Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Axil Axil]

"Anyway, as I said, I really do not understand why people here side with
Rossi rather than I.H. "

We we all thought how a refereed game is played. In all sports, the
mutually agreed upon referee is the final authority in who has won the
game. That is how games have been played since
the beginning of civilization.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>
>> Now he says it will be published after it is disclosed in court.
>> Probably hoping that it won't be widely refuted before a decision is
>> reached and reducing the number of experts who could be called by IH to
>> refute the report.
>>
>
> That would not reduce the number of experts. Most trials are short, no
> more than few days or a week long. In this case, both sides would call
> expert witnesses in industrial scale calorimetry. I assume that would be
> HVAC engineers licensed in the state of Florida. Expert witnesses in court
> are usually licensed professionals. They would testify they read the report
> and tested the machine and they got thus and such results. You only have
> time for maybe 4 such experts.
>
> The rules are clear. Rossi would have to make the report available to all
> expert witnesses long before the trial, to give them time to make an
> evaluation. As soon as he did that, the report would be part of the lawsuit
> paperwork, and downloadable by everyone.
>
> I am not a lawyer but I do have some experience with technology related
> lawsuits, and I am sure that is how it works.
>
>
>
>>   It can't think of any reason to do this beyond the fact that it would
>> be damaging.
>>
>
> Neither can I. Especially after he repeatedly promised Lewan he would
> release it.
>
>
>
>>   Besides, once disclosed in court, it is part of the public record.
>>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
>>   He's not doing anybody favors by releasing it at that point.  If he
>> feels good about the report, I say release it and the raw data.
>>
>
> Yeah, but on the other hand I.H. is not releasing their copy. I do not
> know why, as I said.
>
> Anyway, as I said, I really do not understand why people here side with
> Rossi rather than I.H. What makes anyone that that I.H. is making the
> gigantic mistake rather than Rossi? Rossi has a history of making huge
> mistakes, such a when he almost blew up the people from NASA, with a
> blocked hose and no safety valve.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Wow, Jed, not only are you an expert at calorimetry but you're also lawyer
too.  Quite the liberal arts degree you got there, where do I get one of
those babies.

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  > asked me a
> reasonable question:
>
>
>> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
>> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>>
>
> Rossi was more specific in a message he sent to Mats Lewan today. He "his
> lawyer won’t let him" publish the Penon report, because if he publishes it,
> the report "would not be valid as evidence" in court.
>
> This is nonsense, for the following reasons:
>
> 1. There is no rule that only unpublished documents can be used as
> evidence in a trial. Published documents and newspaper articles are often
> used.
>
> 2. All the documents submitted as evidence in the lawsuit are now
> published. Anyone can get copies of them. So obviously, there is no rule
> that documents in lawsuits must be kept secret!
>
> 3. This document is central to the lawsuit. It should have been included
> among the documents submitted.
>
>
> Someone in Lewan's blog discussion wrote:
>
>
>> *That is why Rossi said he can only release it after he gets permission
>> from his lawyer – which, in practice, means after it becomes a required
>> filing as part of the court proceeding – and that probably doesn’t happen
>> until the court requests to see it.*
>>
>
> This is incorrect. You can include any documents you like in a lawsuit.
> You do not wait until the court requests a document -- you include it from
> the start. This is a key document in the dispute. There is no reason to
> leave it out. Many documents of lesser importance were included.
>
> I am confident that the only reason Rossi has not published the Penon
> report is because it makes him look foolish. It destroys his credibility. I
> hope that someday the report is published.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:


> Now he says it will be published after it is disclosed in court.  Probably
> hoping that it won't be widely refuted before a decision is reached and
> reducing the number of experts who could be called by IH to refute the
> report.
>

That would not reduce the number of experts. Most trials are short, no more
than few days or a week long. In this case, both sides would call expert
witnesses in industrial scale calorimetry. I assume that would be HVAC
engineers licensed in the state of Florida. Expert witnesses in court are
usually licensed professionals. They would testify they read the report and
tested the machine and they got thus and such results. You only have time
for maybe 4 such experts.

The rules are clear. Rossi would have to make the report available to all
expert witnesses long before the trial, to give them time to make an
evaluation. As soon as he did that, the report would be part of the lawsuit
paperwork, and downloadable by everyone.

I am not a lawyer but I do have some experience with technology related
lawsuits, and I am sure that is how it works.



>   It can't think of any reason to do this beyond the fact that it would be
> damaging.
>

Neither can I. Especially after he repeatedly promised Lewan he would
release it.



>   Besides, once disclosed in court, it is part of the public record.
>

Exactly.



