Have IH let their E-Cat License lapse by inaction?

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Alan - I'm asking you to put a stop the resumption of Sifferkoll's deranged slander postings. He has resumed the posting of untrue statements that are of his own fabrication and have no basis of truth. You asked me to point that out and it is time to…

shut your trap. Indeed, it is time for you to lay low, so that the LENR crowd forgets about you and the people related to you.

You've become a liability You could have become a liability for the businesses you have investments in, was it not for IH's disclaimer. Were they anticipating your hysterical meltdown? or, what is the plan, what do you expect to gain by making a fool out of yourself day after day? Baffles me.

I believe social engineers think they're the cream of the crop, but as they're autistic psychopaths, there is a lot of stuff they don't consider when campaigning online.

Quote

As I said, there was a test conducted in the U.S. when he was in Italy. The instruments belonged to the people who did the test. Unfortunately they do not want me to publish any details. I cannot explain what happened or whether it actually worked. I have only a little information. It looks like it worked, but I can't be sure.

Does this information include calibration with the Joule heater over the full operating temperature range? If not, it can not be relied upon. Does this experiment involve a thermal camera? If so, it can not be relied upon. Did the experimenters have full access to the input power and wiring? If not... Did they use series connected rather than clamp on ammeters? If not... Were the experimenters a university department acting officially for the university? Were they a well known independent testing lab or government lab or major large industrial company? If not... etc. etc. etc.

Quote

That it not true. A properly done scientific experiment with a controlled Ni-H reaction at 10 W would bring in billions of dollars of investment money. It would be far more effective than Rossi's 1-MW fake demonstration.

I vehemently agree. I've been saying that since mid 2011. There was absolutely no need to test multiple ecat unit in the form of a megawatt array. Testing a single unit would have been much easier and far cleaner. There was no necessity to run for year! There was no need to use Rossi's lawyer for a customer and Rossi's friend for a referee. I'm conservative with novel claims so I'd prefer 100W or alternatively, self-sustaining long runs with 10W would be fine. It has always been obvious that with a powerful nuclear reaction, no heater would be needed and Rossi's "safety" excuses were specious. Never forget that the hot cat made less power and less "COP" by far (factor of 10) than Levi's simple but defective original demo with the liquid flow calorimetry which took place years before. That is Rossi-progress!

We're gonna need a bigger bridge

Quote from "JackCole"

I think you and many others have misunderstood what Dewey was expressing. Dewey seemed to be testifying to the nature of the men, Darden and Vaughn. Their faith was one thing mentioned, but not the only thing. It would probably serve you to drop it unless you just can't resist and want to take a stand of moral superiority. This probably could blow up into endless debates about who has committed more atrocities in the past (religious vs. irreligous), who has done more good, who is more hypocritical, and on ad infinitum. My unsolicited advice, just take away from it that Dewey approves of the character of Darden and Vaughn and go back to the issue you are here to discuss.

Wow! Tell me, how is it possible that the extremely simple question asked by Peter,

Quote from "Peter Gluck"

BTW will you tetify in the Florida Court, with your right hand on the Bible that Rossi never was able to generate excess heat for IH?

instantly creates an avalanche of diffusions, diversions and general trolling made to spin and FUD it into oblivion by Adb, Jed, Jack, dni and even drags old ghost Maaaary out of the dungeon ????

It has nothing to do with "faith" , "nature of men", "moral superiority" or whatever. It has everything to do with Dewey answering truthfully with his hand on the bible as Peter so clearly stated and as Dewey so clearly dodged. This behaviour is very very revealing... Don't yoy agree?

Quote from Peter Gluck

To Dewey Weaver,

I'm answering as an observer without Dewey's inside information. Dewey may obviously fill in as he chooses. Dewey is revealing pieces of the history as he sees fit, but the overall picture of what happened is bifurcating into two major stories, neither one being what we would, ab initio, consider likely as supporters of LENR. One story seems, to me, consistent with all the known facts, including Rossi's claims, and the other requires the acceptance of a global conspiracy of major dimensions. If such a conspiracy exists, we might notice, anyone in the way of it is in serious danger. When people with trillions of dollars at stake 9as alleged and apparently believed by Sifferkoll and others, and billions to spend to protect that) don't like you and have no ethics, you are dead meat. Period. The only thing that would save your life would be that they consider you irrelevant, not an actual hazard to them. In my training, the saying was that "If they are not shooting at you, you are not worth wasting bullets on." (The references in the training are many to people like JFK, Malcolm X, Matahma Gandhi, etc.)

Quote

Dear Dewey I appreciate the sincerity of your Rossi essay and your dedication to your cause. I understand that your motivation is to fight against a wrong- Andrea Rossi who is evil does harm to the LENR field had backstabbing IH with an unjust Trial despite having achieved nothing, has no viable technology, cannot produce even a bit of excess heat, had performed a catastrophic one year Test.

Only some of this is fair as to what Dewey says. Peter, if you don't understand the difference, where you create straw man arguments, ask. Please be careful and understand that the difficulties of age -- which I face, though not yet so strongly as you -- can make some things require more attention, sometimes much more. Our knee-jerk responses can become quite unreliable. However, we also can become deeper and more capable of understanding, if we factor for the shifting conditions of our life.

