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

Quote

How is spin more reliable than conjecture?

Most people present facts in a light favourable to their POV, often leaving out facts.

Example: the IH statement is spun by JoshG when he quotes it as "IH cannot substantiate Rossi's claims"
Full statement is stronger: " Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success."

Conjecture - unless purely logical in which case a stronger word would be used - depends on a whole load of background assumptions not explicitly stated. Here these are typically contentious.

Here is an example:

Quote

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.

this is "conjecture" - but it depends on a whole load of assumptions:
(1) IH would think Rossi was deceiving them just because they had not (yet) got his stuff to work for themselves. That is surely unclear? Darden knows well that LENR is fickle and small changes can break experiments.

(2) Woodford would not have invested given that IH had not got Rossi's stuff to work. They had just seen yet another independent test, with 6 scientist saying absolutely that a reactor made by IH works! On top of 5 previous independent tests! How much clearer can you get than that! The failure from IH and Woodford was not to get proper scientific advice. Given Levi, or non-specialists - they would get some people saying it was OK, and others saying there were issues. No-one giving a complete deconstruction (that is quite subtle). No-one able to prove Ferrara had electrical measurement issues.

Woodford is not an expert at getting science advice on LENR! Those who believe LENR are mostly biassed pro-Rossi (how many detected the Lugano report error?). Those who do not believe LENR are claimed to be biassed by those who believe LENR. If you are of a mind to invest in LENR who do you believe?

(3) Woodford's investment could not be an embarrassment. LENR is a pretty whacky thing for Woodford to invest in. Don't you think it is quite possible for this to go wrong? Assuming that a tech investment going wrong is an embarrasment for Woodford is silly. It happens all the time, and the higher the potential return the higher the risk that can be borne. The potential return looks very high here?

Now JoshG and others here may be unmoved by my comments. But they are not unreasonable - and the difference in our conclusions comes from different implicit assumptions about the world. That is why conjecture is unreliable.

Quote from Shane

That would imply wholesale, outright, boldfaced fraud on Rossi's part.

Wanna bet?

Rossi is a guy (historic record) who refuses to measure complex electrical waveforms with true RMS meters and claims average meters are good enough (electrical fact that they vastly under-read spiky waveforms which Rossi used). When Mats points this out Rossi claims he is right and Mats wrong.

When dealing with such a comprehensive contrafactual belief system anything is possible. You may think that can only be fraud - but Mats did not - in fact Mats went on believing Rossi - and no way can a Court easily prove fraud from scientific errors, no matter how weird.

Thomas Clarke is right again about the Woodford Funds investments. They were always a gamble. The vast majority of investments are gambles. There MIGHT be a comeback if Woodford Funds could show deliberate premeditated fraud; otherwise, none. If, say, the Patient Capital Fund investment in IH became completely valueless, it is only ~2% of that fund. Fund values can rise or fall more than that in a single day, for any reason or none.

Interesting times to come. There's a court case pending: if it does actually get to court, much information will be revealed. Elsewhere on this forum, the scientist/engineer known as me365 is claiming some fairly startling results. No doubt there will be others.

@Paradigmnoia

I took a quick look at the other thread, yes it is more pertinent but last comment was 5 days ago so i'd rather continue on this fresher thread.

Actually the Lugano report shows in figure 5 that the instrument is overloaded (readings are "OL" everywhere).

In the last link in my post above I simulated the current waveforms expected for the dummy run, then for the experiment run with the load resistance compatibile with 900W (tardively alleged to have decreased to 0.36 ohm due to temperature and use of a specially doped SiC heater) , finally with the same 1.23 ohm loads resulting from the declared Joule heating in the dummy run (just in case the resistance drop isn't true, as expected if the wire were Inconel as initially stated). Well, the only case that matches the figure 5 waveforms is the last one, which yields 3 kW and would justify overloading the PCE830.

Rossi says that the plot referred to the setup phase. So we cannot state that both errors (Input power and emissivity) were present at the same time. However the plot says that at some point they were providing 3kW electrical power.

I speculate that they started off with input up to 3kW (fig. 5 of the Lugano report) and a thermocouple, but weren't getting excess heat, and blamed the thermocouple's poor contact to the ridged surface. So they removed the thermocouple and resorted to (uncalibrated) optical thermography. Given the good results in terms of apparent COP (thanks to the flawed infrared emissivity thus overestimated temperature) they did not need to go again as high with the input, and cherry-picked the favorable result.
And they didn't bother to correct the Joule heating used in the previous tables (discarded due to COP<1) that revealed the 3kW in the first place, and caused the tardive explanation of special SiC heating resistors.
This last paragraph is just speculation.. But the mistake on emissivity is a fact, and when accounting for plausible additional measurement errors it may well imply that COP was <1 all the time.

