Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

  • Hello Mr. Clarke,
    if you are not a team yo should have won the Guinness World Record for most prolific ( if not compulsive ) poster.
    Scanning the Internet is possible to find your posts in a large number of blogs and forums at almost any time during the 24h.
    I have seen that you contributed also to a Psychology Blog. http://ownshrink.com/skeptopat…yptodenialism-rossi-ecat/ Interesting reading. Maybe we can understand better the motivations of many people.
    Sincerely I don't like your post and don't consider them scientific.
    I really feel bad when an author of a supposed to be "scientific" text use generic statements in order to forge opinions of others.
    There are lots of examples almost in any of your posts. For example when you refer about "proven" Penon errors without giving a clear reference, or when in a recent post you "collate" vague and generic statements in a arbitrary way.
    You also make ( deliberate ? ) confusion among Fabio Penon and Fulvio Fabiani, when you affirm that Fabio was payed by IH. Of course the ERV is payed by both parts, and is also quite obvious that now IH that has enrolled Eng. Fabiani for more than one year now will try to say that in reality was "a man of Rossi".
    So really I start considering that no new real information is found in this blog. To many people have an evident economic interest to create and maintain the fog.

  • randombit0 :


    Perhaps "Mr. Clarke" is not quite so bad as all that. Personally, as one of the few declared, and I hope demonstrated, Ni-H agnostics here, I have found Thomas Clarkes' postings to be generally sincere, often informative, usually courteous and sometimes useful.


    But, thanks "Randombit0" for searching out the "psychology" blog connection. What could be the motive of a "shrink" in the pay of say the DOD or NSA, in undermining LENR so disarmingly and so cleverly? Perhaps it pays well enough for the tuition at the old academy for his children?

  • Thomas Clarke said: "...you do not have convincing reasons for dismissing them."


    What? Unless you show us the specific quotes and links where you got your information, then you do not have convincing reasons for stating them. You are just posting from hazy information. I said why I think the first 3 things you said are problematic (i.e., why they are not convincing), and all you did was disagree and say I'm not convincing? The burden of proof is on you to show us how your 5 things have been stated as such by IH insiders. We know you've got time on your hands, Thomas, so if you want to convince us, show us the quotations from which you reached your conclusions.


    I don't see how 5 backs up 1. So what you're saying is that Darden took Woodford and the Chinese on tours of the 1 MW and said "well, we think this Rossi guy is just blowing smoke up our asses -- we've been trying to get him to show us the goods but he refuses. But you should invest in us anyway because we've got some other risky investments in LENR?" No, sorry, I don't see how 5 backs up 1. If Woodford invested 50 million dollars in IH on that basis, it's an embarrassment.


    Also, this notion that either Fabio or Fulvio are "Rossi's guys" is not supported by any facts. It's just hearsay and gossip. There is not a shred of evidence that either of them had any working relationship (or any other kind) before they were contracted by IH, either to do the validations or to work with Rossi. I remember with Fulvio saying that he was specifically brought in by IH to work with Rossi on the 1MW. I might be wrong on that, but until someone can provide even a shred of evidence that either of them are "Rossi's guys" then I see no reason to agree with that statement. It's just a transparent and dishonest attempt to discredit them. Just because they're Italian doesn't mean they're his guys. That would be like saying that all Americans are Darden's guys. And by the way, Darden brought in an Italian to head of IH's new R&D lab, so he clearly doesn't suspect all Italians of being Rossi's guys just because they're Italian.


    And finally, yes Weaver has clarified that he is nckhawk. Actually it was hilarious, because he got so fuming mad at Sifferkol's questions about Weaver being behind Sifferkol, that he outed himself on Mats' blog, saying 'take down your libel against me on your site!' or something to that effect. He apparently got so mad that he forgot he was posting under and alias. LOL. I'm still chuckling about that one.

  • Quote

    We know you've got time on your hands, Thomas,


    Alas that is less so than I'd like at the moment. But I will return to this when I have some more spare time?

    Quote

    What? Unless you show us the specific quotes and links where you got your information, then you do not have convincing reasons for stating them.


    That is technically true - and while it would be better for me to trawl back through 1500 posts on Mats site to garner these i'm not up to it now: perhaps my desire to convince you is not quite as strong as you think?


    But what about double standard? Let me have precise quotes (with context - so that the dreadful out of context quote from the IP PR - to take just one example- does not mislead) for all the things you claim?


    Where I can agree is that info from "close to the action" insiders or semi-insiders is necessarily partial and unreliable. But it is more factual than speculation, and specifically your speculation, which is inconsistent with the long string of failed Rossi independent tests, I find contrafactual.

