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

Eric

Quote from Eric Walker

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.

Yes it would I think, but it would also I believe render the invention and the IP useless in legal terms. So anyone could use it, tweak it and make it work maybe. Then Rossi could appeal.

Quote from Eric Walker

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

The court process is 'adversarial' each side brings to the arena their own 'weapons' and the outcome of the battle will be judged by the nature of the instructions the Judge gives the Jury and critically 'what the jury decide' which is Rossi's big play. He has chosen the battle ground and the time equivalent to a home game. He may ask the Jury to consider 'third party' verification of his ideas, but is more likely to point to other 'successful' replications as support for the principle. It would certainly be a game changer if he asked Storms or someone like him to have a look at his invention in SSM.

Will IH ask for verification? Well they may already know, or have a position on that, I think they believe it works but Rossi has not given them sufficient IP and support to produce a marketable device. Outside this there are the conspiracy theories which the court may consider if one or other of the parties bring it out, as may Rossi.

Does it matter that steam was 'superheated' I don't know. I think (providing the court think Rossi's invention works) the case will be about 'the contract'. if the court take the view the contract should be discharged in full, for the complaint to be valid, Rossi of course will win (3 X $89 million) but only if he can prove he held to his side of the bargain in all respects, in particular he passed IH the required IP and support. If he cannot, judgement will go against him to some degree. This will have nothing to do with 'superheated steam' or whether the scientific community believe LENR is real or not.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Eric W

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.

Rossi is on record as stating that control runs are unnecessary because they do not demonstrate anything - or words to that effect. I can't remember any of his tests that have had control runs: and of course that is the main reason why it has been so easy for him to show false positives.

Quote

Does it matter that steam was 'superheated' I don't know. I think (providing the court think Rossi's invention works) the case will be about 'the contract'. if the court take the view the contract should be discharged in full, for the complaint to be valid, Rossi of course will win (3 X $89 million) but only if he can prove he held to his side of the bargain in all respects, in particular he passed IH the required IP and support.

The contract specifies how the test should be measured: and Rossi is using a different and less safe method. He may formally have the support of the ERV, in the sense that there is a positive report, but if so you can be sure that the report will be challenged as technically inaccurate one way or another. In that case I'd be surprised if the Court was not able to rule based on expert opinion of the validity of the test since it can be argued that what IH agreed to in the contract was a safer test than that actually delivered.

But who can tell how this Legal stuff goes?

Quote from Sifferkoll

Thomas has a slightly different problem. He tries to cover all loose ends everytime, which makes it very lengthy and very NON-ABSOLUTE. So he always ends up saying almost nothing.

Thank you for these kind words. It is true, of course, and I'm not ashamed of being careful in this way. Far, far better so than to ignore all loose ends not consistent with a desired conspiracy theory... But perhaps boring for readers, and not great as PR.

Quote from IHFB

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.

Jed got that wrong at the time. He has been learning a lot of calorimetry, and perhaps more general caution, as he studies LENR experiments, and I believe would now be quite a bit more careful than he was then. You can read what he said and subsequent analysis (mainly by Ascoli68) on the other thread and judge for yourself.

Quote from Wyttenbach

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...

That would be a long question to answer in full, and I have addressed it from time to time on other threads. Here I can say that I'm not claiming to prove LENR does not exist - that would be impossible - just saying my judgement given the whole body of evidence is that it is unlikely there is a low energy nuclear (or indeed other) mechanism that releases nuclear levels of energy essentially without nasty radioactive products.

I need to disclose that here because inevitably views as to LENR in general do affect judgement of specific tests. If LENR in general has been proven then it is no longer, in specific tests, "extraordinary".

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The contract specifies how the test should be measured: and Rossi is using a different and less safe method. He may formally have the support of the ERV, in the sense that there is a positive report, but if so you can be sure that the report will be challenged as technically inaccurate one way or another. In that case I'd be surprised if the Court was not able to rule based on expert opinion of the validity of the test since it can be argued that what IH agreed to in the contract was a safer test than that actually delivered.

(1) Rossi was not using any method to measure the test, the ERV was and he was paid jointly by Rossi and IH. There was ample opportunity for IH to question the test methods as the ERV submitted quarterly reports, apparently used by IH for fund raising.

(2) If the report is challenged, who will provide the 'expert witness that is acceptable to Rossi, IH and the court'? Besides the contract does not allow for challenges it stipulates if IP provided and the ERV report COP>6 then pay Rossi $89 million and that is it, no further questions.......unless the court believe the invention to be illusory for another reason, then the court will give their reasons, but they will need then to provide evidence for this which is unlikely. If evidence was provided and accepted by the court it would undoubtedly be seen as 'biased' by one or more of the parties. If this is the case Rossi or Darden may appeal.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

That would be a long question to answer in full, and I have addressed it from time to time on other threads. Here I can say that I'm not claiming to prove LENR does not exist - that would be impossible - just saying my judgement given the whole body of evidence is that it is unlikely there is a low energy nuclear (or indeed other) mechanism that releases nuclear levels of energy essentially without nasty radioactive products.

Thomas

I detect a major shift in your thinking, it is this: You do not discount a phenomena which gives significant COP but that it cannot be useful, due to a potential for dangerous nuclear by products. If this is so I think many here share your concerns.

We shall see in good time.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Rossi is on record as stating that control runs are unnecessary because they do not demonstrate anything - or words to that effect. I can't remember any of his tests that have had control runs: and of course that is the main reason why it has been so easy for him to show false positives.

Indeed. Well, on second thought, the Lugano test had a control run.

Rossi does not like the scientific method, at least when it comes to public tests.

