Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • @Shane,


    I've been called delusional many times here by the i-hate-Rossi club. But I must say, this notion that Rossi will be cuffed and taken to prison is about as delusional as it gets. The probability of that happening is about zero. And when I say about zero, I mean a vanishingly small probability. Then again, if your day and night dreams of this take you to a happy place, then I certainly wouldn't want to disrupt that.

    • Official Post

    @Shane,


    I've been called delusional many times here by the i-hate-Rossi club. But I must say, this notion that Rossi will be cuffed and taken to prison is about as delusional as it gets. The probability of that happening is about zero. And when I say about zero, I mean a vanishingly small probability. Then again, if your day and night dreams of this take you to happy place, then I certainly wouldn't want to disrupt that.


    I never called you delusional, because you are not. Very sane actually, and that is why you, of all, confuse us in the: "I hate Rossi club" with your hanging on to this scoundrel. And the rest about "cuffed and taken to prison", well I believe he has been there before. :)


    Take care. Looking forward to further so called "debates". LOLs.

  • Law enforcement has not time for Rossi. The white crime industry is becoming more lucrative as the prosecution rates continues to drop on a per annum basis. As a fighter for what is just, good and fair, your desire for justice is in vain.


    TRAC-white-collar-crime-top-charges-1995-2015.png


    scammers-odds.png

  • @Shane,


    Maybe I should clarify, it is more like the i-hate-Rossi's-guts club (tip of the hat to Jed and all of his IH-bought i-hate-Rossi's guts old guys friend club). I do appreciate your vote of confidence. I've honestly always enjoyed our interactions, although it wasn't so sharp back when you were more of a philosophical fence-sitter, and in some sense, I do miss those days.

  • IH has managed to provide the perfect example of the misuse of the term "pseudoskeptic" as described quite succinctly on the RationalWiki website (sorry IH, I realize rational is not in your wheelhouse.)


    "Pseudoskepticism" is most often used as a loaded term by woo-promoters to dismiss skeptical criticism of their beliefs as unfounded. Some promoters of woo maintain that demanding evidence before accepting an idea is an extreme position, and they feel that we should all be agnostic about, well, everything. Given the difficulty of absolutely disproving even the most absurd hypothesis they then go on to maintain that all those who ask for evidence are "pseudoskeptics".


    Consequently, these woo-promoters try to claim the high ground by calling themselves "open-minded." The intent is to draw a contrast with the scientific establishment as "closed-minded" for demanding actual evidence."


    Those shoes do fit, you must admit.

  • A skeptic is not a cynic, nor is a skeptic paralyzed by the inability to know anything. We are concerned with the modern concept of Scientific Skepticism. For us, a skeptic is a critical thinker who uses the methods of science to distinguish the known from the unknown, and employs that knowledge to improve our world and society. The 'knowledge' referred to here is scientific knowledge (facts, laws and theories) as opposed to 'Truth with a capital T', as sought by the ancient Greek philosophers. In a simplistic way, skepticism is the philosophy of science.


    You can tell when skepticism is applied to a particular question. The analysis employed in a skeptical argument involves scientific principles and logic. Absent that, an argument based on emotional criteria is Denialism.


    When Reality Clashes with Ideology


    People initially form beliefs emotionally, rather than logically. Beliefs are then rationalized with logic or logical fallacies after the fact. Many beliefs are firmly embedded in belief systems and ideologies which are held by groups. The beliefs are further strengthened for the group member by the support of the group. Denialism is not limited to any particular ideological groups such as the 'right' and the 'left', religious and nonreligious, white-collar and blue-collar, and many others.



    Often, scientific or historical facts / consensus will conflict with the beliefs of an ideology, producing cognitive dissonance. Dissonance theory predicts that the members of a group, defined by the given ideology, will adopt the position of denialism and rationalize reasons for rejecting the facts. By identifying the ideological group to which someone belongs, one may be able to predict which facts or theories that person is likely to deny. Keep in mind, these are vague generalizations describing the generally recognized stances of groups. The individuals that self identify with those groups may in fact differ in opinion with some of their group members on individual issues.


