1) IH thought that Rossi's stuff was not working
So, do you finally agree that IH detected (after some time - too late to my opinion) that the e-cat doesn't work - which means that the e-cat is nothing more than a bad joke? 
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
The following two notions are irreconcilable:
1) IH thought that Rossi's stuff was not working
2) Rossi's technology was a core element of Woodford's initial investment
OK, so this is logical mistake number 3 here, thinking that what IH thought remained static., combined with logical mistake number 2, thinking that high risk investments are known to work, combined with the idea that they'd think LENR device working was like a lightbulb - easy to determine (LM 1).
While Rossi's technology had a greater than 10% chance of working it would be (in terms of value) a core element - though very high risk. Well, LENR is very high risk.
In Jan 2014 they had not gone far down the Rossi's tech does not work path. They would have serious concerns, but no way make up their mind - given those positives from the Profs. Maybe they (or Woodford) would ask for additional independent validation. Oh - wait - that would be the Lugano test - highly positive outcome - completely independent (so it was thought) Oct 2014.
Early on after the license agreement they had:
(1) Knowledge that Rossi was impossible to deal with, and his testing protocols were flaky, and his stuff did not always seem to work for them
(2) High quality (apparently) validation from independent academics
-
Why did Darden introduce Murray into this story?
In fact Darden played with poor Murray and You now will read how Anesser played with Murray. Darden feed Murray with all the FUD he later gave JED. Darden never gave Murray any e-mail/phone number of Rossi/Pennon/Fabiani. Even worse he did hide all factory/test plans from Murray eyes. Murray had to organize a conspiracy meeting with Barry West, just to get some data he eagerly wanted and IH had all the the time!!
Murray learns from Anesser about what IH new... (e.g. the correct position of the flow meter.. Feb. 2015)
p.182/215/3
· · Q.· · So why --
· · · A.· · -- what is this. · · ·
Q.· · Why is it that Industrial Heat didn't show ·that to you before? · · ·
A.· · I have no idea. · · ·
Q.· · They had it -- · · ·
A.· · Yeah. · · ·
Q.· · -- clearly. · · ·
A.· · I mean it may have been one of the documents ·that was provided in the, you know, in the information I ·had, but I did not notice that. · · ·
Q.· · Turning to the second page of this document, ·bates number IH00011097, not only does it identify the ·flow meter down at the bottom, does it not? · · ·
A.· · It does, yeah. · · ·
Q.· · But it also points to the location of the ·flow meter.· Do you see that in the diagram above? · · ·
A.· · Yeah.· That's weird.· I actually have never
noticed that before. · · ·
Q.· · So had, had you wanted to, you could have ·taken a look at that and called Barry West and said, ·hey, look on the pipe, but you didn't? · · ·
A.· · No.· We did not. · · · Q.· · And in fact, if you turn to the next page of ·this document, it lists all the other equipment that was ·being used, correct? · · ·
A.· · Yeah.· And this is really where we started to ·have other issues.· For example, the digital manometer, ·Kelly -- or Keller, Type LEO 1, that's the device that ·only has an operational temperature up to 50 degrees ·Celsius on the steam line.· And furthermore, when you go ·down, this document was dated -- let me see what the ·date is on the front of this.· Oh, it's not dated.· Do ·we, do we know what the date is on this document? · · ·
Q.· · E-mailed 5/28/15. · · ·
A.· · No, no, no.· I'm saying when the, the ·document was actually produced to Industrial Heat ·originally. · · ·
Q.· · 5 ? · · ·
A.· · Oh, there it is.· I'm sorry.· There it is. ·Is it -- right here, 2/10/2015.· Now, if you look down ·here under identification of electrical measurement ·equipment and you look down there on the power analyzer,
·the thing that struck me was that the calibration date ·for the power analyzer is April 20, 2015.· Fully three ·months after this document was supposedly produced. · · ·
Q.· · Actually, sir, I want you to look at ·something.· This is the plant start-up document, ·correct?
A. Yeah. That's what I just asked, was –
-
A.· · Oh, there it is.· I'm sorry.· There it is. ·Is it -- right here, 2/10/2015.· Now, if you look down ·here under identification of electrical measurement ·equipment and you look down there on the power analyzer,
·the thing that struck me was that the calibration date ·for the power analyzer is April 20, 2015.· Fully three ·months after this document was supposedly produced. · ·
That is strange. It is almost like the document was not dated correctly and they tried to back date it.
