Industrial Heat Files Motion to Dismiss Rossi Lawsuit

Quote from quizzical

Quote from JedRothwell: “Quote from quizzical: “Here is an update on the project (dated November 24, 2015) which confirms that the Japanese government’s initiative to fund LENR research has moved forward:”
No, it has not. Here is the Japanese…

Quote from quizzical

Jed,
The link I posted (here it is again: news.newenergytimes.net/2015/1…dership-in-lenrs-continue) comes DIRECTLY from Clean Planet's website under "PAST NEWS (October 2015)".

ah ha ha. ahahahahaha. However, I stopped laughing long enough to look more closely. Classic Krivit, though far from the worst I've seen.

Quote

Here is an excerpt:

"Takahashi’s e-mail confirms that the Japanese government’s initiative to fund LENR research — for the first time in two decades — has moved forward.

Ah, email? did Takahashi send an email to Krivit? Most researchers in the field stopped talking to Krivit years ago because he would twist what they say. But I looked at the story. Ah.

Quote

Nov. 24, 2015 – By Steven B. Krivit –

One more Japanese auto company, Nissan, is researching low-energy nuclear reactions (LENRs),New Energy Times has learned.

The information comes from an e-mail sent today by LENR researcher Akito Takahashi to other LENR researchers.

I had not noticed this. This would presumably be a mail from the CMNS mailing list, which is private and subscribers to that list undertake not to reveal information for mails sent to it. Krivit often breaks confidence. Either he has hacked or other clandestine access to the list archive, or someone on the list is sending him emails. Since he is likely supported by a major theorist who is a list subscriber, we don't have to have a fantastic imagination to suspect who it might be.

The language of "moved forward"? Was that Takahashi's comment? No. That was Krivit's interpretation. A committee was formed. That's about it. Krivit extracted as much story as he could from that single confidential email. That a particular company was represented on that committee, is, then, the Big Story, Krivit leads with it.

Quote

As I mentioned, this NET news item is linked-to directly from the Clean Planet website (see cleanplanet.co.jp/news.php?lang=en). Next to this link they also give the link to the study group (in Japanese) you mentioned, although I don't see any clear connection with LENR.

Indeed. Yes, that page links back to NET, which is quoting Akito Takahashi's confidential email, in a somewhat distorted manner. All that the mail says, as actually quoted, is that a committee was formed.

Quote

Anyway, since Clean Planet links to a news item which states the above, and this is accompanied by their statement next to this link that "Japanese government has started to support our clean energy project with Tohoku University", I can only conclude from reading this as well as the associated articles that, consistent with previous information that I have seen, both the Japanese government and industry (including Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Technova) in association with Clean Planet, are carrying out and supporting significant research into LENR.

This is common in this field. There is very little fact reported here. A committee was formed. Takahashi mentions this on the list. Krivit picks up on it and fluffs up the meaning, deriving an implication from it. Clean Planet links to that, and then more conclusions are drawn, like "supporting significant research." All that happened that we know about is that a committee was formed, which can mean very little.

Now, a real investigative journalist would be taking to Takahashi, finding out more about this. But Krivit is not on speaking terms with Takahashi, I think. Takahashi is a "competing theorist," part of the "cold fusion fusion conspiracy."

With whom could Krivit talk, given that most won't talk with him? Perhaps Mizuno, who has been friendly to him, apparently. But Krivit didn't do that. He did not actually research this story. He just passed on a snippet with some fluff attached. At one point I offered to help him, since I was (and am) trusted. He was deliberately rude, it amazed me. More recently, he attempted to convince a LENR researcher that I could be trusted with confidential information. I'm considering legal action, because it was libel with intention to harm. The good thing is that they don't believe him, so I might have trouble alleging actual harm. So maybe I'll publish it with "ha ha ha. A ha ha ha ha ha!" Might as well get some fun out of it!

