E-Cat QuarkX Q&A Compilation

Quote from Pierre Ordinaire

Am I the only one concerned about the fact that there is absolutely no proof that the QuarkX even exists?

The operative word would not be "proof," but independent evidence. The evidence that the Quark-X exists is entirely supplied by Rossi, a this point, unless someone has provided other evidence.

There is plenty of discussion that here, so far, that is highly skeptical. "Absolutely no proof," given that "proof" is a very fuzzy term with a lost performative, is not what we would talk about. I haven't looked at the compilation yet, but many have commented on the pseudo-report from Rossi.

Quote from stephenrenzz

When considering the definition of the word evidence, I don't see that Rossi has provided a shred of evidence of any kind. Rossi has put forth claims...but evidence he has not...there is a great distinction there. Also. the term proof is evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact...so I believe "proof" is in fact the correct operative word in this context. Just making an observation.

A misleading one, unfortunately. Testimony is evidence. That you or I may not believe the truthfulness of the witness does not make it not evidence; rather it is evidence that we might deprecate.

You have given a common definition of proof. The word proof, however, is often used to indicate conclusive evidence, but there is a lost performative. Conclusive according to whom? By that common definition, however, Rossi's claim that the Quark-X has output power of 100 Wh/h and input power of 0.5 Wh/h is evidence that it has that. It "helps to establish the fact," at least for some! It is an element to be considered in a full analysis of the situation.

It is a separate issue that many of us don't trust what Rossi says. In other words, claims are evidence. Weak evidence, perhaps, under some conditions, but still evidence.

By the way, why does Rossi use Wh/h as the unit for power? A watt-hour is one watt for one hour. So watt-hours per hour is just watts.

Quote from axil

There are three points of proof. The demo to IH that for which Rossi got 10 million, The demo to WF that netted 50 million, and th demo to the Chinese that netted 200 million.

Ah, what exactly is the evidence here? There was a Verification test that was a condition of the contract with IH. That was certified by Penon, whose probity is apparently now under question. Details are unclear. We do not actually know that IH was satisfied by that test, only that they paid the money. This is a general assumption that people have made, that if IH put up $11.5 million, they were satisfied that the technology was proven.

That's a reasonable idea but could be incorrect. IH was apparently determined to get to the bottom of the Rossi issue. I would prefer to hear from them as to what they were thinking, how certain they were, or how skeptical but deciding to go ahead. All that we really know at this point is that they decided to go ahead.

Then we know about Woodford, what? Apparently Woodford visited the GPT. But we do not know what they were told, nor the basis for their decision. For all I know, they wanted to see it to prove to themselves that Rossi was bogus, a roadblock to the real thing was going to flop. Axil has swallowed and repeated the Rossi story as if it were fact, that IH used his technology to gather $50 million from Woodford. Maybe. But maybe not.

Ditto for the Chinese, perhaps.

Quote from LENR Calender

Wait, so WF invested into IH under the assumption that Rossi was a dud? Knowing that IH's $10 million investment was a likely loss, and that the divorce would cost millions more?

Your other LENR investments must be gems then, to make it a worthwhile investment for WF!

There is background information that appears to be missing for many. If the Rossi Effect is a 'dud," or to be considered such (because the IP was not transferred), then we return to the basic situation before Rossi popped up. Investment in LENR is highly speculative. There are massive uncertainties. It is not for the faint of heart, it is not for small investors who could not afford to lose $50 million, because the chances are high that it could be lost, or that, more accurately perhaps, it will take much more investment before it will pay off. It could easily take a billion dollars or more. Maybe much more. But the lost opportunity cost I have estimated as trillion dollars per year.

My own opinion, not being well-informed about the work under way in some places, such as Brillouin, or, say, with D2 (Dennis Cravens), is that investment in product development is premature. What is needed is basic research, and that will best and most efficiently be done collectively, probably publicly. However, whether or not a particular investment is worthwhile, i.e., the probability of success times the return of success exceeds the investment, depends on details. There is no way to assess the probability of success of a secret process!

I do recommend that anyone considering investment in LENR consult with experts in the field, who know the history and the pitfalls. Indications are that IH has been doing this. My own relatively uninformed suggestion, if they have actually amassed over $100 million for research and development, is to be very, very careful where to put it. I think that, all things considered, $11.5 million may have been reasonable to risk on Rossi. By August of last year, I suspect that IH had a very good idea where this was going, and what Axil went on to say, "IH doesn't do fraud" was normal for their business. If they do fraud, if they collect funds on false pretenses, failing to disclose known issues or defects, they can be completely screwed, and maybe, indeed, personally liable to their investors. Under some circumstances, they could go to jail.

I don't think so.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

IH / WIF left the pre-$50M Miami visit shaking their heads. That included some time with the "employees" of JM products and I believe I recall that "contrived" was the quote that carried that day last August.

This is what amazes me and why I refer to "Planet Rossi." There is heavily reactive thinking, here the kind that self-reinforces and generates poor choices, as was described in the speech pointed out by Sifferkoll, and which simply calls out for application to Planet Rossi, rather than to the "cryptoskeptics," a neologism that I am not inviting Sifferkoll to explain, but it must be Bad.

Dewey is reactive, he's pissed, it is obvious. However, he's not a liar, and being pissed simply means that his conclusory judgments can be -- possibly should be -- deprecated. This report is somewhat conclusory, but is essentially negating the idea that Woodford was deceived by IH -- or assured that this was the E-Cat's Meow.

What amazes me is that people are ready to discount information from an insider, the only insider posting in these fora, just because ... because what? Dewey is a real person, posting under his real name. His testimony means something, even if he's wrong on this or that, but we have not actually found Dewey to be wrong on fact, so far. At least I have not seen evidence of it. Rather, he is accused of having an agenda, as if this is Bad. Dewey has agendas. So do most of us, most of the time. So?

I think Sifferkoll included me with the cryptoskeptics because I write long posts, which he thinks are intended to confuse. Actually, I write to educate myself, because I research and reflect when I write. When I want to write polemic, it's very different. My discursive writing is an invitation to sit down with me and reflect on ideas and evidences. If you don't want to do that, I won't be offended. What has long amazed me, though, is people who will attack what I write because it's too long. My experience is that when I put in the substantial effort to boil it down, they like it even less. "Too long" is an excuse, and it's obvious.