Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    • Official Post

    Bruce,


    So far, we have only one side of the story. SOT brought this up at the behest of a third party months ago. I assume during the interim, the professor has responded to the official complaint. Maybe SOT's source could provide that? IMO, once all parties are fairly represented, and accounted for, then I have no problem naming names, and pointing fingers.


    Your judgement is valued nevertheless, and if you disagree, I am more than happy to reconsider.

    I cannot speak to the claims against Bass made to licensing agents as I am completely unfamiliar with licensure for engineers in Florida. However, complaints made about the lawyers to the trial judge, at least as described above, will go nowhere. Firstly, no evidence was ever admitted and presented to the jury -- the parties settled before that. The lawyers' opening statements are not evidence. Secondly, judges receive these types of complaints all the time and, unless the complaint contains incredible allegations of corruptions, supported by real evidence, the complaint gets ignored. Here, the complaint apparently alleges that the lawyers' opening statements might have been misleading -- as noted above, opening statements are not evidence -- so the complaint gets round filed. A possible exception might be if there were credible allegations that a party's lawyers conspired to make witnesses unavailable, destroyed or hid evidence, etc. -- but IH's lawyers never made any such claims to the trial judge. And the parties settled -- judges hate wasting time on cases that the parties have already settled -- the court is not going to take any action, other than possibly sending a form letter saying "tell the state bar," which is really the correct agency for lawyer complaints. And I suspect the bar here would also blow them off.


    The courts generally don't have the time, the money or the desire to get involved in small potatoes disputes like this unless forced to.


    Oh, I almost forgot. How do we know that the Rossi lawyers knew that the claims were fraudulent on their face? I am sure that Rossi had a good story to explain everything away and painting IH and its representatives as evil, manipulative IP thieves, i.e., one plausible if you were only looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to your client (and his checks all cleared and he was current on his bills). Apparently, Rossi is a very charming guy, as well as, IMO, a conniving con man, and although I am confident that IH would have won had the case gone to a jury, I can easily see a jury giving IH the win on the primary case and Rossi the win on the cross-complaint (which I have said from the very beginning), which is essentially the result from the settlement.


    I do believe however that the case has significantly damaged Rossi's ability, to the extent that it otherwise existed, to obtain legitimate investors/major partners. I base this on, among other things, that there is no INDEPENDENT evidence that anyone wants to invest/partner with him (sorry (not really) AA, but RossiSays is not evidence -- take what RossiSays to any Starbucks and I am pretty confident that they will still ask for real money). RossiSays that he has a REAL client, but won't name it, RossiSays that the factory is being built, but won't say where it is or give any details about it, RossiSays his widget has gotten all necessary certifications (excepting those RossiSays the imaginary client is going to get), but Rossi won't show those certifications to anyone (question for the engineering community here -- are such certifications generally made publicly available nowadays online), RossiSays that he has real live people working with and for him, but nobody has publicly admitted to working with or for Rossi and, to the best of my knowledge, no one here has claimed to have actually met with any such persons and confirmed such a status, and OH, l almost forgot, no one has actually seen the insides of the widget, no one actually knows what is inside the widget (and AA, saying that RossiKnows doesn't count as evidence), no one actually knows how the widget is supposed to work (even his acolytes here disagree and post competing theories), no one independent has actually tested the widget (and given that the current widget is supposedly completely different than his widgets from the pre-Doral days, claiming that maybe possibly a really early widget might have worked doesn't cut it), Rossi won't even describe the non-super double secret components of the widget, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ROSSI HAS ANYTHING AT ALL.


    Now I know that someone will say, then why does Rossi have investors/partners/customers/employees/factory if the widget doesn't work? How do we know that Rossi has any of those things -- because RossiSays / RossiKnows.


    And yes AA, I know you will deride and disclaim all of this as just more uninformed and silly babbling from a babbler and you will insist that none of we babblers will acclaim and applaud Rossi (and you) when Rossi proves in January that we babblers are wrong. I look forward to January so that we can hear Rossi's (and yours) latest excuse for why the widget is not yet ready for prime time. I suspect his excuse will be one, or a combination, of (a) the consumer backed out or was unable to obtain the necessary certifications (obviously because of the machinations of the RossiHaters, the bureaucracy, the fossil fuel industry, the renewable energy industry, the nuclear industry, the financial industry, the lawyers, the insurance companies, the regulators and possibly the flat earthers (all of the above and the rest of the world being, the "Usual Suspects"), (b) the widget was sabotaged by one of the Usual Suspects and (c) the customer insisted on the delay because the customer now wants the new, improved and vastly superior "New Widget" which Rossi developed while feverishly working to bring the current widget to perfection.

