Does Peter Gluck know the test results?

  • 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]

    • Official Post

    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.



    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! :)

  • 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?

    • Official Post

    A COP of 21 would bring us near to a scenario like that (found on Twitter)


    The energy of a giant super-oil-tanker inside a single oil-barrel for cost that are not worth taking about!


    If it is true we will have flatrate energy (like flatrate telecommunication today) and the only way to earn money in this sector in the future will be to produce, or licence the necessary technology and offer service.



  • 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,

  • "Sorry, did we have steam?"
    will probably be a frequently asked question the next few weeks.


    As it has been during the never ending story of the E-Cats. Here is a small replay of just one example. Not to get bored, start at 3 minutes:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    And here is a remake of a video trying to prove that Mats said what he said. The sound has been replaced with the original sound but with the critical words repeated four times for clarity:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • 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...

    • Official Post

    As far as I've understood it is just Peter's guessing.


    one good point is that it raise many questions , even if result is hypothetical, that the real report should answer.


    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...).


    the smile of the client will be however what will seduce Fortune readers.

  • 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...

    • Official Post

    As far as I've understood it is just Peter's guessing.



    After reading all of his post on EGOOUT, and his reply here, I don't get the same impression. Nonetheless, it is a minor issue not worth haggling over. If he is guessing as you think, his appeal to those in custody of the supposed "Executive Summary", or whomever has access to any information about the results, to step forward and reveal what they have, is a good one and still stands.


    We have been teased enough, and this thing has dragged on long enough. Time to get it out, and get on. I can see how Mats Lewan...who quickly reported the results, as told to him from his "multiple sources", were positive, would need to maintain his journalistic integrity by protecting his sources. But there must be many others with no such conflict, who are not so bound, and I can only ask them...why? What is the point?


    Frustrating. Maybe Peter can shed a little more light on this today on his blog?

  • 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.

    • Official Post

    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.



    Tom,


    The 6 Oct 2011 demo, and the Ferrara (TPR1) test are down to one hydra head each left to lop off. 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.


    Now whether that book will be about the "Impossible Invention"...plug for Lewan :) , and how it changed history, or about how one of the more complex product marketing scams was accomplished by this one skinny little Italian guy...we should find out soon, for sure.


    Now that's it for me and those hydra heads...hard to work into a post! ;)

  • 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".

  • 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.

    • Official Post

    Peter Gluck
    March 14, 2016 at 11:14 AM
    Dear Andrea,


    Please think about the possibility to help the LENR World to celebrate the 27th anniversary of the field (March 23) with a decisive victory. You could do this by publication
    of the Executive Summary of the ERV Report or even better the balance energy bought vs energy sold made by the accountant of the Customer during the 350 days of the experiment as I have asked on my blog yesterday.
    Wishing you a long triumphal technology march,


    Peter


    Andrea Rossi
    March 14, 2016 at 12:44 PM
    Peter Gluck:
    Thank you for your kind suggestion, I will see what I can do with the agreement of all the involved parties.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.


    This has been a strange post-test period. Not what I had envisioned, were the results "positive" as I do believe. From Rossi's nonchalant comment that the test was over *yesterday*, Peters revelation of an executive summary floating around among a privileged few -supposedly noting a high COP, to [lexicon]IH[/lexicon]'s vague statement warning of premature disclosure, and false prophets ...yes indeed, this has been strange to say the least!


    Rossi seems almost detached from the results now, which is odd considering he was married to his 1MW container for 12 months. During which he admitted to losing a great deal of weight due the "stress" of the ordeal. Now, he seems bored about it, as he is on to bigger and better things. He has a new bride now...his "Quark". :)


    With IHs vague statement, Peter's growing despair at those sitting on this report, apparently vetoing any attempts to release, I really don't know what to make of all this?