Rossi v. Darden developments - Part 1

Quote from IH Fanboy

To be precise, it was said (second hand through Dewey, who apparently heard from the government inspectors) to be "something similar to a radiator."

The Dewey Says quote was "IH has 3rd party proof that the "customer" side just contained a large radiator "

There is also this classic Dewey quote " Dear lapdogs - the arguments are over. New data is in hand. Rossi warmed the place up with the equivalent heat output of twenty 1000 watt space heaters. He made a nice big year round Miami sauna bath. That sole device er.....radiator, on the JM Products side didn't even have to work that hard. A complete and absolute travesty. "

@MrSelfSustain

You are inching closer to my reasoning. I believe that they have. After spending well over $10 million, they aren't going to just throw in the towel. No, they would have their own engineers and facilities (as Dewey has admitted to). They would try to improve each test in an iterative manner. Then after achieving a positive result, they would file their own national and international patent applications naming one of their own as an inventor. They would deny that Rossi's IP ever worked, and do so loudly in PR statements and in answer to the lawsuit's complaint, and claim that they could never substantiate the technology using Rossi's IP, or were unable to do so using the information directly received from Rossi. They would do it in such a way as to lead others with an untrained eye to believe that there was absolutely nothing to Rossi's invention and that it is all bunk.

This would rally not only those LENR supporters already skeptical of Rossi's claims to their side, but also the wrath of all cold fusion haters such as Mary Yugo. Then to shore up support of the community, they would start funding traditional non-commercially viable LENR projects and announce that they are hosting the next ICCF. I'll admit, it has been a masterful play.

@Paradigmnoia

The first quote from Dewey (for which you provided the link that started our conversation) was that the government inspectors saw "something similar to a radiator."

Mat Lewan Meets Rossi in Sweden, Rossi Bidding on Factory For QuarkX Production

Maybe this evolved over time to a "large radiator." Jed has sometimes called it a "small radiator." Whatever it is, would love to see some photographs of it.

@IH Fanboy,
The radiator (looks like a condenser actually) can be seen in photos:

1) outside the container, behind Fabiani, in the soldering photo from Rossi
2) in the hall between the Customer area and the unit wall, LH side of the Customer wall photo, Exhibit 26

I would like to a photo of it installed also.

@MrSelfSustain

Perceptive you are. And lucid too.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Rossi claimed to have removed the fuel on the last day of the test. and Murray was there maybe the next day and the day after that

Rossi memorializes things on JoNP, which is handy sometimes.

The fuel substitution timeline is here: Timing Is Everything

A couple points about Rossi's claim to be substituting charges of the morning of Feb 17:

The time on JoNP does not correct for Daylight Savings Time, so it is one hour ahead of local time in his post (it was actually 6:45 am).

The Quark X was supposedly doing fine on that morning. After the warehouse had been visited once the day before, and moments (if not seconds) before IH showed up early on the 17th. So he hid the Quark X? (Sometimes more than one was claimed to be working). He stuffed it in his pocket (at 1400°C)? Where did it go? Nobody saw it or nobody said anything about it?

@Paradigmnoia

Are you suggesting the Quark X has never existed? Seems like it would have been easy enough to move his experiment elsewhere beforehand.

@IH Fanboy,
I am not sure yet what to think. Looking at JoNP those days around the IH inspection is interesting. Rossi last posts in the morning at about 10:00 am on the 17th of February (9:00 am local) and does not post again for another 12 hours or so.
The 9:00 am time is peculiar, since IH was supposedly there at around 6:00 am that day, unless they just hung out in the parking lot, waiting for someone to come out of the building (presumably Penon with the Box?).
By the next morning, Rossi is supposedly working on the X with new engineers (a new Team), in his new lab.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

By the next morning, Rossi is supposedly working on the X with new engineers (a new Team), in his new lab.

I don't pretend to know all the intricacies either of what happened on that day or the days leading up to it. But it seems very possible that he had set up the Quark X in a different lab with a different team, at least as the end of the one-year 1MW test was coming into sight.

The last few pages of this thread have contained a good summary of the "Rossi has it, IH are playing a possibly legal, but certainly dirty, game" argument that is so prevalent in Rossiland and articulated with passion and tenacity here. I have to say I remain fascinated by its continued hold on minds.

I also think it is grossly unfair and biassed, for reasons I'll restate below. I'm fond of such reflective conclusory statements!

