The Playground

  • Quote

    Anyways, a 2.13 mg sample of ash, 3 particles selected at random, comprising between 95.6 to 95.9 % of the mass of the sample, totally digested in nitric acid, returned a result of 99.3% Ni62. So that is not a surface effect.

    Nope. it's a "salting" effect. Rossi simply purchased Ni62 and added it to the sample either before or after the experimental run. The "blind mice" professors, by allowing him to handle the "fuel" and "ash" gave him every opportunity. Only the mildest sleight of hand technique, if any, was required.

  • Quote

    I find a 9X measurement error by IH hard to comprehend, at the kind of power levels I presume (from the typical dogbine protocols) they were using. Mistaking 1W for 9W is easy to do, mistaking 100W for 900W is just about feasible, but mistaking (say) 500W for 4.5kW seems impossible assuming sober experimenters with even limited experience. I can only assume that 9X is a typo.


    Agreed if we are not talking measurement of radiated heat by approximation from temperature and the Stefan–Boltzmann relationship. That can yield almost anything, absent proper calibration. If IH measured temperature rise in a coolant, than a 9X error at appreciable power levels is incomprehensible. Unless, of course, the measurements are bogus from the start and the data are made up or the instrument are made to give false readings. All of that is possible given Rossi's ability to defraud and IH's gross incompetence and negligence in properly checking him.

  • If IH measured temperature rise in a coolant, than a 9X error at appreciable power levels is incomprehensible.

    IH came up with that 9X all on their own.

    Maybe I missed something, but when "9X" was initially mentioned, was it in a context where "9X" means a measurement error of 9 times?

    Or does "9X" rather just stand for (control) reactor 9 which was mistaken as (loaded) reactor 6?

    See this comments:

    The Playground

    The Playground

  • RossAhi - but of course - your signature parseplay on words "effect". The audience has been educated by your years of factoid dicing / word-smith slicing and is smarter than that now RossAhi. When does the Fulvio magic box at Uppsala that suddenly makes everything work just before the trial announcement "leak" out?

  • Alan - Fulvs was right there. Rossi refused to come up from FL to help with the unsuccessful replication attempts until TD ordered him because of this "specific problem". Classic takedown and surprising response from the inventor extraordinaire not. Nothing left but burnt toast ash after the R'ster flamed out on that one.


    Watching Planet Rossi's faux star collapse is a most disgusting and despicable sight. Sort of an inverse version of "The Concert"

  • Not sure where to put this.

    Salt and vinegar? Playground?

    lenr-forum.com/attachment/2230/ (dead link AS)

    Abdul Lomax plugs crowd funding for cold fusion.


    If only we could eat LENR

    like we eat homegrown coffee ground mushrooms or honey

    crowd funding would be no problem.


    But perhaps the LENR image can improve


    https://www.gofundme.com/cold-fusion-journalism.


    Moved from ACSH: Are Scientists Honest? Applying Hanlon's Razor To Science Funding. Alan.

  • Mary Yugo .


    Rossi wasn't arounnd AFAIK. IH came up with that 9X all on their own. And it was measured by Vaughn, Stefan and Boltzmann were both on vacation.


    Alan: measured by Vaughn


    That well-known engineer/scientist?


    What you mean is that Vaughn followed Rossi's protocol and - yay - got Rossi's results?


    IH IMHO spent too much time following Rossi's test methods as no doubt signed off also by Levi, Fulvio. They had at the time no-one to check this and tell them different.


    Do you see how that creates a big problem?


    Planet Rossi comments I don't expect to join dots. However, you are clearly capable of thinking logically. All I'm asking is that on this topic you make your thinking a little less selective, and admit that IH/Vaughn would be unable to debug Rossi's rubbish measurement setups and therefore would get the same results as Rossi until they just happened to do what Rossi said was not worth doing - a proper control experiment.

  • THHuxleynew


    Well, my point was how anybody could mistake COP9 for COP>1? How do you mistake (say) 500W for 4.5kW? Not really to do with who measured it or how it was measured, who was there or who was not. I should think my cat could tell the difference.


    Alan, for someone following this story you are remarkably unfamiliar with Rossi's methods. You would agree that 9=3*3 and that therefore it can be got through typical for Rossi input power under-estimation (factor of 3) combined with output power overestimation (factor 3). You are I think knowledgeable enough to work out how both of these could have been done, because we have records of both from Rossi.

  • I agree you can stretch stuff that way. But confusing 500W for 4.5kW? Come on, how much instrumentation would you need to tell the difference?


    So: as you have agreed, all you would need is to use the given instrumentation correctly (proper RMS measuements on all phases without clamps reversed, correct value of band emissivity).


    But given Rossi and presumably Fulvio and (certainly for the IR stuff) Levi were not doing this, how is Vaughn - a non-tech guy - supposed to know any different? Or Dameron, a barely tech guy?


    IH relied on Rossi, Fulvio, and the endorsement of Levi + the Swedes. They were not initially set up to detect plain wrong use of equipment.

  • THHuxleynew


    Don't be obtuse THH - my point is (as I suspect you know) that to tell the difference between something roughly the size of a single 'traditional' electric fire bar element radiating 500W and the same thing radiating 4.5 kW requires little more than a piece of toast. Batteries not included.


    OK - so in that case you did not understand the issue:

    (1) because of input-side mis-measurement my hypothetical case this would be 1.5kW vs 4.5kW

    (2) Vaughn would not know the difference - nor would many non-technical people


    Of course there are input-side mismeasurement issues Rossi has used can give more than X3, making the disparity less, I was being conservative.

