Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Alan Smith

Perhaps they are, we have no way of knowing, unless they chose experts we know too, and the chosen are happy to announce the fact.. On the other hand I do suspect that there might be a few people not well known to any of us as 'LENR friends' in Upsalla who know which end of a candle you are supposed to light.

So - you are now speculating beyond the perfectly good information.

You state that the Lugano team are experimenting with Ni-H and claim to have positive results, however they will not release any details at this stage.

That is fine - material information of an unknowable sort - since the same team have shown very bad previous judgement and it must be a leap of faith to think they have got better when they do not recant past mistakes.

That (you imply) they are gaining useful input from others at Upsalla more competent than them is always possible but speculative, as is the use they make of such better advice. It is as with me356 "I've got good results but you can't know what they are yet" is not helpful, and history shows no credence should be given to it.

They are under no obligation to publish any details, but it would be unwise to take their claims of positive results seriously till they do. When they do, all will depend on the quality of the results. More IR thermography is a big no-no.

Quote from Rionrlty

If I were a Juror reading the voluminous detailed and technical posts here from the likes of Jed, Sigmoidal, THHuxley, Paradigmnoia and others I think they would come across as boring, self rightious, opinionated nerds who were writing simply for the purpose of seeming intelligent and above it all, sort of like one speaks so as to be impressed with the sound of his own voice. On the other hand the posts of IHFanboy, El, We-Cat-Global, JoshG (and others) are for the most part succinct and to the point, which makes them come across sincere and honest. Again, this case will not be decided on voluminous boring technical facts, but on whether the testimony comes across as sincere.

Oh yes but if you ware a Juror reading this forum that is so full of biased people and who express opinions instead of facts, or make biased interpretation of facts would be an act against the law. Jurors must evaluate only what is disclosed in the Court and the documents produced by both parts.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Para - you continue to amaze! Is there a date on Rossi's note-to-self from JONP?

Dewey, I sent that info to your IH email address many months ago.

(I'm pretty sure there is another one also, but searching Warm Regards and reading the associated posts that come up makes me feel ill after a while)

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…&cpage=59#comment-1152251

Quote from THHuxleynew

the same team have shown very bad previous judgement and it must be a leap of faith to think they have got better when they do not recant past mistakes

THH the only people who thinks about the Lugano Team as people who has done mistakes is you and the other guys who forms the "Voice of IH Gang" here.

It is an interesting fact that the Universities and some Industries are financing Bo Hoistad and the other Professors.

I presume that honored and qualified Universities as Uppsala or Bologna have internal resources capable to evaluate papers and results. The Lugano report is still there and the Professors are financed and going on with the research. This fact is quite important and means that there ware no substantial errors in the original report.

Quote from ele

THH the only people who thinks about the Lugano Team as people who has done mistakes is you and the other guys who forms the "Voice of IH Gang" here.

Not true - you are perhaps out of touch with most people? Or, as Abd has documented in another place on a different topic, lying? I raise this only because you have made so many documented false statements here...

The Lugano report is still there and the Professors are financed and going on with the research. This fact is quite important and means that there ware no substantial errors in the original report.

Again there is no dependence between Lugano report correctness and whether Upsalla profs can find new punters to fund research. Except that it it were generally considered correct there would be billions now going to fund them or IH. Since when have typical Rossi LENR funders worried about integrity of tests?

THH - watch you don't stray to far in your choice of words. Describing anybody funding what goes on in a perfectly respectable university as 'marks' has connotations of which you are entirely aware.

EDIT marks -> punters

Quote from Alan Smith

On-going work and co-operation between Upsalla University (definitely), Volvo Cars (probably) and Rossi over the last 2 years is simply a material fact. It tends to suggest (at the very least) that they are all stupid and possibly deluded, or perhaps building what they consider to be an un-rebuttable body of proof that Ni-H works. Which do you consider to be the most likely of these two scenarios?

