I was wrong about Rossi, but what I fear most is that I might be partly right

  • Thanks sifferkoll for downloading the docs.


    Extended schedule indeed, but I somehow think that Complex Case management path is better for both parties to avoid mistakes.


    Can someone explain what third bullet in third document of sifferkolls list means in practise?
    "Motions for sanctions No v"

  • This is a legitimate question floating around multiple forums and I think Jed should be given an opportunity to address it in an unequivocal way.


    I will!


    It is none of your damn business.


    In a technical debate, you should consider an argument on its own merits without reference to the livelihood of the person making the argument. A complicated technical problem can only be addressed by professionally trained people who work full time on such problems. You cannot expect them to work for free. This is why, for example, most analyses of the Fukushima disaster made by people outside the nuclear industry have little merit. People in the industry may be biased, but people outside the industry are usually ignorant, which is worse.

  • The spin-chef and his mirror have left! Who will be their follow-up? Does one of the left clerk's take over?


    I guess that everyone can now regroup and consolidate their personal delusions without nasty doses of alternate realities interfering.


    I have something better to do than read pages of whack-a-mole for at least the next month also.


    Cheerio!

  • @Jed


    See? I knew I should have sent Dick Smith a bill. He got my "stay the hell away from Defkalion" advice for free, including what questions to ask them which they flunked. I helped him save $1M and embarrassment and all I got was a "thank you, Ma'am." LOL!

  • I will!


    It is none of your damn business.


    I can accept that you do not want to answer the question directly and feel it is none of my business. But I hope you understand (and I'm quite certain you do), that due to your abrupt change in position on all matters Rossi, the question will linger in the collective minds of LENR+ enthusiasts for some time to come until you provide an unequivocal yes or no to this question.

  • I can accept that you do not want to answer the question directly and feel it is none of my business. But I hope you understand (and I'm quite certain you do), that due to your abrupt change in position on all matters Rossi, the question will linger in the collective minds of LENR+ enthusiasts for some time to come until you provide an unequivocal yes or no to this question.


    Just leave this alone. You have had all the answers JR wants to give you.

  • But I hope you understand (and I'm quite certain you do), that due to your abrupt change in position on all matters Rossi, the question will linger in the collective minds of LENR+ enthusiasts . . .


    I have made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions why I changed my mind about Rossi. It is because I saw sample data from the 1-year 1-MW reactor test, and the configuration. This data is appalling. The test is a travesty. An outrage. It was obvious to me that Rossi and Penon were using the wrong kinds of instruments in a configuration that will produce nonsense results. It is not possible to do proper calorimetry with this configuration. You can only make a rough estimate, and my rough estimate is that there is no excess heat.


    Making matters much worse, Rossi refused to allow the I.H. expert into the customer site. As I have made clear, in my opinion the only plausible reason for this is to cover up the fact that there is only a small radiator in the customer site. If there were actually equipment using 1 MW of process heat, I am sure Rossi would show I.H. this equipment, because I.H. would pay him $89 million. The notion that the owner of the factory will not allow a visit is preposterous. Rossi owns the factory.


    I was never able to carefully evaluate Rossi's work before this, so I could not judge. I saw only brief summaries of his previous tests. I knew some of the tests were fiascoes, such as the time the reactor was plugged up and it nearly exploded (reported by Jim Dunn). This is the first test I have seen this level of detail. It is the worst experiment I have ever seen. And I have seen many bad experiments.


    If the "question still lingers" in your mind about my abrupt change, that can only be because you do not trust me. You do not believe that I have spelled out the real reason. Okay. You can accuse me of lying all you like. But please do not say that I did not give the reason. There is no mystery here. There is no "question" that might "linger." It is simple. Either I am telling the truth and that is the real reason, or I am lying because I am being paid by I.H. or for some other nefarious reason.

  • Thanks Sifferkoll!


    From the latest court filings:
    "The parties contemplate submitting to the Court a proposed protective order providing for the confidentiality of certain documents and information..."


