JedRothwell ability to think clearly using logic and with criticality has been greatly diminished to the point where anything that IH tells him is accepted as indisputable truth is now apparent to any straight thinking observer of the current scene. Because of this apparent infirmity of the mind, Jed's opinions cannot be taken seriously at this current juncture.
Enough of that, young Axil. Alan
The facts are that Rossi was paid, and the license agreement set a given benchmark. In any world other than Axils where everything is true or false, and there are questions about whether, as IH claim, Rossi's meeting that benchmark was not with a fair test and therefore possibly fraudulent. There are additional facts which show Penon having put his name to grossly inadequate (professionally negligent) test documents - so skepticism is reasonable.
This attempt at claiming fraud exposes IH to the judgement that IH does not know what they are doing and that whatever they say or claim lacks credibility. If such an incompetent and befuddled an organization was made a fool of in the very beginning to the tune of $10,000,000 how can anything they say now and henceforth be taken as true on the strength of their opinion only.
Anyone who listens to the recriminations of IH and takes them as true is just a big a fool as IH was and still is.
Based on section 4 of the licence agreement, Rossi was paid $10,000,000 by IH for showing overunity of 6X for 24 continuous hours and the production of steam at 100C or greater during this 24 hour test. This evidence is solid in fact and not a product of my speculations.
Except that I.H. now says that was in error, and they never saw any heat. They said that repeatedly and unequivocally. You are substituting your version of what you think for what they say.
JedRothwell ability to think clearly using logic and with criticality has been greatly diminished to the point where anything that IH tells him is accepted as indisputable truth
Incorrect. I am pointing out that what they say is different from what you claim they say. That has no bearing on whether they are telling the truth or not, or whether I believe them.
I.H. says they found no heat. You keep insisting they said something else. You insist they said one thing where the record shows they said another. You can disagree with their analysis all you like, but do not claim they said there was heat. If they ever said that, they subsequently retracted.
Anyone who listens to the recriminations of IH and takes them as true are just as big a fool as IH was and still is.
What IH has stated is in a court of law where it will be assessed according to the rules of evidence, and conclusions drawn by a judge (as to matters of law, which could possible result in the dismissal of the primary case) or jury (as to fact, if it comes to an actual trial).
When someone testifies to their own experience, as distinct from conclusions, it is presumed true unless controverted. "Recriminations" would be conclusions. "Fraud" qualifies as conclosory. It is not a "fact," but an interpretation, a complex one. What I'm seeing is that IH has presented evidence that, if not successfully controverted by Rossi or others, is likely to convince a jury that there was fraud. Jones Day is not likely to deliberately set up the presentation of fraudulent evidence, which I've been seeing as an accusation (i.e., that the Hydro Fusion email must be a forgery, since Rossi is an Honest Man and just wouldn't do something nasty like that.)
I'm amused. Who is Axil to claim that successful venture capitalists are "fools"? Axil has never been willing to risk his real-life identity and reputation on the nonsense he spews, his pseudoscientific word salad, so respected by poor Peter Gluck.
I risk my reputation when I write, built over many years of writing. Industrial Heat risked real money, and accomplished one of their alternate goals, and the investment market recognized them and rewarded them with substantially more investment. In the research community that they set out to serve and empower, they are respected. Only on the blogs do we see this nonsense, from anonymous trolls and looney-tunes.
(I do not mean to imply that all criticism of IH is crazy or trolling. There are thoughtful people with questions. And then there are "believers" ready to toss whatever mud they can make up at anyone who challenges their strongly-held beliefs. That, in fact, can be the blogsphere in general, a place where opinion and knee-jerk reaction often rule.
I'm going to point out that this could be misunderstood. The Rossi approach uses crude calorimetry that would not detect modest excess heat.
I believe I.H. used better calorimetry, but I could be wrong about that. In other words, the confidence level of their measurement is better than Rossi's. Their margin of error is smaller, which reduces the likelihood of excess heat.
The ability to detect marginal excess heat depends on the reliability and recovery rate. Rossi never calibrates, so there is no way to estimate either of these.
Who is Axil to claim that successful venture capitalists are "fools"?
The line is thin. Only history will decide between ingenious or fools...
Most amazing: They look the same!
