Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


  • As you say, this was my conjecture. So of course he did not do it. That's what "conjecture" means.

    ***What is the point of running a conjecture when the thing you're postulating already and conclusively did NOT

    happen? Is it some kind of weird exercise in stupidity?




    However, he also did not offer to give the money back.

    ***Yes he did, and you even acknowledged it upthread. But then you allowed the skeptopath crowd to influence your thinking and decided to start trying Humptydumptyisms.


    Based on what he said and did, I conclude that he wanted the rest of the money and he was not willing to buy back the IP.

    ***Based on what he said and did, and what you ACKNOWLEDGED not only at the time but 18 months later, I conclude that he figured out that the lawsuit was all about intellectual property. And Rossi even posted as much on his blog.


    Are you saying IH should have given it to him for free, writing off the $10 million?

    ***How do you get there from where we're discussing? We're not even talking about what IH should or should not have done. We're talking about how valuable the Penon report is as an inductive touchpoint.




    Nothing would move Rossi into the slam dunk territory.

    ***If he would have given a demo to the jury, that would have done it. But he probably could not do it, for one reason or another.




    But you are missing the point. I am not evaluating the report in terms of the effect it had on the trial, or on Rossi's behavior.

    ***Well, I **AM**. It's an inductive approach to determine the value of what's in the Penon report and its counter report. You seem to think that your hyperinflated opinion is the only perspective reasonable people would arrive at. Keep in mind that we're talking about a court case so we're using the legal standard of "reasonable people" -- the same legal system that has the standard that jurors can acquit OJ Simpson on murder charges 'cause the glove don't fit but the DNA evidence is just a bunch of , well, I dunno what it's supposed to be a bunch of....



    I am saying that technical content of the report is garbage.

    ***So what? That's just an opinion.


    It is full of lies and impossible nonsense.

    ***Penon showed up to back up his report in court. When that happened, IH:settled the lawsuit.


    That is my conclusion based on my knowledge of calorimetry.

    ***And again, it is your opinion.


    It has nothing to do with what I.H. said or Rossi said or did.

    ***The result of that supposed slamdunk report is exactly what generates the inductive information I like to look at. The Penon report was no slamdunk, either positively or negatively.


    If Rossi had somehow won the $89 million on the strength of that report, the report would still be garbage.

    ***You obviously don't know what inductive reasoning is all about.




    There are not two sides to calorimetry or the laws of physics.

    ***Tell that to the hot fusion boys who browbeat the cold fusionists with calorimetry nonsense and laws of physics.


    You seem to mean IH's side. What they thought does not count. It has no effect on how flowmeters work.

    ***Industrial Heat should have been reasonably good at measuring... well,... industrial heat.They paid $10M for a demo of heat that at this point seems very questionable but they seemed okay with some dude beforehand named Penon who would write an unbiased 3rd party assessment report of the technology. They only had a problem with his report when Rossi salted his reactor and rigged it Fred Flintstone style to work only when he was there.

  • You are mistaken. He never offered the money back. He claimed he did, but he did not.

    I am not mistaken. You acknowledged the offer. Twice. Once contemporary to the discussion, second time 18 months later. You changed your tune when you were surrounded on the thread by skeptopath misanthRossist seagulls who tried to use a Humpty Dumpty redefinition of the word 'offer'.


    Since you already changed your tune in a disingenuous fashion, I merely await your change back into an intellectually genuine tune.


  • clarifier


    While I understand this POV - I think it does Rossi a little bit too much, or too little, credit.


    (1) His fraud, supposing his deceptions of business partners (undeniable) could be adjudged fraudulent (something Woodworker would be better at estimating than me, so I'll not comment), is large but as frauds go not massive. Madoff's $65bn comes to mind as clearly massive. A recent case in the UK would be London, Capital & Finance - who have not been adjudged fraudulent (though that might happen) but clearly sold bonds in a way that should never have happened and as a result investors have lost up to £236M. https://www.ft.com/content/f8a…f5-11e9-8b7f-d49067e0f50d


    (2) I don't believe that what he does necessarily serves just one purpose. Suppose that everything he does is in the service of this (hypothetical, but certainly on basis of known lies plausible) fraud. Even then Rossi may well have a dual motive, and also do this stuff not from pure hope of future financial gain but because he loves being feted as a great scientist, a hard-working saviour of the world, and derives great satisfaction from the esteem of his many web followers. The desire for esteem is a very powerful human motivator, and it is present in those who habitually lie just as much as in those who are honest. It is also quite possible (something those arguing for Rossi do not consider) that a significant part of his actions now are based on his craving for esteem. You can easily argue that what he does now to cultivate esteem will help him in the future, one way or another, to buy more condos based on money that investor who will never wee any return give him. So it is pretty difficult to separate the two motivations.


