Mat Lewan Meets Rossi in Sweden, Rossi Bidding on Factory For QuarkX Production

    Quote from quizzical

    Abd,
    A few questions/comments:


    1) Where did Dewey write this?

    Here. At the beginning of my post is a link to his post. Normal lenr-forum practice.

    Quote

    2) If IH had all of this information from Penon's draft reports, then why didn't they stop the test earlier?

    I can speculate. So could you or anyone else who knows the history here. This question is a common type. It attempts to show a reductio ad absurdem, but there is, quite simply, nowhere enough information to do that. Logic does not necessarily apply to situations that are unique and relatively unprecedented, plus, remember .... insanity is already a possibility.


    Quote

    3) If Penon's draft reports indicate fraud, then why is Jed calling Penon an idiot?

    When Jed wrote that, my guess, and he may respond, he didn't know about the other reports. Penon did do something, it's in the public record, that was, ah, incompetent. Rossi seems to be a magnet for that. But if he did provide accurate reports, good on him. Jed is reactive and says what he thinks. He's also highly knowledgeable, both. He's worth paying attention to, if not necessarily believing everything he says, and particularly not necessarily his judgement of people. And I could give examples, and Jed could explode and we'd have a mess which would do nobody any good. Jed is a friend, worth getting to know.

    Quote

    4) If Rossi is a fraud (and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence as well as tests to indicate that this is not the case) then I still don't
    believe that he has hurt LENR research at all. In fact, I think that he has greatly increased the interest in LENR and especially for Ni-H LENR. I would even argue that IH would not have invested in LENR without Rossi. Similarly, Piantelli was "drawn out of retirement" to restart his research (with machines creating 100 W not 1 W) as a result of Rossi. So, the only harm, if Rossi is a fraud, is to IH and to the time of those who have following this. On the other hand, it has been entertaining!

    Well, you can have your opinion. Is it based on experience, or is it just shooting off your mouth? What I wrote comes from reports from people who were actually working in the field.


    Do you think that Piantelli's work is important? Have you looked at the possible artifacts? Has this been replicated? This is all NiH. Look at what Peter Gluck has been writing for a couple of years now. PdD is useless. NiH is "LENR+". Forget about messy old PdD. However, PdD is where the most solid experimental evidence exists. We actually know the reaction product from PdD, from widely confirmed experiment. We don't have anything like that from NiH. Yes, no doubt, Rossi "increased interest in LENR." But so did Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, and their announcement was premature and contained serious errors, and the effect of premature "interest" was replication failure and a massive depression of research for over two decades. The damage is different here. Almost everyone who remained active in the field moved to trying to replicate NiH heat. Mostly with failure. The experiments that the naive will often point to were .... the technical term is "horrible." Noobs, with no experience with calorimetry, making all the mistakes that one could make. Will they persist? Some will. I certainly hope for NiH LENR, it would be very convenient! But meanwhile, real research was dropped. It's starting up again, and part of that is realizing that Rossi isn't going to rescue the field.


    Who said "fraud"? Did I? I've been watching the tests since 2011. I'm quite familiar with them, and know and regularly communicate with many others who are the same. I just read An Impossible Invention, and Mats is quite aware of the problem. Rossi has again and again done things to ensure that tests were not conclusive. There was always something. People who have not studied this deeply or who are heavily affected by belief (one way or the other) are running on hot air.


    At the bottom line here, with the one-year test, the core of the agreement was that this was not only to prove that the reactor worked. It was to ensure that the technology had been transferred. The original test on which the $10 million license fee was transferred was by Rossi, in his facility, and Penon reported on that. IH accepted that report. But the one-year test was to be done by IH and fully under IH control (subject to the guidance of the ERV.) Sanely, Rossi would have kept his hands off, totally. Talk to them over the phone and by email, perhaps. This was to be a truly independent test, and that was fundamental to the agreement. Was it truly independent?


