Does Peter Gluck know the test results?

Not bad for the first industrial installation.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

One thing I have learnt from the Lugano "independent test" is that "independent" is a flexible word when applied to Rossi's tests, and also that apparent results, when looked at carefully, can turn out to lie.

That is a rational statement, backed by clear evidence. Making the same points about the current mysterious test is at least a rational initial guess, till more infomation is available.

Dividing commenters into "friends" and "enemies" is I think unhelpful, and can easily lead to a loss of objectivity.

Your quotient of objectivity is suspect.

Scientists seek concepts and principles, not subjective perspectives. Thus, we cling to a myth of objectivity: that direct, objective knowledge of the world is obtainable, that our preconceived notions or expectations do not bias this knowledge, and that this knowledge is based on objective weighing of all relevant data on the balance of critical scientific evaluation. In referring to objectivity as a myth, I am not implying that objectivity is a fallacy or an illusion. Rather, like all myths, objectivity is an ideal -- an intrinsically worthwhile quest.

“One aim of the physical sciences has been to give an exact picture of the material world. One achievement of physics in the twentieth century has been to prove that that aim is unattainable.

“There is no absolute knowledge… All information is imperfect. We have to treat it with humility.” [Bronowski, 1973]

they are not rational if you can bet your bottom dollar it works and they dont realize its real value. i'm waiting to see the independent test results.

I am a bit confused (more than usual, alas).
If the "plant" had an inefficient heat source to begin with; would not any result that improves on the old plant show significant improvement?

If my old car got 10 miles to the litre and the new one gets 20, this is an improvement for sure. But, if we do not know what our apple looks like how can we know how much orange juice will be produced? I know I am missing something here, but do we know what the criteria is here at all? Was there a document that makes this clear somewhere?

Pressed to get around the Rossi patents, it won't be long before there will be technology developed that will produce LENR formated hydrogen using high pressure chemistry. That process will not require nickel and lithium to be involved in the metalized hydrogen manufacturing process. One can only begin to imagine how much power that metalized hydrogen would produce through the use of just a single barrel of liquid pure high potency LENR active hydrogen,

where do rossis figures come from?

Branzell,

we do not know If the 1MW plant delivered pressurised hot liquid water or steam to customer. Rossi have not revealed that data yet.

anyhow, knowing the mass flowrate, temperature and pressure, you would know the phase and energy flow content of the water.

and Rossi needs to think T-ford If he wants to compete against Cheap heating oil for Industrial heating....

Quote

Tom,Sorry, but I am taking you off my New Years party invite list. You'd probably spoil the fun explaining to my guests what could go wrong the upcoming year. Such a party pooper!

Well - I guess I might, had I had a really bad previous 5 years...

Peter Gluck says: "the enmies still willo tell that it was not a truly independent test they are not rational people."

Will by any chance the enemies say that because this "independent" test has Rossi's fingerprints all over it, like Lugano? It's deja-vu all over again...

Quote

One big problem of LENR tests is that they are not iterative, and skeptic add every time new critics, some justified, some that revert their previous demand (like asking for steam, then no steam but liquid, then no pipe thus IR cam, then simple, then complex...).

Alain, this statement is misleading, and shows I believe that you do not understand the issues around experimental error. Would you like to be specific, quote any criticism of any one Rossi test that is unjustified? (EDIT - I apologise - reading what you've written perhaps you are agreeing that for this reason LENR experiments are always unsafe - in which case you do understand these issues.)

Let me remind you that hydra have multiple heads. Steam in a pipe (which is not known to be dry) does not do accurate phase change calorimetry (in fact it is grossly inaccurate). One head. It applies to the classic Rossi experiment which was videoed.

However another classic Rossi experiment, with the misplaced thermocouple head, does not have the steam head.

The key to Rossi's success in achieving consistent apparent > 1 COP is that all his experiments have at least one hydra head. It only takes one. Some, of course, may have had more than one.

It is not difficult to make an experiment with no hydra heads when the COP measured is relatively high, as Rossi claims. In fact small changes to several of Rossi's experiments would do this. It is just that whenever he has cut off one head (e.g. steam) he has (perhaps inadvertently, though he has done this with great consistency so I'd rather say it was experiment selection) introduced a new one.

Where I'd agree with you is that iterative experimentation in which any deficiencies in one experiment are dealt with - easier than working out completely new experiments, would if applied allow Rossi's stuff to be tested safely. It has never happened.

Quote

The function of the 98kg of mass in the one (shielding or heat storage) , and rigged wiring (cheese video) on the other. Won't know about those heads until the book comes out.

wrt the october test 98kg cannot help but store heat, so any claimed heat after death is unsafe. full stop.

wrt Ferrara, there are many potential issues about the input power measurement, as well as the obvious one. Since we have no detail on this we cannot ever know.

Not sure whose book, or why that would settle any of these things? Unless you are considering Rossi deathbed confessions which would seem both highly unlikely and unfortunate. Can't see how Mats can do more than report "Rossisays".

Quote from Rigel

I know I am missing something here, but do we know what the criteria is here at all? Was there a document that makes this clear somewhere?

I don't think you're missing anything. We don't have much in the way of information. We don't even know where Peter's numbers come from, exactly, or what they mean (e.g., the units). It's premature at this point to speculate.

Assuming the executive summary or the full report are released to the public, we'll have something to work with and examine more closely. It's possible that neither of these things will be made public.