  • Quote: “What? Unless you show us the specific quotes and links where you got your…


    No it's not a double standard. You put forth some claims about what IH insiders have said. I only responded to you saying I think you're wrong about some of it. Also, if they never said what you're saying, how am I supposed to find something they never said? I can't prove a negative. You need to back up those claims with supporting evidence; it simply won't do to dismiss criticism as "unconvincing." Or is evidence only something you care about when it supports your biases, Thomas?


    Here's one: I remember that Thomas Clarke once wrote that he thinks Andrea Rossi is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being he'd ever known in his life. Does anybody disagree with me? Sorry, I don't find that convincing, and if they want to disprove that, they'll have to find where he never said that.

  • 100.1C is a number that you will learn more about in the near future. It is such an amazingly consistent and brilliant temperature measurement that it remains steady state even when certain systems are "shutdown" for inspection / maintenance. Other system metrics are equally astounding and miraculous.

  • Thomas - when you become the object of love from the folks on Planet Rossi then it means you have reached a new level of proficiency and effectiveness. I think that you are doing excellent work on limited information. Mud season on Planet Rossi will be coming to an end soon enough. Persevere.

  • I think Thomas Clarke makes very good points.


    I am no expert on the emissivity of hot alumina; but I have not seen any rebuttal of his remarks about the probability of a big mistake being made about it in the Lugano test. Nor have the Lugano testers been able to replicate any excess heat.


    That needs to be addressed by anyone hoping to rely on the Lugano result


    Add to that the seemingly contrarian refusal by Rossi to follow better scientific practice (simultaneous dummy reactors, multiple measurement methods for any parameter...): and the few "successful" replications - all open to doubt - and one can see where he's at and why.


    As for the hoohah around Ecat patents - I think it quite possible that none are valid as to the actual LENR process, because insufficient disclosure has been to allow facile practice. We shall see - maybe.

  • I have buzz that make me consider very negative hypothesis on Rossi's test, but Lugano is a pathetic error by a team of physicists, and it would have been very very risky to expect it even if you manipulate one of the tem member.
    As seen with ferarra test, some members of the test team are independently skeptical and independently taking serious measurements and checking for fraud.


    This is why I even consider the reactor may be working, because it would otherwise be non-sensical.
    however maybe the mistake (COP=1.5 taken as 3.6), was acknowledged by Rossi to add more fog as he seems to love.
    Last hypothesis that I proposed, without much hope, was that it works despite the error, because of a second mistake (if you just take emissivity=1 camera temperature, and apply total emissivity to radiation, not correcting temperature, it works).


    I don't trust Thomas claims much more than Rossi, but I trust Thomas to be more sincere (which include sincere bias), and sure more argumented.


    My best reason to trust E-cat recently was Darden and Ferrara... Ferrara stays hard to attack (conspiracy theories are refuted by testers cross-checking), except that the COP was low.


    Only non non-sensical hypothesis include two hypothesis :
    - COP as tested was low, while Rossi have fantastic technology and think he can sell it to someone else, fooling again a partner.
    - COP have always been low, and all around SSM/Ecat-X/Quark is myth.
    but there is the popular non-sensical hypothesis :
    - Darden is stupid (evil and stupid to be precise)
    - US government is in a conspiracy (crony and intelligent)


    I don't attribute such stupidity to Darden, nor such intelligence to US gov...

  • Alain Co,


    Levi stated on Mats' blog that even with emissivity 1 the Lugano COP is well above 1. Let us discuss this.


    What many of us criticized is not the total emissivity graph (fig. 6 of the report) but its use in the Optris camera setting which should be the average spectral emissivity over its detection range.


    Indeed the reading of the Optris camera is proportional to infrared emissivity and to T^4, thus by using 0.4 vs. 1.0, the fourth power of T would have been estimated 2.5 times higher (i.e. the reading around 1400°C would rather be 1060°C).


    This means that the radiated power, proportional to total emissivity and to T^4, would have been overestimated by a factor 2.5 to be compared to the claimed COP 3.1 to 3.6. Another contribution would come from convection, which would be lower by roughly 100W if 1400°C scaled to 1060°C, but this is a minor effect that would still leave a COP in the range 1.2 to 1.3.


    But there are other sources of error.


    The Lugano report says the error around the emissivity of figure 6 is 0.01 which is ridiculously low. When comparing several references the figures dance around by 20%.This alone casts doubts on the conclusions.