His libel was based, by the way, on a confidential CMNS list mail, which he'd published with callous disregard, causing harm to communication in the field, and I'd mentioned to the list that I'd contact a LENR researcher who was quite upset about the leak. This can cause real damage, some of the researchers are governmental, etc. So he wrote to that researcher 'informing" him that I often reveal confidential material, so .... obviously, don't trust Lomax. Except he trusted me and gave me the email, etc. I don't reveal what is given to me under an expectation of confidentiality. I'm not going to say "never," because with every commitment, circumstances can arise to require breaking it. But breaking commitments is something to never be done lightly. I broke a commitment to confidentiality once, sponsoring a person who was in serious trouble. He told me he was ready to commit suicide. He told me where the pills were. I called his mother, he was living with her, and told her. I made the choice that my commitment to confidentiality was less important than that he live. He could find another sponsor, if he wanted one (or he could decide to continue to trust me), but he could not find another life. Now, years, later, I'd handle it a bit differently. I might not break confidentiality, I have more skill. But I did the best I knew to do at the time.

And, of course, Krivit added at the bottom: "LENRs originated from what was once thought by some researchers to be “cold fusion.” The stigma of bad science still clings to the field in the U.S." Of course, the Japanese call it "cold fusion" all the time. See http://jcfrs.org/JCF16/jcf16-program.pdf -- for example. "Some researchers" is nearly all.

New Energy Times?

ha ha. ha ha ha ha ha . A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Could the Krivit leak of Takahashi's mail cause damage? Maybe. Suppose the auto company didn't want this to be public knowledge? Our "fearless journalist" DGAF what harm this might cause. The result could be the withdrawal of that company from participation. Yes, I like for fact to be open. But sometimes confidentiality is needed.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Abd - I hate to keep repeating this but I can only share so much detail at this stage of the legal battle with Rossi.

Sure. Got it. Understand. Please be careful about what you reveal.

Quote

First of all, Cherokee and IH are separate legal entities. Second, I'm a shareholder in IH, not Cherokee.

Thanks. I considered that possible. It places you substantially closer to the action.

Quote

Third, I've been involved in investing with Darden for over 16 years and know the man very well. He is an incredible visionary, a great leader and a cause-oriented investor. He puts everything that he has into solving big problems. When he gets a return on a deal, he gives a substantial amount of the profit away to causes he believes in. He has infrastructure in Africa that invests in and teaches leadership, micro-economics, clean energy and education. I was at MIT not long ago and a young man from Ethiopia comes running up to JT, who used to run the Africa program as part of his IH training, and gives him a big hug. The young man was a graduate of one of the Cherokee programs and was completing a EE masters. Others have gone on to Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Penn, Columbia for advanced degrees then return home to help their country. All made possible by the wisdom, generosity and leadership of Tom Darden.

Got it. A personal friend, someone you not only respect a great deal, but you have backed that with personal investment, is being roundly attacked and condemned. So I have no difficulty understanding your reaction, at all.

I also have little difficulty in understanding the reactions of Planet Rossi.

Quote

I really get steamed when I see knuckleheads supporting a well know lying cheat in his latest attempt to enrich himself. I am sorry that this emotion is reflected in some of my postings. Rossi took IH money, did not deliver on his commitments, has picked the wrong fight and is going down as a result.

There is a trick used in Islamic law where there is a conflict over truth. It's called "mutual imprecation." "May the curse of God be on the liars."

Quote

I'd like to thank you for stepping into this mess and for attempting to help everyone process this situation. I concur the MTD was the excellent return volley from IH and can share the next round of salvos are going to be even more devastating to Rossi's rag tag, shameful and tattered story.

And now we will see how Rossi's attorney responds.

