IH preventing Rossi from publishing ERV, according to Dewey Weaver

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Shane D - Been busy. The problem of Penon going silent on multiple professional inquiries is a big problem for his credibility and is likely a refusal to be held accountable.

Penon had two customers: IH and Rossi. We do not know what contract was negotiated with Penon, but, on the face of it, for Penon to stop responding would be a major problem, creating lack of trust in the report. So fi that happened, as Dewey has claimed, we can expect Penon's report could be impeached. This is not some ordinary Rossi Bad, Planet Rossi Stupid report. It would be a fact. It happened or it did not happen.

Someone mentioned that "if the request was polite." While politeness is desirable, it would be unprofessional to dump an obligation to a customer if they were merely impolite. One might take a day to cool off and then respond. But isn't Penon from Italy? Is that relevant?

Dewey has another message which was more explicit. These were inquiries from Penon's customer, IH, not some general "professional inquiries." Linked below.

Quote from robert bryant

Dewey said

" multiple professional enquiries"

What does that mean? Who enquired? By phone or by letter. How many times?
Does Penon need to respond to just anybody?
As far as I can see the only orgs that he has a professional obligation to respond to are IH and LC

"going silent"?

What does that mean? Does that mean that Penon was singing before?

I don't recall Penon being an opera singer. For me he has always been silent.

But I would love to see the report he has written silently.

Display More

Quote from Dewey Weaver

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

Robert, I suggest digesting the implications. If Dewey is correct, communication with IH broke down well before the Report was published March 29. As I recall, Rossi made a statement around then (January?) that rumors of problems were IH were false, everything was fine.

Quote from JedRothwell

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.)

Actually, there is a strong indication that it's an approximation! It's totally obvious. Now, to use the information sanely, we would need to know the error bars, how well the flow was controlled, and if we don't have that information, the value declines. I would normally expect in a usage like this plus/minus 1 digit in the last significant place given, which would be 36 +/- 1 thousands. So roughly 3% and the flow meter may not be that accurate. So it's not unreasonable.

but there are many other problems, I suspect, Shirley.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Jed: "I have a special affinity for 32,768."
I rather like 65535.

Add another one. Me two.

Quote from Jon Soderberg

All these back and forth accusations...(shakes head)
The way I see it is this....
Either IH paid 11 million for absolutely nothing...
or IH won't pay 89 million for the most important technology in history...
either way makes them look like idiots...

For years I've seen this in on-line fora, going back to the W.E.L.L. in the 1980s, where I was a moderator, about discussion. There would be "accusations" back and forth. However, for the first time, the full record of all discussions was available. And I found that people didn't look at it, but argued based on their own ideas of right and wrong. And someone who pointed to the record was identified as to what "side" they were on, and supported or attacked based on that. It rather blew my mind, but, in fact,it was revealing how most people think, very simplistically.

There is fact mentioned in these discussions, verifiable fact. There are reports from personal experience (which, as to fact, is actually legal evidence, though not as to necessarily conclusions drawn, unless the person is a recognized expert.) There are speculations presented as such and speculations presented as if they were facts.

What I see here is an attempt to reduce a complex situation to one of two stark and extreme possibilities, both of which, it is alleged, make "them look like idiots."

We don't know enough yet to make an overall assessment of the wisdom of what IH did. However, let's start by looking with an assumption that the Rossi Effect is totally bogus, perhaps fraud. Then, from events and claims and rumor, we can think that IH found that out. That was not "absolutely nothing." It was knowledge, gained at a substantial cost, but in a field where the lost opportunity cost of not knowing could be billions of dollars a year. Or more. And where noise about the "Rossi Effect" was causing harm -- which has been asserted here many times by people who know.

Now look with an assumption that the Rossi Effect is "the most important technology in history." This is very much unspecified. What technology? Here, the technology that is important is what Rossi sold to IH, committing to full transfer, so that they could make devices that work, themselves. Whether Rossi could run a demonstration, himself, would be irrelevant. Could they run one with their own experts? Could they claim to their investors that this was a proven technology, not "Rossi technology," but now "IH technology," ready to go into production? It looks like not. They didn't refuse to pay for the technology, because it was not given to them. Unless, of course, they are lying scum, he did give them the full technology, and it worked, and they have some other agenda. That could be idiotic, but we might better describe it as "evil." It would not be mere greed, mere greed would not have gone in this direction.

There are other possibilities that are intermediate. I find the Evil Corporation possibility, though, quite unlikely here. Corporations can be greedy, but usually that is the source of evil with them. They are relatively straightforward, often, out to make as much money as possible, for better or worse. Scenario 2 pretty much requires greed that is giving up huge profits, and why? Protecting oil companies? My sense is that the oil companies would love to invest in LENR, hedging their positions. Just give them proof that it is not going to be a waste, and they will be lined up.

IH is, at this point, as far as I can see, hedging its bets. They could have given up the license and possibly gone after Rossi for fraud. But they did not do that. They waited. They would rather run the risk that he spends or hides the $11.5 million, than give up the possibility that he has something, but merely did not disclose it, which would be a very Rossi-type thing to do. It is possible that Rossi set up the 1 MW test to be questionable, deliberately, because he had decided he could not trust IH.

And this is speculation. However, that Rossi did not actually transfer functional IP to IH, at this point, looks most likely to me.

Now, there is a conversation here about how long people have been following LENR.

