Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax: Trying to build defense for Rossi

  • To make life easier for all of his many fans, Lomax would be well served to go through all his posts and compose a well organized compendium of all his works, maybe a wiki of the Rossi/IH legal battle, a reference for new fans, a collection of information that may form a structure for an eventual e-book.


    Lomax can take advantage of editorial insights from Jed Rothwell and other IH principles. The structure of this digest could form source material for future historians of the LENR epic. It would be far better than Lomax current practice of endless repetition and injection of personal fluffery and ad hominem attacks that only serves to divert the focus of his fandom.


    Lomax should keep this effort confined with limited access in a well controlled venue, not here were uncalled-for feedback posts detract his best efforts. But a posting section on his own venue might serve to provide valuable feedback from his fandom.


    A site like R. Mills uses to support his agenda might work well for Lomax. All leaders of intellectual cutting edge movements are well served by this type of dedicated back and forth snappy Algonquin repartee with his fans. But important...not here.

  • A few weeks ago the person who created that web page [Abd's blog] wrote here on this forum and said that we should all ignore and forget everything about Rossi, because he is irrelevant.


    I suppose that could be a rational point of view and it could make a lot of sense, there is conflicting information, why not at least wait for more evidence / information to come out?


    But when you enter the page, it says that it is developed by an institute that supports LENR and this "institute" have started that community. Looking at their first post their nr 1 priority was to build an anti-rossi narrative.


    The contact email address of this institute's web page is the personal email address of this person, a person who claims that Rossi is irrelevant and should be ignored, but he is spending many hours every day researching him, spamming the internet writing about him, now on several communities he has developed.


    His obsession with the assassination of Rossi's character is eating this person alive, he has built his whole life around Andrea Rossi and spends every waking minute thinking and writing about him. The Infusion Institute, Inc sounds so posh and professional, does it not? When I think of an institute, I think of a serious prestigious organization, in England for example it is a criminal offense to call something an institute without the legal approval of the Secretary of State.



    :crazy:



    I think everyone should be able to:

    * Consider every possibility
    * Thinking what they want
    * Discussing what they want
    * Believe what they want


    But I am not happy about the narratives being built and what I have seen is that there is a lot of bullying going on here on LENR Forum, even physical threats about bombs and attacks are left unmoderated.


    Based on this I would like to inform esteemed admins and users of this forum that I intend to delete/block my account and leave this forum, if not this person is permanently banned.


    Sure, I realize admins and current members probably have different values, and I understand why you want to be including and not moderate too much, and that is fine, but I think this is not working out for me, so I will block my account during the weekend.

  • Abd yes,
    I found nothing in the public info I saw that would indicate that the research (testing) in Fl was mentioned as the GPT until many months into the "testing". There can be many things called a test that are not an agreed upon GPT. Having a claimed 1MW system is not a marker for the GPT. It could have been any magnitude as long as it had the correct COP levels and a minimum down time (50 days down in 400).


    Actually, the GPT could have been anything that Rossi and IH agreed on; all they would need to do is write it down and sign it. If getting an Ampenergo signature was burdensome, then they could have asked for an Ampenergo release. They could have substituted a 90 day test or anything, and they still could do that, they would merely have to agree on the conditions. They could have agreed on spreading out the $89 million over a period of time, so that IH could use funds raised for commercial roll-out or the like, instead of just going to Rossi immediately. (Or Rossi could have turned around and invested some of it in IH). However, Rossi would have had to ask for an approval, he would have had to accept that he was working in a business world that is not particularly familiar to him. Best, he would have gotten advice from attorneys, not about how to sue them, but about how to benefit from the relationship, which probably looks quite different from what he did! Of course, if it was all a fraud, nothing is going to work. But this is all written from the point of view that it wasn't pure fraud, but maybe something was missing.


    Quote

    It also looks like the thing in FL was not even the right device ( six cylinder item) and could not be the GPT based on that (as well as the approved starting date). It also seems to fail as the GPT since the Rossi and not the ERV made the measurements (as required by the agreement).


    It is conceivable that Rossi could claim estoppel on the issue of "6-cylinder unit," and he could even claim estoppel on the written agreement, if actual approval of a "guaranteed performance test" existed without formal approval. And that is why Rossi is fishing for all IH documents containing the words "guaranteed performance."