-
The following two notions are irreconcilable:
1) IH thought that Rossi's stuff was not working
2) Rossi's technology was a core element of Woodford's initial investmentIn order to hope to sort out a coherent account, whatever it is, it is very important to keep the timeline in mind, as there was clearly an evolution in thinking over time, surely for the IH principals, and possibly for Rossi as well. There needs to be someone with the patience and attention to detail of an accountant to piece together source-backed events into a timeline. If that happened, I take it there would be something like this on the IH side:
1. An initial period of optimism, buoyed by the Penon validation test and subsequently the Lugano report, along with a healthy skepticism that Rossi himself would be able or willing to put his technology through its paces.
2. A period of doubt, in which there is a question about whether earlier tests were as solid as they at first appeared. There was not really disbelief in the tests yet, but a big question mark about whether they were sufficient or not. Things were strained at this point with Rossi, and there was a question about whether to continue, which would require humoring him in his eccentricities, or calling an end to the show, which would possibly put a premature end to Darden's question of whether Rossi really had something after all.
3. A period in which it was clear that Rossi was going to try to push a certain storyline about the Doral dog and pony show being the GPT, requiring for legal considerations a careful managing of communications.
Throughout these three periods, spanning roughly from 2012 to 2016, there were the discussions with Woodford and the Chinese, the bringing on of Murray, etc. Without a careful placement in time of each of the relevant events, it is all too easy to mix tentative conclusions from one period together with pessimistic statements made in another period.
-
Fixin' to make a trip to Home Depot and build me an eCat (well I'll call mine the eRat in order to avoid any trademark conflicts). Let's see, need random pipe and pipe-fittings, rolls of aluminum foil-faced insulation (lots of that to hide the pipe and tin-cans) , tape, strip-heaters, water-garden pump, tubing, misc wire, and pixie-dust (pixie dust not available at Home-Depot, but I'll get my kids to make some, as any will do). Should be easy, as I have much better tools and instruments in the garage (and better plumbing skills). Bye, bye Power Company, yehahhh. (Then, I will offer my eRat to IH, for the nominal sum of only $50 million).
-
The following two notions are irreconcilable:
1) IH thought that Rossi's stuff was not working
2) Rossi's technology was a core element of Woodford's initial investment
Our resident stalwart IH defenders have all taken a crack at attempting to explain away this conundrum, but with little effect in my opinion. Pages of ink spilled attempting to resolve this blatant inconsistency.
There are but two ways to resolve it.
1) joshg's suggestion that IH knew the e-Cat didn't work and therefore improperly secured investments in the tens of millions or more.
2) IH knew it worked and properly secured investments in the tens of millions or more, built upon Rossi's technology as a core element of Woodford's initial investment. And IH has now fabricated (or at least exaggerated), after the lawsuit was filed, their story of them knowing that the e-Cat did not work as early as January of 2014.
-
Quote
I don't have time right now to make up a story like I did with Darden but in my opinion Rossi is a paranoid who is also lying to himself.
Not possible. The subsequent ecat and hot cat devices are too elaborate and too different from each other. The scamming method of each has to be calculated and tested separately and differently from the others. This whole mess has to be carefully calculated fraud. For example, why else inject misleading isotopes into the ash? -- Rossi did that from the start with copper. Why else NEVER do the exact same test twice? Why else never allow a proper calibration over the full temperature range? Why else never allow a single truly independent and competent test by a test lab? Rossi knew exactly what he was doing. So it wasn't paranoia and certainly Rossi was not deceiving himself. He knew exactly what he was doing. It was sociopathy and plain crookedness not to mention stupidity. His very temporary success also required a good measure of incompetence and/or negligence on the part of the many people involved in running the tests on his stuff. I see nothing to suggest that IH or Woodford were dishonest. Just monumentally ignorant.
-
Display More
Our resident stalwart IH defenders have all taken a crack at attempting to explain away this conundrum, but with little effect in my opinion. Pages of ink spilled attempting to resolve this blatant inconsistency.
There are but two ways to resolve it.
1) joshg's suggestion that IH knew the e-Cat didn't work and therefore improperly secured investments in the tens of millions or more.
2) IH knew it worked and properly secured investments in the tens of millions or more, built upon Rossi's technology as a core element of Woodford's initial investment. And IH has now fabricated (or at least exaggerated), after the lawsuit was filed, their story of them knowing that the e-Cat did not work as early as January of 2014.
Interesting restricted viewpoint. Typical "strawman" tactic. You seem to imply that people's views never change. You also make a big leap to assume Rossi was the "core investment". While it may be the largest thing on the budget, it does not mean that it was the "core". It also assumes that they had no input other than Rossi. There is also the option that that some of there other supported items might point to methods to make something similar to Rossi's work.
It is also interesting that you have adopted Rossi's method of setting up a problem and then answering your own set up problem.
-
That is strange. It is almost like the document was not dated correctly and they tried to back date it.
@OG: Try to download the original! Then you will see that Murray got two e-mails from Anesser, one with the E-cat-plan (earlier) and one with the testplan.