Based on section 4 of the licence agreement, Rossi was paid $10,000,000 by IH for showing overunity of 6X for 24 continuous hours and the production of steam at 100C or greater during this 24 hour test. This evidence is solid in fact and not a product of my speculations.
Axil often projects from indications to alleged fact. The Agreement does not establish what Axil has said here. Rather, he speculated from it. I.e. ,that the Agreement was followed. Was it? How would he know?
It is an assumption, not a "fact." Yes, it's a fact that the Agreement says such and so. But not that this happened.
IH claims that the actual test did not follow what was specified in the Agreement. The ERV certified anyway (and they may have allowed that, this is not clear to me), and the escrow terms probably relied entirely on the ERV statement, it was set up that way by the Agreement. Escrow must be simple. If X, then pay. If not-X, no pay. By accepting Rossi's designation of ERV, they then set up that the payment was made on the ERV's say-so, but what did the ERV actually certify? It's not clear. It was not the original terms of the Agreement, apparently. See Rossi's email about the test -- that it could not be done as written -- (Exhibit 9) and then read the IH history of that affair.
I don't think we have seen the ERV report on the Validation Test. Bottom line, what Axil wrote above was just plain wrong. The Agreement is not "solid evidence" of what happened. Axil doesn't read and think carefully.
The Validation test was reduced in the First Amendment to two sets of 30 reactors, for two different days. Then in the actual test, according to IH, only 18 units were tested. However, the COP was certified as 10.85.
The test protocol does not appear to have been followed. Nevertheless, IH went ahead and allowed the escrow payment to be released with IP transfer (and as I mention above, they might not have been able to stop it, because "the ERV report said...")
In counter-complaint paragraph 65, IH reports that they could not verify the ERV's results, not even close. (From other aspects of the Answer, they claim that could not see any measureable excess heat at all.)
Paragraph 97 tosses down the gauntlet:
Quote97. Only one of three conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing facts: 1) Leonardo and Rossi did not transfer and deliver all E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs; 2) Validation was never achieved and Penon’s reported COP calculations were false; or 3) both.
By the way, there is obviously another logical possibility: IH is lying. But they are not obligated to mention that one. If the plaintiff (or counter-defendants in this case) want to claim they are lying, they'd better make it clear, exactly how!
IH does not actually charge Penon with fraud with respect to the Validation Test. He is charged with "deceptive and unfair trade practices," in connection with the alleged GPT. His prior behavior may be brought up as part of that.
Lomax:
Quote"I risk my reputation when I write, built over many years of writing. Industrial Heat risked real money, and accomplished one of their alternate goals, and the investment market recognized them and rewarded them with substantially more investment. In the research community that they set out to serve and empower, they are respected. Only on the blogs do we see this nonsense, from anonymous trolls and looney-tunes."
Readers in technical blogs are not interesting in the touchy feely details of your personal life and who you are. Only logic and the strength of those ideas are important. How many kids you have, how many grandkids, how your writing informs your thinking, how happy you are, what diseases you have, and if you suffer from constipation is not interesting to the consumers of technical conversation. The anonymous commentator is the purest provider of technical facts; and just the facts.
The anonymous commentator is the purest provider of technical facts; and just the facts.
This is why peer-reviewed journals do not allow real people, those messy creatures with kids and stuff, and careers and reputations at stake, to publish, but only allow anonymous internet trolls, since the latter are "pure providers of technical facts."
Uh, on what planet?
These fora are informal and social in nature. So I occasionally mention my family and other stories that I find peripherally related.
Quora, which has the best writing on the internet, my opinion, requires real-name accounts. Expertise may be disclosed. If there is a question about, say, life in space, there may be something written by an ISS astronaut. There are questions on physics answered by physicists, some damn good ones, and great writers to boot. Legal questions answered by lawyers. And amateurs may also answer and sometimes write the best answers, but ... not anonymously.
Display MoreThis is why peer-reviewed journals do not allow real people, those messy creatures with kids and stuff, and careers and reputations at stake, to publish, but only allow anonymous internet trolls, since the latter are "pure providers of technical facts."
Uh, on what planet?
These fora are informal and social in nature. So I occasionally mention my family and other stories that I find peripherally related.
