Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • I don't understand why Rossi's presence at the Lugano test has to disturb you so much. In the report, is it written that Rossi conducted the test? The actions he has made are listed and are perfectly understandable since the Professors were not required to know how to load or turn on an object they saw for the first time. If you believe in the authors' word, you know that they had the control of the test. If you do not believe it then you would have suspicions even if the documents did not report Rossi's presence. But it is difficult to understand why professors with a career and a reputation should lie about a test they chose to do and describe. Really absurd ....


    In that case you have not been paying attention. We have, as the result of the Trial, a clear understanding now of the aspects of the test that did not make sense.


    (1) Rossi was trusted by the profs and viewed as an authority on his device

    (2) He was in charge of critical aspects of the test, like heating up the dummy

    (3) Before the dummy test started to get hot enough to be used as a genuine control he pulled the plug


    Had he not been there, doing that, we would most likely have genuine control information which would have made the IR mistake obvious even to Levi.

  • The 2013 test did not have any obvious calorimetry errors as far as I know. Have you found any? What are they?


    The papers get mixed up, so let me be clear I refer to this paper:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf


    That was not an "early test".


    The issue there is simply that the tester was Levi (with Rossi) and no-one else actually doing the testing. Levi has shown himself both before and after this test to be profoundly unreliable as a tester. The documented issues are:

    • Recording impossible flowrates in early tests
    • Getting IR calorimetry wrong in a way that gives a false positive result in Lugano and when asked to check maintaining that his erroneous method is correct
    • It is also, for those wanting independence, clear that Levi is heavily involved with Rossi.
  • Were any of these effects replicated by reputable 3rd parties? Otherwise, they may be calorimetric calibration error.

    They were replicated by several others. However some skeptics feel anyone who replicates must be a true believer and not a reputable 3rd party, so the skeptics keep demanding that someone else replicate it, and then someone else, and then someone else. Anyone who replicates cold fusion loses his reputation and is no longer a 3rd party. It is a Catch 22.


    It is a little difficult to imagine how a "calibration error" could give the illusion that water is boiling away or that a cell remains too hot to touch for hours. Those are first principle manifestations of heat. You have a vivid imagination, but I doubt you can offer a rigorous description of this supposed error.


    Without specifics you have nothing. "There may be a calibration error" is not falsifiable. You have to show specifically what calibration error may have occurred, and you have to show that the methods and data do not rule out that error. Waving your hands and saying "there might be an error" is meaningless because, as I said, that applies equally well to every experiment going back to Newton. There might be a way to hold a prism such that it shows white light is NOT actually composed other colors. That experiment has been done millions of times, but it is possible there is an error in it that has not been discovered yet. But if that is your hypothesis you have to be specific and show us how to hold the prism. Or, in the case of the Fleischmann experiment, you have to show that the heat of vaporization that was established in the 18th century by Joseph Black has been wrong all along, and you are the first to realize this. You will win a Nobel for this revelation, so do not hide your light under a bushel. Tell Us What You Know.


    Note that Shanahan points to a specific error -- a moving heat source. Anyone can see this is ruled out by the data. The calibration constant does not change when the source of the heat is deliberately moved. In that respect, that aspect of his claim is falsifiable.

  • Rossi has never commented on the process, he has always abstained from expressing any opinion about it. Only after the settlement Rossi granted two interviews, the first of which was with Mats Lewan, and only in this case he explained his point of view:

    "So my lawyers asked me before the trial which my priorities were if the trial would lead to any transactions—those indispensable and those negotiable. My answer was that the indispensable condition was to get the license back because I didn’t want to collaborate with IH anymore." (https://animpossibleinvention.…-was-rossis-top-priority/)

    Obviously, he would not be sorry to get both the money for the test and the IP, but when he was forced to choose, he preferred to be sure to get back his IP. So Rossi did not re-write anything: you're the one who wants to read things in a way that makes you more enjoyable.

    So, why are the Rossi Brethren so critical of IH; in the Rossi Brethren's new and improved perspective (since he turned tail and ran like a scalded E-Dog when his $89M bluff was called (the Brethren DO recall that Rossi brought suit)) , regardless, he got everything he wanted, his HotDog Cooker IP back and ~$11M from IH, and now he will be coming out with QuackX's to save humanity--there's no logic like Brethren logic.

