Fight for Replication -- Not Each Other

  • Hear hear. I don't agree with your latest statement about Me356, but here we need less barrack-room lawyering, and more science and technology related to LENR in all its various forms.

  • Lately, I've been seeing a lot of discussion on this forum about the conflict between Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat. There are pages and pages of posts made every day and some individuals post walls of text -- which I've been guilty of doing many times in the past. What I have realized and what has prevented me from jumping in and making hundreds of posts myself is that we really have very little information to go on. We know a few facts, but we don't have the additional information we need to make any sort of determination from them.

    "Any sort of determination" is overbroad. We have, from the lawsuit, a lot of information we didn't have before. We have allegations of the existence of other information, plausibly "leaked."


    In any case, thanks for posting this, Hank, because it brings up something absolutely crucial.


    Quote

    One area that I'm puzzled about -- and I do not expect any helpful answers from anyone -- is what exact written agreements may or may not have been made between Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat after the test period ran out. Unless there are additional signatures or documents floating around somewhere, it seems to me as a total laymen -- I have zero legal experience -- that the whole test of the one megawatt plant was performed with no one owing anyone anything if the plant worked.

    That is possible. It is an IH allegation in the Motion to Dismiss, based on what appear to me to be sound legal arguments. Rossi's attorney may yet pull a rabbit out of the hat. "Oh, I'm sorry, we neglected to include this in the Complaint."


    Quote

    This seems totally impossible to me. If the extension wasn't valid due to a lack of signature, being for a different type of plant (6 cylinder), or some other reason then IH and Rossi must have known this and made some sort of additional agreement. I would have. If I expected a huge payment for a device of mine after such a test, I'd want it to be in writing. Conversely, if I thought someone was expecting me to pay them for a plant they were testing, I'd want all the terms in writing. When I say in writing, I mean an up to date document with all the signatures needed reviewed by both parties lawyers and declared valid.

    You are having trouble understanding Rossi's behavior because you assume rationality. For contrary evidence, look at the copy of the 2nd amendment filed as part of the Rossi complaint. Two missing signatures (plus the actual date). How could Rossi imagine that was proof of amendment? What this shows was utter lack of care on his part, back in 2013. And lack of care in filing the lawsuit.


    The way I'd put it is that Rossi was obviously distracted. It doesn't make sense, you are correct, Barty, on that. But people do things that don't make sense, often. We don't yet know that this error was fatal, but it might have been.


    Quote

    The idea that Industrial Heat OR Andrea Rossi allowed the test to be conducted without some sort of additional document signed by all involved is illogical to me.

    Again, it's "illogical" because you don't have all the facts in mind, all the possible considerations.


    Quote

    For this reason, I think there are additional facts that have yet to be released by both parties.

    Not necessarily, but, yes, it is possible. However, that these were not alleged in the Complaint shows lack of caution and care.


    Quote

    One possibility is that there was a verbal agreement made between Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat. However, we are dealing with two ultra-serious entities. I cannot imagine Tom Darden or Andrea Rossi being willing to go into a verbal agreement with all the uncertainties and problems that could bring. If by some miracle I was given access to a laboratory and came up with a working LENR device and God told me not to open source all the information (which would be my instinct) I wouldn't go into an agreement with Tom Darden or Andrea Rossi without a valid agreement.

    You may not realize that IH had the power here, and could have objected, but perhaps Rossi insisted, and IH said, "You can go ahead, it may not make any difference." Or they may have decided that it was not their job to telegraph their intentions to Rossi. If they remained silent, they retained power -- and still do. Rossi, by the way, doesn't seem to understand that at all.


    Quote

    The problem is that we can talk about this issue and a dozen others all day long. We may not get the information needed to put the facts we do know into context, though. So all of our speculation could be totally wrong and useless.

    Not likely "all." And I DGAF about being wrong. It is the fastest way to learn. It's worked for me for more than 50 years, why should I change on that? Afraid to be wrong? That's for sissies!


    Quote

    For example, I'm not trusting any single figure implied to be from the ERV report, because any number by itself could be out of context. Without the full picture, we cannot determine the truth. And do to the ultra-secrecy of Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat (sometimes for good reason) I doubt we will have a full picture anytime soon.

