IH preventing Rossi from publishing ERV, according to Dewey Weaver

Quote from "the FUD Weaver"

The only way for heat to get out of the 1MW test facility was thru a single vent in the roof

What about the walls and the roof then. Exactly what insulation do you use in florida? If you ever build an outdoor sauna and operated it, you would know the importance of insulation ...

Quote from "Mr FUD Weaver"

Everyone is walking around in black jeans and tshirts with their head hanging low. Sort of like Elvis death week in Memphis.

Sounds groovy... Are you sure you're not hallucinating.

Quote from AlainCo

The expectation of E-cat market as priced by Woodford, as said in the contract is much above a billion $ of royalties, and much more of benefits.
investion 10Mn$ is 1% , so it means that if E-cat is real, with higher than 1% probability, then this was a good investment.
Refusing to pay 89Mn$ mean that the probability estimated is much below 10%.

This is finance way of mind.

That approach, yes. What contract? The complaint? What?

Quote

the entrepreneur way of mind is rather, that you can accept to lose 10Mn$, but not 100Mn$ on something that seems possible but improbable.

More or less, yes. The investors in IH could afford to lose $10 million, not $100 million. By the way, Alain, that is how "ten million dollars" is abbreviated in standard English. The dollar sign is never added at the end. "USD" is used at the end, sometimes..... small point ....

Quote

the botom earth way of mind, is that if you signed for the technology of E-cat in exchange of 10.5Mn$ and you cannot make it work, then whatever is the report, you don't pay until it works.

now if you know how to build an E-cat that work, and the 1MW test is OK, or is a fraud, or fail miserably, or have bad performance, of is astoundingly successful, you just don't care, and pay your diva to have E-cat X/quark in your portfolio.

Right.

Rossi's claim is deliberate fraud, i.e., they know it works but they are trying to avoid paying. However, if they were able to make it work themselves -- which Rossi also claims -- refusing to pay, refusing to raise the money to pay, because they could -- does not make sense. Many details are coming out, some through Dewey, that, if confirmed, show that Rossi is blaming IH for Rossi's own failure to transfer the technology, that he refused to assist when it was requested, because he was focusing on the 1 MW demonstration that, from Alain's argument was almost irrelevant. We see again and again that Rossi created doubt, this is in An Impossible Invention and with each instance, this or that excuse may be made. But the pattern points to the source. Rossi himself.

If Rossi is a fraud, it's the weirdest fraud I have ever seen. If the Rossi Effect is real, he's managed to create massive doubt.

This would not be the first time this happened in cold fusion. The behavior of Pons and Fleischmann was highly suspicious, and I've documented that in various places. It does not quite compare with Rossi, but there could be a related cause, a sense that the world was against them, so they became secretive and did not reveal inconvenient facts. They lost science in favor of self-defense. I won't attempt to establish this here, but I'm pointing out how personality and character issues can cause major damage.

Ain't too suprising that old civilisations are less into playing games (war profiteering / energy control, Military-Industrial Complex: gvt. buys, MIC sells, tanks to invade sand to extract oil from it to put in tanks to invade sand...) and much rather looking for sustainable, easy, cheap energy generation

Unrelated, and yet somehow: lots of anti-China and anti-India propaganda on the english-speaking Internet
Powershift along the paradigm change? What a time to be alive

Take a toke Doobie dis gun b great!

Quote from frankwtu

Why should I believe Dewey Weaver? Why should I believe Rossi? Why should I believe anyone?

That depends on the meaning of "believe." It also depends greatly on context. In the end, it is a choice. This is the common-law principle: testimony is presumed true unless controverted. There is another principle that I have not read much on, but it's obvious. If there appears to be conflict in testimony, but if a harmonizing interpretation can be found, this is the combined effect of the testimonies. This is true for individual testimony (i.e., looking a different statements and thinking that they contradict) and testimony from different witnesses.

As well, direct testimony based on personal knowledge is one thing, conclusory testimony is another. The latter is routinely disregarded in court, unless the witness is recognized as an expert, in which case it may be allowed.

Frank is attempting to develop an external standard to apply so that he can "decide whom to believe." It's a common one, it infers personality from specific behaviors.

Quote

When people use ad homs to presumably strengthen their argument I switch off, which is a shame as they may have something worth listening to.

A shame for whom? First of all, notice the mind-reading. A purpose is inferred that is very likely not present in what is under consideration. Hardly anyone thinks that ad homs strengthen an argument, unless they are clearly relevant and established on evidence. Rather, Frank has mistaken an emotional reaction for an argument. Now, we routinely do this, I've observed this for many, many years. If someone is upset, we discount what they say as being, possibly, not sober fact or argument. This effect is so strong that we may pay no attention at all the substance of what they say.

I found years ago that people would react to sober fact, presented about an argument that was under way, as if it were emotional reaction. People want to make that judgment, to simplify situations! However, this is obvious, if a person is showing that they are upset, their testimony may be biased or, for example, cherry-picked. However, some people will not, even when upset, directly lie. Or if they do (accidentally, from lack of caution that upset can cause), and they are asked, they will back up and correct their statement. If you want to benefit from the testimony of upset people, there are ways to distinguish upset confusion from fact.

