Posts by Rionrlty

JedRothwell wrote:

IH did not want the test in the first place. If they had tried to stop it, they knew Rossi would walk away. By the time the test began they had tested Rossi's devices extensively and they knew that none of them worked. The test was a last-ditch, Hail Mary effort. It did not cost them much. As they said, if there is even a 1% chance left that it might work, why not let Rossi try for a year.

Back in 1990, after the F and P announcement, it seemed clear to me that a lot of the criticism they received came from other scientist that were envious of their discovery. Could some of this be going on here, Jed?

Bob wrote:

OK Wy, please show me one place where IH stated the pipe was DN40 in depositions under oath and repeatedly in fact!

As a matter of fact, please show me one time where there is a proven lie in any IH depositions. That will help me understand your case.

(Remember, the memo of Murray's was written well before the lawsuit, simply asking questions to be cleared up, which were never answered.)

Thanks!

Display More

Dewey sure as heck insinuated it over and over, and may have even made the claim. And he is paid directly by IH.

Bob wrote:

I would feel ashamed to put the name Rossi in the same sentence as F & P, stating they are similar!

F&P were respected scientist, who answered questions truthfully! They did NOT make up fake customers, fake sales, fake factories, fake, fake, fake ...... lies. Their reputation was built on solid work. Truly examined by others and with sound results.

They were badly misjudged by a few in key positions with agendas and that unfortunately tarnished their fine work. HOWEVER.... they did not tarnish it themselves! Rossi has only Rossi to blame for this mess. No one else.

If Rossi had a working product, he could easily dispell all these conflicts. He could easily arrange real and legitimate replications. What does he do.... fake, lie and cheat.

Comparing F&P to Rossi is a slap in the face to them!

Display More

Again, this did not stop a lot professionals from accusing them of falsifying things at the time. There were some pretty outrageous accusations thrown about and, yes, they did have much better reputations than Rossi. This makes it doubly bad.

Forty-Two wrote:

You didn't reply to my request: Please cite where IH says that they were seeing COP 5, 9, or 11 with their own built devices!

What you did is: You first spread "fake news", and when caught on it, you tried to wiesel out.

That has been shown here multiple times. Where have you been?

Forty-Two wrote:

You may very well be right.

Anyway, for which kind of Rossi apologist would you feel more sorry:

For someone who defends Rossi because he is just that batshit insane gullible that he (still) believes this charade?

Or for a guy who desperately defends this e-cat farce because he fears to sink together with Rossi in one boat?

How about for a guy who doesn't want to see the same thing happen to Rossi that happened to F and P back in 1990. Everyone thinks he has it figured out, but he doesn't, not by a long shot. Not even me.

Roseland67 wrote:

rionaltry,

No I am an engineer working in the energy field and have never met, been approached by or asked by anyone anywhere in this this ridiculous Ecat charade.

Click on my user name and you will fine responses on Discuss before this blog started.

Like most, when I first saw this article in January of 2011, I was intrigued and have followed it closely since.

However, after 6 years and a grand total of nothing but "Rossi says"

My experiences and observations of same leave me to believe that Rossi is a pathological, liar and a delusional quack.

Display More

Believe it or not I recall similar things being said about the original F and P, back in 1990. Yes, I am old enough to remember and didn't believe it about them back then.

Eric Walker wrote:

I wrote: "And Gullstrom will have needed to answer questions such as these [Is the power going into it 0.011 W or 10 W? ...] as well, or alternatively to have taken Rossi on his word instead, as he appears to have done."

I get that you're kind of a troll here, and that you are unable for whatever reason to participate in this conversation constructively. But looking past that for a moment, do you see a third alternative to the two that I mentioned above? It is more like mathematics or logic than speculation to set out the various possibilities, but perhaps I've missed some.

My point is that there are important facts missing, yet we go on trying to provide them by speculation. I don't have to be a genius scientist to see the futility in that. With you guys the glass is always half empty it seemes.

Dewey Weaver wrote:

IHFB - your inability to process and understand even the basics makes you self-made alright. We'll leave it at that.