    Probably not. However, "testimony is presumed true unless controverted," is a common-law principle. Unless I have evidence that Dewey and Jed are lying, I will, first-pass, assume that they are telling the truth. I also factor for this being rumor, not direct, and based on their own judgments, which complicates it. But I assume that the factual part is true. And I begin with a similar assumption about the Rossi Complaint, and then I look for harmonizing interpretations, which I find. Why is this important?


    Quote

    What I wish the members of this forum and other individuals in the LENR community would do instead of focusing on the lawsuit is push for replication of the Ni-LiAlH4-Li effect.

    The problem is this: replication of what? There are many reported LENR phenomena that are more completely reported but are yet unconfirmed. Why do we think that Ni-lithal works? Well, Rossi!


    And then there are other reported "replications," which are all, so far, inconclusive at best. There is nothing wrong with investigating this material. However, why would it have priority? There was only one reason: an appearance that Rossi was generating kilowatts or more using it. The rug has been pulled out from under that by the lawsuit. If IH could not confirm a major effect, with intensive and funded effort, employing experts, and with the supposedly full cooperation of Rossi, as obligated under the Agreement, why would we think that others could "replicate"?
    (continued)

  • [continued)


    Quote

    A successful replication leading to a guaranteed to work recipe would change the direction of this forum and change the world at the same time.

    Naive. Much more is needed than a single "replication," which would not, in fact, be replication at all, it would be an original report, since the original work could not be verified, as it relied on secret materials and operation. It would then join hundreds of such reports in the field. Even exact replication isn't enough, because it could be replicating an artifact. I've been writing for quite some time that the only direct evidence that LENR is real and nuclear in nature, is the heat/helium correlation. There could be other direct evidences, but they are not reported and confirmed. The usual evidence (anomalous heat) is circumstantial and readily subject to the file-drawer effect. People really do need to pay attention to the genuine skeptical arguments. If you do, you may not waste so much time with what won't work.


    Quote

    Once the information was disseminated far and wide, a tidal wave of replications would take place. In no time at all, the "Rossi Effect" would be triggering an energy revolution around the world that would make fossil fuels, solar power, and wind power obsolete.

    Yes. If. Just understand that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, and years of research, looking for that readily and easily replicable experiment.


    What I've asserted, heat/helium, may not be within reach of MFMP-type projects, though I would not rule it out. But there are other reported investigations, successes, that remain unconfirmed. Independent confirmation makes a difference. These should be, to the extent possible, exact replications, not imaginary "confirmations." The reason is that data from one experiment is then commensurable with data from others. This has been rare in the field. Everyone wants More Better, and what we end up with is a pile of anecdotes.


    Quote

    I really think we are close. Although they have been in the minority, there have been many successful replication attempts.

    Enough to overcome the file-drawer effect? The population of unsuccessful replications matters! If someone does find a clear effect, then, can that be exactly replicated? So far, nobody has done this, to my knowledge, beyond the heat/helium work and some level of exact replication done by SRI and ENEA.


    Quote

    If we make a few changes such as eliminating aluminum from the picture, take greater care cleaning the nickel, verifiably pre-hydrogenate our nickel, and make sure we have control over the variables in our system, I think we can achieve the type of performance me356 claims. If the community pursued supporting replication attempts with half the vigor they utilize when fighting with each other and arguing over the Industrial Heat and Andrea Rossi conflict, we could spark an energy revolution in a short period of time.

    I appreciate the sentiment, but the thinking is shallow. Dump the belief in NiH. Back up. What is actually known and confirmed? Is anything missing from that? If additional and easy confirmation is missing, go for it. If there are reported effects that appear to be easy to replicate, go for them. But be careful about all the fluff out there, like Parkhomov.


    I was *really excited* about Parkhomov. It looked really good. It looked easily replicable. So I put effort into understanding the experiment. I plotted the data, looking at XP vs input power and temperature. In particular, I wanted to see how the input power affected the temperature, and wanted to see if there was evidence of XP in the temperature record. After all, if the device was generating so much power, wouldn't the fuel container get hotter than expected?


