One consequence of this filing is that Dewey Weaver has been silenced — or at least inhibited for a time. It was always a wonder that he disclosed so much.
There is discussion on LENR forum that I review below.
On LENR Forum, Dewey Weaver wrote:
I’ve been asked to tone it down on the blogs for a little while so Rossi wins that skirmish but I’ll leave you with this – find the Rossi SP posting from Feb 21 on JONP where, out of the blue, it gets posted that the Lugano reactor was made of “Durapox” and check the 1:59pm timestamp. The partial clip from my deposition (conveniently clipped in the exhibit) discussing Durapot 810 was at about the same time / date. R was sitting right there posting away, during my testimony, apparently desperate to influence the story. That has other implications as well regarding aliases and our attempts to figure out how we and others were tricked.
Dewey may have the same difficulty as Rossi. The above post is a comment about the trial. To be sure, so far, Dewey is not under a court order, but Rossi has used his frank communications with researchers in the field, and with mention of blog postings, as ammunition in a claim of witness tampering, even though they were not witnesses, and very unlikely to be called as such. Rossi is attempting to shut up everyone who might point out the truth (or, of course, lies) about what has actually happened. It’s not going to work, but for now, we will not have information from Dewey, which has, so far, been a mixture of accurate information, with innuendo, and it has been easy to distinguish them. The alleged “threat” to Hoistad was simple, and not a threat, legally, it would be considered a warning, and not a warning of any retaliation, but simply of possible natural consequences of continuing the status quo.
Rossi is attempting to shut down communication between Industrial Heat, the major source of significant funding in LENR, and those involved in the field, specifically, the “Swedish professors” — plus Levi — all out of his paranoia. Industrial Heat, by supporting Rossi’s research, as they certainly did — see that email — had created an impression that Rossi technology was real, and they have a level of responsibility, if they are interested in science — and they are — to clean up the mess.
Rends pulled up the JONP post. Including the question:
February 21, 2017 at 7:59 AM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
In the reactor of Lugano the reactor was made by Durapox?
February 21, 2017 at 1:59 PM
In the test of Lugano the reactor had only the caps at the ends made by Durapox. The proper reactor’s cylinder was made by pure alumina. Tha material has been scratched from the surface from the Professors and analyzed, and resulted to be pure alumina.
There was a hearing on February 21. I could not find a notice giving the time. The Order issued that day calls the hearing “informal,” and it lasted 15 minutes. Dewey, however, gave a deposition, he is referring to, claiming Rossi was there. As I have noted, the material from his deposition is “clipped.” (the document is, after all, more than 250 pages.) The deposition was from 9:06 AM to 4:05 PM, and this is consistent with the timing of the JONP response.
Dewey was being asked about his 2/15 email to Bo Hoistad, which brings up the Durapot (not “Durapox”) issue. And Levi had informed Rossi of the email 2/17. So Rossi and his lawyer went into the deposition with this in mind. It is then plausible that Rossi posted the “Anonymous” question, setting up his response, which appears before the deposition ends. This is consistent with the style of the question, which uses RossiEnglish and Rossi repeats the spelling error.
Dewey Weaver explains his intention in the deposition, (p. 239) but that is cut off. What he explains is consistent with the Hoistad email, and with his work with IH. Notice that the Dewey deposition is sworn testimony, subject to penalties of perjury. He explicitly denies any attempt to “get him [Hoistad] to recant his support for the Lugano report.” His assigment from IH is acknowledged and is consistent with scientific purposes of Industrial Heat.
The evidence for “witness tampering” is incredibly flimsy, and contradicted by sworn testimony. Levi’s testimony is titled “unsworn declaration,” even though it includes an attestation, the document was designed to be attested, before a notary or other official, and that does not appear to have happened, the document was merely signed. This document was prepared by Rossi’s attorneys, and Levi may not have understood what to do with it. Did it say “unsworn” when Levi signed it? At this point, as a result of this, Levi may have become a deposition target, on, indeed, claims of attempting to influence a witness, and possibly involving Rossi’s attorney. I do not know if IH will choose to go down that path. A Levi deposition, however, could bring out a lot that has been obscure. It could help establish a pattern of deception, already well-established by other evidence.
Key would be an attestation under Italian law, where he lives, not “U.S. law,” I’d think. But that’s the kind of legal detail that one pays lawyers to know or find out.
