The prime source of “authentic information” about Planet Rossi, for years, has been his “Journal of Nuclear Physics” blog, where he hosts papers, allegedly peer-reviewed, but then the comments are not about the papers, but about whatever relating to Rossi is brought up by various odd names, which have been shown to be likely fake, Rossi sock puppets. He doesn’t just write his opinion, and his lawyers have told him to STFU; but he has used this technique for many years and is not likely to change. Here is more “News” from JONP.
Rossi continues being asked about and repying about Quark-X. He has decided to postpone the promised February demonstration so that he can focus on the court case, and then, later, on the demonstration. While that can make some sense, it also reveals that Rossi is more or less working alone, or must be in charge, personally, in both the legal and engineering arenas. I’m setting aside all the Quark-X news.
January 29, 2017 at 8:31 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi
All the papers deposited in Court recently are very difficult to be understood: can you explain what is going on?
January 29, 2017 at 9:00 AM
I strongly suggest not to lose time reading documents produced in this preliminar period, because it is like to understand a big painting observing one square centimeter of it here and there across the canvas, abstract from the global context that gives the meaning to every particular. What is really going on and the related situation will be understandable only at the end of the trial. Persons talking of it now are just displacing air with their tongues.
JONP is also a blog, where Rossi is in charge of the “displacement of air.” Understanding the court documents can take some study, but, aside from being unfamiliar (most people are clueless about court process), they are not that difficult to understand, and there are people who can be asked. When I have a legal question, I research it and sometimes ask a lawyer. It’s that simple.
Those who want quick explanations, instead, will ask, perhaps someone they trust. If that someone is Rossi, what will they get? However, if anyone has been following JONP, they would know that Rossi will not answer any specific questions, is not going to “explain” the documents. So what is this actually about? The evidence introduced, so far, heavily confirms that something is drastically off with Rossi’s behavior. Rossi will want to discourage looking at the evidence and arguments. However, he has, himself, judged them, many times, often with contempt and total self-confidence. He wants people to look only where he tells them to look, but mostly just to trust what Rossi Says. He’s not doing well at this, defectors from the full Planet Rossi are legion.
January 31, 2017 at 6:08 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi
From tha papers published so far it appears that you are bringing on evidence of all you said in your complaints, while IH is just trying to bring on arguments either not related to the agreement at the base of the litigation, or based on mere assumptions and futile accusations. Isn’t it true?
January 31, 2017 at 12:17 PM
My attorneys forbid me to talk about issues related to the trial in Court.
I can say, though, that I feel optimistic after all the things that have been produced and that are incoming.
Rossi has rarely introduced evidence. He recently revealed some depositions and other evidence that someone holding certain legally incorrect opinions might think important.
A patent, legally irrelevant. Patents are not sworn testimony, and a patent filing in 2014 does not show what Industrial Heat came to understand after more thorough testing.
Emails from Rossi that demonstrate nothing legally relevant. At most, they show that Rossi wrote about something to IH, but not that IH read it or understood it.
And an email from Darden, a brief response to a mail from Daniel Pike about the Chinese translation of the Rossi and Cook paper, where, cat out of bag, Darden makes lemonade from a possible lemon. It is legally meaningless.
This would be about claims of violation of confidentiality, but the cat was out of the bag already, Rossi had disclosed information to Thomas Cook without permission. After-the-fact tolerance of it does not establish the lack of a problem. And this is a tiny part of the IH case. Rossi is ignoring the elephant in the living room.
Inside the Motion for Sanctions itself, he has quotations from depositions, beginning with one from “Engineer Thomas B. Dameron, III, the Defendants’ subject matter expert and sole engineer,” which is highly misleading. That description is not only not in evidence, it is contradicted by evidence, Dameron was the original IH engineer working with Rossi, later supplemented or replaced by Murray, but Rossi’s position is that Murray was really a spy, hence the way Dameron is presented. Dameron is pushed into giving an estimate of the highest COP seen in their work. No engineer would fail to recognize how defective the question was, besides being leading, and Pace objected, but Dameron went ahead and answered, “1.3 might be an answer,” and that, at one time, they might have thought this a good result.
Then he has another deposition from Dameron where Dameron is pushed into a Yes answer, but to a question missing specifics that would need to be present for it to have relevance. It would not be Dameron’s belief about the “GPT” that would be critical, but that of Darden or other person able to sign for Industrial Heat. Dameron would not have that power.
