Industrial Heat's James A. Bass: President of Reactance Engineering Inc and Engineer for JM Products

  • This is not a debate on the merits, or not, of unemployment payments. If you need it, well you need it. All I said was that this Mr. Bass needed public assistance in his retirement years, after what appears to be a stellar career. I have never known an engineer with his resume, having to do that.


    Unemployment insurance is not "public assistance." Shane, you keep repeating that as if his UI claim represents some sort of neediness. It doesn't. It is no indication of desperation. You might not have known any engineer doing that, but, in fact, many do, and don't necessarily talk about it. It takes some special conditions. This has nothing to do with "retirement years." He could be collecting retirement income and UI at the same time, the former has no impact on the latter.


    I am not claiming that Bass did not knowingly participate in fraudulent representation. Maybe he did. Maybe he was paid much more than he'd have made as an ordinary contract engineer for the time. What I was saying was that if he didn't, he would probably be okay, if he simply tells the truth about the whole thing.


    If he did know, he might still be okay, if he makes it right by full admission of what he knew. He was certainly not the prime mover, the big fish.

  • You might not have known any engineer doing that, but, in fact, many do, and don't necessarily talk about it. It takes some special conditions. This has nothing to do with "retirement years." He could be collecting retirement income and UI at the same time, the former has no impact on the latter.



    My gosh, all here are smart enough to have been pilots, but chose to be engineers, or scientists instead! No pilot that I knew of needed UI at age 64. :) Yes, some needed to keep on flying until old geezers, as they timed it wrong, but UI? Never heard of it for retirees.


    Honestly, is it (UI) available when eligible for Social Security (government retirement for you foreigners)?

  • If he did know, he might still be okay, if he makes it right by full admission of what he knew. He was certainly not the prime mover, the big fish.



    Abd,


    Is there anyway you could imagine yourself being lured into a cheap scam like this by someone with a history like Rossi? Put yourself into this James Bass' shoes for a moment.


    This skinny, slick looking Rossi guy approaches you with a cash offer. ..possibly he is next to you in the UI line. :) Then he drives you to a small 6,000sqft commercial building on the outskirts of Miami, and says "we are going to manufacture a product here that absorbs almost 1MW thermal, with the rest being vented out a small toilet vent, and that contraption on the other side of that low wall you can easily look over, produces all that heat from only 20KW electrical".


    Then he hands you a cheap looking "business card" that says you now represent some company that mimics a famous company you know of. You go home and immediately do a Google search and see Rossi's extremely controversial history.


    Seriously, could you ever see yourself being so gullible? MrSS?


    Maybe I am wrong, but I just not cannot imagine any real degree of innocence here.

  • Abd,


    Is there anyway you could imagine yourself being lured into a cheap scam like this by someone with a history like Rossi? Put yourself into this James Bass' shoes for a moment.


    Uh, Shane, "history like Rossi" would mean that many sincere people would be fooled. If he was fooled, he didn't know, and he's not responsible. They simply used him. In the other direction, he might have known. What I'm seeing here is lack of imagination being converted into a kind of certainty. If "I can't imagine ..." then the opposite must be true. Very common, and it can be a huge mistake.


    All I wrote was that it's possible that Bass did not know. I also wrote that it is possible that he knew. And in either case, I would not expect him to be, at this point, making some public announcement. Any lawyer would tell him to STFU. If something comes up that actually starts to cause harm, he might consider action. But nothing like that is happening, so far, as far as we can tell.

  • . . . he hands you a cheap looking "business card" that says you now represent some company that mimics a famous company you know of. You go home and immediately do a Google search and see Rossi's extremely controversial history.


    Seriously, could you ever see yourself being so gullible? MrSS?


    Maybe I am wrong, but I just not cannot imagine any real degree of innocence here.


    Yes! Well said. It is not plausible that he was innocent.

  • Uh, Shane, "history like Rossi" would mean that many sincere people would be fooled.


    People who went into the warehouse and saw the equipment were not fooled. People who saw the data (including me) were not fooled. Not for one minute. As described in Exhibit 5, it was egregious, outrageous, in-your-face, not even pretending to be real, fake fake fake. If the machine had been made of paper mache it would hardly have been more obvious. Shane assumes that Bass visited the warehouse. If he did not even visit, he is guilty of pretending to be a manager at a company he never went to. If he visited but he did not see it was a hoax, he is the world's most incompetent engineer.


    All I wrote was that it's possible that Bass did not know. I also wrote that it is possible that he knew.


    Sure, anything is possible. It is possible I might be elected president on Tuesday with write-in votes. But we should not waste time contemplating such unlikely possibilities.


  • Go fly a kite. You'll get further. It is much more possible that Bass did not know what was going on than you make out. To me, he probably knew something was fishy, at least, but accepted the job. How much did he know? Did he know that $89 million was riding on this? Very, very likely not. Back when Bass met the IH people, that was probably a closely-guarded secret, Rossi would not want to spook IH. He would not tell anyone. I wonder if Johnson knew, in fact. Johnson, much more likely. Rossi's real estate attorney and Leonardo President.


