Posts by Rionrlty

    Mary, I can get better odds than you offer for betting on an Asteroid Strike or DT starting a Nuclear War. And with people who use their real names. You are just grandstanding, as usual. Spend your $10k on some LENR education.

    Alan I am legitimately puzzled and curious. I honestly cannot figure MY's motivation here. If it were not for the fact that I've seen posts here which seem to credit him/her with at least some scientific credentials I would have written him/her off months ago as a paid astroturfer. If not, then Rossi must have done something exceptionally personal and especially agregious to him/her at sometime in the past, for him/her to hate him so much. The only other person here who even comes close is Jed Rothwell and I at least know who he is.

    I agree that the debate is fundamental in the scientific sphere and that this should normally follow an article and not precede it. In this case, however, the article is of a theoretical nature and there is only a reference to the experimental part. The experiment was not described in detail because it was not the purpose of the article that, I repeat, is focused on theoretical concepts. Perhaps another article will later come out where the experimental details will be described, or these explanations will be given to the October demo. In this case, filling in many forum pages on guesswork and assumptions seems a bit useless.

    And has proven so right along as far as I can see.

    Rossi is shrewd. My guess is he not only has the original 10.5 mil, but has probably grown it some. Besides, he may have other backers willing to step up.

    I gather this is imaginary testimony. It is wrong. They did replicate the heat. They replicated it in an empty cell, which proves that it was a calorimetry error.


    Penon's report shows there was no heat in the giant 1 MW reactor.

    I wonder if the dummy reactor that supplied excess heat, which IH refer to, was the one that Boeing tested. Childress claimed that the dummy reactor he made put out slightly more heat than the reactor supplied by IH (which apparently had the wrong fuel in it). If so his claims mean less than nothing at this point.

    You may be referring to the time I tried to give Robert Park a paper by McKubre. He refused to touch it, letting it fall to the floor. He was with the APS, not the DoE. He wanted "plausible deniability."

    Rossi's demonstrations have not "left a lot to be desired." That's an extreme understatement. His 1-year test was an outrageous farce and criminal fraud. Anyone who understands the science who reads the Penon report will see that. That is why, for example, Axil refuses to read the Penon report. He also wants "plausible deniability."

    That is nonsense. In March 1989, every scientist on earth other than P&F was an extreme doubter. Thousands were convinced by experiments. If Rossi's device was real, and it was demonstrated correctly, it would instantly convince millions of people, and trigger a world-wide effort that would quickly bring billions of dollars to Rossi. I and many others have offered to test his device in a way that would convince millions of people. Rossi refused us. The only people who have tested his machines carefully are the people at I.H. and the people at Boeing who assisted them. They are experts. If the machine worked, they would have proved that beyond doubt. They found instead that it does not work. Not at all. It does not produce 1 W of excess heat. They are certain of that result, and so am I.

    You and the other doubters on this forum have not exactly given him reason to believe you would be unbiased were he to give you the opportunity. In fact were it me I would run the other direction as fast as I could.

    Dewey W.

    It appears ECW has been hacked and is shut down for a bit. The timing is interesting since it is the only mainstream forum with significant pro-Rossi content. Suspicious that it would happen right about the time that jurors would probably be disobeying their jury instructions to google Cold Fusion or LENR to find out more. Just saying.

    You really think that Rossi has 11.5M + legal fees for IH after buying multiple FL beach condos and spending who know what on legal fees, pinball restoration, paying JM expenses,......


    And by what authority can the judge force them to mediation during trial after she did it back in Jan already?

    By buying Florida Condos in this kind of market he may indeed have enough money now to buy his IP back.

    The fact that you backed "crooked Hillary" speaks volumes.


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

    This place is not really a place for staunch partisans, Rionrlty. If one has nothing more than party loyalties, better to go to some other forum. This place is for people seeking the truth. We do try to suffer partisans and forum warriors that occasionally bring interesting information or arguments. But "suffer" is the operative word.

    You know Eric I've been hanging around here for quite a while now. I've admitted that I'm no scientist, but I have kept myself up to date on the Rossi/Darden story, both before and after the law suit, and have read most of the court documents available. After being banned for two weeks for my "partisanship" because of something I posted on the R v D forum, I stopped posting there, pretty much totally. As I was told at the time to take those kinds of opinions here, to the playground, that's what I did and here we are. But apparently that was not enough.


    I may not be a scientist or a physicist, but I am an excellent judge of human nature, which has afforded me much success in the business world, and the same gut instinct, which supported me there for over 35 years, has led me to conclude that Andrea Rossi and his tech are real and that he is sincere.


    That same instinct, along with too much experience with what passes as scrupulous behavior for VC companies like IH, has led me to a healthy skepticism regarding anything they say or do. As far as I am concerned they are incapable of being anything but self-serving. Lying and misrepresentation are part of the business model. I believe these things mostly from my experience in business, rather than from evaluating flow meters and formulas that I don’t possess the background to understand in the first place. That instinct is something that I believe virtually every successful entrepreneur possesses, at least to some extent, but it is also something that is impossible to quantify scientifically or philosophically. It is also something that is rare in the sciences, with one exception being Andrea Rossi.


