I refuse to say that the improved TEG based on the orignial functioning Rossi devices used electrowelded Ni conductors to replace soldered low temperature leads and incorporated semiconductors doped with Li.
It would be irresponsible to suggest that advanced TEG based on Rossi's designs were coupled with a matched wing surface TE heater in order to cool and redirect the heat from exhaust ports on stealth aircraft.
I will not speculate that some of the original 100W TEG units continued to produce considerable power once the heat source was removed and were therefore the basis of the Rossi effect.
I will not make any inference from the fact that the dimensions of the TEGs were similar to that proposed on Rossi's recent patent.
Rossi Explains ‘Positive or Negative’
-
-
&"I understand your 'arguments' very well... How do you know what Munson thinks and what his role was, if you have not read the paper you refer to? How can you even have an opinion?"
Colwyn are you sure you understand George's arguments very well? What worth would a troll's opinion be?
Do you think arguing with a troll will further LENR progress? -
@colwyn
Actually, I have read at least one, maybe more of the papers with Munson's name on them. And Gentile and Cassarini (Rossi's friends and associates) as well. It was some time ago but what I remember is that they mentioned the tests at U of NH in passing without revealing the name of the investigator nor any sort of published paper or other documentation. There is thus no way to determine whether Rossi actually had a high efficiency prototype or simply lied about it like he consistently lies about robotic factories, isotopes in the ash, self-destruct devices and telemetry in ecats, megawatt plants being actively for sale since 2011, having actual customers and many other things.What I remember of the papers from Parsons and Munson is that they emphasized dozens if not hundreds of applications but never gave a single actual U of NH source for the original prototype, they never said anything about any specific measurement method or result used on the prototype, and never said they had personally seen a prototype in operation. They did show a lame dim photo of the supposed device. It was most remarkable for a couple of obscenely bad solder joints. It looked like ... well... junk. Certainly not a finely engineered, machined product of 2 years of work (as per Rossi) in which he had succeeded in aligning individual atoms (ROTFWL!).
So I ask you again:
Who was the investigator at U of NH? I see nothing to suggest it was Munson or that Munson has or had any affiliation with the university.
Where are the results written or published other than in Rossi and Parsons reports of claims, briefly outlined in order to secure the grant?If you can't answer that, you are simply relying (again) on "Rossi says".
@Paradigmnoia LOL!
-
&"Certainly not a finely engineered, machined product of 2 years of work (as per Rossi) in which he had succeeded in aligning individual atoms (ROTFWL!)."
ROTFWL!, George get off the floor and stop laughing, you need to understand that aligning individual atoms is exactly what the fusion reactor catalyst does. Nanoscale alignment to null Coulomb repulsion is the catalyst's function.
-
Actually, I have read at least one, maybe more of the papers with Munson's name on them. And Gentile and Cassarini (Rossi's friends and associates) as well. It was some time ago but what I remember is that they mentioned the tests at U of NH in passing without revealing the name of the investigator nor any sort of published paper or other documentation. There is thus no way to determine whether Rossi actually had a high efficiency prototype or simply lied about it
Oops... You did it again. The Mary Yugo modus operandi in action.This is the paper you want to read, it doesn't involve Gentile, or Cassarini, or anyone else who in your mind is probably a Rossi stooge.
QuoteMunson, C. L., 2000, Assessment of Efficiency Increases and Economics of Application of Thermoelectric Apparatus in Fossil Power Plants, Prepared for the United States Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Contract No. DE-AM01-98FE65271, Task DE-AT01-98FE65489, TD No. 15, Parsons.
QuoteLeonardo Technologies Inc. (LTI) demonstrated their thermoelectric innovation (Figure 1) based on advances in material science and reduced production costs on a boiler at the University of New Hampshire (Parsons 2000).
QuoteThe 16 % efficiency of the TE tiles established by a report published by Parsons, Inc. (Munson 2000)
You can make an FOIA request to see this (just like Gary Wright did), or you can continue to pronounce your ill-informed opinions. The former of these would likely take a shorter time and require less typing. Why not give it a go?Otherwise, I guess we have to accept Gary Wright's claim of "nothing to see here folks", although I have to say, he seems a little biased/rabid, in my opinion.
-
@colwyn but the bet is for anyone.
Tell ya what, I'll make the FOIA request and report back. How about a $1000 bet (donation to my favorite charity or yours is fine) that it does not have:
The name of anyone on the University of New Hampshire who conducted a test of an efficient thermoelectric device *AND* results, in the form of a scientific report with the usual sections about materials, methods, results and conclusions, from an experimenter who is on the faculty at U of NH and did hands on testing of the TEG. To make it more interesting, I will give you two to one odds. Your $1000 against my $2000.
