Peter Gluck, Blogger-Advocate for Rossi Technology

Quote from Alan Smith

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

We do, but people who actually get off their arse and experiment are few and far between. There are a hundred keyboard jockeys for every garage lab-rat.

Yes. There are many people who proclaim how important LENR is, but few who will actually do something besides engage in idle chatter.

Quote

As for publishing all our results, good and bad, we have not published experimental data simply because we have been involved in the development and roll out of a system for obtaining data quickly and reliably. Research so far has been incidental and relaxed. Beginning now we are changing over to a more purposeful and rigorous approach to testing.

I was not claiming any shortcoming in present practice. I was not only talking about your personal results, but also about those of customers. That's why "facilitate and encourage."

Quote

FWIW, you are probably right about my mixing up guest and nchawk btw- as well as an internship at Cherokee with one at a non-existent IH. Probably because what a couple of desperadoes get up to is of the most moderate interest to me.And I really should not post after (yet another) 14 hour day in the lab, that would improve my memory for trivia.

Heh! "probably" right? Just a suggestion: life gets more interesting when we make powerful declarations, and when we are wrong, promptly and straight out admit it, without deflection or "maybes."

Quote

ETA. Sales are of very limited concern. We have donated (in cash and kind) almost as much as we have sold. And invested 10X our sales at least. If LFH was a sales oriented company we would be selling something else. Anything else.

"Sales" are a representation of the impact. I did not have profit in mind, though my opinion is that LENR businesses should be designed to make, at least, a modest profit. That is, every sale should generate at least enough revenue to cover costs, including sale-specific labor, and some margin for overhead and ROI. Otherwise it is unlikely to be sustainable. If that makes products too expensive for the market, it can be possible to solicit donations to subsidize all or some sales.

The goal of a business like this is service to a community. Of course, it may also help your own research by buying in larger quantities. That's the idea. The reality might be different, but Alan, my basic point is to encourage you and to appreciate what you are doing.

Peter continues with his insistence on preposterous arguments, while, of course, proclaiming the preposterousness of what others write.

His blog today is mostly news, but he begins it with "Toward the end of a small chat with opponents." He is not discussing with opponents, rational discussion was deliberately abandoned because it was revealing, clearly, the basis of the dispute, and that was revealing just how crazy his frenetic insistences were.

Quote

They - as functional robots do not care for useless details as logical consistency, raeson, scruples, minimal plausibility. Water is under pressure in a circuit that till yesterday was considered open ended (in the reservoir of warm water) No problem.This seems to be the bad part making communication impossible and the propagandists inerrant and bullet-proof to all kind of logical argument-projectiles.

It is not entirely clear to me what Peter's point is, but this is what appears. "No problem" is sarcastic, he thinks that the idea of pressure in an open circuit is preposterous. If so, this is truly embarrassing. However, Peter has made many of these errors, and has not shown embarrassment or even apology. "I was wrong about that. Sorry about the confusion I created through my error. I will be more careful next time." This doesn't happen on Ego Out.

I think Peter is imagining that in a closed hydraulic system, pressure will be uniform. That is correct when there is no flow. When there is flow, there will be pressure drops across any resistance to flow. Because there are pressure drops, pressure will not be uniform in the system. If there is a pump, there will be increased pressure at the outlet of the pump and lower pressure at the inlet.

It appears that the system under discussion is built like this:

[warm water reservoir] -- [main pump] -- [manifold] -- [reactor pumps] -- [reactors] -- [steam manifold] -- [temperature sensor] -- [steam line to customer] -- [(usage)] -- [condenser] -- water line back to -> [warm water reservoir]

If the system is open, the warm water reservoir will be at 0 barG at the top of the water level, and with some pressure at the outlet below that level. The pump then creates more pressure in the system. If there is backflow prevention, pressure in the reactors and beyond may be higher, from steam pressure. However, the pressure in the pipe flowing into the reservoir will likely be 0 barG. (If the pipe is not full, as it might not be in this scenario if the pipe is large compared to the flow, the whole length of that pipe would be at 0 barG. However, there is flow across the piping into the customer area and there will also be resistance to flow in the condenser. There are many variables here. Bottom line, pressure in the system will not be uniform if there is flow. The steam manifold pressure will likely be the maximum point of pressure in the system.

Peter is apparently thinking that pressure requires a closed system and that an open system would be at 0 barG everywhere. Hence he thinks there is some drastic contradiction.

And then Peter has:

Quote

The GOOD even excellent aspect is that they still consider the fuzzy and dilettante Exhibit 5 as their main weapon in the war and Trial with the Rossi technology.
I dare to predict that they will confirm, deny and ignore this, in the same time- as usual. With such a weapon...vae victis and Rossi has not why to worry.
Take a look please to the LENR Forum dedicated to my bad deeds and paranoia.

I.e., Peter is hoping that "they" are relying on "Exhibit 5," as the "main weapon in the war and trial with the Rossi technology."

First of all, there is no "war with Rossi technology." The very concept is paranoid and preposterous. If Rossi has technology, the only one stopping it from being applied is Rossi. IH could not possibly prevent his development of the technology in Sweden, for example. Nor would they sanely want to. If Rossi actually sells products, IH stands to make, as a result, billions, because they have a License. There is an issue that he is required to offer IH the right of first refusal. If not for the lawsuit Rossi filed, I doubt this would apply, and it would be very difficult to enforce in Sweden!