    We don't know what story Rossi told Bass, but, remember, Rossi fooled a lot of quite smart people. Even you. Perhaps it would be appropriate to remember that as you are so quick to judge someone else.


  • First of all, I doubt that James A. Bass would take some cash payout. He'd want regular payment he could depend on for his services and use to file unemployment after his contract ended.


    Secondly, I think it is very possible (although we don't have proof either way) there was a plant of some kind that utilized an endothermic chemical process to produce a product. And even if the plant couldn't absorb all of the heat (or less than 1MW of heat was being produced), there was additional ventilation (those gigantic bay doors). I don't see why James A. Bass wouldn't have thought it was a sincere and honest operation if there was actual manufacturing equipment that he was placed in charge of. What you are proposing would require James A. Bass to accept a part in a knowingly fraudulent enterprise from the start. With his highly credible job experience and track record -- not a thing negative I can find anywhere -- I doubt he would have agreed to participate in a deceptive scheme.


    Now, let's say there was an endothermic process being utilized that produced product. His job had nothing to do with working on or operating the "source" of the heat. As long as he operated and maintained the manufacturing equipment, he would be performing his duties. And lets say that a full one megawatt wasn't being produced the entire duration of the test. Maybe at times Rossi exaggerated to IH and others and only a couple hundred thousand kilowatts of heat were being produced. If the heat was adequate to sustain the production rate that JM Products Inc. had specified, it wasn't his job to ask questions or run calorimetry about the source of the heat.


    Thirdly, the business card was amateurish, but why do business cards have to be flashy? I've met professional individuals (engineers, lawyers, and doctors) a few times who had very plain and ordinary business cards that was only a few styles of text on a white background. At least James A. Bass's business card HAD an image!


    Fourth, I don't consider Andrea Rossi's history as extremely controversial from my point of view. I view him as a smart, skilled, mostly self-educated, obsessive work-a-holic who is sometimes overly paranoid but to a certain extent HAS A RIGHT TO BE since he's literally holding the only viable commercial LENR technology in the world. He shouldn't play games like he does on occasion and he shouldn't break contracts and prevent people from inspecting his plant. Also, he should be more open and transparent. But overall, I view his technology as real, and, so far, I don't view him as some master con-man like most people make him out to be.


    To answer your question, if Rossi was a little bit easier to get along with and not quite as difficult, I wish I had been an engineer so I could have been hired by JM Chemical Products. Why? Because I think excess heat was produced and there was real manufacturing taking place. Of course, I will admit I could be wrong and although some level of excess heat was produced, there could have been zero manufacturing and the whole issue of a customer producing a product could have been a giant hoax. In that case, even if it means he never gets to commercialize his technology, I hope he is somehow forbidden from any LENR work for the rest of his life. But I really don't think that will happen. I expect a wabbit. Maybe not a giant fat one, but at least a skinny malnourished one.

  • Yes, Jim Bass is no doubt a talented guy. Doubtful he could be fooled by Rossi into believing the supposed JMP process was real,


    We were told that Jim Bass does not exist. Has that certitude been rescinded?


    What about JMP...any change in status as non existent?

  • Henry:


    Are you on a personal vendetta or how does it come that you downvote *every single* of MrSelfSustain's always thoughtful and polite posts? Please stop this childish abuse of the voting system. It only reflects bad on you.

  • Quote

    Is there anyway you could imagine yourself being lured into a cheap scam like this by someone with a history like Rossi? Put yourself into this James Bass' shoes for a moment.This skinny, slick looking Rossi guy approaches you with a cash offer. ..possibly he is next to you in the UI line. Then he drives you to a small 6,000sqft commercial building on the outskirts of Miami, and says "we are going to manufacture a product here that absorbs almost 1MW thermal, with the rest being vented out a small toilet vent, and that contraption on the other side of that low wall you can easily look over, produces all that heat from only 20KW electrical". Then he hands you a cheap looking "business card" that says you now represent some company that mimics a famous company you know of. You go home and immediately do a Google search and see Rossi's extremely controversial history. Seriously, could you ever see yourself being so gullible? MrSS? Maybe I am wrong, but I just not cannot imagine any real degree of innocence here.


    I cannot imagine being so beguiled. But plenty of others seem more gullible and convinced Rossi is OK when the conditions he puts on testing of his products, and the things he says, all make it look like a prima facie fake.


    So I would not draw any conclusions based on the "Bass must have known it was fishy" argument. From the outside you do not see what it is like for people in these situations.


    Of course, I'm not ruling out his knowingly abetting a fraud. But...