LENR is much bigger an issue than even a multi-billon dollar company (i.e, Cherokee). It is much bigger than whether or not some con artist is punished. Or some inventor, for that matter, is rewarded. This is what a trillion dollar lost opportunity cost implies: it's time to start considering true overall welfare. My sense is that IH is doing that, so, if so, then may they be guided to excellent action. If Rossi wants to benefit humanity, then, again, may he be guided to that. It's much more important than "personal identity." A trillion dollars per year, how many lives could be saved if that were spent on medical care? How many lives will be saved if we can slow down or stop polluting the planet?

We will never realize these possibilities by searching out and trying to get rid of or punish the Bad Guys. My own approach, at this point, is to stand for honesty, clarity, and public science, a badly neglected aspect of this field. So I hope to see more support for that. That is what Infusion Institute was set up to do. It's a modest effort, intending to be a catalyst, not a controller.

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

David prevailed because the premodern sling in the hands of an experienced shepherd was as deadly as a modern pistol at short range. It was used to kill wolves and other tough targets. Goliath probably lost because he suffered from developmental problems from giantism, especially blurred and double vision. See Malcolm Gladwell, "David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants."

I tell the story that creates inspiration (that's also why it is told in the Bible, I'm sure). You tell the story that gives a "rational explanation." Those are not in conflict. I knew about the power of a sling. However, I also know about people and what works in situations of high risk and conflict. I'll stand with what I wrote. Given a choice between strength and trust in reality, I'll choose trust. But I'm not going to dismiss strength! It looks like the height of Goliath may have been exaggerated in the Masoretic text, as six cubits and a span. Earlier texts had four cubits and a span.

Quote

He probably had plenty of ammunition. A shepherd would never go fight someone with only one stone. Having only one stone makes it a better story.

According to the story, he had six stones, but how many shots would he get in before Goliath would reach him? "One shot" refers to the shot, not to how many pebbles he was carrying. If he didn't kill Goliath, but merely wounded him, say, Goliath would be enraged. How long did David have? And, of course, the point of the story is missed. If you are going to shoot the King, don't miss. Why not? Why can't you just shoot again? And then you cauld dive into massive irrelevancies about automatic weapons and, really, you could fire a bunch of bullets, but, bottom line, in that attempt, if you don't kill the King, you lose the game. You might personally lose your life anyway, but presumably the goal matters to you.

What makes the David and Goliath story was that this was a personal challenge, one-on-one combat in lieu of armies fighting. That seems to have been a fairly common, and fairly sensible practice. And a lesson: even if your champion is powerful, don't encourage him to become contemptuous.

This looks like six cubits and a span.

And this more like four cubits and a span.

In both images, Goliath is a large sitting duck. If David have been afraid, his aim would not have been so sure. He was confident, but not contemptuous. He simply did what he knew to do. The Philistines fled. Why? It's worth looking at that.

Quote from quizzical

Unfortunately, I have the distinct impression that Rothwell, unlike his usual more reserved and careful statements, has gone somewhat overboard, calling Penon "an idiot" etc.

Jed, "reserved and careful"?
a ha ha
a ha ha ha ha ha

I'd better watch out. I might fall over and break something.

Jed is a long-term supporter of cold fusion, has paid his dues, knows a great deal. .... and often calls people "idiots." The first book I read on cold fusion, was by Nate Hoffman. Hoffman was a skeptic but definitely not a pseudoskeptic, and completely skewers the common skeptical arguments in the book. That book convinced me that there was something to investigate. Then I read Taubes and Huizenga. And then Storms (and Simon, Undead Science, which covers much of the sociology.)

Because of certain appearances in the book, Jed has called him the "stupidest person on earth." That's Jed's style. If I mention Hoffman, he usually repeats it. Maybe he will, here. Hey, compare Penon and Hoffman?

Not fair. Hoffman died. Jed, how about honoring the man's memory? Come on, it won't hurt. Have I made any contributions in this field? Chalk them up to Hoffman, God rest his soul.

Quote from Zuffhaus

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

The agreement is very, very rear heavy. 90 % of the payment is made after the delivery. If one - which I would do - consider the significant value of the delivery to be the working technology (assuming there is one) it also comes with built in delay. Further, there is no security for the payment like a L/C. And IH is a start-up.

