JM Chemical Products is the Key Witness in the Rossi vs. Industrial Heat Case

Quote

Is there anything that can convince Mary Yugo Rossi is not a fraud?

Bob, that's a really silly question. All Rossi ever had to do was to submit his ecat for proper and truly independent testing using a well known testing lab, government entity (Sandia, ORNL, CERN, etc,.) or a physics department, acting officially and belonging to a major university. Of course none of that happened. Instead, in classical free energy hoax fashion, Rossi did ever changing experiments, never implemented any of the corrections suggested by competent people (including Jed Rothwell and me), never allowed independent testing in which he was not involved, and got increasingly lower results with time, both in terms out output power and also "COP". Classical hoax properties if there ever were some. Actually, Rossi accidentally allowed some correct testing or was forced into it (links on request) and each time the result showed that the ecat does not work, including the latest determination by IH, who, God knows, has no reason to lie about it since if the ecat did work, they could become billionaires.

I am quite convinced that many improbable things are real-- neutrinos, subatomic particles, the Higgs Boson, that bacteria are a major cause of peptic ulcers, that smallpox is caused by a virus, and so on-- none of which I discovered on my own or ever actually saw demonstrated.

The idea that skeptics can't be convinced is the last refuge of the gullible believer.

Quote from Mary Yugo

.....
I am quite convinced that many improbable things are real-- neutrinos, subatomic particles, the Higgs Boson, that bacteria are a major cause of peptic ulcers, that smallpox is caused by a virus, and so on-- none of which I discovered on my own or ever actually saw demonstrated.

The idea that skeptics can't be convinced is the last refuge of the gullible believer.

When Galileo first suggested his theory of planetary motion, he was almost burned at the stake. Yet truth won out. When I first heard of Rossi, I was very skeptical, but open minded. Not wanting to jump to conclusions, I did not totally believe him nor did I totally disbelieve. From what true "facts" that were available early on, I really had little to decide on. I only had hearsay, both pro and con. I would hardly consider myself a "gullible believer", but certainly open minded and one who wanted to be optimistic.

As time went by, facts were more solidified. Remember to me, words from Mary Yugo carry no more weight than words from Rossi, as far as the source. I no absolutely nothing of Mary Yugo and only what others have posted about Rossi.

So sifting through all the data that I am able to collect, my opinion at this time is that it is highly unlikely that Rossi has anything. Perhaps a very small chance that he has something that he cannot control nor understands. This is hardly the action of a "gullible believer"! I never had nor would have spent a penny on him without more proven facts. That does not prohibit me from following the story with interest and open mind.

So here we are, of like mind in some ways and yet vastly different in others. It seems that you cannot separate anyone who might give even the slightest possibility, no matter how remote to Rossi from your "hatred" of him. Why else would you lash out, calling me a "gullible believer" when you know absolutely nothing about me, my past or even my current thinking?

It is true that I know nothing about you as well. Perhaps my statement about what would change your view was taken not as I intended. My point was comparing these forum posts to religion. About how hard it is for one to change. I gave examples from both camps. Wars are fought over religion with no facts at all. There are "Wars" being fought on this forum site now! Why? Cannot facts be discussed without personal insult or vendetta?

I am not fighting against you. I am not fighting for you. I simply want the truth. If my post about changing was worded badly and thus taken incorrectly, my sincerest apologies. I hope not to fall into the trap of personal vendettas.

Thanks, Bob. This is right on point, and sourced. On Planet Rossi imprecations and implications are hurled with no evidence. It also happens on the "other side." So it's nice to see an actual link.

Quote from Bob

frankwtu wrote:

Please read the following link :
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…-e-cat-works-as-promised/

"When questioned further about when he thinks the E-Cat will hit the market, he said that he could not answer that question because he was not involved in production or marketing decisions, and said his (Fabiani) position was “Chief of R&D under Rossi orders.”"

This was Nov. 2015. So if this interview is accurate, Fabaini's own words as to why he was there was to conduct R&D under Rossi's orders. While he did not state anything about the test or reporting to IH, he did state he reported to Rossi.

