The Levi test looks more convincing, but is less well documented.
You that say something nice to Levi ? Incredible !
Anyway the Ferrara test https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf is fully documented in the arXiv paper.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
If not naive (even if you have 10% of MaryYugoitis) you note that information control and lack of methodology.
THH. Be Serious.
There was a quilified ERV (approved also by IH). Rossi passed also the first test with IH in Ferrara.
If you want to affirm that even the ERV was controlled by Rossi..... than on my opinion you are out of reality.
Ferrara and Doral tests were not done by Rossi. Rossi was operating his plant, but the measures were done by others.
-
The tiresome, insipid, droning of the Rossi antiScientific Method: Prove the negative of every exhortation, while expecting nor providing any positive proof
No sir . If you take a photo after that an object has been removed you cannot deduce almost any information regarding the time before that photo.
If a kid eats a slice of cake and than take a photo affirming that the slice has never been there...... that not credible!
Is your method sir that I consider not scientific !
And also I see a profund prejudice against the ERV.
-
No sir . If you take a photo after that an object has been removed you cannot deduce almost any information regarding the time before that photo.
What if someone takes a photo of a window replacement a year after the heat exchanger that supposedly vented out that window was dismantled?
Does that indicate that the window was missing for two years, or just that the window was missing on that day? That there was a heat exchanger at all?
I guess not.
-
There have already been a lot of fireworks today and looking forward to some fun tonight.
You talking about here, or in Miami?
-
Ele,
I hope you do not read Doc. 326, Cassarino depo, pg 222.
-
I am sure that MikeD will also answer, but my take, as a non-scientist and non-engineer, is that the outcome of this trial, whatever that outcome may be, should have no effect on LENR and associated research. This trial is not about LENR, it is a simple contract dispute.
Dear Colleague,
I respectfully don't agree with you. If Rossi loses this case, for sure we can't affirm his machine doesn't work. But if wins, it means that the Erv report is "real", not "fake". A real erv report with high cop means that Ecat is a functioning machine.
"in mercato veritas". It's Latin.
-
Italianlawyer. You just used an absurd double standard. If Rossi loses the case, it indeed does not necessarily mean that his alleged gadget does not owrk. But the converse is equally true. If he wins the case, all it means is that the jury somehow bought his bundle of lies. You don't get to apply logic in one direction and blind faith in the other.
-
Display More
THHuxleynew basically nailed it.
It seems that there are a fair number of Europeans here, so I think it might be helpful to touch on the role of the court in this trial. For simplicity, I'm going to be grossly oversimplifying most of the points, so this should be taken as a rough outline, not a detailed explanation.
Most of the nations in Western Europe (the UK and Ireland being the major exceptions) have legal systems that have their roots in the Napoleonic legal reforms; these reforms, in turn, took heavy inspiration from the Code of Justinian. The role of the courts in these systems can be broadly described as inquisitorial, with the idea being that the judge is there to actively seek out the truth. It is common for a judge in one of these legal systems to take a very active role in questioning witnesses, etc. My understanding is that it is not unusual for courts in these systems to seek independent expert advice in a case.
The common law nations (basically England and former colonies - US included) are an adversarial system, with roots in the king's role (originally in person, later delegated) as an arbiter of disputes. In an adversarial system, each side presents its evidence and arguments to the court (which includes the judge and jury). Courts in adversarial systems tend to take a more passive (and listening-based) role in the process. Judges and juries may sometimes ask questions of witnesses, but that will typically be in a supplemental role, seeking clarification of points already brought out by the lawyers.
So there are probably places where the judge could order independent testing or evaluation of the technology, but the USA is not one of them. The judge's discretion is much more limited, as are the possible options. The parties have set out their claims. The judge narrowed those claims in preliminary proceedings. The jury will rule on each of the remaining claims after listening to all evidence and deliberating as a group to determine how to best interpret the evidence. Their ability to rule, however, is limited to ruling on the specific claims in front of them. They have no ability to go beyond that scope.
You are just oversimplifying. Adversial trials are the norm in Italy... with few exceptions (labor trials, family trials and administrative trials). Yes, a judge in a Italian civil trial can choose an expert "ex officio" (by himself), but only to evaluate facts already proved by the parties... And the parties can cross examine these experts...
-
There is photographic evidence that there was no heat exchanger on the day the photo was taken. No photographic evidence can prove that the object was not there the day before.
