Posts by Eric Walker

    I think this must be the image you cropped:




    In a former life, I worked with Windows for several years. This image does not stand out to me as being out of the normal. I think there might be a theme where the window borders are translucent and the background color shows through. I could be wrong. I have not used Windows in a long time.


    Here is a translucent window from what is probably a more recent version of Windows:




    It would be pretty remarkable if one of the authors of the Lugano report went to the effort to photoshop an image. I'm skeptical at this point.

    Edit: Note that when using the Optris software, that particular temperature box doesn't show up there. The spot temperature (hot spot usually) shows up in that location (covered up by the box, in the image below).


    I didn't quite follow the Lugano photoshop allusion. It seems like there might have been something that was discussed before here or elsewhere which I missed.


    There was nothing in the two images that you attached that looked obviously photoshopped. It looked like there was a small popup window that had an "x" that could be moved around, and that the smaller window was placed in the corner above another window that was behind it, possibly covering over a temperature reading that is normally there in the main window of the Optris application. Nothing in this scenario seems out of the normal. Am I missing something important?

    LLTL, it would have been nice if you could have joined us for those 7000 comments, as your questions have come up several times. To some of them:


    "And explain me also how IH got scammed when they got 50million on investments while they let Rossi run his 1MW reactor with the same ERV who did their first validation test 3 years ago."


    IH were given 50 million to invest in their portfolio by Woodford. They are accountable to Woodford to invest the money along the lines that were agreed in advance. This is money that they may end up having to return to Woodford if there is a dispute between them. This was not money that they could spend on anything they want, e.g., real estate in Florida, without consequence. It is not really IH's money.


    "What's also very curious in this courtcase is IH doesn't go all in on the technical side, if they really think that 1MW reactor is one big scam."


    First, legal questions precede any technical ones. Was the Doral show a "Guaranteed Performance Test"? This is a question that hinges on signatures, provisions spelled out in the license agreement and its amendments, how the Doral activity was represented and discussed between stakeholders, etc.


    Second, IH do go into the technical side, bringing in analysis and discussion from Murray and Smith and others.

    it is so easy to call someone sociopath, narcissist, conman or whatever by just evaluating his postings and sayings out of context, where they could have been put up certain way merely because of business reasons than ones personality.


    I don't think it's possible to distinguish between antisocial behavior exhibited in the course of business and out of it. If you're behaving antisocially in pursuing business, your behavior is antisocial. In the case of the surgeon with the knife, there is the intention of healing the patient, the patient's consent that was obtained in advance and the many successful examples in history that justify the use of the scalpel.


    For example JONP has done damn good job on confusing both competitors and investors.


    People are too ready to overlook clear and obvious misdirection if it allows them to continue to hold onto hope. This feeds into a narrative of the wily inventor who feels justified in doing all kinds of underhanded things in order to protect his invention. Such a narrative can provide cover for actual scammers, so we should be careful not to too readily acquiesce in it. No doubt the behavior of the majority of inventors and businesspeople is straightforward and upright.

    one possible exception: IH may have been promoting their portfolio of technologies as being more 'rosey' than they themselves believed, particularly some time after the beginning of 2015.


    I don't excuse the behavior at all, but this common behavior for VC funded startups in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, for example. Sort of a hand-wavy combination of great optimism together with trying to keep expectations low. Both a sales pitch and a status report.


    ETA: In the case of startups, it's probably not unethical in most cases; more along the lines of talking oneself up in an interview, which is the expectation and is compensated for in the interviewers' minds.

    In fact Rossi had to sue IH otherwise hi would lose any credibility with his other partners. No one would make serious relationship with somebody who simply give up to 89M$.


    This is of course advice that Machiavelli himself would give. But those who follow such advice will surely not be surprised if the favor is returned.

    So, I guess we'll just have to completely disagree, because although Rossi was threatening, I don't think IH thought Rossi was seriously stupid enough to sue them.


