Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test

frankwtu · May 30th 2016

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I can't see how you get that. As I said above I don't think it likely the court will rule Rossi's invention is illusory.

Well do you think it more likely that Rossi et al, Darden et al and the Patent Court of Florida will spend taxpayers and investors money without there being something substantial to argue about?

Well its not for me to mix things up or not, because the court will sort out any 'mix-up'.

My point is that if the court continue to consider the contract as valid (the considerations and promises are not illusory, they are real), and that they are worthy of resolution, then it will be clear to all US citizens, the scientific community and the world that there is 'something in the LENR Rossi effect stuff' and you and Mr Weaver will be loosing the battle. But we must wait and see.

Best regards
Frank

**THHuxley** · May 30th 2016

Quote

My point is that if the court continue to consider the contract as valid (the considerations and promises are not illusory, they are real), and that they are worthy of resolution, then it will be clear to all US citizens, the scientific community and the world that there is 'something in the LENR Rossi effect stuff' and you and Mr Weaver will be loosing the battle. But we must wait and see.

I'm sorry to labour this point, but:

(1) For the reasons above it is very unclear to me that the Court not determining Rossi's device illusory says anything.
(2) It is, again as above, unclear to me that Dewey is arguing Rossi's technology is illusory, though he may well argue that certain tests are false.

I bow to your reading of the Law here but I can't see IH has to prove Rossi's technology illusory to win the case - all they need is the easier proof that Rossi has not fulfilled the contract by transferring IP. Therefore the illusory issue will quite likely not be tested. There is no case in which Rossi's technology is illusory and the license agreement tests are correct, so disproving the specific tests must be an easier task, assuming they go down that route. An even easier task is just to prove there has been no technology transfer: but that would not reclaim their $11.5M - assuming they want that which is very unclear to me.

Where do you get this certainty about Dewey's position (or - not identical - IH's position)?

Zuffhaus · May 30th 2016

Illusory here means that the consideration/promise as such - not the subject matter of the promise - is hollow. If Rossi could fulfill his part of the contract by delivering a radiator bought at the he nearest hardware store, then it would be illusory in view of the context and the price. This is obviously not the case. He is suppose to deliver a LERN device with COP +6. That is not illusory. If he actually ever could or even have delivered it, that is a different matter. If he knew that he would not be able to deliver, then it would be fraudulent.

**THHuxley** · May 30th 2016

Thks Zuffhaus, well then according to that narrow definition I'd guess IH will argue that, and Rossi would need at a minimum one credible independent test not destroyed by experts to prove not illusory. But - that relates to the $89M not the previously paid $11.5M.

frankwtu · May 30th 2016

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

can't see IH has to prove Rossi's technology illusory to win the case

Well you may well be right, but I cant see the court 'sitting in judgement' about improper use of IP and the non payment of $89 million if the contract is invalid, which it would be if Rossi's invention was not 'useful'.

You may be right about Dewey's position being different to yours as I think he is saying now that IP was not transferred and so may believe the invention is 'real'. This is interesting if he reflects IH's view.

But in any case, I just cannot see the Florida Patent court continuing without throwing out what amounts to squabble about the equivalent to a licence and IP for a 'Luna cheese mining device' the Judge would be laughed out of court.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

But - that relates to the $89M not the previously paid $11.5M.

Tom, that (illusory invention/contract) relates to:

(1) the validity of the contract
(2) the validity of the invention
(3) if 'invalid' whether the $11.5 million should be repaid
(4) if 'invalid' whether Rossi will be facing a jail sentence and sued for fraud

It has everything to do with everything!!

Best regards
Frank

Tom Paulsen · May 30th 2016

Quote from Zuffhaus

He is suppose to deliver a LERN device with COP +6. That is not illusory. If he actually ever could or even have delivered it, that is a different matter. If he knew that he would not be able to deliver, then it would be fraudulent.

When studying the contract, then you can find that according the 1 MW plant it is not about what Rossi has really delivered or not, but just about what the ERV confirmed.

And if the ERV has confirmed a COP > 6 this has relevance.

I think, when it comes to the 1 MW plant test, IH have a bad hand. This results from the corresponding agreements in the contract and has nothing to do with the question whether the plant had really produced any COP > 1 or not. They are committed to the agreement that the exclusive judgment is done by the ERV.

IH have to prove that the ERV had cheated. And I think that is hardly possible.

For this reason, IH has only the ability to challenge the entire contract.

IH Fanboy · May 30th 2016

Quote from Thomas Clarke

We'd have to go to the thread analysing this experiment and look at the only arguments requiring specific thermal coupling which were not Jed's and quite mind-bogglingly complex. Really you don't want to do that! It is angels dancing on pins. The simple analysis shows that, for the most obvious heater design, the observed SSM is exactly explained by a hot core model.

