I think that Dewey Weaver coined the term “Planet Rossi.” He was referring to Rossi fans, and the implication is that these have some sort of common world-view. I picked it up, because it’s a convenient and relatively non-judgmental way of referring to an obvious constellation of opinions, beliefs, memes, often traceable to Rossi Says.
The core of Planet Rossi is, of course, Rossi’s WordPress blog, Journal of Nuclear Physics. We might start with the fact that the first post on this Journal, February 28th, 2010, was a Rossi patent. The first paper was published the same day, a paper by Rossi and Focardi. The first comment on the first post did not appear until April, 2011, after Rossi’s public demonstration. And now, the home page of the Journal proudly displays Rossi’s granted U.S. patent. The comment traffic on the Journal is all personal communication with Rossi. Now, does anyone think this is a real scientific journal? If so, I have a nice plot of land to sell you on Planet Rossi.
It’s a jape.
At some points there may have been a pretense of being a scientific journal, and there are papers published. The first was by Horace Heffner, a known writer on LENR. That could lead me down another path, I’ll set that aside.
Then there is E-Cat World, more or less the stronghold of Planet Rossi. Frank Acland, the blogger, does allow skeptical commentary, within boundaries. This is where the most “orthodox” of Planet Rossi dogma is expressed, often without any critical commentary. But such commentary is allowed, it is mostly that the “pathoskeptics” have been banned and scientific skeptics mostly don’t bother. Some of the latter do regularly post there.
Visiting Planet Rossi and being a citizen are not the same. Anyone can visit.
And then there is LENR-Forum, which hosts commentary by some fanatic Planet Rossi users, has a mixed administrative team, attempts occasionally to create civil discussion, but which is erratic and unreliable. Nevertheless, there are some knowledgeable writers there.
And there is Dewey Weaver, who is the only “insider” writing openly, being an investor in and consultant for Industrial Heat. There is RandomBit0, who is quite likely Rossi himself, but, if not, is part of the Rossi “team.” There is Jed Rothwell, who used to be a Rossi supporter in some ways, but who shifted strongly to very strong criticism.
Of late, with all the evidence being revealed in Rossi v. Darden, on Planet Rossi, there is joy that Rossi is presenting such a strong case. Again, if you believe that, remind me to show you the prospectus for Planet Rossi real estate, you could make a fortune! Buy low sell high!
There are others with a more nuanced view, or sometimes a more nuanced view. These still live on Planet Rossi, still believing much of what has been revealed in Rossi Says. And upset that someone points out their obvious citizenship.
MrSS has written some cogent posts, but now comes with this:
Here is a thought I just had. I don’t know if it is inappropriate or not. Maybe it’s out of line. I’m tired, sleepy, and I’m just going to let it out.
The post is off-topic where written, but so is much on lenr-forum. I would not call it “inappropriate,” and I would personally welcome MrSS’s self-expression.
If Andrea Rossi is a total fraudster and never had anything that worked — what Dewey Weaver claims in a specific post not that long ago — and LENR Forums is infested with “Planet Rossites” that are brain dead and “true believers” why does the IH crowd even bother to post here with such vigor?
“Planet Rossi” and what has sometimes been called “Planet IH” are quite different. There is no Planet IH, though Industrial Heat does enjoy some support. There is no collection of memes, originated by IH, and repeated over and over. There is a lot of public evidence, both recently and over the years, and people read it and assess it and point to it and make conclusions. There can be some level of agreement among these, but the coherence is far higher with Planet Rossi, which is a clear faction, even though not all citizens believe the same, and some are recognizing that there are problems with Rossi’s behavior.
The characterization of critique in black and white terms, combined with hyperbole, is characteristic of a “Planet.” Dewey Weaver is not a careful reporter, he is not neutral, he uses metaphor and polemic, but the opinion that Rossi is a “total fraudster” and “never had anything,” while extreme, is still within the bounds of possibility. Rossi, by 2011, it was clear, wanted to be seen as a con artist, Lewan points to that, quoting Rothwell, who actually said it. But it wasn’t just Rothwell saying that, the idea that Rossi was deliberately creating that appearance was rather obvious as one possibility. It actually allowed considering that maybe he actually had something, but merely had a business strategy — to discourage competitors. Nevertheless, a consequence of that strategy would have been at least some observers conclusing that he was, indeed, a con, and his history helped this along. Steve Krivit took that route, writing the obvious (in addition to doing a little actual journalism). I say “obvious,” but it could also be called a “cheap trick.”
At this point, from my position, it still seems possible that there is some real effect behind at least some of Rossi’s work, but he is also unethical in business, deceptive, and unreliable (and some who supported him early on have more or less come to the same conclusion).
Notice that a critical position is presented in dramatic fashion: Planet Rossites are “brain dead,” they are “true believers,” and then there is an “IH crowd” posting on LENR-Forum.
With only one person actually representing IH in some way (and denying any official representation). MrSS also seems to think that there must be some “useful purpose” in posting here, i.e., the “IH crowd” would be posting here in order to create a benefit, presumably for IH. Yet why is he posting here? He tells us.
I mean, according to Dewey’s tone, I get the feeling the lawsuit is almost a trivial thing because they have the evidence ten times over to nail Andrea Rossi and take him down, sunset him, end his career, put him out of business, and so forth.
MrSS’s feelings are not the reality of Dewey Weaver. “Ten times over” would probably be hyperbole, though I don’t think he said that. It is likely that IH has evidence we have not seen. What we have seen seems, to me, enough to completely sink the Rossi claims, before trial. As to “nailing” him, that is much more difficult. Still, it’s a possibility, and what Rossi has done in filing the lawsuit, and what IH has shown, unless some Wabbit appears, will make it very difficult for Rossi to ever obtain significant funding again. I would not call it a slam-dunk, but IH may also recover major damages, which could leave Rossi bankrupt. Rossi, however, is a very persuasive person and might still be able to continue his “work.”
