[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/27/rossi-e-cat-test-for-very-important-new-customer-in-june/']Andrea Rossi has posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics recently about an upcoming test that is scheduled to take place in June with someone he refers to as a ‘very important’ customer. Here are his posts on the topic and some follow up questions that I have posted on the JONP. Andrea Rossi April […][/feedquote]
Rossi: E-Cat Test for ‘Very Important’ New Customer in June
-
New product? Check.
New secret customer? Check
New fuzzy deadline? CheckIt's deja vu all over again.
Do I need to spell the definition of insanity?
-
Have you read, Pierre ordinaire...?!?
This test won't be for you and me, but for "a ‘very important’ customer".
And if you look attentively, the last one has paid, after the first test...
-
The last one has tested the Ecat for three years, says that it doesn't work, and is being sued for almost 300 million (89 x 3) million dollars for their efforts.
What part of that is unclear?
-
IH wasn't a customer.
-
True, people who behave like that are usually not called customers, but "marks".
-
Pierre Ordinaire
The last one has tested the Ecat for three years, says that it doesn't work, and is being sued for almost 300 million (89 x 3) million dollars for their efforts.
Yes, I couldn't quite understand that! Can you explain which customer of Rossi's E-cat in being sued for 3 x 89 million dollars?
I know Rossi is suing Darden et al, is this what you were refering to?
Best regards
Frank -
Pierre Ordinaire
Do I need to spell the definition of insanity?
Insanity. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behaviour.
Well, you might think this fits! But wait, there appears to be a whole queue of these people which is growing, these now range from 'garage developers' (like Bill Gates), to university teams sponsored by governments.Now you might also think it 'insane' for an inventor (of an illusion) to take his benefactor to court for $89 million, indeed it would be if it were an illusion.
King Canute had a similar problem to you and look what happened to him!
I think I saw Thomas nailing a few planks of drift wood together for a life raft, maybe you could ask him to rescue you.
Best regards
Frank -
Frankwtu -
Care to stay how long with no scientific proof nor working product nor working demos you'll need? I'm happy to wait for you to eat those words, since it has been like that for 30 years now.
-
Tom
We do at least share one attribute and that is we are both prepared to modify our opinions in the face of indisputable evidence; at least I hope that is the case. So I am waiting along with everyone else and I am sure there will be a fair bit of re positioning, which is only right, when things become clearer. That's a requirement of discovery I think, but also to 'think outside the (container) box' and that's perhaps where we part company. I am prepared to give a great deal of leeway to new ideas whereas you appear to use old physics (from within your own container) to discredit new ideas. I am quite opposed to the development of any scenario resembling the humiliation that Pons and Fleishmann had to endure.
But in fairness, I do appreciate the need for rigor which I respect and admire you for, but 'ad homs'? A very wise scientist alerted me to those dangers so I think it does our case no good!
Yes, of course I will change my view if need be, how about you?
Best regards
Frank -
Frank says: " I am quite opposed to the development of any scenario resembling the humiliation that Pons and Fleishmann had to endure."
Pons and Fleishmann could have fixed the "humiliation" very easily: get together their harshest critics and replicate the excess heat. They had a quarter century to do it. Why didn't they?
-
Quote
That's a requirement of discovery I think, but also to 'think outside the (container) box' and that's perhaps where we part company. I am prepared to give a great deal of leeway to new ideas whereas you appear to use old physics (from within your own container) to discredit new ideas. I am quite opposed to the development of any scenario resembling the humiliation that Pons and Fleishmann had to endure.
I asked for a time limit because there is a problem here about force of evidence.
Just one well-attested LENR result would lead to massive worldwide replication and I change my view. We saw that with F&P. Of course, as with F&P, until the replication results were in we could not be sure: a whole load of negative results meant that initial enthusiasm was dented. Second time round it would need cast-iron replication by independent and competent institution - but such do now offer - and that would draw others in.
Whereas I can see no evidence that would be strong enough to prevent LENR hopefuls hoping. You cannot prove a negative, just say it looks unlikely.
So with Rossi. The negatives here are much clearer and for many people the sequence of false tests and the known misreporting and sample contamination is enough. But, of course, nothing can disprove the possibility that Rossi has some LENR but even so conducts a whole series of bad tests. A bad test cannot rule out the possibility of LENR. Even a good accurate test can only say that one specific device does not work. In the few cases where Rossi has made a mistake and allowed an e-cat to be independently tested, with negative results, he has had some excuse for why it did not work.
