Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

@barty

I don't understand your comment at all. I hope you won't think I'm insulting you when I point out that parts of it are contrary to the facts.

(1) I was replying to Sifferkoll who was upset and clearly did NOT understand my position - see his points 1-6 and my replies 1-6.

(2) Please note Sifferkoll's language to me and my language, and if you still think I am "verging on insult" in some manner that others here do not do more of please tell me where I do this.

(3) If you want me to stop posting here for a while because others do not like to consider the points I raise - which I can well understand - just say that without insulting me (it is an insult to tell me that I am insulting others when that is not my intention nor action, and also it is an insult to say I'm repeating myself for no reason when I was specifically answering Sifferkoll who - unusually perhaps - does not seem to realise my position and therefore is insulting me). We could view it as a temporary ban in order to keep the morale of believers up.

I do find these new revelations fascinating and don't think we have nearly got to the bottom even of what is already in the public domain - so I would naturally continue to post.

Best wishes, Tom

Quote

I also dont understand what Thomas Clarke intention is. There is absolutely no doubt about LENR for long time, there are many scientists around the world that can show you clear results. It is unbelieavable that you are blind for such things.Do you really believe that somebody is filling WW patents just for fun?

I hope I will not incur moderator wrath by replying to your direct question.

We must disagree about LENR. I'm sure you realise that there are even more scientists around the world who are not convinced by the same evidence you view as clear results, so its not just me.

No - I don't believe patents are filed for fun. But that in no way validates their content. In general terms you will find patent applications filed and submitted for the most useless inventions under the sun. And both Rossi and [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] need to claim patent protection in order to encourage investment. It is the first thing any investor would ask. More specifically:

(1) [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] I expect believed that Rossi really had it when the entered into that agreement. The only other option is that they has some near-fraudulent ulterior motive and I don't assume fraud when there is an easier explanation. Therefore of course they would with all haste get whatever patent protection they can.

(2) [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] are like you believers in LENR. Therefore even if they reckoned Rossi's mouth-watering claims were not real, they might still think given their long-term aims that patents do no harm and might just have value in the end. Rossi's stiuff is close to Piantelli's, etc.

(3) [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] are entitled to change their views, and it is pretty clear that in this case they have.

@barty

Quote

But the continuously repeating that you are sure that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] is either a fraud too or just recognized that they were defrauded by Rossi

I think you are quite badly misrepresenting my position and I'd like you for the record to take it back, or point out what I have posted that implies what you've said. I've never said I thought [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] was a fraud. In fact I've said I consider that unlikely.

LENR experiments are contentious - different scientists will give you different views as to which constitute proof. Rossi's experiments are more of the same writ large. While you might think it was easy to prove a device generated 5kW of power over a 2 month period the Lugano test tells us that is not so. No-one is accusing the Lugano Profs of deceit, and Rossi's science education is far less relevant than theirs - saying quite a lot. So why do you conclude from my position that Rossi is defrauding [lexicon]IH[/lexicon]? Fraud implies intent to deceive for purposes of gaining money.

He is obviously upset, and he is accusing [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] of fraudulent behaviour. But that does not mean that either he or [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have actually been fraudulent.

Remember - for me because I was fully aware that Rossi's test results were flakey, the [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] split is a fascinating drama but no new information about Rossi's devices.

Quote

I do not know why you keep bringing up Lugano here. It's not mentioned in the agreement or in the complaint. But I guess it is because you're biased on that particular test?

I am a bit fixated on it, yes!

More specifically it is the one test where we can be certain why and how the false results were calculated. Thus it is provably false. The others are all just have obvious error mechanisms - though in many cases the circumstantial evidence for a specific error is strong.

Quote

The COP is > 50 according to the complaint. Nothing else. Stop lying! If you didnt know 50>6 ... You're blatantly making this stuff up

You have I'm afraid again misread what I said. I know the complaint says average COP > 50. I find that strange when the ERV says COP is in the range 6-50. But I'm not making a big deal of this, just noting it. Of course as far as the license goes it makes no difference, and as far as validation goes it also makes no difference.

Quote

Cop >50 i really easy to check. You need only to think about it in sauna terms. The Defkalion and Lugano examples are worthless as you probably know, but I guess your caught in denial of sorts.

I don't understand this. I agree COP > 50 is trivial to check given the right setup (say, a Sauna room). It is also easy to get wrong if you measure it as is mandated in the license agreement and then have one of the 3 error mechanisms I propose. Two of them have previously been very strongly indicated in Rossi's tests.

Defkalion and Lugano show how quite subtle errors in instrumentation can lead to false results. Lugano is irrelevant here except as a known example of how 6 profs can get wrong the measurement of a device that would be considered by most people completely impossible to mistake. So why suppose Pennon is any better? Defkalion is relevant because it shows that without care flow meters cannot be trusted.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

We must disagree about LENR. I'm sure you realise that there are even more scientists around the world who are not convinced by the same evidence you view as clear results, so its not just me.

You sound like a holy priest! - looking for lost sheeps.

Why are You defending the right thinking Physician which mostly live on our tax money which, by example, is thrown away for silly (but technically interesting) research in hot Deuterium/tritium fusion?

Thomas as long as You did not read at least trough the latest jccf 13-15 proceeding ( as I urged You since weeks) You should stop talking about LENR not beeing a real phenomena.