>   He's not doing anybody favors by releasing it at that point.  If he
> feels good about the report, I say release it and the raw data.
>

Yeah, but on the other hand I.H. is not releasing their copy. I do not know
why, as I said.

Anyway, as I said, I really do not understand why people here side with
Rossi rather than I.H. What makes anyone that that I.H. is making the
gigantic mistake rather than Rossi? Rossi has a history of making huge
mistakes, such a when he almost blew up the people from NASA, with a
blocked hose and no safety valve.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Jack Cole]

Jed,

Now he says it will be published after it is disclosed in court.  Probably
hoping that it won't be widely refuted before a decision is reached and
reducing the number of experts who could be called by IH to refute the
report.  It can't think of any reason to do this beyond the fact that it
would be damaging.  Besides, once disclosed in court, it is part of the
public record.  He's not doing anybody favors by releasing it at that
point.  If he feels good about the report, I say release it and the raw
data.

Andrea Rossi
April 13, 2016 at 5:30 PM


Patrick Ellul:
The Report will be published after it will have been disclosed in the Court.
Everything you are reading now is just toilet paper, diffused by
professionals of the same and the ones they have paid for.
I can only repeat what my Attorney wrote in our press release, it is that
we are pleased by the results. The results are coherent with what I have
repeatedly written on this blog during the 352 days of test: the plant has
worked mostly in SSM mode. As all the visitors have seen.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=95#comment-1172432

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 7:17 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Jed.  I do not know why. I wish they would. I do not want to ask them why,
>> because it is none of my business. I don't want to ask questions relating
>> to a lawsuit. I prefer to stick to technical questions.
>>
>
>
>> That didn't stop you speculating that Penon was an idiot . . .
>
>
> I am not speculating. I know he is an idiot. I read his 2012 report.
>
>
> , the report was rubbish  . . .
>
>
> If I.H. is correct, and there is no excess heat, then obviously the report
> is rubbish. According to Rossi's press release the report claims output is
> 80 times input. A mistake on that scale is inept. It is not unheard of, but
> it is inept.
>
> If Rossi is right, then I.H. is inept. One or the other must be
> drastically wrong. There is no middle ground.
>
>
>
>> & Rossi did not release it because it damned him.
>>
>
> Obviously if it is off by a factor of 80 it will damn him.
>
> You do not have to take my word for any of this. You can confirm or
> disprove everything I say with published sources from Rossi and I.H.:
>
> You can read Penon's 2012 report and decide for yourself whether he is an
> idiot.
>
> You can learn about the mistakes Rossi made at various times, especially
> with the NASA tests with the blocked flow. He has a track record of making
> drastic mistakes. That does not mean he is making one now, but it is is
> plausible.
>
> You can read the two press releases and decide for yourself which is more
> likely right, to the best of your own knowledge. I happen to have more
> knowledge of I.H.'s ability than you do, so I have the advantage here.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed.  I do not know why. I wish they would. I do not want to ask them why,
> because it is none of my business. I don't want to ask questions relating
> to a lawsuit. I prefer to stick to technical questions.
>


> That didn't stop you speculating that Penon was an idiot . . .


I am not speculating. I know he is an idiot. I read his 2012 report.


, the report was rubbish  . . .


If I.H. is correct, and there is no excess heat, then obviously the report
is rubbish. According to Rossi's press release the report claims output is
80 times input. A mistake on that scale is inept. It is not unheard of, but
it is inept.

If Rossi is right, then I.H. is inept. One or the other must be drastically
wrong. There is no middle ground.



> & Rossi did not release it because it damned him.
>

Obviously if it is off by a factor of 80 it will damn him.

You do not have to take my word for any of this. You can confirm or
disprove everything I say with published sources from Rossi and I.H.:

You can read Penon's 2012 report and decide for yourself whether he is an
idiot.

You can learn about the mistakes Rossi made at various times, especially
with the NASA tests with the blocked flow. He has a track record of making
drastic mistakes. That does not mean he is making one now, but it is is
plausible.

You can read the two press releases and decide for yourself which is more
likely right, to the best of your own knowledge. I happen to have more
knowledge of I.H.'s ability than you do, so I have the advantage here.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[a.ashfield]

AA.If the ERV report supports IH, why have they not released it?

Jed.  I do not know why. I wish they would. I do not want to ask them 
why, because it is none of my business. I don't want to ask questions 
relating to a lawsuit. I prefer to stick to technical questions.


That didn't stop you speculating that Penon was an idiot, the report was 
rubbish & Rossi did not release it because it damned him.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed.  "The Penon report is way more likely to be flawed. The guy is a
> certified idiot."
>
> That sounds libelous to me. Penon apparently got his Laureate degree with
> full marks.
>

Don't be ridiculous. People accuse others of being idiots all the time, in
both the real world and on the Internet. If that were libel, we would all
be paupers.