Based on my review of the threads (and I agree, they are quite complex and difficult to grok each position), your standard "hot core" model does not explain the exponential temperature drops observed in response to certain actions taken (which were various and occurred at different times). So, in order to fill that gap, you proposed the specific loose thermal coupling hypothesis to explain the temperature data. And so the SSM is not explained simply by the hot core model. It requires your hot core model + loose coupling hypothesis.

I am suggesting that everything Rossi has done to date, to our knowledge, has had a tight coupling. You are welcome to believe that he transitioned from loose coupling to tight coupling, but building a core with a heater element loosely coupled to it makes little sense, unless Rossi was intentionally trying to deceive. And as I've stated before, it is impossible to disprove trickery. Thus, my suggestion that the only finality we will get in this saga is when working products are available widely, such that many independent "testers" can test and report.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax · May 30th 2016

I hope I was never this arrogant when I started out researching and writing about LENR. I think I wasn't, because had I been, I never would have been invited to communicate with the experts. Still, Thomas is gracious, and responds evenly, taking this as a serious question, ignoring the dripping sarcasm, the offensive mind-reading of Thomas's position, translating it from the careful scientific skepticism of a student into the pseudoskepticism of an ... an arrogant know-it-all, who is certain of bogosity, which we have seen in discussions on this field since as long as I've been involved, and going back, I see it has been going on for decades. Shades of the Amazing Randi, and more recently, Mary Yugo (who has been occasionally cogent but then succumbed to the dark side, perhaps a touch of senility. Note to self: watch out for certainty, it's a killer. Of course, "Mary" was never anything other than a fake identity. And Abd has never been anything other than Abd, responsible for what he writes, including all the errors.)

Thomas is cleraly visible as a genuine skeptic on the Rossi issue. He has not make claims, at least not here, that he cannot support. Really, what he has done is to look at published reports and analyze them for consistency with what is known and can be reasonably inferred. Standard skeptical investigation.

I can express, here, the difference between a genuine scientist and a scientist who is really a pseudoscientist-with-a-scientific-degree. I have studied the reports of scientists, of the first and second kind, and found inconsistencies. I went to Mike McKubre with several. He acknowledged each point, agreeing that there were shortcomings, explaining what he could, and hoping for further research to clarify issues (which is now happening). When Parkhomov announced, I was initially quite excited. But a scientist pointed out some anomalies with the data. I looked, studying the report carefully, and found that, definitely, there were internal contradicitions in the Parkhom report. Something wasn't right, either the evap calorimetry had an artifact, or the temperature record was flawed. So I made a list of questions about the report, vetted it with others, and then sent it to Parkhomov. I got a polite response essentially saying "I don't have time."

So Parkhomov continued to waste his time and that of many others, eventually sticking his foot thoroughly in his mouth with the faked temperature, which is sad, because it really was unnecessary. Simple honesty (I didn't collect data in this period because my laptop batter had to be recharged) would have been fine. It wan't actually material, but ... maybe it was. Maybe Parkhomov didn't want to point to the laptop problem because then someone would ask him why he needed to run it on battery power. And that would open up a whole can of worms about massive AC noise.

And Lewan took Clarke's observations about the Lugano test to Levi, and Levi basically continued to stonewall. Not-science. Pseudoscience, founded in social acceptance by his peers. that, of course, doesn't mean he is wrong. It means that he won't know and we won't know if he actually has something to contribute.

What Clarke ahs shown, on the face (together with many others) is that the Rossi tests, originally presented and considered to be amazing, beyond any possible error, were actually inconclusive. What was claimed from them is almost certainly overstated, and it is possible that there was no XP at all.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

frankwtu wrote:

Numerous times in these discussions, I have seen a total lack of understanding how the U.S. court system works. A case is not thrown out of court unless it is baseless on the face, and a claim that "the device doesn't work" is impossible to establish without going through actual process in court, qualifying and presenting evidence and testimony, all with a judge whose commitment is to neutrality.

There were issues with U.S. Patent Office procedure where the impossibility argument had wings, but that was over technicalities of patent procedure. And, in fact, with a clearly working model, the Patent Office problems could have been overcome. (I suspect incompetent prosecution there, perhaps, and the real and standard LENR problem, reliability.) The courts are going to be reluctant to intervene against the standard process of a governmental agency. But this is a case between two nongovernmental actors, business entities.

Summary judgment is possible in a case like this, which would be more or less throwing the case out, but summary judgment is generally based on there being no triable issue of fact, all necessary facts being established by agreement of the parties. So there is only a ruling on a point of law. The idea of the questioner here appears to be that IH would claim "this is total nonsense!" and the court would throw it out. But that is a factual claim, which a judge could not simply declare to be truth.

