of cold fusion is about a trillion dollars per year, multiplied by the probability that practical applications can be developed, which I estimate as north of 90%.

It might cost, however, a trillion dollars. It is entirely possible that the necessary development effort is beyond the reach -- at this point -- of any private concern. I won't go into the technical details as to why the problem could be so difficult, but Fleischmann thought that it was, and the Japanese put, overall, I think it was much more than $100 million, into research, and gave up. This is often presented as some sort of proof that cold fusion is not real, but that's not the case. They realized that success was not likely, with the level of investment, and practical applications were their goal, not science. There were positive results, as to the reality of the effect.

It became a common trope in the field that cold fusion as not going to "come in from the cold" until there was a practical device available, for sale, so that the reality would be proven to anyone, and it could no longer be denied. But ... that requires success at this development effort. That idea could be a setup for failure. Certainly the search has been on for such for over 25 years. The results? Where is the device? If Rossi actually had something in 2011, investigational devices could have been made available to industrial customers within a year. Instead, you know what happened. Rossi was terrified that his secrets would be reverse-engineered, which, of course, they would have been, which is why he'd need to patent properly, revealing the secrets. But he didn't.

Back up. From the beginning, there have been experiments that might be replicable, but that are almost never replicated, except a few by, say, SRI. Then the results are not published in the journal system. They are not subject to the intense criticism that will accompany such publication. And the news does not get out.

In 1991, Miles reported that PdD anomalous heat, and helium release, were correlated. This was eventually published in a journal, and eventually confirmed by about a dozen research groups. When I started looking at this field in 2009, heat/helium was not emphasized. The experimental work is still not described in the Wikipedia article, even though this is the only *direct* evidence that the FP Heat Effect is real and nuclear in nature, even though it's been covered in peer-reviewed reviews of the field, supposedly the gold standard for Wikipedia. This is a cross-protocol result, and does not depend on reliability, it will work -- i.e., the ratio can be measured -- even if a protocol only produces anomalous heat a few percent of the time (and current protocols are much better than that, in skilled hands.)

I encouraged Storms to write a paper about it, and he did, submitting it to Naturwissenschaften, the venerable multidisciplinary journal, in 2011. They came back to him, requesting an overall review of the field, which he wrote and it passed review and was published. That alone was a breakthrough. There were about 20 reviews of the field published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals since 2005, before the Current Science Special Section last year. This was the most reputable journal. ever, for a review of cold fusion. However, I regretted that it was a general review rather than a specific one. That's because that experiment is the only one we have that is widely confirmed and conclusive. So the heat/helium story was largely buried under a mass of often confusing detail.
(continued)

(continued)
Now, it's very difficult to get old hat into a journal. Journals want something new. The heat/helium research is 25 years old, as to the original report. The confirmations are mostly ten years older or more. This work wasn't being done any more, because measuring helium is difficult and expensive. Within the field, the result is mostly accepted, so why bother confirming what you already know?

However, two reasons: the classic argument about pathological science is that results disappear with increased precision. The old measurements mostly did not collect all the helium, because 40% or so of the helium, it appears, is trapped in the palladium. This may vary and leads to experimental imprecision. The correlation is unmistakable, but the value of the ratio is not clearly established with precision.

There are two results that stand out, where the heat/helium ratio found was, within measurement accuracy, the theoretical value for deuterium conversion to helium. These were SRI M4, and ENEA, Apicella et al, Laser-3. Krivit has attacked both of those, because he doesn't like that ratio, probably because he's paid to support Widom-Larsen theory. (Unproven but quite plausible). I noticed something common about those experiments: they both used anodic stripping. McKubre at SRI was attempting to "flush" the helium out -- which almost certainly does not work, there is experimental evidence that the helium is not mobilized by the movement of deuterium in and out, which, of course, Krivit points out. However, as part of that process, anodic reversal was used. This will dissolve the palladium surface, and it is highly likely from multiple evidences that helium is trapped very near the surface. In Laser-3, a more extensive anodic stripping was done, with the least energetic of three laser experiments. Why> Well, one uses anodic stripping to clean the cathode, I assume Violante was trying to quick-start that cathode into producing more heat. Because there was low heat, the precision of that result is about 20%. The stated precision of the SRI result is 10%. Both hit the mark.

