IH preventing Rossi from publishing ERV, according to Dewey Weaver

@Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

There are signs that Dewey is not just a passive investor. e.g. "The day we saw him, June 2, 2016, was not a good day for Rossi." - (Dewey). He also seems to know stuff than only someone who is more than just an investor would know. When he doesn't know something, he gets an answer within a day. So it's not far fetched to say Dewey could get someone from IH to ask Penon some questions.

Of course DEwey doesn't represent IH.

Also, questions are not premature when you are IH and have seen the report.

Dewey has now answered on Penon

Quote

Penon stopped responding to IH in mid-Jan when some tough questions went to him in writing.

That's unfortunate. I hope your tough questions were asked diplomatically. If yes, it's unprofessional of him not to follow up with IH on the report.

Abd Ul: The comment by Dewey is here:

Peter Gluck, Blogger-Advocate for Rossi

Thanks for pointing out it was the day of the MTD filing.

Quote from LENR Calender

I was just observing that Jed was saying 32, but I didn't correct him because it doesn't matter. But then Dewey start saying 32 as well, so maybe that's a real number or ...

Of course you are right: Tomorrow it will be 30m³! In a week 27m³! and one half year later a cup of coffee...

That's how troll's work! Jed/Dev will pay you one more coffee...

Dewey

Quote from Dewey Weaver

LC - we're just working our way up to something important.

Have you been taking those laxatives again?

Joking apart, its interesting you should confirm that IH now intend to dismiss the ERV report as 'baseless' the Judge might turn around and say, well its your own fault for not exercising 'due diligence' on behalf of your investors, you had ample opportunity.

Alternatively, the jury may be suspicious of 'Goliath' laughing at everything poor little 'David' does, waving their superior weapons and take him under their wing. Wouldn't that be nice!

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Dewey Weaver

For whoever asked about characterization, read this:
<a href="http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1545_web.pdf" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1545_web.pdf</a>

Dewey, thank you very much for your answer. I was worried that "characterize" meant "figure out how/why it works." Since everyone is barking up the wrong tree on that end, such a requirement would delay release of any device for the foreseeable future.

I'm still curious as to how fully IH expects to characterize the reactors it hopes to bring to market. Based on the link you sent, it seems like it could take many, many years using very sophisticated methods requiring very expensive equipment. Do you have a ballpark estimate of how long it might take to characterize once a verified reactor is in hand?

The document you linked to is from a 2006 conference on new methods for testing and characterizing fuels/materials for nuclear reactors. Of course, we've had nuclear power plants since the 1950's. Would you describe existing plants as having been fully characterized when they went on line? Certainly they can't have been characterized (at that time) using newer methods. So the question of what counts as being fully characterized is still wide open, it seems to me.

You see, an IH skeptic might wonder, "If they had Rossi's IP and the 1 MW plant in their lab since mid-2013, why haven't they been able to fully 'characterize' it by now?" On the one hand, it makes sense that IH would want to fully characterize a reactor before putting it on the market. On the other hand, to someone suspicious of IH's intentions, it might seem that they could use the 'characterization requirement' to delay getting a product to market indefinitely: "We have finally verified it works, but we we need more time to fully characterize it!" Any light you might be able to shed on this would be appreciated.

Quote from joshg

You see, an IH skeptic might wonder, "If they had Rossi's IP and the 1 MW plant in their lab since mid-2013, why haven't they been able to fully 'characterize' it by now?" On the one hand, it makes sense that IH would want to fully characterize a reactor before putting it on the market. On the other hand, to someone suspicious of IH's intentions, it might seem that they could use the 'characterization requirement' to delay getting a product to market indefinitely: "We have finally verified it works, but we we need more time to fully characterize it!" Any light you might be able to shed on this would be appreciated.