    Just as speculation here is what Rossi could have done. He sets up his UK corporate entity. He does some research on some chemical process, and puts together a half-baked plan to use this. His (brand new) company could in principle buy chemicals, run some process on small scale. Whether thus actually happens is sort of irrelevant, since it obviously could have happened.


    Now suppose he represents to Bass his plan for the company's wonderful future making metal sponges with cheap energy undercutting competition. This is a PR magnificence, which Rossi enjoys. Rossi can claim (to Bass) that he personally has this process running, and give him blurb to talk about it.


    To what extent Bass is culpable depends on whether he knows what he says is untrue, and whether he knows it is fraudulent. There is quite some room for the appearance of a large international company when this is a future aspiration, and what we have is a one-man band. Rossi would no doubt consider a UK registered corporate entity operating in Florida as international. Bass truly being employed by this new company is the easiest thing to arrange, and he can have whatever title he likes.


    I'm not saying Rossi went this far. Rossi puts most ingenuity into effect, not the underpinnings. Perhaps Rossi thought that the whole show was meant to convince others that the e-cat could have this genuine industrial use, was a magnificence, and that the details did not matter.

  • Timar,


    I think there are certain individuals who are very irritated with me, because I'm looking deeper into the Rossi saga than simply the Doral affair. I'm considering everything I know about his him and his technology from his earliest testing with Focardi to modern times -- combined with my views of the replications that have been made by third parties. Because I'm trying to look at the situation from more angles and from a broader vantage point, I'm not pointing at his seemingly mischievous behavior and dishonesty during the one year test with one finger while jumping up and down and in a huff. The truth is that there are more possibilities (between total fraudulent scam and completely successful test with COP of 50) than some parties want people to realize. I understand why people are irritated with him -- I am too. The difference is that I'm convinced he has developed, through exhaustive testing along with his own intuition, a number of variations of his technology that are all capable of producing HIGH POWERED (1000 watts per gram) LENR. Also, due to the understanding that I believe to have gained of him, I find it extremely unlikely he would have performed a year long test (spending many hours a day in the plant) to waste time on a hoax when he could be furthering his technology. He's not someone to twiddle his thumbs or stand still. Sitting in a plant like that pretending to monitor fake reactors would drive him stark raving mad. Regardless if he fudged numbers, exaggerated figures, or committed serious acts of deception, I believe Rossi was conducting a real long term experiment that was producing excess heat. I also think there was likely some sort of manufacturing process. This does NOT exonerate him of anything. And I'm not saying he is owed or not owed a red cent. But the idea that any aspect of the year long test was "real" is something certain individuals can't tolerate us even considering. However, I'm going to keep on considering it until I see hard evidence otherwise.


    The good news is that I think the replicator community has the opportunity to catch up pretty quickly to Andrea Rossi. I see a number of paths that could be taking utilizing information that has been acquired in the past few months. In my opinion, these are the same paths that Me356 followed. After combing through the literature (not necessarily LENR literature or papers) everything he said from his earlier posts to his final ones make sense. He gave us a really good bread crumb of puzzle pieces to follow. Thankfully, I don't think it has a thousand tiny pieces, but only a far fewer number of large ones that are pretty simple to put together. Basically, pretty much every variation and improvement of the E-Cat was either about hydrogen absorption or triggering. The same goes for Me356. These subjects are nuanced and require thought, but we can crack them in reasonably short order, I think, if we follow the information Me356 and Rossi have made available to us.


    Once we crack these issues, I believe the Rossi Effect will seem miraculous at first (hundreds to a thousand watts per gram of fuel rather than single digits) but then the issue will become more mundane requiring standard engineer: how to make materials that can endure long term, how to transfer the heat where we want it, how to build systems to practically utilize the heat, designing algorithms to control the application of stimulation, how to optimize the stimulation to produce the highest COP with the least permanent damage to the nickel lattice, etc. Most importantly, once we've mastered the reproduction of the Rossi Effect and share the knowledge with the world, there will first be hundreds of replication videos made in the first couple months and then thousands of variations developed within six to nine months. No one party, company, organization, or government will have overall control of the technology. It will be dispersed and democratized.


    I'm really excited about living in a world where the Rossi Effect is totally and completely "out there."

  • Quote

    I'm not pointing at his seemingly mischievous behavior and dishonesty during the one year test with one finger while jumping up and down and in a huff. The truth is that there are more possibilities (between total fraudulent scam and completely successful test with COP of 50) than some parties want people to realize.


    I agree there are more possibilities than fraud with nothing, or hero.


    I wonder however if you have looked in the precise details of all the early tests. The most celebrated ones have subtle error mechanisms which exactly explain the results. Rossi's ingenuity in putting together such tests, whether deliberate or self-deceptive, is quite unusual.


    Even that does not preclude him working with something real, if you reckon you have strong evidence from elsewhere that he inherited world-beating new technology from Focardi. But it means you cannot view the whole sequence of Rossi tests as an indication of positive technology. We could go over the different clear errors if you like. They have fooled many people (including Jed) - in the sense that at a demo they did not believe there could be a mundane solution when in fact there was.


