Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from THHuxleynew

Personally, without judging Jed's contribution (impossible given he has evidence i do not)

You have all of the evidence that I have. Everything that I know is in Exhibit 5. Except, as I noted, the exact numbers for the small temperature fluctuations from day to day are not included. You can simulate that with a random number generator. It makes no difference to the estimate. As I recall, most of the other numbers are repeated exactly from day to day, as noted in the Exhibit. For example, the pressure is 0.0 bar for every day.

If you do not think that the problems described in this Exhibit are sufficient to reject the claim, then you and I disagree. I have no additional inside information that would change your mind.

I do have some information about other research in this field, including some of the work at I.H.

Almost everything I know about anything will be published sooner or later in the JCMNS. I see it months ahead of time because I copy-edit the papers. ("Copy edit" means I make secretarial corrections, not that I have any editorial say over the content.) It takes a long time for the authors, reviewers and editors to prepare those papers.

Since I actually do slog through these papers, understanding them as best I can, I end up knowing a lot of obscure details. I feel like Groucho Marx in the movie Horse Feathers, when Harpo begins to play the harp:

Jennings: I love good music.

Professor Wagstaff (Groucho): So do I, let's get out of here.

Jennings: Sit down!

Professor Wagstaff: [to the audience watching the movie] I've got to stay here, but there's no reason why you folks shouldn't go out into the lobby until this thing blows over.

Quote from JedRothwell

Your speculation is completely wrong. But in any case, you should address the technical issues in the Exhibit. If you think it is lie, or mistaken, you should say so. I know that it is the truth because Rossi himself quoted the same numbers and facts in conversations with others, who then spoke with me, confirming my copy of the data. For example, he bragged about the fact that I.H. experts were not allowed into the pretend customer site, and he quoted the exact same bogus flow rates.

@JED : Just pointing again (and again..) to a crucial hole in your logic. Why draw the offers to bill a different picture than you tell us?? And Murray is telling??

Shouldn't you, in fact believe, that you and including all people (pro & contra) discussing here, simply are just victims of lack of information?

Why do independent people believe that such reasoning like yours "must be sponsored" by "dark empire IH" - even if it is not true!

Supporting IH - just believing them to support LENR research - is childish behavior. Most investors are only interested in patents. (Words about progress, humanity etc. are just lies to fool you.) Then they wait until somebody else does the real work and then, they with the help of 100Mio. $ of patent layers work, suck in a big stake of the profits...

Just do some research about investors and you will find this pattern, which is easy to understand.

How can illiterate, and lazy people make money?: Buying promising patents!

1) You need no technical/physical knowledge of a field

2) You suck in profits with no real work done, except buying patents...

Quote from JedRothwell

Your description of the Exhibit being written by a non-expert or written for the trial is nonsense.

Okay then, can you expound on Murray's credentials for us?

IHFB - you are not worthy to read Murray's credentials. He is quite accomplished as Rossi will soon be learning on a real-time basis.

Wyttie - another attempted deflection move with the patent screed?

Quote from JedRothwell

If you do not think that the problems described in this Exhibit are sufficient to reject the claim, then you and I disagree. I have no additional inside information that would change your mind.

Jed, there is no real difference between our positions on Rossi, except that I am less willing to make "proven negative" statements. My position is that you need high confidence to prove an LENR result positive. Similarly in this case you need high confidence to prove that this device did not partially work. The claims of MW output are I agree absurd at every level.

Personally, I would view any LENR claim as unproven without very strong evidence. That certainly includes all Rossi's claims. But to reject it as certainly false is rather different and such rejection also requires very strong evidence.

Ironically, the worse Rossi's calorimtry, the more impossible it is to show as false the possibility that his stuff works. That however is very different from supporting his claims, or his circus.

In the Rossi supporting camp fantasies where his stuff works as billed but he nobly disguises this fact by lying and testing defective equipment seem to be usual. It is pretty difficult to say anything categorical when such hypotheses are advanced. They are inherently difficult to disprove.

FWIW, the Murray document is electronically dated, and clearly references an earlier set of questions.

Since Rossi et al and IH et al have been doing the e-mail discovery thing, the original emails that contained both Murray's document and any earlier questions should appear (for at least the purposes of the Court) in duplicate, one each from both groups.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Supporting IH - just believing them to support LENR research - is childish behavior. Most investors are only interested in patents. (Words about progress, humanity etc. are just lies to fool you.) Then they wait until somebody else does the real work and then, they with the help of 100Mio. $ of patent layers work, suck in a big stake of the profits...

