One of the Murphy's Law corollaries is "everything is harder than it looks". And he doesn't even know if at the end of the day having a COP of 1.20 means that it works or not.
If you found 1.2, it means it did not work according to the agreement: 4 or 6 was the threshold.
if your error bars are 20% you would only be at 1 sigma. (68% chance of it being a real effect")
You would prefer to do something that showed 5 sigma confidence.
One of the Murphy's Law corollaries is "everything is harder than it looks". And he doesn't even know if at the end of the day having a COP of 1.20 means that it works or not.
The important thing is he thinks he could make a better job of it than me.
Those are no doubt patents in mature industries. It's a completely different ball 🎾 of wax when you're dealing with radical technology and patent wars. The last time something like this happened was the Wright brothers, who also had their vehement detractors insisting they were earthbound scam artists and obvious patent thieves.
If they had claimed a device to produce excess power via LENR, then they would likely be required by the patent office to show a high level of "proof" and data. And that by independent credible individuals/groups. Just data by the inventor alone would not likely be enough. They would more than likely require much more than just an unsigned report from someone or data supplied by the inventor alone.
If they had claimed a device to produce excess power via LENR, then they would likely be required by the patent office to show a high level of "proof" and data. And that by independent credible individuals/groups. Just data by the inventor alone would not likely be enough. They would more than likely require much more than just an unsigned report from someone or data supplied by the inventor alone.
Again, it's obvious you have dealt with the patent office from the perspective of a mature industry. USPTO admits to going out of their way to disallowing LENR patents.
The important thing is he thinks he could make a better job of it than me.
Did I say that? 
If you found 1.2, it means it did not work according to the agreement: 4 or 6 was the threshold.
if your error bars are 20% you would only be at 1 sigma. (68% chance of it being a real effect")
You would prefer to do something that showed 5 sigma confidence.
I would be happy with proof of 1.2COP but the anti-LENR activists would denigrate that proof as well. It's easy to see that is the case because you have to change course even on your own hypothetical. Rossi is probably cooking his own goose, and the anriLENR crowd is already trying to leverage this.
I would be happy with proof of 1.2COP but the anti-LENR activists would denigrate that proof as well. It's easy to see that is the case because you have to change course even on your own hypothetical. Rossi is probably cooking his own goose, and the anriLENR crowd is already trying to leverage this.
KeV
Perhaps you are just being careless in that statement - because without qualification - such as clear error bounds - it makes no sense?
It is the type of thinking that leads to very bad judgement. Errors, and bounding them, are the key thing when determining whether results are significant.
I would be happy with proof of 1.2COP but the anti-LENR activists would denigrate that proof as well. It's easy to see that is the case because you have to change course even on your own hypothetical. Rossi is probably cooking his own goose, and the anriLENR crowd is already trying to leverage this.
There are lots of LENR experiments well beyond COP of 1.2 and above several sigma in the literature. I do not doubt that LENR is "real". You are right that some people do not believe in its reality. I have no idea what Rossi's error bars are. He ran no controls, and no calibration at the range of his claimed measurements.
If you are searching for LENR "proof", you might want to look up Cravens' NI demo. That was "convincing" for me. Two identical gold plated brass spheres side by side in a constant temperature bath- one hotter than the other for days - no input power - swapping locations in the bath and swapping thermistors - sawing open at end of demo, nothing "hidden" and allowing passersby to take the measurements themselves. Easy to understand without any calculations.
QuoteThat is a proper gamble for a VC to take, and their judgements, even the one that said a COP of 3 - 10 vouched for by 6 scientists took this device into the area where you don't need great technical expertise to discover whether it works or not, are understandable.
In this instance, I don't think it's a proper gamble or adequate vetting. There is this thing called the internet. IH could have hired one or more bright *technical* people to read much of what had been said about Rossi *before* contracting with him. They could have called Krivit and me. Maybe even Gary Wright is reachable. Krivit has prominent contact information on his web site. I have disclosed a contact email ([email protected]) many times.
Had they taken a few weeks and a small fraction of what they paid Rossi to check out Rossi and the ecat before committing $10M in a nonsensical way, they would probably have seen through him. Dick Smith did exactly that (and more) while vetting a possible contribution of "only" $1M to Defkalion in 2011. He was told to require certain specific tests with specific methods done independently. Defkalion refused because they knew their machine did not work. Rossi would have similarly refused proper testing which would have told IH what they needed know and prevented this current immensely expensive wasteful debacle.
It bears repeating. For purposes of developing a useful device from the ecat, it was never necessary to use hot cats and the confusing and error-prone measurement method Rossi proposed. That method was not needed nor desirable even if you wanted to try the hot cats. IH and Woodford were negligent and incompetent because they failed to consider and use readily available skeptical information and proper test methods. More important, had they examined with care Rossi's detailed longitudinal history as summarized by Krivit and others, they would have required stringent new tests or avoided him like the plague he is.
