The Industrial Heat Answer

    Quote from Bob

    Moderators, if people are consistently insulting, lack any substance and are simply trolling, warn them once, warn them twice and then kick them off. After all, any dissenting position gets excommunicated from ECW!


    I agree with much of what you say. I would add that there's a world of difference between trolling, where innuendo and insults of various kinds are used, and claims are repeatedly advanced that are conclusory, on one hand, and points raised by people who have genuinely dissenting positions, on the other. In the middle are those who do a little of both; as long as there's a decent signal to noise ratio, it's possible to filter out the silliness. There are people here who lie at the polar end of the trolling spectrum, and to get any signal out of the noise is exhausting and nearly futile.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    ABD: Do You intentionally lie?


    No.


    Quote

    Or again just provide half of the truth?


    Far less than half. Only a few pebbles on a vast shore. Come, sit with me and look at this. This is the masterpiece. Reality.


    Quote


    IH was authorized (Exhibit17.13) to visit their part of the factory any time they wanted. Nothing about the customer (JM) site...


    Yes, but not exactly that way. It says that IH may visit the "1 MW Plant" at any time. There is no mention of a "part of the factory." There is no mention of the "customer site." Were I offered this to sign, what I would have in mind, from it, is not a warehouse divided into two parts, the plant side and the customer side, with a locked door between. For a Guaranteed Performance Test, I would never approve this, I would consider the usage and dissipation of the power a crucial part of the test.


    So Wyttenbach is correct about "nothing about the customer site." But it would be assumed. Now, could the customer, with that agreement, build what was built? My opinion is, yes, they could. And that is allowed because this was not the Guaranteed Performance Test. Rossi appears to have avoided that topic, until the plant was already there in Doral. We do not know when he first raised the issue. My guess it would have been raised through Penon.


    Remember, Rossi sold this, in part, as a much improved demonstration site. So imagine bringing an investor to see the Plant. You see this container, with pipes going through a wall into something you cannot see. You are told this is a megawatt plant. But you can't see anything of the power usage. Secret. You check out JM Products and find nothing of any substance. Impressed? I don't think so.


    Compare that with what IH wanted, assuming a working MW plant. You visit the factory where IH wanted to install the Plant. It is owned by a company related in some way to Cherokee, I think. It's a real company. You see process heat being used. You see the cooling equipment needed to handle a megawatt. Impressed? Damn! I would be, and I would not care that the company was affiliated in some way. I would be seeing real people, a real company, a real operation, openly so, not phantoms and secrets behind a wall. Easily, behind the wall could be a heater, sending steam into the 1 MW plant, as one example. This would completely fool the flow meter, and would explain why Rossi suggested that Penon not consider input temperature. But that is merely one idea. There could be many ways to fake a megawatt if the demonstration is controlled by a fraud.


    By the way: IH would not follow the crazy Rossi market plan. If they could make small units, which they must be able to do to make a MW plant, and someone wants to buy a license, they would create the appropriate NDAs and assurances and contractual provisions, and they would provide a small unit (20 kW?) that this licensee could easily test, before they start making devices themselves. Call that a glimpse of sanity. Had Rossi taught them how to make e-Cats that worked, the technology would already be on the market. They would be making money hand over fist by now. And so would Rossi, because of the rest of the planet and his freedom to negotiate over that. $89 million? Pfaaah! Sane investors would risk that enormous market over such a sum? No. To maintain the myth, Planet Rossi must create this vision of a conspiracy to suppress the technology. Otherwise, the view of Rossi as savior of the planet is toast.


    Rather, Rossi set this whole thing up as a scam, a fraud, deception. His "masterpiece"? He's insane! And a fraud, this is criminal fraud, my opinion.


    Back to the point here.


    Quote

    So we conclude: You say: Rossi did prevent IH people to look at the 1 MW installation???


    That's really .. bad ..


    Yes. That is exactly what he prohibited, in writing, confirming his earlier conversation with Darden. See Exhibit 19.