This, then, pointed to a possible protocol that would deliberately use stripping to release the surface helium, making more precise measurements not only possible, but easy. So I wrote http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf, suggesting further work. Within a few months, that was announced. http://www.iccf19.com/_system/…ster/AP52_Scarborough.pdf

If this work is adequately funded, conducted, and described, this could be published in a major journal. Scientists in the field have mostly despaired of any scientific result turning anything around as to public opinion, but it's not public opinion that matters, it is the views of those who fund research. Providing them with clear cover has never been done. Had such a study been available to the U.S. DoE in 2004, the result would have been quite different, it would have been impossible to overlook. What was presented to them was typical of the field. All the "interesting" results are presented, a great pile of mysteries, creating massive confusion. "There must be something nuclear" is terminally vague. A pile of incommensurate results with various implications does not convince skeptics. A narrow, clear, simple result, independently confirmed, consistent, may. We have never tried.

So Plan A, I wrote for some years, was more or less "Rossi saves us." I.e,. a commercial product appears that is based on LENR. We could do almost nothing to help this along, and Rossi rejected offers of help from the scientific community. IH took up the Rossi cause, and, in my view, is to be commended for this. It was a risk, that was obvious. it appears to me that they faced the risk, fearlessly.

Yes, the appearance of a commercial device would be important. But it could take many years, meanwhile the scientific research languishes.

So, since all this is with such high possible impact for the energy future of humanity, Plan B.

Back up, look at the scientific research already done, and nail it down. Focus at first on what is already known and confirmed, and increase precision. Why? Why not improve these "poor results," as Peter Gluck often puts it. I.e., not Big Enough. The reason is simple. The effort to improve fails more often than it succeeds. You make some trivial change to the protocol, supposedly harmless, and the result disappears. The reasons are well known, I won't rehearse them. By focusing on what is already known and confirmed, but increasing precision -- and making careful attempts to discover artifacts -- the research is likely to produce useful results, whereas "improvement' can come up empty for many years.

Private investment in research projects, concealed under NDAs and secrecy, cannot accomplish this. However, this work is substantially less expensive than full-on commercial development, and can break open the general funding logjam. If cold fusion comes out of the cold, graduate students will enter the field, and that is a major source of inexpensive labor for research, with the loss of that by 1990 being a major aspect of the damage done by the rejection cascade. Public research will mostly be funded through charitable giving and governmental interests. Corporations in the field may decide to support public research, at some modest level individually, because it can float all boats. That is all for each player to decide.

Fostering this is my work. I would hope that this becomes not-so-necessary because one of the existing commercial efforts succeeds. I'm just not willing to count on that.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Abd - thank you for taking the time to study this and to share your opinions. This is very helpful in combating the repetitive and delusional ruminations of Team Rossi.

Sadly, I think that a serious issue is behind Rossi's inability to process and deal with reality. This link was sent to me recently and some familiar behavior is resonating with the listed symptoms. I'm starting to wonder if this needs further exploration:

psychologytoday.com/conditions/delusional-disorder

I am not Rossi's psychiatrist, however, I'm trained in transformational technology. Some level of "delusional disorder" is very common, in some ways we may all have it. The training involves recognizing it in oneself (because it is next to useless to recognize this in others, this kind of delusional thinking will be heavily defended as if the person's survival depends on it, which, in a way, is true. That is, the delusions become intensively wrapped up with identity.)

Reading An Impossible Invention, by the sympathetic Mats Lewan, all this occurred to me. It is, however, quite difficult to distinguish delusional disorder from, say, fraud, or perhaps some unusual intelligence. However, a sign would be that the world appears to be full of people attempting to sabotage one's efforts. The delusion, playing out, can actually create what is feared. And this is all familiar to me, particularly by identifying the operation of this in myself.

In the training, there is a social pattern identified, called "conspiracy." That is, you go to your friend and explain, say, why you think your husband (or wife) is cheating. And the friend says, "yeah, yeah, aren't men (or women) awful?"

Rossi, say, sees corporations as greedy entities out to screw him over, and his "friends" say, "Yeah! corporations are evil!"

In the training, we don't conclude that the fears are baseless, but rather recognize that a mind dominated by fear cannot see clearly and will make poor decisions. We identify the personal survival instincts operating, plus childhood or other learned interpretations of life, and, backing up and detaching -- the danger not being immediate, there is time to reflect and consider, usually -- we see the situation with a mind not afflicted by fear. And then ... miracles happen. The unhindered mind is utterly astonishing and amazing, compared to ordinary, fear-dominated thinking.

