Thread with the most fact-based posts on the Forum shut down from flame warring

Rossi Responds to IH’s Motion to Dismiss in Court Case']Rossi Responds to IH’s Motion to Dismiss in Court Case[/url]

was shut down by Barty.

This topic was discussing the most substantive current issue on LENR today, the Rossi Memorandum filed in his lawsuit, opposing dismissal of the case.

I had extensively studied the Memorandum and posted on what I found, in a series of posts which each focused on one item; there were nine of these in all.

Sifferkoll -- and others -- extensively ridiculed this, and Dewey Weaver and Sifferkoll exchanged the usual usual. Sifferkoll extensively references his blog, which makes what he writes here seem calm and mild. Dewey Weaver is the only insider posting here from direct experience of the Rossi affair. Yes, he's pissed. HOwever, again and again, comments in that thread show that people -- including Sifferkoll -- have not studied and do not understand the issues. For example:

With this post I wrote:

Quote

[H]As anyone else noticed that the Validation test and the General Performance test do not actually specific power output? You could technically satisfy the test requirements with a few watts.There also is no reliability requirement. Because there is no power requirement, there might only be one device actually working.

Axil responded:

Quote

In section 5 of the licence agreement, a COP of 4 is required and the temperature of the steam is specified.

Yes, indeed, COP 4 is required, and so is the temperature of the steam as 100 C or greater. However, that provides no information about the power, unless one knows three things: flow rate of cooling water, inlet temperature, and then how much water was actually evaporated. Water and steam can be flowing in the output line, together, at the temperature specified, and this could be done with a few watts. Certainly it would be trivial to do it with a kilowatt. "COP 4" tells us nothing about the power level, unless we know the input power. And steam temperature is almost useless, and this was all covered extensively in discussions of the early Rossi demonstrations. At atmospheric pressure, 100 C could be entirely water, unless there is a steam separator -- and Dewey is claiming Rossi removed one that IH had installed. And then one still needs to know the volume of the steam (or the quantity of water flowing in a bypass after the steam separator). In other words, Axil's comment would merely be likely to confuse the ignorant, and does not negate what I wrote. Of course, maybe he was agreeing with me, but I suspect not.

Then there was Sifferkoll, with one of his last posts before the thread was locked. From amidst the general and routine incivilities, in large and bold font:

Quote

So, what we know for sure is that at least Woodford visited the MW plant several times and then invested $50M on the information from due diligence including the 1st and 2nd ERV reports, which we know are the same as the 3rd and final reports. Why is it so important for the FUDders to hide this fact?

I answered this earlier today, but in the Playground. Sifferkoll thinks he has found a Really Important Question, so he's asking it in many places. This is classic troll behavior.

Sifferkoll is using scattershot posting to lenr-forum.com as a platform to seek outraged response from Dewey and others. In the thread just locked, about Rossi's Memorandum, he fills the thread with frivolous flames, using insulting attributions, ... but not actually links to the content he is responding to. (I found this to be commonly true with Sifferkoll's claims. No links so they can be easily verified. I've pointed this out before and his response was that one could find sources with Google. Yes, one can, but the lack of links suppresses verification.) His attributions in the thread:

June 19 "theFUDweaver" wrote:
June 25 "DeweyDodge" wrote:
June 25 "Abd" wrote:
June 25 "Abd" wrote:
June 25 "FUD by Abd" wrote:
June 25 "FUDing Abd" wrote:
June 25 "Maaary" wrote:
June 25 "Maaary" wrote:
June 26 (the same post as linked above) "FUDing Abd - trolling Jed - dogding Dewey - Renzzzie + little Maaary" wrote:
June 26 "Pigeon Dewey" wrote:

Only two of these posts did not lead with gratuitious insult. Those were to replies to me, and were almost civil. However, the thrust of the first one was "stop writing," and the second was an excuse to call Dewey and others what he translates as "a-holes," but which dictionaries show as "bastards."

Sifferkoll is a real person, his name is known and published. So is Dewey, so am I, so is Jed Rothwell. Mary Yugo is well known, and his identity is known. However, looking at the upvoting and downvoting patterns in that thread and others the meaning of "Planet Rossi" becomes clear. Sifferkoll and another would downvote a post that was a direct answer to a question, on topic, and with the one asking the question thanking, where the content was not controversial, just because of who wrote it, it's obvious.

Sifferkoll is a troll. Dewey is provocative, as would be expected from his personal history. In a sane forum, he'd be restrained, to be sure, but I am not seeing that lenr-forum is sane. There are remarks by administrators in the thread that are gratuitously insulting. What is demonstrated is administrative incompetence. That is not uncommon, there is no School for Administrators. It's remediable, if the administrator cares to learn from those with high experience.

The thread topic is notable and of high current interest. And Sifferkoll is right about one thing: the thread is inundated with irrelevant comments, he calls it FUD. But one of the primary offenders is him and some of those who consistently vote with him and who comment similarly.