Quote from Alan Smith

I have no technical information to impart, merely a confirmation that they are working on Ni-H with positive results, passed on in full. As I said that is a material fact, as is the presence of Rossi's colleague. I apologise if it doesn't accord with your weltschmertz, it is as they say 'an inconvenient truth'. I think more will be revealed by summer's end, in the meantime, they are locked down, no visitors no publications.

At this point, I would put any results from the professors in the same category as a claim from AR. It would need independent verification. They have not responded with requests for additional information about their previous testing procedures in a trustworthy way (or even a non-trustworthy way). They have just not responded to any basic questions other than to say, "I asked several colleagues to look at this and they all thought we did a good job." Case closed.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I raise this only because you have made so many documented false statements here...

THH or the statements are false or are documented. Tertium non datur

I inserted that link just because it could be interesting for many readers here to at least know that there exist a version of the fact published by Rossi himself.

Abd was banned from here because of his insults. Is quite an honor to be personally insulted on his personal little blog.

Surfing the net I have also found some interesting link about Darden gang criminal behavior.

Seems provided by a guy who published a long comment in the JONP. I normally do not read Rossi's blog but found that googling through a site called Rossi Blog Reader.

I propose here the full original post:

Hugh H. Maguire
May 8, 2017 at 9:11 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

I’ve been following your tracks on and off for more than two years now. When the news of your lawsuit with Cherokee Investment Partners and their subsidiary Industrial Heat reached the public scene, I was not all that surprised. There are at least two known instances in which Cherokee Investment Partners, acting through companies they controlled, were involved in bankruptcies after being funded for reclamation and development programmes they did not complete. Main links may be found here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10…ew-jersey-style.html?_r=0) and here (http://www.postandcourier.com/…63-a818-6c0a67cdfa5f.html), but there are others, as the stories are well known.

At this point I ask myself: is it possible that IH’s refusal to pay you the agreed fees for licensing your technology, after running an undisputed test for over one year (during which its employees were always present, subsequent to taking part in the construction of the power plant itself), and paying the relevant fees to Mr Penon as consultant on the operation of the plant, is part of a long-term plan targeted from its very inception not just at yourself, but at outside investment partners? We, as the public, are now aware that the Doral site was visited in February 2015 by Woodford, well-known in the UK as a high-profile investment management company, and that Woodford was apparently convinced of the technology, to the point of investing approximately £32m in IH. It stands to reason that, if the issue of litigation turns out unfavourably, IH might be tempted to file for bankruptcy, just like EnCap, Ashley I, and Ashley II. And yet somehow remain in possession of the know-how related to your technology, which may have already been leaked to other companies involved in LENR research: the ones Cherokee or their subsidiaries have reportedly (Brillouin?) invested in. At this point, it would be just a matter of window-dressing on the patent market. 
I am by no means a conspiracy advocate, but I find these facts extremely disturbing. Corporations have no morals, no matter how appealing their public facade might appear. When one is willing to charge even one’s own inside clients for unjustified expenses (http://www.bizjournals.com/tri…ners-reaches-100-000.html), there are no limits to the extent of possible malversation.

Sincerely, Hugh H. Maguire.

---------------------------------------------------------

Nice material . I think that a full read of the proposed links will be quite interesting.

Shane D.,

Which is why I dislike politics and those who play.

Alan, I notice you just said they were working on Ni -H and said nothing if it was a Rossi type system. Was there any hint what kind of Ni-H items they were working with - thermocore, Celani, Piantelli, CETI, Cravens, Nissen, Abumdp........

Quote from Alan Smith

This sounds like desperate nonsense. I thought you were bigger than this... But never mind, I'm afraid we will just have to wait -I suspect they are being super-cautious just to anooy everyone.

Alan - I have very little respect for the Lugano guys. If they got their feet burned and are silent now because no longer involved it is bad enough, but understandable. To be claiming new results in the same area without correcting such an egregiously wrong report is a poor show indeed.

I'm very confident that they do not have clear excess heat. (If they did the requirement for silence would mysteriously change).

