Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • But it is my prerogative to not believe everything you say when you so vigorously defend IH.

    This is a logical fallacy on many levels. You should evaluate my statements on their own merits, without regard to what you imagine -- without evidence -- to be my loyalties. The capacity of a 3" pipe gravity fed is what it is. You can look it up. To say that it is full at 6 gallons per minute the flow rate is "high" is factually wrong. You said that, but you were wrong. Instead of making groundless and irrelevant accusations, you should admit you made a mistake.


    What I say is true, and you can confirm it is true from the data and photos from Rossi. It would be true even if I.H. were paying me $100,000 a month.


    The logical fallacies in your statement include but are not limited to:


    Circumstantial ad Hominem


    http://www.nizkor.org/features…mstantial-ad-hominem.html


    "A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own."


    Common cause

    Confusing cause and effect

    Straw man

    Personal attack

  • oldguy, I really do not agree with you. Brother I am askiing WTF who cares about who is his is ? It is the quality of his words. I will give some Rigel data. I have been married for 40 years. I am still in my fifties (well for a bit) . It does not matter. "He thinks what he wants to" and its the job of others do disprove him. Not call him out. You are a good egg. What does that matter? Am I on that side? Please brother it will only harm us. Talk truths.

  • Jed, you too. This "prove it shaite" has to stop. You helped Peter G. with computers. You are not a spy you are a seeker of truth. Have we gotten to this point? If so why? Really why?

  • Mods, a humble request. Let these words stand. Let us clean up our own mess. Strong people have strong opinions. Please

    Rigel, I agree. Words will stand and time will tell. I have no need to prove IHFB wrong, he is digging his own pit. Rossi disappoints and disappoints always. I do not need to "rub anyone's nose in it" as they are and will do it themselves!


    I will debate for a while and if the parties are honest and truly of an open mind, the debate can bring truth and value. But sometimes the situation comes to a point where I am reminded of a Winston Churchill quote :

    Winston S. Churchill

    “A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.”


    It has come to the point to where I have withdrawn from this particular debate and poster. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Some horses will die of thirst before they admit error and I have no desire to try to beat them with the stick of facts. Time will tell and I am very comfortable with what the final chapter will say. Just remember what one can expect from Rossi...... blurry blue photo!




  • After re-reading the exhibit and some sage advise from others :


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…ing-completely-different/


    I should state that my reading of exhibit 5 was in error concerning the statement that Murray was simply stating what the pipe size was reported to him was. While it could have been included in the calculations of the report or plant schematics, I cannot factually state where Murray obtained the size. He may have measured it or it may have come from the report. I do not have facts to make any statement of where the information came from and must withdraw my previous conclusion that it was a value reported to him. Murray did not seem to indicate the pipe size was in question in his letter to Penon, however where the value came from is unknown at this time by me.


    Also, I was incorrect about Murray not being at the plant. The event where Rossi denied him entry during the summer was rooted in my memory. The exhibit states he was there in February.


    If the above influenced someone's view on the subject, they should take note and my apologies.

    As usual, the best way to find facts is to obtain them yourself. This is the link to the Exhibit and one

    can read and understand for themselves. Scroll down and select Exhibit 5.


    https://drive.google.com/drive…Ktdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

  • I re-did this plot.

    Paradigmnoia
    Since you put a lot of time and efforts in this plot, you may also want to show a plot with the water reservoir temperature added (and the calculated power or energy delivered), in order to illustrate how the water reservoir temperature reacts (or does not react) in dependence of the variation of the steam supply to the "customer".

  • IHFB,

    I like Abd's critiques, they keep us honest. Whether you agree or not, he is in depth and thoughtful. In my own opinion I am not sure why he is not accepted. He is of obviously high intelligence, why is his worldview intelligence a threat here? (I assume he did/said something and I must respect it) I just disagree and move on. We maybe   we should all agree healthy discourse is healthy.


    Abd is not the enemy he is just a voice sometimes with great reason.

    Once we lose a voice we all lose caipche?


    /Infact I will join his blog in week, I now think.


    ref(got-it?)



    My edit is I will be quiet now, Peace!

  • @Rigel


    I wasn't trying to demean Abd. It was more of comment of admiration of his persistence and excruciating detailed analysis of the comments made here by me and others. I do prefer that his extensive analysis exists elsewhere besides this forum. It is just my personal preference for concise to-the-point reasoning. If somebody wants the book version, Abd is quite skilled at that.

  • IHFB, I was just going to like your post. But it (a simple like) would not be fair. You just disagree -- something we as a community should all embrace.

    Even though I have my doubts, you are welcome here I hope, well at least as long as I am. You make good salient points, sometimes not so much. But who here is not an advocate for something they passionately believe in?

  • @Rigel


    To be clear, I believe that LENR is real, based on the extensive evidence accumulated since 1989. As for Rossi, I believe we should all keep an open mind. There are forces at play that can sometimes cloud the public's perception. I'm skeptical of most opinions at this point, including my own. The evidence should guide us. Let's hope more of it comes to light in the coming months.