Eric,
You've assumed here that the ERV's report does not clearly show excess heat, even though you haven't seen the report. Why is that? Do you have inside information you're not telling us about?

Quote from quizzical

Eric,
You've assumed here that the ERV's report does not clearly show excess heat, even though you haven't seen the report. Why is that? Do you have inside information you're not telling us about?

quizzical, could you please point out in which comment I've made this assumption? I assume to the contrary, that the ERV report will mention a COP of ~ 50 (within caveats that will no doubt be provided).

Quote from Thomas Clarke

IHFB wrote:

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.

Thomas Clarke wrote:

Jed got that wrong at the time. He has been learning a lot of
calorimetry, and perhaps more general caution, as he studies LENR
experiments, and I believe would now be quite a bit more careful than he
was then. You can read what he said and subsequent analysis (mainly by
Ascoli68) on the other thread and judge for yourself.

Display More

So you are certain that water in the pot would continue to boil for 3 hours after the stove was turned off?

Even if you are correct, which would be quite a surprising result to me (although admittedly I am not an expert in calorimetry), then you are still stuck with some pretty hard-to-explain temperature data in the Oct. 6, 2011 test. You have proposed the loose-coupling hypothesis in an attempt to explain the data, but I have shown it to be unlikely. Also, not sure how it explains the temperature response when the hydrogen was let out of the cell.

Quote from Tom Paulsen

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.

Display More

To discuss the exact connection between the ERV report and the liability to pay you need to have expertise in the local jurisdiction's take on contract law and related procedural aspects, which I don't have. Generally and theoretically, you could argue that ERV is an abitrator and that the ruling can only could challange in the way and manner that arbitration judgment are. That would surely not stick. An other argument is that ERV-report is agreed between the parties to be exclusive evidence of performance or not. I suspect being a non-expert that a court would frown against such an restrictive interpretration if it is not clear from the wording of the agreement that this was intention. What then remains is that the ERV-report is treated as any evidence that can be challanged or supported by other evidence. Anyhow, it is clear that from the agreement - and this reflects common sense - that the report as such is not the payment condition but "merely" evidence of that the agreed performce has been met (or not).

Someone downvoted my post, here: Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test. Could you please make yourself known and explain your rationale? It is not good etiquette to downvote a polite, reasonable comment, even if you disagree with it.

You can click on the red negative circle thing and see who down voted you.

Quote from Zuffhaus

Anyhow, it is clear that from the agreement - and this reflects common sense - that the report as such is not the payment condition but "merely" evidence of that the agreed performce has been met (or not).

I disagree. Payment condition for the 89m$ is 350 days of operation with "Guaranteed Performance" (aside of some exclusions about other products entering the market with E-Cat IP or if the plant would infringe IP of an third party).

The ERV report respectively the ERV's written statement that for 350 days the "Guaranteed Performance" has been achieved is the "payment condition". (3.2(c) and 5.)

Quote from Paradigmnoia

You can click on the red negative circle thing and see who down voted you.

quizzical, it seems you downvoted my comment. Can you explain your rationale? If you just disagree, consider simply replying rather than downvoting. I have answered your question above, about my assumptions about what the ERV would report, by clarifying that I assume (and have always assumed) that he will report a COP of around 50.

@Eric Walker,
In regards to your down voted post, IMO, you are correct, in a general way.
Contracts can be boiled down to three things:
Legality, Intent, and the Exchange.

(Legality is not generally a written parameter of a contract, since contracts which include illegal actions, or are signed under duress are automatically void in law).

Quote from Eric Walker

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 ...

Eric,

I think, that's what a court usually will do in a contract case. They will analyze the contract and then evaluating how the contract has been fulfilled by the parties.

What you describe as "intent" has been clearly stated in the contract. Not only that but rather exact methods which have to be processed to confirm the contract fulfillment. (And that's maybe the problem.)

Quote from IH Fanboy

Quote from Thomas Clarke: “

IHFB wrote:

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…

IHFB -

Before I pack up here, a redirect. Ascoli has done much more work on the 6 Oct 2011 "Maths best demo" and specifically the thermal behaviour. Please refer to his new and additional posts on the thread on that experiment.

My "loosely coupled" has clearly confused everyone, better ignore it. Clearly the heater is not thermally couples tightly to the primary circuit - Ascoli does a good job of explaining this. The time constant issue can be found from one of the other reports higher up the thread. From an academic who had to change his mind 3 times (3 different reports sent to Mats) as his initial ideas proved unsupportable and ended up with a rather weak - "it is LENR because the rise and fall time constants of the core show this". I did address his argument in as far as it made sense to me, but I'm not sure I understood it. Ascoli is the expert here.

Best wishes, Tom

Quote from Thomas Clarke

a rather weak - "it is LENR because the rise and fall time constants of the core show this". I did address his argument in as far as it made sense to me, but I'm not sure I understood it. Ascoli is the expert here.

Well, it appears that this goes to the heart of the matter. Certain actions were taken (e.g., power cut off, hydrogen extracted from cell, etc.), which caused some interesting temperature behavior, which cannot be explained by a simple "hot core" hypothesis. The loose coupling (to the core) theory holds little water, so to speak, at least with me. So perhaps Ascoli can provide a convenient link to me where he explains all of the temperature behavior of the core in response to the certain actions that were taken, and the resulting temperature responses that were observed and recorded. I've sifted through many threads.

Quote

Certain actions were taken (e.g., power cut off, hydrogen extracted from cell, etc.), which caused some interesting temperature behavior, which cannot be explained by a simple "hot core" hypothesis.

Please comment on the correct thread - immediately after ascoli's long posts where he exactly explains the temperature behaviour (he has some graphs).