IH HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL total exemption full accounts 31 december 2021
The Playground
-
-
For a long time, I wondered how to explain the Lugano results. Someone told me it was misreading of emissivity. I thought about appending a note to the copy of the Lugano report at LENR-CANR.org describing this. I decided not to. I do not know enough about emissivity to comment. If someone would like to write a short paper describing the problem, I could upload it and perhaps put a link from the Lugano report to the paper describing the problem (and vice versa).
Generally speaking, I do not change papers or link them to critiques. Occasionally I do correct spelling errors and things like that, especially OCR errors that I myself overlooked.
Hello Jed,
In addition to THHuxleynew reference to
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf
It must be noted that there are errors in that report which are described in the post
Thomas Clarke's report corrected
That is post #90 in the thread Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)
It invalidates some of the conclusions in Thomas Clarke's report
-
Linked here a while ago. Problem described in detail in section IV if you read it.
So it is right there! I had forgotten all about it, to be honest. At least I remembered it was an emissivity issue.
Perhaps I should link the Lugano paper to this paper, and vice versa.
-
For a long time, I wondered how to explain the Lugano results. Someone told me it was misreading of emissivity. I thought about appending a note to the copy of the Lugano report at LENR-CANR.org describing this. I decided not to. I do not know enough about emissivity to comment. If someone would like to write a short paper describing the problem, I could upload it and perhaps put a link from the Lugano report to the paper describing the problem (and vice versa).
Generally speaking, I do not change papers or link them to critiques. Occasionally I do correct spelling errors and things like that, especially OCR errors that I myself overlooked.
You have at least two reports about the whole episode, one authored by the MFMP and published in the JCMNS, that you have already made available in this link: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acro…JPjcondensedt.pdf#page=86
The other is also at LENR-CANR.org, but is authored by a skeptic we know well.(Edit to add: I realize that the Skeptic report had already been reminded to you, but the MFMP found another issue also).
-
Compare with snap
Subsidiary undertakings
New Heat, LLC 310 S. West St. Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27603
Ordinary 100%
IHJ Holdings Limited 44 Esplanade St. Helier Jersey, JE4 9WG
Ordinary 100%
L Holdings, LLC 310 S. West St. Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27603
Ordinary 100%
Industrial Heat, LLC 310 S. West St. Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27603
Ordinary 100%
IHHI Nominee LLC * 310 S. West St. Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27603
Ordinary 100%
IHL Holdings Limited * 44 Esplanade St. Helier Jersey, JE4 9WG
Ordinary 100%
IH IP Holdings Limited * 44 Esplanade St. Helier Jersey, JE4 9WG
Ordinary 100%
* Held indirectly
Associated undertakings
HMRI Ltd* 44 Esplanade st. Helier Jersey, JE4 9WG
Ordinary 45%
DRL Swiss SA* 44 Esplanade St. Helier Jersey, JE4 9WG
Ordinary 45%
* Held indirectly
-
It must be noted that there are errors in that report which are described in the post
Thomas Clarke's report corrected
That is post #90 in the thread Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)It invalidates some of the conclusions in Thomas Clarke's report
LDM - when reviewing here the old discussion it would be helpful if:
(1) you linked the later MFMP report (EDIT - I see curbina has usefully done that above)
(2) you summarised the errors and in what ways (with reasons) the conclusions were invalidated.
Details always matter when comparing two reports.
My vague memory is that while MFMP notes another source of inaccuracy (and it is useful) the main conclusions stood - given that there was so much uncertainty about the exact composition and therefore optical properties of the Lugano device. But I will happily be corrected.
Not that it matters, unless anyone now is claiming Rossi's many demos as evidence that his devices work a bit.
-
LDM - when reviewing here the old discussion it would be helpful if:
(1) you linked the later MFMP report (EDIT - I see curbina has usefully done that above)
Both myself and Paradigmnoia came to the conclusion that there is something totally flawed with the MFMP test.
To include such a totally flawed test as a reference makes no sense, but the MFMP test was not a part of my post.
(2) you summarised the errors and in what ways (with reasons) the conclusions were invalidated.
I stated where the post can be found.
In that post the errors are clearly discussed.
Details always matter when comparing two reports.
I did not compare two reports, I only discussed Thomas Clarkes report.
