Posts by Roger

The most plausible hypothesis is of course that Rossi is a hypnotist conman able to successfully mass hypnotize the scientists and engineers he works with, or who can study his works closely.

Quote from JedRothwell

To my certain knowledge that is not true. Long before the lawsuit was filed they told me they had doubts about Rossi's test, for reasons that I fully agreed with. You are making up false assertions about events you know nothing about.

You should stop doing that. Either you stop it, or you should clearly accuse me of lying. There is no middle ground here. I say, unequivocally, based on my experience, that you are wrong. This is not a technical dispute. This is a black and white, matter-of-fact about what the people at I.H. said to me, and to others. If you insist you are right, then you are calling me a liar. Go ahead and do that if you want, but let's not sugarcoat it.

I am sure you have no real evidence for your assertion, because I am sure it is not true. I do not think you are lying but I know for a fact you are wrong -- mistaken I suppose.

Your certain knowledge = IH/Cherokee says

Saying that you are right and your interlocutor is wrong is hardly an argument, since your premise is based on what some people have told you, and what they've told you before turned out to be far from truth

And we're back to the point where one of the parties has to be lying or not telling the whole truth, that's why people need to read testimonies from both sides, and check facts

Also, while Rossi asks for the money, maybe it's just a nice bonus he wants, while the heart of the matter is probably IP-related.

Good or bad have nothing to do with this debate. It's an IP dispute, and IH/Cherokee may or may not have been clumsily generous with Rossi's tech.

Please read all depositions. From the IH side, I read a lot of "we didn't know what we didn't know", "I'm not sure" and "It can't have worked because my conjectures tell otherwise"

Once again, facts: Autumn 2013, IH/Cherokee build reactors themselves, they say they work (with the usual and standard disclaimers). Fast forward 2+ years, they've gathered investments, suddenly lawsuit, and the tune they play becomes "oh but it never worked we just didn't know it didn't!"

I really like how a certain category of people use inverted accusations once they're cornered.

"You're just assuming IH did know it didn't worked! Look, they were testing it for 2+ straight, after having observed significant excess heat with the reactors they built themselves, and IH/Cherokee are such nice people that they wanted to keep on attracting investors to fund what they knew was a scam, because they told us they knew it didn't work"

All your filibuster is based on conjectures, assumptions, obfuscation, and hearsay coming from a single array of sources, which can all be traced back to IH/Cherokee. Why don't you use the court documents instead?

This is getting grotesque. However, it's nicely congruent with the paradigm problem modern physics face. On one hand, some people want to bend or ignore facts so they fit in, or don't disturb, the theories they support. On the other hand, other people study facts and begin to refine existing theories about them.

Macrocosm/microcosm, everything is a mandala etc. What we're seeing in the Rossi/IH lawsuit debate is the mirror of what's happening in scientific debates pertaining to unexplained phenomena.

We know that in 2013 IH/Cherokee built their own reactors and obtained positive results ("significant excess energy"), with the usual disclaimers that go with communicating to investors ("of course we have to verify" etc)

We read testimonies from IH/Cherokee people, who basically state: "oh we didn't know what we didn't know at the time", base their rebuttal of Rossi's apparatuses upon conjectures, and are not sure what they want to answer, or how to answer.

We also have the ERV report, the reach towards investors from 2013 onwards, that never stopped before the lawsuit, the scientists supporting Rossi's results, at Lugano or elsewhere. Also claims that IH/Cherokee were more than generous with an IP that wasn't theirs.

Nobody has to connect the dots if one doesn't want to. But based upon facts, not conjectures, the narrative is suddenly very different from what a lot of people on this forum want to push.

Quote from Eric Walker

It seems people are depressingly easy to manipulate when hope is involved.

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

Quote from Eric Walker

Roger, perhaps you'll be willing to critique THH's conclusion about the upper bound on the power that can possibly be dissipated from the Doral warehouse by detailing the assumptions that go into the conclusion and then showing where they're wrong?

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 conjure up conjectures and make them factual instead of debating known facts, found in the court docs, and then build hypothesis upon them

Quote from THHuxleynew

Roger, you have not looked very carefully. I realise my posts are long and boring. So I made it easy for you with one short section what are the certainties. I can see you missed it, so I've bolded the relevant parts of that section.