Quote from MrSelfSustain

It seems to me that from a purely capitalistic business perspective, it would make sense for them to only perform "official" testing (the tests they would be willing to tell others about) specifically by the exact letter of the patents and papers Rossi supplied them. My gut feeling is that the experience required to replicate (do to all the factors involved) is not easily transferred via a patent document. Having such tests fail would be a good hedge in case they ever went to court. They could say that they never were able to replicate using the IP transferred. If Rossi had been totally open, honest, and convincing with the one year test (or whatever it was), these failed tests wouldn't have really mattered. But they suspected that they would not pay because of Rossi's erratic behavior or his lack of honesty, the failed test results would come in very handy.

The smart thing to have done (although maybe not the most honest) would be to set up a research project in another lab that would be totally off the record. In the tests performed in this lab, they would actually go beyond the letter of the patents and any other documentation Rossi provided. By varying different parameters and running an extensive series of tests, they would be much more likely to figure out how to produce the effect. If these tests were successful, they could transfer the know how to the "official" project at a later date.

I understand that you say this is speculation, and you are not sure.

From my POV however it is grossly unjust (to IH) even to make such speculation. Any deep conspiracy theory, requiring companies to have perfidious motives for profit, can always be made. We don't normally do this unless there is evidence.

There are six possible lines of evidence being used here:

(1) IH have used cautious language and actions, allowing the possibility that Rossi's stuff works, throughout. There actions are consistent with the possibility it works. Even now they do not say it does not work - just that they have not any evidence it works.

I think anyone finding that "evidence" is just not understanding what a company in IH's position would do. They cannot prove a negative. Nor do they want to do do. They own the e-cat IP and if there is (in the end) anything there they want it. That would be their position whatever there internal testing showed, unless it was positive. They have paid $11M. Given the uncertainties surrounding LENR they will hold open the possibility of some good to come from that forever. If internal testing was positive they would say so (there are penalties for deceiving shareholders) and also they would pay the $89M - cheap for full ownership without legal wrangles of revolutionary technology.

(2) Independent testing of best effort replications has shown Rossi's stuff (or something similar reverse-engineered) works.

There are many convinced of this, I know. The evidence looked at dispassionately with an understanding of how easily false positives can happen in amateur experiments - surely by now those following the replication trail have ample evidence of these false positives - is null.

But - even if there were some elusive anomalous effect for real - there is no evidence that could be used for the definite reliable (ish) commercial heating that Rossi has claimed to have for more than 5 years now.

(3) Independent testing of Rossi's devices has shown Rossi's stuff works

That falls to bits when you look at it, but the arguments are long and convoluted. Worth remembering that none these sanctioned tests are fully independent, none are carried out by competent personal (I say that from public domain evidence), and 90% of them have had known flaws that neatly account for the excess heat. Tracing down these flaws is fascinating - you could for example read the thread on mats site that he hated which went over some of the earlier demos.

(4) There is good evidence from Penon that the long-term test worked.

Without Rossi's history of flawed testing, and Penon's role in that, this argument might have some traction. As it is there is none, and the various implausibilities surrounding Rossi's statements about the test put the kiss of death onto it.

(5) IH cannot prove the long-term test did not work

This is speculation. We cannot know what IH can prove. My best guess is that they have pretty certain evidence that the test was rigged in a way that could account for all excess heat. That is only a guess. The attempts by many here (including me) to look at external evidence the test did not work are only partly successful because we just don't have enough data. There remains wiggle-room and given the fact that we have no official information about the test or its results that is expected.

We can say that the extreme implausibilities around this test are not expected were the claimed results real - but that is probability not certainty. We can't say that much lower amounts of excess heat were not generated.

This misses the point. In this argument, and given the long history of false positive tests, lack of evidence Rossi's stuff does not work is not evidence it does work. Rossi has been very successful at providing tests that cannot accurately measure his devices. That is what you'd expect in both the case that he his deliberately fraudulent, and the case that he is deceiving himself.

(6) Rossi's statements and actions don't make sense if he has nothing

I have sympathy with this argument: Rossi's behaviour is highly atypical. But it is undoubtedly true that his behaviour makes even less sense if he does have something. Much of the Planet Rossi case rests on supposing Rossi has some psychology that causes him to act strongly against his own interest.

I'm not disagreeing. People often act in stupid ways, and are often difficult to understand. But the best you can make from this is that nothing can be inferred from Rossi's actions. In fact a little more can be inferred. He has provably been lying to other people over matters relating to whether his stuff works. That makes his known behaviour a negative, and stands this argument on its head.

Those arguing the anti-IH case here will no doubt correct me if I've missed any of their arguments in this summary.

