Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • The usual behavior of Cherokee to promise a lot, take money and do nothing is also documented on Wikipedia


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden,_New_Jersey


    "In 2013, Cherokee Investment Partners had a plan to redevelop north Camden with 5,000 new homes and a shopping center on 450 acres (1.8 km2). Cherokee dropped their plans in the face of local opposition and the slumping real estate market.[175][176][177]"


    Quite interesting is the article numbered 177


    Katz, Matt. "Feds: Bryant took bribes to gentrify Camden", The Philadelphia Inquirer, September 28, 2010. Accessed April 5, 2016.


    The article is not immediately accessible but a press release can still be found on the net:

    http://www.saveardmorecoalitio…minent-domain-fail-camden


    Here is part of the long article;

    "

    For Immediate Release September 27, 2010

    United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York

    Contact: (212) 637-2600

    Former New Jersey State Senator Wayne R. Bryant and Attorney Eric D. Wisler Indicted on Corruption Charges

    PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, MICHAEL B. WARD, the Special Agent in Charge for the New Jersey Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and VICTOR W. LESSOFF, the Special Agent in Charge of the New Jersey Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division ("IRS-CID"), announced today an Indictment charging former New Jersey State Senator WAYNE R. BRYANT and attorney ERIC D. WISLER with multiple counts of fraud and bribery.

    According to the Indictment filed today in Newark federal court: BRYANT was a State Senator representing New Jersey's 5th District, which included Camden, and served as Chairman of the Senate's Budget and Appropriations Committee. BRYANT also was a named, equity partner at a law firm in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. WISLER was a named, equity partner at a law firm in Teaneck, New Jersey.

    Among WISLER's clients was a private equity investment firm located in Raleigh, North Carolina, and a management firm that undertook several "brownfields," redevelopment projects in New Jersey by which contaminated land was to be made suitable for development.

    In 2004, WISLER arranged for his firm to enter into a retainer agreement with BRYANT's firm, which called for BRYANT's firm to be paid a retainer fee of $8,000 per month. The payment was purportedly to cover fees for legal work relating to land use, condemnation, and other matters for a development project in the New Jersey Meadowlands.

    In truth and in fact, however, the payments made under the retainer agreement were actually bribes paid in exchange for official action that BRYANT took in favor of the various redevelopment projects undertaken by WISLER and his clients, including a proposed $1.2 billion redevelopment of Camden's Cramer Hill neighborhood, which sat in BRYANT's legislative district.

    [.....]

    "

    Quite interesting read ! So Darden was paying a company to bribe Bryant......

    Bribe as a Service (BaaS) Interesting way to do business !

  • Also, it looks like MFMP is once again posting unverified, non-replicated, "take my word for it" results as actual science. I guess they need more donations for their international vacations.

    No need to be a twit. These are human beings taking time away from their families in the pursuit of knowledge, which is shared openly with all. They have never suggested to "take my word for it." They just happened to share some safety concerns about neutron emission emphasized by Piantelli. They have some more open live science experiments lined up for later this year.

  • No need to be a twit. These are human beings taking time away from their families in the pursuit of knowledge, which is shared openly with all. They have never suggested to "take my word for it." They just happened to share some safety concerns about neutron emission emphasized by Piantelli. They have some more open live science experiments lined up for later this year.

    Well, my definition of science and your definition of science are different. Real science is very strict and unforgiving, unlike LENR believers. And that's how it should be.

  • Well, my definition of science and your definition of science are different. Real science is very strict and unforgiving, unlike LENR believers. And that's how it should be.

    Real science doesn't carve out reputation traps for areas of research involving intriguing results, particularly when the potential upside to humanity far outweighs any potential negatives that might come about by devoting some resources to further clarify those results.

  • That does seem likely. But it was unbecoming of academic scientists. It was bad behavior.

    The Swedes didn't conduct an experiment at their University, did a test at a private premises and were partly funded by a company. In fact, in the report's acknowledgments, you can read this:

    "This paper was partially sponsored by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Elforsk AB."

