Rossi: We received ERV’s Report - Very pleased with results!

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I'm pointing out that by changing reactors Rossi is running true to form and introducing a new 3X positive error into the measurements that his 6 Profs did not detect.

Rossi did not introduce a 3X positive error. The Professors did. The Professors were not taught IR thermometry by Rossi. The error they made is entirely their own. Rossi could have brought them an entirely liquid reactor, or one encased in a cubic meter of cement for all it matters. The job of the Professors was to test a device. They could do anything but open it. They could have tested some alumina with thermocouples embedded in it. They had a thermocouple with them. They had emissivity stickers. They had the Internet, the IR camera manufacturer, and the libraries of Italy and Switzerland and Sweden to look things up in. They had 6 months to think about it after the test before rushing the report out "because it is so important".

Rossi on a comment regarding emissivity:

"............... I prefer not to participate to this discussion, because the measurements of the Lugano Test have been designed and made by the Independent Third Party. I was away for most of the time and I never participated to the measurements. I did not participate at all to the work of analysis, evaluations, discussions about the measurements that the Professors of the ITP made after the test in Lugano and before the publication. As a consequence of these facts, I do not think it is proper for me to participate to this discussion."

-JoNP March 6, 2015

Quote from Shane D.

we don't know what that switch did although Eric has his idea

I don't recall this discussion. You probably have another Eric in mind. Can you elaborate?

Quote from paradigmnoia

Rossi did not introduce a 3X positive error. The Professors did. The Professors were not taught IR thermometry by Rossi. The error they made is entirely their own. Rossi could have brought them an entirely liquid reactor, or one encased in a cubic meter of cement for all it matters. The job of the Professors was to test a device. They could do anything but open it. They could have tested some alumina with thermocouples embedded in it. They had a thermocouple with them. They had emissivity stickers. They had the Internet, the IR camera manufacturer, and the libraries of Italy and Switzerland and Sweden to look things up in. They had 6 months to think about it after the test before rushing the report out "because it is so important".

So, by your reading, Rossi would be both phenomenally unlucky (he gives the profs a setup which does not work when others do) and phenomenally lucky (they just happen to mis-measure it and think it works!).

Does them seem likely to you?

My reading was given above, and you have not replied to it yet.

Quote from Rossi quoted by Pardigmnoia

I prefer not to participate to this discussion, because the measurements of the Lugano Test have been designed and made by the Independent Third Party. I was away for most of the time and I never participated to the measurements. I did not participate at all to the work of analysis, evaluations, discussions about the measurements that the Professors of the ITP made after the test in Lugano and before the publication.

Rossi is very good at this. At the time he made this comment he probably knew the profs had made a mistake. This stance is perfect from his POV. He has no liability for this mistake - on which lots of money rests.

What he omits is that he was present during the test for about 1 weeks, at start and end. He must have seen the reactor. He therefore would know from color what temperature it was at (750C) and surely would point out this was below operating temperature had that been an issue. He does not say how much he discussed the experiment and its conduct while it was happening, but it would be very strange if he did not.

What he also omits is how he determined the temperature of this setup - which presumably he must have done because you don't give for third party testing some completely new untested setup. Or do you?

Quote from Shane

There really is no proof that Rossi somehow influenced the Lugano professors in how they conducted their testing. None.

No, but there is circumstantial evidence. He knew they were using thermography and gave them a different (X3 error producing) surface to use. The Profs were expecting to get the same reactor that had worked so well last time.

Quote

They alone decided on thermography, neglect the "on/off switch" (we don't know what that switch did although Eric has his idea), and run the calibration test at a much lower temp than the live run. By all appearances, Rossi gave them the Hotcat, and the rest was up to them. His role after that was very, very limited, and understandable in the context of the complexity of starting the reaction, and fuel ash retraction. He (Rossi) was well monitored according to the report, and in particular as reported on in a following interview.

Rossi was with them for a total of about 7 days during the test, mostly at start and end. It would be surprising if they did not have discussions about the measurement method, since that would depend on the exact device the profs were given. I'm sure the Profs made all the decisions. But influence? That is another matter.

I sort of agree that Rossi seems very lucky in that the people who do these independent tests for him seem spontaneously to make errors that change COP from 1X to 3X as claimed by Rossi.

Why do you think that is?

@Thomas Clarke
How is the test to be considered to be independent at all, if Rossi was guiding it all the way?

The Professors were given the simplest E-Cat of all the other versions, perhaps with the complication of three phase. The professors probably even could have wired the thing in series to make it a single phase. The thermal mass was very low compared to earlier versions, so they probably could have eliminated that as the cause of SSM if they had run it that way. They had the choice of using SSM, which in theory would have made way more power, but they chose not to, for simplicity. For all the simplicity they gained, they tossed the savings out the window by simplifying total hemispherical emissivity for normal emissivity.
Rossi is not lucky when the Professors screw up the test. Obviously this has made a headache for all involved.
Of course Rossi would know how hot it should have been at X power in. The device was not likely a one-off, even if it was probably new to the Professors. Rossi did give the Professors a hint. He told them it could use more power than they were giving it.

@H-G Branzell
Even at a lowly 779C, the Lugano device can surely boil water for tea.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

How is the test to be considered to be independent at all, if Rossi was guiding it all the way?

Good question which only Rossi can answer. Shall we consider it non-independent? My argument stands...

Quote

Rossi is not lucky when the Professors screw up the test. Obviously this has made a headache for all involved.

Not however for Rossi, since the positive report has been quoted by him in patent applications and seems likely to have been instrumental in getting him new funding.

Whereas this independent test correctly calculated would have shown no excess heat and be a much greater headache for Rossi.

Quote

Of course Rossi would know how hot it should have been at X power in. The device was not likely a one-off, even if it was probably new to the Professors. Rossi did give the Professors a hint. He told them it could use more power than they were giving it.

OK, so you are going for: Rossi knew the test was giving wrong temperatures, but did not disclose this information to the independent testers, further he used this (known by him bogus) information in his subsequent patent applications. Rossi has referred to the positive test result many times as validation that his device works. True, he has always been careful to say that this is the opinion of the testers. You however think that he has known all along this independent test does not in fact show that his device works?

That is lying by omission, don't you think? And why on earth would he not disclose to the testers that they had got their temperatures all wrong, if he knew it? Are you saying he wanted a spurious positive test?

From my POV things are much simpler. This test is in line with Rossi's other demonstrations and has a similarly spurious positive result. That is not surprising.

@Thomas Clarke
How is it that a maverick with a philosophy degree knows how to test for heat better than 7 distinguished Professors? Clearly one should defer to the lettered experts.

Perhaps Rossi is the expert, then we should defer to his pronouncements about his products, and
ignore the words of lettered persons who think they know better how it works.