@andrea.s
I get the OL image, but everything is OL.
I wonder if they just did something simple like pull one or two clamps off the three wires, thereby removing the references to the remaining clamp, or something similar.

The other thread goes back many months in fits and starts.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Most people present facts in a light favourable to their POV, often leaving out facts.

Yes Mr. Clarke and you and many others seem to do the same. In fact this discussion is full of dis-informative statements and conjectures made by stakeholders or self referring people whose authority come only from themselves.
Want an example among many ?
There is this guy called AndraS.( seems Italian, Spanish or south American ) that affirms
in a pedantic way that the current peaks are compatible with a 3kW power.
How he can do such an affirmation if there is NO vertical scale in the plot ?
He PRESUME that because of the overload the currents must be higher then 200A due to the model (should be the 6801 looking the photos of the actual report ) of the clamps.
used, and he also presume that the authors were so idiot to publish a photo with OWL just by mistake !
But forget to say that the clamps have 3 different settings (1,10,100 A) and another HIPOTHESYS could be that the OWL was not a mistake but an explicit request by IH, Rossi or both to not disclose the actual value of the peak, setting the clamps temporarily to a range lower than the reading.
We must remember that the authors were in strict conditions imposed from both Rossi and IH.
IH eventually has used large parts of the Lugano report to submit a patent application.
The picture on the report had the ONLY purpose to check if all harmonics ware readable by the instrument, not to give current values.
Following the second hypothesis we should conclude that the authors ware quite honest presenting the photo without forging it, and that the measures ware valid but I understand that this is an "absurd by definition" for many.
Forgetting other hypothesis and possibilities is a good technique to SELL ideas and forge opinions.
This means are eventually good for marketing not for science.

Oh, Mr. Clarke excuse me I was just forgot about you:

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Rossi is a guy (historic record) who refuses to measure complex electrical waveforms with true RMS meters and claims average meters are good enough (electrical fact that they vastly under-read spiky waveforms which Rossi used). When Mats points this out Rossi claims he is right and Mats wrong.

What you say refers to a VERY OLD test after which Rossi changed his mind and accepted that all electrical measures should be done with an appropriate instrumentation as the PCE830 is.
Your statesmen has nothing to do on which should discussed in this group, and serve only to present Rossi as the evil, and who trust him as stupid.

So also you are manipulating reality and facts in favor of your point of view.
Now I make you a question. How can we trust people doing that ?

@randombit0

No need for a vertical scale.. Resistance is known by the report (Joule heating figures reported). Mains AC voltage is known. Time scale is known. Ohm's law is all is needed.

But you are right that the plot was intentionally published in an OL condition thinking it would not reveal the actual power. The problem is that there is enough information to derive it anyway.

@andrea.s
The Compact fusion models can only deliver current to a maximum of 160 A, in the highest amperage model.
The current ratings cannot be increased by lowering the duty cycle.
This is according to a Control Concepts Application Engineer.

At 160A line current in a delta, with 0.4 ohms = 10240W
At 160A line current in a delta, with 1.2 ohms = 30720W
At 160A line current in a wye, with 0.4 ohms = 30720W
At 160A line current in a wye, with 1.2 ohms = 92160W

Quote from joshg

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.

There was an interview of Fulvio Fabiani by Mats Lewan in November 2015. I do not know anything about how Rossi and Fabiani met up or about the terms of Fabiani's contractual relationship with Rossi and IH beyond what is mentioned in the lawsuit, the interview and in particular the following statement from the interview: "To be more precise I [Fabiani] am bound by an agreement with Industrial Heat, and I’m available for Rossi to be his right arm. I cannot give any more details due to an NDA." Nonetheless, at the time that I read that interview in 2015 I came away with the distinct impression that Fabiani and Rossi were close, and that Fabiani was not what could be considered an independent party, well before the current controversy made the question such an important one. I recommend that people read Lewan's interview and decide for themselves whether they agree.

I would agree about Fabiani closeness to Rossi..judging from Mats interview.. but its a small matter
Fabiani didn't write the report. Fabio did.. easy to confuse in the fog

here's recent light on IH Cherokee dealings within the fog of business

cheatedinvestor May 5, 2016 at 9:44 PM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Tom Darden together with Cherokee Investments Partners have filed for 2 bankrupcies in February 2016. Their investors lost 23 million dollars. Obviously all money of the investors: the money just disappeared.
http://www.postandcourier.com/…e/20160208/PC05/160209426
It appears that Mr Darden customary collects investments in companies that end up dissipating the money of the investors with the excuse that the business is not gone well. With you they just found the wrong man: against any expectation, the E-Cat works and you really want to make an industry to produce it: you have broken their rules.
We will sustain you to the end.
Never give up.
C.