If someone at U of NH tested the thing and got the result Rossi and LTI claimed, then I want to contact them and ask them why the hell they didn't pursue it and win a Nobel or make millions of dollars.
I am confident that the report you cited and which I will ask for: Munson, C. L. 2000. Assessment of Efficiency Increases and Economics of Application of Thermoelectric Apparatus in Fossil Power Plants. Prepared for the United States Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. Contract No. DE-AM01-98FE65271, Task DE-AT01- 98FE65489, TD #15. Parsons. contains the same useless discussion of applications as the others and like them, takes the existence of the prototype as fact, based on what someone else (or some company or group OTHER than U of NH) said and has no credible evidence for a test of any such device at U of NH or anywhere else credible.
-
To be clear Mary, you state that there is no evidence of your theory, which prove your theory.
-
Quote
Tell ya what, I'll make the FOIA request and report back
Great, I'm interested to read it, and who knows, what you've written above might turn out to be correct.But, the CERL report says tested at (not by) the University of NH, so why would I take your bet?
Also, the report is clearly written by Munson of Parsons, not someone one at the U of NH, so why would I take your bet?
Why pretend that the U of NH is some kind of gold standard of independence and research perfection, and Parsons isn't? That's called moving the goalposts.
Either you prefer to broadcast uninformed opinions, or you prefer to research things first in order to make sound judgements. Why you feel the need to bet money is beyond me.
-
You mean Rossi somehow broke into U of NH to test his TEG? That's what the report means? Tested AT is intended to make you think "tested by". Why else bother? If Rossi or LTI said they tested at U of NH, it's no more credible than if Rossi or LTI said they tested at Timbuktu.
Rossi is fond of lying about associations with universities. He lied about testing at U of Bologna and U of Uppsala. He lied about working with National Instruments and about associations with Philips. It's all in his moronic blog. He lies about everything. NI went out of their way to issue a statement that they had never worked with Rossi in direct contradiction of Rossi. They must have felt strongly about the misrepresentation. That press released is on Sterling Alan's web site.
I asked you and Alain for an actual test of the TEG, done by reputable and credible people or organizations. I maintain it never happened. You have not provided any reason to believe Rossi. CERL got scammed. And pretty stupidly too. You might argue that Parsons was a reliable source if (and only if) they named an investigator or investigators and they gave a detailed account of what they tested, how they tested, and what results they obtained. Did they do that? Not that I've seen and apparently not that you've seen or you would have given the information.
The bet is to make the point that I am absolutely sure Rossi never had a TEG that worked. It makes things more fun if you actually have a small stake in the issue.
-
No I don't think Rossi broke into the U of NH, that's another one of your confabulations. Just like everything else in your first paragraph. How do you know all this, if you haven't read the report?
And no, I haven't seen the report we discuss, and I am well aware that you haven't either. So why do you "maintain it never happened"? How do you know this, if you haven't read the report. Yet another confabulation.
Is there a time limit before FOIAs must be answered in the US? What sort of timescale we can expect to hear back in?
-
Tested AT is intended to make you think "tested by".
I agree, although the context of how the phrase occurs and the intention of the writer are important. But when something like this is claimed and the testing turns out to simply have occurred on the premises of such and such a place, there is the possibility that the ambiguous statement was intended to mislead. Blacklight Power seem to have done this on several occasions with regard to testing carried out at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, calling them "Harvard tests." It seems the contractor carrying out the tests has never been affiliated with Harvard, so I'm inclined to think that the purpose was to lead to a mistaken association between testing of Mills's theory and Harvard.In the case of LTI, the question depends upon Munson's intentions in mentioning the University of New Hampshire.
-
There certainly is that possibility, which is why we should get a copy this report, rather than speculating on its contents.
-
please Mary, you state the extraordinary theory that US army was fooled by 2 US companies and an Italian inventor.
There is a report which says the opposite.
you have nothing.
please be scientific, admit you have nothing substantial.
all your reasoning is concluding from missing evidence, and in case it is not missing, rejecting the dissenting evidences as "inconvenient".
I know how 9/11 conspiracy fan behave, you do the same.
-
Alain don't you realize that Mary is a fanatic? Behavior is exactly as expected. The verbal intercourse is amusing even though nothing substantial is ever added to the topic of interest on this Forum.
-
Quote
No I don't think Rossi broke into the U of NH, that's another one of your confabulations. Just like everything else in your first paragraph. How do you know all this, if you haven't read the report?