    Could be that the soiled masses will learn nothing of the technicalities.

  • New court documents in the docket could be one explaination for the Dewey/Abd/Renzz/Jed/etc dead calm.


    I have no knowledge of the lawsuit, and no knowledge of the developments described by these documents. Frankly, I don't care about it much, and I have not read the documents much because they are written in some language sort of like English that I can barely make out.


    I do not know why Dewey quit. Abd objected to the censorship. I do not care for the censorship either, and if it continues I will also bow out. However, I must say, the censorship at e-cat world appears to be much worse. Someone there claimed that installing a spongy nickel production machine will magically swallow up all of the heat from Rossi's reactor. This person has apparently never heard of the conservation of energy, or the concept of waste heat. When I tried to point out these things, my message was apparently deleted. So were several others. If the messages do not reappear later this afternoon I will erase all of my messages there.


    It is a weird web site. Had I known they censored things I would never have bothered to write anything there.

  • If the "question still lingers" in your mind about my abrupt change, that can only be because you do not trust me. You do not believe that I have spelled out the real reason. Okay. You can accuse me of lying all you like. But please do not say that I did not give the reason. There is no mystery here. There is no "question" that might "linger." It is simple. Either I am telling the truth and that is the real reason, or I am lying because I am being paid by I.H. or for some other nefarious reason.


    At the risk of raising Alan's ire (Alan, Jed seems to want to continue the discussion, so I see little harm in doing so), I have never accused you of lying, and in fact, I believe fundamentally you strive to be truthful. I respect that you have serious reservations about the 1MW year long test and ERV report. I don't have access to the details and so reserve judgment. Hopefully the ERV report and associated data will be opened up during trial. That would go a long way in resolving many of the difficulties in terms of lack of publicly available information. I do think, however, that you have still not directly answered the question, and are dancing around it. That is your perogative.

  • At the risk of raising Alan's ire (Alan, Jed seems to want to continue the discussion, so I see little harm in doing so), I have never accused you of lying . . .


    Perhaps I misunderstand, but if you are saying that there are lingering doubts about my reasons for changing my mind, that is tantamount to saying I am lying, and the reasons I gave for changing my mind are not the real ones. I gave those reasons time after time. I meant what I said. Please do not accuse me of hiding my opinions in this matter, or not stating things clearly. I have many faults but those are not among them.


    I do think, however, that you have still not directly answered the question, and are dancing around it. That is your perogative.


    Of course I did not directly answer your question! I refused to answer. I said it is none of your damn business. That is not "dancing." Dancing would be a vague answer, or equivocation. That is an abrupt, slam-the-door-in-your-face rude refusal to discuss the issue at all, period, under any circumstances. I don't see how I could make that any clearer.

  • Jed,


    Your arguments are: the instruments used were not those that should have been used, the secret customer stayed secret, and Rossi nearly blew up people in a demonstration


    It could be as you say, Rossi is a deceitful crooked inventor, or it could be that he's got the mindset of a rogue garage tinkerer who doesn't mind getting under people's skin by disregarding established protocols
    The second possibility can be portrayed in a very bad light by clever spindoctors.


    I tend to think Rossi has the goods, if only for the social engineering we've been witnessing around this affair ("Rossi Sturm and Drang", nice tag :D ), but I don't discard the possibility that he's got way less than he's pretending
    Perhaps you should entertain several possibilities too, and check whether your opinion of this affair is due to Rossi getting under your skin by disdain for "mainstream" procedures.

  • @Keieueue
    Only a paranoid psychotic or a gullible, total moron would believe that Jed Rothwell, of all people, would be complicit in an illegal action to undermine Andrea Rossi. I mean simply look objectively at what the man has done for decades in support of any method or device which has even the slightest chance of providing LENR's (sorry, Jed, my interpretation).


    You might as well allege that the Pope was being paid to undermine the Catholic Church or that some famous PETA advocate was being paid to promote the torture of animals.


