QuotePerhaps I didn't make it clear that I'm not proposing "shielding". I'm proposing something analogous to internal conversion and Auger emission. In neither of these processes is a photon ever emitted; instead it's short-circuited entirely.
Eric, if you put anything in the path of a gamma ray and the ray is stopped this is by definition shielding.
Eric, if you put anything in the path of a gamma ray and the ray is stopped this is by definition shielding.
You clearly don't understand internal conversion or Auger emission. You should read those articles I linked to; they discuss a very interesting phenomenon. In both cases there is no photon, ever, at all.
QuoteWell then you can not say that Rossi is committing fraud. He is just practicing standard vaporware corporate behavior. No one looks down on Bill Gates for doing this, then why should Rossi?
Yes, I agree axil, Rossi's E-Cats are vaporware. Just look at the measly little moist water vapor puffs they produce.
The fraud is that Rossi tells principals at [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] and Woodford who invest in him that the ecats work when he knows full well, exactly how he cheats on the measurements, and he knows exactly why he has NEVER allowed a proper calibration. That's fraud for sure. Rossi's wares aren't vapor. They're pretend. You know. Like Defkalion's. Some of us call it Rossifiction.
We are entering new territory.
To progress with discovery, I believe we must I think, understand the nature of very subtle anomalies, address methods of recording and measuring data in the context of the history of knowledge. This informs us that we must be capable of thinking 'outside the box'. EW, I have checked a 'like' for a number of your posts and the reason is this. You provide a most compelling and reasoned articulation of your understanding whilst avoiding any form of personal attack; psychological warfare is conspicuous in your posts by its absence.
So if I were an investor, looking to individuals to guide me to understanding the nature of the LENR and related phenomena, I would look to people like you, and there are many, who do not appear to see this as a war.
In making my decision to invest, I would read but consider most of what others like TC, HG, TYY, say as being driven, not by a desire for discovery, but as a desire chiefly, to discredit those brave enough to step outside the box in their quest for discovery in a format, in my mind at least, that lends itself to be associated with Huw Price's 'reputation trap.
You may say that I stand to loose my investment, that is for me to know and you to guess!
The fraud is that Rossi tells principals at [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] and Woodford who invest in him that the ecats work when he knows full well, exactly how he cheats on the measurements, and he knows exactly why he has NEVER allowed a proper calibration. That's fraud for sure. Rossi's wares aren't vapor. They're pretend. You know. Like Defkalion's. Some of us call it Rossifiction.
Figure out how you can get some money to Rossi so that you can accuse him LEGALLY of fraud. If you don't do this. then you have no legal standing. Mary, if you want to destroy Rossi, you must have a plan.
America is not Italy where you can bribe a judge as the mafia sometimes does to get competition out of their hear. In America, you need evidence, lawyers, and lots of money. You are trying to do this thing on the cheap just by slander. This isn't politics, this is business. You got to play the big boy games in America.
QuoteI did not say I am confident about industrial scale LENR, i said I am "totally confident that Rossi believes LENR is real and achievable at Industrial scale. "Based on his behaviour he is a believer, Meaning he has either real LENR or living an illusion.
Apologies if I replied wrongly to this - I can't find the reply above.
The point of what I've said so far - which you do not refute - is that Rossi can have his believer attitude while knowing that his devices do not always work and (we know) the times when they do work are experimental errors. Rossi has so many of these that he could be forgiven for thinking his stuff works.
Also above, which you do not refute, is that Rossi's current luke warmedness over the test could be because indeed this is not saving the customer money. But see below for a connected assumption you have made which I do not.
Quote"It is unlikely that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] has anyone technical looking over Rossi's shoulder. He is CTO. Darden has said he provides funding at arms length. VCs invest in people and do not normally do technological research themselves!"
It's really easy. The customer knows how much electricity Rossi is using. And the customer knows the flowrate and temperature of the recieved water/ heating medium.From that most (chemical) engineers can calculate COP. Therefore the customer and [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] knows as much about achieved COP as Rossi does.
Its wrong. You are assuming the customer has his own metering on flow rate and temperature in/out of water from Rossi's plant? Really? That would cost money. And ne unnecessary. If Rossi does as billed the saving are apparent from lower electricity bills....
Ah but wait. Electricity bills will depend on outside air temp, water in temp, etc. These are variable throughout the year and vary from year to year. So you see Rossi might gain the credit for global warming, or feel depressed when the winter was cold.
Such vagueness matches well with Rossi's "don't know" comments.
QuoteVC have technical experts that will / can follow up and evaluate the investments done.
Would you care to justify that statement? I've never heard of VCs having technical experts except for talking to some tech guy initially when doing DD. Sure, they will evaluate the business prospects of their investments. But do a tech evaluation? I don't think so. And what would be the point? All they care is what should their exit strategy be, which relates to business prospects.
The point of what I've said so far - which you do not refute
Lack of refutation of something that has been said should not be taken to mean anything. There are lots of people on the Internet who say different things. There are many people who say various things here. If one had to refute everything wrong or uninformed that is said on this forum or on the Internet, there would be no time to do anything else. (Here my point is a general one and is not intended to imply anything about your point, above.)
