Setting aside Steorn, Orbo, and Hepha Heat, which is where they may stay for ... a long time ...
On another note, I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever you or Jed are paid by IH. Anyone can lie and make up a tale of innocence, so the chance is non-zero but very low. The combination of admiring a company that on-the-surface from a certain view point seeks to advance LENR (although we don't know how they would handle a TRUE HOT POTATO of an LENR technology if they got their hands on one), recognizing Rossi's personality can often be infuriating, and seeing the issues with Rossi's account of the one year test could make a reasonable person feel the exact same way. I have to admit that to anyone who jumped into the LENR community right now, Rossi would seem like an outright snake oil salesman. So to jump to the conclusion that the ardent supports of IH are being "paid" holds very little plausibility. Very indirect compensation such as IH just happening to fund researchers they are highly interested in and support is more probable. This could provide an incentive to defend IH without any agreement (written or verbal) ever made.
SS, you are demonstrating a basically reasonable position. There is only one set of words I'd seriously question. "ardent supports." I do support IH, but it is "ardent"? This implies a kind of dedication that is absent for me. I developed a hypothesis regarding their behavior, that explains it in the face of both skeptical ridicule and Planet Rossi blame, but it is just a hypothesis, for which I see some evidence and little contrary evidence, but I'm fully aware of the human tendency to see, not just what we "believe," but even what we think. One of the ways around this is communication, discussion, sharing of various points of view. That is why pseudoskepticism can be so damaging, where it manages to create a rejection cascade. It shuts down communication through hostility, contempt, ridicule, and, too often, arrogant ignorance. It is not *at all* that skepticism is "wrong." It is, in fact, essential to science and many other fields ... such as law.
But for those of us who have been closely following this saga for years, know more than the newbies to this field, and to differing degrees have been made aware of other information (such as undisclosed successful replications) the situation is more nuanced. Because underneath layers of strange behavior, exaggerations, dishonesty, and emotional outbursts, we are absolutely convinced of a working, real technology that has NOT been forgotten by Andrea Rossi.
For those who knew LENR, it was always nuanced. The position of "Rossi crook" was an easy one, even obvious. A series of possible realitiies is collapsed into the easy positions. "Rossi forgot" is one hypothesis that has been raised, and it could have some explanatory power if you consider it. It would allow those "undisclosed successful replications." (Again, I quiestion the term "replication." Replications include quantity, not just some ratio. They cover predictability. Full replication is not possible without predictability of an effect. The effect itself may vary, but then associated products or conditions may be correlated. That is predictability, as I've claimed -- under peer review -- for the heat/helium ratio, based on something on the order of 80 measurements by more than 12 independent research groups. -- and it can be and should be many more than that, with increased precision, as is happening.
Because any given test can contain an unidentified artifact, and because fraud is *not* impossible -- it would be rather boringly ordinary, though Rossi is not ordinary -- a single or even a series of *differing* tests will probably not be enough to turn the corner, especially now. This picture radically changed with the filing of Rossi v. Darden, which removed the doorstop keeping the general judgment of CMNS scientists open. There are now only a few left who think Rossi may have something.
But it is perfectly acceptable for you to hold out, to stick your foot in the door, if you don't mind a little pressure. Especially, as to what I write, I hope for correction of errors. It can be hard to come by. Where possible, when one is found, I go back and fix it, and if it's been noted, I fix it with strikeout and explicit amendment, that's an old Wikipedia habit, so that discussion does not become meaningless. There are people claiming everything I write is FUD, confusion, word salad, or Wrong, but they don't get specific, or what they claim is just fact, or explicit surmise, and if it isn't, I'll fix it. I will source it if required, and distinguish between sourced fact and personal interpretation.
EDIT: For the record, I know of NO ONE that has been paid by Rossi to spread FUD. His "sock puppets" make it pretty clear to me that he can't find basement dwellers willing to wage a professional PR campaign. Any professional troll would have told him to shut up, stop making himself look so silly, and let them do the work in a way that would actually have an impact. But then again, there is a non-zero chance that there could be a couple trolls officially working for him. I just don't find it likely.
Thanks. What a reasonably sane skeptic may want to see from you is this simple recognition that skepticism is reasonable, and that, at this point, even a view that Rossi is a fraud is "reasonable." Reasonable does not mean "correct." In fact, in my training, they assigned us to do ten unreasonable things a day. It is absolutely amazing what can happen when we step outside of the "reasonable," but there is a difference from being crazy: we know we are stepping outside, people who are attached and/or crazy don't know that. They believe in all their "reasons" instead of seeing them as often-useful heuristics.
This training was fairly recent (2011-2013 or so, as to what was truly intense, it's really still ongoing in many ways) but I was prepared for it in and extensive and wide-ranging personal history. I was a friend of a very well-known scientist (a food chemist, actually), who discovered some numerical patterns in letter counts in the Qur'an. It was amazing stuff. (There really is a pattern!) He went over the edge, deciding that God was directly revealing to him.... but he didn't normally talk about that, and he came up with a whole series of iconoclastic positions. He became popular in some circles, some of what he wrote offended fanatics, and he was assassinated, in Tucson, Arizona. When I found out, I decided to research what he had found, in depth, to honor his memory. (He had been kind and thoughtful, even when I questioned him.)
It was all an extended diversion, an artifact of his search process. But he had developed dozens of "reasons" for what he was doing, and then, if some problem was found, he could explain it away. The human brain is highly skilled at finding reasons. In the training, they say we create them, and it is a piece of what humans are really good at. ("The human being is a meaning-making machine.") Call it pattern identification, but it goes beyond that. We can invent patterns that don't exist (that is, that have no connected underlying cause), and there's the rub, and it rubs two ways: one is obvious, we can mire ourselves in what doesn't exist, but the other is spectacular: this is how we create the future, as possibilities.
Back to here and lenr-forum, I often add the qualification that Rossi may pull out a Wabbit. It's a friendly term, perhaps mildly sarcastic, but ... magicians do pull rabbits out of hats. And someone who is as the "eccentric or even deranged inventor of something real" might do could exactly that. However, most of us won't bet on it, and if we need to place bets, we will bet the other way, and that's all. It's not "right" or "wrong," it is a choice, and you pay your money and you take your choice.
I am to some degree poking Planet Rossi to put their "silent majority" money where their mouth is. One might investigate Hydro Fusion and buy stock, if they are sane. Are they? I have no idea! I don't create strong opinions in the absence of evidence, or I attempt to avoid it. What are the Swedes doing? I don't know! One could create some kind of organization to support investigation of the Rossi Effect and crowd-fund it. One could also chat it up with scientists and polcy-makers, but beware of reputation blow-back! What I'm suggesting would be reasonably safe. Such efforts could be as "gullible" or "carefully skeptical" as the owners or donors choose.
This is what it means to actually stand up for what one believes instead of just complaining about "they won't let us" and "evil conspiracy," which never goes anywhere. It's good for maybe a few weeks, to create one's position, but beyond that, it is what is called in the training a "racket." "A persistent complaint combined with a fixed way of being." These have payoffs. By focus on complaint, we are relieved of all responsibility, it is all their fault. Not ours. We get to look good and make others look bad -- we think.
This has almost nothing to do with "truth." That was probably the most difficult aspect of the training for me to face. "But I'm right!" And I probably was, within the narrow terms of the problems I had created. But I was disempowered, and this came to be my saying: "I'm so right I make myself sick." And then there are tools, well-developed and honed, for moving beyond that.