    (3) Thinking in these black and white terms does make it significantly more difficult to fit all Rossi's actions, and is I think the logical error that those convinced or half-convinced Rossi is for real make. They (in many cases) do not acknowledge the possibility that Rossi has a complex set of human motivations, and can be both a liar and deceiver of his business partners and somone who truly believes he has real technology that could save the world.


    I've argued here, on good evidence of all his public technical; statements and tests, that he has shown himself to apparently believe a large number of incorrect technical facts that would lead to false positives. That he believes he has something that works is typical for any misguided inventor of vapourware. That he lies in such an obvious way, yet keeps adherents, is the true Rossi effects and somewhat unusual. I think we can be clear from external evidence that often he knows he is lying. Do we therefore assume he has not deluded himself about his stuff working? I don't see how we can know that, as has been discussed here before.


    EDIT: I'll give you one thing. The attempt to extract $100M from IH on the basis of lies and subterfuge (the fictitious customer and documented attempts to hide this fiction from visitors) amounts to a lot of condos and from facts now released in the Court case looks possibly fraudulent. But, attempted fraud is not the same as fraud.


    PS - to newcomers. The context here is that from external evidence Rossi and associated shell companies controlled by him and/or his wife has amassed a significant Miami property empire during his development of the e-cat - whereas no satisfied e-cat customer has ever surfaced to validate the devices Rossi claims to have been selling for (5 years + now). However many people have given Rossi money in the hopes of some day having working devices, or even just licenses to sell devices. IH being the best documented and most complex example of this - where they were given purportedly working devices, + instructions on how to make them, only to discover that said devices did not work except in a Rossi-inspired test rig with a clever false positive mechanism that Paradigmnoia here has very nicely replicated experimentally and Thomas Clarke has summarised theoretically.

  • Do we therefore assume he has not deluded himself about his stuff working?


    There is evidence that he himself is convinced. He works very hard, for long hours. I know people who have spent a lot time with him, and that is what they say. It does not seem to be for show. If he were nothing but a scam artist, he could make a fake reactor with much less effort.


    Okay, that isn't proof, but I think it indicates he believes some of his own claims.

  • Someone here mentioned Madoff as an example of fraud. Madoff committed the worst financial fraud in history. But, before he did that, he was a legitimate, highly successful investor and a respected chairman of NASDAQ. A person can be an accomplished expert and also a criminal, sometimes at the same time. People are complicated.

  • Quote

    There is evidence that he himself is convinced. He works very hard, for long hours. I know people who have spent a lot time with him, and that is what they say. It does not seem to be for show. If he were nothing but a scam artist, he could make a fake reactor with much less effort. Okay, that isn't proof, but I think it indicates he believes some of his own claims.

    Nonsense. You have much to learn about scams and scammers. Rossi would have to be completely insane to be so deluded as to believe all the nonsense and obvious flagrant fakery and lying he pushes. There's nothing to suggest that he is crazy in that manner. There is every evidence of deliberate knowing precalculated and premeditated falsification of every significant claim he has made. I mean, really? You believe that Rossi has deluded himself into thinking he has robotic factories, military customers, and a staff of 50+ people? Completely non-credible.


    Anyway, how do you or how would anyone know what hours Rossi works when he is away from his marks, and what it is that he is working on? Oh, I know. You're relying on what Rossi said.


    Quote

    Someone here mentioned Madoff as an example of fraud. Madoff committed the worst financial fraud in history. But, before he did that, he was a legitimate, highly successful investor and a respected chairman of NASDAQ. A person can be an accomplished expert and also a criminal, sometimes at the same time. People are complicated.

    Rossi is not all that complicated. And, in contrast to Madoff, Rossi has never done or accomplished anything worthwhile, useful or successful for which there is adequate evidence to make it credible. His major achievement is cheating and ripping off Darden and that apparently was not all that difficult. Other than that, Rossi is a complete, thorough, all around loser.

  • Nonsense. You have much to learn about scams and scammers. Rossi would have to be completely insane to be so deluded as to believe all the nonsense and obvious flagrant fakery and lying he pushes. There's nothing to suggest that he is crazy in that manner. There is every evidence of deliberate knowing precalculated and premeditated falsification of every significant claim he has made. I mean, really? You believe that Rossi has deluded himself into thinking he has robotic factories, military customers, and a staff of 50+ people? Completely non-credible.