    Quote

    I find it extremely unlikely he would have performed a year long test (spending many hours a day in the plant) to waste time on a hoax when he could be furthering his technology.


    You are right. His behaviour in the one year test does not make sense if he has working technology. Nor does the whole one year test contract, which is clearly dysfunctional. I wonder whetehr you think IH insisted on this strange contract? It seems most unlikley to me, the large up-front payment is not what any VC would want to see because it prevents the inventor from having any inducement to help with the technology development.

  • MrSS,


    I admire your belief that Rossi may have something. I have been there before. It is a good, and addicting feeling. So hard to let it go.


    While Rossi probably does not have what he claims, he may -as we all hope, have enough to change the world. I think most that come here to LF do so because we share that same hope.


    As to whether or not he, JMP, or the company JMP supposedly fronted for, actually produced a widget...I find that unlikely. If I remember correctly there was little, if any, offloading of raw product, and the same with picking up a refined one. Seems it was pretty quiet over there on the "customers" side. Being such a small, confined area, I am sure if someone farted on one side of the wall, it would be noticed on the other. The normal hub-bub of a manufacturing facility would be even more obvious.

  • We were told that Jim Bass does not exist. Has that certitude been rescinded?


    What about JMP...any change in status as non existent?



    Axil,


    IH said at first that Bass did not exist, but surely they did not mean he was a figment of the imagination as they also noted they physically met Bass. So we can chalk this one up to poor wording on IH's part.


    JMP?...well, isn't it time for Rossi to do some talking about them? IH has said plenty, almost all backed with documentation. Maybe too much, with the risk of showing Rossi their hand. In comparison, Rossi has not said diddly squat, nor submitted diddly to the court, other than the agreement.


    This JMP thing is critical to the case. Rossi and Johnson have stated that JMP was a front for a UK company. IH states very clearly they were not. Rossi/Johnson claim they, nor anyone affiliated with them, was a part of JMP. IH claims they were.


    Rossi had better speak up and defend himself on this, or risk getting his suit thrown out, while finding IH's counter-suit allowed to proceed.

  • We don't know what story Rossi told Bass, but, remember, Rossi fooled a lot of quite smart people. Even you. Perhaps it would be appropriate to remember that as you are so quick to judge someone else.


    Rossi fooled me because I did not have access to detailed information. I am pretty confident that if he allowed me to visit him and make my own measurements, I would have discovered he had no heat in his earlier tests.


    I said that the 1-year test and the warehouse would not fool anyone. That is what I was talking about. Assuming Bass visited the warehouse I do not think it is possible he was deceived. If he did not visit it, he lied about his job. Either way he is guilty, I think.


    I say that Exhibit 5 is undeniable proof that the test was fake. Rossi supporters such as Gluck say that Exhibit 5 is fake. Gluck says the pipe was not actually half-full, because that is impossible. Rossi supporters do not say: "Yes, the pipe was half full, and there is no doubt the pressure was actually 0.0 bar, but I am sure there was 50 X excess heat anyway." The only way you can believe Rossi is to assume Exhibit 5 is a lie. One or the other has to be wrong; there is no middle ground.


    I happen to have strong reasons to believe Exhibit 5 is the truth, so I am confident that Rossi is wrong. People who do not have strong reasons to believe Exhibit 5, the photos, and the initial Penon plan will not agree with me. That's understandable.


  • You are right. His behaviour in the one year test does not make sense if he has working technology. Nor does the whole one year test contract, which is clearly dysfunctional. I wonder whetehr you think IH insisted on this strange contract? It seems most unlikley to me, the large up-front payment is not what any VC would want to see because it prevents the inventor from having any inducement to help with the technology development.


    What I find, reviewing the history of cold fusion, is general failure of imagination. At any given point, a practically limitless range of possibilities exist. Much of learning is exploring these and restricting them. If we look at the reaction of scientists to the FP announcement and the early events, we see two kinds of scientists: those who considered "it" impossible -- which is a generically defective argument if there is no clear definition of what "it" is, and those who dreamed up ways in which LENR might occur. I would say that, with hindsight, all those ways -- or almost all -- were not what was actually happening. But my point here is that some were willing and able to stretch in this way, and some were not. Those who were not willing to stretch outnumbered those who were, and social forces took over.


    With something new and challenging, that is quite to be expected!


    Then, some who did accept and explore cold fusion saw things, drew conclusions from them, and became unable to imagine how their conclusions might be in error. Failure of imagination, there are always possibilities. There are people who seem to naturally be able to move beyond this, without falling into gullibility, but it is not particularly normal. The scientific method requires this imagination to fully function. It requires imagination to construct hypotheses for something new, and it requires imagination to think up how our own ideas might be wrong. The latter runs in contradiction to much human instinct, or if it is not instinct, it is certainly common conditioning. We don't like being wrong, we think it looks bad, etc.