There is a lawsuit , but Exhibit 5 is not a major part of it. It is mostly about communication with Penon. The prime IH defense against Rossi is that the Florida test was not a Guaranteed Performance Test at all, and from the evidence we have seen so far, that is very likely. Rossi set up a phony customer and a phony test, it appears. Now, if all that was real, the sale of power was real, etc., the whole picture will change. But ... this is very, very unlikely, and it appears that Rossi is delaying responding to all those IH claims and evidences.

Rossi, from the evidences, committed fraud in creating that Doral charade. This is entirely separate from the issue of whether or not there was real power.

Quote from AlainCo

IF it works sure, Rossi and Darden can be rich.

Right. Big IF, but right.

Quote

The market is so big they won't even compete.
Legally the can make a Yalta, without even agreeing or contracting anything.
Darden can exploit E-cat in US&al, even if Rossi refuse (which is illegal, IH would win in court).

Rossi's declaration of license revocation had no basis in the Agreement or at law. A return of the License to Leonardo could possibly have been an outcome of a suit, if that would be the most equitable way to resolve a dispute. However, on the face of it, and this was obvious to an attorney, Rossi v. Darden was an ordinary suit for breach of contract from failure to pay as agreed. That does not revoke the contract unless such a provision is part of the contract.

So IH, if they had the technology to sell, that worked, would just sell it. They owed no royalties to Leonardo, only the contracted $89 million payment, and that only under specified conditions, which Rossi did not satisfy.

I have seen, then, Rossi supporters claim that IH could have stonewalled forever. No, they could not have refused to allow a reasonably-arranged GPT, and if they could not agree on the date (which would also be an agreement on conditions, such as ERV if that mechanism is used -- it is actually a bad idea to make it that simple, and for obvious reasons), then that could have been litigated.

Quote

If not paying Rossi could endanger the license, IH would have paid, even twice if safer.

Again, assuming that the technology works as claimed. If it didn't work as claimed, or even more to the point, if IH could not make working devices without Rossi participation, even after being thoroughly trained by Rossi, they could not raise that money. It was absolutely necessary for the Rossi technology to pass truly independent testing. Did Rossi realize this? I find, with limited interaction with Rossi, but much observation with his interaction with others, that he is not sane, he is paranoid and delusional. It is not marginal.

Quote

Rossi can exploit in EU&al, and Darden cannot oppose.

This is not entirely true. There is a right of first refusal for licenses in other countries. But Rossi himself could certainly sell products, and I don't know how far that limitation would go. Basically, it would not be at all easy for IH to stop him, if they wanted to. But ... right of first refusal would mean giving more money to Rossi, comparable or more than others were offering. I think this is mostly moot. Rossi was free to act in Sweden, the country with the most support for him at this point, until he filed Rossi v. Darden. That still leaves him free, but ... who is going to trust him with what is appearing in that suit? Even before this evidence appeared, suing your business partner does not increase the confidence of other potential business partners. Once they notice the obvious, that Rossi had sued IH on the first day possible, and actually a day before it, they would see a lack of serious effort to negotiate, a very bad sign in business.

Quote

even if Rossi have sold contraining license to most wealthy and emerging countries, he could be rich by milion (ok not billion), by just selling industrial heater of COP50 to any poor country in Africa, micronesia, in papua, mongolia... or under black market in any failed state...

Billions.

Quote

really either E-cat is not working, or they are both the most stupid people on earth.

There are some who believe that IH has another "LENR+" technology, and some of these think it is is ripped off from Rossi. While IH is working with many, and it is possible someone has a leg up that we don't know about, it's pretty unlikely.

I will agree that it would be foolish for IH to unnecessarily alienate Rossi, and it's foolish even if there is still only a small possibility of reality of the "Rossi effect." However, they went as far as reason would allow and maybe even further, to be as sure as they could be. If there is a real effect, Rossi refused to disclose it. Which was, then, thoroughly foolish.

(Some think IH is deliberately concealing their knowledge that the Rossi devices work, because they want to stop or delay the technology. That would be utterly and totally foolish, and it would only work if Rossi took the bait and sued them.)

If Rossi had obtained sane business advice -- as he might have acted differently if he had obtained sane legal advice about the Agreement -- he would have secured his position, world-wide, first, before dealing with a problem in the U.S.

Quote from Alan Smith

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

I though he was suing them? Did I miss something?

You have missed a lot, probably for a long time.

Setting that aside, yes, he did sue them. I.e., if they had this devious plan to Stop Rossi, and set bait by refusing to pay him (the Cads! how could they not pay the Genius for his Masterpiece?), he took the bait by suing them before establishing his position world-wide, at a point when he looked relatively good (at the peak, I'd say). He made it extra sure to fail by including a $2.5 billion corporation among the defendants, fully ensuring that the resources of the top legal firm in the U.S. would be available to dice and slice his Complaint and turn it around and possibly bankrupt him.

Of course, they were already the IH attorneys, by February, but that was not for serious work. Because of Rossi's greed, Cherokee will be legitimately paying part of the legal expenses, and it is hardly a speed bump for them.

Did he tell Annesser the full truth? My guess is not. (If he knows it!) I am not at all sure of how much Johnson knows. Even Penon and Fabiani may be a bit out of the loop.

Okay, taking the hint: Rends personally blocked. There! Much betta! Thanks, Rends!