Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from SSC

And as far as military customers are concerned, if Rossi sold something to them, you will never know!

Yes, exactly! Military buy all kind of things, material and immaterial, and, if any, we won't know what they asked him to provide them. Not for decades to come.

The only occasion to know something was the briefing on LENR required last year by the US House Armed Services Committee, but its term passed off without any public communication.

Just a reminder that if a post goes missing, it is either in the playground thread, where a discussion can continue even if it's not on the topic of the current thread, or the bargain bin, where posts go if they're unhelpful.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Alan - I think it is very helpful to judge arguments on their merit - not inferred character of the arguer. For example, were Rossi to put forward proper arguments the fact that he continually lies would not, were they good arguments, make them any less good.

Pomp et at's critique was not insightful, some of the things they said were scraping the barrel, others however were relevant. even without a proper analysis elements of the test looked highly unsafe

I think I confused Pomp with someone else at about the same time (or an informal comment separate from the paper). Ericcson/Pomp's rebuttal is OK.

Here's Bo Hoistad's response to Pomp in an IBT interview (google-translated)

Quote

HTML

IBTimes: Finally Ericsson and Pomp argue that in the tests you made you
find a typical attitude of pseudo-science, which is moving quickly to
extraordinary conclusions rather than trying to find explanations in the
physical standard. It is a very heavy criticism: How do you respond?

Bo Höistad: It is very unfortunate that Ericsson Pomp and resort to wicked
and mischievous comments. Accusing colleagues with a long and distinguished
series of hundreds of scientific articles published in the most important
international journals in physics to be sold to pseudo-science is simply a
severe insult and beyond any reasonable level of a decent academic
behavior. Frankly speaking I am ashamed of having colleagues at the
University of Uppsala that don’t refrain from personal attacks of such a
low level.

Display More

Better translation at Vortex (Sorry for the formatting!)

The quickness of the scientific establishment to label LENR as pseudo-science will assuredly come back around to bite. It may take another decade or two, but there will come a day of reckoning. My only lament is that the harshest critics of LENR will mostly be dead by that time.

Quote from IH Fanboy

The quickness of the scientific establishment to label LENR as pseudo-science will assuredly come back around to bite. It may take another decade or two, but there will come a day of reckoning. My only lament is that the harshest critics of LENR will mostly be dead by that time.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." Max Planck

Quote from IH Fanboy

The quickness of the scientific establishment to label LENR as pseudo-science will assuredly come back around to bite. It may take another decade or two, but there will come a day of reckoning. My only lament is that the harshest critics of LENR will mostly be dead by that time.

fanboy,

I'll still be here and I'll wager that Rossi has sold a grand total of nothing that produces

Energy Out > Energy In.

To be fair, I am NOT, and never have been, a critic of LENR, only the crackpottery that is

Andrea Rossi

Quote from THHuxleynew

ROSSI switched off the control test at low temperatures to prevent it from showing up the active test. Rossi claimed this was to prevent it from breaking which if you think about it is absurd, given the much higher temperatures in the active test.

You're drawing conclusions without having any evidence. The Lugano report is signed by scientists, not by Rossi, who is not one of the authors. Scientists do not say that it was Rossi's choice to turn off the dummy at 500W. Whether you like it or not, they give an explanation: "There was some fear of fracturing the ceramic body, due to the lower temperature of the thermal generator with respect to the loaded reactor. For these reasons, power to the dummy reactor was held at below 500 W, in order to avoid any possible damage to the apparatus. " They also wanted to point out that every intervention by Rossi was made under their direct control:

"Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration."

This is what they wrote. The rest are just conjectures.

Quote from Shane D.

So you argue here that Rossi had an unreliable, unstable, unfinished product not ready for market in the Hotcat. Let me guess; Doral was different, and the 1MW Ecats plant was reliable, stable, finished, and ready for market, so therefore Rossi deserves his $89 mil?

Keep in mind also, that the amended GPT agreement called for the use of the "6 cylinder". It is a 6 Hotcat configuration, using oil instead of water as the heat transfer fluid. How do you reconcile that with your quote?

I did not say that the hotcat was unreliable or unstable. I only remarked to Maryyugo that there are several reasons why an inventor may decide to make improvements to his creation instead of immediately placing it on the market. Those quoted by me were just examples. Improvements may involve other aspects of the reactor. No one here knows exactly how the E-cat works, yet many of you talk as everything is obvious. I think you might miss some details and you should show more prudence.