> You are sounding biased.


I am biased because his report is damn nonsense! When people publish stupid
reports I become biased against them.



> I suspect one could trawl through your earlier comments and find where you
> have made mistakes.
>

Not on that scale. Not published ones. And when I do publish mistakes, I
retract them, as I did with my Mizuno report.



> What exactly was this incredibly dumb thing Penon was supposed to have
> written in the earlier report?
>

Read my previous remarks, or better yet, read the report and come to your
own conclusions. Actually, there is a somewhat improved version of it:

http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123487015_1.pdf

Still a mess, on par with Lugano.



> As I wrote before, if the report is so bad why hasn't IH published it?
>

Legal reasons I suppose, but I wouldn't know. When a lawsuit is filed,
people tend to clam up. I wish they would publish it. It is irksome that
they say they strongly disagree, but they have not revealed their reasons.

As I said, rumor has it that Rossi is preventing them. I would not put it
past him. But that is mere rumor and it could be wrong. The other things I
have reported here are NOT rumors. People I trust tell me the Penon report
has no merit. If that is wrong, they have deliberately misled me.

I usually stay away from rumors.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

If the ERV report supports IH, why have they not released it?


I do not know why. I wish they would. I do not want to ask them why,
because it is none of my business. I don't want to ask questions relating
to a lawsuit. I prefer to stick to technical questions.

I have heard various rumors. I have heard Rossi is preventing them. But I
really do not know, and I should not speculate.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[a.ashfield]

Jed.  "The Penon report is way more likely to be flawed. The guy is a 
certified idiot."


That sounds libelous to me. Penon apparently got his Laureate degree 
with full marks.
You are sounding biased.  I suspect one could trawl through your earlier 
comments and find where you have made mistakes.
What exactly was this incredibly dumb thing Penon was supposed to have 
written in the earlier report?


As I wrote before, if the report is so bad why hasn't IH published it?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Craig Haynie]

This is a good point. IH can just as easily release the report. It's not 
just Rossi's reluctance.


Craig

On 04/13/2016 06:08 PM, a.ashfield wrote:

Jed,

If the ERV report supports IH, why have they not released it?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[a.ashfield]

Jed,

If the ERV report supports IH, why have they not released it?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> Still to decide that they are proof for anything is jumping the gun
>
I do not understand who you mean is jumping the gun. Do you mean Rossi?
Rossi has been saying for months that he will publish the report. Obviously
he never intended to do that. It cannot be because his lawyer suddenly told
him not to. This is not a rushed decision on his part.

If you mean I am jumping the gun, you are wrong. I saw this coming weeks
ago. It was clear that I.H. did not believe Rossi's results when they
published the March 10 statement:

"Embracing failure as well as success is important . . .

. . .  any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only be
relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third
parties who have verified our results in repeated experiments."


There is no doubt this meant "we do not agree with Rossi's report." That is
what they repeated in their recent press release regarding the lawsuit.
That is also what they told me, in no uncertain terms.

I.H. has rejected the report because they think the conclusions are wrong,
and they think there is no heat. As I said, their expertise in calorimetry
is far better than Rossi & Penon's. Sight unseen, I am sure their analysis
is correct and Penon's is wrong. As I said before, if this were McKubre
versus Rossi, sight unseen you could be sure McKubre is right. McKubre is
an expert in calorimetry, whereas Rossi and Penon have made many stupid
mistakes.

I am assuming here that both analyses are honest, and both I.H. and Penon
are reporting what they believe to be true. I make no allegations that
either side is dissembling in their reports.


Let me add that some people have asserted it is not possible or not likely
anyone would make a mistake on this scale. I disagree. You can make stupid
mistakes in calorimetry just as easily on the megawatt scale as you can on
the small scale. I have seen many stupid mistakes at every scale. Some of
Rossi's kilowatt scale tests were obviously wrong. Levi et al. screwed up
on the kilowatt scale at Lugano. Everything Defkalion did on the kilowatt
scale was a travesty, according to Gamberale.

Actually, I think it is more likely you will screw up on the megawatt scale
than you will from 1 to 100 W. Below 1 W it gets tricky. Above 100 W it
gets dangerous and it starts to be difficult in some ways.

