Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

We already had a bunch of trolls with nothing to add but conspiracy theories and insults.

For a while this board was getting unpleasant.

Thankfully the moderators have taken action.

I hope we do not now get into a slagging match between LENR-Forum and ECW.

I am sure there are some that would love to stoke this and then feed off the anger and bitterness. There are already signs of this on ECW and accusations are emerging on both boards.

Hopefully we can try to remain polite and civilized. I value input from all sides in this drama.

Quote from JedRothwell

If this were real cold fusion, the reaction would probably go down with reduced input, but it might remain stable or go up. Input power has no direct or linear effect on output power in cold fusion. However, we know for sure the cold fusion heat would not instantly leap up to cover up the change in power the way Rossi claimed. That never happens.

Penon's data is bullshit from start to end. No instrument would produce those numbers. It is all made up. You cannot draw any conclusions from blatantly fake data.

There is no conflict. You missed my point, and Murray's point. (You missed his point because the lawyer would not let him finish explaining.) The point is, the "COP" would not instantly change to keep overall energy output stable. As I said, you would have difficulty keeping the balance this close even with combustion. With actual cold fusion, the ratio wanders all over the place. It is not a COP at all in the engineering sense. There is no direct connection, only second and third order connections, such as heat from input power, or hydride loading from input power.

For the sake of argument, if this is real, Rossi has discovered something completely different from cold fusion. That would violate McKubre's conservation of miracles. This new effect can be controlled with pinpoint precision in mysterious ways unlike any cold fusion experiment. It works even when the machine is turned off and disassembled! Components such as the heat exchanger pipe are invisible. It is a miracle indeed.

The COP in the report is defined generally to be Energy Output / Energy Input over the entire day for the plant. The plant consists of multiple (many) E-Cat reactors, each probably with it's own (different) performance characteristics such as energy output and COP. Even if the performance of each of these reactors might vary at any instant, it might be possible for Rossi to enable or disable various combinations over the entire day such that 1MW output is achieved. I would expect the aggregate average COP over the day to also depend on which reactors he used over which times. In fact this might also explain the anomaly I pointed out. This is perhaps why IH has been after the raw data which gives presumably a much finer time stamp and on a reactor basis for some of the data. If you start out assuming that the data is bogus there is no sense in having a discussion about the data.

Quote from PeterMetz

If you start out assuming that the data is bogus there is no sense in having a discussion about the data.

Res ipsa loquitur, as they say, regarding the data. (Latin for 'the thing speaks for itself').

There is no way to make any sense of the provided data. Jed's two main points from the data 'speak for themselves': zero bar pressure and power production when the unit is not operating.

In research, when results with flaws like this are provided (or published), we say 'the results are uninterpretable'. Because they are uninterpretable. Except in this case I and others (strongly) suspect actual malfeasance (which is extraordinary in research). So in my view, the only rational 'interpretation' one can do in analysis is whether or not the data supports or contradicts malfeasance. (Since it clearly cannot be interpreted regarding Performance).

So I agree with Jed: trying to interpret this data with respect to E-Cat Performance is a waste of time.

But maybe I'm too cynical on this. If you are able to find anything that seems to make any sense, that would be great.

Doc. 232, a notice of hearing, on the docket (not sure it's worth mentioning, but there it is).

Ok, so ECW is fantasy land for the Rossi deluded. They are entitled to their place where reality is irrelevant.

However, this site is supposed to be the online voice of the LENR community. It is clear that most people here recognize Rossi for the charlatan that he is, which is a good thing. What is depressing is that the overwhelming majority of the activity here is related to Rossi and very little addresses any legitimate work on LENR. Comments to the effect that Rossi is harmful to the field in general are spot on. As long as Rossi is the only thing anyone is talking about in LENR, LENR is going to be regarded as junk science of no value. Perhaps some day when Rossi goes off to a tropical island or ends up in jail, people will focus on other things.

Quote from sigmoidal

Res ipsa loquitur, as they say, regarding the data. (Latin for 'the thing speaks for itself').

There is no way to make any sense of the provided data. Jed's two main points from the data 'speak for themselves': zero bar pressure and power production when the unit is not operating.

In research, when results with flaws like this are provided (or published), we say 'the results are uninterpretable'. Because they are uninterpretable. Except in this case I and others (strongly) suspect actual malfeasance (which is extraordinary in research). So in my view, the only rational 'interpretation' one can do in analysis is whether or not the data supports or contradicts malfeasance. (Since it clearly cannot be interpreted regarding Performance).

So I agree with Jed: trying to interpret this data with respect to E-Cat Performance is a waste of time.

But maybe I'm too cynical on this. If you are able to find anything that seems to make any sense, that would be great.