    The other day I pointed to an observed phenomenon in Lett's work, a resistance drop immediately prior to the observation of anomalous heat, and other researchers have confirmed that they have seen this. I asked Kirk Shanahan if he could come up with a *nuclear explanation.* It appears that he was unable to do so, even though he had mentioned that ionization in the electrolyte could lower resistance. He knew enough to come up with an explanation, but it appears that his mind was literally blocked. I interpret this as a rapid arising of objection that it's impossible, therefore it must be something else.


    Here, I proposed the possibility -- a possibility only, not a claimed fact -- that Bass did not participate knowingly in a fraud. The response is essentially that this is unimaginable. That is, literally, a failure of the imagination. I have since worked on the possibility a bit more, fleshing it out, and I could present a scenario, that, to my mind, is plausible, given what we know about Rossi and even more how the situation appeared in early 2015, which is when Bass was presented.


    Instead of presenting this scenario, I'm going to ask those who seem convinced that Bass must be "guilty," to see if they can imagine it, suggesting that they do not focus on shooting it down! That can come later. In my opinion, we simply don't have enough evidence to know, so coming to any firm conclusion now is restricting possibilities unnecessarily. We all have the right to present our present conclusions, based on how matters appear at this time.


    However, we lose analytical power, essentially we lose intelligence, if we slam doors shut without being entirely clear what's in those rooms, and without any present risk of damage from open doors.

    Ah. The contract
    .


    The Agreement was the way it was, I infer, because IH was dealing with a man who insisted on being firmly in control. If they insisted on something more "sensible," they expected he would simply refuse, and if they did this more than as some suggestion, he would stop talking with them. He actually did that many times with possible investors, and I assume that they knew that, they knew far more than we knew as the public.


    It is remarkable that both extreme skeptics and critics, and "believers" in Rossi, think the Agreement was terrible. However, what I see is that IH had adequate protection, they could easily lose $11.5 million, but not the $89 million. They accepted that first risk, it was worth risking that in order to "crush the tests." So what about the other side? What about, for example, the restriction on Rossi disclosing IP, but not on IH?


    The question in this case would devolve to why Rossi would accept that, and my suggestion is that Rossi has far overblown trust in himself. He did not consult with lawyers, or, if he did, he ignored them. He didn't notice the lacuna, perhaps assuming it was obvious. How could he imagine that a GPT with no written consent would be valid? Quite simply, he was thinking along a different track entirely.


    This is setting aside the possibility of pure scam, in which case $11.5 million in the hand is worth much, and worrying about other details, no, let's get this thing going! It still took almost a year.


    As to spending a year on something useless, most of what we know about Rossi's behavior during that year comes from Rossi. If he believed that he was setting up a payment of $89 million, that would be enough motivation. But I do not know what Rossi believed, I can only know what he has written and said. I do know that at least one quite intelligent person, who knew Rossi personally, was devastated to see the Rossi email to Darden about Industrial Heat. Rossi can obviously be very engaging and likable. And then something else is going on. There are hidden dimensions.

  • IH said at first that Bass did not exist, but surely they did not mean he was a figment of the imagination as they also noted they physically met Bass. So we can chalk this one up to poor wording on IH's part.


    I think I.H. meant that Bass was using a fake name. In that sense he "did not exist." I think they later discovered that was his real name.

  • Abd wrote:

    It is remarkable that both extreme skeptics and critics, and "believers" in Rossi, think the Agreement was terrible. However, what I see is that IH had adequate protection, they could easily lose $11.5 million, but not the $89 million. They accepted that first risk, it was worth risking that in order to "crush the tests." So what about the other side? What about, for example, the restriction on Rossi disclosing IP, but not on IH?


    It was terible in the sense that it gave all parties perverse motivation. I'm not saying it was not in Rossi's interest (it was, if he could get away with it, as it seems he felt he could) nor that IH was foolish to sign it if they had to do so. But IH would have been in a much stronger position having a contract that aligned Rossi's interests with theirs more clearly, and that is the norm for such VC contracts.


    Quote

    I do know that at least one quite intelligent person, who knew Rossi personally, was devastated to see the Rossi email to Darden about Industrial Heat. Rossi can obviously be very engaging and likable. And then something else is going on. There are hidden dimensions.


    I believe you. But in Rossi's case his blatently bad testing protocols were clear from the start, and became more obvious. They were pointed out. The hidden dimension is how some otherwise sensible people can overlook this when presented with a no doubt charming inventor.


    I don't think this is a typical reaction to Rossi. Plenty of people were not so convinced. But Rossi was careful to control access to those whom he could convince, and for these people he was very good at PR.

  • We were told that Jim Bass does not exist. Has that certitude been rescinded?


    What about JMP...any change in status as non existent?