    It is normal for them to have privacy obligations and not to accept interviews for fear of revealing too much. There's nothing wrong with this, it's a normal practice when dealing with companies that pay you.

  • If one reads the Lugano report, and compare it with the court documents, they tell different stories as to Rossi's, and the Swede's involvement. In his report, Levi describes Rossi as an occasional participant, never mentions Fabiani, and never addresses how often the Swedes were there, leaving us to assume all the time. The documents paint a much different picture, with Rossi AND Fabiani there most, if not all the time, while the Swedes flew in on occasion.

    The authors of the Lugano report are 6, so whatever is written is not the only result of Levi's thought, and it's unbelievable that all 6 have agreed to facilitate Rossi. What they have written in the report was what they thought was useful to say: it was not a text written to reassure Rossi's detractors about his role, it was a scientific article and had to report only useful data describing the experiment performed. Have you ever read any scientific article in which the author indicated the number of hours he had been in the lab? The authors considered it useful to point out that they had control of the test and that Rossi only intervened on some occasions (though in their presence) when it was obviously impossible for them to act alone as they did not know the object they were testing. When the instruments were set up, there was no need for the Professors to stay in Lugano, since there were their ever-on instruments that measured what was going on. The fact that Rossi was present every day (if it is true) doesn't surprise me: I would also check my precious discovery continuously, I would never leave it unattended.

  • That, and the fact that Rossi was involved in designing and choosing the major portions of the measurement method, makes in a NON-independent measurement.

    Who told you that Rossi was involved in designing and selecting the major portions of the measurement method? The authors of the report do not say it, they have written and signed an article, so they are the ones who have the paternity of what they have done. They decided every aspect of the test, Rossi intervened only when they could not act alone because they did not know how to do it (was the first time they saw that reactor, why should they know how to activate it?) And always in their presence, as they specified in their text. The rest are just your inventions to discredit Rossi, as always .....


  • It's unbelievable how Darden can release interviews in which he says he is concerned about pollution and says he wants to do something concrete to save our planet. It's really a hypocritical attitude .... what a cheek! It is now well-known to everyone what Cherokee has been doing in these years, its habit of buying for small change some plots of land to be clean-up, receiving funds for that work and then not executing it. Their affiliated companies have collected a large number of Orders for such events, but for them it has never been a problem because it was enough to declare bankruptcy to close the business. And so a new company could be born, and everything could start again. I believe that Sifferkol's report is illuminating (http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/are-tomas-darden-cherokee-simply-fake-environmentalists-in-business-only-to-defraud-the-tax-payer -investor /), and what Ele has discovered confirms Darden's fame.

  • Here is a description of the event, written by me:


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


    OK, so I looked this over. Nothing in it to contradict anything important in my description. Lots of details that were posted to spf are not included, like the posts describing the broken windows and the use of a lab hood in an abandoned building...


    But the key point is that Jed writes: "A bucket left by itself for 10 days in a university laboratory will not lose any measurable level of water to evaporation. "


    That is nothing but an assumption based on wishful thinking. Anything other that that occurring invalidates the use of water loss as a useful measure. Of course, that was the point of my first post on this topic on spf. My examination of evaporation rate equations put out by DOE for swimming pools led me to believe that it might be possible if the ventilation and humidity characteristics were correct. As an anecdotal story, we don't have those numbers, so I choose to find the event unconvincing. It's an anecdote, so you can choose to believe what you like about it.


    And I also assume a good chance of thermocouple problems as well, even though we were assured that it had been checked. Jed's writeup simply confirms that Mizuno confirmed a reading with another meter, but not that he used an independent measure. If the TC was malfunctioning, the second meter would still produce an erroneous reading, since a malfunctioning TC wouldn't care what meter was used to read it. Again we have insufficient information to truly make a decision.