Display More

Clear. The fairly obvious impression is that Fabiani was hired by IH to support Rossi. They also hired West, who may have been expected to report to IH, we don't really know. But that Rossi claim in the Complaint about Fabiani's job was probably standard Rossi creative interpretation. He is making a point that IH surely knew how spectacularly the reactor was working since they had two "representatives" there. So Rossi also calls people who have long been associated with him "independent." In fact, what Rossi alleges in the Complaint on this is irrelevant. It's the kind of argument Rossi is used to making on his blog. He is trying to make his claim look reasonable, and make the Answer and counterclaim, he expects, look unreasonable. In fact, so someone was there to check gauges, put devices together, maybe sweep the floor, so what? It's meaningless. Yes, these people might have seen something suspicious. Or not. I believe they had a work schedule. There were times when Rossi was there alone, as I recall the schedule Rossi gave.

Quote

One problem of these discussions are that one has to read almost every post to get a complete picture. And then to make that picture accurate, one has to REMEMBER all the posts that have been read. And THEN they need to link all the threads together much like a Spider Web, seeing what truth lies in the middle. One cannot obtain a true picture if they only read, remember or give credit to posts that support their position. (Either believers or doubters) And they cannot pick certain sentences out to draw more conclusions than are there.

Plus the discussions are full of fluff, ignorant commentary, pseudoskeptics claiming you are all idiots, believers railing at pseudoskeptics, and on and one.

One of the worst effects is that stories are created and then repeated and treated as fact, if mentioned by enough "trusted users." This sets up classic information cascades, since "everyone knows" what is being repeated, and someone who questions it is obviously an outsider, troll, agent of the Bad People, or something like that. The volume of data in the blogs is enormous. There is never any summary or development of what is useful, what might be called a consensus report, which reports can also be accompanied by minority reports, so they really can be total "consensus" reports that make access to information and arguments simple. Doing this, however, is an enormous amount of work, and nobody is up for the job, normally.

And someone who tries to do it may be attacked as "writing too much," "Obviously biased against X," and other claims by people, offended by reading the other side, who only want their own side to be expressed. This happens on all sides.

Given this, what one can do, coming into the field, is to start to read, but look for sources and check them, and reserve judgment. Reserve it for a long, long time. Eventually, it will be impossible to resist some judgments, and maybe then you know something. If you express it and they start shooting at you, notice who is shooting! If you have scientists shooting at you, it doesn't mean you are wrong, but at this point, a major effort to understand is in order. The real scientists in the field will actually patiently explain, if asked. Bottom line, communicate, when you have something to say, say it, and then listen carefully, and you will learn.

Quote

It is the same with religions! People pick certain scriptures that support their preconceived beliefs, more than reading the entire text. In many cases, the preconceived belief is MORE important than the truth! So they skip the verses that do not support their beliefs and thus are never able to see the truth.

You noticed. Much of what I write on Quora is about this.

Quote

Has this Rossi debate become the same? Is there anything that can convince Mary Yugo Rossi is not a fraud? Is there anything that will convince Sifferkol that Rossi is a fraud? Perhaps they both have said their view would change if X,Y,Z happened, but then I highly suspect that X,Y,Z could never be done to their expectations.

Ontologically, my training is to avoid facile interpretations, conclusions and assessments disguised as facts. Just keep accumulating observations, distinguishing fact from opinion. It's not terribly difficult, it simply takes time. Most people want Answers! And now! So they go for what is easy, which is often either wrong or incomplete. "Rossi fraud" and "Rossi real" are black and white and reality may be something different. Or, of course, he could be a fraud or there could be this massive conspiracy to make him look like one.

But one of the oddities here is that Rossi's friends, like Mats Lewan, think that he wants to be seen as a fraud and sets that up -- to confuse competition. So how to navigate this?

Patience is necessary!

Quote

One observation of opposite beliefs is this : "When one resorts to constant personal belittlement of the opponent, truth has now become of no importance. It has simply become a personal vendetta."

Yes, it's a sign. But I have been involved with on-line discussion since the 1980s and sometimes people are triggered, they get upset and they often start flaming "enemies." It actually says little about their original position, because people can be defensively triggered around what is true.

When I call certain people "trolls" here, it is about clearly identifiable and identified behavior, repeated. It does not mean that they are wrong (and it is not an ad-hominem argument for that reason, even though it is "about the person," as would all behavioral issues. but trolls are often "not even wrong," to take the phrase from Sagan [Wolfgang Pauli]. Trolling is about poking others to get a rise out of them, about argument for the sake of argument, not for clarification and learning and communication.