That is why I was asking for a time limit. Rossi supporters were confidently saying it would be a world revolution within 2 years outside, or else must be fraud, 5 years ago. However with each year that passes the window of possibility gets stretched.
-
Please help me understand this - is the argument now that a licensee not a customer of the license provider?
-
Pons and Fleishmann could have fixed the "humiliation" very easily: get together their harshest critics and replicate the excess heat. They had a quarter century to do it. Why didn't they?
And 10 years in the South of France with lots of yens. Nice! -
The "customer" semantics here is unimportant. I think that IH, as Rossi's LICENSEE, is more than just a customer. A customer is not entitled to reproduce the technology, just to use it. The LICENSEE is entitled to not only use the technology at will, but is also entitled to be trained to reproduce the technology so as to produce products using it for sale to other customers to the extent of the license contract.
It is hard to say what will happen in the Rossi/IH litigation. It would appear that Rossi has not lived up to the terms of the license agreement. I presume the agreement specifies that Rossi must teach IH how to recreate his technology. Since IH says they cannot make anything of Rossi's work, then Rossi has not lived up to the most important part of the agreement. Even if the 350 day test worked, if he has not adequately taught IH how to do the same, then Rossi has not completed the bargain. From their statements, IH certainly does not feel in a position to engineer products based on Rossi's technology.
If it were me, I would argue in court that Rossi has not completed his end of the agreement, at least in transferring the technology to IH. This has to be the most fundamental part of the license agreement because it is the only portion that will allow IH to profit from having the license they are paying for. If IH believes Rossi has any technology at all, they should NOT allow the license agreement to be dissolved. Instead, IH should insist that Rossi live up to the contract's (presumed) terms and train IH as necessary to recreate the high power LENR in IH's laboratory. Rossi should not expect to receive further monies for other milestones in the contract until this most fundamental part has been completed. A "see I did it" attempt to reach a milestone is useless to IH if Rossi does not dutifully transfer the technology into IH's laboratories. Of course, IH must also invest in this transfer by having engineers and scientists skilled in the art to work on the reproduction of Rossi's technology under Rossi's direct guidance. IH gives every indication of having made this investment. Either Rossi has not been forthcoming with the details or the training needed to transfer the technology, or Rossi doesn't have any technology to transfer (I am not an insider and don't know which is true - maybe only Rossi knows which is true).
The original $11M IH investment is probably not recoverable now from Rossi. I would use the license contract (and if necessary, the courts) to insist that Rossi not be allowed to do anything with his technology until he has lived up to the technology transfer into IH. In that case Rossi could be stopped in his tracks until he proved his technology was real and transferred the know-how into IH. If Rossi really has no technology, then that would be an end-game exercise for him.
-
Already in late 2014 AR said in his blog that IH had constructed the 1 MW all themselves. I assume that includes the fuel. Interestingly it appeared later that the plant also included 4 250 kW 'Tigers'. So did IH developed those themselves?
It looks to me that IH is now testing their plant without AR and I am sure they will come with 'evidence' that it does not produce the heat that was previously measured.
AR suffers a huge difficulty: His behaviour makes him suspicious: Why would someone not allow a well organized COP test? There is a whole bunch of LENR bloggers that would love to do this, even for nothing. Now IH is powering up the lobby to manipulate the opinion agains AR, he could use all the support he can get. But AR refuses it and that makes people and also those who believed in him scared that something may be wrong and support that he could use so well the coming time, is dwindling. -
Bob,
another hypothesis could be that Rossi's technology is really simple to duplicate.
His secrets could be just several technicals tricks.
So, he tries first awkwardly to catch a maximum coin's amount before full disclosure..David
The only (LENR) patent which You can apply for is the exact mixture of fuel and possibly the reactor geometry. You cannot prevent any body for making their own similar fuel mixtures.
This is also the reason why Piantelli made his silly approach to patent all possible mixtures of "useful" elements to be used in "xy-cats".
Its absolutly clear that only production secretes and market penetration will make you a winner.
May be the whole story is well orchestrated to confuse the public...
-
Pons and Fleishmann could have fixed the "humiliation" very easily: get together their harshest critics and replicate the excess heat. They had a quarter century to do it. Why didn't they?
It was done, or at least tempted.