Quora, which has the best writing on the internet, my opinion, requires real-name accounts. Expertise may be disclosed. If there is a question about, say, life in space, there may be something written by an ISS astronaut. There are questions on physics answered by physicists, some damn good ones, and great writers to boot. Legal questions answered by lawyers. And amateurs may also answer and sometimes write the best answers, but ... not anonymously.
I have quit reading your long winded and illogical posts as a waste of time unless I see my name included therein. Such is the value that I judge in the details that you feel compelled to provide as a support mechanism for your ego and the lack of flow in your logic.
Quote from JedI believe I.H. used better calorimetry, but I could be wrong about that. In other words, the confidence level of their measurement is better than Rossi's. Their margin of error is smaller, which reduces the likelihood of excess heat.
Just one qualification. I strongly suspect that IH calorimetry of Rossi devices has improved from what they initially used. I (strongly suspect) that initially they duplicated setups used by Rossi and friends (e.g. the flawed IR surface temperature measurement). No doubt at some point they added more instrumentation, which did not coincide.
They then have two ways of measuring stuff, one showing excess heat, one not. They are not going to believe the no-excess-heat version against a method documented in detail by 6 profs, most independent. But equally it will plant doubts.
They have the resources to get to the bottom of such inconsistencies and no doubt eventually did. Also they saw the TC + others analysis of IR flaws some time in 2015.
The point is that IH's answer to the question "does Rossi stuff work when we measure it" would not have been simple yes/no till they had made absolutely sure they were measuring correctly, and that takes a long time mainly because Rossi's tests had such weird false positive artifacts. Based on the positive Lugano-style measurements they would initially have had a lot of hope but no certainty.
Axil here, and many others, seem to think uncertainty proves they are fools. I'd not myself have believed the Lugano stuff, but I don't think their actions prove them fools. I certainly don't see anything unusual in what they did.
No specific critiques on the Lugano report were given in the answer by IH. Which means they can't debunk the report. If they can't debunk the report they have no chance in winning the court case.
Quote from STDMNo specific critiques on the Lugano report were given in the answer by IH. Which means they can't debunk the report. If they can't debunk the report they have no chance in winning the court case.
They referenced critiques. It is not the place of the Answer to do all of the expert witness to and fro stuff, but i guess if Lugano report correctness is an issue that will happen.
I'm not certain they need to debunk Lugano to win the case. It is sort of side issue, if you consider the legal points they make.
They referenced critiques. It is not the place of the Answer to do all of the expert witness to and fro stuff, but i guess if Lugano report correctness is an issue that will happen.
I'm not certain they need to debunk Lugano to win the case. It is sort of side issue, if you consider the legal points they make.
Right. And if they want to, they can referenced published failed replication attempts using the formula from the patent and Lugano (i.e., Budko & Korshunov or Biberian). There are so many individual issues showing big problems for AR, it's hard to know which are the most important (that's the attorneys' job).
There are so many individual issues showing big problems for AR, it's hard to know which are the most important
Wow
I guess this is the smoking gun
Thanks Jack Cole, even if seeing the light is painful...
The Rossi patent doesn't contain a list of ingredients for the fuel- it references a lot of 'potential' additives/ingredients which are 'suitable ' but does not actually give a recipe. Dewey confirmed to me in a comment in this forum that the fuel mix Rossi gave them did contain more than the 3 solid ingredients we all know about, and I suspect that it may actually contain up to 5 or even 6 components excluding added gases, though that is not certain. Also the replication may be said to have failed because Budko et al. used a different fuel preparation technique. So while the failure of replication attempts other than those of IH might be cited, I don't think they (in isolation) represent killer arguments. Rossi could I expect point to the work of Parkhomov, Piantelli, Focardi, Celani who show something going on with Ni/H.
It all boils down to 'My Dad is bigger than your Dad.'
I've pretty much given up hope on this whole matter. But on the question of fuel preparation, there's this that I wrote up sometime back that is relevant (not rigorous at all):
I've pretty much given up hope on this whole matter. But on the question of fuel preparation, there's this that I wrote up sometime back that is relevant (not rigorous at all):
@EW: Do You have any idea for the strange mass peaks around 221, 281 ??
Are these compounds ? ? or decays of U,Th,.. ? -->Ac225 --> Fr221 ?
Has an element with mass 281 ever been "discovered"?