I completed my examination of the Counts in the Rossi Memorandum, and to my knowledge this is the only such study on the internet, so far. Tomorrow we should see more, the IH response is due.

Quote from Shane D.

Yes, it does not specify a power, but the individual Ecats were, I think, rated at 15kw. Doubtful IH would have thought the validation successful were the COP satisfied, but the 30 Ecat unit used provided only a few watts.

This is the point: the Agreement was written in such a way that the ERV did not need to report the power produced. Only COP and steam temperature. Yes, IH would not be satisfied, but so what? A literal reading of the Agreement has it that IH must pay $89 million if the ERV certifies those two facts.

Of course that makes no sense. What this shows is how naive the language of the Agreement was. Whether "IH .. thought the validation successful" is irrelevant, of no legal effect, in the world of strict construction of contracts. Of course IH lives and moves in the real world, where there are other considerations. If the ERV gives a fuller report, what I've written might be moot. One unit operating at 15 kW out of 30 could easily manage to meet the GPT specification, though, even if it were only operating at 1 kW. All that would be done is to slow the water down, so that it boils. I wrote that it could be done with a few watts, which is probably an exaggeration, because heat losses would not then allow the system to keep the outflow water line at 100 C, even if the output was immediately fed back to the input. It could be done with much less power if the outflow line were narrow and very well insulated, with a very low flow.

The GPT as described was preposterous, but it seems to have been assumed or an understanding that the testing would be in an IH facility. If Dewey is correct, about that, Rossi shot that down, and insisted on what was done, instead. In Florida, probably so he could effectively live in the thing 24/7. Which all is not what IH would have had in mind signing that Agreement. But they allowed it to happen, and that then requires understanding the theory that has been put forward that they made a choice to allow Rossi as much leeway to make his case as possible. And that they would even continue to hold the license. It was Rossi's choice to blow the whistle, and that cannot be undone. Much that was confidential, before, under NDA, is now very open, and it does not make Rossi look good at all.

Quote from oystla

Abd,

you are wrong.

I love it.

Quote

Power for Validation test and General performance test is specified in the agreement.

No. Look, if you don't want to be considered anything other than wayward flatulence, show evidence for what you claim. I think I know what you are talking about, and it is not "power for validation test and general performance test." It is something else, which I think Axil correctly notes.

Quote

And I will even give you the clue: Both the above specifies what to be validated and tested: It is called "The Plant"

and the definition of "The Plant" is?

yes, it is defined in the agreement. Did you find it?

"The plant" is defined as a "I MW E-cat Unit" (or an alternative). Apparently Oystia imagines that the name of a thing specifies it. But 1 MW, as an example, might be a reference to some maximum power if all individual units are fully active. There is no reference to any minimum power. There is no requirement that it be a megawatt produced. Yes, from common sense, we may think so, but common sense can lead one astray when dealing with strict performance of contracts. My sense is that if IH was reasonably dissatisfied, not merely attempting to avoid payment, they could prevail in court on a refusal to pay. And a "1 MW E-cat" that only delivered 1 kW would be a reasonable objection. There are other reasonable objections that IH can rely upon, and the biggest and most fundamentally significant is their claim that they were unable to independently verify that Rossi's instructions worked. This is completely separate from the ERV report.

What ended up poking me in the eye is that there is no claim in the Complaint that Rossi successfully taught IH how to make working devices. The core of the Agreement is ignored by him, as if a 1 MW unit that they could not reproduce without Rossi being there 24/7 would be of great value.

I'm looking forward to tomorrow, when the IH rebuttal of the Memorandum is due. (They might decide not to file anything, but probably they will. It must be remembered that this is all preliminary maneuvering, and that the real IH Answer remains in the future. Some inhabitants of Planet Rossi have treated the Motion to Dismiss as if this were the entire IH defense, with much accompanying derision, but, in fact, it would be a tiny part of it, narrowly confined to legal points on the Complaint.)

Quote from "Abd"

Sifferkoll thinks he has found a Really Important Question, so he's asking it in many places. This is classic troll behavior.

Interesting comment. Is it troll behaviour to ask what you think is an important question? I would rather say the FUD to distort it is troll behaviour...

Quote from "Abd"

Sifferkoll is a troll. Dewey is provocative

,

eh? Somewhat biased... but I'll settle for the beauty being in the eye of the beholder ...

Quote from oystla

Abd,

You are wrong - again.

Point 1.2 in the agreement specifies 1MW unit, and says "hereafter referred to as the "plant" ...."

And by this they don't need to repeat 1MW in the agreement no more. Only use the expression the "plant" -

- to mean....yes....wait.......1MW unit

Display More

Sigh. Nowhere in the Agreement itself is the power produced by the "1 MW unit" specified. If I buy a half-watt resistor, that will then have power dissipation specifications available. "Half-watt" means that it will handle a half watt without damage. A nominal value is not a specification that can be used to test something for compliance. "Half-watt" implies, though, a minimum power specification. What does "1 MW" imply? Peak power? Average power? Minimum power?

