The preceding post was sent to me via my email address as a notification from LENR Forum. I'm not commenting on the subject matter, but after a fairly extensive search I cannot find the forum heading in which the post was made. Can someone please direct me as I would like to follow the string directly following the post. Rionrlty
I think you misunderstood. I didn't write the post I just wanted to follow up on it. It came to me as a notification on my email, but with no clear way to trace what forum is was posted on. Any help from someone out there? 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.
They even sometime take the authority to advise a jury to reverse their first written opinion. I know because it happened to me as defendant a few years back. I thought it was outragious, but no one intervened.
Whether or not the alleged settlement offer is credible is immaterial. By allowing it into the docket as evidence, the judge can use his authority to make it a credible offer.
As far as the sidenote case that if Rossi doesn't pay, he ends up in trouble with the court, which is nothing new to Rossi. But if he does not pay he would not end up with his IP.
This is a battle over what Industrial Heat calls worthless IP. Rossi wants it and claims he is willing to pay for it (at least on his blog). His claim is admissible in evidence because other claims on JONP have been admissible as evidence.
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.
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.
I don't understand why so many people find it difficult to believe that Rossi could have conned so many for so long.
Enron: claimed millions, if not billions, of value for contracts of fiber optic nonsense. Arthur Andersen, then a Big 6 accounting firm, signed off.
Bernie Madoff: took very wealthy allegedly sophisticated investors (including funds) for billions. You want to talk about measurements - his accountants were a two member firm, allegedly responsible for signing off on billions and billions in money management accounts.
Trump: got elected. And don't get me started on him. As an FYI, I worked for Hillary's campaign as a legal volunteer in Las Vegas (although I am from Cal and licensed there my activities did not constitute the unlicensed practice of law in Nevada), both of Obama's campaigns in Cincinnati and John Kerry's campaign in Cincinnati (ditto). All unpaid to be clear.
People still buy Iraqi Dinar and Zimbabwe Zim expecting some huge magical GCR (global currency revaluation).
The Juicero (Google it if you don't know): VC money chasing an incredibly stupid idea.
Dr. Shockley: Nobel prize winner yet was convinced that mega-doses of Vitamin C would cure cancer.
I have some suspicions on why IH bought a bill of goods: they hoped it would work, they really wanted it to work and they wanted to make a shitload of money.
The list of cons that have taken in intelligent, sophisticated and savvy people is long and illustrious and will only continue to grow and grow. That, along with the fact that I like to watch legal train wrecks, is why I follow this site and similar sites (The Fogbow and Quatloos). Falsehoods unchallenged only grow. Our civic duty, and I mean this seriously, is to challenge such falsehoods as they are greatly injurious to our society. I don't like it when someone gets lied to and fleeced, whether they are wealthy or poor. Not meaning to preach, but I just don't like assholes.
End of sermon for today.
PS. I take this just as seriously in the legal arena. When I see lawyers perpetuating bullshit, I try to call them on it as well.
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.
Dewey sometime your phrases seems completely not coordinated and even insane.
The most trivial solution to your quiz is that probably me and SSC live in the same time region and have the same working hours. Don't be Paranoid !
Other patterns can be seen in the Voice of IH postings also...... but who cares ?!
And then how in your mind could be the first phrase related with the second ?
Second phrase is also false ....... were the Lugano Professors who turned off the calibration run and I explained also why.
Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. I'm probably going to start moving more posts from ele and SSC here as well, as they are generally not helpful. Eric
More partisan political prejudice against Rossi believers/supporters. Nip it in the bud Eric.
I'll bet all of my Quatloos that you are right. I think the jury might look at all involved parties with exasperation, just as we have, the two judges have, and the overall LENR community has.
Yes I agree, but what about the IP?
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
Surely this kind of retort is a distraction as well?
It was a fitting reply to your remark that "But we don't need you to tell us that," which also did not add to the discussion.
In principle, neither! But in practical terms, somewhat anti-Rossi, since he has not brought any sustained, credible evidence to bear on his claims, and he has done much in addition. But I'm always grateful for and will listen to a good argument from either side of that whole divide.
Come on Eric be real. You're totally anti-Rossi, which by default makes you pro IH.
Wyttenbach: it is always helpful to think these things through.
The scenario here is that Rossi/Fulvio provide Vaughn with reactors, a complex test setup, and instructions on how to run the tests. Vaughn is certainly capable of following these instructions, but not of knowing whether (for example) power measurement is correct or wrong.
All we know is that in this way a COP of 9 was measured. Not, as I've pointed out, surprising.
We also know that a reactor showing Rossi-type COP (I'm not sure whether it is confirmed this was COP=9) was run in a test with a whole load of other reactors, all showing the same high COP. One of these reactors was however a control, with no fuel. From which TD, without any tech knowledge, could deduce that Rossi's test setup measures an electric heater as having whatever high COP (perhaps 9, but I'm not certain this has been confirmed) was measured.
Now: in what way is that difficult to understand?
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.