Quote from THHuxley

Those arguing the anti-IH case here will no doubt correct me if I've missed any of their arguments in this summary.

@THH: Every word you write in favor of IH only shows, how dilettantish IH acted and how much greed driven their thinking was.

I don't undestand how people here are interested in defending a bunch of wild investors trying to conquer the LENR market.

What regards AR: Just wait for the sentence or a positiv test.., but that's boring I guess.

Quote

@THH: Every word you write in favor of IH only shows, how dilettantish IH acted and how much greed driven their thinking was.

I don't undestand how people here are interested in defending a bunch of wild investors trying to conquer the LENR market.

What regards AR: Just wait for the sentence or a positiv test.., but that's boring I guess.

i'm not sure from this whether you are agreeing with me, or not. If not you could indicate which of the 6 areas above we differ in seeing evidence on.

Or, given that your posts here tend to be knocking down other people's evidence, you make these summary comments with no evidence, just on some general theory?

To be specific I view IH's actions as understandable and pretty well the best they could do if they are strongly pro-LENR and wanting to advance worldwide LENR research, as many here have indicated they believe. Maybe it would therefore be number (1) where we disagree? You can accuse IH (possibly) of not exercising enough caution giving Rossi money. But, as Abd has argued, they might feel that necessary for the good of their mission even if pretty sure Rossi has nothing. A sort of: "OK, we've paid, we need you now to ante up and clarify things" move that was needed because Rossi's PR was preventing inverstors looking at more worthy objects.

Regards,
THH

Quote from THHuxley

To be specific I view IH's actions as understandable and pretty well the best they could do if they are strongly pro-LENR and wanting to advance worldwide LENR research, as many here have indicated they believe. Maybe it would therefore be number (1) where we disagree? You can accuse IH (possibly) of not exercising enough caution giving Rossi money. But, as Abd has argued, they might feel that necessary for the good of their mission even if pretty sure Rossi has nothing. A sort of: "OK, we've paid, we need you now to ante up and clarify things" move that was needed because Rossi's PR was preventing inverstors looking at more worthy objects.

@THH: I will not distort (like abd does) my mind, to find something positive in IH's action. Neither will I (on top of yours or abd's) add some more speculations about the so called Doral facts... For the purpose to find out whether Rossi's technology worked or not, there was an initial test. If IH screwed up such a simple thing, they are not worth the several 100k words their promotors wrote (and still write) in this forum! The only point where I agree with You, since I read the third post of AR: This man acts like a religious priest, who is a master in daily fooling his blindly following sheep.

But one thing stands for the future: The Piantelli/Focardi/Rossi technology works and the first one who can deliver a device, which supports a reasonably stable self sustain mode, will win the check-pot.
As I said before:With IH written court statement, that they were not able to reproduce the Rossi technology the automatically invalidated their Rossi patents. (Such fools they are!!)

Quote from Wyttenbach

For the purpose to find out whether Rossi's technology worked or not, there was an initial test. If IH screwed up such a simple thing, they are not worth the several 100k words their promotors wrote (and still write) in this forum!

It it easy for you, not in IH's position nor privy to their dealings with Rossi, to say that. You cannot know it, and given how difficult Rossi has been over matters that have come into the public domain, we cannot know how simple was that test, nor how unwise IH.

You may be right. They may have been very foolish in their early dealings with Rossi. I expect they were convinced by the Lugano test which had they taken better technical advice at the time they would not have been. But I'm not certain of that, and in any case being overly optimistic about LENR is a pretty common mistake.

Quote from Wyttenbach

But one thing stands for the future: The Piantelli/Focardi/Rossi technology works

That is a bold statement, and one not evidenced. Given your great dislike of contentless posts, posts speculating, etc, I'd not expect such of you.

Quote from THHuxley

I have to say I remain fascinated by its continued hold on minds.

Kindly drop the condescending language. It is unnecessary, and nobody here knows everything that is happening. You are speculating as much as we.

Quote from THHuxley

If internal testing was positive they would say so . . .

To whom? To you? If they had an internal test in which they modified some parameters to make it work, they would not necessarily tell you. And in fact, since it doesn't go well with their current narrative, they would most likely hide it. And in fact, it appears that is what they are doing: we see it in the escape-hatch-type language that they use, where they obfuscate the meaning behind their words.

Quote from THHuxley

Much of the Planet Rossi case rests on supposing Rossi has some psychology that causes him to act strongly against his own interest.

Much of the Planet Zero case rests on despair and dismissing evidence.