As I pointed out before, many boilers explode because people make mistakes
in megawatt-scale calorimetry. (That is not the only reason for accidents,
but it is one.) The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a gigantic
mistake in calorimetry that continued for many hours. The reactor retained
much more heat and less cooling water than the instruments indicated. The
instruments did not reveal there was a large valve stuck open. (Very large:
the size of a person.) Both the instruments and the written plant
management procedures were at fault. That same mistake was made in other
plants of this design on 3 or 4 occasions previously. These incidents did
not result in a catastrophic melt down because the other reactors were not
at full power.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Lennart Thornros]

OK Jed,
The reason provided might be false or misleading.
Still to decide that they are proof for anything is jumping the gun
On Apr 13, 2016 13:40, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> No Jed it is not incorrect to follow the advice of the lawyer you pay
>> lots of money to . . .
>>
> No lawyer would tell him that. He made that up. It is nonsense. Anyone
> knows that you can submit previously published information as part of a
> lawsuit. Publishing does not magically make the document "invalid." You can
> submit newspaper articles. I have seen them in lawsuit filings.
>
> Rossi submitted the license agreement as evidence, which you can now read
> on line:
>
>
> http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf
>
> So why can't he submit the report?
>
> Indeed, the whole lawsuit is meaningless without the report. It is the key
> document, and the only real point of contention. If the report is wrong,
> the intellectual property is worthless, and the rest of the lawsuit is
> meaningless.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> No Jed it is not incorrect to follow the advice of the lawyer you pay lots
> of money to . . .
>
No lawyer would tell him that. He made that up. It is nonsense. Anyone
knows that you can submit previously published information as part of a
lawsuit. Publishing does not magically make the document "invalid." You can
submit newspaper articles. I have seen them in lawsuit filings.

Rossi submitted the license agreement as evidence, which you can now read
on line:

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf

So why can't he submit the report?

Indeed, the whole lawsuit is meaningless without the report. It is the key
document, and the only real point of contention. If the report is wrong,
the intellectual property is worthless, and the rest of the lawsuit is
meaningless.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Lennart Thornros]

No Jed it is not incorrect to follow the advice of the lawyer you pay lots
of money to, for the purpose of him advice ng you on legal issues.
To quick conclusions.
On Apr 13, 2016 13:03, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> a.ashfield  asked me a reasonable question:
>
>
>> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
>> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>>
>
> Rossi was more specific in a message he sent to Mats Lewan today. He "his
> lawyer won’t let him" publish the Penon report, because if he publishes it,
> the report "would not be valid as evidence" in court.
>
> This is nonsense, for the following reasons:
>
> 1. There is no rule that only unpublished documents can be used as
> evidence in a trial. Published documents and newspaper articles are often
> used.
>
> 2. All the documents submitted as evidence in the lawsuit are now
> published. Anyone can get copies of them. So obviously, there is no rule
> that documents in lawsuits must be kept secret!
>
> 3. This document is central to the lawsuit. It should have been included
> among the documents submitted.
>
>
> Someone in Lewan's blog discussion wrote:
>
>
>> *That is why Rossi said he can only release it after he gets permission
>> from his lawyer – which, in practice, means after it becomes a required
>> filing as part of the court proceeding – and that probably doesn’t happen
>> until the court requests to see it.*
>>
>
> This is incorrect. You can include any documents you like in a lawsuit.
> You do not wait until the court requests a document -- you include it from
> the start. This is a key document in the dispute. There is no reason to
> leave it out. Many documents of lesser importance were included.
>
> I am confident that the only reason Rossi has not published the Penon
> report is because it makes him look foolish. It destroys his credibility. I
> hope that someday the report is published.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  asked me a reasonable question:


> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>

Rossi was more specific in a message he sent to Mats Lewan today. He "his
lawyer won’t let him" publish the Penon report, because if he publishes it,
the report "would not be valid as evidence" in court.

This is nonsense, for the following reasons:

1. There is no rule that only unpublished documents can be used as evidence
in a trial. Published documents and newspaper articles are often used.

2. All the documents submitted as evidence in the lawsuit are now
published. Anyone can get copies of them. So obviously, there is no rule
that documents in lawsuits must be kept secret!

3. This document is central to the lawsuit. It should have been included
among the documents submitted.


Someone in Lewan's blog discussion wrote:


> *That is why Rossi said he can only release it after he gets permission
> from his lawyer – which, in practice, means after it becomes a required
> filing as part of the court proceeding – and that probably doesn’t happen
> until the court requests to see it.*
>

This is incorrect. You can include any documents you like in a lawsuit. You
do not wait until the court requests a document -- you include it from the
start. This is a key document in the dispute. There is no reason to leave
it out. Many documents of lesser importance were included.

I am confident that the only reason Rossi has not published the Penon
report is because it makes him look foolish. It destroys his credibility. I
hope that someday the report is published.

- Jed