Regards, THH

It's simply filibuster, based upon a false or uncertain premise:

"Nothing in the ERV report is certain, except that the headline power is wrong by some large factor. That is because it is impossible by a factor of more than 2.5 for 1MW to be dissipated from that factory - even adding in Rossi's invisible claimed heat exchanger."

So in the end what you're saying is, you don't know what you don't know? I only see speculations about half-known factoids which may or may not have roots in actual truth

"Our camera is very expensive and presumably accurate"

"We stopped them (the reactors) after a half day and waited until Thursday 9/12, to start them again. They appeared to operate similarly and we believe they produced significant excess energy"

That's a a lot of ad hoc hypothesis you conjure to explain how there never was excess heat with those reactors IH/Cherokee built themselves: very expensive thermal cameras are not accurate, IH/Cherokee people don't know how to calibrate them, to the extent that they do not know how to calibrate them at all, since they get the same results during another run of the reactors (which entails re-calibration)

This happened in... 2013. So, according to your hypothesis that swamp gas explains what are false observations of excess energy in Rossi's reactors built by IH/Cherokee, it took them more than two years to finally understand that swamp gas explains those false observations.

But believe what you will, some people need a cult, even if it's a reverse one, in which you have to believe that things that logically are, aren't.

Quote from oldguy

Are you sure that the "significant excess heat" was with Rossi's device or could it have been some of their other supported researcher.? Can you give a reference that would be interesting?

Rossi's devices, built by IH/Cherokee

Rigorous science coming from IH, who said "we have significant excess heat" until the trial appeared, then pretended they had not done rigorous testing, and who fed JedRothwell plain greasy FUD?

If lying and character assassination were harnessable sources of energy, some posters on this here forum could light whole cities

Cogent arguments such as all the FUD we've been fed for months and which has proven its FUDness?

To each his own I guess

1) Not if Rossi is right when saying they seeded his IP. It then goes beyond a simple money issue.

2) Just as unlikely as Monsanto having hundreds of fake facebook accounts to try and whitewash their business... it's not like Cherokee is a company and would like to come out of this affair without a dirty halo, if not directly influence the outcome of the trial

Physical assassination is of course easier, cheaper, way more convenient than character assassination, and there's zero risk to face justice, just like when trying to buy a jury. Thanks for clearing that up!

Also, jurors who look for info on the Internet will undoubtedly say they have done so, because they've been told not to, or will be discovered to have done so, because browsing history is readable on people's faces.

Are we entering quantum states of logic here?

This makes sense: there's no way judge and lawyers will be trying to find out outside info about this IP affair which seems out of this world. And there's really no way the jury will try to get outside info as well, because everyone respects what they're told to do and not do, especially when it comes to such a fantastic lawsuit.

Also, people never talk to their friends, so those friends will never try to find outside info either, about Andrea Rossi, Cherokee/IH, LENR, Cold Fusion, etc. Therefore, those friends won't say anything about what they've not read online about all this, to the people involved in the trial.

I really like the logic of "It's not pleasing to live in a dirty environment, that's why people don't throw garbage in the street"

Sorry, I've been too much focused on alternative facts. There's really no point to use astroturfing to try and prevent a disruptive technology to appear on the market, from the point of view of cartels who already profit from the market this disruptive technology might appear on.
Also, it boggles the mind why a company would try to influence, through social engineering, the outcome of a justice decision about whether or not they can profit from this disruptive IP worth trillions

It's like on Monsanto's facebook page. All those people defending this company and singing its praises, are all real civilian with real identities, genuine family photographs, etc...

Nobody ever lies on the Internet, especially when there are enormous financial interests at stake!

Mark my words: this forum will be studied for years as a textbook case in social engineering and astroturfing

Quote from AlainCo

More than that, one things that Rossi could do is organize a test that works, following advise of IH, and if it works (and if he have a real technology, even having exaggerated and committed fraud, it will) he will be forgiven.

This is where I dumped any Defkalion support, when they refused to answer the questions of Luca Gamberale.

Luca, Jed, Smith, may be wrong in analysing data, but sure Rossi or Defkalion could have cleared the doubts.

Of course, we all know that pseudo-skeptics are 100% honest and are always satisfied by answers and tests protocols. They never move goalposts nor ask for the same thing a thousand times in a thousand different ways, so it's really surprising the Lugano scientists don't want to address Calorimetry Internet Savants. I mean, why would anyone refuse to debate with people who never use the hypercritical method to try and debunk whatever does not float their boat?