    Again and again, Rossi insisted on conditions that torpedoed proposed collaborations and tests. Why? I can explain it, but the explanation essentially provides no information about whether or not Rossi actually has -- and still has -- a working technology. One theory I've heard is that, with his constant engineering changes, he actually lost the secret (which would mean that he never really understood his results, and this was quite common with cold fusion, it drove researchers crazy.)


    What I see from people who think they understand what is going on, without having adequate information, relying on all these blog posts and claims and fluff, is an utter lack of imagination. How could all those tests be wrong?


    Well, they could! And they could be real. And they could be anything in between, and my position from 2011 was that until there is truly independent confirmation, we cannot know. And that's standard science. Ross is not a scientist, can that be understood? That's not an insult, but Rossi has explicitly rejected the scientific method. Who needs controls? We already know what a control experiment will do. Nothing.


    And that is a complete misunderstanding of what a control experiment is! the thinking reduces reality to black and white, yes and no, success and failure.


    Rossi also has acknowledged being deceptive, i.e., releasing misleading information to divert competitors. People who want his work to be real and who think of him as the energy savior of the planet rationalize and justify this.


    My hope at this point is that it all comes out, that the trial reveals what actually happened, in a context where empty claims go nowhere. If Rossi really has something, it's likely to come out. And I would be utterly unsurprised to see a fraud charge. After all, he's claimed fraud on the part of IH. But I have seen no evidence of fraud, just a huge pile of circumstantial appearances.

    Hank Mills wrote: ". . . I suppose [Jed] would encourage I.H. (if they have already built a working device or if they ever do figure out how to build a working device) to submit it to the NRC for extensive testing over a lengthy period of time."


    OF COURSE they would have to do that!!! It goes without saying that hundreds of prototype devices will have to be tested by the NRC, by many other Federal agencies, by Underwriter's Laboratory, and by many other regulatory and scientific organizations. In the 21st century, the public demands a high level of product safety and assurances that products cause no harm. Every new car model has to be submitted to dozens of crash tests, which destroy many prototypes. Crash testing costs millions of dollars, but it saves far more than it costs, in reduced casualties.


    However, just because I.H. and industrial companies would have to submit prototypes for testing, that does not mean they have to stop development or wait for results. Car companies doing crash testing or getting EPA mileage estimates do not stop R&D, and they do not stop setting up production lines while that happens. It takes years to set up a production line in any case. Regulators will work in parallel, causing little or no delay. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but when cold fusion hits its stride, it will save about $1 billion per day, so the cost of regulation and safety testing will be covered in less than a year, and the cost per unit will be trivial.

    Quote from quizzical

    Abd, This sounds like total B.S. You're saying that the ERV did not measure the input and output temperatures continuously during the test?

    Get a life, Quizzical. If you think I've said something that you disagree with, quote me. Don't make it up.


    I didn't say that. Nor do I think that. What this indicates to me is that you are not reading what I write, but only carrying on an argument with a straw man in your imagination. You are welcome to it. I'm not writing for you, beyond this last note.


    I write, every day, for many thousands of readers who thank me. I mostly don't read Lenr-forum any more. However, it was suggested that I look at something here and I did. It was indeed interesting; however, the signal-to-noise ratio here is low, and the format doesn't handle that problem well. There are places that do.

    @Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Quote

    Absolutely necessary, I'd think, to consider that cooling water, its temperature and its pressure. Rossi, however, insisted on something else, and then claims that the ERV consented



    You claim that Rossi insisted that Penon not consider water input temperature and pressure. That is not what Rossi said. Rossi asked Penon not to account for heating water to just below boiling point in his COP calculations.


    He did not ask Penon not to measure input temperature and pressure.


    Edit to add: this is what Quizzical was talking about. I guess you did not say that Penon did not measure input temperature, instead you said that Rossi asked him not to consider it and that Rossi claims he consented. Subtle differences but same jumping to conclusions.