It is not impossible that a settlement will be negotiated, but at this point I would not speculate on the terms, I only think it is possible.
Going by what Dewey claims — the absolute worst case scenario for the E-Cat tech as a whole and the mess at Doral — everyone involved wtih Rossi’s test at the Doral plant is going to be legally smeared.
Well, almost. Barry West doesn’t appear to have any problem. But, yes, Rossi, Johnson, Fabiani, and Penon are not likely to walk away unscathed. Bass, depending on how he handles the situation, could also suffer some harm. I doubt that IH intends to ruin him.
Literally, my impression from reading his posts is that they are confident their evidence is beyond massive and Rossi has none worth showing: his case is a total joke with no merit whatsoever that will be crystal clear in no time flat.
It is looking that way, more or less. Rossi recently showed some evidence that was quite weak, in a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. If that’s the best he has, Dewey is correct. To succeed in a Rule 11 Sanction at this point would take very strong evidence, so why even file it if one doesn’t have it? My answer is that Rossi was likely demanding that his attorney Do Something with these Snakes. Yes, they would put in the best they had. Because of the argument being made, if they had a Smoking Gun, i.e., a document where Darden accepted the Doral test as a GPT, they’d have asserted it. So I conclude that they don’t. They are still looking for one. Will they get lucky?
Furthermore, whatever happens on this forums shouldn’t really matter to IH.
It doesn’t. I have seen no sign that they care. They are not soliciting investment from the public. They are working with Woodford, who is highly sophisticated and famously willing to defy convention.
They’ve got Darden’s massive personal fortune,
They don’t. Darden does. I don’t know how massive it is. This confusion between corporations, their investors, and their managers is common on Planet Rossi.
his connections that are worth additional billions of dollars, their own high tech laboratory, professional qualified staff, and hook ups with the most powerful organizations in the world.
It appears that they do.
A few totally duped sycophants blathering away on an obscure forum somewhere can’t have the smallest impact on their plans.
For goodness sakes, they’ve got tons of IP now, are probably working to aquire more as we speak, and have the money to out spend GOD HIMSELF on LENR research — or at least after Darden made a few phone calls to arrange the cash flow.
Well, I don’t know what useful IP they have. Some of what they have been investing in would not be producing such, they are creating research. I do not know how much of that will be published, but some already has. Yes. I consider it likely that, given the need for it, Darden could raise hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions.
The small number of visitors and meager traffic LENR Forums obtains would be meaningless to the massive waves of traffic they could obtain.
The misguided and ill informed discussions on this forum shouldn’t matter, thinking about the situation from the above perspective.
MrSS is attempting to create a reductio ad absurdem of the idea that the IH case is strong. If it were strong, “they” would not be on LENR Forum arguing. What he has missed is that “they” are not on LENR Forum.
Regardless of anything we say or think on here, with no extraordinary effort Industrial Heat can just destroy Rossi at the trial, take everything he has, have the court seize his business assets so his condos and apartments can all be liquidated, and put him out on the street or pursue the case further and have him breaking heavy stones with a sledgehammer.
Just remember that it was Rossi that sued IH, not the other way around. It was Rossi that claimed fraud and went after Darden and Vaughn personally. As to “breaking heavy stones with a sledgehammer,” MrSS is referring to a chain gang, assuming a criminal conviction. IH can’t do that, but a state or federal prosecutor could decide to go for it. I am quite confident — absent that Wabbit — that civil fraud can be shown, at least for Rossi and likely for Johnson. Getting a criminal conviction is much more difficult, and will not help IH.
Then they can laugh us down as we grovel in sorrow for ever thinking Rossi produced a single milli-watt
This is a very weird image of the IH people. Notice the “us” in MrSS’s rant. I thought at one point that it was likely or at least possible that Rossi technology was working. Why in the world should I “grovel in sorrow” if it proved otherwise? And why would IH be laughing? It cost them $20 million or so to buy that License — the only way to actually “crush the tests” — whereas I have lost nothing but some time, and not much of that. I like mysteries. And the Rossi case remains a mystery, whether or not the technology ever had any reality.
of heat while bringing their super-sophisticated Miley tech to the marketplace in a manner that protects all their other investments —
This idea that IH is driven by “protecting other investments” is a Planet Rossi trope, promoted by Sifferkoll. (Sifferkoll thought it was about investments in solar power.) There is no clue that “Miley tech” is commercially functional, though it is possible. Miley is a credible scientist … and a shareholder in IHHI, the parent company of IH.
optimizing the foundation for their trillion dollar energy empire.
LENR technology could be worth a trillion dollars per year, it’s a nice round number that is plausible. It is unlikely to end up all in one pot, though. The goal of IH, now IHHI, was to support the environment, to address global warming, and, yes, they do what they do as profit-making. Whoever brings LENR technology to market could easily be in line for billions of dollars per year. Consider: if Rossi technology were real, and ready for commercialization as Rossi has been claiming since 2011, they would be complete idiots to pass it up in favor of something not developed yet, i.e., Miley. And they are not complete idiots. MrSS has swallowed a Planet Rossi story.
LENR Forums will dwindle in traffic, Barty would eventually shut it down, and the millions of people interested in the GOD EMPEROR of LENR, Tom Darden, can go to Industrial Heat’s bright and shiney new website that’s being flashed fifteen times a day on Fox News and CNN.
Barty is not the owner of LENR Forum. And, here, MrSS seems to think that web sites are important for an energy industry. Not to mention Darden as Emperor. Darden seems like a nice guy. His interview with Marianne Macy revealed how he claims to treat inventors, and it seems that he did that with Rossi …. and Rossi bit his hand.
(Marianne Macy was a supporter of Rossi, as was her husband, Michael Melich. Really nice people, I sat with them at the awards dinner at ICCF-18. Melich is still listed as on the “Board of Advisers” for JONP.)