    Having watched Rossi from a distance for several years, this kind of miscalculation on Rossi's part was not that surprising to me when it happened. But I do suspect it was a miscalculation, in the sense that I suspect Rossi was expecting IH to buckle and possibly settle. Or, if not a miscalculation exactly, perhaps something along the lines of a hail Mary.

    This cuts both ways: seems there are a lot of people who really wish that Rossi's reactors do not work and have never worked, even though facts from the court docs tell another story altogether


    I think you need to make the case that the facts from the court docs tell another story altogether, and that this cannot be automatically concluded from what has been brought to light so far. You will need to show statements in a timeline that, when ordered properly, suggest that IH intentionally bilked another party. So far what we have are statements made at different points in time that are likely evidence of a shifting understanding of things, that would be easy to misconstrue if taken out of order.


    I doubt there is anyone who wishes that Rossi's reactors do not work. More likely is that there are people who give the probability little weight. Those two things are very different.

    Joshg, you are correct. It would be criminally negligent for people in IH to have said anything in writing about collusion against or with Woodward, and only common sense was needed to avoid this.


    Without naming names, I do think the whole false flag stuff is far removed from any plausible account of things. Some people's commitments ("LENR+", Rossi having something, etc.) seem to take them down paths that are hard to go along with them on. I do not think there are nefarious forces consciously aligned against LENR at this point. You have the occasional committed debunker who makes a splashy and sometimes impressive and entertaining appearance on forums. There's the stigma that attaches to scientists who express interest in LENR, and the apparent prejudice against the field on the editorial boards of magazines such as Scientific American. There's the difficulty in getting papers into peer reviewed journals (I think most established LENR researchers have largely stopped trying at this point). These things are understandable in terms of more mundane sociological explanations. Energy companies have actually been funders of cold fusion research, as we saw with the SRI-EPRI collaborations.


    The horse carriage business in the early part of the twentieth century and the whaling outfits in the nineteenth century are both examples of business concerns that stood to lose a lot with later technological developments. They were eventually swept away, even if they did resist encroaching developments. There was nothing they could have done. I think something similar would happen if LENR were made commercially viable. There would be little that could be done to stop it. Attempted explanations for the Rossi v. Darden trial that are based on or that vaguely allude to nefarious forces arrayed against LENR miss the straightforward and far more plausible explanations for no obvious explanatory purpose except to continue to make wishful thinking possible.


    That said, Rossi worked at one point with Focardi, who collaborated with Piantelli, and I am not fully convinced at this point that Rossi has never had anything, despite the Doral show. This is a question that comes down to impressions and probabilities, which I consider to be very low but not zero.

    Ok, fair enough. You'll attempt to disrupt the narrative that IH are stoically suffering a misadventure with Andrea Rossi. Sometime it's not bad to have someone serve as an advocate for a certain slant on things. Not everyone can do this effectively, as it takes a pretty light touch and a willingness not to take statements and details out of context (e.g., ignoring the order of events in the timeline).


    One thing that stood out to me as I thought through the timeline is that no one has reported yet seeing any statements from IH principals along the lines of "even though we know this thing with Rossi is going nowhere, we'll say to Woodford that it's all great, because then we'll get 50 million dollars." I.e., direct evidence of collusion. That places the burden for IH being evil on very circumstantial evidence and a lot of inference. I suppose they could be smooth enough operators not to leave a trail. So far I find this line of reasoning uncompelling, myself.

    Rionrlty, please stop accusing people of being APCO shills. We try to keep things polite and collegial here, and we assume good intentions as much as possible (it is not always possible). There are others who also engage in this kind of thing, unfortunately, but they also make technical or legal contributions. You stand out in pursuing little but ad hominem attacks. Please stop.


    If you do not want to contribute to the legal or technical discussions, it would be entirely fine if you stop posting here.

    Bet no one pro-IH will want to comment on this one.


    This is just a heads-up that I find that the signal to noise ratio in your posts to be especially low. Please stop trying to turn the discussion of this thread away from the topic at hand and towards the members of this forum, either directly or through vague innuendo, such as in this case.