  • You know very well i understand all the issues you raise. You just don't want to admit that missing a X9 error is just a tad laughable. Especially when so much was at stake.


    Laughable perhaps, if you laugh at technical lack of knowledge, but entirely plausible. I was contradicting your implication that this was not plausible - but - since I now know you were just making a joke i can agree (it is a bit unkind though).


    IH not getting better in-house tech scrutiny when so much is at stake. Sure. They have learnt their lesson now I think? Anyway you've got to realise they would have been subjected to the Rossi effect which is sociologically speaking is remarkably powerful.


    :)

  • You know very well i understand all the issues you raise. You just don't want to admit that missing a X9 error is just a tad laughable

    They didn't miss it. It wasn't an error. They saw that according to Rossi's method the cell was apparently producing 9 times input, but they also knew was an error, because the cell was empty. They pointed this out to Rossi. He got angry.


    They made errors in previous tests which they thought produced real excess heat. However, I have not read that these previous tests produces errors as large as 9 times input. I think the previous errors were smaller. I believe I.H. realized there was a problem so they tested a cell with no powder and pushed the technique to its limits to get 9 times. That does not mean they believed it.


    In the 1-year test, Rossi and Penon produced an error of 50 times input. They made 20 kW look like 1 MW in their own data, mainly by producing hot water and claiming it was dry steam. However, I do not think this was a mistake. Given the absurd numbers in the report and the absurd choice of instruments, I assume this was deliberate fraud.


  • Rossi has shown himself to be and ignorant and arrogant simpleton. Abram shoves the evidence in Rossi's face and nevertheless. there is no recognition, let alone acknowledgment.

  • Dewey,

    [....]

    I am curious; did you guys take steps after seeing the Rossi/FF "tricks" in NC, to make sure they could not do the same thing in Switzerland? TD informed us in his depo that Rossi/FF were there most, if not the whole 32 days, so I would think that after NC, he would have been very suspicious with those two characters being so heavily involved? Yet, in reading the depos's, all of IH appeared to be impressed by the Lugano results...or were they? I would even go so far as to say that were it not for Lugano, TD never would have signed the Term Sheet allowing Doral.

    So many suspicions and so many proofs of Rossi's falsity, yet an unperturbed IH has continued to collect money and finance his tests ..... or IH people have an endless naivety or they do not tell us all things sincerely.

  • IH IMHO spent too much time following Rossi's test methods as no doubt signed off also by Levi, Fulvio. They had at the time no-one to check this and tell them different.

    All I'm asking is that on this topic you make your thinking a little less selective, and admit that IH/Vaughn would be unable to debug Rossi's rubbish measurement setups and therefore would get the same results as Rossi until they just happened to do what Rossi said was not worth doing - a proper control experiment.


    @THH: Will we soon see the brand new "alternate facts -Huxley" filter??


    Vaughan unable to debunk Rossi but highly able to measure the exact factor 9 wrong COP...


    Do you ever rethink/Re-evaluate what you wrote??


    The true question is: Why do investment brookers believe that the understand and can do science at all?

  • It is said that IH discoverd that a COP of 9 was measured while no fuel was in the reactor.
    Did IH afterwards analyze how they where misled ?
    As an engineer that would be the first thing what I wanted to know in order to have a full understanding of the situation.
    IF IH did not do this, why not ? If they did can somebody tell me how they where misled ?

  • LDM - Nice job keeping with the Planet Rossi outward focus mission - never ever never ever ever ever ask any questions about Rossi's explanation for an empty tube that showed a 9X multiple - ever. Now lets ask you some questions - are you concerned about "the secret" getting to the Dupe'salla boys? Turning an empty or stuffed powder tube into a 9X miracle heater is no little feat - you just need right mix of cheap Chinese electronics, the "power supply trick" and some Rossi stagecraft magic. BTW - you're not going to be able to fool the non-Planet Rossians by adding a battery to your circuit this time. We also learned a lot from your "instructions" to Bass. Was he ever able to locate the left-handed smoke sifter - skyhook version?


  • Wyttenbach: it is always helpful to think these things through.


    The scenario here is that Rossi/Fulvio provide Vaughn with reactors, a complex test setup, and instructions on how to run the tests. Vaughn is certainly capable of following these instructions, but not of knowing whether (for example) power measurement is correct or wrong.


    All we know is that in this way a COP of 9 was measured. Not, as I've pointed out, surprising.


    We also know that a reactor showing Rossi-type COP (I'm not sure whether it is confirmed this was COP=9) was run in a test with a whole load of other reactors, all showing the same high COP. One of these reactors was however a control, with no fuel. From which TD, without any tech knowledge, could deduce that Rossi's test setup measures an electric heater as having whatever high COP (perhaps 9, but I'm not certain this has been confirmed) was measured.


    Now: in what way is that difficult to understand?


    Regards, THH

  • How do we know IH didn't screw up the calibration and measurement?

  • How do we know IH didn't screw up the calibration and measurement?


    Clearly they did, in the sense that they used Rossi's setups for some time getting reassuringly high COP from nothing.


    However, again if you reflect on what happens here, the evidence from a control reactor by mistake included in an identical setup with multiple active ones, and generating the same high COP, is not something you can muck up.


    IH themselves were not confident they had done things right, which is why they were cautious (but alas not cautious enough).


    The anti-IH camp here really fails badly when it comes to analysing the experimental data - because it so clearly shows, and has always shown, Rossi's demos to be duds.


    All the rest, motives, money, contracts, can be twisted in a Rossieque way. hard data from experiments less easily so. When you do this - as in Lugano - you usually get found out if you provide a decent write-up, and no-one believes you if you do not.