They proceeding can be found here: http://jcfrs.org/proc_jcf.html

Quote from Sifferkoll

Why are You defending the right thinking Physician which mostly live on our tax money which, by example, is thrown away for silly (but technically interesting) research in hot Deuterium/tritium fusion?

I don't think the hot fusion money is thrown away - it gives us lots of useful plasma research - though I agree the prospects for commercial hot fusion look pretty slim and it would be easy to argue that the money on it should be spent on other stuff. The trouble is that hot fusion is sort of achievable, just very expensive and unclear it will be ever technologically feasible at a commercial cost.

Quote

Thomas as long as You did not read at least trough the latest jccf 13-15 proceeding ( as I urged You since weeks) You should stop talking about LENR not beeing a real phenomena.

OK. To be precise the many observations documented in ICCF 13-15 are real, but anyone following LENR should know that apparent marginal positive results do not mean anything unless they remain when you tighten up protocols and instrumentation. I've recently explained elsewhere how the He/excess heat results - as collated by Storms 2010 - and thought by many including I believe Abd to be the most convincing results to date - are in fact not at all convincing.

So LENR as documented in iccf is clearly a phenomena - but whether it is down to nuclear reactions, or some interesting chemical anomalies about H+ entahlpies in metal lattices + a whole load of loose experimental practice is another matter. When you look at the totality of evidence there is no coherence. When you look at individual evidence none of it stands up.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

So LENR as documented in iccf is clearly a phenomena - but whether it is down to nuclear reactions, or some interesting chemical anomalies about H+ entahlpies in metal lattices + a whole load of loose experimental practice is another matter. When you look at the totality of evidence there is no coherence.

JCF14-1. Study on Anomalous Heat Evolution from H-Ni Nanoparticle System at Elevated Temperature with Mass-Flow Calorimetry
A. Kitamura, A. Takahashi, R. Seto, Y. Fujita, A. Taniike and Y. Furuyama

JCF15-3. Analysis of heat generation by adiabatic calorimeter and matrix calculation for the reaction of fine metal in deuterium gas T. Mizuno, H. Yoshino

They describe in about 80% of their papers how they calibrate their experiments.
This would be a place where Your expertise could show up!

Quote

They describe in about 80% of their papers how they calibrate their experiments.This would be a place where Your expertise could show up!

OK - I can look at two papers - given a few days. But you make it sound as though these papers maybe are not the 80% where they describe calibration. It would take longer in that case. Remember Mizuno is on record as having a trivial calorimetry mistake ---

On second thoughts. Perhaps you will accept this report from Jed Rothwell which explains why the Mizuno '13 results are wrong:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf

So just one for me to look at!

Quote from Thomas Clarke

On second thoughts. Perhaps you will accept this report from Jed Rothwell which explains why the Mizuno '13 results are wrong:

Jed Rothwell wrote:

There is no likelihood of an instrument error. Only an error in the methodology can disprove
these results. Absent the discovery of such an error, I am confident that this system is producing
massive amounts of anomalous heat for very long periods, such as 8 hours a day for months from
a 1-gram palladium sample in a single charge of deuterium gas, in a closed system. The net
energy far exceeds the limits of chemistry.

The same system (Rothwell helped to improove) is used in the jccf15 paper.

(Are You shure You wanted to post this reference??)

I think Thomas was referring to the October 2014 Mizuno test.
(the link from Thomas won't open for me - just blank)

Quote from Wyttenbach

Quote from Thomas Clarke: “On second thoughts. Perhaps you will accept this report from Jed Rothwell which explains why the Mizuno '13 results are wrong:”

Jed Rothwell wrote:

There is no likelihood of an instrument error. Only an…

I was noting the FIRST PARAGRAPH (and Appendix A)

Quote from Jed

Retraction

Some calibrations performed after this paper was written cast doubt upon the results. I now believe that most if not all of the apparent excess heat was caused by changes in ambient temperature. This is described in Appendix A.

Quote

By this one comment from the lawsuit against Cherokee, it (wafer) seems to be the heart and soul of his Ecat. It even goes back to his Petroldragon technology?

Well, I have my views as to what goes back to petroldragon in Rossi's methodology, of course..

Shane - why do you think [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] would owe Rossi $89M?

It was the last phase of a licence agreement. they have breached it, possibly, but if so the result is no license.

The other accusations are all detached from the license issue and therefore any recompense to Rossi need bear no relationshiup to $89M

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Well, even if you have no clear evidence of LENR excess heat in this saga - excess heat is sure provided in other ways...

Is Darden now a snake?

Does one have to provide a completely coherent and proven theory to proceed with productization of an apparent heat source?

Quote

Does one have to provide a completely coherent and proven theory to proceed with productization of an apparent heat source?

Absolutely not, and if commercialisation ever happens I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I was noting the FIRST PARAGRAPH (and Appendix A)

Jed wrote:
Retraction

Some calibrations performed after this paper was written cast doubt upon the results. I now believe that most if not all of the apparent excess heat was caused by changes in ambient temperature. This is described in Appendix A.

During initial & final tests (see jccf 15 paper for details) for the Mizuno experiment the input energy of the circulation pump was measured and taken into account. The pump was always hotter than the environment. (Ambient) In fact it looks like the pump itself heated the environment.

For me two questions remain. How can Rothwell be sure that the pump he has seen months later behaved as before?
Why did Mizuno not test the PdZrNi powder which reacts 10 times stronger?

My only guess: Mizuno sole wanted to aquire knowlege - the so called Rossi-Enterpreneur-Effect.