Planet Rossi is in a panic, I think. Their very existence (i.e, the community identity) is threatened, and under such conditions, it is normal to try to find people to blame. Very common and very understandable. And, again, it doesn't mean that they are wrong, but that brain function is operating out of the amygdala, not the cerebral cortex, which becomes limited to serving the survival, proving that the danger is real, and figuring out how to defeat the enemy and convince the rest of the world to attack them.

[Thanks to Alan Smith for correcting the source of the phrase, "not even wrong."]

Quote from IH Fanboy

IH Fanboy wrote:
[...]
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Can you give us the dimensions of the plant of the Customer that used the energy produced for one year by the 1 MW E-Cat ?

Andrea Rossi
July 28, 2016 at 10:01 AM

Ray:
Approximatively:
length 21 meters ( 70′)
width 3 meters ( 10′)
Height 3 meters ( 10′)
Plus the external ancillary components.
Warm Regards,
A.R."

We have here some very specific information about the customer's equipment that apparently used the energy produced by the 1 MW E-Cat. If you believe this is a blatant lie by Rossi (the existence and approximate dimensions of the customer's equipment), please state here for the record as much.

Abd, Jed, nobody?

Display More

Uh, you call that "specific information"? Rossi is famous for vague statements that seem in the original context to mean something that later are seen to mean something else. Rossi is known for exaggerations. I'm not going to go through examples, it's not worth the time. I have no idea what "equipment" means. Sure, a strict reading, it could have a meaning. But Rossi often ignores "strict meaning," and says whatever he wants. So there is a fork lift in there, there are some storage shelves, there is even a heat exchanger, say. It's spread out over 3 by 21 meters. There is a step ladder 3 meters tall. And so perhaps he wasn't lying. But was it full disclosure?

I don't know!!! My crystal ball broke a long time ago. We have four days until the Answer, when there will be a lot to look at, I suspect. The Answer itself will be the tip of the iceberg, because IH will make claims but will not necessarily assert all the evidence for them. They will have to disclose that eventually during discovery, and we may not be able to see those documents.

What puzzles me a bit is why Rossi answered the question. These are all issues that could come up in the trial, though the size of the equipment, whatever it is, is not particularly relevant. The disposition of heat is going to be critical, I suspect.

Quote from JedRothwell

Rossi's claim that 1 MW was delivered is a blatant lie. His data contains other blatant lies, such as the pressure changed to 0.0 bar.

Aw. Jed. Mistakes. Poor Rossi relied on a nuclear engineer who told him the output power. You don't expect him to second-guess a NUCLEAR ENGINEER, do you?

After all, are you a NUCLEAR ENGINEER?

Jed, I am well aware of the controversy around h. pylori but that would hardly happen again in these days of the internet. That took place in 1982. In fact, many doctors and scientists believed Marshall and Warren after their paper was published. A comparatively small number yet too many did not. Yet, in June 1983, a letter by M&W was published in the renown and strictly main line journal "Lancet". As early as 1985, two years after the discovery, they published an article in the Medical Journal of Australia (main line and prestigious). M&W got their Nobel Prize in 2005, 22 years after their discovery. It's now been 27 years since P&F and I don't see any prizes at all about LENR or cold fusion. I see very little if any similarity between M&W and P&F or (gasp!) Rossi.

Marshall BJ, Armstrong JA, McGechie DB, Glancy RJ. Attempt to fulfill Koch's postulates for pyloric campylobacter. Medical J Australia. 1985;142:436–439. [PubMed]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1283743/

@frankwtu

That's all true about what the contract said but contracts are void by law if obtained by fraud. If Rossi held that the megawatt plant performed as he stated and the report confirms that but in fact the report was a spoof and was deliberately deceitful, that will be fraud and the contract will not stand up. The courts are very unpredictable but I would be stunned if IH had to pay and I would not be surprised if, instead, Rossi had to "disgorge" the $10M he received on almost certainly deceitful premises. In the alternative, if the report is judged to be grossly negligent and/or incompetent, it also will be discounted and IH will not have to pay. It is far from as simple as relying on what Penon wrote. If it were otherwise, Jones Day probably would not have taken the case. They dislike losing. The simplest and most direct thing the court can do is to appoint a new expert(s) to retest the plant or if both parties agree, a subunit of the plant.