    Psuedoskepticism



    The word "psuedoskepticism" was coined in a commentary by the late sociologist Marcello Truzzi. Just as pseudoscience may superficially resemble science, pseudoskepticism shares superficial qualities with actual skepticism. Skeptics and pseudoskeptics both express doubt. They ask a lot of questions. However, they differ in very key ways.


    When faced with a claim, the skeptic asks for the evidence and weighs the evidence against the prior probability of the claim. The skeptic naturally uses a Bayesian approach. A claim can neither be proved or disproved with 100% certainty. The skeptic's primary interest lies in finding the best explanatory model to fit observations so that accurate predictions can be made. The skeptic is willing to change his/her mind in light of proper evidence and a better theory. The skeptic embraces Occam's Razor and the Extraordinary Claims Axiom.


    A pseudoskeptic's primary interest seems to lie in discrediting claims that conflict with their previously held belief. Pseudoskeptics fancy themselves as skeptics. A pseudoskeptic asks hard questions, but is rarely willing to accept hard answers. When faced with good, conflicting evidence, the pseudoskeptic is rarely willing to change his/her mind.


    A psuedoscience promoter may claim that an idea is absolutely true without sufficient evidence and use fallacious arguments to support the claim. A pseudoskeptic may claim that something is absolutely false without sufficient evidence and use equally fallacious arguments to deny the claim.


    In this sense, pseudoskepticism is often synonymous with 'Denialism'.

  • I was referring to the demo that will take place by the end of the year: I think it will be a presentation, not a test conducted by third parties. As for the sale of the reactors, I presume that the first customers will want to have a private demonstration of operation before completing the purchase.


    Yes that scoundrel has nothing more to prove. He made his mark.

  • Spoken like the typical anonymous armchair critics who never actually do anything but spend their time insulting others who do.

    You obviously have no idea at all about how difficult it is to develop something new without multi-billion dollar government backing.

    You make many assumptions on what people have/have not done. I perfectly understand what *real* product and process development require, and the difficulty, even with significant resources. Rossi had $10M (plus whatever other "donations") handed to him (much, much, much, more than 99.9% of small companies and inventors) ), pooooooor Rossi.


    Not getting into background extensively (as I don't care a nit of any Brethren opinion of me), but I will relate how trade-secrets can be openly and are customarily handled. We (my own company) developed a trade secret process involving an optical gadget (with our own money, no conning or handouts of 10M, and many patents we've spent our own money on) , which was licensed to two companies, with various front-end processes, processing with said optical gadget, and followed by other processes. We chose to keep the optical gadget a trade secret, because it would be impossible to tell from the end product if someone was using the gadget by examination of the end product, if it was patented. We enclosed this gadget in a frame with metal panel covers with holes goin in, and holes goin out, with tamper seals on the panels, and a confidentiality agreement that the licencees would not open or reverse engineer the gadget. The gadget had small panel openings for any routine adjustments that might be required, without being able to see the entire innards. They were able to, and required, definitive testing, which they performed, all the before and after processes, and were able to do any sort of testing they requested, and went thru a systematic qualification of the process. Now, contrast that to how The Wizard of Italy works.


    As an aside, any engineer, machinist, control engineer, electrician, or plumber would be embarrassed to show any of the crude "demos" he concocted; (guess he didn't want to spend much of that money on anything other than condos, and lawyers, he's sooo dedicated to his "science"). That junk can be made with<<$10000, much less $10M. And his reinvent-the-wheel crude hotdog cooker furnaces, scientists/engineers typically purchase tube furnaces (already properly engineered and controlled, (oops that is contrary to the Rossi antiExperimental Method)) of one of the many varieties, sizes, styles available and conduct their experiments within that furnace in a suitable vessel (metal, ceramic, quartz etc) and inputs/outputs (sensors, tc, gases, vacuum, etc) required (there are hundreds of them even listed on Ebay, for cheap such that not too much condo-money must be diverted). I know that the Brethren will say that there is some secret construction, materials and design of the hotdog cookers (or are they the design described in Rossi's single useless patent). So, what has he actually shown, proven and produced for his many years and millions of "donations", anyone actually seen an ECat, or QuackX actually sold or functioning in a practical application or environment (other than Rossi); for those that say and have been saying for a decade "it's coming...." the offer of a wager on that still stands, place your bets on a Quack X, or at least invest some of your money if you're so confident (he will likely gladly accept it for QuackX Stock, c'mon fork over your 401K on your sure bet!).