(Personal survival is a necessity, but operates properly on a very fast time scale. If we saw a flash of orange and white in a jungle, we did not have time to mull it over. If that's a tiger and we delay, we are literally dead meat. But if someone looks like a possible white-collar criminal, and unless they are holding a gun, there is time to back up. In the martial arts, a practitioner is trained to stay away from fear, because it can be paralyzing or create major vulnerability.)

I have proposed the hypothesis that Rossi is insane because it pulls the props out from under the common thinking: Rossi could not be, say, a fraud, because he'd be crazy, he'd be headed for prison, etc. Rossi's sanity is not established, bottom line. He shows lots of symptoms of something being off. On Planet Rossi, these are explained away as pure genius. The tragedy here is that if Rossi has something real, his patterns and habits could still cause total failure, and his "friends" are not helping.

Quote from Alan Smith

The Japanese never gave up. And now the Abe government has given oversight of an expanded investment program to the Japanese Nuclear Energy Authority and 'Clean Planet' has become a 'Skunkworks' with what is effectively an unlimited budget.

The particular projects I had in mind, MITI and IMRA, ended with statements similar to giving up. Not all Japanese gave up, and there are continued efforts in Japan.

Is it so painful to have spend one's life in scientific pursuit and witnessing a possible breakthrough, that disbelief has to be instilled in self and others through walls of text and guilt trips (Rossi cost humanity gabazillions of cash)?

Seems science is indeed a religion, just as scholars from the pasts debated about the angels' gender for thousands of pages to strengthen the edifice of their faith, modern day scientists will endlessly reinforce their bias ("there might be things we don't know, but the chances of it are infinitesimal... we know better than this better focus on what we know, real healthy science")

Quote from Shane D.

Dewey,

I am not going to dig it up again since the Rossi Blog Reader is down, but in July 2013 Rossi claimed a milestone achievement, that IH, all on their own, without his help, built an Ecat. Then mixed the fuel, started the reaction, operated it and got the same results Rossi got. He was very proud telling his fans about this accomplishment.

That of course contradicts your comments, that IH's assembled team of capable scientists has been unable to duplicate any Rossi product.

Let me get this straight. Rossi said something that contradicts what is said by Dewey Weaver, who is, by all accounts, an investor in IH with some access to privileged information, as major investors might be. Because Rossi said it, it must be true, so Dewey Weaver is wrong. Is that what is being claimed here?

Quote

I mention this, because obviously IH's first DD with the 30 Ecat units was successful, or they would not have paid Rossi the $10 million, plus bought the 1MW for $1.5 million?

What is "obvious" to a full-on believer is not obvious to those not similarly afflicted. What is a "successful" test? Was Lugano successful? Really, it depends on when you ask. It was successful in convincing the independent professors, and many others on first reading. But, later, issues with the techniques used arose and that test is no longer considered "successful" by scientists, including some who originally thought it was. Was the Verification test successful at convincing IH to go ahead with the $10 million? That's much more likely, but still not a necessary conclusion. IH at some point decided to play along with Rossi, in spite of doubts that would be obvious to anyone who studied the field, as have existed since 2011, well before IH became involved.

I would assess that it was likely that, at that point, they believed that there was a reasonable possibility of the effect being real, and problems with the testing were perhaps just that, problems with the testing.

Or they fully accepted that test, but later became aware of possible defects, up to and possibly including fraud. This is a totally different and distinct issue from IH having independently confirmed that the technology works, as Rossi claimed in his blog entry, so "proud" of it. The original Verification test could have been fully satisfactory and the heat real, and yet, if the IP was not fully transferred, IH could fail to confirm.

And if the IP was not fully transferred, the Agreement was void. So ... did IH confirm? This is the kind of thing that may come out if the case goes to trial. A core claim from IH, it appears, is likely to be that they could not confirm Rossi claims, and not being able to independently create the Rossi effect without Rossi having his fingers in the pie would be central to that. And this is why the Rossi Plan with the GPT was so foolish. HIs involvement, 24/7, apparently, would be strong reason to doubt the results.

I wrote in 2011 that it was possible for a fraud to fool a pile of experts, if the fraud has full control of a demonstration. This is why independent confirmation -- which means without the participation of the original claimant -- is considered so important in science. It looks to me like the general presence of Rossi for the GPT was not contemplated in the Agreement. As the GPT was eventually set up, Rossi was enormously involved. Fraud would have been trivial.

That does not mean that there was actually fraud, only that it created an appearance of possibility, which is something that Rossi did, in his life history, over and over.