Regarding the six cylinder, I do not think IH has ever objected to testing a 1 MW plant instead of it. They also obviously realized that for a potential buyer (an industry) a plant of that type was a lot more enticing.

Quote from maryyugo

And that inane distributor network he used to have before they all bailed on him because he never delivered what they were trying to sell. Forgot that already, did you?

As far as I know, Rossi has offered to all its licensees the repurchase of their license at a price higher than the one they originally paid for. Some licensees have accepted the proposal.

1. Bo Höistad: It is very unfortunate that Ericsson Pomp and resort to wicked
2. and mischievous comments. Accusing colleagues with a long and distinguished
3. series of hundreds of scientific articles published in the most important
4. international journals in physics to be sold to pseudo-science is simply a
5. severe insult and beyond any reasonable level of a decent academic
6. behavior. Frankly speaking I am ashamed of having colleagues at the
7. University of Uppsala that don’t refrain from personal attacks of such a
8. low level.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Here's Bo Hoistad's response to Pomp in an IBT interview (google-translated)

Better translation at Vortex (Sorry for the formatting!)

Alan,

Bo here is attacking the motives of the writer (which I don't know, and don't care) rather than addressing the substantive arguments. I have some sympathy, because unlike TC, GISVIT, Bob H (partly) MFMP (with small mistake) Pomp et al did not do a detailed critique that identified the calorimetry error. They objected to the methodology, pointing out that it was unsafe, and therefore the strong positive language in the report was unjustified.

That at the time was a bit harsh, though technically correct.

Now however? It is shown to be prescient. They were predicting the likelihood of errors in the report before one was ever found!

What could Bo have done? He could have admitted that the lack of a control made results weak. he could have fessed up to the amount of intervention the inventor had, and not called this independent, rather a monitored demonstration in which the scientists within limits were free to do what they wanted. Those limits? Well, for example, it seems they were not free to run the control test up to high temperatures as they undoubtedly would have expected.

No doubt Rossi convinced them there was a bona fide reason (as they state in the report). Though they do not in the report note that this reason came from Rossi, and we know of course that it is false.

There is absolutely no excuse for this behaviour from the Lugano authors: they should be ashamed of such bad practice, never acknowledged or corrected. And you should be ashamed if your feelings on this matter lead you to support them (i'm not sure if they do?).

Please note the above comment is not personal. It is directed at specific published content which has been highly misleading and which, in many ways, represents bad practice. The authors in the rest of their lives are perhaps great and upstanding scientists, I don't know and, again, don't care. In this one publication they made a bad mistake. Fair enough. Which they do not support (contradicting those claiming it is a bad mistake) or retract when it has been comprehensively demolished. That is bad practice, and there is no excuse.

In any other scientific discourse, for their own reputation, they would respond to criticism, but if they did not so respond it would not matter. Here neither the original nor (obviously - refuting a non-published paper is not publishable) the refutations is formally published. Except for MFMP, but that only in LENR circles.

However the paper is still taken as strong evidence that has misled many people. It offends my sense of justice and truth.

Quote from THHuxleynew

However the paper is still taken as strong evidence that has misled many people. It offends my sense of justice and truth.

Does this statement offend your sense of justice and truth?

"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success."

I couldn't sleep last night (doubtless a guilty conscience from being a liberal hippie) and I had a few more thoughts about questions that Jones Day might bring up. As I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong), one of the arguments being made by Rossi (and his supporters) is that the heat that was produced by his device during the Florida test was dissipated by the use of a heat exchanger. As I further understand it, although there is some disagreement about how large such a heat exchanger would be, I would argue, based on Dr. Wong’s description of the device (as provided to him by Rossie) that the heat exchanger itself would have to be a substantial device.

Dr. Wong is reported to have stated, in Dr. Wong’s expert opinion report, as follows: “This expert has been informed that a heat exchanger was located in the second floor room at the Doral Facility.” Dr. Wong’s report then describes the heat exchanger as being made of 22 pipes, each of which was purportedly 10 meters long. The total surface area of the heat exchanger as stated in Dr. Wong’s report was approximately 103 square meters. Dr. Wong’s report also states that the heat exchanger was housed in an encasement made of “wood panel insulation with rock wool shaped for thermal and acoustic insulation.” The dimensions of the encasement were purportedly approximately 10 meters long, 6.5 meters wide, and 1 meter tall. The heat exchanger also purportedly included two air flow fans that could move 25,000 cubic meters of air per hour.