(there is no basis for such inquiry with respect to the “Lugano professors” other than Levi. We now know that they were more peripherally involved than had been the public impression.)
Notice, the little tidbit in the Hearing transcript. The Magistrate shreds the Nobel Prize issue, so Rossi is beating a dead horse. Limiting the scope of communications with the Lugano professors, the Magistrate opines:
You know, in the other area you are able to come to me and show that Rossi was — you know, this company was actually Rossi.
Hence all emails with JMP were relevant, but not necessarily all emails with the “independent professors.” There, discovery was limited to what was “related to the E-Cat intellectual property.” Annesser objected that this was still overbroad, claiming development not related to “the testing under the License Agreement.” However, Annesser is falsely limiting case issues to the Tests. All “E-Cat” intellectual property is at issue from the Agreement, not just some specific tests or even some specific “E-Cat”
technology, which is still covered by the Agreement if related, and it is related if it would compete with the E-Cat. I.e., Quark-X.
On LENR Forum, Zeus46 wrote:
Uzi Sha is some kind of investment security dude.
At least I think he is, going from an ‘incognito browser’ limited view… And 167-06 is Darden giving him everyone’s contact details.
167.06 is dated February 23. 2016, just after the end of the one-year “Test.” It appears to be a provision of “Doral team” information to “Zalli and Uzi.” It does not mention Levi, and what I infer from this is that Uzi was interested in LENR investment and Darden provided him with the Doral team information so he could find out for himself, the Rossi story. He did not give “everyone’s” contact details. Just the Doral team: Fabiani, Rossi, Penon, and Johnson and Johnson’s secretary.
There is nothing apparently hostile or sinister about this. Essentially, it is consistent with what Uzi had represented to Levi. It is obvious what happened: Levi complained to Rossi and this went to the Rossi attorneys. So they searched the IH documents for “Uzi Sha” or the like, and found that email, but all the email shows is IH providing some information about Rossi’s “Test” to Uzi. There is no evidence that Uzi is an “investor” in IH, and, in fact, it is pointed out that Israel is not IH “territory” under the License. So, basically, IH might refer inquiries to Rossi, and did. However, IH would also need to create relationships with LENR investors other than around the alleged Rossi technology. Hence contact with the Israeli attorney.
I think there is possible attorney misconduct here, flying off half-cocked without doing deeper research. However, maybe not. It’s iffy, but the Rossi claims aren’t “iffy,” they are wigged-out, paranoid rants. And Levi is right there, fanning the flames.
Okay, the Linked-In profile. It is not surprising that Zeus46, the troll, is browsing incognito. He would not want to take any chance that someone with access to server logs could figure out who he was, a little matter of defense against libelous claims, the habit of trolls. However, I have a Linked-In account. There is nothing there but information that he is following Pulse, along with 1.5 million other people. This is meaningless. So where does Zeus46 get “information security dude” from. Not there!
Okay, looking further. People who looked at Uzi’s profile also looked at some information security professionals. This is about as thin as evidence can get. I found nothing connecting Uzi Sha with Industrial Heat or with LENR at all, or even clear evidence of existence under that name, other than the documents being cited on E-Cat World. Frank Acland wrote a decent description of the Motion for Sanctions documents. The discussion there, so far, is vapid. Frank does not link to the documents themselves, other than to the difficult-to-use Eric Walker Googledrive archive (which does not allow, AFAIK, individual document links, in addition to being overlong, crashing browsers, and having no annotations as we do.) Back to LENR Forum:
Anyways, I was under the impression that this Motion and exhibits were to be struck, so I am wondering why we are looking at it.
P is a smart guy and this shows how even a smart guy can read just a little bit carelessly and make mistakes. 161 was filed under seal (and not published as such, pending ruling on seal) 163 ruled against seal (not against the Motion!) and struck 161, to allow Rossi to consider what to actually file, given no seal, and having stated that the documents were not to be considered confidential. The clerk affirmed that 161 was struck (DE 164, no document). Then, as I considered possible, Rossi refiled the Motion as 167. It is possible but not certain that 167 is identical to 161.
If I were looking at the Googledrive archive, I’d be confused too! I go over and over our Docket page (and keep improving annotations there, correcting errors, etc.) That page is neutral, or should be! I express opinions and reactions in blog posts, generally. I have started a Case review page, but haven’t done much with it yet. The goal there is to organize documents by type and the like, so that a particular issue can be tracked easily.
