So what we see here is a direct contradiction between what IH has led you to believe, and what actually happened
OK, I'm telling you as clearly as I can: I see NO contradiction. Your facts do NOT support your claim.
We can agree that on this point: we completely disagree.
In engineering '<<' means "much, much less".
Can you agree that in terms of E-Cat viability 1.3 << 6.0 ?
If you can't see the contradiction, which is plain as day (at least to me), then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
The engineer equivocates in his answer
Either way there seems uncertainty about Dameron's view of the measurements and we hence know why Murrey was brought in.
It could be the case that Dameron was uncertain about the levels and when Murrey reviewed it he found no statistical
support for saying there was excess. Hence the IH position.
Sometimes it is good to see how some apparent contradictions can be true before rushing to judgement.
So IH brings in an entrepreneur/investor (Murray) to clean things up? The exhibit 5 was ostensibly drafted by Murray, but reads more like something written by an attorney. Murray was brought in to prepare for the lawsuit and to do damage control, it seems to me.
If you are an engineer who makes ambiguous statements, you are not doing your job properly
I disagree. It is OK for an engineer to doubt his measurements. When that happens it is good to call in others to review the data and methods. That is exactly what IH did. They called in Joe M.
You may want to try to create a timeline for when Dameron was looking at the data, when Joe was called in and when IH said they saw nothing. I haven't done so but I think the statements by IH of no excess was after Joe had gone over Dameron's information and that Dameron's response was about the time he was testing the ecats.
It could very well be that first Dameron saw ambiguous results, IH called in others to review the data near the noise level, Joe reevaluated the data and then IH said they did not have excess. I think this is very likely. Mystery of an apparent contradiction solved by thinking of the process that was likely occurring at the time.
Engineers are not all highly articulate and in Court may well not explain things as they could in a formal report, and some indeed are not much good at writing clear reports.
So "ambiguous statements" in this context are possible.
But, of course, we don't know this was an ambiguous statement because we do not have all the context. That would be mention of the elephant in the room - those error bars. IHFB here consistently has avoided it, and seems to think error bars don't exist. If in Court it was avoided than either the engineer examined was incompetent, or he was not given an opportunity to explain by a lawyer interested in something other than truth. I see the second possibility as very likely. And if there was examination from both sides I'd expect this to have come out in other evidence not quoted by Rossi. But not necessarily - because lawyers are not engineers.
Every engineer knows that from an experiment "COP=1.3" does not exist. "COP could be 1.3" is valid, but is very possibly consistent with "no measurable excess heat".
I'm sorry IHFB, but these are matters of fact.
I'm not disputing that numbers must be evaluated within a context, with error bars. My complaint is the manner in which IH has misled the public. By their statements, they have led others to believe that they were unable to measure excess heat at any time. They had a motive to take that hard stance: because it served to discredit Rossi very early on. Now as the cocks come crowing, they must face the brisk response. None of this is to say that Rossi is off the hook. Because he isn't.
Rossi's statement on the emails:
"DT:
Here is the release allowed by my Attorneys:
I have not reviewed any emails which are supposedly reduced, but I can say that we are confident that the evidence we have uncovered is more than enough to support our claims.
While I cannot comment on emails I have not seen, I question the authenticity of such emails as the Court has entered a protective order prohibiting the release of that type of document in this case.
Dr Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corporation"
I have no reason to question the authenticity of the emails, but Rossi appears to be doing so, on the basis that such disclosures are apparently not permitted at this stage of the litigation. Guess we'll have to see what the judge does next (maybe a slap on IH's hand, but likely not even that). One way or the other Rossi is going to have to confront the JMP ruse.
You may want to try to create a timeline for when Dameron was looking at the data, when Joe was called in and when IH said they saw nothing.
Doesn't the timeline end with the 1.3 statement to the court?
Engineers are not all highly articulate and in Court may well not explain things as they could in a formal report, and some indeed are not much good at writing clear reports.
So "ambiguous statements" in this context are possible.
Sure, but they should be able able to stand behind their calculations and 'headline' conclusions.
such disclosures are apparently not permitted at this stage
Rossi and perhaps you are not understanding. IH did not release this information... the court did. Is Rossi now going to sue the court? This information was given to the court by IH as evidence and the court published it in the docket. Is Rossi stating that IH cannot present evidence for their case to the court? Really? IH did not make this public, but Rossi is accusing them! He does not understand. He does not understand he is in big trouble!
Rossi states he has "all the evidence needed", but he has not shown one piece! He better show some soon or the judge is going to toss his case. IH has presented significant amount of evidence and Ross zero. Rossi himself stated he read 7,000 pages of IH provided evidence. However, IH has presented to the court that Rossi / Fabiani has returned NO requested discovery documents. NONE!
Now IH is stating this TO the court, not some blog they own! IH is providing TO the court, emails etc. as evidence. Are you saying it is likely that IH is lying to the court versus Rossi lying on his blog where there is no repercussions? Which is truly the most likely scenario?
Remember this... IH has made NO public comments other than the original "we are working with Rossi" and the pre-law suit "do not believe anything unless it comes from us". IH has presented evidence TO the court and the court controls the docket. Everything about Rossi is simply "Rossi says". Just about everything you "hear about IH", comes from someone else's imagination! Not from IH or the court docket! Most is shear fantasy of wishful thinking!