Here, upset in some comments is obvious. However, what I'm looking for is underlying fact. Rossi claims that IH defrauded him. Okay, what *specifically* does he allege? Examined carefully, if he is entirely truthful, it would be his own reaction that fooled him, not IH. "Fraud" is a conclusion he made, but he doesn't show evidence of fraud. What he shows, taken straight, is evidence that he was confused. Maybe Darden and Vaughn lied to him, but it is just as likely that they made statements that Rossi interpreted the way he wanted to interpret them, and Rossi ignored contrary evidence, such as the Agreement being between Rossi and IH, not Rossi and Cherokee as he had expected. Any lawyer would tell him the significance of that fact, and would not rely at all on "assurances" from Darden and Vaughn. There may have been assurances of some kind. Did he get any of these in writing? Did he memorialize these with his own contemporary writing? Did he ask his attorney to talk with them, to get an additional witness?

It is likely not. And so, four years later, he is claiming an interpretation of verbal conversations, when the parties may not remember what was actually said.

So, notice: I am not exposing a difference, a contradiction between Rossi's testimony on this point, and that of IH and Dewey. Both Dewey and Rossi are obviously upset. Angry. I do not decide that they are wrong because of this obvious fact. I do not 'disbelieve them." But I will notice what cannot be confirmed, what appears to conflict. The issue is not whom to believe. The issue is how to study and learn, how to navigate through the minefields of noise.

Quote

When Rossi makes claims that we are unable to substantiate that puts me right off, as it is not science, so I don't take what he has to say as 'fact'.

What you can normally do is to take a persons statements as reflecting how they see reality. Ontologically, the whole issue of "fact" is worth studying. And then there are two other possibilities: fraud -- deliberate deception -- or insanity. Insanity is an extreme form of upset. Rossi is not a scientist. He has never claimed to be a scientist, this is something often said about him in news reports, where a reporter has no clarity of thought or discrimination. Expecting science from him would be totally foolish. He had an interest in science, but has shown no understanding or practice of the scientific method, and has explicitly rejected it on occasion. That is not an attack on Rossi! There is no basic human moral necessity to be a scientist!

Quote

I do however, take a great deal of notice when MFMP say something, I have a respect for Akito Takahashi and Dr Baldev Raj and Dr R Krishnan when they say something, I have a particular respect for Edmund Storms, I have never heard of any of these refer to 'Planet Rossi' which for me gains them additional 'respect. in my mind.

It's an issue of what concerns them. Takahashi and Storms have shown no interest in the sociological phenomenon, so they would have no reason to use "Planet Rossi," which is about a sociological effect, a collective mind-set. Such phenomena are of high interest to me. "Planet Rossi" is obviously an interpretation of data, but let's say that, to me, the phenomenon is quite clear. However, Planet Rossi is not an objective reality, generally. It also is not a synonym for "stupid." However, when we engage in group-think, we lose much of our native intelligence, which is turned, instead, to the service of whatever story is believed, and apparent belief is the core of Planet Rossi. On Planet Rossi, evidence for Rossi genius etc. is accepted, and evidence of the evil of his critics is accepted, and contrary evidence is dismissed as evil or at least viciously ignorant, pathological skepticism.

Quote

There is nothing that Dewey has said that impresses me, there is nothing that Rossi has said that makes me 'believe' he has world saving technology.

Sane, though Dewey is revealing possible facts, so far mostly uncontroverted. However, what then? Is it possible that Rossi has technology of high significance?

Quote

However, what I do believe is there is a 'phenomena' which is not understood at all, but that it is giving rise to 'anomalous heat' production, measured with an unfortunate degree of uncertainty. That's as close as I can get.

As to Rossi, this is all unclear. As to LENR, however, the evidence is overwhelming that there is an "anomalous heat effect," AHE, as Duncan at Texas Tech calls it, and this heat can be measured with substantial precision, is absent from controls, and is correlated with conditions or other effects. As Joshua Cude commonly denies, this is accepted in mainstream journals, Cude is only correct about some journals which appear to have boycotted cold fusion (and Nature was very explicit about it. No more articles on cold fusion. Period. Well before the smoke cleared and it was understood what was happening.)

Rossi always avoided that kind of measurement, substituting his own methods that left room for substantial doubt and unclarity.

Quote from LFH Sam

Jed,

Thanks for the heads up.
Are you by any chance also considered a so called "VC" or "Philantrophist"?

I'll answer for Jed from my own knowledge. Jed is not a Venture Capitalist. He has long served the cold fusion community through his library at lenr-canr.org, and he has supported researchers at times, out of his own funds. So he could be called a "philanthropist," but he is much more active in the field than that. But not with a commercial interest. If that has changed, he can let us know, but his long-term position is obvious to those who have followed him.