This is how I learn, by the way, doing this kind of work. It makes me thoroughly familiar with the materials. Lots of stuff that might seem irrelevant still gets filed away in my head, creating associations later. It is not about “understanding” and this kind of learning sometimes is deeper and better if we don’t insist on “meaning.”
This (167 and attachments) seems to be that motion for Sanctions. Apparently it was re-filed, but why was it it stricken before, if it was the Motion to Seal that was denied?
Maybe it is some Court procedural rule. I would have thought that the original 161 and attachments would have remained intact. Maybe they took some parts out?
This is common sense. If a filing under seal is rejected, the filing cannot be simply shown, because it may violate confidentiality in some way. The filer must have the opportunity to redact or decide not to file. So it was struck, but without prejudice (though that was not stated, and, yes, I looked for it.) This is the court saying, in effect, 161 didn’t happen, it is null, moot. But the Order did state that the allegedly confidential bits were not legally confidential. If it were me, I’d have asked the Judge if this meant that it was up to me to file or not file. Maybe Chaiken did that, maybe not. We can guess, and nobody is likely to tell us, it would violate Court rules to reveal information like that. Chaiken could say, I suppose.
What is possible to learn here — which most people are largely ignorant of — is court process, which has been designed over a very long period to be rigorously fair, even where there is ridiculously high controversy, even where some participants might be looney-tunes. They can still get their day in court if they can follow the rules.
Am I the only one who faces difficulties to download those files?
No, he’s not. I’m using my desktop and it can be tedious, waiting for the full page to load. I go to the List View button near the top right, and then choose the “Last modified” sort, which then displays from most recent instead of the default. That shows files by modification date, which can be misleading, but is better than trying to navigate to the bottom of a useless pile of icons and relatively unformative filenames.
Eric showed a better way than just waiting and hoping, sorting by Name, descending. However, there is an even better way, and it’s totally obvious, but Eric is not likely to mention it, because of LF politics. In addition, it allows easily finding and linking to specific files. It is also searchable, even into content, if content is text. Etc.
Eric later wrote that even he was having trouble under some conditions, and then:
Forty-Two, I assume you have access to a desktop or laptop computer? If so, that might be the most straightforward way to access these documents for now.
Nah. The most straightforward way is just to go to the docket page here, which is organized, and from which individual files can be loaded or linked, easily. This docket page loads relatively quickly. It is broken up into sections, so for example, this link goes to the current time period.
There is a table of contents at the top, and from there, this link goes to the next section beyond the case documents, at least at this point, so new files would be right above it.
If the page ever becomes too large, it would be easy to split it up, keeping all links still working. By the way, I have an expert backup administrator for all my domains, in case something happens to me. I also have regular blog backups.
can wrote: [an OCR version of the Darden email]
Why did he write this? Because he can.
Seriously, this is totally helpful, and I’ve copied it here and have linked it from the docket index here. I will edit it where I can make it conform more closely to the original, and corrections are invited.
can wrote: [badly copied, corrected]
Our primary work now focuses on intellectual property development and on developing business partnerships. We want to acquire other technology rights and to find deployment partners that can implement. We want to see LENR technologies developed by larger, more sophisticated companies.
That’s what it is all about!
This is hilarious. Yes, it is what it developing LENR is all about, but Rends means, from his history, something else. He means that IH wants to dominate LENR, and to control it through “larger companies,” and Rends has pointed to a huge network of large companies, allegedly part of a network of huge corporations, mostly Sifferkoll and Rends fantasies (as to being connected in any coherent way). Mats Lewan has somewhat fallen for this, wondering why IH would, for example, be working with APCO and Jones Day. (How much IH has worked with APCO is unclear. There is one former APCO associate who may have volunteered or been retained by IH. Other companies are then linked to Jones Day, which is, after all, one of the largest law firm, with many major clients.)
Shades of Bob Greenyer and the Red Pill.
What does Rends want? Some garage inventor bringing a product to a trillion-dollar market? Such inventors, where they exist, always work with major investors, or they fail. Period. From the document and what we have seen, Rossi basically won the lottery, and then tossed the ticket in the garbage, because he trusts nobody, and Mats has told that story many times, but somehow doesn’t put it all together. Postponing judgment, that’s normal skepticism. But Mats then provides non-postponed opinions!