Peter - there is no intelligible data from Doral in the evidence. What was admittedly destroyed by FF, Penon and Rossi

means that adverse interpretation is heading their way by a legal standard. From your point of view, the raw data behind the most important invention

in 100 years has been destroyed along wth realms of other evidence. Somehow you will still find faith in your boy Rossi but please understand you're looking

incredulous to the truth in the process. Your loss may not be irrevocable - you have to come to terms with this. March madness has turned to March sadness for the Planet Rossi remnant. Please start to deal with this, dig deep and find a way move on.

Display More

At this point I've come to discount just about every word written by you are Jed. You are both so clearly biased in favor of IH that your comments at best can only be considered in their humorous context, much like the writings of Mark Twain. M'thinks you doth protest too much.

Roseland67 wrote:

Jed,

Fanboy, (like most at ECW), just can't let it go, the grasping at straws was both predictable and expected.

Soon, they will find another lame specification in an attempt to stave off the inevitable, the fact that they, as relatively smart people were "hoodwinked" by a scam artist, which is impossible

Roseland67 Are you now or have you ever been associated with IH or any of its shell companies?

Eric Walker wrote:

It's not a dodge to provide information that is correct and relevant that addresses an unspoken assumption of your question. But to the question, I would definitely notice heat and light, in the similar manner to the heat and light that I observe in a lightbulb. Now is the lightbulb giving off 10 W? Is the power going into it 0.011 W or 10 W? These are the kinds of questions that are necessary to answer in order to draw any further conclusions and for which I would not be of much help.

And Gullstrom will have needed to answer questions such as these as well, or alternatively to have taken Rossi on his word instead, as he appears to have done.

More speculation with few facts. Oh well.

Rends wrote:

'Sane' is not included in this conflict, the only thing that I can see (beside of the silent contribution of a very few honest enthusiast) is massiv greed.

In a capitalist society greed is good. It's what keeps the wheels going.

JedRothwell wrote:

They might try to do this, but history shows they will probably fail. When the largest, richest most politically powerful corporations in the past were challenged by disruptive technology, they failed to respond, and they were quickly driven out of business. When their profits fell, their political power evaporated. For example:

In 1900 U.S. railroads, especially the Pennsylvania Railroad were the largest, wealthiest and most politically powerful corporations on earth. They held sway in the Congress. They crushed attempts by labor to organize. In 1908, Henry Ford began manufacturing the Model T. By the 1920s, railroads were losing business to automobiles and trucks. In the 1940s they were losing business to airlines, and their political power was gone. The Pennsylvania Railroad was gone by 1970.

North Atlantic ocean liners suffered a similar fate, much more quickly, with post-WWII air transportation on their routes.

In the 1960s and 70s, IBM dominated the computer business. At one point I think it was larger than its 7 rivals combined (the "seven dwarfs"). In the early 1980s it introduced the PC and took over the microcomputer business. It reached a zenith in the mid 1980s and then the market changed, IBM stumbled, it lost record amounts of money, and it nearly went bankrupt.

AT&T dominated the telephone business until the technology and regulations change. It went bankrupt. The present company kept only the name.

General Motors dominated the automobile business worldwide. It went bankrupt in 2009, losing all stockholder value.

U.S. Steel and many other companies that dominated their industry went bankrupt. Kodak is effectively bankrupt, along with most other "dream stocks" of the 1960s.

Sears is on the verge of bankruptcy, because of competition from Amazon.com.

Corporations are much less powerful than people realize.

Display More

Yes, individual companies fail often, mostly because they fail to keep up with the times and the new paradigm, but the transportation, auto, steel and, yes, the retail business is healthy in general, as is telecommunications. But we're not talking about an individual company here. We are talking about all of energy production and sales, throughout the world. That is a bit different.

Shane D. wrote:

Dang, I was afraid you would come up with something like that! So now, I have to not only read the rest of the case documents, now I have to watch a series of documentaries that will make Rossi appear the norm?

They will be coming to take me away aha, oho, ahee, to the funny farm, where I belong, they are coming to take me away.....

It was a good series of programs, especially the ones about Tesla and Edison.

sigmoidal wrote:

218 - Order: Magistrate rules that Cherokee and IPH did not give adequately informative deposition, that they must re-depose, and IH must bear the cost.