The way my thinking on the TEG affair got started was that some Rossifan cited the episode as evidence for Rossi's prowess and his skills as an engineer. So I read the CERL report -- I read many pages carefully, I browsed all 150 or so boring or embarrassing pages, and I realized that NOBODY who wrote about it had ever SEEN an actual experiment with an efficient TEG from Rossi. Also, Rossi had ended up delivering junk rejects he bought from a San Diego company! So I thought like this: Rossi lied about so many things related to the ecat (need the list, again?). He lied about Petroldragon. He is a certified criminal. What if the people at DOD/CERL were actually so gullible that they believed Rossi's story when nothing he claimed had actually happened? So I looked at all the cited papers from the CERL report which I could find. No description of any experiment whatever. Only the crap about some boiler at U of NH. Only the obvious desire of Rossi to claim the device was tested by a university. So I put two and two together. Rossi never had an efficient prototype. It never existed! Nothing else makes sense!
Additional evidence is that CERL never pursued the project further, either with LTI or on their own. This despite that it would have been a discovery worth billions and untold acclaim and prestige. And contrary to Alain's claims, it wouldn't matter if Rossi could mass produce it. If he couldn't, a lot of others would be happy to try. The discovery alone would be worth billions.
Finally, CERL removed the entire report from their web site! Yes, it can obtained elsewhere but that is no fault of CERL's. It seems they wanted to hide their association with the project as much as possible. I noticed mention of robotic factories and other of the usual Rossi lies in some of the reports. I decided that this was almost certainly just another scam of Rossi's, very much like the ecat only he got caught early on and bailed out as best he could by saying, in essence, that the dog ate his homework (a fire-- the oldest scam escape in the book).
Do I "know" all this with certainty? Of course not. I could get closer to the truth if I could interview the CERL scientists, and the Parsons people including Monson. That won't happen, of course. But everything points that way and remember, if it quacks like a duck...
@Alain
The US Army was not fooled. A small, obscure branch of DOD with wishful thinking researchers was fooled. Similarly, Parsons simply took Rossi's assertions at face value. LTI wasn't fooled. They were an integral part of the scam. Either they were dishonest or negligent and ignorant beyond belief. I guess they could tell us which but they won't. So much for you belief that the Army and 2 US companies couldn't be fooled by Rossi.And while we're at it, do you really think that the US Army bought one (or 12 as Rossi claimed) of those silly contraptions made up of junk which he calls "plants"?
-
Quote
In the case of LTI, the question depends upon Munson's intentions in mentioning the University of New Hampshire.
What do you think Rossi was doing when he lied about associations with U of Bologna and Uppsula and with NI and Philips? Does that strengthen your concern that Rossi did nothing credible at U of NH?
-
The way my thinking on the TEG affair got started... ...It never existed! Nothing else makes sense!
To be honest, I follow your logic, and cannot I deny your theories might be correct. However, you/we are missing a crucial bit of information: Munson 2000.
I sincerely hope you follow through with your offer of a FOIA request, partly because I'm interested to read it myself, partly because I'm interested to know if what you say is correct.
If you are correct, I'll be the first to admit it. Note that perhaps I am keen to avoid a bet on the topic, as I feel there's a chance I might loose money.
-
Eric Walker
What do you think Rossi was doing when he lied about associations with U of Bologna and Uppsula and with NI and Philips? Does that strengthen your concern that Rossi did nothing credible at U of NH?
And while you're at it Eric, when exactly did you stop beating your wife? :blackeye:Finally, CERL removed the entire report from their web site!
Not this again... Why do you insist on repeating things that you know to be wrong. The entire CERL website closed down in 2012 and it's archive of research was uploaded to the DoD's EDRC website. You have built a whole conspiracy theory around an old link that stopped working. -
Quote
And while you're at it Eric, when exactly did you stop beating your wife?
Which part don't you believe, Colwyn? That Rossi claimed those associations or that they were not true? I can prove both. And so can you, with a bit of help from Google and the web page that shows all Rossi idiotic posts on his misnamed blog.
-
Exactly: It's a loaded question. Thanks for pointing out the underlying assumptions.
Regarding National Instruments, how does this fit in with your 'proof'?
QuoteStefano Concezzi, who serves as NI's Director of Science andBig Physics Segment, told me that NI does not comment on contracts made with customers, unless the customer requests a press release; but he could confirm that Andrea Rossi is a customer.
http://pesn.com/2011/11/10/960…gns_to_do_E-Cat_controls/
Also, the word 'Philips' does not appear once in the Rossi Blog Reader archive. This is another example of your confabulation. Where do you get these ideas from?