Quote from Alan Smith

Perhaps they are [consulting with experts], we have no way of knowing,

During the test I heard that they were keeping it secret and not consulting with anyone. I do not know whether they are consulting now. I doubt it. The fact that they never responded to questions from people such as McKubre does not bode well. They do not have the right attitude for academic researchers doing ground-breaking experiments in a poorly understood, new field.

Quote from Jack Cole

At this point, I would put any results from the professors in the same category as a claim from AR. It would need independent verification. They have not responded with requests for additional information about their previous testing procedures in a trustworthy way (or even a non-trustworthy way). They have just not responded to any basic questions other than to say, "I asked several colleagues to look at this and they all thought we did a good job." Case closed.

I agree, reluctantly. Putting this in the category as AR may be going too far, but I agree their credibility is shot. As I said, this is not how academic scientists are supposed to act. This behavior is okay for lone inventors or even corporations such as Brillouin, but not for professors.

"Not trustworthy" and "not even non-trustworthy" is a good summation.

You can be secret, or you can be credible. You have to choose. You cannot have it both ways. It irks me when people who keep secrets demand respect. The only thing they deserve is to be ignored. They may have a good reason to keep things secret, but they do not deserve to be taken seriously.

This does not only apply to science. No one gets a free pass or automatic credibility. If I claim I have written the Great American Novel, you have every right to say "send me the opening chapter" before you take me seriously. Even if I am a best-selling author, you should demand that. If I am a national politician running for president and I claim I have a secret plan to defeat ISIS, you should demand I share that plan with the military and then have them say whether they think it is viable.

Quote from JedRothwell

That is no way to do scientific research. They made that mistake during their long test at Lugano. They should have consulted with experts at every stage. Heck, they should have consulted with me -- a non-expert. I would have asked them "what color is the reactor incandescence?" I think it was orange, not white, which means their conclusions and their entire report are wrong, and they wasted months.

I asked them that after the report was published. They never responded. They invited technical questions but I do not think they responded to any of them. That's is an outrageous violation of academic norms. People who do things like that are bound to make stupid mistakes.

And all this time I thought you were and expert.

Quote from JedRothwell

I agree, reluctantly. Putting this in the category as AR may be going too far, but I agree their credibility is shot. As I said, this is not how academic scientists are supposed to act. This behavior is okay for lone inventors or even corporations such as Brillouin, but not for professors.

I should probably clarify. I don't believe any of the profs are in the same category as AR generally. I just mean that their results would need to be replicated before putting much stock in the results.

They are similar in that they say, "trust us, this is valid and real. We consulted with independent experts, and they all agree that we did it right." They're not similar in that, AFAIK, the profs are not running scams for money.

The followers of LENR need to demand empirical evidence from any inventor before they are taken seriously. Brillouin doesn't have much excuse, in my estimation, as they are known to follow this forum, but never respond to criticism and continue to raise money.

Quote from Shane D.

IHFB,

I do not hold it against the businesses themselves. Few can survive without dealing with govt. That is where most of the money is. Not their fault they have to get their hands dirty. It is the corrupt bureaucrats, politicians, and public unions that leave them no choice, that are to blame.

If it makes you feel better about them...most hold their noses when having to do what they have to do.

Which is exactly the argument I used in an earlier post in defense of Rossi's actions. Both government and big business seem to adhere to a different set of ethics than most individuals are held to. I believe that everything that Rossi did, good or bad, was simply trying emulate and play the so-called game by the same rules as IH held itself to. Only as an individual he gets tagged as scammer, fraud, liar, schemer and charlatan, while IH acting through its myriad shell companies is just behaving normally, as any good business would.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Alan - I have very little respect for the Lugano guys. If they got their feet burned and are silent now because no longer involved it is bad enough, but understandable. To be claiming new results in the same area without correcting such an egregiously wrong report is a poor show indeed.

I'm very confident that they do not have clear excess heat. (If they did the requirement for silence would mysteriously change).

This sounds eerily similar to a lot comments I heard in the early 1990's regarding F and P and the University of Utah and it eventually drove them underground for an extended period. Oh wait, that seems to be exactly what the Lugano group has done. Strange, very strange.