Now, there were "exhibits" attached to the Agreement. There is a sheet which is apparently an exhibit, placed after Exhibit A and before Exhibit D. So it might be Exhibit B or Exhibit C, we can guess. It is labeled "Specification of E-Cat 1 Mw Unit." It gives the "Thermal Output Power" as "1 MW." There is no precision stated. The more detailed specifications give "Power Ranges" of "20 kW-1 MW".

Exhibits A and B are listed in the Agreement. Exhibit B is the agreement with Ampenergo, which is actually important to the case, because it is an Ampenergo signature that was missing from the 2nd Amendment. Exhibit B is missing. So the specification would be Exhibit C, perhaps. Section 1.2 of the Agreement refers to Exhibit C as a description of the 1 MW plant. However it is missing ranges. The plant could, then, be considered to be within specification if it is producing 20 kW with a COP of 6.0. And then the Agreement actually allows lower than 6.0 with reduced payment.

The test requirements for Validation and for Guaranteed Performance do not mention power output, only COP and temperature.

The temperature specified is 100 C. However, the pump is specified for a pressure of 4 bar. At that pressure, saturated steam will be about 143 C.

Oystia wrote that I was "wrong." I was not complete, that's all. What I wrote was not incorrect. It is the ready judgment of "wrong" when someone writes something disliked that is all-too-common on Planet Rossi.

In his next post. Oystia repeats that I "misunderstood." But I already knew that the Plant was a "1 MW E-cat Unit." What Oystia has not understood is that this is a name, not a specification of minimum power output. There is no actual specification of that, in the Specification sheet. There is only nominal power, without clarity.

Which is, unfortunately, typical of what Rossi writes.

If you look for absurdity in the IH-Rossi agreement, you need not look further than the one year duration and use of a single, unvetted, unknown and probably incompetent or crooked ERV not to mention a "customer" who is Rossi's well paid attorney! How bizarre and crazy are those facts?

Quote from Mary Yugo

If you look for absurdity in the IH-Rossi agreement, you need not look further than the one year duration and use of a single, unvetted, unknown and probably incompetent or crooked ERV not to mention a "customer" who is Rossi's well paid attorney! How bizarre and crazy are those facts?

They pass for normal on Planet Rossi. These claims can probably be established in court. "probably incompetent or crooked" is not fact, it is interpretation. However, the use of a single ERV, with the ERV being chosen by Rossi -- not IH! -- and with the use of any other ERV requiring agreement between Rossi and IH, is established in the Agreement. It was sign the agreement or say goodbye to Rossi. I am quite sure that IH noticed all this, was properly suspicious, and decided to go ahead, for reasons I have detailed elsewhere. My sense is that the overall effect of that decision is a great benefit to the field of LENR, compared with walking. They saw this through to the end, and, as a result, their position, legally, is strong.

Yes, Rossi may be able to assert estoppel to save the lawsuit from total dismissal. However, then, the door is open for it all to come out.

Quote from "FUDing Abd"

with the ERV being chosen by Rossi -- not IH!

xxxxxxx BS Abd. They agreed, they signed. He did work for them before on validation test. They had nothing bad to say about him until payment was due. Three similar quarterly reports - NO PROBLEM.

Another naughty word removed. Alan

Quote from sifferkoll

"FUDing Abd" wrote:
with the ERV being chosen by Rossi -- not IH!

F*cking BS Abd. They agreed, they signed. He did work for them before on validation test. They had nothing bad to say about him until payment was due. Three similar quarterly reports - NO PROBLEM.

This is all an attempt to frame fact in ways designed to favor Rossi and make IH look bad. He calls pointing to facts in the Agreement "FUD." I've been quite clear: IH "accepted" the ERV. That does not mean that they actively chose him. Claiming that the ERV was "working for" IH is not stating the full fact. The ERV was chosen by Rossi, period. And then Rossi chose the same ERV for the GPT, and IH had, by the Agreement, no right to change that without Rossi's permission. Rossi controlled the Test. However, in the Agreement -- and confirmed by the Complaint -- it was probably understood that the GPT would be controlled by IH, on premises chosen by them. But if Dewey is correct, Rossi refused to participate in a test in Raleigh and insisted on a test in Florida. Rossi may certainly claim estoppel. Do you know what that means, Sifferkoll?

However, this is the kicker: it is probably irrelevant, not the central fact to be determined in the lawsuit.

Quote from "Abd"

Do you know what that means, Sifferkoll?

What? It means that you are distorting and diffusing facts. That is what it means. IH and Rossi signed the agreement, there are absolutely no signs on anyone being dissatisfied with Penon until payment was due. You are just making stuff up out of the blue Abd. And you XXXXXXX know it.

Naughty word removed. Alan

Quote from "Jed"

it makes no difference when I.H. became dissatisfied

Well, they sure as hell were happy to pocket the $50M from Woodford though showing off the plant...