    All this talk about Bass and Rossi not being licensed engineers kind of gives me the creeps. I have been practicing engineering with no license for 34 years, only an engineering degree from a top engineering school. I agree with Director on this, the license issue seems like too much government/union control. The independent certifications should insure it is safe, and osha should verify worker safety. Progress should not be hampered by these dudes not going through the bureaucratic paperwork, until they have sonething working which may be never.

    Shane D.


    The only reason I can see for not posting details on this affair as they crop up is the possibility of legal issues arising for this forum. I really don't see that as probable.


    Meanwhile, maybe this guy would like to see the details come out. Maybe a subsequent reaction from the lenr community would turn the tide. for him How do you know otherwise?

    • Official Post

    There is another problem. There are many would-be 'friends of LENR' in the mainstream science community who keep their heads down and their mouths shut rather than attract official and peer-group scorn and career damage by expressing any interest in 'voodoo science'. How anybody could imagine that such fellow-travellers could welcome the kind of internet mauling they are likely to get for coming out in favour of more research or even -god forbid- talking to their snowflake students about it escapes me. They usually end up thinking 'with friends like these, I don't even need enemies'.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    than attract official and peer-group scorn and career damage by expressing any interest in 'voodoo science'.


    It is probably reasonable that there are some instances of "career damage". However, I think this tremendously over blown.

    Does Dr. McKubre think his career greatly damaged because of his links to LENR?

    Does Dr. Duncan think his career greatly damaged because he headed up LENR research projects at Missouri U. and now in Texas?

    Does Dr. Miles (?) at the U. of Illinois think his career greatly damaged? His university gives out financial student assistance to LENR students is my understanding.

    Does Nobel winner Josepheson think his career damaged?

    Does B. HIggins, Cravensn, Letts and yes, even you, think your careers were truly damaged?


    People at the Navy, Nasa and other institutions have worked on funded LENR. Was their careers damaged?


    I understand that there are some who will speak critically loud about LENR. Such as M.Y. in some cases. But then is M.Y. going to damage careers?

    Yes, there will be some Profs at some Universities speak loudly against LENR or such. But then there are Profs who will speak loudly against anyone who

    disagrees with any of their stances! Or if you are from India, or if you are from a non-Ivy league school, or if your name starts with "B". :/


    I think this issue about career damage may be a bit magnified. Perhaps early in the Cold Fusion era, but I do not know so much now.

    I certainly could be wrong, but it appears that the "damage mongers" were from the distant past more so than today. I have close contacts at Univ. of Missouri and Dr. Duncan was held in very high esteem there. He easily changed jobs to another University when his spouse took another position. I see no scars from his work on LENR and he was very vocal about it. (Professionally so)


    Now Mats Lewan may be taking a beating... but it is not because of LENR, it is because of his factless support for Rossi! I too will criticize anyone for supporting Rossi on what is publicly known. Support for him will need to be backed by distinct evidence. Does anyone have any? hint.. hint... ;)

    Thoughts?

    • Official Post

    @ Bob. You have never worked in a University environment as I have. For bitchfests they make factories (which I also managed for many years) look like kindergartens, there are too many people with time on their hands - and as you know the devil makes work for idle hands. As for the people you mention, their careers have in some cases been damaged or redirected into less favourable directions by their interest in LENR - I know they have because I have talked to quite a few of them. However, they are not really representative of the mainstream, they are the survivors- the ones who have by using their often very generous ration of wits, charm, brains and skill have swum uphill over the waterfall and lived to tell public tales.

    • Official Post

    Bruce,


    2 months ago, SOT first brought this up. I involved myself in the matter, read his reference and responded with this:


    "SOT,
    The author, did not display Rossi's early energy catalyzer "prominently". It was one of the last of the experiments he reviewed, and seems to write it off as a HO fuel cell. If anything, he downplays it. Maybe because of the peer pressure from UI alumni, as you claim...I would not know.
    Besides that, it was a good read. It is a new paper (dated 8/1/2018), but reads mostly like the majority was written years ago. Ragheb has been on the LENR for a long time, so that would not be surprising. He writes mostly about the older experiments/theories, of Patterson/SPAWAR/BEC/Widom. He does include Safire however, which happened last year, so maybe this triggered an update."


