Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • And Darden's alleged timing of the discovery of the scam is intriguing: Jan. of 2014, well before taking the pitch and landing the investment from Woodford. Sorry, doesn't add up.

    I've said it so many times, but the supporters of IH refuse to see possible wrong attitudes ... I think there are only two possibilities: 1) Darden tells lies or exaggerates a lot when he says he has never had a positive result from his tests on the E -Cat; 2) Darden asked for funds to investors knowing they were financing a bluff. In both cases its behavior is incorrect.

  • Once you get into the generator and reactor details from Ferrara then it all goes squirrelly anyway.

    so you are saying that the whole IH is a group of idiots uncapable to evaluate the details of a test that they have done !

    My goodness why any investor should keep giving money to this bunch of A$$holes ! You are affirming that not me ! :)

  • As we've seen with the control run that was cut short, it is a very important detail that Rossi and Fabiani were so involved in the Lugano test. They really should have been included as authors on that paper.

    ha ha ha ha

    That is very nice but try again ! The professors had taken all decisions on how take data and conduct the experiment. Because they ware having only one item to test empty before and filled after it is quite obvious that they ware very prudent with the unloaded device so not to risk to damage it.

  • If we are going to examine Levi's qualifications, it helps to check out his publication list. For someone around academia as long as he has been, it is trivial and he is not the principal author of hardly any papers. And one of his "works" is about coffee brewing! See anything about calorimetry? Anything about heat transfer or fluid flow? Anything about electrical or HVAC engineering?

    mary dear mary

    In many science fields (physics is one good example) papers are done by collaborations of hundreds of scientist.

    Also in experimental physics you have to acquire many types of skills that are useful to your experiment even if you don't publish on this topics.

    The works on coffee brewing ? Are patents registered by the University and done for an applied physics collaboration with industry.

    They mean that Levi was collaborating with industries much before he met Rossi.

    Those patents also are about a heat transfer device !

  • That is very nice but try again ! The professors had taken all decisions on how take data and conduct the experiment. Because they ware having only one item to test empty before and filled after it is quite obvious that they ware very prudent with the unloaded device so not to risk to damage it.


    Can you back up your assertion with support? Answer: you will not or cannot do so. Until then, your assertion is just that -- mere assertion. We do not know who was involved in the decision about cutting the control run short or how it came about, despite your implicit suggestion to the contrary. :) My guess: It was Rossi who made that call.

  • Can you back up your assertion with support? Answer: you will not or cannot do so. Until then, your assertion is just that -- mere assertion. We do not know who was involved in the decision about cutting the control run short or how it came about, despite your implicit suggestion to the contrary. :) My guess: It was Rossi who made that call.

    My guess is that it was the director of the JMP plant that told Rossi to cut the run short. :)

  • I do not agree with this. If the secret of running the E-Cat is in the way it is start or driven, Rossi has so much to lose in revealing these details. He is a businessman, not a scientist or a professor. He made a discovery and wants to sell it, do not donate it, and I find nothing wrong with this.


    I know a thing or two about business as well. And I assure you, the single best business decision Rossi could make at this point would be to let the MFMP do a black box test. Even those who are most supportive of Rossi here and at ECW harbor doubts about the e-Cat. If rossi can get the LENR+ community firmly in its corner, its a done deal. He will have hundreds of evangelists spreading the news far and wide for him. He wouldn't be able to buy that kind of PR--not even close. Any risk in revealing a startup detail of the reactor would be eclipsed by what would be gained.

  • ha ha ha ha

    That is very nice but try again ! The professors had taken all decisions on how take data and conduct the experiment. Because they ware having only one item to test empty before and filled after it is quite obvious that they ware very prudent with the unloaded device so not to risk to damage it.


    Ele,


    There is something positively loathsome - to me - about so many lies being told - you and SSC.


    SSC seems just to be incapable of imagining uncertainty - and then fits his rationalisation around his lack of imagination. In this case that IH could be confused by Rossi's setups, and the other independent tests, working when their own - done with much weaker technical resources, we know, Dameron, did not. So I have some sympathy with SSC - lack of imagination is no crime.


    You though...


    You seem knowledgeable - so you will remember that Rossi said he had several spare reactors - in case one broke. Indeed for a test of such magnitude it would be stupid for him not to have that. And given the long time of the test a day to rerun a control at a lower temperature is nothing.