    Oh. Damn!


    I raised the issues, respectfully, with Parkhomov. Stonewalled. I published them. Any responses? No.

  • Some beautiful filibustering by the Fabulous Filibusterer himself, Abdul Ra-ra-man Lameox!
    -It might be filibustering of filibustering, but I don't know enough about Hank Mills to don my tinfoil hat...-


    Since this thread is not tackling hard scientific facts, let us drift abit into theology
    Tell us, Lomax, what do you think about about Tawassul? specifically, praying to saints, circunambulating their graves, this kind of thing? Haram or not?

  • Hank


    However, "testimony is presumed true unless controverted," is a common-law principle.


    The testimony we have at the moment is from Rossi claiming 'none payment of $89 million' and 'improper use of 'intellectual property'.


    So we have to take that as being 'true' until it is properly challenged in court, which it has not been .... yet.


    What has happened is IH et al has filed a 'Motion to Dismiss' based on legal loopholes. Now it is up to the Judge whether she accepts the motion as 'valid'. If she does, then the case will be dismissed.


    Rossi may then be faced with a 'complaint from IH et al. This list is potentially endless but may include Rossi provides IH with IP in accordance with the contract. That will be a signal to us on this Forum that IH thinks Rossi has something.


    But until then we do not know and will have to wait, I commiserate with you but would request you do not take it out of me356.


    There is of course the conspiracy .......... that IH already know how to rub the lamp to produce the genie and only want to close Rossi down. The 'shoot the inventor stage'. If this is the case, the court will flush this out.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    The testimony we have at the moment is from Rossi claiming 'none payment of $89 million' and 'improper use of 'intellectual property'.

    "non-payment" or "no payment" would be a fact assumed. "improper" is conclusory. The actual improper use must be alleged, not just the conclusion. Planet Rossi seems to have a great deal of difficulty understanding clear fact and distinguishing it from interpretation, "conclusory statements." I suggest reading the Motion carefully, and looking up any words.


    "Conclusory statements are ones where an affiant states their belief but none of the underlying facts, thereby preventing an objective assessment of the affiant's belief"


    Quote

    So we have to take that as being 'true' until it is properly challenged in court, which it has not been .... yet.

    Again and again, the inhabitants of Planet Rossi confidently assert nonsense as if it were fact.


    What, exactly, is the improper use alleged?


    Quote

    What has happened is IH et al has filed a 'Motion to Dismiss' based on legal loopholes. Now it is up to the Judge whether she accepts the motion as 'valid'. If she does, then the case will be dismissed.

    One of the wonderful abilities of human beings is to see a signal in noise. It's really useful, actually, under some circumstances. However, IH gains nothing by establishing that "Rossi has nothing," and it's almost impossible. Rather, IH will almost certainly allege that the contract was not fulfilled, as to IP transfer, so they don't owe, and they may also allege that refund of the $10 million is in order. In this case they would be giving up the license. I see no reason for them to rush to do that. -- other than the interest on $10 million. They may also allege fraud, but so far, that is obscure. It's simply possible.


    [quote]But until then we do not know and will have to wait, I commiserate with you but would request you do not take it out of me356.

    I have not watched the me356 story, only the recounting of it here. I would say that there are plenty of people who claim stuff that they cannot deliver on. Recognizing this can be useful. If me356 has something worth sharing, he could return and share it. If he is ill, we wish for him to recover. And if he was lying, it is his hell that he will burn in. Wasting the time of many people is not a great idea. Nevertheless, out of sight, out of mind. We are not going to be sticking pins in an me356 voodoo doll.

  • Don't wind him up, K. If we start debating theology as well as the law, so help me God I will delete all the religious stuff.


    I suspect none here are qualified to debate either of those fields.


    Anyway the "police" mentality is welcome when it comes to blocking those completely non-scientific fields. So I give a thumbs down to your "threat" and a thumbs up to the sentiment. If you catch my drift. "Let sleeping dogs lie" so to speak.


    Respectfully,
    Longview