And there was a similar deposition from Barry West, the technician paid by Industrial Heat to assist Rossi. In it, West acknowledges “understanding” that successful results from the Doral Plant would result in a large payment, and he reveals “a hundred million dollars.” However, he also says that this was “late in the game.” We know that by December, probably before, IH was rejecting the “GPT” idea, and Penon as “ERV.” West was spending large amounts of time with Fabiani and Rossi. When and how did he learn about a “test” triggering a payment? In Court, these questions would be asked.
Rossi’s Motion was immediately dismissed by the Judge without any response from IH. It was completely out of place, and obviously so with a few minutes of legal research, and may have simply been an excuse for Rossi to start showing some evidence. But the evidence shown was utterly inadequate. These vague references cannot substitute for a signed, written agreement setting the date for the GPT. If completely explicit and clear, by all the parties to the Agreement (which would include Ampenergo and someone authorized to sign for IH, almost certainly Darden only), then maybe estoppel could be claimed. Otherwise, no. Absolutely not enough.
That Annesser relies on this deposition as if it were a strong evidence of IH acceptance of the GPT (not merely suspicion of something) indicates to me that they have nothing stronger, which was likely from the beginning, because an explicit acceptance, as required by the Second Amendment, would have been asserted if it existed. Instead, from the beginning, Rossi attempted to show acceptance from indirect evidence that might indicate, more or less, that they did not object. If they do not have that evidence of direct acceptance, the entire Rossi case collapses, probably before trial.
And then there is the countersuit. If Rossi is not concerned, he is living in La-La Land. Or simply lying. We can remember that, shortly before filing Rossi v. Darden, where, for months Rossi and Darden had been communicating through lawyers, Rossi announced that everything was fine with Industrial Heat, denying rumors of a “divorce,” and excoriating one who reported it (Krivit). Rossi lies to his followers.
Rossi also just put up, January 30, tables from the “Final Report”, and monthly energy bills from the Florida utility, as if they contradicted an IH claim. They did not. IH then put up far more specific evidence — daily power usage apparently obtained from the utility, plotted with the Penon and Fabiani reports — showing that what they had claimed was plausible (which is all that is needed now). The Rossi evidence was actually irrelevant to the legal issues. See RvD: Judge demands fast response.
One more point. If one has an “overall view” of events that then creates local interpretations consistent with that world view, one can essentially live in a dream world. Rossi, in his comment above about needing to know the overall context to understand the case files, shows a likelihood that he is living this way. Yes. More will be revealed, that’s basic and universal. But what we see is also what we see, and Rossi’s interpretations are heavily laden with his value judgments, it’s obvious.
Somebody in the blogs is saying you are going to be destroyed by Cherokee-Industrial Heat. Are you worried?
This is typical Rossi sock theater. The sock reports an event, say on lenr-forum.com, which is not actually a blog, but Rossi calls it one. A single event becomes plural. And then he refers to “Cherokee-Industrial Heat,” which is a Rossi trope (that they are the same). The “somebody” on the “blogs” would be Dewey Weaver, and he certainly did not say it like that.
Rossi’s ways of communicating are leading him straight into a brick wall at high speed. Here is what I would recommend for him, were he to ask (he hasn’t and Rossi doesn’t ask for advice, part of what has created such a mess in his life):
Find a good attorney, not one recommended by your existing attorneys. Pay that attorney to give you an assessment of your case and the situation and general advice. Listen to him or her, carefully, because the attorney will have no ulterior motive, will not gain anything from deceiving you or allowing you to believe in what is very unlikely. Recognize that you may have made mistakes, and apply your strong qualities to creating a more powerful and successful position, where you don’t waste your time fighting impossible battles, but focus on what can be accomplished with the rest of your life. Avoid arguing with this attorney, but asking questions is fine. You have a very strong personality and can be very convincing. Beware of this, it is a great tool but also extremely dangerous. Make sure that the attorney knows he or she will be paid regardless, you simply want honest opinion and assessment.
January 31, 2017 at 6:35 PM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
Nowadays you speak about 20 Watts, and no longer about 20 Wh/h.
Is this about control and stability ?
January 31, 2017 at 10:00 PM
You must distinguish:
when I write 20 W it’s the rating of the power. When I write 20 Wh/h, that’s the energy produced in one hour.
I wrote a great deal about this on lenr-forum. I had mentioned that Rossi used Wh/h idiosyncratically. One of his socks reported this to him, in a rare case of him mentioning me on his blog. It was all distorted, and I was not claiming he was “wrong.” His defensive turned offensive response, however, was wiggy. He ended up saying that if one wanted to learn about this, read from a certain Famous Scientist. I did, and that scientist actually said, on one of his published writings, what Rossi had claimed was preposterous.