Murray was completely puzzeled, because he has been fooled by Darden, that never gave him these e-mails (plans)... Finally Murray messed around in the two papers, what proves he didn't know them!
IH had everything, including the plan (all delivered by Penon), with the correct position of the flowmeter. They forced Murray to produce FUD!
I would start to ask, what kind of game Darden was playing. - The Rossi game we know since years ...
-
While it may be the largest thing on the budget, it does not mean that it was the "core".
The term "core" is not mine--it is Woodford's!
-
Our resident stalwart IH defenders have all taken a crack at attempting to explain away this conundrum, but with little effect in my opinion. Pages of ink spilled attempting to resolve this blatant inconsistency.
I might guess that you view the existence of this "blatant inconsistency" with the same certitude that you had when you and the child saw that there was no glass in the window.
-
Eric,
It is an inconsistency, and yes, it is blatant.
And yes, there is probably no glass in the left two panes of this window on the date taken in that photo.
And yes, the sky is blue and the sun will probably rise tomorrow.
-
And yes, there is probably no glass in the left two panes of this window on the date taken in that photo.
Do you seriously believe that an opening the size of two panes would suffice to remove 1 MW of heat from the mezzanine? A fan large enough and powerful enough to do this would blow the other panes out, but that still would not be a large enough opening. If the inlet were at the same window, it would suck in hot air. You would need large, prominent ducts to prevent that. Does your mystical child see such ducts?
The whole story is preposterous.
-
Abd has obtained transcripts 48, 84, 97 and 106, now available on his site and copied onto the Google Drive (you'll probably want to sort by "Last modifed" to see them).
-
@Jed,
I don't know. But I do know that the picture taken on that day likely shows the two left panes as missing, and the two right panes as present.
The window is large, and would not need to exhaust 1 MW. As has been pointed out, the building itself by its makeup and dimensions releases 200 KW+, even without any venting.
-
I don't know. But I do know that the picture taken on that day likely shows the two left panes as missing, and the two right panes as present.
You do not "know" that. You and some kid imagine you see that. No one else does.
The window is large, and would not need to exhaust 1 MW. As has been pointed out, the building itself by its makeup and dimensions releases 200 KW+, even without any venting.
That is preposterous. No building of this size exhausts 200 kW, except one with no walls, like an old fashioned steel mill. If it did, it would need 200 kW of heating to stay warm in winter.
But even assuming you are right, the window would have to exhaust 800 kW. A blower or tower capable of doing that is roughly the size of an automobile. You cannot fit it in a window. It has to be placed outside, either on the roof or in a lot next to the building, like an air conditioner fan.
-
It is an inconsistency, and yes, it is blatant.
And yes, there is probably no glass in the left two panes of this window on the date taken in that photo.
And yes, the sky is blue and the sun will probably rise tomorrow.
... and yes, although knowing better, IH told Woodford many times that e-cat was tested and works with a COP of 11, and Woodford may buy into this technology - which is worth trillions - just for 50 mio, and the Woodford guys never wondered why this 100% working technology is such a bargain.
... and yes, I have a genuine Rolex to sale - it will cost you just 100 bucks (because we are friends).
If I assure you that I own the powerball ticket which hit this week's jackpot, and I offer you for a few bucks a share of this ticket, and you really believe me that this ticket is worth millions, that much stupidity and greed would deserve to get punished.
Woodford guys - same as IH - may lack of technical expertise, however I am sure they are not stupid in money business, and that they know that there is no business which promises tremendous chances but no risk.
-
As has been pointed out, the building itself by its makeup and dimensions releases 200 KW+, even without any venting.
Apparently you believe every nonsense - as long as it fits in your view.
I suggest the next sunny day you wanna go up into the attic of your house, and think again how much heat a warehouse in Miami might radiate (or rather adsorb) on a hot summer day.
-
Display More
... and yes, although knowing better, IH told Woodford many times that e-cat was tested and works with a COP of 11, and Woodford may buy into this technology - which is worth trillions - just for 50 mio, and the Woodford guys never wondered why this 100% working technology is such a bargain.
... and yes, I have a genuine Rolex to sale - it will cost you just 100 bucks (because we are friends).
If I assure you that I own the powerball ticket which hit this week's jackpot, and I offer you for a few bucks a share of this ticket, and you really believe me that this ticket is worth millions, that much stupidity and greed would deserve to get punished.
Woodford guys - same as IH - may lack of technical expertise, however I am sure they are not stupid in money business, and that they know that there is no business which promises tremendous chances but no risk.
Problem is, it is sometimes difficult for "promoters" to spot other "promoters" (of the fraudulent kind), and also the promoters are using OPM (other people's money) who have signed it away for them to risk and/or lose, so the promoters are not really risking or losing personally.
