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

    • Official Post
    Quote

    From that I got an idea that (mainly for MFMP and other replicators), should someone try to separate thermocouple further from too hot body by purpose. For example attach wide and thick enough (half?)ring of clay or something around body and inject thermocouple there half way. Temperature reading of the thermocouple would be lower, but would protect it better. I think reading then follows some pretty accurate heat transfer/heat dissipation formula and thus can be calibrated and compensated (at least) in post test calculations. That way replicators could have control readings to verify Optris readings. Clay was just one example, as long as material have some thermal resistance and can stand the heat.


    Hi Argon. This is quite doable, and it is possible to construct accurate calibration curves for a 'cooler zone' thermocouple, something I have done often. The trick is to runs a 'slow and steady' calibration at a range of temperatures, comparing the cool zone indicated temperature with that of one placed inside an un-fuelled reactor. After several runs 'up and down' to amass plenty of data points for both a warming and a cooling system it is my preference to take the hot-zone temperature up to the point where that particular thermocouple is destroyed all the while taking data-points from the cool zone- it is a small price to pay for good calibration.


    ETA - here's information pertinent to this - http://www.lookingforheat.com/…g-a-model-t-lenr-reactor/

    Quote

    Also, like others, I don't buy that the Swedes thought things were fine until recently. There was almost an immediate shit-storm after the Lugano results were posted on Elforsk's site. They knew about the controversy, and responded by accepting to answer "reasonable questions"...which they never did.


    I've always had a greater belief in the ability of virtuous clever people to make genuine mistakes and/or get misled than others here. It goes with being a skeptic. If you know, from personal experience, that misinterpretation of experimental evidence in weird ways is possible you become much less confident that when somone else claims an extraordinary result they have not been doing the same thing - especially when the write-up has loopholes.


    The Lugano testers do not live on the internet and Levi had a recent reply to my comments on thermography that satisfied Mats. It would satisfy anyone who did not look into the matter closely. Are any of the other Lugano testers experts in thermography?


    I notice that randombit0 has just vanished, after my (and others) final attempts to explain why her assumptions about thermography are just wrong. No idea if she was troll, for real, or for real attached in some way to the testers. But if the latter maybe they have now realised some assumptions they were making need to be checked?

    Quote

    Nigel Appleton wrote:Nor can I see why the writer should have checked with Mats before posting.
    I believe the writer obtained the information from Mats. Perhaps the information was provided together with a request for confidentiality.


    I don't see why you think my comment was "heated"? - I was simply expressing that I saw no reason. Perhaps there was a reason.
    Mats didn't actually say that the writer obtained the info from him, or that he had imposed confidentiality, so we don't know that either.


    And if Mats had indeed imposed confidentiality, then I would still wonder why.


    What we DO know about LENR and its supporters and detractors -


    Whatever is presented as fact should be treated as factoid or unsupported assertion unless and until there is independent supporting evidence.
    Whatever is presented as opinion should be regarded as biased unless there is evidence otherwise.


    Anyone wanting to get at the TruthTM will have to be rigorously forensic in his or her approach.

    Quote

    No idea if she was troll, for real, or for real attached in some way to the testers.


    Maybe is she part of clownery from JONP?

    If I understand correctly the Lugano test was performed on the hot cat and not a component of the 1MW e-cat plant. Is that correct? If so is it independent of the court action which seems to be mostly concerning payment after the 1MW plant test was completed, or is it context information or included in the case due to the further IP issues.


    What ever the relevance of the Lugano test, I think the review of the results and also a review of the analysis performed by the skeptics is a worth while process. I think Thomas Clarke will agree that there can be errors mistakes in skeptics analysis and view points as well as in the official results both should be reviewed. I was very happy to see the very intelligent discussion and exchanges between randombit0 and Thomas and others on this. It's also good information for other replications. I hope they continue but every one deserves some days off to do normal work from time to time.


    I understand both the Lugano device and the 1MW plant components were built by IH? Is this correct?


    Are these devices still made by IH or their contractors or is there no longer any production of these devices?


    Its a pitty if not otherwise if there is still controversy about the results especially relating to calibration may be with agreement between the different parties one could be made available to verify these particular points.


    If IH does not produce these components now is there another source using the same design?


    I think this is independent of the case raised by LC though. Which I understood to be about non payment after a perceived to be successful test, perceived miss use of IP, perceived conflicts of interest over territorial agreements, and perhaps perceived attempts to delay or obstruct completion of conditions and tests required for the payment and larger scale commercial production. I don't think the results of the Lugano test is relevant as such.