But people have come to think that denial or doubt is the mark of intelligence, when in fact true scepticism is much nearer being a mark of ignorance. True scepticism means that we do not know, not that such a thing is not true. To know that a thing is not true is knowledge, not doubt, and hence is subject to bias. It is all the worse when it parades itself as a trustworthy student of truth and in fact is only trying to deny it.
See Alain's post -Distinguishing-non-belief-and-disbelief-on-scepticism.
Thomas,
If we believe there is a plant and a customer, there must be a contract. If there is a contract it would contain something to be delivered and bought from both sides.
The delivery from customer will be a site for the container, electrical connections, electrical power and more utilities, since the container is placed at the customer site.
The contract must contain quantities, like specifying how much el power Rossi will be using, and are using, i.e. Measurement of delivery from customer to Rossi.
Further the contract must state how much heat power is to be delivered to customer, and specify the minimum average regularity + more. To know that the contract is fullfilled both the customer and Rossi would be measuring the temperature, pressure and flowrate of the heating medium (and el. Consumption)
Actually, Rossi stated in his blog that these measurements to and from Rossi's plant is performed by a third party, Obviously to avoid disagreement wrt If the contract is fullfilled.
So you see, the customer would have all data to calculate actual daily COP from day one. And therefore also [lexicon]IH[/lexicon].
That is, If we believe Rossi have a plant, and not sitting in a sunny condo somewhere, with his blog 
@frankwtu
Well, before investing, you might seek the advice and counsel of a qualified and SKEPTICAL scientist or at least a non-gullible one who could tell you if your proposed investment passes the smell test. Defkalion and Rossi, Steorn and BLP don't come close. Brillouin is as yet indeterminate. Just examples. Looks like [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] and Woodford, to paraphrase the Indian Jones movie, did not choose well.
@'Thomas Clarke
Think, man! How insane or stupid would someone have to be to have a real, working,table top, high power (kilowatts) cold fusion reactor and then to squat in some silly container, Lord knows where, to test it for a year. It's so stupid, it defies credibility except to the most gullible of individuals. Surely you're not one of those! And then to test by metering whether or not some supposed customer saves money? Give me a break! This would NEVER happen in the real world. It only happens in the minds of believers and the world of Rossifiction. And in the brains of people who know nothing of science and technology, measurement science, the history of inventions and developments, and the scientific method.
My understanding is same as Oystein; the customer is in control of input and output and I think it is plausible that the parties that risk money and reputation which is Darden and Woodford is in control of the customer and a third party watcher. This is why Rossi says F9, it can be a positive or negative outcome of this test.
Still, as an outsider, I miss first hand knowledge of the situation , is it possible that Rossi is merely running a blog without doing any real work? Even MY think he sits in that container.
Mats002;
I think it is unthinkable that Professionals like [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] would put serious money into Rossi's Company, without there being a 1MW plant, a customer and a qualification test period, which Rossi now have been reporting about the last year+.
so yes, there must be container, with Rossi inside doing some real work. But will it be a final success ?
Hmm ... Sounds real to me.
QuoteIf we believe there is a plant and a customer, there must be a contract. If there is a contract it would contain something to be delivered and bought from both sides.The delivery from customer will be a site for the container, electrical connections, electrical power and more utilities, since the container is placed at the customer site.
Sure (well, not all such arrangements are contractual, butit would be normal, and let's suppose it is).
QuoteThe contract must contain quantities, like specifying how much el power Rossi will be using, and are using, i.e. Measurement of delivery from customer to Rossi.Further the contract must state how much heat power is to be delivered to customer, and specify the minimum average regularity + more.
Oystla - it amazes me the extent to which you have inner knowledge of Rossi's dealings? And how certain you are? It is not justified.
None of this is needed:
Example 1: This is a proof of principle plant. Rossi says he does not know what will be his COP (as he has always implied) and hence what will be the power delivered. Rossi tells the customer that he can't take power away, and that success or failure will be determined by whether the customer's total electricity bill (from the e-cat + the plant) goes down. The customer agrees to let Rossi conduct his test in return for possible (uncertain) power savings.
This is the simplest contract, very possible, and IMHO the most likely, though many others could be imagined and unlike Oystla above I'm certainly not claiming it "has to be" like this.
QuoteTo know that the contract is fullfilled both the customer and Rossi would be measuring the temperature, pressure and flowrate of the heating medium (and el. Consumption)
No, see above.
QuoteActually, Rossi stated in his blog that these measurements to and from Rossi's plant is performed by a third party, Obviously to avoid disagreement wrt If the contract is fullfilled.So you see, the customer would have all data to calculate actual daily COP from day one.
No - Rossi said there was a third party arbitrator, with the figures, but not on what those figures were.
You could of course be right, I'm making the point that there is no necessity or even strong likelihood that you are. Your certainty is 100% wrong.
Quote[And therefore also [lexicon]IH[/lexicon].That is, If we believe Rossi have a plant, and not sitting in a sunny condo somewhere, with his blog
Personally, I've always believed Rossi has a plant. It is good PR, and Rossi milks it for all it is worth. It would not be difficult for him to do. But we have no information about its arrangements, and all the previous Rossi tests we know about have been spoofable.