Alan Smith wrote:
BTW, my guess about the origin of the reactor chips analysed for content after Lugano has become a sworn fact of Dewey’s in Doral.
Alan does not provide links for what he quotes, routine for him. What he is referring to here is in the Weaver deposition (not “in Doral”), which then refers to LENR Forum and Alan Smith. So let’s look in detail.
Q: So you write in your email, second paragraph, “We are in process of learning previously unknown facts about Andrea Rossi, his E-cat research and test methodologies as part of the ongoing litigation effort. We have learned that the material test of Lugano reactor with an XRD system at the university of Bologna was conducted on the reactor plug, not a piece from the main reactor body. How did you learn that?
For reference, the actual email is copied here.
A. It’s in the report, the Lugano report.
Q. So it wasn’t a previously unknown fact, it was a known fact, right?
The Rossi lawyer may be playing Gotcha!, probably trying to rattle Weaver. Was it a “known fact”? Facts are only known when noticed. Is it a fact? As I write, as yet, I don’t know it.
A. Sitting right out there in the open, apparently, but that was pointed out to me by Alan Smith, of LENR Forum, one of the moderators.
This doesn’t go into detail. However, Weaver has other reasons for inferring that, in fact, the reactor body wasn’t pure alumina. Relatively direct knowledge! A problem with the Lugano report is that the authors do not necessarily specify how they knew what they claim. Who witnessed it? We have other information from the email that the Swedish professors are not hiding, they are merely not commenting, for the most part, but they revealed information to Weaver before.
Q. Then you wrote. “as you may know, the plug results came back 99% pure alumina and did not match the reactor body, which was made from Durapot 810.” How did you learn that?
A. Because I have the can it was made from and I talked to the person that made them.
Ya think? What a silly reason, when Rossi Says….
Q. And who is that?
A. T. Barker Dameron.
This was relatively well-known, the part about IH making the Lugano reactor, not Rossi, and Rossi made a big deal out of it at the time. So how does Rossi know what the reactor body was made from, that he so strongly affirmed on JONP, cited above?
If this goes to trial, in court, it would be the testimony of T. Barker Dameron that would be admissible on the point, and probative. This may require another deposition, because this issue was not raised in the original T. Barker Dameron deposition, I suspect. It is not clear that this is sufficiently relevant, this is all being brought up by Rossi as his story of attempted intimidation and harassment.
Q. So T. Barker Dameron made the reactor body?
A. Yes, and we have — we still have some of this Durapot 810.
Q. Did you ever provide a sample of that to the Lugano professors?
A. Did not.
Q. Is there a reason?
A. I offered to send over the remaining reactor, as you noticed earlier, and they were not interested in that.
Q. And he writes, top of the next page: “We have also learned that the reactor was painted with an off-white high temp paint and that information is not accurately reflected in the Lugano report as well.” Is that something — the off-white high-temp paint, was that something that you learned after the fact?
A. I learned that from J.T. who got that information from Fabiani during the test, along with the paint make — brand, make, and model number.
Q. So wasn’t it known at the time of the test?
A. It was known, but didn’t register.
Q. And what is the significance of that?
A. Because the emissivity settings reflected 99 percent pure alumina, not alumina cement that was 75 t0 80 percent alumina, per Cotronics and their support group [, n]or a painted surface, an off-white painted surface. It’s substantially different characteristics, versus what is claimed as a 99 percent pure alumina setting that was plugged into the Optris camera settings.
Q. Now when you make these statements, are these statements that were told to you or are these statements that you know because you actually saw the reactors and held them in your hands and did tests yourself?
And then the excerpt terminates. Were I the IH attorney therer, I’d have objected that the Rossi attorney was starting to badger the deponent, who has already answered the question as to how he knew. There were various sources of knowledge, and none of them qualify as direct knowledge from personal testing. However, they are quite sufficient for Weaver to assert what he asserted to Hoistad.
Remarkable here: confirming what Dewey wrote above, instead of engaging in a discussion, such as “How do you know that?”, Hoistad asked Levi, who went ballistic. Here is what I suspect: the Swedish professors know that the Lugano test was flawed, or at least strongly suspect it. They are apparently engaged in their own independent study, which they don’t want to talk about, I’d guess. This is remarkable from the Weaver email:
During our phone conversation last summer, you stated that Levi was forceful in controlling the specific Optris camera sensitivity / transmissivity settings and that the Uppsala contingent left that decision up to him.