    Furthermore the active test operated at two temperatures: (Levi 1250C = 750C and Levi 1400C = 800C). So the profs clearly thought 1250C was safe, or their lower temperature would not have been that. So why not test the control to 1250C? Were they concerned temperatures above (500C Levi = 350C) would be a problem they would surely have test the device with more temperature steps - starting with the control temperature they were confident about.


    Your argument here is a incorrect, or, if you are as sophisticated as you seem here, an outright lie.

  • the single best business decision Rossi could make at this point would be to let the MFMP do a black box test. Even those who are most supportive of Rossi here and at ECW harbor doubts about the e-Cat. If rossi can get the LENR+ community firmly in its corner, its a done deal. He will have hundreds of evangelists spreading the news far and wide for him. He wouldn't be able to buy that kind of PR--not even close.


    IH Fanboy I agree that more public tests could potentially raise his credibility, in the LENR community and beyond but you are assuming ongoing tests and demos are not taken place and that huge amounts are not already waiting in escrow accounts. If that would be the case he might not see much to gain from public black-box testing, unfortunately.

    I personally hoped the litigation would lead to those types of tests and disclosures you refer to, but so far it has not.
    Because it hasn't one could be led to think there might possible be things going on that we are not being communicated here in this forum...

  • I know a thing or two about business as well. And I assure you, the single best business decision Rossi could make at this point would be to let the MFMP do a black box test. Even those who are most supportive of Rossi here and at ECW harbor doubts about the e-Cat. If rossi can get the LENR+ community firmly in its corner, its a done deal. He will have hundreds of evangelists spreading the news far and wide for him. He wouldn't be able to buy that kind of PR--not even close. Any risk in revealing a startup detail of the reactor would be eclipsed by what would be gained.


    That is only true if such a test had positive results. And I suggest the reason Rossi will never allow that is because - at some level even if not consciously - he realises any such test would have negative results.

  • That's not quite correct. As we've seen with the control run that was cut short, it is a very important detail that Rossi and Fabiani were so involved in the Lugano test. They really should have been included as authors on that paper.

    When I talk about important phases I mean everything that happened before and after the various days of constant running of the reactor, so also the control run is a part of the initial phase. I think the professors were present at all the important stages and probably knew about things they could not write in the report because of their NDA. For this reason some of their choices may not be entirely clear to those who externally evaluate them.

  • I know a thing or two about business as well. And I assure you, the single best business decision Rossi could make at this point would be to let the MFMP do a black box test. Even those who are most supportive of Rossi here and at ECW harbor doubts about the e-Cat. If rossi can get the LENR+ community firmly in its corner, its a done deal. He will have hundreds of evangelists spreading the news far and wide for him. He wouldn't be able to buy that kind of PR--not even close. Any risk in revealing a startup detail of the reactor would be eclipsed by what would be gained.

    I do not think Rossi is interested in convincing the LENR community, he wants to convince the markets and to do so he must be the first to impose his own product. Revealing the secrets before having a finished product for the sole purpose of having a greater consensus would be counterproductive.

  • SSC seems just to be incapable of imagining uncertainty - and then fits his rationalisation around his lack of imagination. In this case that IH could be confused by Rossi's setups, and the other independent tests, working when their own - done with much weaker technical resources, we know, Dameron, did not. So I have some sympathy with SSC - lack of imagination is no crime.

    Dear TTH, it may be that I am lacking in imagination, but in any case I would not speak of "uncertainty" talking about IH.... Please read PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (doc 254), where you can find these words:

    "Notably, Defendants could not point to a single document in which they notified Plaintiffs of their alleged inability to replicate the technology, whether as a result of their incompetence, faulty equipment, inferior materials, or outright lies. See SOF ¶¶ 31, 33. "

    There are e-mails and documents where you can read that IH has initially obtained good results from its E-Cat tests. After Rossi had sued them, they began to say that they had never seen excess heat. But this complaint never came officially to Rossi. If at one point they really realized they were not able to replicate the reactor, why did not they even send an email to Rossi to tell him about it?

  • IH Fanboy I agree that more public tests could potentially raise his credibility, in the LENR community and beyond but you are assuming ongoing tests and demos are not taken place and that huge amounts are not already waiting in escrow accounts. If that would be the case he might not see much to gain from public black-box testing, unfortunately.

    I personally hoped the litigation would lead to those types of tests and disclosures you refer to, but so far it has not.
    Because it hasn't one could be led to think there might possible be things going on that we are not being communicated here in this forum...