So we are talking about a device, by Dr. Wong’s repetition of what he was told by Rossi, that is approximately 600 square feet, with 22 pipes that are each roughly 30 feet long, which device Dr. Wong never saw (nor did he see any pictures, drawings or schematics).

So let me suggest some questions that Jones Day might ask of Rossi, et al., which questions I believe Jones Day may ask regardless of whether or not Rossi calls Dr. Wong to the stand as an expert and which questions I believe Jones Day should ask of each of Rossi, Johnson, Dianne Annesser (the bookkeeper for JM), Bass and anyone else whom Rossi may call as a witness:

Jones Day: Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms./Dr. _____: Did you ever see the alleged heat exchanger?

Jones Day: Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms./Dr. _____: If you did see the alleged heat exchanger, please describe it?

Jones Day: Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms./Dr. _____: The alleged heat exchanger has been described as being enclosed in an encasement made of “wood panel insulation with rock wool shaped for thermal and acoustic insulation.” If you did see the alleged heat exchanger, did you go inside or look inside such encasement?

Jones Day: Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms./Dr. _____: What time of day was it when you saw the alleged heat exchanger? What was the weather like outside? When you saw this device, were the windows in the room open or closed? Please describe the windows. What was the approximate temperature in the room when you visited?

Now for the good ones:

Jones Day: Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms./Dr. _____: Were you involved in ordering the materials for the alleged heat exchanger?

Did you place any purchase orders?

Did you review or see any purchase orders?

Did you do any price comparisons before placing such orders?

If you didn’t order, do you know who did?

Did you coordinate or arrange for payment for any of the materials used in the alleged heat exchanger?

Why don’t the fake company’s books, records, checking accounts, etc. show any record that any 30 foot long steel pipes were ordered by, received by or paid for by the fake company?

Who designed the alleged heat exchanger?

If someone other than Rossi, Johnson, Bass, etc., how were they paid?

You don’t remember who designed it? Isn’t that a little strange as you controlled and directed the affairs of the fake company (a Rossi question)?

The alleged heat exchanger was described by Penon by Rossi as having approximately 22 steel pipes, each approximately 30 feet long. Who attached them to each other, Rossi all by his lonesome? I don’t think so (putting aside the fact that Rossi had no involvement in the fake company – oh wait, that statement is no longer operative (channeling my inner Ron Ziegler – if you don’t know, google it)).

What was the name of the helpers, how were they paid, why aren’t there any records of them being paid?

The alleged company was broke, where did all of the money come from to pay for these alleged materials?

Who constructed the alleged heat exchanger?

Did you coordinate or arrange for payment for any of the labor used in constructing the alleged heat exchanger?

Why don’t the fake company’s books and records show the design, purchase and construction of the alleged heat exchanger?

Do you own a smart phone that has a camera function?

Did you ever take any pictures of the alleged heat exchanger?

I could go on and on, but I think you can probably get the gist of this line of questions. They are designed to attack Rossi’s credibility and to show that he is a liar. I am confident that on his initial direct examination by his counsel, Rossi will be charming, effusive and will be happy to recount all of his past successes, in great detail, which if I were Jones Day I would let him go on and do. In fact, I can see Jones Day, when they begin their cross-examination, complimenting Rossi on his recall of past experiments and the details and minutae thereof, along with eliciting from him that it is he, Dr. Rossi, the maestro, who is in control of his projects and that he is involved in every detail (not a stretch as he likes to keep details to himself and to take all the credit).

A big problem for Rossi with this is that he has no answers to many, many, many questions on his cross-examination other than to say that he doesn’t know or doesn’t recall. Who designed the alleged heat exchanger? Either he doesn’t know, he doesn't recall or he did it himself? All of which are BAD answers (as I discuss below). Who constructed the alleged heat exchanger? Same potential responses. Same BAD answers. Who paid for the materials? Who paid for the labor? When were the materials ordered? Why doesn’t any of this show up on the fake company’s books, records, checking accounts, etc.?