So no wonder Levi blew up! However, did Hoistad actually say that to Weaver? I know that back in 2014, when Lugano was published, I and others speculated that Levi had exercised control. The Darden email covering the conditions of that test allows for that, and points to the lack of calibration with an unfueled reactor, that would have uncovered the problem. With the previous Ferrara test, Rossi had announced “independent third-party professors,” and it was widely noticed that Levi was not exactly independent, and that Essen was a prior reviewer, committed to a positive judgment from that prior study — which was seriously flawed in other ways.
I’d say that Levi is in trouble. It could be serious trouble. That is not any kind of threat, and recovery would simply involve looking at and acknowledging any mistakes made. But Levi has firmly refused to even discuss the possible errors, and took a request to write a report on the methods used as a request to disavow the Lugano conclusions.
It is all getting unbelievably obvious, to those paying attention.
Now, what is in the Lugano report on the analysis? To save time, I will find the Alan Smith material first. It was difficult to find because the Forum revision of the number of posts per page causes Google links to be incorrect. (I can think of no good reason for changing from 20 to 30 posts per page). So, using Google cache and then the specific post link, I found:
Alan Smith wrote: (February 6, 2017)
I think I may have found the answer to the ‘Durapot 810 scandal’ that -for no good reason since it makes little difference to a flawed experiment – is being launched..
I suspect that the sample used for analysis by Enio Bonetti came from the ‘seal’ of the reactor, not the reactor body itself. It would seem only natural (if sloppy) to assume that the sealing cement was the same stuff as the rest of the reactor- and there was some reluctance to damage the reactor itself which was the property of IH. IH obviously never informed the Lugano testers that the reactor body was made from Durapot 810 at the time. And if IH made the reactor, the sealing cement was probably provided by Rossi- who always used AFAIK pure alumina cement as did Focardi. So fragments of the broken seal would have been both the obvious (because this part of the reactor was handled by AR himself) and then most accessible source for a sample.
I quote from the report…
“Three braided high-temperature grade Inconel cables exit from each of the two caps: these are the resistors wound in parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor. A thermocouple probe, inserted into one of the caps, allows the control system to manage power supply to the resistors by measuring the internal temperature of the reactor. The hole for the thermocouple probe is also the only access point for the fuel charge. The thermocouple probe cable is inserted in an alumina cement cylinder, which acts as a bushing and perfectly fits the hole, about 4 mm in diameter. When charging the reactor, the bushing is pulled out, and the charge is inserted. After the thermocouple probe has been lodged back in place, the bushing is sealed and secured with alumina cement. To extract the charge, pliers are used to open the seal.”
What would be more natural than to use the broken fragments as a convenient source of test material?
Quite plausible (congratulations, Alan!) and, given that the emissivity of the alumina was apparently not what was used, from other evidence, it could even be likely. What was actually in the Lugano Report? The section quoted above is here. (People citing long pdfs should know that they can add “#page=[number]” at the end of the URL, apparently that works for all major browsers and pdfs. This is a great convenience for the reader! The page number is the pdf page, not some numbering on the page.)
There is also this, just above that:
Whereas the surface of the caps is smooth, the outer surface of the body of the E-Cat is molded in triangular ridges, 2.3 mm high and 3.2 mm wide at the base, covering the entire surface and designed to improve convective thermal exchange (cylinder diameter is calculated from the bases of the ridges). In this
way, the current model of E-Cat is capable of attaining higher temperatures than the earlier models, avoiding internal melting, a previously fairly frequent occurrence .
Who designed and implemented the ridged surface? It may well have been an IH idea. I have not checked, but this could have been the basis for a T. Barker Dameron-required attribution on the patent application, necessary to prevent the Lugano report from putting the design into the public domain, from prior publication. That would be ironic. The cement could also affect radiation, then, not merely convection. All of this would have been covered by the control experiment that was not done. In any case, a natural material to use for the surface would be … Durapot!