It is not necessarily that Rossi was lying in that 2013 claim. Perhaps, for example, IH reported results to him that looked positive. Then they later concluded that this was artifact. Rossi could have made his proud announcement based on such, just as Planet Rossi keeps claiming that the Rossi Effect has been independently confirmed around the world, perhaps pointing to Parkhomov and Songsheng Jiang. I began with great excitement about the Parkhomov results. It looked really good. Brilliant! Then, attempting to understand the experiment, I looked more closely and the more closely I looked, the odder it got. Bottom line, Parkhomov was inconclusive. With time, his results tended toward vanishing. Songsheng Jiang used thermocouples beyond their operating range in a hydrogen atmosphere, which can be murder on thermocouples not properly protected. And they were not protected. So, no surprise, thermocouple failure. But he got some readings from a failed thermocouple and concluded from these that he had significant XP. Quite simply, inconclusive. There is now a colleague using another measurement approach. Classic LENR: keep changing the protocol to make it better, so that results between experiments cannot be compared and new artifacts can be introduced. So far, nothing is clear.

Instead of repeating the experiment with one change -- protected high-temperature thermocouples -- the whole thing is changed, but supposedly studying "the same thing." Which it is not.

However, these are reputable scientists, there is no doubt about their sincerity. Nonetheless this is obvious to me:

LENR appears to turn the brains of otherwise sane researchers into jelly. Basic to science is a vigorous attempt to prove oneself wrong and to avoid anything other than the strongest conclusions. If something looks interesting and requires further confirmation or exploration, that's what is said. Songsheng Jiang and his colleague report their work as if it proves LENR. They do not consider and address obvious possible artifacts, but explain away difficulties, the very opposite of what I'd expect from a scientist.

I see that scientifically necessary caution in, for example, the work of Michael McKubre. He reports results, but interprets them with high caution.

Quote from Keieueue

s it so painful to have spend one's life in scientific pursuit and witnessing a possible breakthrough, that disbelief has to be instilled in self and others through walls of text and guilt trips (Rossi cost humanity gabazillions of cash)?

This is probably a reference to my mention of a trillion dollars a year of lost opportunity cost from delay in the creation of practical LENR applications. That's obviously a rough estimate. However, it's sober. The big unknown is whether or not such applications are possible, but this comment is from Planet Rossi which believes that it's not only possible, it's any day now.

It's not clear what the specific effect of any action is. If the rejection cascade had not happened, though, I suspect that the situation and the science would have developed normally. As results accumulated, funding would have ramped up and more and more resources would have been applied, reaching funding levels in the billions of dollar per year, perhaps even to hundreds of billions. We might have had practical LENR practical by, say, 2005. As it is now, we have a leg up. It might only take another decade. Or if Planet Rossi is right, how long? Two years would be pretty optimistic, eh? So 2018 instead of 2005. That's a lost opportunity cost of 13 trillion dollars, almost $2000 for each person on earth. (The trillion dollar per year figure is based on a massive reduction of energy costs of $140 per person on the planet. A bit more than $10 per month. Is this unreasonable?

Now, this anonymous .... person ... seems to have some picture in his mind of my history as "spending my life in scientific pursuit." In fact, I dropped out of Cal Tech in about 1965, and never went back to the sciences as such until about 2009. I went for life and people and community and a whole pile of interests. Here: https://www.quora.com/profile/Abd-Ul-Rahman-Lomax. Quora is real-name, so forget about it, anonymous trolls. Such don't last long there. I was also a midwife and founded a school of midwifery. If you look at the "Knows About" topic list, you can get a broader idea.

Did Rossi cost humanity "gazbazzilions of cash"? Will, first of all, a gazbazillion is undefined. It would "a lot," and in response to another like this, it means "I don't care what was actually claimed, it's completely silly." Did Rossi cost humanity something, so far? It's difficult to assess. I did not write "cash," that was this person's mangling of what I wrote. I wrote "lost opportunity cost." Which is not cash. it is a conditional wealth, that would not need to be spent on power, so that would, presumably, be available for something else. $12 per month for every person on the planet. Is this an unreasonable figure? But, hey, what's a trillion dollars? I answered a Question on Quora, this was fun, and I got the better part of a million page views. https://www.quora.com/Could-a-…nswer/Abd-Ul-Rahman-Lomax This is commonly something I do. There is a question. It requires the study of large numbers. So I do it and write about it. What I got out of that was a concrete idea of how much money a billion dollars is. Enough to fill 400 olympic-size swimming pools with vodka! Who knew?