My vague memory is that while MFMP notes another source of inaccuracy (and it is useful) the main conclusions stood - given that there was so much uncertainty about the exact composition and therefore optical properties of the Lugano device. But I will happily be corrected.
As I said, I did not comment on the MFMP test
Not that it matters, unless anyone now is claiming Rossi's many demos as evidence that his devices work a bit.
For any claims, pro or con, it is necessary to have the underlying proof to be correct
-
I think is important to stablish that the MFMP report did not negate the possibility of excess heat, just put a much lower bound to it.
That lower bound was consistent with their own independent replication that had a COP of 1.13, and they also observed the famous gamma ray anomaly that was replicated by Biberian. Now they have a completely different understanding of the gamma ray anomaly.
-
I also built a device that intentionally abused the emissivity problem for a Rossi-Lugano style COP of 7.2, including power supply losses, at a whopping 2100 C (Lugano Style).
-
100 W/kg or more
-
Dr Rossi,
Do you have already an Ecat SKLep with the power of 1 kW in operation in your labs ?
Thank you if you can answer,
Yuri
2022-10-29 09:44 Andrea Rossi
Yuri:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
====================
Let us not concern ourselves about what has happened in the past, but look at what might happen in the future. Rossi will continue to play in the LENR arena even if he believes that his technology has nothing to do with cold fusion. But we can draw insights about his future actions from what he has done in the past.
Rossi is only concerned with the pleasure he gets from inventing. Rossi is now doing R&D on downsizing the mini. He will wait until the redesigned mini and its enclosures are debugged before he fills any orders. If the past is prolog, I beleive that the 1 million order gambit (1,000,000 100watt units) is a device to keep his financial backer placated so that these backer(s) will continue to fund his R&D. Rossi has never been sensitive to the opinions of his critics or supporters, Rossi does not care about what his potential customers think, he only cares about what the people who are funding him think.
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.What does the mini tell us about the underlying reaction. The reaction is exclusively an electric reaction that produces no heat. The reaction is not nuclear energy based and is actioned by the EVO. The energy of the reaction is derived by the vacuum but it is not based on virtual particles or the Casimir effect,
-
Let us not concern ourselves about what has happened in the past, but look at what might happen in the future.
No wiser words have ever been spoken.
George Santayana was a moron.
-
Hearing about Rossi's "A.I." I can't help but wonder how he powers his A.I. chip, considering how these chips notoriously suck a lot of power, usually over 250 watts. I suppose his mini could generate 250.01 watts, and that extra .01 watts is what powers those low power LED's. It is a very fine balance. It is also possible that Rossi's new higher power version, which was developed on an antique table and designed to generate heat, simply uses a much larger number of A.I. chips to generate said heat.
-
Hearing about Rossi's "A.I." I can't help but wonder how he powers his A.I. chip, considering how these chips notoriously suck a lot of power, usually over 250 watts. I suppose his mini could generate 250.01 watts, and that extra .01 watts is what powers those low power LED's. It is a very fine balance. It is also possible that Rossi's new higher power version, which was developed on an antique table and designed to generate heat, simply uses a much larger number of A.I. chips to generate said heat.
He hand-carves the AI chips himself from only the finest Italian silica incorporating the most exclusive of dopants that he applies to lattice dislocations with the tiniest of tweezers.
-
In the streaming video I no longer see that fraction of the current consumed, it almost looks like a frozen video, why?
Gavino Mamia:
It is not frozen ( see the running watch ), the oscillations now are in the order of microA as our Team can see in the Ecats we are using in our R&D lab with Amperometers that are precise to measure down to the third decimal of microAmperes. The A.I. regulates the oscillations. It seems that after a month of continuous operation the Ecat demands lower oscillations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
-
He hand-carves the AI chips himself from only the finest Italian silica incorporating the most exclusive of dopants that he applies to lattice dislocations with the tiniest of tweezers.
Whilst typing in his A.I. code using his vintage Olivetti typewriter...
-
-
Rossi's A.I. power usage is likely to destroy the environment.
AI Power Consumption ExplodingExponential increase is not sustainable. But where is it all going?semiengineering.com -
That picture is so hot!!!! The dual floppies really turn me on.
-
The Rossi live stream address has changed again I think? Though Frank's ECW page is still working (from Nov 1st)?