    Stirred the animals with that one - its fun watching their collective reaction when punches are landed. I don't think that Planet Rossi folks are capable of getting to logical footing on the IP license facts or the 1MW test matters. They'll have to find out how the 1MW test was manipulated by Rossi from the court finding. I doubt they'll be capable of accurately discerning those documents and facts based the intentions they've clearly displayed and demonstrated in their postings here. They need the fog.


    The Lugano test was designed by Levi and the Uppsala folks. Rossi is the one who required thermocouples for system control and who refused to allow that data to be captured during the test.


    If Rossi was the only IH investment then I'd agree with you regarding investment quality but I don't agree with you.

    Quote from Nigel Appleton

    I don't see why you think my comment was "heated"? - I was simply expressing that I saw no reason.


    My comment was directed at only a few participants. Your comment wasn't heated.


    Quote from Nigel Appleton

    Mats didn't actually say that the writer obtained the info from him


    The person was quoted by Deieo to have said "This is information that i got after a brief talk to Mats Lewan on the phone". I know nothing about the context or accuracy of the quote or the person being quoted.


    Quote from Nigel Appleton

    Whatever is presented as fact should be treated as factoid or unsupported assertion unless and until there is independent supporting evidence.
    Whatever is presented as opinion should be regarded as biased unless there is evidence otherwise.


    Yes indeed. Don't allow yourself to be strung along by someone offering incomplete, inadequate or compromised evidence, or no evidence at all, only because what they're saying is tantalizing. That is one object lesson of this whole affair. It applies to more than just Rossi and Defkalion.

    StephenC


    Quote from StephenC

    I think this is independent of the case raised by LC though. Which I understood to be about non payment after a perceived to be successful test, perceived miss use of IP, perceived conflicts of interest over territorial agreements, and perhaps perceived attempts to delay or obstruct completion of conditions and tests required for the payment and larger scale commercial production. I don't think the results of the Lugano test is relevant as such.


    This is a very good summary IMHO and in the spirit of this thread "Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)"


    This clearly strikes 'fear' into the mind of Dewey Weaver since this was his reaction:


    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Stirred the animals with that one - its fun watching their collective reaction when punches are landed.


    this is bordering on 'ad homs' and I gave him a 'dislike' for that reason.


    But why did he react this way? In law, if you write something down at the time to describe what you witness, it has value as 'contemporaneous notes'. If you rely on your memory and relate it later, the notes will be considered of greater value, unless someone proves you were mistaken, they will invariably have to rely on their 'earlier' notes or expert witness. The ERV report, is directly related to the device upon which the contract is based, and indeed refers to it, the Lugano report is not. So all this talk about Lugano can only be to add FOG, not to reduce it.


    The only time it may be of value is if the ERV report is totally discredited and this is corroborated by the discredited Lugano. On confirmation of these two issues, it will be ruled the contract is based on 'illusory' claims and will be dismissed.


    My take on all this is it is a 'smoke screen' to keep us and more importantly Rossi off the scent. The likelihood is that IH et al will bring a defence quite different to the 'Dewey Weaver' tale, and will catch Rossi (and the rest of us) off guard.


    Again you have my admiration for your most eloquent and compact summary.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Thanks @frankwtu, to be fair to Dewey I think he was likely mostly responding to earlier comments or perhaps referring in someway to his perception of responses to his earlier comment. Although I agree his referring to people with different views than him as animals from a fantasy planet and enjoying seeing their reaction when they get punched is a bit disconcerting.


    For me although I tend to support Andrea Rossi I don't really like to judge either side negatively on hearsay alone. I also respect that we still would like to hear IH official side of the story.. When people like Jed Rothwell say there is something it does give me pause of thought. But I hope somehow most the noise is because we do not have the full picture and hope it will become clear someday.


    That said when someone says we need the fog it does make me wonder about their motives.

    • Official Post

    The following are quotes from the Lugano report. No where does it say Rossi placed TCs. His *limited* role is clearly stated. Nor is the attendance of IH personnel, much less using their own equipment noted:


    In the course of the year following the previous tests, the E-Cat’s technology was transferred to Industrial Heat LLC, United States, where it was replicated and improved.


    The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually
    brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.


    Since we required that our measurements be carried out in an independent laboratory with our own
    equipment, the experiment was purposely set-up and hosted within an industrial establishment which was not in any way connected with Andrea Rossi’s businesses or those of his partners. The test was thus performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at our disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA.