  • IH didn't really lose anything anyway, other than a relatively small chunk (to them and their kind) of money, and it's OPM (other people's money) which investors knew was at risk when they gave it to them.

    IH people are VCs, all that they can lose is the money (and reputation, but that one has already been sullied by the various Orders and all the bad episodes revealed by Sifferkol). So how can you say that they lost money and considered them at the same time winners? Aren't you able to find best excuses to applaud their (failed) success?

  • The 1MW reactor is not obsolete, the component that produces the heat for it is flawed and must be replaced. Rossi's old tech has a problem similar to the problem that exists in nuclear power plants. Sometimes the reactor melts down. Rossi does not want to put this flawed product on the market. Rossi has solved this problem in the Quark QC. Now he is replacing the wafer with the Quark QX in his 1MW design. When Rossi gives his Quark QX demo, he will be ready to go into mass production of the 1MW Quark QX reactor knowing that it is passively meltdown protected. It's the same motivation of a manufacturer of would not chose to put a aircraft on the market that would occasionally failed because it had inherent flaws?

    I don't recall melting down episodes of the 1MW reactor, but I remember that in several occasions Rossi spoke of leakages. It is obvious, however, that when you bring such a revolutionary product to the market, you can not make mistakes, so if during a one-year test Rossi understood that his technology could have some kind of trouble (even occasionally), it is logical that he has chosen to promote his new product, for which these problems do not seem to be present. It is a banal reasoning for anyone who understands a bit the laws of the market. Those who deny it only do so in order to have another pretext for attacking Rossi.

  • Are you also pleased that there no support for the ICCF conference and it may have to be cancelled? Do you say "good for Rossi" because other researchers are no longer funded and have to give up?


    You are celebrating the fact that Rossi has probably killed cold fusion. Why? What's the matter with you!?

    Jed your emotional zeal is really moving! :) You followed the field for years, so you should know that the LENR world existed well before IH arrived and that the various ICCFs have always been made, even without Darden's money. IH people are not the saviors of Cold Fusion, they are just VCs who have found a new field to speculate on. Rossi did not kill anything, if anyone has brought new interest in this dying field, it's him. Believing that so many poor researchers will not receive funds for Rossi's fault is an immense foolishness.

  • So why has Rossi not told us of this flaw before? He has represented the Ecat all along as ready for market, so if you are correct, you must have to admit he lied....right? And if what you are saying is right, maybe it was a good thing he was lying, because if he actually sold a 1MW to a customer as has claimed numerous times, and it melted, igniting the factory and burning it to the ground, and maybe the occupants also...well, he would be in jail.

    Rossi often said in his blog that the 1 MW plant needed maintenance. If you do not read his blog you can not say anything about what he has supported. The problems he spoke about were leaks, but if they were mergers it does not mean that the plant was dangerous. A reactor can melt without creating fires, and yet Rossi was always present and could intervene in the event of malfunctions. Anyway, if you are aware that a non-functioning reactor may be dangerous, why do you continue to ask why Rossi wants to sell the safest QuarkX instead of the previous models (which occasionally gave rise to problems)?

  • Not so sure about that. They had the financial backing to easily take this to the jury. All of the heavy lifting was basically done. It was just a matter of presenting the case over the course of a few weeks. And if they were confident that it was a con,

    IHFB in this forum many people seem to think that the jury was made up of perfect idiots. They continue to say that IH had overwhelming and clear evidence, but when they try to justify why IH agreed to the settlement, it turns out that the jury was unable to understand the evidence. I think this is an obvious paradox.