    Shane, perhaps Axil was referring to:


    They will crush Rossi, Penon, Johnson and even the imaginary Mr. James A. Bass.

    James A. Bass does not exist. I.H. looked for him, and found there is no such person.

    Regarding Mr. Bass, they made a strong effort to find him. He doesn't exist

    Looking for someone named "Bass" is silly. It was a fake name on the business card. If it was his real name and his real occupation, they could have found him easily enough.


    Or... If you prefer the incoherent rantings of a loon:


    James Bass is Domenico Fioravanti.

  • This JMP thing is critical to the case. Rossi and Johnson have stated that JMP was a front for a UK company. IH states very clearly they were not. Rossi/Johnson claim they, nor anyone affiliated with them, was a part of JMP. IH claims they were.


    Watching this case unfold, I see a lot of misunderstanding of what we have. These misunderstandings may not be 'wrong,' but are not founded in what is clearly known.


    There are two kinds of evidence available to us in the case documents. There are pleadings. What is in pleadings are assertions. They might be wrong. They do not have to be proven, and they are not admissible as testimony. So, for example, IH for a time asserted that James A. Bass was not a "real person," which means, with simple translation consistent with what they said about him, he was not as he was represented and perhaps that was not his real name. When they obtained more information, they changed that, and he has appeared in the case, through counsel. We have some evidence indicating that the name is real. (We do not actually know that! But it has become most likely. To understand how the name still might not be real, someone may appear if sued under a pseudonym, as that person, without revealing their real name. They might then be asked in discovery and would be under an obligation to respond truthfully -- or to object to the question. We would not see that question unless they objected. They might also require any responses to be confidential, protected.


    I don't know that Rossi has stated that JMP was a British company, and certainly not as admissible testimony. (Rossi has provided no admissible testimony that we have seen.) Now, the Exhibits in the case may become admissible testimony. I assume that all these documents are authentic, not "fake." That, however, does not make their contents conclusive. Did Rossi deceive Hydrofusion? We only know from the Exhibit, that he claimed to IH that he did. This would be controvertible if Rossi claims the email was fake, not from him. Down that road lies great danger.


    What we have on the ownership of JMP is a document that was submitted by Johnson to IH, apparently during the visit to North Carolina in 2014, about two years after the Agreement was signed. I concluded that this paper was included with the Agreement papers in Rossi's files and was accidentally included with them in showing Exhibit B. In that, Johnson refers to a British "entity" as owner.


    His British cousin? We don't know. IH, however, alleges that the ownership was in the list excluded by Johnson in that document. That is an allegation, presented as fact. They can do that, lawyers do that, it's normal in pleadings. It is correct that Rossi has not Answered on this and many other points. He still has time. Not much.


    What is happening is that these issues are the subject of Discovery, and we are seeing very little of that process. What little we saw, the other day, showed Rossi fishing for evidence, and, only a little asking for specific evidence relating to the specific allegations. To me, this is a sign that he doesn't have what he'd need, so his attorney is looking for something that might be used. He has a right to try. And IH has a right to refuse to answer overbroad questions, like "list all the investors in Cherokee Investment Partners." Rossi is trying to find some smoking gun, based on very weak speculation. Maybe there is an investor called Oil Industry Interest Group or something. Aha! I thought so!


    Consider the questions IH is asking of Rossi, Johnson, Fabiani, and Bass!


    This is the reality of a case like this. If someone thinks they can hide the truth, they may not have considered all the implications. Will they lie under oath? If so, they can convert something that might only have a financial impact, to something where they would see not only financial impact, but total ruin and imprisonment. It happens. People make that choice and ... people also go to jail. But most people won't lie under oath, if they have consulted experienced counsel. Ethical counsel will never advise them to lie, and if it does, it, itself, is subject to sanctions.


    The legal process is far from perfect, but it is much better than many of us, looking only at failures, think.


    The other kind of evidence available to us are the Exhibits. We may easily assume that these will be attested and become, then, admissible evidence of a kind. That is, they show what documents existed. We don't argue about the text of the Agreement, because we assume we have it. Nobody alleges that the Agreement is not what Rossi presented.


    Exhibit 5 is not proof of anything other than what it represents. It is, on the face, a series of questions asked by Murray of Penon. It is a later memorialization of questions Murray asked in February 2016, in person, over the two days of his visit. It includes some recitation of what was in preliminary reports from Penon. Not the "Report" which had not yet been presented. That is, what is presented could be from unedited and erroneous partial reports. Maybe Penon corrected errors, we don't know, and IH has not described the final Report, if I'm correct. Because the Final Report is the trigger for payment if Doral was a GPT, they don't want to easily allow that to come into evidence, this is simply basic sense. Rossi might present the Report as an Exhibit, but might need to request court permission (because of his obligation of confidentiality, often violated but still in place).