Here, on this forum, obviously designed for snark, long answers are considered, by some, "wall of text" (even though I take care to avoid wall-o-text, by formatting.) Wikipedia was like that. If an edit was being discussed, and one actually did major research to find what exists in sources, this was highly irritating to the Wikipedia core, which wants brevity. After all, they have a project with over five million articles to maintain. We can't read for five minutes for every one! (But nobody was required to read any of that discussion, and nobody is required to read what I write here. Don't like it, hey, don't read it!

One of the things that is great about Quora is that if I write a tome as an Answer, people thank me for putting in the work to write an answer with such depth. There is no down side. Here ... well, the people I care about thank me, and the ones I don't care about respond with snark. Mostly, I ignore it, I leave when I don't feel welcome. A forum like this is far from the center of my life, except for a few days, when I might put in ten hours a day researching and writing.

For example, I saw, in many places, that the Motion to Dismiss filed by the IH attorneys was being radically misunderstood, by people with no clue about legal process. I have some experience, I can read motions and briefs like that. But I didn't wanna. Too friggin' much work. And then I saw a specific occasion, a specific question, calling out for an analysis. So ... roll up sleeves. Did I write off the top of my head? No. I actually did not know what I was going to write, though I had a rough idea, since I'd already read the Motion about three times. Studying it is very different. This is what I do.

I opened up the Motion and the related documents and went through it systematically, which nobody had done. I came to certain conclusions, which some don't like, but they don't do the work themselves or actually go over what I wrote with specific criticisms, finding errors. (I'm grateful when someone does that.) This has been going on for many years, I'm quite used to it. The document I created here was written as I did the research. So it was necessarily long, though nowhere near as long as the sources! And then in the middle of it, my attorney friend called. Basically, his conclusions were the same.

The people I care about read what I write and thank me, and that's quite enough. And those people then support my work. Yes. Sometimes with money. I do not write to attract money, it's a side effect. I give away what I find. But ... "the workman is worthy of his meat," and I trust that.

Quote

Seems science is indeed a religion, just as scholars from the pasts debated about the angels' gender for thousands of pages to strengthen the edifice of their faith, modern day scientists will endlessly reinforce their bias ("there might be things we don't know, but the chances of it are infinitesimal... we know better than this better focus on what we know, real healthy science")

I have spent years confronting pseudoskepticism. One of my themes has become understanding it, i.e., the function of it. But pseudoskepticsm is quite damaging, just as is attached belief -- which is quite distinct from faith, just as pseudoskepticism is distinct from skepticism. This ... anonymous person .. has no idea of my experience, rather obviously, but imagines I am coming from a pseudoskeptical position. Only a fixed believer would think that. Because of the stands I've been taking, I can communicate with genuine skeptics, and even with some pseudoskeptics. And with many believers as well, because I am not making all these wrong by looking at reality. My religion is exactly that: the acceptance of reality. I'm not kidding, this is the meaning of "Islam." But, ah, people have various ideas about what is real, to be sure.

Ah, the Question. The distraction that Rossi created led a major focus of research to become NiH. While that might pan out, there are, in a scientific sense, no major confirmed results with NiH. There are hints only. The situation with PdD is very different, but ... if Rossi is claiming kilowatts, who wants to bother with watts? (Even, though, scientifically, a watt is easy to measure and quite significant, if you aren't dumping lots of power in. COP 1.05 is generally considered significant in the science.)

Researchers in the field say that funding became very difficult to get for anything not NiH. It's difficult to assess the cost of this, but it did have an impact. I'm rather arbitrarily going to put a figure of two years' delay (out of the five since Rossi announced) So he cost humanity about two trillion dollars. He could easily have avoided this. In 2011, if his claims were based on a real effect, he was generating kilowatts. Making devices for industrial investigation would have been easy, it could have been done within a year. Instead, he made it difficult: a megawatt power plant! Now, all that was, was, say, fifty 20 kW devices. Wny not make and sell the devices? For investigational use, and with appropriate agreements, they would not have to be fully reliable. This was, by the way, all suggested back in 2011. Why did Rossi not do this? It's fairly obvious: he wanted to protect his IP, and if he had released devices for text, even with NDAs, someone would have reverse-engineered the thing.

The only protection against this would be a good patent. But Rossi did not want to get good patents, he wanted to rely on trade secret. This was not about benefiting humanity, it was about keeping it all for himself. And that's obvious. And this assumed that the Rossi Effect is real. So, if the Rossi Effect is real, the distraction cost ($2 trillion) wouldn't apply. Rather the issue would be the effect of his strategy. I estimate about four trillion dollars.