    This is quite explicit. The plant was installed "in their facility." (Ex. 17.6) (i.e, JM Products). Someone reading this carelessly might read that this was prohibiting visiting the "customer side." That division is something Rossi set up, and this is part of how he controlled his demonstrations, by creating definitions of words that seemed reasonable. But he is explicit that this is actually about the plant, and about any new visitors "before the tests on course will have been completed."


    Once again, it could look reasonable. He is very busy with the Guaranteed Performance Test, very important. But he doesn't call it that. It is just "the tests on course." So, Rossi's real purpose there is "tests." Okay, so he wants to test the plant. Okay, this installation was all a way to do that. Not really a problem in itself, other than Rossi violating the Test Sheet he signed.


    Unless this is the Guaranteed Performance Test. In which case this is a huge problem. The Agreement (section 4, covering the Validation test, to be performed at Rossi's facility in Italy) provides that IH may have "representatives present to observe." There is no such provision for the GPT. Does that mean that Rossi can exclude? No. Section 5 contemplates that the GPT is performed in the IH facility. It does not mention that Rossi is allowed to be present. That test is not under Rossi control, it would actually be run by IH, with the ERV monitoring and reporting.


    So, Rossi did exclude IH representatives -- and presumably investors or customers -- from the Plant, after the visit of Darden mentioned in his email.


    This was July 13, 2015. At this point, Rossi may have become aware of the Woodford $50 million investment, an that this money had not gone into IH, but into a new holding company, IHHI, in the U.K., where he could not touch it. I can easily imagine the thinking, though it is dangerous to imagine how a lunatic thinks, and any and all of his behavior could be pretense.


    "The snakes! They never intended to pay me! This was all a trick to get big money from investors based on my hard work! I'll show them!"


    And, as he always had, he started to exclude anyone he didn't trust. These are long-term patterns of behavior. They did not suddenly appear. And we can see that "never intended" story, then, in the lawsuit. He does not merely claim nonpayment, breach of contract, but intentional fraud, from the beginning. All a trick to get his secrets!


    Now, above, we can see how Planet Rossi operates. All fact is filtered through a world view, and interpreted in such a way as to confirm it the view. This is actually common dysfunction, well-understood. It takes training to reliably discriminate it, but the methods of science are designed to factor and compensate for this, when applied with wisdom.


    Quote from Eric Walker


    His name is "Abd," or "Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax"; if you're using the quote system.


    His name is not this, and you full well know it


    You also probably know why he pretends to carry such a name


    But hey, what's another lie amongst a ocean of filibustering lies


    Especially when this particular lie builds the foundation for hidden agendas...

    Quote from Shane D.

    Eric Walker,


    I liked your idea a few weeks ago to get rid of the "likes". It does break us into factions. Maybe keep the dislikes (downvotes) for mild pressure against those that get out of hand?

    It's not going to be that simple, I'm afraid. In the tagline for the site, this is intended to be "the trusted LENR Community." (can the "nanoscale" thing, it's a factional trope that never caught on. LENR is used in scientific papers, etc. It has a real meaning).


    How can that be done? That's a major problem that most ignore. It happens to be my major focus for about thirty years. It would start with simply recognizing the problem, the problem of how human communities communicate, cooperate, and coordinate. That's the problem of government itself, complicated by sovereignty. It's a problem that has been solved, actually, but few look at the solutions. Meanwhile, the administrators have defacto control of this site. They are, properly, if they accept the role, trustees for the community, and part of their task would be setting up decision-making process that is not just the "benevolent dictator" model so often seen. Or not-benevolent. And even well-intentioned site owners become personally reactive.


    I started a new topic in Off-topic. It was deleted by Alan Smith as spam. It was not spam. As a writer, what tends to drive me away from a site, most powerfully, is not criticism, but arbitrary deletion of content. Criticism is useful, sometimes even highly uncivil criticism can be useful.