    Quote

    I sure would be interested in why Rossi, et al think that it was the approved GPT as covered in the agreement.


    All we have so far is the proposed Penon protocol, which did mention a 350 day test, and where Penon referred to himself as "ERV." That proposal was mentioned in the Complaint as being an "agreement."

  • I think that the source of the 2015 funds is probably Abd's affair. He can say or not, we can each draw our own conclusions. Meanwhile he is obviously trying very hard to curry favour with certain players in the field in the hope of more funding. Nothing personal, it's just business.

  • I think that the source of the 2015 funds is probably Abd's affair. He can say or not, we can each draw our own conclusions. Meanwhile he is obviously trying very hard to curry favour with certain players in the field in the hope of more funding. Nothing personal, it's just business.



    We don't need more pseudoskeptical argument. Using a stethoscope to assess, with experience, the internal state of what is, after all, a boiler, and boiling water makes noise, is not ridiculous at all. This is tne ECW discussion of this presentation: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…entation-marc-ellenbroek/


    Ellenbroek shows no awareness of the Rossi v. Darden documents, nor of the implications that a major backer of Rossi, investing as much as $20 million or so, is claiming total failure to confirm the Rossi claims. Instgead Ellenbroek is stuck in last year's possibilities. Last year, CMNS scientists were, so to speak, holding their breath. Since 2011, Rossi had been claiming "the market is the judge," and avoiding any kind of open scientific process. Because the present Rossi Reality was obscure, some supported him, though not without reservations, most stayed silent. A few, mostly non-scientists, rehearsed Rossi's past, as if that were completely clear. I'd say that anyone who actually studied that past without an obvious prejudice came up with .... not clear at all. The facts could support many alternative narratives, giving it different meanings.


    Science does not reject narratives without clear falsification. It reserves judgment, maybe forever. It is in no rush to decide. Public policy is not science, it is politics and heuristics, a very different realm. Business is similar, but with a more objective standard: profit. Ampenergo invested in Rossi and made a profit, almost certainly. What does that mean? :"Meaning" is something we create. It doesn't exist in reality. But Ampenergo would pay taxes on that profit, or its investors would. It's real. IH is showing a loss. Given certain accounting standards, that is also real. The parent company of IH, IHHI, is also showing a substantial loss, part of the business plan, in fact. All the investors know, and were prepared for this. And what does that mean?


    Meanwhile "scientific LENR" has turned a corner. Major funding has appeared, and not just from IH, and the funding I received last year was from *other than the Rossi/IH axis*, and it is a tiny amount compared to what we know about from others. It was not itself for LENR research, but in gratitude for my function as a writer.


    Alan Smith thinks I'm trying to "curry favor" with certain players in the"hope of more funding". He has misidentified my goal. Yes, I'm working to curry favor, but not with any of those players, but with Reality, which I face, very much, with my age and present health. That effort was, in fact, what led to the larger grant, last year, it was not anything of business benefit. I could, actually, disclose where that money came from, permission was given, but ... it is essentially none of anyone's business. Suppose I had been supported by someone connected with IH? Would that change the cogency of my commentary, would it alter the implications of what I write that is sourced, with evidence?


    But it wasn't from such a source, and it was from a source that the shallow thinkers would imagine was opposed to IH. (In fact, all the major funders are essentially cooperating with each other, as far as I can tell. The only one seriously pushing hostility is ... Andrea Rossi. Ah, and then there is Steve Krivit. You want to look for "paid FUD," look there.)


    The first support I received, I did request of CMNS scientists, to assist me to attend ICCF-18, came from small cash donations from Mike McKubre and Ed Storms, and two others, the total I received was $350, which was half my cost, kept low because of taking the bus there (40-hour bus ride, sleeping in bus stations, that was fun at 69, I hadn't faced conditions like that since I was very young. I didn't think about hypothermia. Next time, if I ever do that again, I take a blanket!) and because of not having to pay for conference fees, other than a small amount to attend the banquet. (and I shared a room with another CMNS scientist, also a supporter of mine in other ways.)