    So basically it was a hyped story by whoever it was/is feeding it to SOT. Having more to do IMO with a vendetta against Rossi, than anything of substance. Understandable going after Rossi perhaps, in light of his actions at Doral, Stockholm, and abuse of JONP (sockpuppets), but that is no reason to drag this poor fellow into it.

    Seven of Twunty, haven’t you got anything better to do than reporting some professor to their superiors over some minor indiscretion? Saaad. You should get out more. Why not take up fishing? Or crown green bowls?


    It reminds me off all those times you violated HIPAA by gossiping about Josef Papp’s private healthcare infomation, and how a fellow doctor told you all about his personal struggles. I should have reported you there and then, if I’d known about how much you care about such things. It’s a basic rule of doctoring, right?


    Shame you deleted the most incriminating message, but, well, things never die on the internet - I’m sure a government agency can get hold of a few server logs if necessary. Fortunately Lomax still has the link. Doubt there’s a time limit on that $1000 fine.


    And it’s been a while since I read through HIPAA, but I’m fairly sure that instead of deleting the offending post, you should have reported yourself to the relevant authorities... Doubt they would look kindly on your attempts at a cover-up. Guilty mind and all that.


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/physician-heal-thyself/

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Depends what you mean by "skeptics." The data should be defensible against legitimate concerns and or potential errors. Casual internet critics don't matter much. It's the peers, the press and yes, mainline scientists, professors, investors and large organizations that do matter.

    I agree. But I would add a caveat that the mainline scientists, professors and others must read the literature carefully with an open mind, and they must write a critique and be prepared to defend it. All too often in science a skeptical view or a negative view has been given a free pass. As if it were the default which anyone is allowed to hold without much thought. All views must be held to the same rigorous standard.


    Mindless negativism pervades other fields as well, not just academic science. You see them in business, Hollywood movie making, and politics. Not so much in programming and other high tech fields, because such things would not even exist if closed-minded people dominated.


    Also, this is not a vote. If one mainstream scientist publishes a compelling reason to accept a claim -- or to reject it -- a dozen other poorly written half-baked analyses from other professors don't count.

    Heh, so much BS, so little time. The professor in question listed Rossi as someone who demonstrated high energy production from LENR. He said that in a U of Illinois course syllabus. You don't teach frauds as valid science to students. Not at U of I (UIUC) anyway. Not for very long if someone notices.


    Quote

    There's nothing like a witch-hunt to mark the end of summer.


    Yeah. Especially if, as in this case, we are dealing with real witches. Rossi, Bass and Johnson are liars and need to be treated as such. What they did against IH and against the legitimate LENR research community is unconscionable and they need to be made to account for it as much as possible so that others will think twice before repeating their actions. I can't understand how anyone genuinely interested in proving that LENR is real would think differently. Folks: frauds and crooks and liars don't help you achieve anything except scorn and disrespect.


    woodworker: thanks for the explanation and I agree about the attorneys being reported to the judges. I told the persons issuing the complaints, that judges would never sanction the attorneys. They don't have the time, they don't give a sh*t, and they absolutely do not want to discourage law suits. Those are their bread and butter, after all.


    Just out curiosity though, while there was no trial testimony, there were sworn depositions. Lying in those doesn't count for anything? If so, why do them?

    Quote from Bob

    Does Dr. McKubre think his career greatly damaged because of his links to LENR?

    Does Dr. Duncan think his career greatly damaged because he headed up LENR research projects at Missouri U. and now in Texas?

    Does Dr. Miles (?) at the U. of Illinois think his career greatly damaged? His university gives out financial student assistance to LENR students is my understanding.

    Does Nobel winner Josepheson think his career damaged?

    Does B. HIggins, Cravensn, Letts and yes, even you, think your careers were truly damaged?