I just don’t get the importance of coming to this forum unless it is just to get us ready for eventually having our noses collectively rubbed in the smelly fecal matter and the E-Cat’s litter box.
Who says it is “important”? Dewey Weaver appears to write for fun. People do that. Who is going to push your head down and rub your noses in shit? Who has the power to do that? Certainly not Dewey Weaver. Dewey, as I mention, is not careful such that everything he writes is to be taken literally. However, he has also revealed what turned out to be verifiable fact, later.
Sure, it can be embarrassing to be wrong. So? What is worse than being clearly shown to be wrong is to be wrong and not find out. The safe path is to love reality, without knowing what it is, more than perhaps a little.
If that happens, we were wrong. If Rossi’s technology is proven to have never produced a single watt of excess heat (maybe IH has some juicy emails from Focardi and Rossi describing how much fun they were having deceiving everyone while they stuffed jet fuel in the early E-Cats)
This is simply ridiculous. I put up a page here to honor Focardi, even though I think he may have erred. The people who contemptuously condemn what they believe is error are not people I care to befriend. “Proving” that Rossi technology never produced “a single watt” would only be possible with that inverted Wabbit, those “juicy emails,” and that doesn’t even sound like Rossi.
I don’t know what Rossi’s motives are. I have often suggested that he may literally be insane. That would excuse him of moral responsibility for the damage he has done (but he could still be financially liable).
What I’m noticing now is, again, the black and white thinking, with a sarcastic presentation.
then we were stupid morons to have believed him.
Or ordinary human beings.
Maybe IH will convince the court to actually exhume Focardi’s body from the grave so he can be deposed as well? Perhaps they can re-sunset Focardi and all of Andrea Rossi’s previous associates who participated in the early days of his scam but have already departed from this Earth. But for now, until or unless the worst case scenario that has been presented to us is proven to be completely true, I’d rather have a little less hostility and negativity until the trial presents us with our own shortcomings as human beings, exposing our inadequacy as even calling ourselves homo sapiens.
“I’d rather have a little less hostility and negativity.” Then stop being hostile and negative! This rant is highly hostile, caustic, sarcastic, implying high moral reprehensibility, and then MrSS contradicts what he is actually doing with what he would “rather have.”
Until I see all the evidence in an organized format and not just a few pieces scattered about, I’m not considering Doral as a “total 100% scam” or the E-Cat technology as a lengthy 10 year long total hoax, at least not yet.
Nobody claims that you must, MrSS. However, there are appearances from the evidence, apparent through study.
If I was stupid to hold out for this long,
Dewey is sarcastic about Planet Rossi, but he is also being honest. Those who have invested great hope in Rossi technology are very likely to be greatly disappointed. But I would not, so far, consider that the evidence we have seen proves that Rossi never had anything, nor is it necessary for IH to show that, so I don’t expect them to attempt it. What they will show is that Rossi set up a fraudulent scheme, a fake customer, so that he could control the “test” completely. They will show reasons to think that if there was generated power, it was not as claimed, but must have been far less than a megawatt. They will show that they never agreed as required by the Second Amendment to a “GPT” start date, and that alone completely invalidates the Rossi claim, even if the Plant performed perfectly. If the Plant performed perfectly, great! Surely, then, Rossi could demonstrate that with a far briefer and easier set of tests that IH would agree to. Or if not IH, then someone else. If Rossi shows someone else with some fundraising clout, he could totally repay IH for their entire investment, it would be chicken feed by comparison with what such a Plant would be worth, if it could be independently tested by the investors.
On Planet Rossi, explaining this is utterly useless. I.e., if this makes no sense, you might be an inhabitant of Planet Rossi, where all investors are out to steal his technology and none can be trusted.
then I already have a pet feline (literally the four legged kind) with a litter box I can dunk my head into repeatedly.
If you like, you can do that.
I don’t see pure uprightness from any side in this legal conflict.
Who claims that? I have a theory about what IH actually was doing by the beginning of 2015, but I’m not going to detail it here. I don’t expect “pure uprightness” from anyone. What it seems to me here is that MrSS is attempting to excuse obvious Rossi misbehavior by claiming that IH also misbehaved, but there is no evidence showing that, only some speculations common on … Planet Rossi.
All I see is a lot of badmouthing and accusations (from both sides) with pieces of evidence that don’t tell the whole story and much more evidence being withheld — even if it is due to legal formalities.
MrSS is incautious about discriminating between what is being said in court, by lawyers, and what is being said on the forums, where many are ignorant and hostile, an evil combination. People accuse, and here MrSS accuses people of accusing, as if he is not.
While, at the same time, the results of Songsheng, Parkhomov, other Russian teams, and Me356 tell me that the effect is real.
I spent a great deal of time studying Parkhomov (initially quite excited by what he had done), and likewise carefully reviewed Songsheng Jiang. This work was prematurely published and is far from conclusive. Further, that someone finds an NiH effect, when such effects have been claimed for a quarter century, does not show — at all — that the Rossi Effect is real. This is poor reasoning. Rossi was following a path that already existed. Maybe he saw some results, maybe he did something else, and, in fact, we cannot know for sure, unless we find the Smoking Gun — or Rossi pulls the Wabbit out of his hat. It hasn’t happened and I don’t expect it to happen.
The 18 hour test in Bologna tells me the effect is real. The demonstrations I’ve read about that took place before the JONP ever went up tell me the effect is real.
People who actually witnessed those early demonstrations are not so sure. Once we know that Rossi is capable of faking a test — and he is, this is no longer deniable as to possibility — nothing from him or involving him can be trusted. Only fully independent testing could be trusted, and Rossi never has allowed that, except … he couldn’t stop IH from testing what they, themselves, made, following his instructions and with his guidance. And it didn’t work. Yes, with some tests, some XP was seen, (as much as COP 1.3, Dameron said) but errors are common, claims they never saw XP that they could reliably verify.