  • To follow up on your snarky response, it actually was an error in measurement that led to the discovery of Buckeyb alls and fullerenes. The researcher was carefully weighing carbon and found that there was a very slight variance that he couldn't account for, that shouldn't have been there with all the latest equipment. So he proposed the existence of fullerenes and it turned out to match the data and get rid of the error. That's an apocryphal story I read more than 30 years ago so, no I will not be able to chase it down.


    In addition, I see that you are giving Shanahan his standard mention. Maybe you should do the Rossi thing and just say something like "Shanahan f8."

  • Ah yes, there is much hypocrisy here. When the I-hate-Rossi crowd began attacking Rossi on possibly not paying his taxes that were due, I questioned how many here have kept track of their online purchases over the years (during the decade when online companies didn't collect sales taxes), and report those purchases to the appropriate state taxing authorities. Crickets. Because nobody here did that, all in violation of tax laws. Ever sold something through the classifieds or Craiglist? Did you track the basis in your property and pay the appropriate capital gains taxes on those as well? I would venture to guess: nope. What about a barter? Have you ever bartered anything? Did you track the basis in the bartered item and pay the appropriate capital gains due on that as well? Nope. Have you traded a service for another service? Did you pay the appropriate income tax on the value of the services received? Doubtful. Hypocrites.

    (Another) typical Brethren moral-non-equivalency argument; a person not tracking and reporting sales tax on a handful of items, is the same as someone not paying income taxes on millions of income. Licensing revenues frequently get hit particularly hard also. State and federal government will tax ill-gotten gains, as well as legitimate ones, so either way, it's almost certain that the state and federal government tax authorities know about Rossi after all the legal actions, and of course IH reported all those payments on THEIR taxes also. Maybe Rossi will now turn around and sue the state and federal gov that all the $11M should be tax-exempt because he is using it to save humanity and giving it away to kids with cancer (with a few condos and toupees thrown in).

  • (Another) typical Brethren moral-non-equivalency argument; a person not tracking and reporting sales tax on a handful of items, is the same as someone not paying income taxes on millions of income.

    I agree that there is no moral equivalence, but for a different reason. Because Rossi apparently did pay his taxes, according to his attorneys. So on that basis (edit: no pun originally intended), all of the tax evaders on this forum that never reported their online purchases to the appropriate state taxing authorities, or their capital gains taxes on stuff they sold through the classifieds, are in fact morally worse than Rossi on the matter of taxes.

  • Be very careful about insinuating anything unprofessional about the nature of the relationship between Rossi and any of his academic friends. You are pushing at a door that leads you out into the street.


    I am always so careful. Levi and Rossi go back a long way, know each other well, Levi clearly has an interest in Rossi's technology, and it means that Levi therefore does not count as an independent tester.


    My beef with Levi (based only on recorded facts) is that he appears to be very unreliable as an experimental guy, in the sense that his tests suffer false positives, and also he seems unable to critique his own work even when this is suggested to him by friends. This combination makes him the worst possible person to be validating Rossi's tests.


    I'd also note that Levi et al have behaved in an unprofessional way over the publishing of the Lugano report and handling of subsequent refutations: I won't reiterate the details.


    None of this implies an improper relationship between Levi and Rossi except in the limited sense noted above - that Levi is a bad choice of validator for Rossi.

  • There are emails between R and certain researchers in more than one EU country that clearly demonstrate that at least four folks were (and possibly still are) in on "the gig". All of that gets to stay quiet thx to the settlement. THH is in the sector of truth with his speculation and should not be threatened for doing so.

  • There are emails between R and certain researchers in more than one EU country that clearly demonstrate that at least four folks were (and possibly still are) in on "the gig". All of that gets to stay quiet thx to the settlement. THH is in the sector of truth with his speculation and should not be threatened for doing so.

    more "deweySez™"?

    It really really really is a shame that thanks to the settlement YOUR friends agreed to all those juicy details stay hidden. Really really really. What about you tell us something you can proof mister Weaver?

  • more "deweySez™"?

    It really really really is a shame that thanks to the settlement YOUR friends agreed to all those juicy details stay hidden. Really really really.


    We all agree that. but it seems likely you should blame Rossi for the lack of clarity, don't you think?


    IH have to protect shareholders, not pander to the wishes on blogs for clarity, much as they might privately want that.

  • I don't say I don't blame Rossi for not being clear. My point is that Dewey should shut up or bring proof. Not more not less. So everything he says is "DeweySez™" to me until he brings proof. And shouting out accusations is the opposite.

    But when you look at the way Dewey behaves here there is a pattern. And this pattern is not about enlighting the audience.