Jed Rothwell was involved very early on. Early 1990s? Jed can say.

In 1989, I bought $10,000 worth of palladium metal in a Credit Suisse metal account. Now, why did I do that? Did I like the look of palladium? However, I did not follow events closely, I simply accepted the common story, often repeated in the media, that nobody could replicate what Pons and Flieischmann had announced. I sold the palladium, breaking even.

I think once, over the years, maybe around 2000, I took a look at discussions and it looked to me like a bunch of fringe fanatics. I didn't notice any references to journal articles, I saw a lot of hot air and fluff, and I just moved on. And that describes most of what is seen in public fora today. A few stalwarts point to serious research and fact. But there is a deluge of dreck. Actual scientists mostly stay away.

However, at the beginning of 2009, I was a Wikipedia editor and saw an abusive blacklisting of lenr-canr.org. I knew little about cold fusion, but I knew a lot about Wikipedia policies, and this was a gross violation of policy, so I confronted it. And then I started to look at the Wikipedia article. It was a mess. I bought the books (mostly skeptical!) and started to try to improve it, supplying some balance from strong sources, and then they came after me. It ended in a Arbitration Committee case where an administrator had unilaterally banned me from the topic, and blocked me, he lost his privileges over that, but I was also then formally topic-banned for a year, including a three month site ban. I had done nothing violating policy, the actions were arbitrary, and thus I came to see the corruption of the core at Wikipedia. Stupidity. Administrators protecting administrators.

So I started to seriously investigate cold fusion, my time being massively freed up. I was invited to the private CMNS list for researchers, I've gotten to know many of them well, quite a few in person, face-to-face. And I came to my own conclusions about what had happened in 1989-1990, and how to transform the situation, and am working for that. I watched Rossi from the early 2011 demonstration.

I am now a published author in the field (Current Science, 2015) with a paper that catalyzed a new research effort that is likely to break the funding logjam -- as to basic science. It is not rooted in speculation, it's pure confirmation of what is already known, with increased precision. I have written a great deal about Rossi, but most of it was for the private CMNS list.

The researchers who know cold fusion were originally excited, most of them, by the Rossi 2011 announcement. As event after event failed to be conclusive, that faded, and now the rejection is almost universal. Some still think he had something, some that it was totally fraud. And, of course, nobody at this point knows for sure, though some have more information than others. Dewey Weaver is an investor in IH and obviously has some level of access to non-public information. Complicating all this is that he is not neutral. He is angry and sarcastic. He writes his conclusions, often, but he also presents fact. He is a real person and if he lies, his reputation is at stake. Probably he cares about that, so I don't think he is lying.

Quote from Eric Walker

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
As I recall, Rossi made a statement around then (January?) that rumors of problems were IH were false, everything was fine.

Perhaps you're referring to this statement, made on March 11, 2016:

Indeed. And now that you point to it, I remember that it was shortly before the suit was filed.

Quote

Timeline: 25 days before the lawsuit was launched (April 5), and 25 days after the conclusion of the GPT (February 15), before which, one assumes, IH's expert was prevented access to the customer area. One must be careful about how much is read into the phrase "no divorce".

Rossi was referring to https://animpossibleinvention.…-heat-makes-announcement/

Problems with Rossi apparently go back to before the GPT test was started. By the time of his announcement, Rossi must have known that IH wasn't satisfied. What I find most interesting is the reference to "some imbecile." There was a situation and if an imbecile was pointing to it, the imbecile was pointing to something that existed.

Contrary to speculation that was in comments on the Lewan blog, IH did not yet have the "published report." According to the Rossi Complaint, this was not issued until March 29. But already Penon was apparently stonewalling them. Yes, this was after the denial of IH expert entry to the customer area.

So if we take Rossi at his word, when did the "breakup occur"? I could not imagine running into an obstacle in a situation like this, attempting to resolve it, including having attorneys attempt to resolved it, with face-to-face meetings if possible; if not between the principals, then between attorneys, and then filing a lawsuit in federal court all within 25 days.

The lawsuit was actually filed a day early, by the way, even if the published report was instantly delivered and received by IH. Rossi filed a demand for payment (worded that way, not a request) March 29, he claims. From March 29, five business days would make the payment due April 5. Not past due until April 6. So he filed a day early.

I must say, put this together with many statements over the years, I think he was lying. He knew there was a problem. Now, making nice, no problem. But what about the "imbeciles"? That was not necessary! But that's Rossi!

Quote from "theRenzzzie"

There are more unknowns than knowns about this situation from our perspective in the peanut gallery, therefore it is impossible to gain a better understanding of this particular complex system by examining its simplest components, because we do not have access to them. You must understand this simple logic before you can understand the situation at hand as it has many intertwined facets.

Ohh, trying to make the simple things complicated again are we?

Quote from "Abd"

It rather blew my mind, but, in fact,it was revealing how most people think, very simplistically.

Well, even though stuff seems complicated to you; does not imply it being so in reality ... And since you are the master here (together with the defunct Clarke) at making simple things complicated with long rantings I guess the fact that many things are simple comes as a surprise.

Actually the driving forces/misjudgements of even intelligent people are extremely simple (maybe even more som since they tend to be more rational on average) and almost always the ideas promated by people boils down to these incentives. I recomend the Charlie Munger speech on this, it is excellent:

http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…-dewey-fred-jed-together/