How would you know if that 18-hour test actually showed major XP? There is really only one way: fully independent confirmation. This is basic science, in fact.
The off the record replications I’ve heard about tell me the effect is real.
Some effect may be. However, a megawatt? Or how about 500 KW?
Maybe all of this will be meaningless and Rossi’s alleged “evil”
Who is alleging “evil”?
will warp reality, erasing the reality of the technology resulting in the past ten years being one long delusion for several of us. But for now, until we know one way or the other, I’m not supporting the hostility and name calling — even though I’m not totally innocent of it myself.
Like right now.
Although I’ve been caught up in this thread and the debates about Doral just like many others on this forum, I realize that if we had spent a fraction of the time focusing on replication we could have achieved something that could make the court case more or less meaningless in the big picture of the LENR revolution.
It is probably not that easy. Sure, some of us could make more of a difference than we make by on-line discussions. In fact, I keep writing about exactly how to do that, and I find few takers.
With a guaranteed to work formula producing 1000 watts per gram, the technology would take a life of its own. Instead of two companies fighting in court, there would be hundreds or thousands utilizing the technology around the world.
What’s stopping this from happening? Hint: not the “two companies fighting in court.” There is apparently no such “guaranteed-to-work formula,” so what could be done is to support the basic research necessary to create the knowledge to enable that. A garage inventor might be able to contribute, but I would not consider it likely — even though I encourage people to try, because one can learn a great deal from actually getting one’s hands dirty. Doing so with hubris, though, could merely give one nickel poisoning for no benefit. If it were all that easy, it would probably have been found already.
Now would be a good time for Me356 to drop by.
I have no particular reason to believe any word written by him. He is anonymous and it is foolish to trust anonymous authors unless what they write can be verified. Some level of discussion with the anonymous, okay. Ideas can be explored, etc. But for fact? No.
A post worth reading, my opinion, about why people comment on LENR-Forum. He starts with:
I understand your point to some extent. Why, if it is all fake, does anyone “bother”? After all for instance, I do not believe in BigFoot, so do I go to “BigFoot” forums and try to convince them of the “fallacy”? No I do not. Why do I on this site then? So what is the difference?
He then answers his question.
Another participant raising Planet Rossi memes:
IH Fanboy wrote:
I get really worked up by comments like that from IHFB …
I’m sorry if you get worked up by my comments. Certainly not my intention.
If it were his intention, he would be trolling. IHFB is an extensive writer on LF. He does not appear to be a troll. But he is doing something other than careful reading and writing. THH did not exactly say that he gets worked up by IHFB’s comments, but by comments “like” his. Many people do. “Someone is wrong on the internet” — so hold dinner for me — is funny because anyone who has written extensively knows the reality behind it.
IHFB not only does not address the problem with the particular comment that THH was responding to, in detail, he basically repeats it. He quotes THH:
I find this type of argument particularly despicable because it is wholly polemic . . .
IHFB made a big deal of cherry-picked (by Rossi in an Answer) court evidence saying that one test (or set of tests on given system) showed COP = 1.3.
As did Rossi in that preposterous Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. That answer in the quoted T. Barker Dameron deposition was created deliberately by Rossi’s attorney, for exactly the purpose IHFB is following, that of creating a contradiction. Because this was utterly inadequate, entirely premature, for a Rule 11 showing, I conclude that this was propaganda, aimed at those watching the case, and it worked for that.
The next Rossi argument, against the new IH amendment, did the same: quoting material (part of the “ERV Report”! and the JMP utility bills) that Rossi wanted to show the world, utterly irrelevant to the legal arguments, for if IH was “wrong” in its alleged facts, that would be a matter for a jury to determine, IH only needed to show that it had some reason to believe what they were alleging, not that it was proven. Rossi’s evidence actually confirmed some of the IH claims, but that was all off the point. The Rule 11 Motion was immediately denied by the Judge, effectively sua sponte, without argument from IH, and that ruling was obvious. The opposition to filing was also rejected, and Rossi’s argument was ignored. The argument by Fabiani’s attorney was at least on point. Watch Nuñez. He appears to be an excellent attorney. (And for that reason, I expect to see some kind of pre-trial settlement with Fabiani. I expect that Fabiani, if he cooperates by simply testifying truthfully, will get to keep most of the money he was already paid, even all, minus his legal expenses, which will be much less if he does not have to go to trial.)
I very much doubt that Annesser asserted that evidence on his own. This was Rossi, running the show, for the benefit of his fans, who had begun to notice the absence of evidence for his position. IH doesn’t care about the peanut gallery, as far as I can tell. Dewey Weaver is not IH, but an actual supporter, — with time and money — not merely one who chats about IH.
But there is no contradiction. There is merely deeper specification of meaning. Relativistic physics does not contradict Newtonian physics, it merely specifies its range of application. Newtonian physics was only “wrong
Back to IHFB:
Well, it was a stark contradiction, was it not?
It is stark if you reduce the apparently variant statements to black and white, and if you set the boundary between them to make a small difference change 0 to 1 in the digitization of interpretation (i.e,. the A or null-A of Aristotelian logic). This is what the Rossi attorney was attempting to create, as shown by the question, and Dameron answered over Pace’s objection, I don’t know why. However, the Dameron answer was honest (though called “evasive” by some). Were I Dameron, I’d have waited for Pace to explain. It seems he did not. But it’s harmless, in the end.
And to say that a COP of 1.3 is immeasurable is not true. Many within the LENR community are credibly measuring COPs of 1.1 – 1.3 (and more).
But nobody has said that 1.3 is immeasurable. Normally, it would be, but the issue is error margins and reliability, as was clear in the source deposition.