    As it is I spend more time trying to keep up with these things than I can hardly justify, so I have neither the inclination, nor the need, to spend countless hours parsing through endless data in order to furnish cites that reinforce incomplete technical conclusions, conclusions that in the end will have no real relevance in regards to this court case, or the viability of LENR, Rossi's or otherwise. It seems incredulous to me that members such as THH, sigmoidal, Bob, Jed and many others can spend so much time writing endless posts filled with meaningless minutia, and still have time to fulfill the responsibilities of professional careers in science.


    I concede that in the end it is your forum, and you can have it as biased as you please. So I will heretofore keep my opinion to myself and refrain from posting here at all. I will continue to hit the like button occasionally and trust that you will let me know if that too offends in any way.


    rionrlty

    More partisan political prejudice against Rossi believers/supporters. Nip it in the bud Eric.

    RR - you'd have more luck with Eric there if you'd given some evidence for where I was wrong - even speculation...


    I'm sure there are possibles!

    This is not the only thing I do. Haven't got time to write them all down.

    Yeah, can be i didnt look for the right keywords. Still maybe you overestimate his contributions?

    There is nothing else than Deweysays for the dummy incident. The ICCW is quite obvious and the "we wont settle" fact is .... well .... consistent.

    We won't know about the "settling" question until we do, or don't.

    I wish Dewey didn't blatantly flaunt the rules here. In this case I suspect Dewey is wrong about the identity of ele, Ahlfors, and others, in addition. But I'll only warn people if I intend to follow through with further steps if there is subsequent misbehavior. Rightly or wrongly, I put Dewey in the same category that I would Rossi or Fabiani, if I thought they were posting here under some account. Because they're close to the action, they get more leeway, even if I'm not happy with the result. It's a tossup: do you warn and then ban someone who has interesting information because his behavior is problematic and chase away a source of information, or do you hold him to a different standard than people who are not as close to the action? So far I've been defaulting to the latter, which I think makes sense. But the result is an uneasy double standard that is hard to justify and explain.

    Eric, there is nothing interesting about Dewey's information, his behavior or even Dewey himself. All of his information is at the very least biased if not downright dishonest. His behavior is totally objectionable in any case. As for myself I could do without anything he has to say. Just my 2 cents worth thank you.

    That is true :)


    But I do say when I'm speculating. All the things I say about Rossi, for example, are documented non-speculative. It is generally others who speculate that because of Rossi's motivation one thing or another is not possible...

    In other words I'm right, I know I'm right--even if I'm wrong.


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

    Come on Eric be real. You're totally anti-Rossi, which by default makes you pro IH.

    How do we know IH didn't screw up the calibration and measurement?

    Rossele - you wouldn't believe the things that we know. I see that you only chose to address a couple of the Fabiani related adventures that you funded but while we have your attention we'd like to know something. Why did you go and buy 10+ condos in Miami with IH money when you could have reinvested in the greatest invention since powdered sugar and changed the planet? Now you want us to believe that the ecat wasn't good enough and that you needed to iterate and commercialize with the quackx? (with a 1MW quackx in the mix nonetheless - that makes me howl with laughter every time you mention it)


    Packing your bags for your next batch of dupes yet?

    You're right...We wouldn't believe you. Not a chance.

    If Rossi eventually succeeds in a useful device it will not be IH that will have a bad legacy, it will Rossi. He has had five year+ to do good reliable measurements and use under contract to transfer the technology to others but he could not.


    Even now, if he had what he claims, he should be able to quickly make a good reliable modestly sized system that could withstand scrutiny but instead he allegedly pulls out critical material, bars others from examining the systems, removes instruments others look to for information, and destroys parts. It is legacy that will be in jeopardy.


    He claims caring for children with cancer, but how many children in the world are suffering from lack of a simple power system to supply clean water or to keep them from freezing on a cold winter night. If he has what he claims and cares as he claims he would do what is good for others not just try to enrich himself. .

    This is interesting. It seems that a lot of Rossi detractors are now using the word "if" when referring to the possibility that he may have something after all. The significance is that up until now they seemed to all be certain beyond a doubt that he has nothing and the whole thing was just a bald faced scam. Could it be they have decided to hedge their bets in light of recent legal developments? It seems apparent now from the legal disclosures that at least some evaluation of the performance of the 1MW ECat will happen during the trial, unlike other recent predictions that it would be only about the contract and its validation. We may find out yet if this thing really produced or not.

    Yup, that pretty much sums it up, except for the remark about capitalists, I kinda like capitalism in fact.

    If IH people were certain they could not consider the Doral test to be the GPT because of the lack of a signature, why did they promise Rossi to pay him in any case if he had achieved positive results? (See for example 254-04). It seems that their intention was not to pay him at all, since the promise was only oral, so retractable even at the last moment.