    I have received no support from IH, other than some personal encouragement, some of which is visible here. I expect that I might visit them, my health permitting, possibly sometime next year, as well as hoping to attend ICCF-20 in North Carolina. Maybe they will help with expenses, maybe not. The same with another major project in the U.S., where I've been told that they may "have me come" to consult. Not directly connected with IH. That somewhat implied funding. I've also been told by someone else -- with money -- that if I get my IRS 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable status together, there is "plenty of money." So I have some work to do.


    I've been telling people for some years now that there is plenty of work to do, and offering to guide and train, because what an individual can do is small compared to what a community can do, with created structure. There is very little response, so far, but "a lot" always starts with "a little." Ruby Carat is sometimes left swinging in the wind. We will change that. Not "me." "Us." It's really the same with almost anything truly worth doing.


    And, by the way, a saying from my training: If they aren't shooting at you, it's because you aren't doing anything worth wasting bullets on.


    Ah! "begging for defense." The request was on E-cat world, trolling, but I decided to take the challenge, as an exercise. So I wrote a possible defense, but Peter Gluck thinks it is not a real defense. (http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…16-lenr-as-source-of.html) The defense, if Rossi could assert it without committing perjury, could protect him from criminal prosecution, and provide a basis for negotiating a settlement with IH. But Peter doesn't really care about Rossi, he cares about "LENR+", and he may imagine that a "real defense" would be one that proves "LENR+" is real. But that is not the issue Rossi is actually facing. He is facing a civil fraud claim, which would stand whether or not the "heat is real," which is what gets Peter going. It is entirely possible -- in theory -- that the 1 MW reactor actually produced a megawatt (though I still don't see how that heat could have been dissipated), and Rossi could still be S C R E W E D, because of his business practices. What Peter would want to see might not "defend Rossi," given the evidence already visible to us. Basically, Peter doesn't understand what is happening.

  • Alan Smith thinks I'm trying to "curry favor" with certain players in the"hope of more funding". He has misidentified my goal. Yes, I'm working to curry favor, but not with any of those players, but with Reality, which I face, very much, with my age and present health. That effort was, in fact, what led to the larger grant, last year, it was not anything of business benefit. I could, actually, disclose where that money came from, permission was given, but ... it is essentially none of anyone's business. Suppose I had been supported by someone connected with IH? Would that change the cogency of my commentary, would it alter the implications of what I write that is sourced, with evidence?


    That is pretty much what I sad, so no need to try to make out that I was wrong. Your words 'Yes, I'm working to curry favor' and 'it is essentially none of anyone's business.' I said 'Meanwhile he is obviously trying very hard to curry favour '...I said of the source of funds...'I think that the source of the 2015 funds is probably Abd's affair'.


    You are in fact arguing with yourself for the argument's sake.

  • I think knowing the source of the funding is most relevant. We are told it is none of our business by the person who has made it his business to scrutinize the business of others, and who moderate every other person who voices a different belief ofrthought.


    What I see is everyone’s best virtues being used against them. We want to be including, we want to listen and we would like to discuss. But it is not a positive thing when you do something positive that works in the favor of something negative.


    When plausible deniability reigns, people who demand definite proof without getting it will always be tramping water, which is to say their academic training is used against them.


    One of the greatest forms of manipulation there is, is when you are being prisoned but you can’t see the prison bars, and when you walk around in that state of mind, you are not able to see inconsistencies and double standards just as little as a stupid person has self-awareness of his own stupidity.


    The lawsuit can be interesting and important to discuss, by all means, but if anyone is fully convinced that the reactor did not produce energy, why would that person then focus hour upon hour discussing (in twenty different forums) whether a 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder reactor was used. This is not rational behavior.




    A-S-T-R-O-T-U-R-F-I-N-G


  • Quote

    The lawsuit can be interesting and important to discuss, by all means, but if anyone is fully convinced that the reactor did not produce energy, why would that person then focus hour upon hour discussing (in twenty different forums) whether a 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder reactor was used. This is not rational behavior.


    I agree the Rossi/IH arguments are getting tired now, since mostly what can be said has been said.


    But your meta-arguments here don't wash. People can spend any amount of time arguing. And don't need material reward for doing so. I know its not rational. Welcome to the human world. We are not always rational.


    Why would someone post such pretty coloured pics/fonts about astroturfing, except as part of a PR offensive? :)