    In addition there are serious reasons to not trust the input power measured, given the infamous figure 5 of the Lugano report, with the PCE830 overloaded by the current peaks, whose width matches a 3.0kW [*] electric power much better than the 900W declared.


    Some refs of mine



    Feb 2015: Applying the "Lugano report" method to compute COP of MFMP's dummy dogbone:
    http://cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123579764_1.pdf
    http://cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123579764_2.pdf


    Oct-Nov 2014: Inconsistencies in current waveforms published in the Lugano Report
    http://cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123571297_1.pdf


    [*] thanks Paradigmnoia for spotting the typo

  • Quote

    Where I can agree is that info from "close to the action" insiders or semi-insiders is necessarily partial and unreliable. But it is more factual than speculation, and specifically your speculation, which is inconsistent with the long string of failed Rossi independent tests, I find contrafactual.


    I think your impeccable logic disappears up it's own fundament at this point. How is spin more reliable than conjecture? How is propaganda more reliable than lies? When all is smoke and mirrors, people will believe what they want to believe. You amongst them.

  • - Darden is stupid (evil and stupid to be precise)
    - US government is in a conspiracy (crony and intelligent)


    I don't attribute such stupidity to Darden, nor such intelligence to US gov


    Hilarious. Good points, Alain. I agree that Darden is not stupid. He doesn't necessarily have to be evil, either. He could be holding in exchange for more IP from Rossi, in which case he is simply being a good businessman. At worst you could say he's greedy.


    As for the US government, well, I'll save my thoughts for another time.

  • In addition there are serious reasons to not trust the input power measured, given the infamous figure 5 of the Lugano report, with the PCE830 overloaded by the current peaks, whose width matches a 3.0W electric power much better than the 900W declared.



    Do you mean 3 kW, rather than 3.0 W ?
    If 3 kW was going into the reactor, then a huge nest of problems with other calculations begins.


    (We should move this over to the Lugano Recalculated thread, if you would like to discuss this further.)
    Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications

  • 100.1C is a number that you will learn more about in the near future. It is such an amazingly consistent and brilliant temperature measurement that it remains steady state even when certain systems are "shutdown" for inspection / maintenance. Other system metrics are equally astounding and miraculous.



    Dewey,


    That would imply wholesale, outright, boldfaced fraud on Rossi's part. With participation (complicitness), or complete incompetence on the part of Penon. While I expect just about anything at this point, it is still a hard sell to get me to buy that Penon was either.


    The way you describe it, the fraud wasn't very complex either. So simple that almost anyone with basic skills would notice almost immediately. Surely...along with Penon, IH's "observers" should have caught it right away. Yet the test was allowed to go on one year -amazing! If one believes Rossisays; of how IH shopped the 1MW to other potential investors while the test was underway...including Woodford and the Chinese, I would guess the jury-rig wasn't discovered until late in the test? Something that obvious, or noticeable would have caused IH to immediately shut the operation down, or at least stop the tours, upon first discovery I would think.


    I have little doubt this Rossi story is about to come to it's end. Only thing left to figure out before then is the role Penon, IH observers, plant owner, and Fabiani played. Rossi's trick, and how he argues in his defense...if he doesn't get payed to go away first. When/how the fraud was discovered also. The finale may be as interesting as the previous 6 years. Oh boy! :)


    After that, then we can see what else IH has in store for us.

  • @andrea.s
    About a week ago, when feeling more feisty, I tried to bait a conversation on the Recalculated thread about the consequences of 3 kW into the reactor.
    Today, the idea gives me a headache...
    3 kW into the reactor leads support to 1100°C + temperatures, and makes a huge mess of the IR emissivity discussion, the Joule heating discussion, the Delta-Wye discussion, and the resistance discussion. Possibly even a COP of 0.3 to reconcile the numbers...


    3kW to put the probe into overload seems low. I figure it needs at least 4000 W at 0.4 ohm delta windings to get to 100 A, which is the upper range of the amp clamp. It might take 10000 W at 0.4 ohms to swamp the amp clamps, and then this grossly exceeds the current rating of the Micro Fusion Controller. (see manufacturer response on the Recalculated thread I posted some time ago).

  • Dewey Weaver . I must admit I'm rather curious about your point regarding 100.1 C. I suppose a real temperature reading of at least 100.1 deg C is needed to ensure water is in gas form rather than a liquid at air pressure. Is this your point some how? I wonder if there is some part of the device where water in liquid form is not desired during maintenance and is deliberately maintained above this temperature by thermal insulation and additional heating or something? Or are you saying it's stuck data reading? Or is it a reference temperature used to trigger stimulation for example? Or is it something else?