Yes. Much is still not publically known. I have made inferences from what we do know, the legal situation, and what I know of Rossi's character, well described in An Impossible Invention, which I keep suggesting that people read if they want to understand what is going on.

Quote

This type of payment arrangements are hard to come by in the real world for several reasons, one being that they would be very vulnerable to a conflict, in particular bearing the sum in mind. The bank interest alone on the sum in dispute would set-off the attorneys' fees.

Yes. That is obvious. Now, who wrote this Agreement? How did it break down? That it could break down if trust between the parties broke down, that's what's obvious from what Zuffhaus is saying. The Agreement does not contemplate conflict or disagreement. It attempts to avoid that by settling on an ERV, but that, alone, was a setup for issues to arise. I've pointed out that when the ERV report is "published," IH is to immediately pay. No time for review, back and forth, questions, etc. If the report has gone through drafting, was negotiated, etc., then okay, but that all assumes the communication is open and working. There is no procedure for resolving conflicts (binding arbitration? No.) The original GPT arrangement was unworkable, obviously so. Who set it up that way?

Quote

I don't think that there's a need pointing towards to Rossi perculiar personal traits to explain why there is a dispute right now.

Look, I see things. I put them together and they make sense. I write about them. That does not prove anything. Suit yourself. If you have a better idea, go for it! Mostly, I write to learn, and I share it with others so they can learn with me. What I see is necessarily incomplete, because I am one person. And I've been encountering people for years who say to me, "no need...." who come up with zilch, themselves.

It is not that you are wrong, Zuffhaus, it is that your understanding has only gone to the obvious: it was a terrible Agreement. So, then, was this terrible agreement imposed on a poor, helpless Rossi by a large greedy corporation? How? Did Rossi need their money? Was he desperate? How could they force him to sign such a bad contract? Did he get legal counsel? Was it competent?

My operating theory is that the Agreement is as it was because Rossi wrote it. It has his fingerprints all over it. And IH accepted it because they were willing to risk $11.5 million, and, given that, it was Rossi's way or the highway. Had they tried to make the contract better (did they?) he'd have rejected it and walked. It would not have been the first time. So they gave him what he wanted.

But this is an interpretive story. I'm making no attempt to prove it. Some of the truth about this, what actually happened, may come out. Then I may get to look back and see what I understood and what I didn't. I like it. I especially love to be wrong, because I learn much more when I'm wrong than when I'm right.

Quote from Shane D.

Jed,

If you base your belief that "Penon is an idiot", due his Hotcat report...this is what Lewan recently had to say about that:

The HotCat report from August 2012, signed by Penon, containing a few notable errors, was not written by Penon. Penon assisted at a test on August 7, 2012, repeating an experiment made on July 16, 2012. The report was written on the July test, and Penon was only confirming that similar results were obtained on the August test. Penon told me this in an interview in September, 2012. You could of course accuse Penon of not having studied the original report sufficiently before signing it, but the errors were not a result of Penon’s work.

I thought that was hilarious.

An expert allows a report on something of the significance of a LENR device to go out over his signature without it being his work. He signed it, he is responsible for it. Period. He might as well just say "I'm incompetent, I have no integrity, but maybe sometimes I'm right. Hey, have a glass of Chianti, here."

What Lewan reports actually impeaches Penon, badly. Now, people do make mistakes. But if you sign a report and it's idiotic, you can expect people are going to call you an idiot, and the best thing you can do then, is to say, "I get it, that that was idiotic and it was idiotic for me to sign it. It is then possible to recover. Experts who make excuses for mistakes like that, forget it.

To be sure, this was Mats Lewan's report of what Penon said. We don't know what he actually said. Lewan may have "translated" it a bit. Penon may actually have been quite apologetic, but cannot talk about it openly because of agreements, etc.