    Yes, they do. I have not heard from Duncan, but the others on your list told me their careers were damaged or destroyed by their interest in cold fusion. Others were summarily fired for publishing positive results. I don't know about Josephson but Nobel laureate Schwinger resigned from the APS to protest they way they treated him, and he wrote:


    "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of
    submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of
    impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf

    Quote from Bob

    People at the Navy, Nasa and other institutions have worked on funded LENR. Was their careers damaged?

    Yes. Every researcher in the Navy told me they were harassed and denied funding because of their interest in cold fusion, even when they were working on other things. When Miles published a positive paper, the managers at China Lake came down on him like a ton of bricks. He was thrown out of the lab and reassigned to a menial job as a stockroom clerk. Note that he was one of the world's top electrochemists at that time, with a long list of discoveries and papers, and he was a Distinguished Fellow of the laboratory, meaning he was allowed to research any topic he wanted. (Being a "Fellow" is like having a tenure at a university.) You can read about it here, starting on p. 152:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf


    There is a lot more about this elsewhere. I may not have uploaded all the details. There are many similar accounts from other researchers.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    You don't teach frauds as valid science to students. Not at U of I (UIUC) anyway. Not for very long if someone notices.

    Oh yes you can. You can teach it for 30 years. Quite a number of professors have been teaching that cold fusion is fraud and lunacy for 30 years, at universities and in the newspapers. Lessons don't get more fraudulent than that. They are saying the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed.


    They must be allowed to do that. That's academic freedom. Without it, science and free enquiry would not exist. Professors must have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how stupid or invalid it may be. Or how stupid it seems to be. It may not actually be stupid -- you never know. That's the whole point.


    If you start to police ideas, cold fusion and other controversial idea will be first to be thrown out. It has been largely thrown out already because of academic politics and the inherent hostility to any new idea.


    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Yeah. Especially is, as in this case, we are dealing with real witches. Rossi, Bass and Johnson are liars and need to be treated as such. What they did against IH and against the legitimate LENR research community is unconscionable and they need to be made to account for it as much as possible so that others will think twice before repeating their actions.

    I agree with that, but it does not apply to a misguided professor who thinks Rossi may have something. Professors must be allowed to be misguided. For that matter, I still wonder is Rossi might have something, based on the first Levi paper. Given subsequent events, I suppose it is wrong, but I have not seen a definitive reason to dismiss it. Of course it has some problems. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

    ". . . and they absolutely do not want to discourage law suits. Those are their bread and butter, after all.


    Just out curiosity though, while there was no trial testimony, there were sworn depositions. Lying in those doesn't count for anything? If so, why do them?"


    Firstly, judges do just about everything they can legally do to DISCOURAGE litigation. They get get paid by the suit (despite the claims of many) and just about every court has too many suits and not enough resources. That is why they try to push mediation, arbitration and settlements. As to the depositions, they are first and foremost used as a discovery tool and to lock down a witness'/party's testimony. If someone testifies one way in a depo, that testimony can be relied on or attacked at trial based on other evidence. Testimony at a depo may lead to the discovery of additional evidence. I am sure that you have heard the cliche to never ask a question at trial that you don't already know the answer -- you find out the answer during discovery, e.g., depos.


    Yes, lying in a depo could have repercussions -- but really, who is going to pursue a piddly ass case like this. Prosecutors, and courts, have real criminal cases to do with.

    Quote

    I agree with that, but it does not apply to a misguided professor who thinks Rossi may have something.


    Nobody would object to a course syllabus which included examining Rossi's claim for veracity pro or con. The problem, in this instance, was that it was presented as a fait accompli and a megawatt one at that. The original course description has been edited (that was mainly the professor's response) but I will see if I can find the original if I have time. It's in my email, I think.


    ETA: Apparently this below was in the course documentation provided to students (for all I know, still is):


    Andrea A. Rossi's "E-cat" LENR technology is apparently available on the market. The currently hand-crafted units come in the 1 MWth size, and are solely for industry and agency use. The current status of the domestic line of Ecats is closely guarded while Underwriters Laboratory [sic] (UL) works through their certification process.


    The current course syllabus is here: http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%…%20condensed%20matter.pdf


    Rossi's bullsh*t starts around page 23. Rossi's name has been removed and some other things have been changed but it's not much less offensive inasmuch as it is entirely fantasy. Might as well include flying pigs and unicorns as power sources. It would make as much sense.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.