  • Referring to posts 1170 and 1172 of this thread:

    Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions


    The discussion here is about a statement made by Jed: “In cold fusion, Arata once demonstrated a thermoelectric chip running a small motor” where he later referenced a paper in response to my request for details. The reference was: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonar.pdf


    This paper has no information in it that I can see about a thermoelectric chip running a motor. Instead it is about Arata’s Pd/ZrO2 studies, later ‘replicated’ by Kitamura, et al and published in Physics Letters A (quoted in the paper as ref. 20). As I have said before, I have issues with these experiments and tried to publish a comment on Kitamura, et al’s paper. The Phys Lett A editors refused to publish my comment. The manuscript of that comment is attached as an Appendix to my whitepaper, found here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3d7yWtb1doPc3otVGFUNDZKUDQ


    So try again Jed, where is the information on Arata’a thermoelectric chip study?

  • @ JedRothwell,

    We are talking about two different tests and two different reports. The one that I was talking about, that was issued and then revised after comments by me and others, was in 2013. It is here:


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


    This is a more complete description of a Rossi test than anything published earlier. Taken on its own, I think it has merit.


    The 2013 report has been issued and revised by the same persons who issued and revised the 2011 report ( http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf ), which reported a huge excess heat calculated on the basis of completely invented data. Therefore, the only merit that the 2013 report could have, with respect to the 2011 one, is to be more effective in misleading the public.


    Quote


    I now think that Rossi is a complete fraud and a criminal based on the Penon report, and the Murray and Smith reports. […] It is conceivable that Rossi actually had something in 2013, described in the above report.


    This is your present acrobatic narrative. I wonder who can believe it.


    Quote


    Who knows what happened?


    I guess you were in the best position for knowing it.

  • Have you ever read any scientific article in which the author indicated the number of hours he had been in the lab? The authors considered it useful to point out that they had control of the test and that Rossi only intervened on some occasions (though in their presence) when it was obviously impossible for them to act alone as they did not know the object they were testing.


    SSC,


    The first HT (Hotcat) test the Levi team did was in Ferrara (TPR1). It created a storm of controversy, because of Rossi's participation. Levi was well aware of this, and understood that when he led the Lugano (TPR2) team, accounting fully for Rossi's role would determine the reports acceptance by the science community. If Rossi was lightly involved, and seldom present, then the report would be more respected, than if Rossi was there all, or most of the time, as the documents show was the case.


    Kind of an unusual situation, but then again, with anything Rossi...it usually is. His being there as he was, along with his side-kick Fabiani -whom Levi neglected to note being there at all, alone invalidates the report in any meaningfully scientific way. Plus, it was published on the UOBs internal site. Even Arvix would not accept it.

  • The Swedes didn't conduct an experiment at their University, did a test at a private premises and were partly funded by a company. In fact, in the report's acknowledgments, you can read this:

    "This paper was partially sponsored by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Elforsk AB."

    It is normal for them to have privacy obligations and not to accept interviews for fear of revealing too much. There's nothing wrong with this, it's a normal practice when dealing with companies that pay you.

    The first paper was also not at their university and it was also supported by Elforsk AB, yet they answered questions and revised the paper in response to suggestions, following the norms of academic science. So, your excuse for their misbehavior after the second test does not fly.

  • It is conceivable that Rossi actually had something in 2013, described in the above report.


    This is your present acrobatic narrative. I wonder who can believe it.

    Not me. I don't believe it. I am just saying it is conceivable.

    I guess you were in the best position for knowing it.

    Okay. Since I have no idea what to make of it, I guess that means no one else knows either.

  • SSC "It is normal for them to have privacy obligations and not to accept interviews for fear of revealing too much their OBVIOUS, GLARING ERRORS!. "

    TIFFY (there, I fixed it for you)


    JedRothwell


    Quote

    Perhaps you do know about Papp, but neither you nor Feynmann has any idea what the electric power going to the machine was for, or whether it was motive power or for the control electronics. If it was for the control electronics then Feynmann jumped to a false conclusion, made a terrible mistake, and killed someone.