  • Paradigmnoia
    Since you put a lot of time and efforts in this plot, you may also want to show a plot with the water reservoir temperature added (and the calculated power or energy delivered), in order to illustrate how the water reservoir temperature reacts (or does not react) in dependence of the variation of the steam supply to the "customer".


    Actually, I didn't spend much time so far.

    I'll try a plot of reservoir temp and input kWh over time. The scatter plots looked crappy.


    I can probably closely estimate the daily FLP kWh from the overlain plots by measuring the line in a CAD-scaled image. The monthly totals from the Leonardo Exhibit can be used to cap the estimates. The crappy big up-down spikes in that green FLP line seem to be products of a billing period changeover, and can probably be averaged smoother without much controversy. The other overall humpy habit is something different. Maybe I should plot Sundays on the time axis...

  • Agreed. But the reason for this is rumoured to be that Rossi wanted this big cash bribe to release IP. The conditions of the long-term test are clearly not what IH would have chosen given choice. They are not idiots.


    (Rossi was apparently hawking this round other VCs, none of whom were prepared to take the bait)


    Who is favored by the agreement depends entirely on whether the E-Cat is a scam or not.


    If the E-Cat works the contract is in IH's favor. They get a lot of rights for a relatively small amount of money. Rights to all further development and also a license without royalty. If the E-Cat functions according to Rossi's statements also a relatively low royalty would quickly becom more than $ 89 million. The agreement is further written so that IH can get all rights and licenses without paying $ 89 million if Rossi for some reason fail GPT. Which of course is a clear risk for Rossi even if the E-cat works.


    If the E-Car on the other hand is a sham. The agreement is quite clear to Rossi's favor. A large sum of money in the hand is worth more than royalty on something that is not going to sell. And the formulation of the agreement that it is enough with a raport from a single ERV for authentication instead of an independent test institutes or similar is what enables the bluff.


    To sum up I think one can say that if the contract had been more normal and fair, with royalty and independent verification before payment of large sums, a scam had not been possible.


    I do not know who made the agreement but it was a good agreement for IH if they where sure it works. The only time it was a good agreement for Rossi was if he knew that it didn't work.

    Edited 2 times, last by DNI ().

  • Quote

    If the E-Cat works the contract is in IH's favor. They get a lot of rights for a relatively small amount of money. Rights to all further development and also a license without royalty. If the E-Cat functions according to Rossi's statements also a relatively low royalty would quickly becom more than $ 89 million. The agreement is further written so that IH can get all rights and licenses without paying $ 89 million if Rossi for some reason fail GPT. Which of course is a clear risk for Rossi even if the E-cat works.



    Even given your ifs, it is absolutely not in IH's favour, which is why no other VC would touch it. Rossi has obligations to hand over IP with no continuing incentive to do so, nor incentive to continue developing the product. With, as here, a revolutionary but unproven product where there is no set of skilled practitioners who even understand the theory - let alone practice - to lose the inventor who presumably has all the expertise needed to get stuff working and develop it further is not just careless, it is catastrophic.


    You might think it was in IH's favour if you had a simple view that "Rossi LENR is simple, anyone can do it, and modify it for different uses, when given the magic formula". Do you think that likley? More to the point, do you think any VC including IH would believe that?


    Nor is there risk to Rossi. He has the license for Europe, half the world. If the device works the fact that he therefore becomes (as somone said here) a single trillionaire instead of a multi-trillionaie surely is no risk?

  • Even given your ifs, it is absolutely not in IH's favour, which is why no other VC would touch it. Rossi has obligations to hand over IP with no continuing incentive to do so, nor incentive to continue developing the product. With, as here, a revolutionary but unproven product where there is no set of skilled practitioners who even understand the theory - let alone practice - to lose the inventor who presumably has all the expertise needed to get stuff working and develop it further is not just careless, it is catastrophic.


    You might think it was in IH's favour if you had a simple view that "Rossi LENR is simple, anyone can do it, and modify it for different uses, when given the magic formula". Do you think that likley? More to the point, do you think any VC including IH would believe that?


    Nor is there risk to Rossi. He has the license for Europe, half the world. If the device works the fact that he therefore becomes (as somone said here) a single trillionaire instead of a multi-trillionaie surely is no risk?



    I still think IH got a lot for their money if it works. As long as Rossi follows his part of the contract of course. If Rossi refuse to hand over the IP I don't know what contract could solve this. Rossis incentive to continue developing is that he still owns the rights to half the world.

    Even If Rossi developed something that work. I am 100 % convinced he is not the right person to industrialize it. His performance so far has convinced me about this. As long as Rossi really hand over all of his IP I think IH is better of without him.

    The risk for Rossi is that if he fails GPT he would only get $10 millions for the license to half the world. Sure he could be a trillionaire anyway. But why agree to those terms if he knew it worked. Surly he could have made a contract giving him the $89 millions in a safer way for both him and IH.


    But I do agree with you that I don't think this was IH's choice of contract. I think IH would prefer a smaller up front payment and a royalty. I think Rossi made the agreement this way because it was the only way for him to capitalize on something that does not work. And that it was "take it or leave it" for IH. But there is no evidence for this. But to me it seems like the only plausible explanation to this lousy agreement.

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.