Dewey Weaver responded to Alan’s post, and mentioned the paint. Nobody is accusing Levi of faking anything, but … rather, of possibly making a mistake. Dewey suggests that Rossi might have played a role, and Alan Smith points out that it might simply have happened accidentally, especially if nobody was thinking that the ridges were a different material than the reactor alumina cylinder.
Not for me to say how any of this arose, and I don’t intend to poke my nose in by asking. Either way it makes no difference, if the sample was one of the fragments laying on the benchtop and came via Rossi’s hand or was picked up by Levi and assumed to be the same material the reactor body was made from , the analysis itself is good and rather spoils any assertions of deliberate wrongdoing on the part of the Lugano team or any of its members . This ‘large’ mystery becomes an almost non-existent one. Anyway, I am unsure whether Durapot 810 band emissivity would be wildly different from that of pure Alumina. I am far from being a thermography expert, in fact very far away. Maybe THH can enlighten me?
In his quotation today, Alan adds, on that last question:
There have been lengthy discussions of most of this, but the point might not have been addressed, specifically. At this point, in fact, all that matters is that there was a possible variable that was not addressed by the Lugano team, one more straw on the camel’s back that is already straining under the load. Or, perhaps, sound asleep.
The information Dewey provided to Hoistad would be appropriate to provide to any scientist, and by this time, the reputation of the Lugano team is indeed being called into question, and not just by Dewey, and there was no “threat” involved, no plan to “expose” them, and they are not being attacked, in spite of Levi’s paranoia. The credibility of a test is being questioned, and Rossi behavior is being investigated, as he mentions. We, the public, now know much more about what actually happened at various points, and we can assume that Weaver and IH know much, much more, because the public has only seen what has spilled out due to various motions and discovery appeals. And now this Motion for Sanctions.
The net result, close to certain by now, is that Rossi not only doesn’t get the $89 million, but will have extraordinary difficulty raising any new capital for further development. Of course, if he doesn’t have a technology, this would not matter.
Paradigmnoia noticed what I noticed above about the Magistrate’s comment on the “company.”
I want to qualify that, i.e., that this is not actually a conclusion by the Magistrate, but rather than IH had established a reasonable basis, a theory, a possibility that then needed to be investigated with discovery. It is possible that the court will decide that the Zalli/Uzi link deserves more examination. Or not. My own opinion is that not enough basis was established, but the Court may disagree. Penetrating attorney-client privilege is not easy, but the court might decide that documents must be disclosed in camera, i.e., privately to the Magistrate or Judge.
Paradigmnoia also noted the true Lugano issue, probably of higher weight than the Durapot mishegas, and this has been discussed at great length, with many interested persons agreeing and rb0 or randombit0, a likely Rossi sock, almost alone arguing to the contrary:
Simply make a nice, easy to measure tube of 100% alumina glowing hot, no fuel (empty even), use the Lugano emissivity method (total emissivity for both the IR camera and radiant power calculations), and make a bogus “COP” of 3+.
Paradigmnoia nailed it, with only one problem: personal testimony from anonymous users is not worth the paper it isn’t written on. Science doesn’t depend on anonymous reports, it needs reporters who are personally responsible (and that is also why the Lugano team is wandering around the edge of science, in danger of falling off. They are avoiding personal responsibility by stonewalling. Of course, the Lugano report was not formally published, all the more reason this is all mishegas. Nobel Prize, my ass!
They don’t have a Nobel Prize for inventors, anyway.
Alan Smith wrote, apparently about the alleged witness tampering:
Judge Altonga thinks that it was a bad thing, however. Wrists were slapped.
This was a misunderstanding, quickly corrected. But Smith doesn’t go back and correct errors. If the chatter is the only purpose, why bother? But that is a shallow understanding of what is possible for a forum. It can be a content generator, but if it is full of errors that could have been corrected, it is less useful.
Meanwhile, Sigmoidal nails the matter of the alleged witness tampering, with a well-organized and succinct post. (I’ve covered the same above, I think.) At the end he has:
That said, I don’t see why Dewey thought this was an appropriate time to send that email to Hoisted.
“It seemed like a good idea at the time.” Look, people who are actively engaged sometimes make more mistakes than those who do little or nothing, but learn from the mistakes, and overall accomplish far, far more. However, I’m not convinced that the outcome of this is negative and that the Hoistad contact was a mistake. Now that the mails are public, that the issues are being laid out, the Lugano professors may find it a bit harder to hide and carry on as if nothing happened. Public pressure may increase, and all of this, from my point of view, would be to simply encourage them to engage on the scientific issues. It appears that Hoistad has already disclosed a major characteristic of the Lugano test: it was basically run by Levi.