It is a fair question. Of course one answer to the "characterization" question may well be that any comprehensive explanation involves "new physics". New physics is offered up all the time by theoreticians such as Brian Greene who are only using subsets of the observable universe of data in areas where it is very expensive and difficult to conduct confirmatory experiments. A truly comprehensive unification (including LENR, if it exists) may be far away, as we all who read cosmological and quantum speculation may likely sense. I suspect LENR might offer a window into physics that was completely unavailable to Michelson-Morley/Lorentz or Planck or Rutherford or Gamow or Bohr or Lawrence or Fermi or Oppenheimer and only hinted at for Teller or Bethe or Feynman. (Those names are for the curious and are in approximate temporal order of their greatest impact on the existing dogma of the "received view"). It provides a reading list, for those who may not have read much history of physics--- it leaves out many who were visionaries predicting the present situation, deBroglie, Dirac, Aharonov, Bohm, and now many others too numerous to mention.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Penon stopped responding to IH in mid-Jan when some tough questions went to him in writing.

Round numbers as approximations are all the more entertaining when you look at the flowmeter specifications. Rossi is off by an order of magnitude - an old trick that didn't work this time. Rossi's goose isn't golden, it is cooked.

And did IH stop paying their share to Penon when he stopped talking to them?

If not, why not?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven on both sides. I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth, but we may get some idea of who are the most accomplished deceivers and liars.

Quote from Nigel Appleton

This whole thing stinks to high heaven on both sides. I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth, but we may get some idea of who are the most accomplished deceivers and liars.

It's a nice feature of US Civil Procedure, we will likely know the truth, if it is relevant. Further, actual fraud or other misdemeanors and felonies are much more likely to be pursued if the case reaches high profile. It is potentially sort of a reversal of OJ's criminal then civil trials. The rules of evidence are vastly different, criminal trials: "beyond a reasonable doubt" v. civil: "preponderance of evidence". Watch and wait. Best to leave the dispute to run its course for now, unless something novel needs to be brought to the attention of either side-- and clearly interested parties are reading here, although known patent practitioners seem strangely silent.

I'm fairly sure that Rossi's patent is invalid in respect of LENR claims. It seems to me that it does not teach with full disclosure to enable it to be reproduced by anyone reasonably skilled in the necessary arts.
If he has omitted a crucial component or procedure, he's stuffed.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

One more point. Why assume that the blogosphere would rip the report to shreds, if it is a sound report? Is it that shaky?

Well there are so many opinions on this forum, including mine, that are 'shaky'. I am content to wait and see, but like many more here, enjoy flying a kite to see what others think, but that is all it is.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain your thoughts in relation to some of my points, it is very much appreciated.

Salam Aleikum
Best regards
Frank

Quote from Wyttenbach

Of course you are right: Tomorrow it will be 30m3! In a week 27m3! and one half year later a cup of coffee...

It was 36,000, as quoted in Rossi's interview with Lewan:

https://animpossibleinvention.…ilding-plus-more-updates/

I apologize for the confusion. In common with other programmers, I often mis-remember numbers, perhaps because I often have hundreds of them stuffed into my head all day. I have a special affinity for 32,768. I should look up a number rather try to quote it from memory.

However, critics here should try to be more numerate. Someone here criticized me for quoting the temperature at ~103 and later 102.8 deg C. This person does not understand the use of a tilde (~) meaning "approximately," and he does not understand that a temperature difference of 0.2 deg C is not significant with large scale equipment. There are probably variations greater than that within the flow of water.

Jed

That explains it then, Rossi was using 'approximations' when he quoted 36,000, its all clear to me now.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from frankwtu

That explains it then, Rossi was using 'approximations' when he quoted 36,000, its all clear to me now.

That is not claimed to be an approximation. The other numbers in that table are quoted in exact values with ordinary variance, such as 10.29, 10.42, 10.50. There is no indication that this is an approximation whereas the other numbers are exact. There is nothing in the text saying that. (Granted, there isn't much text.)

It isn't claimed to be an approximation but that's the most likely explanation. I can't see it being an exact measurement. But the flow might have been set up to be very close to 36m3 everyday, with a little bit of variance.

Can you confirm you don't have the full report? There might be more text elsewhere in a part you don't have.