Why are all of the potential answers BAD answers? Because Rossi will have set himself, with Jones Day’s willing help, up as the maestro, the decider, the man who makes the decisions and is involved in every detail. Now, all of the sudden, he doesn’t know who did what when, or he can’t remember who designed, constructed or paid for the alleged heat exchanger? All of the sudden he has gone from Mr. Memory, Detail and Control to Sergeant Schultz. And, IMHO, the jury will notice this and not like this.

And aside from the pure credibility issues, how does Rossi (or anyone on Planet Rossi) explain all of the problems here. It is one thing to argue that a theoretical heat exchanger could do what was claimed, but where is the documentation, real actual documentation, that the alleged heat exchanger ever existed? Does Penon’s report describe it? Do the daily/weekly/monthly reports ever describe it construction or installation? Why not? As asked above, where did the money to pay for this come from, the Tooth Fairy? How much did it cost?

There are lots of yummy crunchy goodness in the line of questions that Jones Day could use to destroy any credibility that Rossi / Planet Rossi have.

On a separate note, Mr. Penon. Penon was originally a named defendant but was dismissed, without prejudice to IH, et al, as he was not served. Now, he is supposedly going to appear as a witness. I know that if I were Jones Day (and getting paid), I would have prepared and filed a separate complaint and be ready to serve him if he shows up at Rossi’s trial. Please note that I am not suggesting that Jones Day or anyone else communicate or suggest to Penon that a complaint has been filed and that he will be served when he shows up. That could easily be construed as an attempt to intimidate a witness, which would be improper. However, there is nothing wrong about Jones Day filing the complaint and being ready to serve him – that is only prudent. But if I were Penon, I would be checking PACER to see if IH has filed a separate complaint against me, in preparation for serving me if I show up at the trial. IH would be completely within their rights to do so.

Just a few thoughts, apologies for the length.

(Too lazy to find my original post).

Here's the picture with the trucks, and Wong's deposition :

Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

Edit : High Service Glass at 305-231-4897

Rossi, in his deposition, said that he couldn't remember who his back-of-a-truck contractors were.

While Wong was there contractors were replacing the windows.
Wong took photos of the contractors, and of their truck.

I read the phone number on the truck and tracked down the company.

(I'm sure that Rossi and IH people read blogs like this! For IH it's Dewey Weaver, who is an IH investor, consultant and witness.)

So ... I'm just wondering why IH didn't follow upon this.

Those contractors surely could have said that the windows had no glass in them when they came (supporting the case for a heat exchanger) ... OR that they were asked to replace perfectly good windows (refuting it).

There seem to be a lot of issues that neither side wants to raise ... leaving us mostly with a he-said/she-said case.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

(Too lazy to find my original post).

Here's the picture with the trucks, and Wong's deposition :

Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

Edit : High Service Glass at 305-231-4897

Rossi, in his deposition, said that he couldn't remember who his back-of-a-truck contractors were.

While Wong was there contractors were replacing the windows.
Wong took photos of the contractors, and of their truck.

I read the phone number on the truck and tracked down the company.

(I'm sure that Rossi and IH people read blogs like this! For IH it's Dewey Weaver, who is an IH investor, consultant and witness.)

So ... I'm just wondering why IH didn't follow upon this.

Those contractors surely could have said that the windows had no glass in them when they came (supporting the case for a heat exchanger) ... OR that they were asked to replace perfectly good windows (refuting it).

There seem to be a lot of issues that neither side wants to raise ... leaving us mostly with a he-said/she-said case.

Display More

Actually, either side may have followed up on it and we may not know. Did you check the name of the company against persons listed by either side as witnesses?

Quote from IH Fanboy

Does this statement offend your sense of justice and truth?

"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success."

No. Should it?

Quote from woodworker

Just a few thoughts, apologies for the length.

I totally agree with your thoughts about the alleged heat exchanger, and in my opinion the entire 1 year test was a complete farce.

But what about IH? Do they have an absolutly clean record in this affair, e.g in regards of separating IH business from Cherokee?

Can anybody explain what this "Private Placement" means (Bloomberg-screenshot):

Quote from woodworker

Actually, either side may have followed up on it and we may not know. Did you check the name of the company against persons listed by either side as witnesses?

No unknown witnesses in http://coldfusioncommunity.net…-pretrial-stipulation.pdf