Rossi declined to comment.. I guess he is more busy with fire than fog

Quote from robert bryant

I would agree about Fabiani closeness to Rossi..judging from Mats interview.. but its a small matter
Fabiani didn't write the report. Fabio did.. easy to confuse in the fog

As we know, Fabiani was one of the two men keeping tabs on the test and on the installation. The (lack of) independence of Fabiani is also important, as he's sometimes characterized by the Leonardo side as being IH's employee, with the implicit suggestion that IH and Fabiani were close and that IH placed confidence in Fabiani. We have reason to believe that such an inference is shaky or incorrect, however.

Interesting find re Rossi's mention of the Cherokee-backed Ashley I LLC and Ashley II LLC bankruptcy [correction from Robert Bryant, below: this was "C.", writing to Rossi, not Rossi himself]. Rossi [actually, "C."] seeks to draw a strong connection between that affair and Darden and to cast the bankruptcy in a bad light. I note that there was a lawsuit against the two Ashleys. It's easy to see why if there was a lawsuit that dragged on long enough or were compelling enough, bankruptcy would make sense. Those were Cherokee-backed companies. Cherokee has a large portfolio; to what extent is Cherokee managed and controlled by Darden?

@patadigmnoia

The figures you post (10 to 30 kW for the delta) do not account for the triac chopping. When operating in chopped AC the RMS current is around 50A, not 160A, thus power is 10 times lower. It is just the peaks that reach 160 to 200A for a few hundred microseconds and trigger the overload alert although the power involved is small.

Rossi didn't mention it..the cheated investor brought it upon the rossiblog...Rossi made no comment.. but who is the cheated investor.. intrigue intrigue?

Eric said "Rossi mentioned the Cherokee bankruptcies.." but actuallyRossi didn't
he no commented it
Eric( another Eric) brought it up before 'cheated investor'..see below
Fog and more fog.
" Eric May 5, 2016 at 12:05 PM
Thomas Darden needs to realize that he believes it’s perfectly okay to make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness. More than anything else, such beliefs shed light on Darden’s moral values and suggest incontrovertibly that he claims that we’re supposed to shut up and smile when he says temulent things.

INDISPUTABLE FACTS:

In 2005 the Cherokee owned company EnCap received more than $300 million in publicly sponsored bond financing for the Meadowland project in New Jersey and then filed for bankruptcy protection later in 2008 and did not complete the project.

EnCap and another Cherokee affiliate earned millions of dollars in dumping fees on fill brought to the site.

Cherokee created a whopping 27 new business entities in New Jersey alone. William Gauger, the CEO that Darden appointed was indicted by FBI for “fraudulent invoicing scheme“.

In 2003, Cherokee raised $620 million in equity for investment in projects around the world. Cherokee’s portfolio of projects included industrial, office, hotel and residential properties. The shareholders of the investment funds are primarily large pension funds.

In the meantime, from 2001 to 2004, Cherokee and its consultants had contributed almost $1.5 million to the Democratic State Committee to win the project on Petty’s Island, a $1 billion waterfront makeover intended to increase tax revenue and transform the town.

Cherokee’s law firm DeCotiis even tapped Joseph Salema, a former top aide to Gov. James Florio. Salema pleaded guilty to securities fraud in 1995.

How much money did the politically connected DeCotiis law firm and other EnCap consultants make from the pool of public financing? The Record reported during its own yearlong investigation that the Teaneck firm had billed nearly $9 million by 2004 alone.

Thomas Darden’s words sound pretty until you read between the lines and see that Darden is secretly saying that he intends to exploit public sympathy in order to bolster support for his worthless escapades.

Let me end this letter by challenging the readers to urge lawmakers to pass a nonbinding resolution affirming that Mr. Thomas Darden’s success is just a flash in the pan. Are you with me, or with the forces of aspheterism and oppression?

Folks, check your facts:"

Quote from robert bryant

Eric said "Rossi mentioned the Cherokee bankruptcies.." but actuallyRossi didn't

Thank you for the correction. I misread that. It appears it was a letter put to Rossi by "C."

The real and imaginary citizens of Planet Rossi are scouring the business matters of a multibillion-dollar environmental remediation fund in hopes of finding a way to discredit the funders and founders of IH. In a business that large, not every investment goes well and sometimes there is conflict and controversy. All of that is out in the open for everyone to read and judge for themselves.

One has wonder why any honest and earnest person, who truly desires for LENR to move into the next phase of discovery, verification, acceptance and development, would be so vociferous and acidic towards an entity that is putting $70M+ (to date) to work in bring LENR out of a dark period and into the light.

DW,
Could you please be specific about anything IH has brought out of the dark and into the light concerning LENR?
What little info that is available could be construed as control and suppression.