So no, it was not a proper gamble the way it was conducted. It was a callous failure to safeguard investor funds.
QuoteTHHuxleynew . Do you think you could do it? [properly test Rossi's devices]
I'm sure he could. I certainly could easily retest the ORIGINAL ecat properly. It would take a few weeks at most and minuscule funding compared to $10M. I could not test the hot cat under the conditions that Rossi required of the Swedes. I would never use a thermal camera. It's moronic to do so. But why test a hot cat at all? It's output was far LESS than that of the original ecat claimed by Levi in 2011 to make peak power of 135kW and averages around 20 with tiny power inputs. And Levi's test did not involve a phase change in the coolant, which made a mockery of most other early ecat tests. All Levi's tests needed were replication with proper calibration, a process Rossi and Levi have studiously avoided since 2011.
Back then, I collaborated briefly with Jed Rothwell (really!) by email and we devised simple methods for testing even the ecats which produced steam. Of course, Rossi refused to invite us to conduct those tests. So yes. Anyone with some understanding of calorimetry and thermal physics and engineering could have PROPERLY tested original ecats for Darden and IH. Of course, it would have been necessary to be rude to Rossi's resistance. Some obstacle!
QuoteSerious scientists respond to criticism by demonstrating their reasons through other experiments and other articles. You just have to wait.
Levi conducted his ecat tests which yielded spectacular results in 2011 ( http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece ) It's 2017 and he has never repeated or improved on this test despite being requested to do so by no less than Nobel laureate and LENR enthusiast Dr. Brian Josephson (personal communication) -- Levi did not even reply to his emails. That's serious scientist behavior in your estimation? Wow! How long shall we wait? 20+ years like we've been waiting for Mills? 50+ years like we waited for Papp's crap? Infinity is what we are likely to wait for Defkalion's? How long?
Then you didn't follow the deposition debacle very closely. Or you did, and are conveniently choosing to forget about it.
Actually I have read the depositions quite thoroughly, and I have a pretty strong memory. I didn't see anything in the depositions that indicated that IH or IPH, by virtue of their existence as corporate entities were used in any way to deceive, defraud, or harm Rossi or anyone else.
I assume, from reading the depositions, that you find the 'stonewalling' of IH (and Cherokee) during deposition to be a 'debacle'. But stonewalling in response to a hostile legal adversary is quite different from using 'shell corporations' to deceive or defraud. Jones Day surely advised IH on the best strategy for answering deposition. I agree that they did stonewall, and it appears that the strategy worked, even if that doesn't seem 'fair'. But now we are discussing a legal war, and 'all's fair in love and war' as they say, so the context is different once civil suit was filed by Rossi against IH.
Now you may argue that IH intentionally deceived or enticed investors (Rossi has accused IH of this), and perhaps that is true (or not). I concede that there is evidence on the docket that IH continued to solicit investors later in the game despite early evidence that the E-Cat didn't work. It is also unquestionable that IH was investing in LENR technologies other than Rossi's, but I admit that they had placed their main bet on Rossi (like at least 10:1). But this is an issue between Darden and the investors, isn't it? Rossi's complaint regarding this is tangential at best, and it has nothing to do with the structure of IH or IPH per se.
One reason that it would be particularly risky and costly for IH to intentionally deceive using corporations is that there are diverse shareholders in IH/IPH. Bad corporate stewardship has immediate shareholder consequences for Darden. But this is not true for Rossi in the case of Leonardo or Platinum American Trust, where he has no real accountability to anyone other than himself (and perhaps his buddy Francesco Di Giovanni).
Now, I made a promise, that because it's not that interesting to me how 'moral' IH is, I'm not going to argue this point: are 'Darden and crew' Vulture Capitalists or Virtue Capitalists?
My take, given the evidence so far, is that they behave just like Venture Capitalists (with demonstrably poor technical expertise). But if you want to argue that they are Vulture Capitalists instead, go ahead. Cite the evidence, I'm not interesting in debating that point.
But what I know from the evidence available to all on the docket is that Rossi deceived (and likely defrauded) IH in directing all aspects of JM Products, which was clearly created for that purpose. And this behavior is entirely consistent with his long history of extraordinary deception.
And in contrast, there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that IH and IPH are corporate entities created with the explicit purpose to deceive or defraud.
QuoteThe last time something like this happened was the Wright brothers, who also had their vehement detractors insisting they were earthbound scam artists and obvious patent thieves.