IH presents evidence TO the court. Rossi posts some smoke on his own blog. He has provided nothing to the court. Which are you really going to believe?
Sure, but they should be able able to stand behind their calculations and 'headline' conclusions.
Here's the thing. We do not know that they aren't 'standing behind their calculations'. Also, it's obvious to me (but obviously not to at least one other poster on here) that this one sentence is not a 'headline' of this engineers conclusions.
This was one statement pulled from the deposition. We don't know what else was stated. We can assume that when Rossi/Annesser filed their procedurally inappropriate motion for sanctions (the judge rejected it because the judge ruled that it was procedurally innappropriate), that they made their strongest case for why IH should be sanctioned. Their argument was that IH knew what they said was not true. So, if there was any stronger evidence in Rossi's possession, I think you can safely assume that they would have included it in there 'sanctions' filing. You would not expect Rossi/Annesser to carefully contextualize the information for the judge so that the judge might unjustly rule against IH. Right?
I find it unlikely that during this deposition, if the engineer was asked "What is the headline of your conclusions" that the engineers answer would be:
QuoteI can’t say that we never had a result that was -- let’s see if I can say this right – we probably had results greater than one, 1.3 might be an answer.
When you are in court and being deposed and the opposing party is interrogating you, do you think you might answer in ways that answer the question in a way that lacks specificity but satisfies the judge?
(Hopefully you do not find yourself in such a situation!) 
yes, I could not tell if the 1.3 statement was about the Doral testing or perhaps what he saw in NC as IH worked to get something from the systems Rossi left there as he set up shop in Fl or even if it referred to what IH may have worked on as an improvement to Rossi's work. It does seem that IH was trying to work and improve things to get something/anything out of the Ni and other systems.
The word might could mean a lot of things. I do not agree to trying to force one specific meaning without knowing more.
BTW, if the evidence in Exhibit A in 115-1 which supports IH's allegations that Rossi fraudulently represented JMP as a real customer is true, and we have no reason to think otherwise, Rossi is at risk of criminal charges for violating Florida fraud laws. If a criminal court finds that this is 'Organized Fraud' which means that an organized scheme was committed, and the 'property taken' has an aggregate value of $50,000 or more, it is a considered a First Degree Felony, a Level 6 offense severity ranking under Florida's Criminal Punishment Code. If convicted of this, a judge can impose any combination of the following penalties:
Up to thirty years in prison,
Up to thirty years of probation, or
Up to $10,000 in fines.
This is independent of any ruling about any 'GPT' in this civil case.
Will Rossi bolt? It wouldn't be the first time.
QuoteI'm not disputing that numbers must be evaluated within a context, with error bars. My complaint is the manner in which IH has misled the public. By their statements, they have led others to believe that they were unable to measure excess heat at any time. They had a motive to take that hard stance: because it served to discredit Rossi very early on. Now as the cocks come crowing, they must face the brisk response. None of this is to say that Rossi is off the hook. Because he isn't.
I'm puzzled by this. Are you saying that if IH do a whole load of experiments with what they know is a sigma = 0.15 on COP setup, and get COP all over the place, sometimes 1.3, that this is "measurable excess heat"?
It is not. At least not to a competent engineer. It is a measured COP=1.3 on a setup with large error bars, so that it does not indicate excess heat.
The two statements you think are contradictory, on whose basis you repeatedly slander IH, are no way contradictory.
Good proposition bet:
Does Rossi flee the country, yes or no?
Rossi is at risk of criminal charges for violating Florida fraud laws.
Sig,
That also may be the reason for Fabiani moving to Russia, and Penon's decision to stay in Italy.
IH can perhaps in retrospect be blamed for not having more rigorous testing at the start. But think about it: if the lugano results were real they did not need rigorous testing. Stable and repeatable excess heat of double the input heat can be measurd in many ways and is commercially viable as a heat pump replacement. It would not have needed high powered testing expertise. They would have been very surprised and worried by the fact that 6 Lugano testers made a large calculation mistake, and that Levi continued to assert this was not a mistake. It was bad luck for them. Good luck for Rossi. Though Rossi seems to make his own luck, and in ways that may be magnificent but are not to my taste.
Does Rossi flee the country, yes or no?
Rose,
Good question. I am not sure he has enough money to flee anymore. It was revealed yesterday that he bounced a check to his fake company JMP. Maybe if he sells his 10 Miami condo's he bought with IH's money, before IH repossesses them, he can afford a ticket out of town.
Take care in your accusations. You seem far too invested in this. Are you going to answer my question?
BTW, if the evidence in Exhibit A in 115-1 which supports IH's allegations that Rossi fraudulently represented JMP as a real customer is true, and we have no reason to think otherwise, Rossi is at risk of criminal charges for violating Florida fraud laws.
Yes it does seem like Rossi may be facing some possible fraud charges. Recall that in Florida fraud is any effort to obtain financial reward through deception. It sure sounds like Rossi's story about JMP being a "real customer" and that neither he nor Johnson were officers or "agents" of JMP was a deception. From the emails, it sounds like Rossi was at least an agent transacting business (hiring Bass, directing payment of bills and so on)