     

    How do you know that there were not (or are not) pre-existing agreements still in force covering the relationship and flow of IP between Lugano testers. IH and Rossi that allow for the exchange of information and material samples for scientific purposes? The answer to that is of course, that you don't. Nor me, btw, but I'm not shouting about it.

    An excellent question Alan. IMHO there are far too many iron clad conclusions being espoused here, while only based on speculation, and often only on innuendo. Even with the extensive depositions and court filings there is still much more we don't know here than we do. Reminds me a little too much of the speculation by the liberal main stream media in their efforts to brand Trump a liar, traitor and buffoon based only on liberal bias and speculation.

    Alan - I have very little respect for the Lugano guys. If they got their feet burned and are silent now because no longer involved it is bad enough, but understandable. To be claiming new results in the same area without correcting such an egregiously wrong report is a poor show indeed.


    I'm very confident that they do not have clear excess heat. (If they did the requirement for silence would mysteriously change).

    This sounds eerily similar to a lot comments I heard in the early 1990's regarding F and P and the University of Utah and it eventually drove them underground for an extended period. Oh wait, that seems to be exactly what the Lugano group has done. Strange, very strange.

    IHFB,


    I do not hold it against the businesses themselves. Few can survive without dealing with govt. That is where most of the money is. Not their fault they have to get their hands dirty. It is the corrupt bureaucrats, politicians, and public unions that leave them no choice, that are to blame.


    If it makes you feel better about them...most hold their noses when having to do what they have to do.

    Which is exactly the argument I used in an earlier post in defense of Rossi's actions. Both government and big business seem to adhere to a different set of ethics than most individuals are held to. I believe that everything that Rossi did, good or bad, was simply trying emulate and play the so-called game by the same rules as IH held itself to. Only as an individual he gets tagged as scammer, fraud, liar, schemer and charlatan, while IH acting through its myriad shell companies is just behaving normally, as any good business would.

    That is no way to do scientific research. They made that mistake during their long test at Lugano. They should have consulted with experts at every stage. Heck, they should have consulted with me -- a non-expert. I would have asked them "what color is the reactor incandescence?" I think it was orange, not white, which means their conclusions and their entire report are wrong, and they wasted months.


    I asked them that after the report was published. They never responded. They invited technical questions but I do not think they responded to any of them. That's is an outrageous violation of academic norms. People who do things like that are bound to make stupid mistakes.

    And all this time I thought you were and expert.

    When will Alan reach Peak Stupid?? If that is even possible, it cannot come soon enough.


    RiRi - You ran out of bullets long ago - the race card is not yours to play.

    Are you so young that you don't know the negative racial relevance of "step-n-fetch-it?"

    For the first point, perhaps. But (in our hypothetical scenario that the QuarkX is more than an LED) I don't think that precludes IH from asking Rossi to transfer the technology under the terms of the license so that it can commercialize it. (And from suing if this doesn't happen.)


    Please elaborate on why you think the QuarkX is likely not to be a further development of the E-Cat IP. The license agreement (doc. 001-02, sec. 13.4) is extremely broad in what it stipulates is covered under future improvements.

    Yes it is broad and it is too soon to be sure, but at this stage the science behind the QuarkX seems to be totally different than the ECat, and also its application. At the very least I think it could probably be challenged on this point alone.

    He'll certainly be able to develop and promote the QuarkX outside of IH license territory. I also think there is a likely case to be made that the QuarkX is not a further development of the ECat technology.

    Potential jurors are asked if they have any knowledge of the case. If they have knowledge, they are not allowed to serve. If they lie, and they have knowledge, they get in big trouble. After they are selected the judge orders them not to look up the case on the Internet. Again, they get in trouble if they disobey the judge's orders and the authorities find out, for example during discussions when other jurors report them.


    I served on juries before the Internet. Similar rules were in place. They have been updated.


    Bear in mind that most people have not heard of Rossi.

    I think today that is mostly wishful thinking. Its proven virtually impossible to deny knowledge in the age of the internet. I don't argue the point that a Juror might be slapped on the wrist are excused, maybe even fined (but not likely so) if he was stupid enough to admit to ignoring a Judges instruction, but remember, this is a civil action so sanctions would be pretty light in my opinion. I would also add that I have almost as little faith in American jurisprudence as I do in the honesty of big business, and were I chosen for the Jury neither hell nor high water would keep me from investigating further. Also, unless the Juror were stupid enough to brag about it, it would be almost impossible to find out one way or the other.


    I am old enough to remember the O. J. Simpson trial and due to the Real Estate recession at the time I sat at home and watched the entire trial on TV. It was the first ever, and also the last criminal murder trial to be fully televised live, in real time. We at home got to see virtually everything that went on in the court room, even when evidence was considered to prejudicial for the sequestered jury to see or hear. It was a real eye opener how arbitrarily the Jury was kept from seeing what in my opinion was extremely exculpatory evidence. My judgement is that had this evidence been allowed for the Jury he would have been even less likely to be convicted than eventually proved the case. It was similar in civil cases where I was involved.