    Rothwell is, relatively speaking, an expert. I see the same evidence that Jed sees as "proving" that the test was fake. His conclusion is plausible, even likely, but not proven. However, the evidence might be strong enough to create a preponderance of the evidence if this goes to trial. Rothwell often presents plausible conclusions, from evidence he thinks probative, as "proven." It's a habit. There is a lost performative.


    Proven to whom? The simple answer: to Jed. Maybe to some others. Not for everyone, and, sometimes, not even for all those with knowledge.


    This is a thread about Bass. Jed's assumption is that because Jed would immediately have recognized "fake," then Bass would have recognized it, or Bass was incompetent.


    Incompetent at what? Bass has no history indicating likely expertise with heat flow, calorimetry, or chemical processing. Further, Rossi has a history of influencing people who, we can easily think, should have known better, to tolerate what, to us, would seem intolerable. The Lugano professors, believing their own calculations -- or Levi's calculations -- when the reactor in front of them was *obviously* not at 1400 C. Accepting the lack of a calibration at 900 W input on a pretext that was immediately recognizable as bogus, because someone told them the pretext and they did not challenge it. What would have happened if they had challenged it?


    Rossi created situations like this, did it many times. I think it fairly obvious how he did that, but it requires understanding how people, in the real world, think and make choices. I think I started writing about this in 2011.... it could be fun, perhaps, to go back over what I wrote back then. Most of it was private, on the CMNS list.


    Bass was incompetent to judge this, very possibly! So he didn't. And what was he told? I don't find it difficult to imagine what he was told that would then create what we have evidence about. That is an imagination, a speculation, not fact. I postpone judgment, and may postpone judgment on many questions until I die.

  • What I find, reviewing the history of cold fusion, is general failure of imagination. At any given point, a practically limitless range of possibilities exist. Much of learning is exploring these and restricting them. If we look at the reaction of scientists to the FP announcement and the early events, we see two kinds of scientists: those who considered "it" impossible -- which is a generically defective argument if there is no clear definition of what "it" is, and those who dreamed up ways in which LENR might occur.


    It is the opposite with me. I believe in cold fusion because I lack imagination. As Fleischmann put it, we are painfully conventional people. To dismiss cold fusion, you have to assume that the experimental method failed, hundreds of scientists made inexplicable elementary mistakes, the laws of thermodynamics and much else in physics and chemistry going back to 1800 is wrong, and calorimetry does not work. I don't buy any of that.


    I do not see any limitless range of possibilities here. There are only two: cold fusion is real, or everything in the textbooks going back to 1800 needs to be thrown out and rewritten.


    My clear definition of what "it" is is very simple. Massive excess heat far beyond the limits of chemistry with no chemical changes. Plus it is very likely helium is produced in amounts commensurate with fusion. That's all there is to it. I have no idea why it might occur. I am well aware of the theoretical reasons it should not, but in science, replicated experiments always overrule theory. No exceptions granted, ever. So theory does not count.


    Here, I proposed the possibility -- a possibility only, not a claimed fact -- that Bass did not participate knowingly in a fraud. The response is essentially that this is unimaginable.


    We did not say it is unimaginable. We said it is so unlikely, it is not worth considering, or taking seriously. Anything is imaginable. Some things are not only imaginable, but possible, in the sense that we can imagine a set of real events leading to them. As I said, it is imaginable the I will be elected president in a write in. You could make a comedy movie portraying that event. Someone on Internet suggests people should write in my name today. The idea goes viral. By Tuesday millions of voters who despise Clinton and Trump agree, and I win. It is physically possible, and in the age of the Internet it is at least plausible that such an event would occur. But it is so unlikely no one should bother seriously considering that it might happen.


    Instead of presenting this scenario, I'm going to ask those who seem convinced that Bass must be "guilty," to see if they can imagine it, suggesting that they do not focus on shooting it down!


    Of course I can imagine a convoluted set of circumstances in which Bass is innocent. I could do screen writing for comedy movies. But any "innocent" scenario is so far fetched it should be dismissed without consideration. Thinking up such scenarios is pointless, empty speculation about nothing. It is to


    . . . talk of dreams,
    Which are the children of an idle brain,
    Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,
    Which is as thin of substance as the air
    And more inconstant than the wind, who wooes
    Even now the frozen bosom of the north,
    And, being anger'd, puffs away from thence,
    Turning his face to the dew-dropping south.

  • Rothwell is, relatively speaking, an expert. I see the same evidence that Jed sees as "proving" that the test was fake.


    Everyone sees it. It is right there in Exhibit 5. It does not take an expert to conclude that if the assertions in that Exhibit are true, the test was fake.


    His conclusion is plausible, even likely, but not proven. However, the evidence might be strong enough to create a preponderance of the evidence if this goes to trial. Rothwell often presents plausible conclusions, from evidence he thinks probative, as "proven." It's a habit. There is a lost performative.


