Posts by JedRothwell

    This completely absurd and ridiculous lawsuit is what happens when careless people with other people's money

    It was their money. Their personal money.

    Had they required him to do a few simple, cheap and quick tests with the original ecats under the supervision of experts in calorimetry, fluid flow and heat transfer, they would not now be wasting millions of investor dollars (theirs and Woodford's) and much of their reputation as savy investors.

    Reluctantly, I must agree. Except they were fooled by Lugano, which appeared at first to be a professional effort.

    Plus, it seems a little unfair to blame them for the expense of the lawsuit. I doubt they realized Rossi had the chutzpah to sue. I know him pretty well, but I was shocked by the suit. I thought he would fold his tent and vanish in the night.

    So I wonder if they would have paid the 89 million if they felt the 1MW test was actually a success.

    I am sure they would have. It would be in their interests to do so, and it would be a lot cheaper and safer than not paying. There is no way they could begin manufacturing without first paying this. The whole point of this, and the only reason they spent any money in the first place, was to begin manufacturing someday.

    I wonder if there's a manual or discussion somewhere on the Internet in the manner of the Anarchist's Cookbook that goes into how to trick flow meters, whose recommendations parallel some of what we know about the Doral setup (other than the discussion in this site). Theoretically it's possible to read the manuals for the instruments, do whatever they tell you not to do, and then carry out some testing to make sure the instrument is giving incorrect readings.

    Yes! Read the manual and then do whatever it warns you not to do, I described this method months ago, and I meant it.

    There are real-life examples of things like computer fraud and other financial fraud done by that method. A crooked computer accountant knows the "best practices," and he will claim he is following them, but secretly he is not.

    I have a book about investing and fraud with a chapter that quotes Bernie Madoff describing how to avoid getting defrauded. This was written about a year before he was caught. As I recall, he says you shouldn't worry about a Ponzi scheme because modern accounting prevents it. He was telegraphing his punches -- telling people not to worry about the technique that he himself was using, like the pick-pocket in the movie "Casablanca" saying "vultures, vultures everywhere."

    Something had to come of the reactor design that tentatively produced a COP of 5-9. IH had the money to perform all sorts of testing to verify if they were seeing significant excess heat or only false readings.

    They did have the money, and they had excellent engineers. Murray is one of the best people in the country for this task. They did perform all sorts of testing. Unfortunately, this revealed that they were seeing only false readings. That is what they said.

    Why does anyone doubt this? That often happens in experimental science. That outcome was not in their interest. There is no benefit to them to admitting that. They could have hidden that failure, the way many researchers do. But they told the world about it in their press release. We should thank them for that. No one should criticize them for admitting they made a mistake. Certainly, no one should accuse them of spreading FUD for admitting they were wrong!

    Mats Lewan even claims that Rossi offered to return IH/Darden his $11.5 Million back in return for relinquishing all claims on Rossi's IP. Yet IH declined this offer and instead of it, he issued additional patents on Ni-H technology.

    Mats was wrong about that. Rossi claimed he made that offer, but he lied.

    I.H. did not "issue" patents -- only the Patent Office can do that. They filed for patents, before they fully understood that Rossi's devices do not work.

    Some of you may wonder why I'm highlighting these. It's because I had a strong hunch back when IH first released their PR statement that they were being less than forthcoming.

    You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. After careful review, they determined those results were in error. If that were not the case, they would be manufacturing cold fusion equipment by now, or at least getting ready to. They are not in the business of wasting research dollars for no reason.

    Unlike you, these people are careful, and when they make a mistake, they change their minds and they deal with reality instead of denying it.

    Can you provide a cite?

    Paradigmnoia described it. I think it was in the Murray deposition.

    But the method of fooling the flow meter is beside the point. While there is no doubt the flow meter was the wrong type, incorrectly installed, and it showed the wrong numbers . . . As you see in the Penon report, Rossi ignored the flow meter and wrote fake numbers into the spreadsheets. The same with the temperature and pressure. He just cut and pasted the same fake numbers, day after day, even on days when the machine was turned off. (Either Rossi did this, or Penon did it during his infrequent visits.)