  • @Shane,


    I've been called delusional many times here by the i-hate-Rossi club. But I must say, this notion that Rossi will be cuffed and taken to prison is about as delusional as it gets. The probability of that happening is about zero. And when I say about zero, I mean a vanishingly small probability. Then again, if your day and night dreams of this take you to a happy place, then I certainly wouldn't want to disrupt that.


    Well, I can't see anything that obviously cause this ATM. But vanishingly small? It has happened once before, and Rossi does not seem to have changed his M.O., so over the next 5 years? I would not bet lots against it.

  • IHFB in this forum many people seem to think that the jury was made up of perfect idiots. They continue to say that IH had overwhelming and clear evidence, but when they try to justify why IH agreed to the settlement, it turns out that the jury was unable to understand the evidence. I think this is an obvious paradox.


    It seems pretty obvious to me when you see that guys/gals like you, Ele and rb0 do not understand very clear-cut technical evidence: for example the band emissivity vs total emissivity issue when doing IR thermography!


    As the legal specialists on here for a while pointed out, Juries go by gut feeling and often respond to mountains of evidence by blaming both sides. Rossi's team, you must admit, have played the mountains of evidence card pretty well, introducing at the last moment many more witnesses and taking the Trial time estimate from 2 weeks to 6 weeks. And Rossi, in Court, has the "I'm a small guy being shafted by big corporations" card.


    In this matter Rossi is the PR winner. He has proved himself extraordinarily good at playing to his small but devoted audience. IH lose $2.5m (or whatever are their own legal costs) but make the whole mess (with possible Appeals stretching this out) go away. Rossi has used the Court hiatus to his advantage, playing the e-Quack card and using the legal action to excuse a delayed reveal. More legal action, extending years into the future, would suit him just fine. As would a confidential settlement in which by saying nothing he can implicitly claim that he got what he wanted.


    We would not have been any the wiser, technically, had the Trial gone ahead. We might have seen more clearly, under cross-examination, how Rossi justifies his deceptions. The Jury would have seen this, and weighed it with all the distractions, which is probably why Rossi was keen to retract his original Action and reset the slate, having lost, himself, $2.5M + (worse) been exposed as a liar and cheat.


    So how can the legal action as a whole have been a PR win for Rossi? Easy. Without a very public break-up with IH Rossi must ante-up with working product. that cannot be, so somehow he must wiggle out of the IH contract... This way the epic legal distraction is so dramatic that all questions about lack of working product, and abandonment of a very well tested invention ready for commercialisation, are lost.

  • IH people are VCs, all that they can lose is the money (and reputation, but that one has already been sullied by the various Orders and all the bad episodes revealed by Sifferkol). So how can you say that they lost money and considered them at the same time winners? Aren't you able to find best excuses to applaud their (failed) success?

    I agree, they certainly lost money, and probably some reputation, no/little success there, never said they "won" overall. I merely stated that Rossi failed in his Ultimate Con bluff (conning an additional $90M through a lawsuit of the people he already conned). Overall, if one considers fleecing money a "win", Rossi overall won, in that he collected $10 M (minus lawyer fees etc), with no clawback or (apparently) further legal trouble, but he lost his bold Ultimate Con quest when his bluff was called.

  • SSC wrote:

    ...could have some kind of trouble (even occasionally), it is logical that he has chosen to promote his new product, for which these problems do not seem to be present...


    It would be interesting to see and understand your reasoning for this assumption. Do you really believe that Rossi found a a nice and smart way to handle in a power station or whatever kind of battery thousands of his tiny magic 20W sticks (30mm long and 1mm in diameter, IIRC), each of them running at temperature of 2600°C (!) and creating excess power (light, electricity, heat, probably, thrust and Axil only knows whatever kind of other unknown alien particles) lighting up the room with an amazingly blue aura?

    I would not risk to run into trouble with such incredible new stuff, but would make millions and billions with my good old ECat. There are so many satisfied customers already.... BTW - will all of them apply for an upgrade to Quack technology? Guess, yes, since Rossi himself dropped his old one for the new toy...and will probably no longer support his old cats...

    So , next epiphany of ECW's LENR messiah will happen by end of October 2017 - a "demo" to whom? Maybe E48? Looking forward to read what'll happen...