    Unexplained deletion is direct damage. Sometimes I have no copy, and I may have taken hours to write the thing, I often do. I have some sympathy for Alan Smith. He is in over his head. Nobody else is handling extreme trolling. The administrators are not supervising.


    There are ways for administrators to consult the community, to open up discussion of process issues, and, in fact, to insist that process talk be in a place designed for that. To become a trusted community, this is necessary. Creating trust. That's the core!

    Quote from Bob

    Sifferkol and others, respond with personal insults, innuendo and whining.


    I along with most here probably agree that insults have no place in civil discourse, as I believe can be carried on here at lenr-forum. That said, your painting of Abd as an angel and Siffer as the root of the all problems here is quite unfair. I and many others have been on the receiving side of Abd's insults and condescension. I do not respond to him in kind, but will (and have) called him out on such behavior in the past. I'm okay with you calling out Siffer on this behavior as well. But let's keep an even analysis on it all shall we?

    Quote

    Was there some real power generated? For that matter, was a megawatt generated? Not a megawatt, for reasons that have been well explained. Did Rossi ever have any XE? Maybe. But also maybe not. His early methods of measuring power were unsound.


    Complete nonsense. Rossi has never generated anything except lies and cons. His early methods (actually ALL his methods) of measuring power were not "unsound," they were deliberately deceptive in a premeditated and well tested manner. That is why Rossi has ALWAYS resisted any calibration test of his early experiments and adequate calibration tests of the hot cat. What other reason could there be? Oh... I know. The believers claim all the bad testing was to throw off the competition. Competition? WHAT competition? Defkalion? ROTFWL!


    This is/was ALL so silly! A one year test was never needed and should never have been agreed to by IH. It was a gross waste of funds of other people (investors in funds). All that was needed was ONE properly calibrated, properly independent, relatively short (a week at most) test, done with the highest performing ecat ever -- Levi's 135kW wonder. That the one year test took place proves, all by itself, that IH never did due diligence. They will do it now with the immensely expensive lawyers. And Rossi will crash and burn, virtually no matter how they do it.

    Quote

    Unexplained deletion is direct damage. Sometimes I have no copy, and I may have taken hours to write the thing, I often do. I have some sympathy for Alan Smith. He is in over his head. Nobody else is handling extreme trolling. The administrators are not supervising.


    I agree with that. Also, nobody is concerned about identity theft type trolling and impersonation of what may be a real person. Or maybe "George Hody" can tell us where he was born which he apparently fails to know.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Quote from Timar: “I have to say that thanks to Frank's reasonable moderation the Rossi/IH-related discussion on E-Cat World is on a much higher level and much more interesting to follow lately than this forum, in which any factual discussion has been…


    I have to agree with Eric here. The problem is not that there are contrary views - frankly if there were no contrary views it would be very boring! The problem is when people post here advocating views by repeated assertion with no reference to the contrary arguments.


    You do sometimes get differences in judgement, e.g.:


    "Using that flowmeter at 2% of its max rated flowrate is unprofessional and marginally out of spec, which would not necessarily lead to high errors except that bad installation we know from the Defkalion test can at low flowrates make flowmeters massively over-read"


    "Using the flowmeter at this rate is only marginally out of spec and the manufacturers own graphs show that it will work and therefore given the large safety margin from X50 this is OK".


    To take my position and that of IHFB on one topic as an example.


    Now what I'd hope is some testing of the difference, e.g. why is the Defkalion test flow instability issue not relevant, or relavant here. Or an acknowledgement from IHFB that there could be this additional error that would show up at low flow rates, and from me that yes without additional errors caused by bad installation a slightly out of spec low flowrate would be maybe 5% in error but otherwise Ok and obviously in this case 5% error does not matter.


    Now i'm happy to acknowlege my side of this and have done it. It is then frustrating when that gets no direct reply, and when the point that I make equally gets no reply. Forgive me IHFB if I have missed your reply in the large noise here - if you have properly replied, rather than asserting correctness and giving a 100 post long thread as evidence without specifically highlighting which posts address the remaining issue - I apologise.