    Even if the flow meter had been working perfectly, anyone can see that no real flow meter, thermometer or pressure gauge would produce those numbers.

    The only way you can disprove it at this point is to provide evidence that the return pipe and flow meter configuration was completely botched.

    Read the case files and you will see that I.H. has evidence that the return pipe and flow meter configuration were completely botched. Heck, you don't even need to do that. Look at Penon's flow rate numbers. They are obviously fake. He made them up. No flow meter would produce those numbers in real life.

    You might as well try to defend Defkalion's flow rate numbers after it was demonstrated that their meter showed a high number when there was no flow at all.

    If the e-Cat works, the JMP episode will be a tiny footnote in history. And if the e-Cat works, t

    If the e-Cat works, why did Rossi produce fraudulent data, a fraudulent front company, and why did he sue for money instead of simply demonstrating that it works? None of that makes sense -- if it works. The only sane conclusion is that it does not work.

    But other opinions can have a point, and should be heard. The more I hear from folks on the theme of 'people disagree with IH are lying trollbots that just lie lie lie' . . .

    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.

    There were contractual obligations for deletions of emails after the completion of the test.

    Really?!? Where did you see this? Let me rephrase -- on what planet, in which Galaxy far away does any business write a contract specifying that correspondence relevant to a contract should be destroyed immediately after the contract is completed.

    Okay, maybe the Mafia does that, although I doubt they write down incriminating text. Perhaps the CIA does it?

    Mind you, there are precedents for this sort of thing, but they are not what you want to cite. Crooked businessmen often destroy evidence. During the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, the Union Pacific organized Crédit Moblier to steal from the U.S. government. This developed into one of largest financial scandals in history. The Central Pacific reportedly bribed members of Congress with $20 million, which was a lot of money back in the 1860s. As a project drew to a close, the Big Four from the Central Pacific, including future Governor Stanford, gathered up all of the financial books of the company, took a train out to the high desert, and burned them. When Congress later asked for details about their finances they reported that regrettably the records were lost.

    That PR statement by IH says all of about nothing, as any good PR statement does.

    What company issues a "public relations" statement saying they have failed to achieve their objectives, and you should not believe someone else who claims they succeeded? Who would call that "public relations"?!? Public relations implies promoting something, announcing a new product or other good news. This is the opposite. This is more like an announcement that the company expects to go bankrupt -- what Sears just announced.

    You have many odd notions about things. You call it public relations when a company admits a major failure. You probably think Rossi actually did have a gigantic invisible wooden construction and pipe that he disassembled overnight after the test.

    Since there is absolutely no other possible explanation for this behaviour it simply must be the truth, right?

    There may be other possible explanations, but Penon's data speaks for itself. Anyone with knowledge of instruments can tell at a glance that it is fraudulent. So we can leave I.H. out of this discussion. Rossi himself has given you proof that his devices do not work.

    On April 7, 2016, IH said: "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success." But prior to that, JT Vaughn wrote: "After receiving the components from various suppliers, we proceeded to build the control equipment, heating elements and reactors, which we fueled. . . . They appeared to operate similarly and we believe they produced significant excess energy, though we do not want to report specific multiples until we have reviewed the data thoroughly

    They reviewed the data thoroughly and decided that their earlier conclusions were incorrect, and there was no excess heat after all. That's all there is to it. In experimental science this happens ALL THE TIME. You act as if it was evidence of double dealing or a crime, or as if there is something unethical about a careful reexamination of data. You don't know the first thing about experiments or R&D.

    That excerpt is a great find. I'm impressed how 'chatty' both Darden and Vaughn are.

    Which document is this from?

    There is so much stuff here . . .