I.e. Wh/h is the same as W. Rossi’s answer above is not crisply correct. 20 W is used as a “power rating,” where it means maximum power that it will tolerate without damage. I might have a half-watt resistor. If I dissipate more than a half-watt continuous in it, it may be damaged. Rossi has given this “rating” answer before, which distracts from the meaning of Watt. It is a unit of power, and power is a rate of energy. People who actually study physics (and electronics) must be careful about these definitions, and if they don’t how to use them and manipulate them, they may do poorly. Rossi seems to have never understood that if a unit is divided by the same unit, it may be replaced by unity. I.e. Wh is watts times one hour. One watt for one hour. How many watts per day is one watt per hour?
1 w-h times 24 hours/day is 24 watts/day. Notice that the units behave as algebraic quantities. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an error produced by Rossi confusion on this, where it mattered, but his explanations would be likely to do nothing but confuse. Above, he calls 20Wh/h an amount of “energy.” It is not. It is the rate at which energy is being generated. How much energy is generated (or work done) varies with the time interval. Wh/hr (“h” is the same as “hr” or “hour”, I think he confused that, also, somehow). What Rossi is often talking about is “average power” over some interval. What are the units of “average power”? It is quite simple: the same as the units of power. One may take the total accumulated energy (which can be expressed in watts, say, and divide by a time interval to get average energy per unit time, and average energy per unit time is called “power.” The unit of energy is the Joule. Rossi then proceeded, with his defective understanding, to express a completely incorrect conversion factor between joules and watt-hours. Basically, the conversion factor, like all such factors, is unity, expressed in the two units. A joule is one watt-second, so how many joules in a watt-hour? 3600 is the answer, being an easy number, 60×60, i.e., 3600 seconds/hour = 1.
1 watt * 1 hour * 3600 seconds/hour == 3600 watt-seconds or joules. Anyone who needs to look up this figure has not understood the units. Looks like Rossi looked something up, his figure was off.
And, of course, his theater is full of praise and gratitude for his brilliant explanations,
January 31, 2017 at 6:29 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
The papers you deposited in Court are very impressive: can you discuss about them in this blog?
January 31, 2017 at 10:16 PM
February 1, 2017 at 5:38 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi
Great report from the ERV : is it complete or is there more in the raw data?
February 1, 2017 at 9:24 AM
I cannot answer to questions related to the litigation on course.
So, of course, another “user” will supply the answer. But first, is that the “report from the ERV”? The Document does not say that, nor does Rossi call it that in the filing. And it was irrelevant to the issue (which is still open, the Judge has no ruled, but will probably rule quickly). (What that “report” may confirm is that Fabiani and Penon data agree, but where did Penon get that data? The close agreement — it is the same except for maybe one or two typographical errors — actually shows that there was a common data source, so the Fabiani reports, supposedly independent, were not. See the IH chart showing the three sources for daily power usage: Penon, Fabiani, and Florida Power and Light. Penon and Fabiani are so close that mostly you cannot see the Fabiani plot.
This was an excuse for getting what may be “ERV” data — i.e., a report from Penon — into the record, for public consumption.
This document, such as it is, confirms some of the Murray questions in IH Exhibit 5. Those questions were asked about the preliminary reports, not the “Final Report,” but it looks like Penon completely ignored them, as IH has claimed. It is certainly not the full report, and, of course, much less than the “full data,” which would be voluminous computer records and records of manual entries (by Rossi?) for a year.
February 1, 2017 at 4:58 AM
months ago you said that the full report with the raw data should be something around 60000 pages, do you confirm?
All the best,
February 1, 2017 at 9:26 AM
My attorneys have forbidden me to talk about any issue that has to be discussed in Court.
The Rossi blog would attract (as do other fora) pseudoskeptics, debunkers, major critics of Rossi, etc. But it is rare to see any comment there that is not very favorable to Rossi, expressing what he wants to see expressed. There are some regular writers who are genuine. But it is obvious that, even if he did not actually write them, these questions are selected by Rossi to express what he wants to say while making it appear that he is not saying it. He’s not incorrect about the volume of data involved. But it’s meaningless. What would be meaningful at this point would simply be the Full Report, proper. What he showed was the appendices with daily power usage (and alleged generated power and some of the data behind that claim). He did not show the Report “cover sheet,” Dewey Weaver called it. The engineer’s summary and I would expect that it might explain some oddities and obscurities about the attached data.