Andrea Rossi
November 18, 2017 at 7:59 AM
Frank Acland:
I did not make that release and I have not idea about who generated it.
I stick on my position. Problem is that under a journalistic point of view LENR is ostic to digest, let alone Rossi effect.
Just keep in mind that we did not make press releases and we are not going to do any of the sort before the test is done.
Probably the journalist that wrote this article has taken information from this blog and elaborated it in a journalistic feature.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
-
-
IHFB may even state that Rossi did a little bad, but is was certainly justified and he could see why he did it. You however, do not even do that! To my knowledge, you have never called Rossi to the floor on anything. But occasionally throw out a snippet of support!
To the contrary my friend, when Rossi does bad, I take the position that it is not justified, while acknowledging what might have motivated the behavior. Leave it up to Bob to twist my words. Anything new around here?
-
I don't think that and never said that. Next time give my actual quote. You're another one with Bob's disease.
Something new? Really?
On Monday, oldguy wrote:
"Rossi has bragged about lying and deceiving others." (emphasis added)
You responded:
"What do you think politicians do? See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csvsy8
As I've said before you have no idea of the difficulties Rossi was facing. I'm sure he has had to do some things he was not proud of."
So lying and deceiving others is just fine with you if one faces difficulties so long as one is not proud of it. Quite an ethical standard yet set there.
-
No. As I have said they have been answered already and I have no desire to rehash it all at length with someone as biased as Bob.
I will be interested to see how you will explain away your previous certainty that Rossi has nothing and is a fraud, if the Nov 24th test is successful.
And I will be interested to see how you will explain away your previous certainty that Rossi is not a fraud when the Nov 24th test is not successful. Or do you define successful as the event happening regardless of actual results?
-
Display More
Re IHFB and honesty.
In the past I've had the same view as Eric, that IHFB's posts are dishonest. But, I also agree with Shane, that IHFB here is both honest and smart.
Specifically, IHFB processes all details like a terrier and answers all questions. The most common lack of honesty here shows itself by ignoring part of the argument, IHFB does not do this.
However, I also think that IHFB's posts are so misleading as to seem dishonest to any casual informed observer. I'm not a mind reader but would be inclined to reckon IHFB honest in his belief of the contents of his posts, even though they are so dishonest.
Here is a good example. Woodworker here has given a typical external view of what the Court case evidence shows. I do not believe he is in any way biassed, nor does he have any axe to grind re LENR, or any view as to whether LENR is likely or unlikely other than the commonsense idea that it cannot yet exist in a usable form or it would be big news. His view of matters is based on the legal evidence and independent of the science. That makes him less biassed because a lot of people here (including me) have strong views about the science.
He reckons this evidence shows (I guess he will correct me if I get this summary wrong: it is complex enough that I may do this):
(1) Rossi behaved fraudulently towards IH with a fake Doral customer (or else lied on oath) and test conditions allowing deceptive results (data loss, IH not allowed to inspect customer side, Penon not willing to answer questions from IH engineers).
(2) The legal evidence, because so complex with both sides accusing the other, would likely split the baby on a Jury Trial
(3) The settlement therefore (which split the baby) was expected
(4) Rossi's fraudulent behaviour is expected if he has nothing, and unexpected if his stuff actually works
IHFB views this same evidence and his judgement is different. He says the Doral test was a ruse, and does not waver in his view that Rossi most likely has working product. viewing Rossi's behaviour towards IH as shown by the Court evidence as a ruse in this way is necessary if you look at all the evidence (as IHFB does) and have to fit it into a "Rossi's stuff works, or at least could very likley work" scenario. But given the centrality and weight of Rossi's deception it is not a natural interpretation, and IMHO only possible if you start with and assumption that for some other reason Rossi's stuff probably works.
IHFB's dishonesty, and honestly, come from this perspective where he processes all this information with a very strong prior bias towards Rossi's stuff working.
regards, THH
couple of small comments:
"Here is a good example. Woodworker here has given a typical external view of what the Court case evidence shows. I do not believe he is in any way biassed, nor does he have any axe to grind re LENR, or any view as to whether LENR is likely or unlikely other than the commonsense idea that it cannot yet exist in a usable form or it would be big news. His view of matters is based on the legal evidence and independent of the science." I consider it possible that someone (definitely not Rossi) is working on, may have working model, but has not yet released.
He reckons this evidence shows (I guess he will correct me if I get this summary wrong: it is complex enough that I may do this):
. . .