Quote

So the Trial is actually kind of suicide, you seem to be certain that Rossi will lose. (then why all this fuss?)

Do not expect people's reactions and behavior to "make sense," unless you can read sympathetically and see the world as they will see it. Then, maybe, you can understand it, and maybe you can even understand how and why people will do things that can be seen by others as "suicidal." I do not think that Rossi is deliberately committing suicide. Rather, remember, I'm maintaining a bifurcated story. One side is what the pseudoskeptics claimed from the very beginning, he was simply a fraud. There are some problems with this scenario, because Rossi's behavior "doesn't make sense" if he is a fraud. However, that, then, requires us to expect that his behavior will "make sense." What if he is a fraud, and insane? (This idea allows him to believe that he has something real. And if he believes it, legally, it's not a fraud, because mens rea is absent (evil intention). However, that's complicated. "Fraud" here means that his results were faked in some way, that he never had a real effect, but this also shades into him having some real effect that was exaggerated by faked results. "Faked," here does not mean intentional fakery, but that the *effect* was deceptive.

The other scenario is that he has a real effect, and a significant one, with major heat, shown on occasion, but that he is insane (and specifically paranoid). This, then, as an explanation for what happened with IH, suggests that he deliberately withheld the crucial IP from them, because he did not trust them, leading them to fail to verify independently with devices of their own manufacture. A corollary of this is that the Rossi patents are essentially, as they stand, worthless. They do not disclose what is needed to create independent verification. However, for some of them, they could still be amended to create full disclosure. Or someone else could fill in what is missing and effectively patent and own it. By failure to fully disclose in the patents, Rossi could be losing everything.

The alternative that I see to these is that a global conspiracy is afoot. I have looked at some of the evidence asserted. It is preposterous. It only appears as evidence to those with fixed beliefs already. Could there be a global conspiracy to suppress LENR? Many in the field have thought so, and my general opinion is that this thinking helped keep the LENR community disempowered. Why bother if powerful interests will just stop you? It's not fair, but that's life, would be the thinking. Or some will rail against the conspiracy, uselessly, disempowering themselves by creating the ready impression that they are "conspiracy theorists," which pseudoskeptics are already itching to claim. (Much of the practice of pseudoskepticism involves tossing mud, completely irrelevant to science.)

Quote

Possibly it is not easy to deal with Rossi- I have not met him.

Well, read An Impossible Invention, by Mats Lewan. It's not like his behavior suddenly appeared with no visible development. Dewey's account is quite consistent with what Rossi has done in the past, both distant and since his 2011 announcement.

Quote

He could not [do] harm to the LENR field if we consider the status of it on Jan 13, 2011. Almost zombie.

That's a narrow view that assumes that all attention is good. There was enormous attention to the claims of Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, and it was premature, and the result was the establishment of a rejection cascade that still persists in some circles. The damage was enormous, I consider the lost opportunity cost of that to be about $25 trillion. Here, there are dual effects operating. The attention created led to more attention to LENR in general (positive effect) but with focus on NiH (which could be a negative effect, easily, wasting countless hours of research time pursuing a myth of major Rossi heat, and even the minor heat that is possible, from Rossi and others, is not nearly as well established as the PdD reaction, where we actually know the fuel/ash/heat relationship, which then, through the ratio, is direct evidence finessing all the arguments about the accuracy of calorimetry. Those who study the field know that the calorimetry is also very well established, but through piles of circumstantial evidence. It is sufficient to convince those who deeply study it, but not those whose examination remains shallow. Heat/helium, I can explain to a child, and have, and it is conclusive. (And, of course, is testable, and is on track for more precise verification, i.e., real science.)

Quote

You ignore a few facts and factoids [that] can be lies- coming from the Web from Rossi and his circles- if they are lies tell please.

The thinking attempts to bifurcate reality into two segments, "truth" and "lies." But people may make statements that they think are true, or likely true, but that are false or misleading, and these are not, in colloquial English, "lies," except within emotional arguments. A criminal will proclaim that all the testimony against him is "lies." That is actually a common losing strategy. It is far more powerful, if possible, to say that the witness is telling the truth, but is mistaken (and to show how). "Lie" requires, essentially, mens rea.

Quote

1- the three intermediary reports of the ERV after 3 6 and 9 months are they [d?]rek and what was the feedback from IH;

There were intermediary reports, that is not contested, I think. We do not know what the IH response to these was, and we have only Rossi's claims that they were "positive." This, then, is used to imply IH fraud, that they had no intention of paying Rossi. The thinking would be, surely if the reports were positive, they would have accepted them -- or protested, screaming, refusing to cooperate with the test under way. However, we do have an indication that the ERV stopped responding to IH, not answering questions about the testing. If that is true, it shows a fatal defect, unprofessional conduct on the part of the ERV. That someone reporting on Rossi demonstrations -- and the 1 MW test was a demonstration, not an independent verification, no matter how one pushes the words around -- stonewalls questions seems to be a long-established pattern, starting in 2011. I have some theories as to how this evolved, but the pattern is strong. There are many many possible relevant details that we do not know, and "we don't know" is never a sound basis for accusing someone of lying.

(continued)