    All the instruments used during the test are property of the authors of the present paper....Throughout the test, all the above instruments were connected to the same computer, wherein all the acquired data was saved


    The authors gratefully acknowledge Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat LLC for providing us with the E-cat
    reactor to perform an independent test measurement

    "We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible. Therefore, in the course of the test, we set the camera software to emissivity values valid for several alumina thermal ranges. "


    I think this means thermocouples were yielding temperatures judged too low in addition to being perhaps unstable. This smells like cherry picking albeit unintentional. If there are recordings it would make sense for the authors to critically review them. And may I add, make them public.

    Quote from frankwtu

    Does anyone have a link to the court docket? I believe one of the deadlines is fast approaching


    I have found it @


    https://www.pacermonitor.com/p…ossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al


    See also:


    Quote from hendersonmj

    I am not a lawyer, seek professional help and see the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. AFAIK the process is: Petitioner files a claim. Respondent files a response (June 12 due deadline) and perhaps a counterclaim. Discovery period begins, parties can depose each other and use subpoena powers to gather evidence and testimony. Motions, trial, finding of fact, award. If certain evidence is sensitive, parties may request that it be kept under seal. If that happens, we don't see the document. However, we might see quotes from it in various filings.


    and


    Quote from StephenC

    I think this is independent of the case raised by LC though. Which I understood to be about non payment after a perceived to be successful test, perceived miss use of IP, perceived conflicts of interest over territorial agreements, and perhaps perceived attempts to delay or obstruct completion of conditions and tests required for the payment and larger scale commercial production. I don't think the results of the Lugano test is relevant as such.


    Which I hope will reduce the fog somewhat.


    Also the 'Nature of Suit' is 190 Contract - Other Contract - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law
    and the 'Cause' is 28:1332 Diversity - see http://www.ehow.com/info_87412…sity-breach-contract.html
    The case has been re-categorized as 'Patent case' and reassigned to Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Judge Altonga is considered an Ethics hero by some: http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/heroes/0710_altonaga.html


    An interesting case which forms part of contract law is given: Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company et al,
    263 NY 79 (1933) "In every contract there is an implied covenant that neither party shall do anything, which will have the effect of
    destroying or injuring the right of the other party, to receive the fruits of the contract, which means that in every contract there exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing."


    I suspect both parties will be able to prove the other is in breach of this (the fruits from Rossi's point of view being $89 million and from Darden's a working E-cat), if they can there will be a 'counter claim from Darden et al.


    This is sounding less and less like a 'fairy story' to me.


    Best regards
    Frank

    In the other science thread, I have linked the MFMP Lugano thermal validation video. The thermocouple had something like 100°C variance, depending on the position relative to to a rib. The Optris will level that out by averaging over a larger area than a thermocouple can measure.


    Attaching thermocouples has its own problems, in that the attachment method, like sticking under ceramic pieces or gluing the TC down with a blob of ceramic paste, will change the local temperature. Probably, IMO, the slightly detached TC in MFMP tests is closer to the real surface temperature than when held tightly to the ceramic under some ceramic material. The ceramic piece or blob will reduce heat transfer to the surface at that point, increasing the local temperature to some degree.


    As far as the court case, I have no desire to comment on it. We have not seen the IH response, and the court will sort out whatever it will, whenever it will. No amount of jabber here will do much to change that.

    Quote from Frankwtu

    I suspect both parties will be able to prove the other is in breach of this (the fruits from Rossi's point of view being $89 million and from Darden's a working E-cat), if they can there will be a 'counter claim from Darden et al.


    If, as I rather more than suspect, Rossi's stuff has never worked, then you will find that Rossi is guilty of this but not IH. Think about it?

    Thomas


    If Rossi's stuff 'never worked' then Darden is not without 'culpability'. In your scenario, if the court agree with you they will find that Rossi's invention is 'illusory' and by implication the contract 'null and void'.


    If the case goes ahead without the court ruling the invention 'illusory,' you will be wrong.


    Unlike you I have no views one way or the other on this, except that there cannot be a contest over an agreement which based on an 'illusion'. So if the contest goes ahead for the distance, it will not be over something which is 'not there'. You will then need to modify your approach, which I am sure will be no problem to you.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Quote

    If Rossi's stuff 'never worked' then Darden is not without 'culpability'.


    This may be a fine legal point I don't understand? In this case he has been deceived by Rossi. Practically it may be difficult to prove that the deception was deliberate, but I don't see how that would affect IH's culpability?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.