(2) The legal evidence, because so complex with both sides accusing the other, would likely split the baby on a Jury Trial. I don't think it was that complex, what I believe is that Jones Day suggested to IH that (1) the trial itself would cost over another million dollars, (2) due to Florida bankruptcy laws and prudent planning, Rossi would be essentially judgment proof, and (3) there was a risk that a jury would get confused and split the baby. Given that, mutual walk-aways was a financial sound decision for IH.
(3) The settlement therefore (which split the baby) was expected
-
Worth remembering that Rossi has had his pick of customers.
The one before IH (Hydrofusion) was also a disaster.
- Mats and Hydrofusion say Rossi came to them with a device for a test that did not work. If it had worked they would have invested.
- Rossi told Mats and Hydrofusion that the device did work, they were measuring it wrong, Rossi's measurements, which showed it working, were correct.
- Rossi told IH that the test was failed on purpose, he deceived Hydrofusion to get out of any commitment to them
THHN: it is so sad that you don't seem to understand that ethical people, so long as they are not proud of it, are entitled to deceive their business partners.
-
The situation that I wonder about is the future behavior of the naysayer crew after the LENR power source goes commercial. Will they undercut and gunboat the LENR technology even if it has been proven. This behavior will mark a connection to competing interests that seek to retain their market share. Specifically, one group that will fight LENR the hardest is the nuclear power sector. Some crew around here are connected to this group.
Which LENR power source? Not Rossi's. If LENR becomes real I will truly rejoice. Rossi's crap - I will invest in popcorn futures.
-
THH, I think attempting to incorporate this statement (and the long thread that preceded it) into the framework of your analysis would stretch your conclusion to the breaking point:
I just point out the obvious. The photo is there for everyone to see. Even an eight year old child could (literally as quizzed) instantly recognized that window panes were missing.
(I've already personalized this enough as it is and don't want to belabor the matter.)
-
Amazing thing about those 2 small window panes supposedly venting 1MW thermal, is that IHFB believes the fans were nestled up next to them like an integrated, airtight system. That the 1MW then was *all* exhausted out that way. But the way Rossisays it was engineered in his deposition, was that the serpentine radiator was well away from the windows, and that there was one fan blowing over it, and the other blowing towards the window.
No way in that case, that all the 1MW would then find it's way out those little open panes about 10 feet away. The rest would recirculate around that already stifling mezzazine, and eventually cook everyone below in the office. Laughable really. And academic as we all know, as there never was an upstairs heat exchanger, and even had there been one, and there was not, THH proved the physics did not work.
Eric, I feel your frustration, but I stand by my comment that IHFB is an honest person. THH probably explained how, and why IHFB is so, better than me. Point is, we have to accept there are just some things about the human psyche we have to accept on faith.
-
Which LENR power source? Not Rossi's. If LENR becomes real I will truly rejoice. Rossi's crap - I will invest in popcorn futures.
There are other future LENR providers mostly empowered by Rossi's work and the info that Rossi has let slip out and hus example. The other LENR providers will need to go to the school of hard knock that Rossi has navigated, but the fire has been lit in many willing hearts.
-
Quote
(2) due to Florida bankruptcy laws and prudent planning, Rossi would be essentially judgment proof...
I think I understand that but I am not sure. Last anyone looked, Rossi owned a number (6? 8?) Florida condos around the Miami area. Are you suggesting those had to be sold or heavily mortgaged to pay legal fees? Or are you thinking Rossi anticipated a countersuit and placed his property in the name of trusts and family members? Would that really work? What did I miss here?
One thought I had was the question of why Rossi is continuing his scam with the current scheduled demo. Why not hold on to what he has left and quit while he is somewhat ahead, if he is? Maybe he did spend himself silly with the lawsuit and he thinks he can make one more big score like IH before he goes riding into the sunset. Your thoughts on that, WW?
-
Axil's posts today are filled with definitive declarative statements (as opposed to expressions of opinion) about Rossi's technology, his activities, and those of so-called competitors. I am not making any judgements here, but there are only three possible explanations for these posts:
1) Axil has direct connections to Rossi and others in the LENR world that nobody else here has and that provide him with information nobody else has.
2) Axil is telepathic or clairvoyant and can simply know these things without being told them
3) Axil makes all this stuff up
Logically speaking, one of these three statements is correct. It is up to each of us to decide for himself which it is.
-
It has been a while, but I am fairly certain that Prioa publicly stated they lost significant money in the Rossi deal.