219 - 224: hearing notices, corrections to a hearing notice and notice of transcript (nothing very informative)

225 - Order: Judge (Altonaga) grants IH's appeal of Magistrates decision regarding attorney client privilege of emails between IH and Dewey Weaver

Summary and Analysis: The Magistrate has ruled that IPH and Cherokee must provide more informative Corporate deposition. This makes sense to me, especially regarding IPH. How can IPH counter-sue Rossi for damages and then not be able to answer questions about how it calculated damages when deposed? For both Corps, how can they file Affirmative Defenses and not be able to answer questions about those AD's? So this ruling seems reasonable to me (as I had opined earlier). Also, it seemed strange that the Magistrate would not apply attorney-client privilege to IH/Dewey emails since we saw their contract for legal services which made it explicit that their communications were regarding legal issues. So it is not surprising that the Magistrates decision was remanded by the Judge. Rossi (and us in the peanut gallery) will not be seeing Dewey's emails to/from IH.

One more point is that I think that Judge Altonaga's decision indicates that both parties Motion for Sanctions (witness tampering and Spoliation) could proceed if channeled through the Magistrate (which neither were). So these hearings with the Magistrate are an important step in the process of any successful sanctioning Motion and both parties will likely raise their objections with the Magistrate in hopes he will agree to have them heard by Judge Altonaga.

My opinion is that Rossi's case for witness tampering is extremely weak, while IH's case for Spoliation is extremely strong. But this will be decided by the Magistrate and (potentially) the Judge.

Display More

I'm disappointed. I wanted to see Dewey on the hot seat.

JedRothwell wrote:

I wouldn't say that. I would say that people who cannot tell the Penon data is fabricated do not understand experiments, instruments or data. I do not accuse them of lying or being troll-bots, but I would say they do not understand technical issues well enough to participate in a serious discussion. They resemble the person here who thought that a sauna makes heat magically disappear.

I would suggest to these people that they make some observations of equipment temperatures, recording to the nearest tenth degree. See if they come out the same to the nearest tenth-degree every day for weeks, with the hi-low feature, or computer data. Do a reality check. There are many other problems with the data, but this is one that many people can check without much difficulty.

Also, you might ask yourselves how there can be a large wooden encased pipe that is invisible, does not show in photographs, and vanishes overnight. That seems implausible, to say the least. If you think that is plausible, I would say you are living in a dream world. Rossi has made many other implausible assertions. He makes so many impossible assertions and weird claims, the head spins, and you begin to believe things that taken one or two at a time you would reject. He overwhelms you with bullshit. He also acts as an echo. When I mention that a U pipe is needed, he claims there was one. When someone says "maybe he was making endothermic chemicals" he claims that yes, indeed, he was, even though most endothermic processes reduce heat by a few percent at most, and the only possible candidate would be melting tons of ice to make water. Whatever people on Planet Rossi dream up, he echoes, affirming their nonsense.

@Jed I think you must also be talking about most jurors, and there have already been comments here about how ignorant the attorneys were during deposition. In the end it will be these people, not you, who decides this case. Perhaps you should volunteer as an expert witness. No, on second thought don't, the jurors would probably find you as irritating as we do.

THHuxleynew wrote:

@IHFB

The key issue is the condensate trap - removed by Rossi - without which I thought even you agreed the phase change measurement cannot be safely made.

The [EDIT: exit] pipe size is a red herring that obsesses you but is only relevant to this case if it really is DN40, and the bad faith of the measurement cannot otherwise be proven.

Notice that for this stage (SJ) we cannot have expert testimony (which would be contested) even if it is pretty clear. We can only have uncontested facts.

Display More

Sometimes it is easier to fool ourselves than to be fooled by others.

JedRothwell wrote:

Yup. That's the problem.

I believed Rossi for a while. But in cold fusion, you have to be prepared to un-believe things, because so much of it turns out to be wrong. Other claims sit in a gray netherworld, not right, and not wrong. People who cling to their beliefs and people who hate to be wrong should not be involved in this field.

Zeus46 wrote:

Let me guess - you also consider the scientists studying climate change as being 'naive', and that those who base their scientific opinions on Fox News reportage are paragons of rationality and critical thinking?