Display More

There have been a number of issues raised with the data, one of them being that the COP cannot go up if the input energy goes down. Even in the context of what Jed has said about the behavior of cold fusion systems he's familiar with, I still do not believe this is a problem per say. It's true that if there is enough issues with the data is makes no sense to draw too many conclusions from the data--garbage in, garbage out as they also say. But my arguments have been somewhat general (as has Jed's claim that for all LENR systems if energy input goes down so would COP) so I think it's still a valid point of discussion. I think looking at the data from the perspective of many reactors working together also helps in interpreting some of the daily data.

Quote from Eric Walker

Doc. 232, a notice of hearing, on the docket (not sure it's worth mentioning, but there it is).

Note: this commentary is only relevant to the LEGAL aspect of Rossi vs. Darden:

Yes, I definitely think it's worth mentioning this document. This hearing before the Magistrate is for Thursday, April 20, 2017, starting at 3:00 p.m.

The issues on the agenda are:

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions (Bad Faith Litigation Conduct);

(2) Judge Altonaga’s Remand of the Deep River Venture Privileged Documents; and

(3) Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Spoliation)

Analysis:

Regarding 1) Plaintiffs' motion for Sanctions, I'm pretty sure this is regarding Rossi's allegation that 'team IH' purposefully waited until the last minute to provide non-informative Corporate deposition in the case of IPH and Cherokee (but just as another reminder to everyone, NOT IH). I don't think this has 'legs' because the Magistrate already ruled that IPH and Cherokee must give more informative deposition, that that deposition will be added to the Court record, and that the costs for this must be paid by the Defendants (IH, IPH, Cherokee). In other words, I think the Magistrate will rule that he already has provided a 'remedy' for the inadequte behavior of IPH and Cherokee, and will not mete out additional 'punishment' or 'sanctions'.

Regarding 2) Judge Altonaga ruled that Dewey Weaver's emails are privileged. It is now the Magistrates responsibility to change his instructions (which were that DW emails are NOT privileged). So I don't think there will be much discussion allowed here, and the outcome is clear: the Magistrate will tell both parties that Dewey's emails are privileged. (BTW, DW clarified on this thread that Rossi's lawyers already have all the IH-DW emails. So the 'privileged' part has to do with whether they can use any of those emails in their legal arguments, either in Motions or Responses of any kind or in a jury trial, should that occur. Rossi's lawyers have apparently already read Dewey's emails.)

Regarding 3) IH alleges Spoliation (yes, it really is spelled this way, not 'spoilation') by Rossi and Fabiani, but Judge Altonaga rejected the Motion for Sanctions on procedural grounds. So charges of Spoliation are now before the Magistrate. Depending on the hearing, the Magistrate will either decide that IH's allegations have merit, in which case he will forward some Motion for Sanctions to Judge Altonaga, or he will decide that there is no merit, in which case IH can still appeal to Altonaga, but with much less chance of her remanding that decision by the Magistrate.

Regarding the Hearing (232)

I decided that it might be better for me to put my opinion in a separate post from the Summary and Analysis, as this might help discussion.

Sigmoidal's Opinion:

Of these, (3) is actually quite important to two issues: 1) the probability of IH succeeding or not in all or part of their Motion to Dismiss Rossi's claims against IH and 2) the probability of IH succeeding or not in all or part of their suit against Rossi.

The first two issues on the agenda regarding Plaintiff's Motion and the Judges Remand are very likely to be addressed in ways that will not change the case from how it is now proceeding. The decision regarding Spoliation has major implications: If it fails, then I'd predict that neither party wins any damages from the other. If it proceeds, then IH is much more likely to be awarded some damages from Rossi AND Fabiani. (How's that Peter Gluck, an actual prediction.)

Quote from interested observer

What is depressing is that the overwhelming majority of the activity here is related to Rossi and very little addresses any legitimate work on LENR.

I'm half-inclined to agree with you, although I do really appreciate the Rossi v. Darden thread, because (1) it brings to light so much information that was shrouded in questions for several years, and (2) it invites a robust and rigorous debate, the kind of which I think very much needs to be applied to LENR research (both formal and informal).

As for the majority of the activity here being related to Rossi at the moment, I do not think that is because this story has sidetracked things. Rather it seems to me that there is little other interesting news at the moment. I am optimistic that as soon as a juicy news item surfaces that is tangential or unrelated to this thread, the spotlight will shift somewhat over to the new thread.

Up for discussion and conveniently being ignored while the others are away.

let's talk about ...

Why is it Important for Darden/Industrial Heat to take Control of the LENR-FORUM?

This list disclosed in court documents. Have a look at this list from 214-35: Now You Know

http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…ontrol-of-the-lenr-forum/

let's see how fast they try and bury this list.)

This place obviously hasn't been taken over by IH, although certain imbalanced personalities may try to connect the dots to that effect. It is left to readers to assess the quality of posts on that blog and decide for themselves what merit there might be to the accusations.