As well, “credibly” has a lost performative. Credible according to whom? I and some others have the benefit of CMNS mailing list membership and we see the mail traffic among the scientists. There are list members who are not professional scientists, I am one. Jed Rothwell is another. I won’t give all those who are, and who participate on LENR-Forum, for privacy reasons. Most of the results that IHFB may be relying on meet with substantial skepticism. They are not rejected outright, normally, but also they are not considered conclusive. Normally, if needed, with better system design, a COP of 1.3 can be pushed toward infinity, but it takes work, and there are more productive things to do, generally, such as searching for a correlated ash, not merely some anomalies that might or might not be an ash.
SRI recently publicly announced that they are credibly measuring COPs of 1.45 using an NiH device.
And there are issues about that. “Credibly,” again, according to whom? Look at the statement, it would be credibly according to SRI! Which at this point, reading the report, is “according to Fran Tanzella.” Now, Tanzella has personal credibility, but that report has problems. I have written a preliminary examination of it, but because of sensitive political issues, I have not yet released it, and it has possibly been seen by only one major scientist, who has not commented on it. However, I know that my general issues with the report match the immediate reactions of others. Read the report and if one is familiar with mature SRI reports, does this match their tenor and mood? This was a private, preliminary report, not actually ready for release, probably not reviewed by the normal SRI process, released by Brillouin for obvious reasons.
These are measurable values.
Yes, COP of 1.3, under some conditions, is accurately measurable. SRI flow calorimetry has generally, in the past, considered COP 1.05 as significant. However, what conditions? The Rossi question and IHFB here seem to think that any measurement that shows COP 1.3 would be considered reliable. The Lugano test purported to measure COP of 3.6. That was actually considered credible by many. And then observers started to notice the problems. The biggest problem is not with public data. IH apparently attempted to confirm the Lugano results and failed. And they were the ones who had made the Lugano device. Did they see COP of 1.3? The real question, to be answered, would require a detailed examination of all results, not just a single measurement. As we can see with the subsequent history of the Lugano Report, a single measurement can be seriously flawed. Re-analysis of the Lugano data, based on a rough calibration with a dummy reactor, which should have been done with the original report to create sustainable credibility, shows a possible COP far lower, my recollection without looking it up is COP 1.15 or so. And this is unverifiable as to the original test, because the dummy reactor used by MFMP for that study may not match the original conditions accurately enough. Long-term, what matters is independent confirmation; there can be artifacts that are never identified, results can remain anomalous forever. Science may use isolated reports as indications, but not as definitive evidence for strong conclusions. Rossi’s claims are not about science, he has long been seen as scientifically ignorant — it’s obvious — but the interest of the CMNS community is mostly science.
Now, Dameron hemmed and hawed a little during his deposition when talking about the COP. Some interpreted that to mean he was uncertain about the 1.3 value, and that it was probably less. Another interpretation is that he was being evasive. His language appears evasive to me, and I think IH have probably measured COPs that are more, although probably with their “own” improved IH-cat (for which Dewey always side-steps questions about).
My interpretation was that he was aware of the possible misunderstanding. He answered literally, and without reviewing the tests themselves. Notice that Rossi has all the test data, we assume, from Discovery. This question and Rossi’s use of it was grandstanding.
There is no evidence we have seen for an “improved IH-cat.” This is, again, common Planet Rossi thinking. It’s a way to make sense of IH “rejecting” Rossi and refusing to pay. Why should they pay if they have something better? But if they have something better, and if this were involved in their choice not to pay, it is over a year old. If they have something better than what Rossi claims for the Doral Plant, they would have hit the market by now, grabbing the core, or at least would be granting licenses, this would be huge. They would not be screwing around with the small, merely scientific results of those they are supporting. And they would not be taking risks with Rossi, it would be really dumb. With a better device, they patent the improvement, he gets his money and they get more. They make so much money that alleged losses in solar power are trivial by comparison. The Planet Rossi stories are fragile, held together by chewing gum and Scotch tape. Only to a citizen and the ignorant does it appear plausible.
IHFB’s bolding is maintained here.
And what does the very first numbered paragraph in IH’s 4th amended answer state?
“Defendants deny that the energy catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology “generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy” along the lines claimed by Plaintiffs – which is that a reactor using the E-Cat technology produces more than 50 times the energy it consumes. . . . Indeed, using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been unable to produce any measurable excess energy.”
Let’s unpack this statement.
Before unpacking the statement, what was the context? IHFB neglects that.
He also bolded “4th” as if this is particularly meaningful, following the arguments of the counter-defendants that there is something wrong with this, i.e., that they are evasive. However, the first Answer has the same language in that place.
The 4th Amended AACT, like all the others, begins with an Answer. In an Answer, the defendant either denies, accepts, or claims ignorance as to all claims in the Complaint (if they do not do that, the claims will be accepted as true for all subsequent purposes). It would, then, be best to read this in the context of the claims. Paragraph 1 of the Answer is in response to Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. I place the claims and answers together in this document: IH Answer Merge with Rossi Claims.
First off, they adamantly deny that the E-Cat produces more than 50 times the energy it consumes.
Nope. “adamant” is projection. They deny. They do provide some additional argument there, which was legal fluff.
Okay then, what about 49?
They clearly deny that as well, as to anything they could confirm.
And how can they even make such a hard and fast statement without knowing what is on the other side of the wall?
IHFB has completely lost context. It’s a statement, a claim, not “hard and fast,” and they don’t have to prove it. Perhaps IHFB would benefit from reviewing the Rossi Answer Merge with IH claims, to see how Annesser responds to IH claims. These are simply initial pleadings, a Plaintiff makes claims and a defendant either accepts or denies them (and sometimes can claim no knowledge, which is similar to a denial in effect; that is, if the claims turn out to be important, the plaintiff will need to establish evidence for them at trial. Sometimes before trial, through Discovery of the lack of contrary evidence, such that a Motion for Judgment can succeed. It better be clear for that!
