Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Of course I am aware of the criticisms. With brains like his he should have known better. My intervention was only to point out that he is not (or should not be) the unqualified and uncertified chancer that some people imagine him to be. Bright guy, poor job (perhaps). The court will decide in the end.

    Alan, as you know I have criticised this work from Penon, especially because of Penon's previous work signing an unprofessional report that he did not write. If you can think of some alignment of facts that makes these things other than, at best, exceptionally poor work, I'd like to hear it. Good words about Penon's character don't do that. At best, you can argue that Rossi is very manipulative and deceitful, and able to encourage others to do things which are highly unprofessional. Can you find some better reading of Penon's involvement than that? I'm talking here about what we know of his work in this case, not saying anything about his character.

    There is always the possibility that some plot twist will excuse Penon's involvement here - these things happen - but I bet you can't think of one!

    • Official Post

    @THH. You don't really get it, do you.? I am not now, and never was making excuses for Penon. He did what he did -or did not. The court will decide. My sole intent was to point out that he is -or was- very bright and very well educated. Not a simpleton as he has been portrayed from time to time. I have no need to justify his qualifications, they are a fact, as is his report. I have no need, and no wish to argue about any of it. Never met the man, never spoke to him, never emailed him. The same nevers, incidentally, go for my non-existent relationship with Rossi. I leave arguing about data to you and Jed, it is really of little interest while it is unclear. Decoding palimpsests is not my idea of fun.

  • Quote

    How much does one get paid for character assassination? seems the rates are interesting, as some seem to devote their entire waking time to it.

    You have this the wrong way around. I am pointing out the known factual unreliability of specific work. I'm not addressing Penon's character: though given Alan's comments about his intelligence I guess you or he could speculate in that area. Whereas others here, incessantly, call Darden et al liars and worse. On no evidence but speculation. And also, now it seems, incorrectly impugn my character on zero evidence and against all probability.

    Do you see the difference?

  • THH - I know that you don't need to reminded of this but remember that you're arguing with brainwashed and duped numbskulls. Character assassination is only possible as a one way street per the Planet Rossi codec / dictionary. In the real world, there are other key players who need to be seriously concerned about what their character is going to look like should we get to some evidence and testimony.

    Regarding pipe size - what does it matter if the system had possibility of phase change? He made a $1.5M warm water circulator. Planet Rossi doesn't get to invent facts after the fact either - busted in so many ways.

  • @DNI

    Exhibit 5 has been the primary attack tool against Rossi. It has been amplified by Jed. If what is stated (not asked) in Exhibit 5 is false, that should be cause for concern. There are questions and there are statements. This is IH's exhibit submitted during the court proceedings. Dewey has been given plenty of opportunities to clarify aspects of it, and has either chosen to remain silent, or has dodged in other ways. If we are now supposed to sort of ignore Exhibit 5 and not give it much weight, based on Dewey's recent minimization of the issues (now apparently "moot"), then why was it heralded from the roof tops for so long? Let's not kid ourselves: this was a coordinated and possibly unfair attack on Rossi. Hopefully we will soon know the extent to which Exhibit 5 misled. And if it turns out that Rossi used DN40 piping, IH will be vindicated. And if it doesn't, the issue is not "moot."

    IHFB "based on Dewey's recent minimization of the issues (now apparently "moot"

    You tend to jump to conclusions without admitting alternatives. We do not know what expired at Doral. For example, if the judge went into the shipping container and decided that the device was not the GPT (example not the required six cylinder device she asked about earlier was required by the agreement) then the items attached to whatever was sitting in there would be moot. I can think of many reason why the physical components of the device would become "moot".

    Remember the ultimate question is not if the device produced excess power, but that the agreement was fulfilled.

    • Official Post

    'Summer comes Laundry' as they say.

    Let us hope the judge will make the laundry.

    Those who were right will stay polite and forgive the past words.

    Those who were wrong will at least take it in silence, appreciating the politeness of the right side.

    We will be able to work on real problems, like metallurgy , nature, energy and anisotropy of radiations, structure of the NAE and associated defects, trying to get partnership with competent labs having best available tools.

    Some experiments may be already working, carefully reviewed under closed science protocol, waiting to be published when checked.

    Some funding may be ready, waiting for the hanging.

    Summer comes Laundry

  • How is saying that "Regarding pipe size - what does it matter if the system had possibility of phase change?" retreating from a position about the DN40 pipe sizing? I say many things during the course of the day, some of which are inaccurate. When someone calls into question something I've said and I also begin to doubt it, I am not "retreating". I am acknowledging that I might have been wrong or that there are some unknowns.

    There are people here who have insisted that the pipe sizing was DN40. They would be retreating to admit that it might have been something different should further information come to light. But I do not recall Dewey being one of them.

  • @Shane

    I'm interested in patterns. And we have seen IH's surrogates shift like sand over the course of the past year or so.

    Flow meter used in 1-MW test

    Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Defendants Amended Counterclaims against Plaintiffs and Memorandum of Law

    Rossi v. IH Case: Protective Order Issued, Judge Strikes, Upholds Affirmative Defenses

    Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

    Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

    The retreat from the DN40 pipe claim is just the latest.

    You are all so enamored with IH that you can't see the forest from the trees. They are pulling one over on you. Rossi is no saint either. The apparent JMP ruse is going to present the biggest challenge for him before the jury. But if the e-Cat works, none of it matters.

  • You keep on trying to tie all of the discussion here back to IH, calling people here its "surrogates" and so on. This is presumably to counterbalance the obvious lies and misinformation that Rossi has been handing out for years. But I'll just point out once more that IH have been admirably quiet all of this time and have only communicated with the court in the context of a lawsuit that was filed against them. There is no "pulling one over" if they haven't said anything to us beyond those vague PR statements, which they haven't.

    It is quite easy to judge them on their behavior within the LENR field, however. They have funded several researchers at a time when there is almost no money available for research. My assessment of that: IH are doing a great job. This is the forest you would have us see that you think is obscured by trees.

  • Eric

    Dewey works for IH. We know that now based on court filings. If Jed isn't an IH surrogate, he certainly acts like one.

    They have funded co-opted several researchers at a time when there is almost no money in the field. FTFY. Do you think they are friends of the MFMP? If so, think again.

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

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.