Not going to happen. Even if Rossi has absolutely nothing, and all the tests were faked. Which is not what Clarke has been saying or implying.

Right. IH has other fish to fry. Their motivations could be simple, or complex. I have seen some facts in the situation that would lead me to be concerned, if I were Rossi's attorney. But Rossi obviously knows his situation much better. What he should beware is the appearance of fraud. If his personal history taught him anything, it would be, I'd think, that you can have no bad intentions, but if it looks bad and that appearance can be supported in a prosecution, you can still go to jail. Life is not always fair, justice can fail.

And Rossi, since 2011, has behaved in ways to raise suspicions of fraud, and many of us have thought that this was deliberate, to throw competition off the track. That could turn out to have been a dangerous game.

Rossi, if he had operating units in 2011, could have already been to market, with devices for industrial applications -- even as test models for proof-of-concept, licensing the technology even if it's not ready for consumer use. He could already be well on his way to billions in profit. But he had his own ideas, and fully insisted on them, leading to delay after delay.

It's a common problem with perfectionist engineers, by the way. They keep improving the product, so it never gets to market. Sometimes when it finally does, it's too late. I've seen companies run by very bright engineers with that particular shortcoming go under.

With NiH and Rossi. There has been very good calorimetry on PdD work. COP is not generally used in LENR, can be misleading as a measure. That's another story. But the usual boundary for significant LENR is 5% of input power, where input power matters. That was the standard used by McKubre in his replication of the Energetic Technologies SuperWave protocol. (I'm not sure, but I think the calorimetry was about ten times as accurate as that.) So that would be 1.05.

This brings up an issue I'll cover below.

To finish:
[quote]So, although I think his invention is illusory, I'm not sure this is provable in Court. It would depend I guess on what evidence was needed, and what evidence provided by IH.

Display More

So Thomas "thinks" that. I'd bet that, asked, he'd say that this is based on lack of evidence for the reality of the invention as a practical power producing device. There are many who have speculated that Rossi found some effect, but that it wasn't reliable. I.e., that he is seeing some level of real heat. Then some of these have suggested that when demos didn't work, he nudged them. It's all in a good cause, after all! We'll have the kinks worked out by next month!

This is the danger of the argument Lewan made to Clarke, about possible harm. It simply is not understood that even a little fakery could torpedo the whole thing. They do throw the baby out with the bathwater.
(to be continued)

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax · May 31st 2016

(continued) I had something written to put here, but the length restriction kept me from placing it. So I did copy the end. However, as I worked on it to finish it up, more ideas came to me. and. ... discretion is the better part of valor. I'm going to share this with Storms first. At the end of what I was going to write was:

The New Fire. You saw it here first.

This much I will say: study Storms recent work. The thinking was based on it.

frankwtu · May 31st 2016

IH Fanboy

Quote from IH Fanboy

Thus, my suggestion that the only finality we will get in this saga is when working products are available widely, such that many independent "testers" can test and report.

To add to your speculation above, I speculate that Rossi will come away from court with a conditional 'win' sufficient to say to the rest of us that 'LENR' and the 'Rossi effect' Is real.

This of course will not stop the debate but it will open the floodgates to the scientific community getting involved. The next stage will be the one you suggest which may take many years.

Best regards
Frank

**THHuxley** · May 31st 2016

@Abd and others

Disclosure. I just want to say that I think it unlikely Rossi has LENR, also unlikely that LENR exists as a nuclear phenomena even in Pd/D systems. However that is irrelevant when commenting on Rossi's many demos, or on IH. IH clearly think that LENR does exist and want to back it. Personally, I'm always in favour of good quality research, and don't see anyone should censor what gets researched, or not do it because I think it is unlikely to pan out. After all, you could say that only boring research is likely to pan out (though that is a feeble argument and there are maybe "better" areas where effort is more likely to achieve better understanding. What those areas are remains a matter of difficult judgement).

frankwtu · May 31st 2016

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

I have Stom's book The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. What impressed me most was the comprehensive list of references, 904 in total.

Best regards
Frank

Ascoli65 · May 31st 2016

@ Thomas Clarke,
yesterday, you wrote (*):

- "All Rossi's devices have a heater. In this case, to explain what was observed, the heating element needs to heat both a "hot core" with a large thermal mass and the primary water circuit. ..."

To not interfere with the ongoing discussion, I added some technical detail on this aspect here:
Mats Lewan's Test Report

(*) Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test

frankwtu · May 31st 2016

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Disclosure. I just want to say that I think it unlikely Rossi has LENR, also unlikely that LENR exists as a nuclear phenomena even in Pd/D systems.

This statement seems to suggest you don't rule out 'something' but you think that whatever it is, its not Nuclear.