What might be understandably confusing to some participants and observers is the extent to which we've started cracking down on people who seek to make the discussions here into an argument about forum participants. We are gradually getting less and less tolerant of that, and I think that is what is incrementally raising the level of discussion. It is not an all or nothing thing, and sometimes forum members are a fruitful topic for discussion, although usually this is not the case. Although I get the sense that there are more participants able to formulate an interesting (non-ad-hom) argument here whose sympathies lie towards the IH side of this affair, there are also capable and effective people, with independent minds, whose sympathies I am guessing lie more with Rossi. One such person is Alan Fletcher, for example. He is always polite, he brings up many good points, and he rarely if ever makes the discussion one about other forum members. We could have 10 more Alan Fletchers here, and the discussions would continue to be civil, productive, and enlightening.

Quote from ultrasure

Why is it Important for Darden/Industrial Heat to take Control of the LENR-FORUM?

ultrasure: just to be clear, would you say that I am one of those who has helped 'IH/Darden take Control of the LENR-FORUM'?

Quote from sigmoidal

 

ultrasure: just to be clear, would you say that I am one of those who has helped 'IH/Darden take Control of the LENR-FORUM'?

 

Sigmodal you decide: http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…ontrol-of-the-lenr-forum/ I'm not sure which one of these entities you represent?

Quote from ultrasure

Sigmodal you decide: http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…ontrol-of-the-lenr-forum/ I'm not sure which one of these entities you represent?

Well, I don't know or represent any of those people, and as I've already stated, I have no connection to anyone in the energy field, have never received payment or direct or indirect benefit (other than my own 'amusement') from posting on this blog or any other. (And that's a big field). So that's an emphatic no. None. Nada.

I have been following Rossi's story since 2008. His 10KW device came up on another blog. Over the years, I've observed and gone from intrigue, to 'strange', to suspicion, and yes, to conclusion that Rossi regularly has behaved with intent to deceive and defraud. I admit this 'bias' (though I obviously believe it is the best objective explanation given the evidence). I think, that those who are hopeful that LENR might be beneficial to humankind (which I am), that Rossi's disingenuous, deceitful and fraudulant behavior does real harm to LENR progress.

You seem to disagree. That's OK. Disagreement in itself is not necessarily bad and can be very good. Discussions on forums like this are one way to possibly extract good out of disagreement. Generally, I would say that the chances for good to come out of disagreement is greatly increased when actual information is exchanged and discussed, and focus is given to the discussion.

I'm doing my best, but fail sometimes to meet my own goals on this (and surely have disappointed others expectations as well).

But just because I, or others are critical of Rossi, does not mean that we are 'taking control of LENR FORUM on behalf of IH/Darden'. That makes for some 'fun' conspiracy theories, though, if you're into that. (I'm not).

I've been critical of IH/Darden. They have been enablers of Rossi, and in retrospect did not bring in adequate due diligence. Look at this mess that is a result! I'm way more critical of Rossi, however, because his behavior is directly responsible for so much damage to the reputation, funding, and progress of LENR.

You obviously disagree, and I can assume by your signature that you are 'ultrasure' that Rossi has a real effect.

If so, we disagree.

Let's try to extract some 'good' from that disagreement, shall we?

This kind of unsuccessfulness?

You'd think that if IH/Cherokee were unsuccessful in replicating the excess heat they had witnessed from the Rossi reactors they built themselves, or if it was all miscalculations/swamp gas, they'd have understood so in 2014 at the very latest...

Quote from AlainCo

It is amazing how some question are not even considered seriously.

Does anybody have seriously read, at least the yellow highlits, the testimony of Barry West

https://drive.google.com/drive…Ktdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

Jed says it is sickening.

It is amazing to see on many blogs that IH is trapped or lost...

Did anybody believing in Rossi's reality have read that simple man telling his despair?

I mean not selecting the few quotes that please you?

time to get in contact with reality please.

Houston, there is a problem, a huge pile of problems.

Display More

West's testimony tells us that this person had worked with IH on a design for parts of the plant, and then Rossi scrapped this design and built it according to his choices/whims

This is coherent with the archetype of the brilliant but zany inventor, who will antagonize co-workers just for the sake of it, and have the last word on designs, however inferior they might be to those of the co-workers.

There is also the fact that people like Rossi think of themselves as masters/teachers, who have a duty to teach their disciples (that is, anyone working with them, whether they accept this disciple status or not). True to tradition, people like Rossi enjoy sending their disciples on false errands, telling them to start from the ground up -even if their work is good-, and of course, have the last word about things.

West's deposition only tells us he resents that Rossi scrapped his and IH's designs, and that he thinks Rossi's designs were inferior, "tape'n'glue" solutions

Since those designs don't have to do with the E-Cat reactor itself, but the way it distributes presumed excess heat, West's deposition doesn't tell much we didn't already know: Rossi is temperamental and hard to work with, which is a staple amongst brilliant but zany inventors.

I mean, look at his toupee. This is someone who enjoys annoying others! (personnally I find it hilarious)