    Jed, if you do decide to delete your posts, you may want to write up your new understanding of Rossi elsewhere. And of course, don't request deletion of whole strings containing other people's posts. And this sort of statement needs some preservation, IMO:


    Quote

    It is painful to admit I was wrong. It worries me that I was so wrong. But what worries me even more is the possibility that I might have been partially right, and Rossi might have something after all. If he does, he may have destroyed any prospect of developing it. He has destroyed his discovery, himself, and his friends such as Lewan with years of irresponsible, outrageous behavior, betrayal, lies, and bad experiments. This would be tragic for mankind. I would spare no sympathy for Rossi. He brought this on himself.


    I don't agree with "partially right" or how serious it is to miss a budding technology. Don't worry so much. If Rossi really had found the discovery of the century, even if he was only partially right, we'd be awash in LENR and "Rossi Effect (ROTFWL)" research by now. Good inventions may have been missed or long delayed in the past. But these days, with social media, a hungry press, and instant communications of every imaginable variety, a good invention, even if inconsistent at first, is sure to be discovered. And if you are mainly interested in helping mankind, it doesn't matter who makes the discovery.


    As for Rossi, he is a classical free energy scammer. He follows EVERY portion of the standard script, without exception. It's comical how compliant he is to the classical method of bamboozling investors who fail to do their homework and gullible fan boys with little or no background in science and technology. He is not an inventor except of scams. He has never provably succeeded with ANY invention EVER. Doubt that? Name one.

  • Your arguments are: the instruments used were not those that should have been used, the secret customer stayed secret, and Rossi nearly blew up people in a demonstration


    You have mixed up various different events.


    The instruments used were not those that should have been used in the one-year test. That is what I.H. said in their motion to dismiss. I agree.


    I do not know what secret customer you refer to.


    Rossi nearly blew up Jim Dunn, Mike Nelson and some other people from NASA. That is not a bit secret. If you do not believe me, ask them.

  • Jed, you changed your mind and you had your reasons that you explained. You have all the rights deny answering certain questions no problem with that.


    Is it possible you to give time-line, when you changed your mind was it slow process within last 6 months or so, or was it one single event like seeing flow meters changed?


    Edit: Jed, in E-catworld at least my messages goes via moderation, you see small text telling that above your comment after you have pressed submit button. Then posting disappears from you also if you change to some page meanwhile. It comes back after moderation, that have been above 8 hours in some of my fewer and fewer postings there.

  • He has never provably succeeded with ANY invention EVER. Doubt that? Name one.


    Diesel engines powered with alternative organic fuels. He reportedly made a great deal of money inventing them. I have not investigated these reports.


    If that is true, it is no small accomplishment.


    Also, as I said, in my opinion there is still some evidence that some of his cold fusion devices may have worked. I realize you do not think so, but I do.

  • I do believe it when you say that he nearly blew them up
    Nobody knows about the secret customer, if there even was one (that's a possibility)
    The instruments were not the right ones, all right -but did they do the job, or could have done it?-


    Jed you should try to understand that based on all this, for an external observer, this is very unconclusive

  • I do believe it when you say that he nearly blew them up


    Okay, so ask Jim Dunn. If you don't believe him, and you don't believe me, I can't help you. Rossi sure won't tell you.


    If you have been following Rossi and you know how sloppy he is, you should not be surprised that he made this mistake.


    The fact that Rossi did not get millions of dollars from the investor Jim represented should tell you something. Jim offered to come back the next day after the problem was fixed. Rossi said he would not fix the problem and he would not do a demonstration. Jim said that case they would not give him the money. Rossi became furious and threw them out. If you do not think that is typical of Rossi, you don't know much about how he behaves. It was a classic Rossi move.



    The instruments were not the right ones, all right -but did they do the job, or could have done it?-


    No, they did not do the job. That's the whole point. They made a huge error, by a factor of 50. No, they could not have done it. Anyone glancing at the specifications for the instruments will see that they could not work.