Just do some research about investors and you will find this pattern, which is easy to understand.

Investors are variable and it is likely that a strong component of "lets do this for the good of the world" affects IH investors, just as it does other LENR supporters.

While protecting IP is important - having IP to protect that is commercial is even more vital. That is where LENR is now and IH knows it. Arguably, if/when LENR started to be commercial, especially given the long history of patents, having a team able to understand and exploit the effect matters much more than patents. I think for now IH would be hapy just to have some effect that survives all testing at commercially relevant levels. That would also be Nobel Prize levels for the researchers!

Quote from Dewey Weaver

IHFB - you are not worthy to read Murray's credentials. He is quite accomplished

One can be quite accomplished and a non-expert in the field at hand. Unfortunately, in the field of LENR, even experts are often wrong, and particularly the classically trained (i.e., close-minded) ones.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@JED : Just pointing again (and again..) to a crucial hole in your logic. Why draw the offers to bill a different picture than you tell us?? And Murray is telling??

I do not understand this sentence.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Shouldn't you, in fact believe, that you and including all people (pro & contra) discussing here, simply are just victims of lack of information?

You have all the information you need, in Exhibit 5. Anyone who does not see that Rossi is a fake and his test was a farce is technically incompetent. Lack of information is not your problem. Your problem is that you believe 0.0 bar is a valid pressure, and the flow rate might have been exactly the same every day.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Why do independent people believe that such reasoning like yours "must be sponsored" by "dark empire IH" - even if it is not true!

People believe that because they are fools, who have been duped by Rossi and by wishful thinking. They are not "independent" -- they are totally dependent on Rossi.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed, there is no real difference between our positions on Rossi, except that I am less willing to make "proven negative" statements.

I cannot imagine a stronger "proven negative" than Exhibit 5. If that does not convince you the results are garbage, nothing will.

(I am assuming you believe the Exhibit is factually correct. If you think it is a lie, then of course it proves nothing.)

Quote from JedRothwell

I cannot imagine a stronger "proven negative" than Exhibit 5. If that does not convince you the results are garbage, nothing will.

Jed, THHuxley agrees with you that Exhibit 5 is convincing that the measurements are garbage. That doesn't automatically mean that there was zero excess heat.

Since the results are garbage, we can't know for sure that there was zero excess heat.

For me personally, I'm highly skeptical that there was any excess heat, and it seems highly likely to me that Rossi is just a con man faking everything. But I can't be absolutely sure (ironically) because all I know for sure is that his data is garbage (and that he's a liar). THH would likely state, like me, that if you (Jed) or any other truly independent and competent engineer were given $20,000 to measure the COP and came up with no excess heat, that would convince me beyond any doubt that the E-Cat has not excess heat.

Since that hasn't happened yet, there is some slim possibility that there is some small effect despite Rossi's garbage measurements and con-man ways.

It's not either exhibit 5 is correct or it's a lie.

First, of course the exhibit is correct in that Murray should be asking those questions.

Then, I don't think there are any lies in there. Just Murray trying to understand what's going on.

Finally, it is likely that at least some of those concerns could have been dispelled if Penon had answered.

There are 5 observations in the e-mail.

#5 could be a mistake if Murray got the pipe diameter wrong.

#1 has the potential to be proven wrong. Specifically the part about minimum operational flow rate being a major issue needs to be confirmed. Murray apparently has a point, but it needs to be tested. What if Penon's reply was that they calibrated the device at that flow and were satisfied with it?

#2 I'd like to see an explanation from Penon as to why the flow was written down as 36m3/day for a month. Did Penon pull a Parkhomov cut and paste? Did Fabiani's control system pull a masterpiece?

What about the rest of the year? Did it then vary from day to day?

# 3 is about the number of units varying while keeping the same output. I submit that perhaps there was some redundancy in the system.

#4 I don't really understand.

So no, no lies. Not necessarily 100% correct either. I'm more concerned that Penon came only once in a blue moon (was it once a month in the contract?) and ended up just collecting data fed by Rossi.

Thanks for the clarification.

We should probably remove the older 51 cats from the equation then. I understand Rossi said he stopped using those altogether at some point. Murray doesn't seem to have been given that info. Therefore he includes those in his question, and compares October unit counts to the 111 units at the beginning of the 1 year run.

