Posts by IH Fanboy

    “the anti-rossi-ists will not give up without a fight. It has become religion to them.”


    One of the funniest things ever posted here.


    Yet so true. I'd extend that to the anti-LENR-ites as well. People will go to amazing lengths to maintain the status quo. They will spend countless hours spreading FUD, filing complaints with state agencies, attempting to ruin professional reputations, harassing, threatening, and all sorts of mischievous behavior.

    Are you saying it is fair to assume the heat exchanger was real? Despite the Smith report, the photos, and the testimony of everyone who was there?


    It is fair to assume that the heat exchanger might have been real. The Smith report had all kinds of flaws and misdirection. The IH lawyers apparently didn't think to ask anybody that was at the building during the one year test under oath (except Rossi) about the existence of the heat exchanger, or any of its claimed hallmarks. And if they did, we don't have access to those responses.


    Quote

    Do you also believe the Penon report?


    I have no reason to believe that Penon was lying. The flow rates match nearly exactly to the pump flow rates measured by Alan. There were multiple temperature sensors. Phase change not even required to have a large COP.


    Quote

    If you are actually convinced the heat exchanger was real, and you think the Penon report is valid, ...


    I am not convinced that the heat exchanger was real. I hold out the possibility that it was real based on the evidence to which we currently have access. I consider it one of the biggest unknowns of this whole debacle. I think both IH and Rossi have much more information on this issue than was revealed to us. I think it would have been a central issue in the trial. However, IH and Rossi settled, thus sending the issue into a state of forever uncertainty. That was their decision to do that. Either party could have pressed forward to the conclusion of the trial. Most of the expense had already been made by both sides in preparation for the trial. But they didn't.


    Quote

    then I do not suppose there is anything Rossi could say that you would not instantly believe.


    The difference between the hyper-skeptics and those who let the evidence guide their conclusions is that the former are convinced of their position despite the evidence, and the latter maintain an open position because of the evidence.

    No, I do not get that sense at all. He often lied through his teeth, for example when he described the non-existant heat exchanger. In a few cases, when he knew they had overwhelming evidence against him, he admitted to things which were not so pretty for him.


    You get that sense because you are in thrall to Rossi. You cannot bring yourself to face reality or admit you have been deceived. "It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled." - attributed to Mark Twain.


    "You" meaning anyone who actually read all of the available depos from Rossi and approach it with a fair mind.

    The problem with IH is not that they hired Boeing to independently verify when they did.


    Independently verify what? A reactor having a known (to Darden) incorrect fuel mix? Now why would Darden want that? Could it be that he was hoping for a negative test result at that stage in his relationship with Rossi? Just possibly?

    But, in any case, if you claim that he told the truth in all of it, then you are saying he had no customer, he lied to his previous supporters, and he did many other unethical things that he admitted


    I tend to favor this. It is not illegal to lie, and many people do so often. The legal penalty for perjury, on the other hand, is very real, and few people purposely lie under oath. You get the sense when reading Rossi's depos that he is putting it all on the table, even the things that aren't so pretty for him.


    1) Leonardo and IH had a licensor/licensee relationship. Licensees don't (usually) go behind the back of licensors and have a device that contains trade secrets tested by a third party without first consulting and agreeing to such tests with the licensor. This was deceptive on IH's part, whether you like it or not.


    2) Darden admitted under oath that he provided the incorrect fuel to Boeing. Not speculation, and apparently not contrary to IH's interests.


    3) Yes, the poor engineer, who proceeded to waste a bunch of his own time testing a device that had the incorrect fuel mix, as later admitted by Darden.

    as he was deceptive to IH.


    As was IH back to him, and even to Boeing! Sending a reactor to Boeing without disclosing that to Rossi? Not providing Boeing with the correct fuel mix? Without disclosing to Boeing that it wasn't the correct fuel mix? As the poor Boeing engineer spent a good amount of his personal time testing it?

    So you expect IH to be clairvoyant and ask questions a year in advance during customer visits about an imaginary piece of equipment that was not even known about!


    I'm not sure you understand how litigation works. The heat exchanger question was in play during the litigation all the way up to opening arguments in the trial. The point of depositions is for each side to discover information that can then be used in the briefings and at trial.

    Many people visited the site. I spoke with them. They would have noticed such fans. They noticed, for example, the fact that there was nothing in the mezzanine.


    No one of them were even asked [about the fans] [under oath]! And if they were, we don't have their responses! Such an important question, and nobody was asked under oath? All of the people that were paraded through the factory, and none of the lawyers thought to ask the most obvious questions of all regarding the heat exchanger?


    Doesn't add up to me. I suspect both Rossi and IH have withheld the responses from us, and that this issue was to be litigated during the trial.

    No visitor noticed very hot air exiting the window a few feet over their heads, ...


    Shane,


    You know I have doubts on the heat exchanger. But you and Para keep saying things like the above without evidentiary support. I was quite surprised when people weren't asked this question in the depositions (at least not in the excerpts that we have access to). If they were asked, both Rossi and IH have kept their answers from us.

    No. Your assumptions are convoluted and specially adapted to come to the conclusions you desire. Mine aren't.



    And yours are specially adapted to come to the conclusion you desire. For example, when I provide a remarkable observation such as the aggregate pump rate as measured by Alan NEARLY EXACTLY matches the pump rates of the BF3 and BF4, it's almost entirely lost on you and other hyper-skeptics. Yet the probability of this being a coincidence is astronomically low. I've knocked down so much BS on this forum over the years by simply highlighting the evidence on the record, it sometimes makes me wonder how incompetent (or perhaps deceitful) so many people here are. I don't know what motivates you and others. I actually respect you much more than some others here, but you are driven, and I don't really understand by what nature you are here, and for what reasons you devote such great time and effort to your cause.


    Quote

    It is always helpful to reduce assumptions though. Along these lines, I again request your view on the video of the hose emitting steam at just under 6 kg/hour. Would you not agree that Mr Rossi's hose in the Krivit video is emitting steam at a much lower velocity even though Rossi claims to be generating steam at a higher rate (7kg/h)? The nice thing about the 6 kg/h video is that this steam is also delivered through a hose that is several metres long ... like Rossi's. So, if Rossi's steam is a weak dribble because of internal condensation then that should be the case in the other video too. But it isn't. I sense thaqt you arfe resisting comparing the two videos but I wish you would go ahead and do so.


    I told you my view. But I guess you continue to insist that I don't respond to your critiques, so I'll give you a bit more: you post a video and claim it is 6kg/hour, but we have no idea about who made that video, whether it is accurate, whether it was independently checked, who is behind it, etc. And to be honest, while it does appear to have a bit more oomph, it is in the ballpark of what we observe with Rossi's hose.

    I think that the marks made by the beams would have generally reflected the size and positioning of the heat exchanger.


    I understand what you are saying -- that the beams could have acted like a pedestal upon which the heat exchanger would have sat and which it would have overhung on all sides -- but this is a weak argument. It is an argument designed to allow you to claim that almost any pattern of marks on the floor are evidence of a heat exchanger.


    So no, the marks do not logically eliminate the possibility that a heat exchanger was there, they are not particularly consistent with it either. My main concern is that you then take this weak evidence and turn it into the assertion that "The mezzanine had all the markings for what used to be a heat exchanger." It didn't.


    You make your assumptions. I make mine.