IHFB is referring to one possible test, the Doral plant, totally controlled by Rossi. Is it necessary to know what was “on the other side of the wall”? Not necessarily, but Rossi set up that “test” to obscure what would have been plain and clear in a test under IH supervision, giving commercial necessity for secrecy as a “plausible reason.” Except that IH would never have formally agreed to such a design. Rossi tempted them with $30,000 per month. A small fraction of $89 million. They did not take the bait, apparently, they did not invoice JMP for the power that JMP told them they were receiving. They still could, by the way. I think it would be a fun move. They would be explicit that they were relying on the JMP statements, completely calling Johnson’s Rossi-inspired bluff. (We do not know that Johnson was aware of a power delivery fraud; it was his choice to rely on what Rossi was telling him.) They could even say, on the invoice, that they questioned those reports, but, after all, Mr. Johnson, if you say so….
They probably are basing their conclusion from the 0.0 pressure value, which has been thoroughly discussed here, and is really IH’s best and last hope.
No, not. Clearly not their “best and last hope.” This is Planet Rossi cant. The first line of IH defense against the Rossi claims is the lack of an explicitly required signed consent to the start date for the Guaranteed Performance Test. Rossi set up that alleged Test by representing it as something else. So an acceptance of the installation in Florida and cooperation with it was not, therefore, clearly an acceptance of a start date for the GPT. It was an acceptance, perhaps, of a proposed measurement protocol by Penon, and of a “350 day test” as it was described, and this was not in the foundational documents, it was a communication from Penon to IH, later, just before the alleged start date. We do not know the IH response, then. At that point, it appears that IH was attempting to maintain a relationship with Rossi; after all, what if the Plant actually worked under Rossi supervision? They were keeping all options open. When Rossi did not allow their engineer, Murray, to visit in July, 2015, they did not sue for specific performance on the Test Sheet. They let it ride, but probably only for a few months, by early December — or before — they were clearly denying that Doral was the GPT with Penon as ERV.
Rossi lied about all this, by the way, and continued to lie, and Planet Rossi, mostly, believes the lie. A few excuse the lies, it’s his odd personality, but he has Real Heat, and is, in spite of his faults that they admit, his work will Save Humanity from Disaster, etc. IH did not refuse to pay only when the payment came due. Rossi knew that was coming, they had been clear.
(A common argument that IH is Nasty is that they allegedly led him to believe that he would be paid, when they had no intention of paying. What would probably be more accurate is that they had no intention of paying for a badly flawed test, but were leaving the possibility open that the test would be real. How long they actually held that idea open is unclear. My sense is that the Murray rejection sealed it for them; they were, from then on, just biding their time, and I would guess that they ordered a helicopter-obtained heat survey of the building sometime after then. Rossi, by now, would have received all that information, unless they decided not to use it at trial at all. But the idea that they don’t know about the megawatt of power claimed, while possible, is very unlikely. They have made the warehouse heating argument, which is close to conclusive. With a megawatt and no forced air cooling — which would have shown up in IR imaging, because the air would heat the ducts — a megawatt cannot be hidden, and the heat would reach utterly intolerable levels inside the warehouse. So they knew. Now, by some date before December, they knew that the Test was a fraud or major error. I very much doubt that they misrepresented the situation to Woodford (as Rossi has claimed). That would have been a very expensive error. They told Woodford what they knew, their experience, I conclude. If not, expect to see Woodford demanding their money back, $50 million, and forget about the $150 million that Woodford further committed, apparently.
We are seeing fact emerge. Some citizens of Planet Rossi are waking up, smelling the coffee. Yeah, Rossi not Real. Bad News? Well, not if we trust Reality more than what we want. Reality is always Good News. How do I know that? Because I say so.
But that conclusion requires a speculative assumption (unless IH knows the kind of equipment on the receiving end).
No. Applying standard physics and known engineering is not “speculative.” It could be incorrect. Look, simple: there is no way to reconvert a megawatt of power efficient back to chemical potential. All methods run into the laws of thermodynamics. That heat must be dissipated somehow. Rossi claimed that ordinary convection would remove the heat. It would not. His claim means that all those industrial operations using massive power don’t need the complex and noisy and very visible cooling that they use, all they need is this nifty chemistry. That nobody knows about, and that is just as amazing as LENR.
Rossi did not generate a megawatt with the Plant. If he didn’t, something is seriously off with Penon, and it doesn’t take much to figure it out. Was Penon fooled by his old friend? Possibly. That would be a Penon defense, though it would throw Rossi under the bus. Penon has elected to hide, instead. Not surprising.
Remember, what IHFB is on here is an attempt to show clear contradiction, referring to a statement that does not hinge on the Doral test, which IH did not conduct, Rossi did.
Now, if IH does know what was hooked up on the other end, then perhaps they should state that (but they don’t). Jed claims that you need a perfect vacuum.
No, that is a misunderstanding of what Jed wrote. We know that Penon planned to install an absolute pressure sender. The report shows 0.0 bar, not 0.0 barg. That indicates absolute pressure. However, 0.0 absolute pressure is a “perfect vacuum,” within 0.1 bar. 0.0 bar is essentially impossible under Doral conditions. There would be no forward flow of steam. Period. However, then, we assume that this was simply an error, that Penon meant 0.0 barg, i.e, atmospheric pressure. For starters this would be incompetent, because atmospheric pressure varies, and what we need to know the pressure for is to know the boiling point of water, which varies with true pressure. Atmospheric pressure varies. There was no reason to use a sender that would report gauge pressure, in this context. If an absolute pressure gauge was used, Penon translated it to gauge pressure, for an unknown and unstated reason. It would be misleading, because instrument readings should be reported as-is. Subtracting the reading of another gauge, or assuming atmospheric pressure, would be concealing the actual data.
IH is not relying on any particular interpretation of those readings; their bottom line is that the Penon report cannot be trusted, most clearly because Penon did not answer their questions, when Penon was supposedly working for them and Rossi in common, to provide neutral analysis.