    Abd,
    I really don't need you to interpret things for me. I'm quite capable of doing that myself. If you have some facts to present - and I’m afraid that so far I haven't seen any - I would be glad to see them. Regarding my previous question, I was simply trying to understand what your point was, since it seemed quite clear to me that you were suggesting that Rossi had convinced the ERV not to measure the input and output temperature so that the produced heat could be overestimated by assuming incorrectly that all of the incoming water was liquid while all of the outgoing water was dry steam. If you don't want to reply to my questions, that's fine.


    P.S. Getting back to Ni-H versus Pd-D. You may be right that some funding for Pd-D has dried out as a result of Rossi. I'm certainly not an expert on this. However, I also know that IH has given funding to some PdD researchers. Furthermore, the excitement of Ni-H has brought new young researchers into the field. You also questioned Piantelli's work. To use your Socratic (or is it rhetorical) method, do you believe that Piantelli's work, much of which he has published, patented, and distributed in conferences, is not scientifically correct? What about Brillouin, whose work on Ni-H has been tested by the Stanford Research Institute (McKubre is currently on the board of directors of Brillouin)? I personally have questions about all of these works (although I must admit to thinking that Piantelli has something based on what I"ve read elsewhere). However, I'm not ready to declare that I know for sure that Rossi is a fraud, although that is certainly a possibility.

    Quote from stephenrenzz

    I don't think I would say Rossi is "healthy". This is a photo of him off Lewan's site...he looks like a different man from 12 months ago.


    What are you implying? Rossi is probably a lot healthier than you.

    Quote from LENR Calender

    Could you spend a bit more time on the ERV report with an open mind and check if the 100.1C value that you saw everywhere could just be a placeholder for Penon to calculate a conservative value of power?


    Is there another column for output temperature in the raw data? Is there one for pressure?


    My belief is that Penon calculated power needed to heat water from 99.9 to 100.1C, thus being conservative. As long as ouput water was significantly past the boiling point (and the other columns of data would confirm that), I don't see what would be wrong with that.


    Rossi (JONP): "Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative."


    I haven't yet seen a response on this from Jed or Dewey... Would it be possible to get IH's response? It wouldn't be good to go silent on such a direct observation made by LENR Calender.

    Thanks for the warm welcome--much appreciated!


    Can you kindly link to the response? I just spent the last 30 minutes combing through this thread, and while the content is cerebral and erudite, there is no direct response to LENR Calender's observation. If I'm mistaken, and there is, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind assisting a new fellow forum member and linking to it would you?

    AR implicitly confirmed the 100.1°C (that the COP calculation is based on the boiling point of water and NOT on measured values).



    The ERV ignored the energy to raise the temperature to the boiling point and he also ignored the energy to heat above the boiling point.


    What remains?


    The boiling point (100,1 °C).

    "AR implicitly confirmed the 100.1°C (that the COP calculation is based on the boiling point of water and NOT on measured values)."


    It's clear that AR claims that, to be conservative, only the heat of vaporization of water was included in the ERV's calculation of the COP. However, I would not deduce from this that the calculation was not based on "measured values" or measurements.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Fukushima.


    Someone asked for a source for this. Why is this relevant? Well, These fora are full of people who write things off the top of their heads, without caution, without caring about sources, and, often, being anonymous, not caring about credibility and the impact from it from writing nonsense.



    Nice to hear the cautious sceptics trying to downplay the story:


    Here the source: Swiss newspaper 9. January 2014. We see a nice picture where the crew of US-Reagen tries to decontaminate the main carrier deck.


    The story is very simple: In March 2011 the US Reagen carrier was commanded to the Fukushima coast for a “humanitarian mission” - just an euphemism or lack of knowledge?
    The people on desk tell the following story: While loading a helicopter they felt a breeze of warm air and suddenly snow fall (fall out) started. The felt a strange taste on the tongue like that of ALU-foil. They joked about the situation, made photos & movies...


    That day “ 9.january 2014” 70 soldiers filed a complaint against TEPCO in Japan of course.


    Bdw.: The US crew was not informed about the environmental radioactivity. At that time they already cruised along the coast (1 Mile!!!) for 1 1/2 day.


    Later they measured the radiation which was 300x higher than the allowed limit!... like to hear more ??

