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

    Quote

    Woodford funds will have absolutely no comeback unless they can prove that their due diligencers were purposely deceived. They (and their investors) accept that there will always be heightened risks when investing in unlisted companies working with new technologies


    And relevant to this is Dewey's statements about the warnings about Rossi from Darden to investors which Dewey felt were over the top.


    Woodford would I guess have invested on assurance from the Lugano and other test reports. They had poor technical advice, if Lugano results were billed as positive.

    @sifferkoll


    Quote

    Team Clarke are assigned to discredit Lugano, Jed (and until uncovered @NCHAWK) is assigned to discredit Penon


    This is a repeated and unwarranted insult on my independence and character. Which I care about. And it is palpably false since my terrier-like interest in the Lugano errors, the reason I post here, was public 12 months ago. Moderators please do something to discourage this repeated offensive behaviour? I thought this site had a policy against repeated insults and Sifferkoll has continually broken this. I'm not in favour of banning people, even Sifferkoll, but insults should not be allowed to stand or this thread becomes useless.


    Also it is offensive to Jed to suggest that his comments are anything other than his own genuine reaction to events.

    Quote

    And relevant to this is Dewey's statements about the warnings about Rossi from Darden to investors which Dewey felt were over the top.Woodford would I guess have invested on assurance from the Lugano and other test reports. They had poor technical advice, if Lugano results were billed as positive.


    I really doubt they care that much. The Woodford Funds response to queries is that they didn't invest on the basis of a single technology, but on a portfolio of potentially successful ideas.
    I think we can be sure that the scenario of complete failure of IH was factored into the decision

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    IH have in the past had poor technical advice. They paid Rossi $10M thinking Lugano was good (unless I've got the timeframe wrong here?)


    The timeline is made difficult to follow by all of the tests, some running for a long time.

    • May 5, 2013 — IH paid Leonardo paid 10 million, following a one-day test by the ERV of an "E-Cat Unit" of 30 modules (para. 58, lawsuit; the test protocol is described in the first amendment to the license agreement).
    • March 2014 — the Lugano test starts (date from report).

    I have been compiling a Google spreadsheet of relevant dates. I can make it publicly available if anyone would find that interesting/helpful.

    Sifferkoll - You're moving even deeper into the weeds than Axil. How do you lose (did I get that write?) access to IP when you have a paid up license for $11.5M that includes derivative rights? Maybe you should stick with oil and gas and blogging snifferswill. Nobody at IH is scared of anything from Rossi or his malevolent posse. With all of the fervor, fury and toil coming out of your kind, curious minds have to wonder if the opposite is true? Here's an anticipatory nugget for you - the return volley is going to reverberate throughout Planet Rossi.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Sifferkoll - You're moving even deeper into the weeds than Axil. How do you lose (did I get that write?) access to IP when you have a paid up license for $11.5M that includes derivative rights? Maybe you should stick with oil and gas and blogging snifferswill. Nobody at IH is scared of anything from Rossi or his malviolent posse. With all of the fervor, fury and toil coming out of your kind, curious minds have to wonder if the opposite is true? Here's an anticipatory nugget for you - the return volley is reverberate throughtout Planet Rossi.


    Now, now, Dewey.


    No need to go overboard with scattering "malviolent" mis-spellings "throughtout" your posts, however much they have "reverberate" with you!

    Nigel - you're under the influence of the Planet Rossi propaganda machine. If possible, you need to relax and allow your perception to broaden to recieve additional information and other viewpoints. All IH investors are intentional professionals who know that they are doing. The bet on Rossi was very intentional and a long shot with everyone being fully aware of Rossi's history and reputation. Thank God for Tom Darden and the folks at Woodford for caring enought to put capital at risk with the goal of bringing LENR out of the dark ages and into a stage where we can figure out how to put it to work. We may be 2 years away or 5, 10 or 50 years too early but we are moving the ball down the field. Its time for all folks who really care about this sector to realize who is taking the risk, putting capital in the most of the right places and making progress. Rossi's ongoing deception and greed will no longer be the focus in the not too distant future. I hope that you're capable of grasping that possibility.

    Quote from Wyttenbach


    Did You ever comment Andreas work of 2015?
    cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123579764_1.pdf
    And did You compare it with Your calculations?


    I noted the previous work of GSVIT and Bob Higgins - but not this MFMP work (which I did not have a write-up of when doing my comment).


    Let us take the MFMP conclusions:

    Quote from MFMP report by andrea.s

    Whatever the conclusion one may draw regarding credibility of the Lugano results, this analysis confirms that the computation method of Lugano, when starting from accurate temperature test data, yields reasonably accurate COP evaluation (at least in the 300-900°C range), and not far from accuracies achievable with a calorimetric setup.