It has been pointed out elsewhere, however, that even with a small 2 or 3 inch pipe, only a few psi of vacuum would be necessary to move 1 MW of steam,
I have seen no such analysis, and IHFB does not point to one. There is a claim by Dewey that the devices in the Plant would not maintain a vacuum. It’s actually quite a complex issue and at this point IH does not need to prove their assertions, but they must deny the Rossi claims if they do not accept them.
Remember, IHFB is attempting to show blatant contradiction, but is asserting speculative analysis to do it, i.e., that maybe there is some possibility they were wrong. When IH asserts that they could not confirm any XP from Rossi reactors, they are not claiming proven or perfect knowledge, but merely their experience and their own analysis of it. Not IHFB’s analysis or necessarily anyone else’s analysis.
and that some industrial heat exchangers operate in just such a manner.
No evidence shown. “Such a manner” can be quite vague. I have not seen Planet Rossi arguments that are carefully made, with clear evidence cited. That is common on blogs and open fora, to be sure, but you can see the difference with some writers.
Why one would build a system like this, for the Doral application, is difficult to understand. The liquid flow was reduced by 10% in order to account for possible loss of coolant — which would have been massive at that level, there would have been coolant all over the floor, unless it were hidden with a line to a drain. Major loss of coolant could only occur with massive exposure to the atmosphere, such as with an open receiving tank (which may have been the case, I have only seen speculation on this, not fact). With an open tank, then, the pressure at the receiving end would be 0.0 barg. The net force moving steam into the customer subsystem would be zero. No flow, as Murray suggested. That’s why Murray asked! The question still stands. Something is very off with the Penon report pressure readings, and it might not only be a failure to put “g” on the end. If Penon used a relative pressure gauge, and it failed due to being overtemperature (which it probably was, from the original specification), it could easily read 0.0, even if the pressure was higher, and if the pressure was higher, the temperatures reported could easily have been below the boiling point, making the entire heat measurement be drastically in error.
In order to avoid this obvious possibility, Planet Rossi claims that critics can’t possible be sure. As evidence mounts, this becomes less and less tenable as a position, but some people will never admit error. Anonymous accounts may simply disappear. Real people, who are willing to back what they have said, who care about honesty and the seeking of truth, will admit error — or even the possibility of error — when they find it. If they really care, they will go back and, where possible, correct errors. (On LENR-Forum, one can edit even old answers; the responsible way to do it is by adding a note, if there has been any response to the error. Otherwise it may merely be corrected with no ethical issues.) I can’t do that on LENR-Forum for my comments there because I was banned; I requested to be unbanned, promising to not make new comments, and that request was rejected with no reason being given other than that “they” — unspecified — were really angry …. I bet. These are amateurs, with no depth of understanding, finding themselves with power. It’s predictable. And not really my problem any more. I love it that the ban led me to develop resources here, it will benefit the field far more, long-term, than slogging through the muck on LENR-Forum.
This matter of pressure is only a detail in the IH defense. It may loom larger in their counterclaims.
So, now on to the weasel words. In 1954, Dwight D. Eisenhower took the French to task for using “weasel words” when promising independence. IH uses them throughout their court filings.
Again, loss of context. What IHFB considers “weasel” are carefully specified statements. These then may allow exceptions. But categorical statements, as if there are no exceptions (which is how IHFB reads some of their statements) could be incorrect, because there might even be exceptions, whereas the statement is intended to apply within its context as substantially true. Eisenhower was, perhaps, referring to promises (IHFB, as common with writers of his class, gave no specific source, something that is easy to do if one is attempting to create useful content), whereas IHFB is referring to pleadings, which are not promises at all, other than a claim that they have reason to think this, some actual evidence other than mere suspicion. That is not the same as “proof.” One may have evidence for some idea that is wrong, and presumably, this will come out in further court process.
I’ve bolded a couple of them above. They refer to technology “directly provided” by Plaintiffs (Rossi), or “using the E-Cat technology,” and the like.
Which is what is relevant. What else would be relevant? What else would they have tested having relevance to this case?
What they are not telling you, and the probable reason that they are using such weasel words, is because they have probably developed their own improved IH-cat by tweaking a few things.
IHFB’s English is garbled, reflecting his thinking. (To be sure, he was tired. Does he correct this later?) There is obvious reason for IH to write as they wrote, that has nothing to do with possible improved technology. Suppose they tweaked the design. Suppose they improved it. In the patent that has been the subject of much derision by Rossi and Planet Rossi, T. Barker Dameron was listed as a co-inventor. That implied that he made some contribution. It did not say what that contribution was. If, however, the Rossi device doesn’t work, but IH then made it work, Rossi would not own those improvements and they would be, essentially, none of his business, unless he could show that this depended crucially on his own valid patent, in which case he could make a case, but IH would then probably push for invalidation of his patent as unworkable. I.e., an unrealizable idea without something new and previously undisclosed being needed. Rossi patents, if they represent a real technology, don’t reveal the necessary secret. We know of nobody who has been able to take his patents and make useful devices from them. That’s a pretty strong indication that they are legally invalid because incomplete.
Given the obvious reason — the case is about Rossi technology, not some possible further development, and the point would be that even when Rossi assisted them, they found no heat (meaning no reliable and confirmed heat, which is an absolute necessity for commercial devices). Again, IHFB is desperately searching for an excuse to insinuate something is wrong with the IH position. Was there a clear contradiction? I’m not seeing it. The contradiction exists in the mind of the analyst, and this is a general truth about “contradiction,” it is an artifact of analysis. Skilled philosophers attempt to interpret all statements to find the harmonizations, the underlying truths, not “contradictions,” which generally indicate incomplete analysis. That’s a huge subject of its own….
Which provides a motive not to pay Rossi, because they probably now consider it “theirs” anyway. I can not think of any other reason that they so carefully use these weasel words, and why Dewey so carefully side-steps my questions about IH’s improved NiH systems.