Most oppents refused to exchange, and their agressivity was so high it was logical.
You seems quite uninformed of the history.
Try to read the book Excess Heat by Beaudette (too bad the chinese ICCF9 site is closed, have to but at Infinite Energy).
there is interesting reports of that situation, and the lack of lab curiosity of skeptics.
Few have seen lab work, as did Garwin, and after they see nothing to criticize, they continue insinuation there is a trick...People like Huizenga explicitly state that if an experiment is positive, it is bad. (a good indian is a dead indian, equivalent in epistemology).
Please Pierre, don't take wikipedia as a reliable source, and read people who studied the question seriously.
Display More
When Goodstein learned, inadvertently, about the solid scientific work going on in cold fusion research his response was not unique. Earlier, I mentioned the three experienced electrochemists who visited the McKubre laboratory at SRI, Menlo Park, California, during the years 1990 through 1994. They were A. Bard, (University of Texas, Austin, Texas), H. Birnbaum, (University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois), Richard Garwin, (IBM, White Plains, New York), and N. S. Lewis, (Caltech). Each spent several days examining McKubre’s laboratory practice in detail.2 They found no procedural error with the measuring technique or data reduction techniques used to evaluate the operating performance of the cold fusion type cells. They had no contractual obligations either to reveal or to keep the things they learned confidential. Nevertheless, they chose to say nothing to the scientific community.Dr. John O’M. Bockris, distinguished professor of chemistry at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, ran cold fusion cells during the summer and fall of 1989. He reported excess heat and tritium, but the results were sporadic. At last, he came to a point where he had a cell that ran continuously for three weeks. It was time to call in some of his critical colleagues in the department who knew what he was attempting to do, so they could witness his results. The first one to be invited explained that he was busy moving from one house to another and could not spare the time. The second explained that he was simply too immersed in an examination schedule to break away, and the third just happened to be leaving on a trip shortly, so sorry. This inference of fear was a continuing pattern.
Dr. Huizenga visited the cold fusion laboratory at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, on February 28, 1997. At this time, he was retired. He was visiting at the invitation of the physics department to speak against the cold fusion heresy that was alive in their department.
Drs. Robert Bush and Robert Eagleton, full professors in the department of physics, were running light water cells. Bush was Huizenga’s host in the laboratory. In Bush’s words, one cell was, “. . . evidencing excess power. And, while the gain (Pout/Pin) was rather modest at that time (about 1.12), the excess power was well outside the possible error bars . . .”3 Huizenga was invited to spend time taking data. Huizenga demurred. Bush invited him to return on another date and do so. Huizenga demurred. Bush then offered him a fellowship to cover the expense of a return visit. Huizenga demurred. He refused all offers to participate in the experimental work in accordance with the manner of Drs. R. W. Wood and Irving Langmuir in the cases of Blondlot and Barnes respectively.
These illustrations of avoidance of the laboratory are representative of the intellectual climate ten years after the Utah announcement. If the reader feels that I have belabored my theme too long, let me say that, prior to his Italian visit, Goodstein represented the intelligent, knowledgeable, and cosmopolitan American physicist in his ignorance of cold fusion research after 1989, and in the audacity with which he has written and spoken about it without troubling to read up on the subject beforehand. What Goodstein learned was that, except for Petrasso’s well founded criticism of Fleischmann and Pons’s nuclear measurements, Baltimore was bogus. Cold fusion research was not a pathological science. The assault of Koonin and Lewis was mistaken: Fleischmann and Pons were not incompetent and delusional. Indeed, evidence of a new means of generating energy had been found in the flow of anomalous heat power that defied contemporary science.
-
Alain, do you REALLY believe that for 25 years P&F were able to replicate the excess heat at will but could not find THREE skeptic scientists to attend the demonstration?
Actually ONE would have been enough. With one convert it would be easy to find three, with three to find thirty, you get the idea.
-
@Pierre
The work of P&F has been replicated many times. For example the SPAWAR had a pretty similar approach with the enhancement of faster loading times and reaction starts accomplished with their decomposition approach. They have 23 peer reviewed papers and for one of their papers they describe the difficulties they had with the "skeptic scientists". It´s quite interesting. "Skeptic" does not necessary mean "good and unbiased" but can also refer to "stupid and blind".
Paper with the description of a review process: "How the Flawed Journal Review Process Impedes Paradigm Shifting Discoveries"