    Anyway, how do you or how would anyone know what hours Rossi works when he is away from his marks, and what it is that he is working on? Oh, I know. You're relying on what Rossi said.


    The weekends at Doral had a very low "human load" on the electrical consumption compared to weekdays. (Note the supply dropping well below the ERV electrical consumption also, for three weeks). The "human load" is heaters, A/C, lights, fans, computers, etc. that would otherwise generally be turned off or have greatly reduced usage when no one is in a building.

    .

  • Anyway, how do you or how would anyone know what hours Rossi works when he is away from his marks, and what it is that he is working on? Oh, I know. You're relying on what Rossi said.


    I know this because I spoke with people who worked with him for a long time. Months, or years in some cases. They were there in his workshop day in and day out, and they saw that he was working hard. There is no question about it. You should know me better than to assume I rely on what Rossi said.


    This is not typical behavior for a scammer. It more resembles someone like Madoff, who was both an genuine skilled investor and a fraud. As I recall, he started off legitimate and gradually turned to fraud. It did not happen overnight.



    Rossi has never done or accomplished anything worthwhile, useful or successful for which there is adequate evidence to make it credible.


    I believe he developed Diesel engines that run on organic oil, and he sold that technology to a legitimate company for a great deal of money. I do not know the details, but I have not heard that it turned out to be a scam.


    I know two living scientists who think his early experiments may have merit. Also, Focardi thought so. These people may be wrong, but they are not fools. As I have said several times, the second Levi study seems legit to me, but by now it is overshadowed by the third Levi study and subsequent events, so I no longer put much stock in it. However, I cannot dismiss it because I do not know of any significant technical reason why it is wrong. (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf) If you do not know of any technical reason, you cannot dismiss it either. That doesn't mean you have to accept it. You are allowed to say "I don't know" in science. I think maybe you should practice saying that. This may seem paradoxical, but admitting that you do not know actually improves your credibility in a scientific discussion. When you make strong assertions without knowing the facts, you are less credible. For example when you assume I take Rossi for his word. You should have considered the possibility that I have others sources of information.

  • Nonsense. You have much to learn about scams and scammers. Rossi would have to be completely insane to be so deluded as to believe all the nonsense and obvious flagrant fakery and lying he pushes. There's nothing to suggest that he is crazy in that manner. There is every evidence of deliberate knowing precalculated and premeditated falsification of every significant claim he has made. I mean, really? You believe that Rossi has deluded himself into thinking he has robotic factories, military customers, and a staff of 50+ people? Completely non-credible.


    Anyway, how do you or how would anyone know what hours Rossi works when he is away from his marks, and what it is that he is working on? Oh, I know. You're relying on what Rossi said.


    Rossi is not all that complicated. And, in contrast to Madoff, Rossi has never done or accomplished anything worthwhile, useful or successful for which there is adequate evidence to make it credible. His major achievement is cheating and ripping off Darden and that apparently was not all that difficult. Other than that, Rossi is a complete, thorough, all around loser.


    So I realise this is shades of the "Rossi is a flake" argument - the pro-Rossi crowd just don't have any viable arguments. (Have they given up even on ECW?).


    But I'm going to point out why Rossi has been able to influence the people who (some of them) still support him, An all around loser could not do that:


    (1) He is very good at choosing a pitch, and choosing his audience

    (2) He is 1-1 when BSing about general science / philosophy to people who are not specialists - very charismatic and convinving

    (3) He is hard-working, dedicated, passionate

    (4) He is adroit at deflecting questions, answering with generalities are making comments that allow people to read what they want into is statements without giving specifics

    (5) He combines all the above with barefaced lies. That is not what anyone expects, and it means he can often get away with being believed.


    Good judges of business partners will see the red flags, but may still reckon that he could be a brilliant but unreliable inventor.


    Scientists (of a more gullible, sort) will see him as a plausible brilliant inventor (as long as his expertise is not actually tested). He will avoid anyone who challenges that or asks difficult questions.


    THH

  • THH, you left out (6) He has hitched his wagon to a pre-existing, passionate support group for LENR, many of whose members continue to cling to belief in Rossi's "technology" despite the fact that it increasingly bears little or no resemblance to any other LENR systems. If Rossi had started out right away claiming to have a new energy source based on "the Rossi effect" rather than LENR, he would have attracted no more attention than any of the hundreds of other free energy hucksters out there.