And this Uzi Sha guy does seem a little creepy, so if it turns out that there is evidence that Darden ‘incentivized’ Sha to contact Levi, that would indicate sleaze on Darden’s part. (With emphasis on the ‘if’.)
Yeah, I had the same impression, but … this is filtered through the deranged mentation of Levi. There is no evidence that Darden ordered the contact, that Uzi was working for IH, rather than for another group of investors. However, the core of the Levi complaint is a perceived bribe. However, a proposed payment for Levi to write a paper (without attached restrictions) would not be a bribe, and learning more about Levi’s thinking on the matter of how the Lugano test was run — or how other tests should be run — would be of possible scientific value. One man’s bribe is another man’s compensation for work done.
Uzi allegedly mentioned “big earnings are possible.” They are possible. Unless this was accompanied by an actual suggestion to do something illegal or unethical, not merely a suspicion that they might suggest such a thing or “wanted” such a thing, it would not be an attempt to bribe.
The picture of Uzi Sha as sleazy, then, is a reflection from Levi. He might be slimy or not. It don’t get that Uzi had any skill in actually reaching Levi; it obviously failed. So, to me, he seems naive, that’s all. Uzi Sha comes off as someone representing Jewish interests, specifically about Israel, and may have been very interested in Rossi technology. The email from Darden to the Israeli attorney, Zalli, and to Uzi, gave Uze means to investigate the Rossi claims for himself, and did not libel Rossi. However, did Darden disclose the problems with Rossi? This was in February, 2016, and IH knew a lawsuit was coming. I would guess that Darden did disclose a fuller view of the situation to the lawyer. Uzi did decide not to work with Rossi, but still offered an opening for Levi. Levi rejected it, suspicious. Suspicious of what? He mentions fear of retaliation by IH. Except if they were going to retaliate, he set up the maximum disaster. Levi is not terribly smart, I’m afraid, something others have pointed out…. odd for a physicist, to be sure, but it happens. This is about human skills, not science as such.
So then IH Fanboy, who has become increasingly incoherent — many times I’ve been tempted to cover some of his ravings — wrote:
I was waiting for a true IH believer to defend the indefensible.
Nothing has been shown that is indefensible, no “belief in IH” is needed. I don’t actually see anything wrong in what Rossi claimed was witness tampering, and sigmoidal covered that, quite well.
Rossi posted again today on JONP about the “Durapox” issue.
March 10, 2017 at 6:08 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
The Hot Cat tested in Lugano by the independent third party was made by Durapox, as somebody says, or by pure Alumina?
Thank you if you can clear this issue up,
All the best
March 10, 2017 at 8:25 AM
The reactor tested in the Lugano experiment was made by pure Alumina. We used Durapox to make the two caps ( the larger drums at the ends of the cylinder of the reactor ), but these drums did not contain any charge: they just contained the cablings of the terminals. The thermocamera was focused only on the cylinder of the reactor, made by pure alumina, not on the lateral caps, made by Durapox. By the way: the material the cylinder was made of has been analyzed by the Professors and resulted to be pure Alumina, as reported.
This is very much “commenting on the lawsuit,” it is very current because of the Motion for Sanctions referring to the Durapot issue.
“Durapox” is a Rossi-ism. There is a product called Durepox, it is epoxy resin, it has nothing to do with alumina and the reactor material. Durapot will resist high temperatures. So why is “Anonymous” using a Rossi-ism, not found anywhere else in this regard? The answer is obvious.
Rossi did not make the reactor used at Lugano, Industrial Heat did, and it appears that T. Barker Dameron made that reactor, and told Dewey Weaver that the fins that covered the reactor were made from Durapot. Paradigmnoia pointed out the reference to Durapot in what we might call the “Lugano patent,” the one with T. Barker Dameron as co-inventor, which infuriated Rossi, but if Dameron added the Durapot idea, to make the Lugano reactor, it would be a legal requirement to list him. Rossi does not understand patent law. In any case, here is the patent.
There are no details about how the sample was taken. There is an appendix on the analysis, by Professor Bonetti. It states: