Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint)

Quote from IH Fanboy

Shane D.

I wonder if HF is going along with Rossi's apparent desire to cast doubt in the minds of some on whether the e-Cat really works. It is a frustrating tactic. The only logical purpose behind such a move is to try to get out of the IH contract by proving breach, and to try and get IH out of the picture. If everyone knows the e-Cat works, then this task becomes harder. To be honest, I'm tiring of the games.

I saw this (though I still have IHFB blocked) and it is worthy of comment. What IHFB proposes is an obvious Rossi motivation, from his history. It is an alternative to the pure fraud theory. The problem is, though, if we accept this alternative, Rossi Says and all information from Rossi becomes unreliable. Rossi obviously is able to influence people, and has set up situations where scientists made mistakes that supported his claims, when the reality, more closely examined, was normally inconclusive. Once this is realized as a possibility, it requires reconsidering the entire body of information we have from Rossi. Assumption of good faith is normal and routine. It breaks down in a situation like this.

In fact, if this is Rossi's goal, it was and is insane. It reflects a personality disorder, one that is unable to trust others and thus to cooperate and work with those who would finance his work. Read An Impossible Invention. This is an old story for him. Consider his Italian situation and accept the idea that this was the Mafia or other political opposition. Why was he not defended by people with substantial resources? He had rejected offers from major corporations. He did not trust them. This is quite common: when people do not trust others, they become, themselves, untrustworthy, because their own fears justify how they then treat others. They also become vulnerable to opposition, which might have considerable resources.

I lean toward the pure fraud theory, with the "paranoia" being an act. But that is not a strong opinion. In the end, though, when people generate suspicion, it is appropriate to assume that where there is smoke, there is fire, even though occasionally there is something else. If Rossi created an impression of fraud at Doral, it's entirely in order for IH to claim fraud. It is rebuttable.

We have a natural desire to know "the truth." It is not always accessible. So then what? What I know to do and what I advise is patience. Evidence accumulates, if we are watching. When we think we know the truth, we may easily miss whatever is contrary. Our "knowledge," when it is conclusory, blinds us. However, if our knowledge is grounded, rooted directly in evidence, so that we can clearly say how we know what we know, and what we know is not mind-reading or other interpretation, highly vulnerable to distortion through emotional reactions, what is real tends to become quite obvious. It is never guaranteed, that is life.

Saving this now, I see IHFB's followup:

Quote from IH Fanboy

Shane D.
I think he decided that he wanted out of the contract sometime shortly before the end of the 1MW test, when he started sensing that IH wasn't going to pay.

And it wasn't Rossi that determined the one-year test was a success--it was the ERV. IH don't believe the ERV anyway, and aren't going to pay, so Rossi wants out of the contract.

Not getting better. But, okay, "positive interpretation hat," ON

I'm taking this as a "how Rossi thinks" speculation. But how Rossi thinks depends on the conditions of his life, and did Rossi think that the ERV was neutral? Maybe. I've ben noticing a phenomenon recently. There are people who confirm and promote the paranoia and misunderstanding of others. Could Penon be doing that with Rossi?

Does Rossi believe he has heat? Okay, that's a premise here. And the ERV confirms for him what he wants to hear? Does he know? IHFB appears to hold the assumption of reactor reality, that there as actually a megawatt or so there, so, in this scenario, Penon's report is truthful.

Given this, though, Rossi v. Darden will still fail because, unless the GPT was properly set up -- and the evidence is strong that it was not -- there is no payment due, but, again, under the scenario that Rossi is wrapped up in major self-delusion, he would think that it was. He seems to have thought that the GPT was to be a test of his "technology," when contractually it was a test of a specific reactor assembly, with only some possibility of repair during the test. So if he could somehow make the reactor work, he should be paid. He was totally inattentive to legal requirements, they were probably nuisance details to him.

He came to believe, it appears, that IH was pretending to not have heat. How could they actually not have heat when he had shown them how, for a year?