    It does not address all of the issues, but if Rossi could show that one of his devices can be got to work as a black box by any independent party it would make it difficult (though still possible) for IH to claim no IP transfer. That is only one of the issues, but it could be an important one. and psychologically it might be decisive, since without that it looks to any Jury ads though Rossi has nothing.


    Rossi had the capacity to do this, and present an expert report during discovery. So why did he not? Perhaps he does not really care about the $89M? Or he thinks the IP transfer issue and the "Rossi has nothing" argument do not need contradicting? What do you think... IHFB?

  • You seem knowledgeable - so you will remember that Rossi said he had several spare reactors - in case one broke. Indeed for a test of such magnitude it would be stupid for him not to have that. And given the long time of the test a day to rerun a control at a lower temperature is nothing.

    Ha ha ha ha again !

    Not a day but almost the entire calibration process would have to be repeated in case of one broke ! you seem not to consider the fact all those reactor ware done by hands so each device was in fact different from the others that why the Professors have chosen to have a self calibration using the very same device.

    In case of "identical reactors" produced in series a good type of test would have been to have two reactors one loaded and one empty and make a comparison. But in that case it was not possible because the reactors ware hand made prototypes ans so any difference could be explained as a due to the charge or due to some different construction detail.

    Furthermore the active test operated at two temperatures: (Levi 1250C = 750C and Levi 1400C = 800C)

    Again the disinformation and FUD of the Voice of IH. Your numbers regarding the temperature are pure mystification and also you seem to not remember the fact that Dr. Levi was not alone.

  • I think the professors were present at all the important stages and probably knew about things they could not write in the report because of their NDA. For this reason some of their choices may not be entirely clear to those who externally evaluate them.


    Ok, that's one possibility (that the professors chose to terminate the control run early). Another possibility: Rossi chose to terminate the control run early. Here we continue to counter suggestion with suggestion, which loses its effectiveness after the first round.

  • After Rossi had sued them, they began to say that they had never seen excess heat. But this complaint never came officially to Rossi. If at one point they really realized they were not able to replicate the reactor, why did not they even send an email to Rossi to tell him about it?


    I think you've got your timeline mixed up. We know that Rossi got very upset when there was the incident early on with the dummy reactor that showed a high COP. I'm somewhat confident that IH voiced doubts to Rossi later on as well. Also, the lawsuit happened in April 2016. IH sent out at least one of their PR statements, where they hinted that all was not well, long before April. I can only assume they were more straightforward with Rossi behind the scenes once lawyers started to get involved some months before the lawsuit.

  • No there is not this possibility. Only the people who takes the data should be able to control the system !


    It is no good asserting that something isn't a possibility (that Rossi was the one responsible for terminating the control run early) when it very obviously is a possibility. I'm starting to grow weary of your contributions here, ele. I will probably start regularly moving them to the Playground thread unless you raise a solid point instead of just responding to people.

  • Dear TTH, it may be that I am lacking in imagination, but in any case I would not speak of "uncertainty" talking about IH.... Please read PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (doc 254), where you can find these words:

    "Notably, Defendants could not point to a single document in which they notified Plaintiffs of their alleged inability to replicate the technology, whether as a result of their incompetence, faulty equipment, inferior materials, or outright lies. See SOF ¶¶ 31, 33. "

    There are e-mails and documents where you can read that IH has initially obtained good results from its E-Cat tests. After Rossi had sued them, they began to say that they had never seen excess heat. But this complaint never came officially to Rossi. If at one point they really realized they were not able to replicate the reactor, why did not they even send an email to Rossi to tell him about it?


    Ok, fair enough. I should have been more precise.


    The issue here is either inability to conceive of uncertainty, or inability to conceive of IH changing their internal judgement.


    The evidence here of lack of official notification cuts both ways. They never officially notified Rossi that his device worked, either. For quite some time, using Rossi's tests, they thought his stuff did work. They did later ask Rossi to come and help them get stuff to work, and were refused [where is the precise reference for this - from Darden I think or Vaughn?]. That they never officially notified Rossi is understandable when it is documented that people who claim his stuff does not work get called snakes and liars. They thought with reason that to keep Rossi on side they needed to treat him with kid gloves. After all, according to the agreement he was meant to help them, and they knew these tests are complex and they might be getting them wrong - with only Dameron as tech expertise.