    Sure and perhaps, the power line was used to feed invisible unicorns. When a highly unlikely, purported source of novel energy is connected to a power line, and is promoted by an insane con man, it should be considered to be powered by that line until irrefutably (to use your favorite word) proven otherwise. Don'tchathink? If it was control electronics, Papp would have said something to Feynman like, "Hey, you can't remove that BECAUSE I USE IT FOR CONTROL... but I will allow you to make any measurement you like on the power input and output of my engine." Papp din't offer that, did he? Instead he just got very nervous probably because he could only use a small storage battery inside the engine. And the most credible theory of what happened is that Papp had hidden a small explosive charge inside the machine to create a diversion when needed but that he underestimated the power of the charge. Papp, IIRC (and I am not sure of this) was familiar with the use of explosives. Unfortunately, I forget where I read that.


    Of course we will never know what really happened and I blame that on the lawyers for CalTech who decided to cut their losses and pay a token settlement. This is what Feynman had to say:



    http://hoaxes.org/comments/papparticle2.html


    I would add that despite the Rohner brothers' efforts, and they claimed they built engines *for* Papp, no noble gas engine has been properly demonstrated or tested in public since. If this really were an engine that runs without fuel, makes no heat or exhaust and provides ample power for a car, you don't think SOMEONE (think Musk, GM, Ford, Toyota, China) would have picked up the option by now? I mean, how improbable does something have to be before you (and McKubre) reject it? THIS is why nobody in the established scientific community believes you guys. You are obviously thinking in a very gullible way about Papp, therefore, one can surmise you do that with other things, like LENR for example.

  • "It is normal for them to have privacy obligations and not to accept interviews for fear of revealing too much their OBVIOUS, GLARING ERRORS!. "


    TIFFY (there, I fixed it for you)

    The errors were revealed in the paper. So I don't see the point of your joke. They failed to correct the errors or retract the paper.

  • Quote

    Jed: It is conceivable that Rossi actually had something in 2013, described in the above report. I cannot imagine why he would turn his back on a real machine and try to put over a crude fraud such as Penon. That makes no sense. But people do strange things. Who knows what happened? I can't guess and thinking about it gives me a headache. I'll never know and I don't much care. It is a tragic fiasco and a crime and I wish they would throw Rossi in prison for it, but I don't know if that is likely or not.


    In what universe is it conceivable that Rossi had a real machine that did what he said and "showed " early on and that he turned his back on it? For one thing, were he that insane, his friends and colleagues would not have allowed it -- not without comment anyway. Lots of comment. See, this is what bothers me about your method of thinking and what makes me doubt all that you recount about personal experiences with cold fusion and what people told you. I don't doubt your veracity at all. But you are so easily confused and bothered by obviously fraudulent claims that it takes something extremely flagrant to get you on board like the recent Rossi data meltdown. It need not give you a headache. It's like with Papp. If a known criminal; and fraudster like Rossi, with a history like Petroldragon and the thermoelectric fraud, tells you he has a miraculous LENR device, he had better present "irrefutable" -- REALLY super-irrefutable -- evidence. Otherwise, he is just doing another con job until conclusively proven otherwise.


    Ask yourself. When Rossi, early on, was confronted with his obvious measurement errors, by you, me and many others, what did he do? He ignored the critiques and instead of cleaning up the ORIGINAL very promising experiment, which would have been VERY EASY and would NOT in any way have compromised IP, what did he do? He constructed whole new experimental devices with whole new methods (OBVIOUS methods) of cheating. These took the ecat from a small low temperature device, easy to check with mass flow calorimetry (like Levi did incompetently) -- that took it to a nearly impossible to test very high temperature tube with no forced cooling -- a dismal design. And it took the simple single ecat to a gargantuan mess of ridiculous tubing and heaters Rossi called a power plant. None of that was needed. No genuine scientist or technologist/inventor would have done that. Only scammers do that.


    I am reminded of an early scam I followed -- Carl Tilley. Tilley bamboozled a bunch of small town investors out of more than a million hard earned dollars with a flashy electric DeLorean auto which he claimed was self sustaining without charging. Never mind the huge 12 volt batteries -- those never needed a recharge. And a demo at a famous speedway with a famous driver ended with "burned bearings" (but replacements which were available and offered were never used). The obvious question was why Tilley needed a car for this. A much better demo would have been a resistive load on a work bench and the batteries unconnected to charging in plain view and video taped for days or weeks with observers on site. It's classic. Steorn kept building ever fancier machines too. It's what con artists do. They never fix the measurement errors but they dazzle with new sh*t. BTW, that is probably what BLP/Mills is doing too. And I suspect Brillouin as well.