    @Wyttenbach


    as always with these matters details are important. Here is the Guardian report (vaguely left-wing ready to see pollution issues and military coverups):



    Now, I cannot tell from this whether was was significant radiation damage to those sailors. But you most certainly cannot say there was, and opinion seems to be mostly that there was not. Perhaps it would be wise to go on watching and checking the data on which the medical judgements are made etc.


    I note one sailor convinced his son's leukaemia was due to his radiation exposure (the son was 13 at the time). That does not seem even remote;ly plausible, but people have strong feelings about these things, and who can blame them?


    Let us look at your evidence:


    Quote

    The people on desk tell the following story: While loading a helicopter they felt a breeze of warm air and suddenly snow fall (fall out) started. The felt a strange taste on the tongue like that of ALU-foil.


    This is anecdotal and I can't see "snow" as being fallout from Fukushima - the radioactive emissions were quite different from those after a nuclear explosion. I cannot find any more substantive reference to this.


    Quote

    Later they measured the radiation which was 300x higher than the allowed limit!... like to hear more ??


    Yes please. Radiation is cumulative, so that 300X higher than allowed limit for one day per year doubles the normal allowed yearly limit which by the way is set to be incredibly conservative. Always try to relate these figures to X-ray exposure (number of X-rays equivalent).


    Your problem is in jumping to conclusions based on figures that could mean anything. Of course, that does not prove there are no problems, but it certainly it is not evidence that the professionals who have analysed the situation so far and seen nothing yet to be worried about are part of some global conspiracy.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver


    Some Facts:
    1. Rossi had a key to the "customer" production side back door along with unfettered access.
    2. Penon sent draft reports to IH that Rossi was not aware of.
    3. Rossi would not allow IH experts anywhere near the 1MW system while the "test"…


    4. Rossi and his attorney guaranteed the "customer" was a real UK based company with real heat needs.
    5. Rossi is terrified of the day that the "ERV" becomes public.
    6. Rossi had one heat vent in the roof of his operation and that fan was broken with ZERO possibility of extracting enough heat from that building to keep anyone alive even at 25% power for the 1MW system.
    7. Rossi is about to flee to Sweden.
    8. Rossi already has big new money in the bank from not one but two new victims.
    9. Rossi could care less about LENR - he is all about the money.
    10. Rossi is caught, busted and finished by his own hand.
    11. Rossi's system temp & pressure data confirms that he has a negative COP for the 1 year test.
    12. Rossi has infiltrated all of the blogs with fake handles including "Vortex" and this forum.
    13. IH has 3rd party proof that the "customer" side just contained a large radiator.
    14. Rossi thinks that everyone uses "sock puppets" and fabrication as a strategy because it works so well for him.


    Since we already know who is the ERV, regarding point 5 above, I presume that you mean that "Rossi is terrified of the day that the "ERV report" becomes public. Is that correct?

    This is quite strange since we were first told that the ERV was "an idiot" and not to trust his report and now we are told that Rossi is terrified of the report. Also, from Mats Lewans' blog we have been told that 3rd parties have seen the report and found that it is supports Rossi's claims, and does not show indications of error.

    So on one side we have Rossi saying that there is no such value as 100.1C in the report, and on the other side we have Dewey saying an entire column of data contains that value.


    Given that the report will be eventually published, this is very weird?



    Maybe Dewey you can clarify?

    Quote from Nigel Appleton

    Yes, isn't it odd how many hyperbolically dramatised claims fall away when properly and calmly researched by people with a modicum of relevant knowledge.


    You are implying a causal connection that does not exist. Let's assume for a moment that the claims by Jed and others have now been "properly and calmly researched" by "people with a modicum of relevant knowledge." The people on the other side of the debate will pursue their position for months or years if they are convinced of it and are not persuaded by these properly and calmly researched points, as emphatically as they have in the past few days. That the debate has fallen off for a moment is due to the normal ebb and flow of these discussions. People go off and fix a plumbing problem, or they edit a paper, or they put new roofing on a house.

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.