    It was a bad call.


    One thing to remember here is that the source evidence, taken under oath where to lie is to commit perjury, must be considered more reliable than summaries in MSJs which can (and sort of are obligated to) twist truth as much as possible. Where in Rossi's evidence has he contradicted what IH have said in their evidence?

  • I do not think Rossi is interested in convincing the LENR community, he wants to convince the markets and to do so he must be the first to impose his own product. Revealing the secrets before having a finished product for the sole purpose of having a greater consensus would be counterproductive.


    If Rossi wants to convince the markets, he must first convince the LENR+ community. Because the markets look here first. Don't misunderstand me: going to ICCF and convincing the aging traditional LENR researchers is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the crowd at ECW, primarily. I'm referring to the MFMP. I'm referring to a subset of the participants here. Convince us first by way of an open black box MFMP test, and the markets will open up like the parting of the skies.

  • IHFB - great news (I hope that you'll see it that way) - a new generation of smart, well educated researchers and enablers are beginning to emerge. The pioneering elders

    that have kept the faith through 30 years of minor feast and major famine (through pure perseverance and belief) are in position to hand-off the baton when they are ready. We still need the guys who can

    do the math by hand to stay in the hunt for as long as possible. (including our Dirac trained specialist warrior). Your aging out mantra is Planet Rossi story lore and belongs in the rearview mirror.

  • If Rossi wants to convince the markets, he must first convince the LENR+ community. Because the markets look here first. Don't misunderstand me: going to ICCF and convincing the aging traditional LENR researchers is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the crowd at ECW, primarily. I'm referring to the MFMP. I'm referring to a subset of the participants here. Convince us first by way of an open black box MFMP test, and the markets will open up like the parting of the skies.



    Mercy, absolutely unbelievable.

  • Roseland67:


    Good comment! But try putting the text below the quote box. This is a strange messaging system that makes that difficult, but give it a shot. Put the cursor below the quote box and the lines should open up. Or put it at the edge of the box and press enter. Your comment should appear below it.


    Quote

    Quote here.

    Comment here.

  • So I am to understand that the several dozen people who are the mainstay of this website and ECW have the power to influence world markets? A nod from you folks and "the floodgates will open"?


    Who knew?


    It does seem bizaare. But remember to sustain the view that e-cats work, important to some here and all on ECW, it helps to have a conspiracy theory along the lines of: this technology is being actively suppressed because it would disrupt markets if released. From which it is logical to suppose that some significant fraction of Wall Street is hanging on to every post here. Personally I'm quite sure all those disruptible markets go up when I post.

  • ETA. Since this view of the future seems to strike a chord with some members, here is a little more on the topic from a position paper I'm writing.


    The simple truth is that as already shown, major disruptions are inevitable, the economy as we know now will be unrecognisable within 10 -15 years. That’s because business model innovation is every bit as disruptive as technology innovation. Think Airbnb, think Uber. Try not to think of McDonalds. One huge factor is ‘transport on-demand’, using autonomous electric vehicles. This is not just disruptive to the car industry but has devastating effects amounting to trillions of dollars on the oil industry, car servicing and parking, insurance, car leasing and car dealerships. Like dominoes falling, this change also impacts shipping, logistics, real estate, infrastructure, and the bond and equity markets.

    So it is a case of ‘seat-belts on’ since huge disruptions are coming anyway.


    https://static1.squarespace.co…ethinkX+Report_051517.pdf


    Add in something like17 Bn people by 2100 and markets will be unrecognisable.



  • So I am to understand that the several dozen people who are the mainstay of this website and ECW have the power to influence world markets?


    The poster whose post you refer to in this case seems to intentionally make tendentious statements, so I would take the views he expresses with a grain of salt. It is true that there is a group of people here who share similar views, but they are probably a minority on this site. LENR is a fringe topic, and the Internet is a big place. ECW is a pretty different place than LENR Forum, and I won't attempt to summarize the views there.


    One element of the suggestion that seems plausible is that if at some point LENR is vindicated in the eyes of mainstream science, I would expect the revelation to be a pretty disruptive one, although it is hard to say how disruptive and in what ways. Also, I would not be surprised if there would be private funding that would become available for someone like me356 if he were to successfully complete a series of rigorous tests, and possibly, unfortunately, even if the tests were not rigorous. It would also not be surprising if what private funders there are looking to invest money in LENR consult LENR Forum in addition to other sources of information.