No they are certainly not naive. Some are careless with their conclusions, some are greedy for the grant money that the subject allows so copiously, some are "snowflake" liberals who just want to believe and some are simply hanger's on who want to ride the politically correct next wave. You complain about Rossi's qualifications and honesty, but the proofs and theories of so-called climate change scientists are far less credible than he is. And that's Hypocrisy. As far as Fox News I think you just made a lucky guess LOL.

Alan Smith wrote:

Rionrlty

I think that the pioneering interest shown by IH in LENR research is indicative of the fact that the control and monetisation of any disruptive technology (disruptive in terms of impinging upon the established pattern of cash-flow) will be swift, aggressive, and comprehensive.

I can see why they would think so, but again, it requires a certain amount of naivete to believe it won't be controlled centrally to a large degree. In light of my prediction above, whoever develops it will be in for a big payment. Look how much the banks were paid to not fail.

Paradigmnoia wrote:

There are good reasons for no comment. I'll give you four:

1) The Gullstrom report claims to be validated by the "experiment" reported, and yet the experiment is barely reported on, certainly not with enough detail to draw any serious conclusions from it, and nothing from the report seems to be based on anything from the experiment.

2) The Gullstrom report relies in part on isotope transformations from the Lugano report. But the Lugano device either did not make any excess heat outside of the noise, or only just made the same amount of heat as a solid alumina tube. So the isotope transformations there, if real, do not indicate any energy transfer from nucleii.

3) The Gullstrom report relies in part on Parkhomov's reported isotope shifts, which are barely changed in the supplied reference, and quite possibly not changed at all, but appear to be so only due to (undefined) analytical uncertainties.

4) Neither the quark demonstration, the Lugano demonstration, nor any of Parkhomov's demonstrations have been replicated by the designer of the demo devices, nor anyone else. Basing theoretical work on non-replicable "experiments" is very sketchy, especially when the results that "prove" the effect have orders of magnitude differences between various metrics.

Display More

This same lack of information certainly hasn't kept you from reaching conclusions regarding Rossi and Doral test, so why would it matter here.

Zeus46 wrote:

How so? Why is it naive/wrong?

I didn't say it was wrong, only naive. First, look at my reply to "THEDEBATEISUSELESS" in post #184 above, as an excellent example of why its naive. Do you really think that the oil, gas and electric utility companies and all the other connected financial interests in the status quo are going to stand by idly while we replace their livelihoods with something they cannot control. There is a reason why they call it a "disruptive" technology. None of us have any idea of how far these special interests will go to protect their current fiefdoms, when push comes to shove. Nor do we know how far the US, and other world governments will go to help protect and preserve them. Remember the phrase "Too big to fail" regarding the 2008 financial crisis? Well, these utilities are even bigger than that and can neither be allowed to fail.

My best guess, and I used this idea in my book, is that the current utilities will be allowed to control and administer the new technology and charge a fee for its use. This right will be awarded to them by the government, in the name of public safety most likely (they're protecting us once more), but in the end it will really be so that the energy markets and investors will be protected from the economic disruption and huge losses that would result. So, for our own good we will be allowed to purchase, at our own expense, automobiles, home heating and air conditioning systems, home or business sized power generating systems etc. minus the LENR power supply, which will be leased to us, as a modular unit, from the current purveyors of various energies. The cost of this will be calculated by an estimate of the current replacement cost of contemporary supplies of energy. In other words if a persons heating and cooling bill is currently $350 month, then the cost of the LENR power supply for same will be $350 month, or if a persons current total utility costs are $500 month then that will be the monthly fee for the LENR power supply to furnish the same amount of energy. Cars will come equipped with the mobile equivalent of "smart meters" to supply mileage information directly to the power company. The owner will then be charged accordingly, again a comparable amount to the cost of conventional fuels. As a justification for this type of system, they will say that no simple individual owner could possibly be trusted with the proper maintenance, refueling or upkeep of such a dangerous and complex item as an LENR power supply. In the end there will be no cost savings to us, nor any additional level of autonomy, but I guess if you believe in Global warming or atmospheric polution that might be an added advantage. I don't.