    I agree with that 100%, both the statement of rough correctness, and the error margin (given accurate temperature data) are in line with my conclusions. Although now, given subsequent communication with Paradigmnoia here, I'm inclined to allow a higher possible error margin in this case due to uncertainty of heater internal structure which is not known.


    Where my work differs form this (and is more in line with GSVIT and Bob H) is an interest in decoding accurate temperature data from the data and methodology stated in the Lugano report. The MFMP report is silent on this matter.

    @Wyttenbach
    @Thomas Clarke


    Just to avoid that someone misunderstands this conclusion of mine if taken out of context:
    I meant that the design of experiment by the Lugano testers was acceptable (compared to other calorimetric setups) provided that a proper calibration of the IR camera were done, which unfortunately didn't happen in Lugano. The MFMP dummy dogbone (whose COP was necessarily 1) was fairly well modeled if analyzed with the Lugano method , but using the correct Optris camera calibration as MFMP did.


    I wouldn't say it is that silent on the temperature data of Lugano. When applying the uncalibrated reading with emissivity set to 0.45 as the Lugano testers would have done, my COP calculation for MFMP's dummy dogbone jumps to 4.2 which speaks, or rather shouts, by itself.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Nigel - you're under the influence of the Planet Rossi propaganda machine. If possible, you need to relax and allow your perception to broaden to recieve additional information and other viewpoints. All IH investors are intentional professionals who know that they are doing. The bet on Rossi was very intentional and a long shot with everyone being fully aware of Rossi's history and reputation. Thank God for Tom Darden and the folks at Woodford for caring enought to put capital at risk with the goal of bringing LENR out of the dark ages and into a stage where we can figure out how to put it to work. We may be 2 years away or 5, 10 or 50 years too early but we are moving the ball down the field. Its time for all folks who really care about this sector to realize who is taking the risk, putting capital in the most of the right places and making progress. Rossi's ongoing deception and greed will no longer be the focus in the not too distant future. I hope that you're capable of grasping that possibility.


    Well, I agree with almost all of this. However, I keep a sufficiently open mind to not, as yet, condemn Rossi out of hand. There is simply insufficient reliable information. With all due respect, your own information sources and motives are completely unknown.


    However, I most certainly do entertain the possibility that Rossi is wrong, possibly even criminally so. The only thing certain about him is that he lacks judgement when dealing with other scientists and engineers who ask legitimate questions about his methods. In that respect, he is his own worst enemy.


    I have learnt not to rush to judgement on the basis of Internet discussions; but I note that your mind is made up already.


    ETA I have NEVER had a problem with those who invest in early-stage technology, and am a satisfied investor in Woodford funds

    Quote from andrea.s

    <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1285-Wyttenbach/">@Wyttenbach</a>
    @Thomas Clarke


    Just to avoid that someone misunderstands this conclusion of mine if taken out of context:
    I meant that the design of experiment by the Lugano testers was acceptable (compared to other calorimetric setups) provided that a…


    Thanks for that. It was my take-home from your report. And I agree.


    It would still be safer to do straight water-reservoir heating calorimetry given the choice because the calculations are so much simpler, and there is no possibility for weird artifacts. So if very high integrity (not accuracy, but certainty) result is required there is less to go wrong. For example, the alumina total emissivity at >1000C does not take into account the partial transparency and internal structure. That might make a significant change. But probably would not.

    Quote

    However, I keep a sufficiently open mind to not, as yet, condemn Rossi out of hand. There is simply insufficient reliable information.


    I think this phrasing puts the weight of proof in the wrong place.


    Rossi has made extraordinary claims that if correct would transform the world. He has not proven them. In that case the default position should be that they are untrue - this is not condemning him, just applying normal standards of evidence.


    Put it this way. If I claim I've seen pink elephants in my garden I'd need good evidence before I am believed. Without that I would not be believed.


    If I then get somone to pay me $1m for pink elephant artifacts, is it condemning me to say that in absence of any proof they are highly likely to be fake? I think the same standard of evience is needed as if I were not selling artifacts, even though this condemns me as a faker.



    Yes I was wondering about that.


    Could the fact that the glowing alumina enclosed glowing resistive heaters make a difference to the apparent overall or band emissivity?

    • Official Post
    Quote from Eric Walker

    I have been compiling a Google spreadsheet of relevant dates. I can make it publicly available if anyone would find that interesting/helpful.



    Eric,


    That would be very useful going forward. Getting hard enough as it is to keep the past timeline straight, and there will be much new to add going forward.


    I think someone else, maybe Krivit, has a good timeline covering Rossi's first couple of years. Looking forward to yours.

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.