    Here is something I noted. The lawyer who deposed Murray knows nothing about science. He admits as much. He slept through his science course. He doesn't know the difference between power and energy. Yet he presumes to lecture Murray about steam and hot water. He is a stupid as many of the people here, and as stupid as Lewan, who do not even understand a kitchen pressure cooker, and who think that water at 101 deg C cannot be liquid. I refer to this part, starting on p. 173:

    Q. Water in its liquid form cannot reach the temperature of 101 degrees C at atmospheric pressure, correct?
    A. It's not that simple. . . .

    Q. I can tell you don't want me to agree with me, but I'm asking you specifically at atmospheric pressure.
    A. And at atmospheric in a, in an idealized world where you don't have real pipes and you don't have real, a real system, then the, theoretically you would say that at 0 PSI, absolute or relative -- at 101?

    "Don't want to agree with me"?!? What an ass! Murray is the kind of guy who as an undergrad working for a company saved the company millions of dollars with heat transfer engineering. He knows more about thermodynamics than everyone on Planet Rossi tied together. And this ass of a lawyer presumes to lecture him about steam? Give me a break!

    These are relatively smart people that have believed in the Rossi Ecat story.

    For them, it is just unthinkable that they, as relatively smart people, could possibly be hoodwinked by a scam artist and not see the scam, after all, they're smart people.

    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.

    Because he was ordered to do nothing by Roosevelt in the same way, like the Short and Kimmel admirals at Hawaii - that's known story.

    That's also bullshit conspiracy theory. The attack alone was more than enough to justify a war. It did not have to be a successful attack. If the U.S. had been prepared and if it had clobbered the Japanese fleet the first day, that would have all the better. There was no need to allow a surprise attack.

    OK, but the problem with this definition is, it's postdictive, not predictive (being tautological in fact). It doesn't enable you to judge people as experts before the final truth will turn out.

    Correct. But you can examine someone's performance in her career up until now, and say with some confidence that she is an expect. She might lose her abilities and start making the wrong calls. People can lose expertise, for example as technology changes, or the market changes. The people at IBM were experts before 1980, but some of them lost their touch. The people now running Sears into the ground were once experts in retail, but they are no longer. Not in the new world of

    Also, you have to compare people to others in the same field. In basic scientific research, most people get it wrong most of the time. When someone said that Fleischmann and Pons were half wrong because of their neutron claims, Pons said "being half right is a good batting average in this business." (He said something like that -- I don't recall the exact words. He said it to me, and to others.)

    In a war, a general who loses one battle but wins others is an expert, I suppose. In the hours following the attack on Pearl Harbor, headquarters in Washington informed every commanding officer of what happened, and warned them to watch out. Gen. MacArthur in the Philippines did nothing to prepare. His air forces were wiped out the next day. So you can argue he wasn't much of an expert at that stage in the war. Fortunately, he was a quick study and for most of the war he did an excellent job, as he himself pointed out on countless occasions.

    Instead of it, the wide consensus is the first indicia of fundamental bias.

    That would depend on what the consensus is. I think all modern doctors agree that the "germ theory" is correct -- that bacteria causes disease. Electricians agree that high resistance light bulbs can be wired in parallel. Mechanical engineers now agree that high pressure steam can be made reasonably safe, and gas turbine (jet) aircraft engines are a thing. (Real, that is.) Most people today do not think that the use of zippers in clothing leads to sexual abandon and the collapse of society. All biologists agree that evolution occurred, and all but a few neo-Lamarkians assume that Darwin's theory explains it.

    Everything in that list was once controversial. These issues generated widespread opposition -- indeed, widespread hysteria in the case of zippers. There was no consensus at first. Only people like me who read a lot of history realize that. For example, regarding the "germ theory," today we all agree that pasteurizing milk saves lives and it reassures customers the product is safe. This was clear after 1870. But the milk producers in New York state refused to pasteurize until the government forced them to in 1917.

    (My mother and other people from that era called it the "germ theory," but by that time they were being sarcastic. They knew bacteria causes disease. On the other hand, infant mortality caused by contaminated milk killed hundreds of thousands of babies in New York before 1917, so that part wasn't sarcastic.)