    Proven to whom? The simple answer: to Jed. Maybe to some others. Not for everyone, and, sometimes, not even for all those with knowledge.


    The only thing proven "to Jed" here is that Exhibit 5 actually does show Rossi's data. I did not conclude that based on any technical expertise or analysis of the data. Rossi himself reported some of this data to Lewan, including the most damning parts of it. I have other good reasons for thinking it real.


    Assuming it is real, you need only elementary physics and engineering to see that it proves Rossi is wrong. Or, are you suggesting that even assuming the assertions in Exhibit 5 are true, the heat might be real after all? Are you seriously making that case?!?


    Peter Gluck is convinced the Exhibit is a lie. The pipe could not have been half-full. Rossi never said the pressure is 0.0 bar. If Gluck is right and this is fake information then of course I am deceived. I am wrong. What cannot be argued -- and has not been argued, as far as I know -- is that Exhibit 5 is true in all particulars and yet Rossi's claim might be real.


    Perhaps Abd is making that argument. I would find that mind boggling.

  • What cannot be argued -- and has not been argued, as far as I know -- is that Exhibit 5 is true in all particulars and yet Rossi's claim might be real.


    Perhaps Abd is making that argument. I would find that mind boggling.


    Jed's understanding of ontology is poor. What does it mean that "Exhibit 5 is true in all particulars"? Exhibit 5 is a set of questions, which include some observations and some citation of a preliminary report. I assume that Murray actually asked those questions and actually observed what he reported. So Exhibit 5 would be "true" in all particulars.


    However, we may draw false conclusions from Exhibit 5. As an example, a preliminary report, described there, may contain errors, even gross ones. What Jed saw, through his report of what "came from Rossi," would have been preliminary report. Uncorrected, raw. So Jed saw the same data, and that data may have been in error, not carefully reviewed.


    We do not have any record of Penon responding to the questions. We then make assumptions from that. These are inferences, assumptions, and could easily be in error.


    What is "Rossi's claim"? If we look carefully at the lawsuit, his claim is that Penon reported satisfactory performance on the GPT. Did he? If so, his claim is true, i.e., real. Does that mean *actual performance"? No, and obviously not necessarily. By confusing all these things, we then can create explanatory stories that satisfy us, that confirm us in our outrage, especially. Because they confirm our feelings -- which, when activated, dominate -- we are far less skeptical of these stories than we would be if not activated.


    We can see it when pseudoskeptics do it. Can we see it when we do it?


    Yes, I am making a claim of possibility. Not probability. I make different claims about probability. Yes. Mind boggling. It's actually part of my training, to declare what may seem to be impossible, unreasonable, if there is some perceived value. In the training, this is routinely done, and ... usually what was truly seen as impossible does not happen, but something else happens, because the deadly "unreasonable" block was dropped. What actually happens would have been considered unreasonable. That was itself was not actually based on "reason" but on massive assumptions and expectations, difficult to confront in detail, so we simply set charges under all this, blow it up, and then observe the fallout. Life is far more interesting than most of us allow. (We don't blow up anything actually useful and necessary. The amygdala would not allow it.)

  • Funny how every time someone clearly exposes the blatanty biased and hilariously overconfident nonsense Jed or others have written in the past - such as James A. Bass being a "fake name" - the same people immediately band together to drown such post behind walls of redundant text.

  • Of course I can imagine a convoluted set of circumstances in which Bass is innocent.


    Great. You claim you can, but don't demonstrate it.


    But how about a relatively simple story, consistent with what we know about Rossi and what a former Engineering Director with no relevant expertise in the specific field might accept? I'm claiming that it's possible. However, if you are truly attached to it being impossible, you will not be able to do it. So this is a little experiment like I just ran with Shanahan.


    Come on! I think you can do it! It will simply require setting aside for a little while all the outrage about this asshole Rossi. It does not require any truth to Rossi claims, simply known behavior or what is possibly consistent with it and his demonstrated ability to string even some smart people along. It does not require a "stupid, incompetent" Bass, only that he not have sufficient knowledge to immediately see through the fraud. This scenario allows it all to be fraud. What's possible?

  • Quote

    While Rossi probably does not have what he claims, he may -as we all hope, have enough to change the world.


    Oh sure. Anything is, after all, possible? So you expect that a convicted Italian felon who created an environmental disaster as his chief life work, managed to get millions from DOD on the premise of a fake prototype and a pack of obvious lies (the dog ate my homework), then gave one after another deceptive and incorrect demo and experiment of the ecat, performed the classical bait and switch to the hot cat and the beyond absurd QuarkX, never got an independent test, etc. etc. etc. and now is being sued by a company which could become the largest firm in the world if Rossi told the truth--- and you still think, after all that, that he *might*be telling the truth? And that's not stupid? Truly, Shane, you're amazing. Your ineptness knows no bounds. How do you manage to get dressed in the morning?