From: Craig Haynie
Ø They also paid Rossi $10 million dollars, after validating that the device was working… Not exactly. The logical error is cause and effect. Yes, they paid the installment, but elsewhere they clearly state that "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success". Clearly IH never said or implied that the device worked, nor did they deny making the installment. There are many reasons why someone would want to pay for a foothold in a potentially valuable technology without validating its full factual reality. Above this, there are a number of similar logical and semantic problems to grasp in this situation. For instance, both of the two items below could be true… 1) The “average” COP in Penon’s report is 6 2) COP at times “was as high as 60” Those can be true and at the same time we must accept the reality that the average COP over the entire year, the whole 350 days of a test period, could be less than one. That can be true, even when the two items above are true, as the complaint alleges. Penon’s report was clearly not based on the full time period of 2000 hours. If you haven’t figured it out by now, the reason that these seemingly conflicting statements can all be true - is called “cherry picking” of data. Happens all the time - even at the top labs. The complaint from Rossi has been carefully worded in legalese to overlook the fact that 350 days, in industrial parlance, implies 8-hour days and a minimum of 2000 hours. Accordingly, at IH, they will insist if this goes to trial - that all of that the full allotted time of the contract must be used as the divisor in the final equation – in order to have a meaningful average COP instead of a selective one. Rossi and his defenders can claim that the use of cherry-picking pervades all of science and moreover – even if the percentage of impressive COP data is low based on the full year – it is still meaningful. It may not encompass the full term of the experiment but it violates the laws of physics over its own smaller span. In that sense, they are correct but it will be next to impossible to find a jury which will award damages based on such a lame rationalization.