I sometimes use my inability to think of an explanation as a kind of evidence. I cannot think of a way that heat and helium could be correlated, as clearly exists in confirmed experimental evidence, other than by having a common cause, and I can think of no common cause other than a nuclear reaction. This could not ever be a conclusive argument, it is, rather, pointing to a heuristic, indicating the most promising paths for further research.
IH is involved with many researchers, and there are NDAs in place, I’m sure. Certain questions will be “side-stepped.” That Dewey answers any questions at all indicates that he is not speaking for IH! But he does know about other projects, he is himself under NDA, I assume, and so he is going to, at times, avoid direct answers. I have some level of direct communication with Dewey. Mostly, I don’t ask him questions that would put him into any kind of legal jeopardy. He knows that he can tell me things under confidence — though I have signed no NDA –, but mostly, I prefer not to know unless I have a need to know. Since, for the most part, I don’t have a need to know, formal NDA has never come up in my relationship with IH, which has only been through Dewey, so far.
It did come up with Defkalion. Hadjichristos offered to share information with me if I signed an NDA. It was sent to me. Now, the NDA required the nondisclosure of its terms, as I recall. It also provided a long embargo, five years as I recall. I did not sign it, because it could have created legal difficulties, obstructing my work, and there was no willingness that I saw to negotiate. Others did sign, and some violated it (without apparent consequence). NDAs are not necessarily ironclad. But, let me put it this way: one better have a strong reason for violating an NDA, or it could get very expensive. Even with a strong reason, it could be expensive, but “strong reason” means that some higher purpose requires it. Ancient legal principle: necessity makes the prohibited lawful.
IHFB is reasoning from ignorance. My general sense is that IH has no immediately commercializable technology. Rather, it is supporting basic research, which can include some commercial possibilities. They have no “IH-Cat” that is better than what Rossi claims, or even similar.
That is a general sense, not something I could prove, and that should be obvious. How could I prove the non-existence of something undisclosed?
IHFB’s comments create an outraged response in THH, and that’s quite predictable. THH is not “Planet IH.” That’s clear, in fact. Maybe he should be, in some way, because we know who THH is, and he has done valuable work. Certainly I would hope that THH would contact me directly (he never has). We need genuine skeptics, they are valuable and necessary for scientific progress. THH is a genuine skeptic, it’s obvious from all his writing.
By the way, because this has come up before, in Planet Rossi claims about me, “we” refers to humanity. Us. The future. It does not mean “Industrial Heat,” which is simply one player in this drama, albeit a major one.
We know who we are and we recognize each other when we meet. This is not an exclusive we, but people do exclude themselves from it, sad to say.
This continued. oldguy had written that there was no evidence of IH involvement in “improved NiH systems.”
IH Fanboy wrote: [in response to oldguy, who had written that there was no evidence of IH involvement in “improved NiH systems.”]
Well, it is known that IH are investors in Brillouin. So there is at least one other.
Classic sloppiness. IH did invest in Brillouin, years ago. That was acknowledged. However, IH has denied present involvement with Brillouin, and the old investment was when, as I recall, BEC was working with PdD, not NiH.
This is what happens when we are attached. We see something that looks like it makes us right. So we declare it as evidence without examining the details and matters like time, so “was” becomes “is.” When we see some evidence that might indicate our error, we question it vigorously or reject it outright.
IH might technically still have some equity in Brillouin, unless what they invested was paid back. However, as to the point here, what is “known” is irrelevant. Rossi has attempted to claim that IH revealed his “secret” to Brillouin. IHFB is following a Rossi meme.
And Dewey has mentioned in the past that IH has its own facilities and engineers. I think it is reasonable to suspect that IH are working on improved NiH systems, and probably improved IH-cat devices. Is it speculative? Yes. Probable? Yes.
This “suspicion” is considered “reasonable,” but IHFB is actually standing on more than reasonable. He considers it “probable.” But there is no reliable evidence that IH has any IH systems that are operating, generating significant excess heat, and then that the E-cat approach works at all. The groups known to be supported by IH are not working on NiH. It is possible that IH is doing some NiH research in North Carolina, at least on occasion, but the point here was what?
The only point I see is the idea that IH obtained valuable trade secrets about NiH from Rossi, and has possibly improved on them, so considers Rossi as expendable, and is deliberately refusing to pay when an $89 million payment was due. This is pure Planet Rossi. If there is any reality to the Rossi Effect, it would be this thinking in this way that led him to ruin, as it did before with PetrolDragon. He doesn’t trust anyone, and he is then followed by people with similar thinking, too often.
The drama went on. For me, enough, if not too much. I’m mentioned as being harsh, along with others — and no examples given.
“Planet Rossi” can be used pejoratively, but only if Rossi has a bad name. Being accused of repeating Rossi memes is not an accusation even of error. If Rossi’s memes reflect the truth, it could be quite an honorable thing.
A point is made in the discussions, a difference between anonymous writers and those who write using their real name, or who are clearly and openly identified. I will simply say that there is a difference. This does not, in itself, make open writers better than anonymous ones, but the open writers are willing to stake their personal reputations on what they write, and anonymous ones are not. If the anonymous ones were in reasonable fear of harm from writing openly, we would surely understand this. However, absent that,what’s going on is refusal to take responsibility, and that I find completely clear.
Again, whether or not to take personal risks is an individual decision, but I’m going to favor those who are openly responsible for what they say, and favor their testimony over those who hide. No court would accept their testimony, it would not be allowed. (There are rare exceptions where there is credible risk to witnesses, where the court knows identity but the public does not. They are rare and do not apply here.)
Some of us have paid our dues. We have experienced rejection and losses because of honesty and open stands for what we believed. Others just hide, and even worse, do not defend others who are rejected for honesty. For them, if you are not on the “right side,” you are worthless.