    The irony here is that pro-IH people are ignoring all the red flags around IH. As for me, I think both IH and Rossi stink to high heaven. I'm long overdue for a shower to get the stank of this affair off me...


    It seems to me that your conclusion that "IH ... stink to high heaven" could easily be based on a reading of events out of order, in which the timeline is not paid careful attention to. Up to now I have come away with a very different impression of them, namely that they have stoically weathered a difficult adventure in their admittedly risky attempt to do business with Rossi.


    You have been good about taking dates into account with specific statements. But there are many other statements that have been made as well which need to be placed into the timeline, and an allowance for the possibility of different understandings of different IH principals at different times.

    Doesn't it have to do with a window or set of windows that might or might not have been opened/removed/obscurated? More unknowns we don't know whether we know them or not

    Seems a lot of people like to discuss conjectures and make them factual instead of debating known facts, found in the court docs, and then build hypothesis upon them


    THH's conclusion is based upon analyses which are in this thread for you to go back and read and comment upon. The conclusion is either solid, or there's some holes in it. Perhaps you'll be willing to raise your own comments above the level of conjecture by going back and identifying what is conjecture in THH's conclusion about the upper bound on power dissipation?

    Our resident stalwart IH defenders have all taken a crack at attempting to explain away this conundrum, but with little effect in my opinion. Pages of ink spilled attempting to resolve this blatant inconsistency.


    I might guess that you view the existence of this "blatant inconsistency" with the same certitude that you had when you and the child saw that there was no glass in the window.

    The following two notions are irreconcilable:


    1) IH thought that Rossi's stuff was not working


    2) Rossi's technology was a core element of Woodford's initial investment


    In order to hope to sort out a coherent account, whatever it is, it is very important to keep the timeline in mind, as there was clearly an evolution in thinking over time, surely for the IH principals, and possibly for Rossi as well. There needs to be someone with the patience and attention to detail of an accountant to piece together source-backed events into a timeline. If that happened, I take it there would be something like this on the IH side:


    1. An initial period of optimism, buoyed by the Penon validation test and subsequently the Lugano report, along with a healthy skepticism that Rossi himself would be able or willing to put his technology through its paces.

    2. A period of doubt, in which there is a question about whether earlier tests were as solid as they at first appeared. There was not really disbelief in the tests yet, but a big question mark about whether they were sufficient or not. Things were strained at this point with Rossi, and there was a question about whether to continue, which would require humoring him in his eccentricities, or calling an end to the show, which would possibly put a premature end to Darden's question of whether Rossi really had something after all.

    3. A period in which it was clear that Rossi was going to try to push a certain storyline about the Doral dog and pony show being the GPT, requiring for legal considerations a careful managing of communications.


    Throughout these three periods, spanning roughly from 2012 to 2016, there were the discussions with Woodford and the Chinese, the bringing on of Murray, etc. Without a careful placement in time of each of the relevant events, it is all too easy to mix tentative conclusions from one period together with pessimistic statements made in another period.

    The outcome of this will be binary. Rossi has something or he never had anything.


    I wish this were so. But we know from Roswell, New Mexico, and the Yeti, and Papp, that any topic for which information is incomplete can support not only speculation but avowed supporters for decades to come. Unfortunately I think the likelihood of this lawsuit definitively sorting out the technical questions is very small at this point, and we will be left with probabilities (extremely pessimistic ones, in my view) and impressions. And if this affair has taught me anything it is that different observers will take what information is available and draw wildly different conclusions.

    If IH is out to destroy or delay LENR, as some have speculated, then nothing would discredit LENR more than showing Rossi is a scam artist.


    To the contrary. If Rossi is a scam artist, or is kind of a scam artist, better that this be made plain and clear and that his work bears little to no connection to a number of honest researchers (Mizuno, McKubre, Storms, Miles, etc.) working in the field who over decades have sacrificed more prosperous careers for pursuing their interest in a controversial topic.


    The field of LENR predated and is much bigger than Rossi and his attempted replicators, although Rossi's supporters are prone to collapse the two things into one.