Rossi would have then been running 31 out of 64 units on October 13. Then, 43 out of 64 units in February.

Redundancy seems like a very plausible explanation.

I wouldn't put all my marbles on exhibit 5, question #3 if I was IH.

LC - for your information, Exhibit 5 in toto equates roughly .01% of the marbles.

Quote from sigmoidal

Since the results are garbage, we can't know for sure that there was zero excess heat.

The results are garbage, therefore Rossi has lost all credibility. It is as if he claimed he made a neutron detector with a wet mop and a can of Sterno. He has no business ever making any other claim about anything.

Quote from LENR Calender

Thanks for the clarification.

We should probably remove the older 51 cats from the equation then. I understand Rossi said he stopped using those altogether at some point. Murray doesn't seem to have been given that info. Therefore he includes those in his question, and compares October unit counts to the 111 units at the beginning of the 1 year run.

Rossi would have then been running 31 out of 64 units on October 13. Then, 43 out of 64 units in February.

Redundancy seems like a very plausible explanation.

I wouldn't put all my marbles on exhibit 5, question #3 if I was IH.

Display More

So which if any of the units actually functioned for 350+ days and which did not? And did the ones that were running for 340 days the ones that actually achieved COP of 6. It seems like only there combined output was measured and there would be no way to tell if an actual unit functioned for the required length of time for the required level of output and not just a bunch of rotating various parts in and out.

That is: what evidence is offered that a unit actually fulfilled the requirements? It seems to me that a single unit had to deliver the level of output for the entire 350 days and not just a series of individuals. It would be like saying I can have device that can operate for so long at a given level to produce heat and I just keep putting in lighted matches a few at a time. I think the intent of the test was to show that the heat was long lived so it ruled out chemistry and such. If you keep turning things off and doing who knows what to them and then replacing them, Who knows:?

I guess I am missing something.

Theseus's paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. Like saying I have the axe that Washington cut down the cherry tree with. It just has had 10 new handles and 5 new axe blades replaced over the years. Do you really have the axe or not.

I was under the impression that the 51 small modules were not used in the test. Supposedly they were fired up some time near the beginning to verify that they were functioning, then turned and left off. These were the original (more or less) modules from inside the blue Plant.

The 64 modules are the 4 Tigers, 16 reactors in each Tiger. These seem to have begun their lives on the roof of the old Plant, and were moved inside, requiring the extended length red container in order to fit the Tigers and the 51 smaller modules.

Quote from LENR Calender

It's not either exhibit 5 is correct or it's a lie.

First, of course the exhibit is correct in that Murray should be asking those questions.

Then, I don't think there are any lies in there. Just Murray trying to understand what's going on.

Finally, it is likely that at least some of those concerns could have been dispelled if Penon had answered.

There are 5 observations in the e-mail.

#5 could be a mistake if Murray got the pipe diameter wrong.

#1 has the potential to be proven wrong. Specifically the part about minimum operational flow rate being a major issue needs to be confirmed. Murray apparently has a point, but it needs to be tested. What if Penon's reply was that they calibrated the device at that flow and were satisfied with it?

#2 I'd like to see an explanation from Penon as to why the flow was written down as 36m3/day for a month. Did Penon pull a Parkhomov cut and paste? Did Fabiani's control system pull a masterpiece?

What about the rest of the year? Did it then vary from day to day?

# 3 is about the number of units varying while keeping the same output. I submit that perhaps there was some redundancy in the system.

#4 I don't really understand.

So no, no lies. Not necessarily 100% correct either. I'm more concerned that Penon came only once in a blue moon (was it once a month in the contract?) and ended up just collecting data fed by Rossi.

Display More

I'd agree with this. There is no way that this initial evidence can be definitive, it is not meant to be without Discovery and testing in Court. However we have heard nothing in rebuttal from Rossi in his answer. He needs to give some indication of his arguments in order for IH to have a fair shot at discovery. And he is giving nothing of substance here which means i guess there is nothing of substance. The Court will not like him introducing whole new lines of argument at a later date - if i read this correctly. Wish Abd were here...

Which means: this evidence is damning, because not answered.

There is also a whole lot of other evidence that points so strongly in the direction of this test being a charade that this is proven beyond reasonable doubt, even though any one piece of evidence, as this, can always be argued around.