So he wanted out of a contract with such snakes. Yet he did not take the obvious moves available to him. Go to Sweden, make working plants, and sell energy and get rich. Then, at leisure, successful and well able to afford the best legal talent, he could have negotiated with IH or sued them. He could have demanded a GPT test date, with reasonable terms that a court would approve. In fact, he could drop Rossi v. Darden and still do this. "Withdrawal without prejudice." Now that he woke the monster, it's not going to readily go back to sleep, there will still be the countersuit. But that will take time. I'd say that it would be urgent for him to go to Sweden, if he really has the technology. If not, perhaps Cuba! If he has functioning plants, IH would negotiate with him. They would be idiots not to, and they are not idiots.

However, Rossi is going to need to find people he can trust, and if he can't find them, there is a possibility that he could realize that he was the problem, his own reactions, his own fears and suspicions. Some people would rather die than do that.

Quote from Alan Smith

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

How would it be rebuttable?

In the ordinary way, with evidence. The way I was using the word implies that the claim is not "proven," but is asserted. And that is exactly what one would expect IH to do in the legal situation of Rossi v. Darden.

IH is claiming that the "customer" was not independent, was a sham, an appearance, created to lure IH into allowing the move of the reactors to Florida. If the customer was real and independent, this should be trivial to show. By the way, if the true identity of the customer must be concealed, for some reason, it is still possible to show it. There can be sealed evidence, if I'm correct. The attorneys would see it and the judge would see it. If it is going to be used, I think the jury must be able to see it. (But judicial process could strike allegations under some conditions, before it gets to that point.)

The first order of business in Rossi v. Darden is the GPT question. The core and fundamental issue would be consent to the start, and that must mean consent to a "GPT" starting, not the starting of some measurements by Penon. IH would need to know how serious this was! Their behavior indicates that it was no big deal to them. So Rossi excluded their engineer. Rude, but so what? I assume they were being paid. And what other use did they have for those boat anchors?

They do have an affirmative defense that there was fraud in the Doral arrangement. This is a secondary defense, one of a number of them. And, of course, it's an element in the counterclaim.

At this point, IH need not prove fraud. It is enough that they allege it with at least minimal evidence or alleged evidence.

Quote from THHuxley

[STDM wrote:]

That is proof by qualification. it is not the way science is supposed to work and largely not the way it does work. Luckily, work can be critiqued and recognised based on its quality. Otherwise, MFMP, being unqualified amateurs, would never be able to publish anything. Absurd.

Absolutely. I have no formal credentials in science. Yet I wrote a paper, published in a mainstream journal, that has had an impact that will likely expand. My "credentials" were no part of the peer-review process. I had to convince someone knowledgeable that there was something worth being published. He was rejecting, at first, preposterous, he thought. So I rewrote the paper to very specifically address his concerns. My "qualifications" did not come up until Current Science wanted a bio. I am still commonly called "Dr. Lomax" by scientists. I correct it. My knowledge is limited, and I have done this many times in my life. Narrow focus, developed in depth. So there are topics where my knowledge, narrowly defined, is world-class, and where I'm known. I can carry on a useful conversation with experts. If they are not merely "experts by degree," they will know far more than me. And an "expert by degree" will still know more, but not necessarily in what I have specialized in. Science is a community and collaborative process, and this concept of "right scientific qualifications" is bullshit as to fundamentals. In practice, yes, sometimes if one is applying for a position, but that's not relevant here, nor is it necessarily relevant overall. One can overcome lack of credentials much more easily than overcoming lack of experience and depth.

I just had a nuclear stress test, after an ordinary stress test was not conclusive. I had another stress test ten years earlier, and there was a cardiologist standing there, monitoring everything. This stress test was monitored by a woman who had a name tag that said "Physician Assistant." She was not an MD. What gives? Well, this is part of a trend in medicine that I supported three decades ago. Using experienced PAs can improve the quality of patient care. I talked with her and it came out that when she applied for the job, they told her that she would have to show that she had done 300 stress tests. She asked her former employer for statistics. She had done 10,000. That was eight years ago. Stress tests are what she does. Not an MD. Probably knows the subject better than most cardiologists.

Quote

More importantly your view is that scientific qualifications determine merit. That is far from the case, for example you can and do get eminent scientists in one field straying into some area they know little about and being very wrong. Because science is very diverse, and no-one can validate and qualify a scientist in some little sub-area of research, work has to be validated on its quality as judged by other people who critique the work. It certainly helps if those doing this are suitably expert but many people can detect quality based on internal consistency and the substance and coherence of arguments if they have a decent background knowledge and ability to follow maths. In scientific peer review you are lucky if you get 2 proper experts out of three reviewers.