ROTFWL! If that was the last time, it doesn't happen very often! TERRIBLE analogy. IDIOTIC comparison! That was in the days before television, before internet, and the Wright Brothers had a flying airplane! If somehow the Wright Brothers had not invented the airplane until now, it would be accepted overnight and the video of it flying would go viral in hours. Same with Rossi's claims if they were supported by irrefutable, clear and proper testing. An example of such a test would be a self-sustaining reactor, running on an isolated table in the middle of a large field, producing considerable heat, for days or weeks on a thimble of fuel.
Instead, what do we get from Rossi? We get lie after lie, and a giant piece of junk measured by unreliable people using uncheckable methods and based on a supposed customer for the heat who doesn't exist. Believe me, that is not analogous to a flying Wright Brothers' airplane!
And again the Dameron patent only claims the vessel for use if you had a material for it. It does not patent the material and the vessel. It is useful IF you had some material for it. The paten very clearly avoids patenting the entire ecat device. It may contain in the specs that someone (i.e. Rossi) found it useful and that Rossi had data but it does not claim excess heat or even the heat itself at any level.
True, if not claimed, and the claims not granted, there are no matured rights. Nevertheless, that IH included the >1 COP material in the description section of the patent application speaks to SSC's original point.
But what I know from the evidence available to all on the docket is that Rossi deceived (and likely defrauded) IH in directing all aspects of JM Products, which was clearly created for that purpose. And this behavior is entirely consistent with his long history of extraordinary deception.
And in contrast, there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that IH and IPH are corporate entities created with the explicit purpose to deceive or defraud.
IH deceived by stonewalling the depositions using their various business entities as a shield, by withholding information, and by omission. They were reprimanded by the judge for this behavior, and were ordered to submit to further depositions because of it.
Did Penon ever submit all his data ( min., hours...) and did Rossi ever submit all those T bytes of data?
It looks like we only have some daily summary data that Rossi gave Penon.
I remember where Rossi was sanctioned for not supplying the data but never where he delivered it. My understanding is that if it was never delivered under discovery, it cannot be used at trial and that adverse interpretation can be used. Any word on the data? It seems without either a signed report from Penon or the data, then an adverse interpretation would be that the data was negative to Rossi's case.
So how does an experiment that runs for weeks go viral in a mtter of hours?
IH deceived by stonewalling the depositions using their various business entities as a shield, by withholding information, and by omission. They were reprimanded by the judge for this behavior, and were ordered to submit to further depositions because of it.
Yep, we agree. And it looks like they essentially got away with it, with only a slap on the wrist - no sanctions other than paying Rossi for the time of two lawyers during repeat deposition. It appears that Jones Day's advice worked, since the judge did not allow any follow-up inquiry (post redposition) by Rossi, as the deposition phase had long since expired.
But as I said, Rossi decided to go to 'war' by suing IH. IH then hired Jones Day to fire back. That places IH's post-lawsuit behavior regarding Rossi in a completely different context.
Do you think the shareholders of IH/IPH and Cherokee are unhappy with the stonewalling? Because that is who Darden is accountable to, not Rossi, and certainly not us in the peanut gallery.
If Rossi produced a self-sustaining reactor running in isolation, it could be streamed live if he wanted to give it wide publicity. Same as if somehow the Wright airplane was invented today-- it also would be immediately well known. The point is that the analogy of Rossi's obvious scams to the Wright Brothers' world shaking accomplishment is specious!
Yep, we agree. And it looks like they essentially got away with it, with only a slap on the wrist - no sanctions other than paying Rossi for the time of two lawyers during repeat deposition. It appears that Jones Day's advice worked, since the judge did not allow any follow-up inquiry (post redposition) by Rossi, as the deposition phase had long since expired.
But as I said, Rossi decided to go to 'war' by suing IH. IH then hired Jones Day to fire back. That places IH's post-lawsuit behavior regarding Rossi in a completely different context.
Do you think the shareholders of IH/IPH and Cherokee are unhappy with the stonewalling? Because that is who Darden is accountable to, not Rossi, and certainly not us in the peanut gallery.
It is comparable: IH was stomewalling - but then Rossi was fishing hoping for something he could use in absence of any substantive evidence.
Both quite normal.
If Rossi produced a self-sustaining reactor running in isolation, it could be streamed live if he wanted to give it wide publicity. Same as if somehow the Wright airplane was invented today-- it also would be immediately well known. The point is that the analogy of Rossi's obvious scams to the Wright Brothers' world shaking accomplishment is specious!
It is specious - in many ways. But it is also a much loved internet meme. Brought out to justify completely unsubstantiated, and extraordinary, claims. Such colorful analogies add interest (when not so hackneyed) to the arguments, but don't actually show anything.