He was very pissed about it because (perhaps) he lost something he really wanted. Interestingly enough one other licensee has refused to part with his license (personal account from him), another sold back because he had what you might describe as a 'very serious health call'. I am just relaying things that did not originate from Rossi but from people directly concerned, other investors. Failing to listen to whatever goes on is not my strong suit. There was a post or two from AFAICR anonymous 'other UK investors' who claim that they were not returned investment money, but I have never heard any further or indeed in any way verifiable information on that.
The majority of intelligent people here are very skeptical of Rossi.
I am also skeptical about almost everything, because almost everything is impossible. BTW, A man of your intelligence be very careful not to suggest that intelligence is the prerogative of the largest crowd in any particular place. That is the kind of thinking that gets dictators elected. I also like providing a little 'anti-spin' now and then, I do love a maverick. Otherwise we might all end up like MY, believing that Krivit speaks fluent Italian, based on no evidence beyond wishful thinking.
Your Rossi support is quite puzzling from someone who seems to have a grasp on good experiment techniques, proper measurement techniques and over all logic. But the, who knows?
I am so glad it is you marking my homework, your comments do me honour.
-
Display More
Axil's posts today are filled with definitive declarative statements (as opposed to expressions of opinion) about Rossi's technology, his activities, and those of so-called competitors. I am not making any judgements here, but there are only three possible explanations for these posts:
1) Axil has direct connections to Rossi and others in the LENR world that nobody else here has and that provide him with information nobody else has.
2) Axil is telepathic or clairvoyant and can simply know these things without being told them
3) Axil makes all this stuff up
Logically speaking, one of these three statements is correct. It is up to each of us to decide for himself which it is.
These statements are only true in your mind because you want them to be true. Its called wishful thinking.
You know little about Rossi and what he is doing because you don't what to know. Because you are convinced that Rossi has developed nothing or even more likely, it is in your economic interests to convince everyone who will listen that he has nothing, you will never put in the work to understand what he is doing.
I understand this condition because I will never put in the work to understand R. Mills theory of everything.
-
Woodworker,
From your multitudenus posts on this page, it is clear that:
1. You can't find a post of mine to justify your blatant misquotation. Something you still have not retracted.
2. You searched for other quotations of mine and attempted to spin the meaning that was clear enough for all but rabid skeptics. I think you understand well enough but try to spin them deliberately.
3. You made other factual errors such as saying there is no difference between "I think it likely" and "certainty." (you accused me of being certain.) I am not interested in spending the time to correct what you wrote but don't think I haven't noticed.
-
AA, in my mind, one of the three statements I listed must be true. It is not wishful thinking. If none of them is correct, then what alternative have I left out?
And I assure you that there is not even a remote and far-fetched sense in which it is in my economic interest that Rossi has nothing. I have no clue what weird idea you have who I am. If e-cats actually work, I am sure we would all be better off at least some day. That doesn’t make it any more possible that they do. And you accuse me of wishful thinking?
-
in my mind, one of the three statements I listed must be true.
This is a condition that results from a very narrow mind.
-
Display More
Axil's posts today are filled with definitive declarative statements (as opposed to expressions of opinion) about Rossi's technology, his activities, and those of so-called competitors. I am not making any judgements here, but there are only three possible explanations for these posts:
1) Axil has direct connections to Rossi and others in the LENR world that nobody else here has and that provide him with information nobody else has.
2) Axil is telepathic or clairvoyant and can simply know these things without being told them
3) Axil makes all this stuff up
Logically speaking, one of these three statements is correct. It is up to each of us to decide for himself which it is.
There is a 4th alternative. Axil inhabits an impregnable silo of alternative reality, where copypasta from various fringe scientists becomes absolute truth and must be presented to the sheeple as absolute truth
This is common amongst those who dislike whatever mainstream science might indicate on a given subject.
Creationists are a prime example of this silo-dwelling
-
Few would believe it judging form the writers here. Remember it takes the sale of working commercial reactors to prove it to them.
Hot fusion scientists would swear it was fake.
The E-Cat QX is so small it would cost little to build an automated factory to make them and really stupid to sell it to a third party.
Woodworker,
3. You made other factual errors such as saying there is no difference between "I think it likely" and "certainty." (you accused me of being certain.) I am not interested in spending the time to correct what you wrote but don't think I haven't noticed.
AA, it is quite easy to find quotes from you illustrating certainty. Not only that, but certainty over things that to most people would be very uncertain.
From your recent post above. Checking your history it was only 13 hours ago. I had to go down 3 posts of gratuitous insult (devoid of fact) before I found it.
Regards, THH (no N)
-
Axil, please broaden my narrow mind and tell me an alternative explanation for your assertions. I would appreciate the enlightenment.