You claim that the involvement of a customer means this one cannot be spoofed. If calculations come as you indicate from measurement of output then it could easily be spoofed. We have no reason to think the third party arbitrator any better at detecting this than the Lugano testers?
I'm arguing that a simpler test, that satisfied all parties, would have no measurement, merely a comparison of electricity bills. That BTW would also justify the one year length. And it would make determining success or failure, not spoofable, but unclear.
So:
I think bills/meter only would make sense of: Rossi's variability, the year long nature of the test. But in neither case does this test, in spite of its apparent PR value, mean anything.
My guess: it is not spoofed, electricity bills will be compared, results will be announced as not sufficient to enable rollout with no details, ECW believers will interpret that to mean there were reliability issues etc, Rossi would will be as gnomic.
There will, I guess, be no effect on funding. As I've pointed out, once you have bought equity you can't go back on the deal. Sure, a careful contract could have clawbacks, conditions met after one year to finalise the deal, etc. But more usual is you do the DD before putting up money, and then let the bet roll. It is pretty clear that Woodford were badly advised because they seem to have accepted the Lugano results as real in their DD. Probably they were advised by the testers, or some other LENR advocate.
Or - the test could be something completely different that neither of us has considered. I'm not claiming my guesses are correct, merely plausible. I'm only holding out for your certainty being unwarranted, and therefore the conclusions you draw being unsound.
Quoteso yes, there must be container, with Rossi inside doing some real work. But will it be a final success ?
The logical jumps in this one sentence say it all - but you need to unpack them as above!
QuoteThink, man! How insane or would someone have to be to have a real, working,table top, high power (kilowatts) cold fusion reactor and then to squat in some silly container, Lord knows where, to test it for a year. It's so stupid, it defies credibility except to the most gullible of individuals. Surely you're not one of those! And then to test by metering whether or not some supposed customer saves money? Give me a break! This would NEVER happen in the real world. It only happens in the minds of believers and the world of Rossifiction. And in the brains of people who know nothing of science and technology, measurement science, the history of inventions and developments, and the scientific method.
MY - I think you are in this one passage jumping to conclusions - something that Oystla here is also doing.
I've never said Rossi has a working CF reactor. Nor implied that. Nor claimed it was even remotely likely. My view is that it is highly unlikely.
However - I'd not, unlike many here, use your argument as more than a very strong indicator on the matter. This meta-evidence is very strong as such goes. Still, meta-evidence based on what you guess people would do is weak.
And most of their sheeplike investors will agree.
It's so stupid
My guess
I guess
Need I say more!!
Thomas,
Rossi have said numerous times that one of the contractual agreeements have been to deliver 1 MW heating medium to customer.
to ensure that this contractual agreement is fullfilled there is no way around than measure temperature, pressure and flowrate and do a calculation. In addition he has indicated there are an undisclosed regularity requirement.
The easiest would be to set up an automatic logging system.
a contract would be meaningless If everything is just handled by Rossi and the customer just where to trust his figures.
And Rossi has indicated that the Customer will continue buy the heat If the contract is fullfilled.
Oystla. Your first (perhaps unconsidered) reply is unfortunate. You ridicule me for uncertainty? When shown precisely why your own certainty is unjustified?
Your whole argument requires certainty in every step.
My argument requires nothing except a certain humility.
Your second post deserves a proper response.
QuoteRossi have said numerous times that one of the contractual agreements have been to deliver 1 MW heating medium to customer.
That can mean anything. We don't know the details. Would supplying 500kW average be a success? Is the 1MW heating the plant output, in which case it will indeed be supplied, the only question is how much electricity is used to do this?
Although in this case Rossi has said nothing substantive, I think you are unwise to be certain everything he says is correct. His statements often confuse past and future (you yourself have argued this over the robotic factory).
Quoteto ensure that this contractual agreement is fullfilled there is no way around than measure temperature, pressure and flowrate and do a calculation.
You seem to be confusing fact and speculation. You speculate that Rossi has such a (spoofable) contract, rather than the simpler, non-spoofable one I suggest. Were I [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] I'd rather the non-spoofable version. In fact, you seem to be arguing that the test is weaker than I guess it is. (Yes, that is a guess, I don't claim to know what the contract is).
QuoteIn addition he has indicated there are an undisclosed regularity requirement.The easiest would be to set up an automatic logging system.a contract would be meaningless If everything is just handled by Rossi and the customer just where to trust his figures.And Rossi has indicated that the Customer will continue buy the heat If the contract is fullfilled.
Let us unpick this. "Rossi has indicated an undisclosed requirement". Meaningless.
"a contract meaningless if just handled by Rossi and the customer". Why? Since the contract is between Rossi and the customer? You just can't know.
"Rossi has indicated customer will buy heat if contract is fulfilled"? I think that is very likely, but in the context of our discussion it means nothing, since we do not know what the contract states. And, even though I guess it is correct, Rossi saying this does not ensure it is correct, he uses vague language and anyway is known unreliable about such things (robotic plant).