Well if that is what you think I would not criticise that and since we do not have a valid 'theory' the phenomena maybe due to principles we have yet to discover.

Once again we agree on something!!

Best regards
Frank

**Wyttenbach** · May 31st 2016

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Disclosure. I just want to say that I think it unlikely Rossi has LENR, also unlikely that LENR exists as a nuclear phenomena even in Pd/D systems.

Can You show us the base for Your thinking why LENR should not exist? Or is it just your private, hence personal believe?

As a scientist I can only say that You had to prove that LENR doesn't exist. Remember there are much tougher papers to refute, than Rossi's hiding games... And even there You didn't solve the simple "rods' heat conduction" issue...

**Eric Walker** · May 31st 2016

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The simple analysis shows that, for the most obvious heater design, the observed SSM is exactly explained by a hot core model.

If the "hot core" analysis is valid, it implies similar behavior would have been seen in control runs (absent intentional fiddling with the setup between active and control runs). You would look at the power-in v. temperature response data for a control run, conducted without fuel, and think, "there's SSM." Were there any control runs for the Oct. 6, 2011, Bologna test? I haven't found any.

**Eric Walker** · May 31st 2016

Quote from frankwtu

If this is a reasonable interpretation of your position (and you are right) then the court will throw the case out as being based around an 'illusion' and the contract baseless, we shall see!!!

Suppose for a moment that the court ruled that the invention was illusory. Perhaps that would give IH a basis to attempt to recuperate some of its initial 11.5 million investment.

Quote from frankwtu

So, if Rossi's inventions have been issued with a 'patent' withstanding the above test, then they are unlikely to be determined to be 'illusory'. However, I know you are likely to disagree and if evidence is presented to court (such as your critique of Lugano) and this is viewed as evidence that Rossi's invention could not (in hindsight) comply with the above 'test' of 'usefulness etc., Then the Court will see this, as you do, that the invention does not work, the patents will be rescinded and the contract declared 'invalid' due to an 'illusory' consideration.

I'm hoping one requirement of the court will be a rigorous test by a truly independent third party.

**Eric Walker** · May 31st 2016

Quote from Tom Paulsen

I think, when it comes to the 1 MW plant test, IH have a bad hand. This results from the corresponding agreements in the contract and has nothing to do with the question whether the plant had really produced any COP > 1 or not. They are committed to the agreement that the exclusive judgment is done by the ERV.

Your legal conclusions seem to be based on an assumption that the court will rule according to the letter of the license agreement rather than the intent. Let's set aside for the moment any difficulties one might have with the possibility that the court will rule in favor of Leonardo rather than IH on that narrow basis. If we assume instead that the court will take into consideration the intent of the agreement as well, we need only observe that intent of at least one of the parties (IH) was that what it was paying for a 1MW LENR device and enabling IP related to it. We can assume that their intent was not something along the lines of, "Well, we'll give you 100 million for whatever it is you have, even if it is in the final analysis unverifiable because of incompetence or interference, or verifiably not a LENR device and related IP."

IH Fanboy · May 31st 2016

Quote from Eric Walker

If the "hot core" analysis is valid, it implies similar behavior would have been seen in control runs (absent intentional fiddling with the setup between active and control runs). You would look at the power-in v. temperature response data for a control run, conducted without fuel, and think, "there's SSM." Were there any control runs for the Oct. 6, 2011, Bologna test? I haven't found any.

I'm not aware of any either, which is quite surprising given the attention the Oct. 6, 2011 test has been given. I remember Jed suggesting a test along the lines of heating up an iron pot (that has similar mass as to the components capable of storing heat energy within the fat cat). For example, put the pot on a hot stove, and raise the temperature to the maximum temperature of the Oct. 6, 2011 test, then turn off the stove, and time how long it takes for the water to stop boiling. Seems like a simple enough test. I'm paraphrasing things based on memory of Jed's comments from years back, but I do remember that Jed was *very adamant* that the water would remain boiling in the pot far less time than what was demonstrated during the Oct. 6, 2011 test.

sifferkoll · May 31st 2016

Quote from "renzzzzzie"

if you were smart enough to put a (R) behind your name

Wow renzzie! You really DO have serious psychological issues with that R ...

Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test

The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

EMDrive: Newton's Laws can be "bypassed"?

Generator Tarasenko based on the model of the planet Earth

LK99 -- A new room temperature superconductor?

The Playground

Water evaporation using light

RIP Tom Passel, LENR Researcher and Supporter.

FreeL Tech's Vacuum Capacitor - Utmost Importance!

Following the webinar by Klimov-Zatelepin on March 27, 2024

AI and LENR - The Bots Get Busy.

Share

Tags

Subscribe to our newsletter

Share

Tags