    Tilley: https://pesn.com/archive/2010/…against_Tilley/index.html Tilley, BTW never paid a dime. Instead he ran and it was probably too much trouble to hunt him down. He had no money at that point any way. Something like what I predict may happen to Rossi too.

  • Quote

    The errors were revealed in the paper. So I don't see the point of your joke.

    The point was that the Swedish blind mice were either too cowardly or too incompetent to discuss it or defend it publicly as they should have. Or to repudiate it if that is what they now think. Reputable scientists do not publish work of earthshaking potential and then refuse to answer legitimate and polite questions about it from qualified people.

  • @Jed


    From time to time, I see you mentioning an early Levi report from your site, which you say was somewhat compelling. There is what is probably an earlier one by no less than the infamous Penon. It is this one from August 2012:


    https://www.scribd.com/doc/105…ctradius&medium=affiliate


    What was striking about this one was that, far as i know, it was the first time that Rossi claimed a "third party independent verification" (or as Rossi wrote "indipendent") of the hot cat performance. But, as we noted at the time, this was done with Rossi's equipment and methods and without examination of the experiment for errors or frauds. Note the similarity of this "work" with the Lugano and other hot cat experiments.


    Note that the cast of characters is "the usual suspects". That alone should have given Darden reason to pause before appointing Penon, who obviously had his nose up ... uh.... was working for Rossi's interests the whole time.

  • In what universe is it conceivable that Rossi had a real machine that did what he said and "showed " early on and that he turned his back on it?

    I do not think he had a real machine. I said only that it is "conceivable." Stranger things have happened. History is full of examples of people acting even more self-destructive or weird than this.

    For one thing, were he that insane, his friends and colleagues would not have allowed it -- not without comment anyway.

    Friends and colleagues seldom have the power to disallow insane behavior. Even family cannot stop it. As I mentioned earlier, my late aunt was a pioneer in treating mental illness and reintroducing mentally ill people back to a productive, engaged life in society. She and my mother wrote a book about that, which I have read carefully:


    https://www.amazon.com/Psychia…ell-Doniger/dp/B06XQ6ZS9X


    So, while I am no expert, and I am light-years away from being a doctor, I know a thing or two about how difficult it is for friends, family and others to deal with mental illness or deflect the harm it sometimes causes.


    By the way, since I am no doctor I cannot judge whether Rossi is crazy.

    Ask yourself. When Rossi, early on, was confronted with his obvious measurement errors, by you, me and many others, what did he do? He ignored the critiques and instead of cleaning up the ORIGINAL very promising experiment, which would have been VERY EASY and would NOT in any way have compromised IP, what did he do? He constructed whole new experimental devices with whole new methods (OBVIOUS methods) of cheating.

    At the time I concluded he was a hopeless case, and I stopped paying attention to him. I began to pay attention again when I.H. began dealing with him. I thought I.H. seemed credible and smart. They knew far more about Rossi than I did. I thought the 2013 Levi report had merit. So I decided that perhaps Rossi may have something after all. Looking back, I now see that I.H. made mistakes, and they were swindled.


    I.H. never consulted with me before the tests began. I had no idea they gave Rossi $11 million. All I knew about the situation was what they made public in press releases and interviews. Then, when one-year test was partly completed, they told me they were unhappy. They showed me some data. It looked bad. That data later appeared in the Penon report, where you can see it and judge for yourself. I was hoping Rossi would fix the problems.


    The rest of the story you can see in the reports from Penon, Murray and Smith. It makes me sick to think of it. It is dreadful.

  • The point was that the Swedish blind mice were either too cowardly or too incompetent to discuss it or defend it publicly as they should have.

    And yet they did discuss and correct the previous paper. I don't know why they clammed up after Lugano. Your explanation that they were cowardly or incompetent does not fit the facts, because they were not cowardly or incompetent a year earlier.


    I can't explain it. Neither can you.