You can not remove 700-800 feet of piping in one day. But let's say that you have successfully removed the exchanger before I get there and have even remove all traces of the exchanger from the mezzanine. You will still have evidence in the form of a blanked off six inch line leaving the e-cat system.
-
Italianlawyer. You just used an absurd double standard. If Rossi loses the case, it indeed does not necessarily mean that his alleged gadget does not owrk. But the converse is equally true. If he wins the case, all it means is that the jury somehow bought his bundle of lies. You don't get to apply logic in one direction and blind faith in the other.
That's not a double standard.
It's legal reasoning.
Rossi loses if he is not able to prove his test complied with the contract signed. This means that (despite the functioning of the machine) if the procedure used by mr. Penon was not correct, Rossi loses his claims.
And the same will happen if IH persuade the jury that test was not the gpt.
From this point of views, we don't care about the Ecat machine.
But, if he proves the test complied with the contract, it means "per se" (for itself) the test was realized according to the protocol. This would mean that his Ecat really produces an excess of heat.
-
I see that ItalianLawyer is also well-versed in the classical Planet Rossi curricula vernacula.
Where did Andrian go? There is some unfinished business with him. Hope he didn't pop smoke and vaminos after the legal boiler and opening statement inquiries.
-
You are just oversimplifying. Adversial trials are the norm in Italy... with few exceptions (labor trials, family trials and administrative trials). Yes, a judge in a Italian civil trial can choose an expert "ex officio" (by himself), but only to evaluate facts already proved by the parties... And the parties can cross examine these experts...
I agree completely. I am grossly oversimplifying, and I believe you will see that I said so at the start of my post.
-
The strange thing with Rossi is that there is so much development of plants which then vanish, with no sales nor demos anyone else can validate, shot down to be replaced by the next duck (or quarkX) in the row - so to speak!
That's "Quack-X"- correct translation from Italian "Quark-X"...
-
The photos were taken while the reactor was being used. If the heat was real and you removed a 1 MW exchanger while it was being used, you would kill everyone in the warehouse. Even Rossi admits this, so you should not deny it.
The heat exchanger was NOT there. It was NEVER there. Rossi made up the story of the heat exchanger long after the bogus test ended. If there had been a heat exchanger, people would have seen it and it would have shown up in photographs.
Google street view showed the windows were there while the reactor was being used. If the windows were there even one day while the reactor produced 1 MW, it would have killed everyone. Google is not conspiring to frame Rossi. There would have to be massive equipment hanging out of the windows to for an air-cooled 1 MW heat exchanger. There was none.
If I were the lawyer, along with a 60-lb 3-foot section of pipe (that Rossi and his phantom day-laborers hauled up multiple sections 10x as heavy and long into the second floor , fitted and supported, then Rossi single-handedly removed in a day, without a trace), I'd haul in about ten, 1000 watt spacer heaters into the courtroom and run up the temp in the courtroom, then have them envision 1000 of them. Of course, you'd have to get an electrician to run 100 amp 120 volt service from somewhere, just for the 10 heaters, or a generator (even more to demonstrate the point), since the standard circuits would only handle two space heaters.
-
There have already been a lot of fireworks today and looking forward to some fun tonight.
I either reckon a Rossi witness has turned, or celebrating a favourable/full settlement.
...Or maybe Abd has been sharing his party stash on a slow Miami afternoon.
-
Or a more sensible guess is that the judge has finally had chance to properly look at the case, and had a few choice things to say about it.
-
Italianlawyer: You still don't get it. There is nothing that can happen in the courtroom that "means that the e-cat produces excess heat." The jury might conclude that it does and, for the purposes of the legal outcome, Rossi might collect on that basis. But do not confuse that with reality (assuming you care about reality, which is a rash assumption about any Rossi believer.) If you don't understand the distinction between what a jury might decide and what is factually true, you are not an Italian lawyer or anyone else capable of critical thinking.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/…er-trump-tweet/index.html
How CNN found the Reddit user behind the Trump wrestling GIF
The downside of trolling
Quote"To people who troll on the Internet for fun, consider your words and actions conveyed in your message and who it might upset or anger," he wrote. "Put yourself in their shoes before you post it. If you have a problem with trolling it is an addiction just like any other addiction someone can have to something and don't be embarrassed to ask for help. Trolling is nothing more than bullying a wide audience. Don't feed your own self-worth based upon inflicting suffering upon others online just because you are behind a keyboard."
-
Or a more sensible guess is that the judge has finally had chance to properly look at the case, and had a few choice things to say about it.
The only thing the judge will say is "call your first witness."