I have been able to detect errors in published papers. I have been able to discuss these with the scientists. I have found considerations of high importance that were missed, possibly because I was coming in with a fresh look. There is current research under way that, I'm told, will reflect this. Basically, anyone can help, if they are willing to do the work. At first, there will be much that one will not understand. But my approach was to write and carefully consider response, never assume it was wrong. The biggest breakthrough came when I was invited to join the CMNS list, by one of the major scientists. Then when I opened my mouth and stuck my foot in, it would often be quickly corrected by experts. And, of course, I was reading what they wrote. Every day.

(The LENR community at that level is quite diverse. It is not how pseudoskeptics imagine.)

The major factor in deep learning is showing up and paying attention. Even the "paying attention" can be optional, but as we get older, it becomes much more important. Children learn with hardly any attention at all.

Quote

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Once you appoint qualified guardians of truth, however you measure them, you have a problem. Better the freeforall of scientific publishing and critique - with hundreds of thousands of different journals each with different ideas of quality.

The "rejection cascade," as powerful as it was, was unable to fully shut down scientific inquiry. Publication continued, including with major publishers. One of the damages of the cascade was that internal criticism became muted, because of a perceived need to circle the wagons. That still continues to a degree, but more vigorous criticism is developing. This will, I predict, transform totally over the next decade -- or sooner.

After some of the rumblings I'm hearing about, I'm hopeful that in the not too distant future this effect will be cracked, the set of protocols/standards will be openly distributed on the internet, and a massive wave of replications will commence. To be blunt, I think the abysmal success rate is mostly due to gross negligence. We are ignoring certain procedures that may be very important. Then I think the competition in the LENR field, between companies developing and commercializing products, will become tremendously intense.

On another topic, I'm not sure how I.H. could get rich if Rossi and Hydrofusion were to produce a working reactor and commercialize it. They could attempt some type of settlement with Rossi. For example, Dewey said they offered him millions of dollars for even a successful test of a far lower output device that produced a COP of 3. They may still be willing to work some sort of deal with him. However, I don't know if Rossi would ever cooperate with I.H. again. I especially don't think he would if they insisted on the original contract being enforced and him turning over the IP for the Quark. Another possibility is if they can prove with hard evidence that Rossi committed all sorts of acts of deception and fraud during the Doral test, there could be some legal way for them to grab his IP. I don't know because I'm not a lawyer. But even if the courts ordered him to turn over the IP, he might destroy it and flee or voluntarily go to prison.

Personally, I don't think that his Quark IP is something I.H. couldn't come up with themselves if they started a R&D program. My thinking is that it is a natural extension of his previous research. Of course I.H. doesn't need the Quark to make billions of dollars, a working version of the "hot cat" would do. If the accusations against Rossi by I.H. all turn out to be true, I seriously hope they start such a program and figure out everything themselves. Of course, I think before long, they'll have competitors.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

After some of the rumblings I'm hearing about, I'm hopeful that in the not too distant future this effect will be cracked, the set of protocols/standards will be openly distributed on the internet, and a massive wave of replications will commence. To be blunt, I think the abysmal success rate is mostly due to gross negligence. We are ignoring certain procedures that may be very important. Then I think the competition in the LENR field, between companies developing and commercializing products, will become tremendously intense.

When we have a widely distributed phenomenon in experimental work, "gross negligence" -- which is negligence to the point of a moral failure -- is extremely unlikely. Rather, there may be some common assumption being made that may not be recognized as such, or some unknown but necessary conditions. Failure to condition the nickel is one factor that has been pointed out, but exactly how to condition the nickel is unclear.

And then there is the possibility that the phenomenon that people are attempting to replicate does not exist, or exists at a lower level than claimed. None of the possibilities can be ruled out until there is direct and repeated confirmation of reality or artifact.

Quote

On another topic, I'm not sure how I.H. could get rich if Rossi and Hydrofusion were to produce a working reactor and commercialize it.