To those mentally challenged, a "trillion" is a gazbazzilion, and the comments are read as an attempt to guilt. Which reveals a whole mode of thinking. But a trillion dollars a year is just a number. $12 per person on the planet per month.

And, ah, some impact on the environment.

Quote from frankwtu

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax: “Because Rossi said it, it must be true, so Dewey Weaver is wrong. Is that what is being claimed here?”

Because Dewey Weaver said it Rossi must be wrong? Is that what is being claimed here?

Certainly not that! Can't you read, Frank? There is this basic legal principle, testimony is presumed true unless controverted. The claim was being made, apparently, that what Rossi said was true, so Dewey must be wrong. I pointed to that, but this was not a claim of the reverse condition and, in fact, I went on to suggest a harmonizing interpretation that makes both of them right.

Since it was obviously missed, probably because Frank was so busy being outraged by his own invented interpretation, IH may have told Rossi in 2013 that they had positive results, explaining his comment. Then, later, they discovered problems, perhaps they actually found specific artifact, so the position shifted to "no confirmation," explaining both Rossi's comment and Deweys' comment and that piece of dicta in the Motion hinting about where they might argue if it were allowed in a Motion to Dismiss. They can get away with a footnote like that, the judge will not get upset, because she obviously need not pay attention to it.

Quote from frankwtu

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
IH at some point decided to play along with Rossi, in spite of doubts that would be obvious to anyone who studied the field, as have existed since 2011, well before IH became involved.

'Play along with Rossi' with whose money? For what reason? Was this 'due process'?

I have no idea what "due process" means in this context. Word salad? What?

What I wrote was a speculation as to why IH might continue to stay the course with Rossi even if things appeared to be going south.

1. The Rossi effect is real and therefore IH must be lying.
2. The Rossi Effect is not real and IH should have realized this long ago and bailed, and that they did not bail proves that it is real. Therefore IH is lying.
3. They were incompetent, stupid idiots.

Yes, play with their money. On behalf of their investors, but I think Darden's personal money was involved here. They then raised much more money, and Rossi is claiming that this was all on the strength of his IP, but ... IH was interested in the whole field and was openly talking about that last year. Now this is what I see about the field, as it existed then. Investment and interest was dominated by Rossi. Rossi was claiming reactors running at, say, 20 KW or more each. Other players in the field might have a few hundred watts, if that. As long as Rossi is dominant, investment in the other players would naturally be suppressed.

IH initially got involved, attracted by the fuss about Rossi, and Rossi's results looked good. There were problems with all the tests, but ... there was enough buzz being generated to maintain the dominance of Rossi. If at some point, it became clear to IH that the Rossi Effect was unreal or unreliable, not as claimed, they already were invested. They would also hedge their conclusion by continuing to protect the IP. They essentially called Rossi's bluff. Nobody had done that before. Nobody had actually invested that kind of money, $11.5 million (and I'm sure they invested much more than that). Before, if Rossi did not cooperate with desired tests, possible investors simply walked away. IH stayed the course. It is still possible that IH would be open to a negotiated settlement with Rossi. An obvious possibility would be to arrange another GPT, this time completely independent, Rossi nowhere hear it. All Rossi interaction to, say, repair the thing, would be through instructions to IH personnel. Or perhaps it would be a truly independent testing organization, not someone previously involved. If Rossi has a real effect, he could win big by cooperating with this. A requirement would be that the devices be actually manufactured by IH, though Rossi could test their process and even some of the actual reactors.

Rossi has made this all very difficult by claiming fraud and attempting to make the officers liable, which is colossally rude. However, he could recover. He would need to start listening to good counsel. And, yes, counsel selected by him, but better: counsel selected by someone he trusts, but who is independent. The reason is that Rossi has probably filtered his friends.

I heard a great story the other day. An attorney asked a business man he was advising, someone extremely intelligent (the attorney said IQ 160), if he was "coachable." I.e,. would he listen to advice? The man said Yes, then, not long later, took it back, "I don't like being told what to think."

That is the essence of uncoachability. "Coachable" does not mean "slave to how others think," someone who is coachable still makes their own decisions, but "coachable" means being willing to try on for size how someone else thinks, to see how the world looks though a different set of filters. Being unwilling to do this leads, then, to being limited to one's own set of filters, one's own blind spots, and no matter how smart one person is, that person is not as smart as two, including the one, who communicate.

But, sure, nobody likes being told how to think. We learned that in Being a Teenager 1A. However, sometimes, setting that aside and just trying it can generate miracles.