    On top of this there is a tendency of some posters to include personal insults and ad homs: "you are spying for the evil empire so nothing you say can be trusted". That is very inflammatory and tends to make even otherwise friendly posters become hostile and reply in kind.


    Finally I'd like to comment on the accusations levelled at Abd - that he is as bad as Sifferkol in this matter because his posts are condescending.


    (1) Yes, Abd comes across as condescending a bit
    (2) He has much to be condescending about because he devotes the time and energy to analyse this stuff properly and lays out his reasons in detail for all to consider. You don't have to view him as an authority - merely someone who has put a lot of graft into working this stuff out.
    (3) Those who complain about this could, for example, say where Abd goes wrong. I have not noticed much of that.
    (4) Personally - and I realise some of this is personal judgement where others may have different views - I find Abd's continual efforts to be clear and provide full analysis of complex issues refreshing and useful. I don't always agree with him, but I recognise his attempt to be clear. There might come a time when he and I crossed swords over the strength of the evidence currently out for LENR. But that would be a very long debate and one with many many different components, OT here.
    (5) Abd has occasionally crossed over the line (for me) and attacked others here in kind by stating how he considers them to be bad. I might agree with him, and certainly he has been provoked enough, but I don't think that helps the discussion.


    Best wishes, THH

    • Official Post

    Sorry about that deletion Abd. But no-one is beyond being moderated - I though it was all off-topic spam even if you didn't. As for my being in 'over my head' that is a ridiculous thing to say, and totally unprovable from where you are. And for God's sake don't write a whole screen-full of text on that topic just to make yourself right. I would of course appreciate a little more help from you. Kindly STOP feeding the Trolls.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Also, nobody is concerned about identity theft type trolling and impersonation of what may be a real person. Or maybe "George Hody" can tell us where he was born which he apparently fails to know.


    I am concerned Mary. But I have no powers to ban or block anybody AFAIK, but then again nobody ever taught/told me anything about how the dashboard of this forum works. Have you complained to Admin about George Hody ? I just moderate in a way that pleases nobody. It's a shit job - do you want to do it?

    Quote from "Alan"

    Kindly STOP feeding the Trolls.


    I dont know, but to me it looks more like a closed system feedback loop ... :D

    Quote from THHuxley

    and from me that yes without additional errors caused by bad installation a slightly out of spec low flowrate would be maybe 5% in error but otherwise Ok and obviously in this case 5% error does not matter.


    We are nearly in agreement on this. Bear in mind that the folks over on ECW have shown that being "in spec" is dependent on temperature, and the flowmeter is measuring incoming flow (i.e., low-temperature)--and that under the circumstances, the meter was probably operating "in spec." But even if it was operating slightly out of spec, the small error offset would actually make for a more conservative measurement.

    Quote from IHFB

    We are nearly in agreement on this. Bear in mind that the folks over on ECW have shown that being "in spec" is dependent on temperature, and the flowmeter is measuring incoming flow (i.e., low-temperature)--and that under the circumstances, the meter was probably operating "in spec." But even if it was operating slightly out of spec, the small error offset would actually make for a more conservative measurement.


    Right - we are in agreement over that, and whether a 5% error is + or - or whatever is irrelevant, since 5% error is not significant here.


    The two additional points are:
    (1) using a flowmeter in this way, marginally out of spec, is totally unprofessional and very difficult to understand.
    (2) flowmeters run at low flow rates, like this, have a known to all LENR people (including I guess Rossi) error mode that can cause a massive over-reading.


    I will further agree that the possibility of such large errors does naturally not prove either that they happened, or that Rossi intended them to happen (the two propositions are independent of each other and either could be true with the other false, or both could be false). But it does make these results unsafe as any sort of validation, unless additional information rules this out.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.