That is easy and obvious. They have a license to whatever he develops. They could reverse-engineer it. This, for them, would be lawful. They could file an action demanding specific performance on the Agreement.

Quote

They could attempt some type of settlement with Rossi. For example, Dewey said they offered him millions of dollars for even a successful test of a far lower output device that produced a COP of 3. They may still be willing to work some sort of deal with him. However, I don't know if Rossi would ever cooperate with I.H. again. I especially don't think he would if they insisted on the original contract being enforced and him turning over the IP for the Quark.

That is his choice. He could lose in court. This is the bottom line: Rossi signed a contract that did not allow him to continue his previous behavior. It involved substantial consideration. It's binding. Rossi v. Darden has made that all clear. Annesser is fussing around with legal technical objections, at the same time attempting to avoid the application of similar objections to Rossi's behavior. It's all postponing the day, but not for long. We do not know what negotiations are taking place, particularly with the new attorneys. Sometimes clients will refuse to negotiate. It is a formula for spending a lot of money on legal fees. Again, his choice.

(There is court-ordered mediation, but the client is not required to accept anything, the client merely must attend the meetings.)

Annesser is ridiculing the "only two possibilities" claim of Darden. I.e., either Rossi has no technology or he has not disclosed it. Annesser is technically correct but substantially off. Darden can assert "only two possibilities," and "logic" -- really the inventiveness of the human mind at developing alternate possibilities -- is not the point. The point is that Darden can claim that and "logically wrong" is irrelevant! The alternate possibilities, such as Annesser's suggestion that they may have used inferior materials, are not at all likely, and the claim that Darden must "prove" their possibilities to prevail is incorrect. What is needed is only to show the preponderance of the evidence, as found by a jury.

Quote

Another possibility is if they can prove with hard evidence that Rossi committed all sorts of acts of deception and fraud during the Doral test, there could be some legal way for them to grab his IP. I don't know because I'm not a lawyer. But even if the courts ordered him to turn over the IP, he might destroy it and flee or voluntarily go to prison.

It is probably enough that one action can be shown by evidence. Remember, the status quo is that they have the IP, or a right to it. They paid quite a bit of money for that. Again, Rossi cannot be absolutely forced to disclose; the science fiction movies where some device is attached to a prisoner's head and "IP" is vacuum-extracted are that, fiction.

If Rossi would go to prison rather than obey the lawful order of a court, that would show us where his priorities are. This is not about benefiting humanity, nor is it about those children with cancer. This is about Rossi's identity, which is what gets a lot of us in trouble. If he has a real effect, he has pathways open to wealth and success, but will he take them? He would have to "violate his identity," negotiating with snakes and clowns, and allow what he has not allowed, except what he allowed IH to do, independent testing (theirs!). Basically, with the Agreement, he could not stop them. Some think that the whole Doral affair was a device to attempt to get out of the Agreement, while making it appear that the "test" was successful, enough for his fans to continue belief. The reality of the "test results" has been obscured, it is unverifiable, evidence was removed, etc.

Quote

Personally, I don't think that his Quark IP is something I.H. couldn't come up with themselves if they started a R&D program. My thinking is that it is a natural extension of his previous research. Of course I.H. doesn't need the Quark to make billions of dollars, a working version of the "hot cat" would do. If the accusations against Rossi by I.H. all turn out to be true, I seriously hope they start such a program and figure out everything themselves. Of course, I think before long, they'll have competitors.

IH does not appear to be in the insane dance of beating competitors. If they find one, they will attempt to work with them. They are supporting research programs. Some of these are generating public data, or will be. They started IH with personal goals, which were not wealth, wealth is, for them, a means, no longer an end. They were and are aware of the very substantial risks, but if LENR is commercialized, by anyone, one of their goals, a very important one, will have been attained.

And then, we might notice, they may be the first to know and will be in a prime position to profit. Knowledge is power, if used wisely.

I have no particular reason to think that the QuarkX works as claimed. Rossi has lied before, why not now? This is all Rossi Says, which Rossi v. Darden has shown, definitively, can be highly deceptive. Again, Rossi can, at this point, say whatever he likes about the QuarkX, but if he has real technology and shows that in some way that establishes public evidence of reality, they then have a clear cause of action against him, unless he works with them, negotiates some settlement.