You make some decent points, and while I could counter on each one, I'll just say this: The 1MW unit test was contractually required, and agreed to by IH from the get-go. That people complain about why Rossi insisted on following through on the 1MW plant test really boggles my mind.
You'll surely agree that whether the 1MW test was contractually required and agreed to by IH are questions separate from whether the test was rigorous.
QuoteThe 1MW unit test was contractually required [at Rossi's insistence], and agreed to by IH from the get-go. That people complain about why Rossi insisted on following through on the 1MW plant test really boggles my mind.
Rossi was hawking a contract he wanted that is against all normal principles of inventor/VC practice, because it front-loaded all the money based on the results of one test and that test was not one providing useful information. Thus proof of concept and COP could be got from a much shorter test, without a customer. Reliability could be got from a different type of test and would need to include operation without a person sitting in a container 24/7 during the test.
As Eric says, you can draw your own conclusions as to what this means, but what you cannot do is represent Rossi's tests as normal and logical based on standard practice. And although we have only IH's word that Rossi insisted on this test you need a Sifferkoll-level conspiracy theory for IH insisting on such a rubbish test to make any sense...
Proving a long-term COP of 3 or so does not require elaborate calorimetry or complex tests.
But trickery can always be alleged. That is why working products must be widely distributed around the world and independent reports generated by many different people and organizations. There really is no other way. Demanding this or that test will get us nowhere.
QuoteThomas - one of several terminal problems with the "ERV" is that the flowmeter mention is just that - a one word mention "flowmeter". No manf. make, model number, specification or anything that would be useful in determining some needed facts. Even more interesting, the previous "ERV" reports to IH did contain flowmeter information and a specification problem was noted and questioned without a response before the final "ERV" was issued. Needless to say, a "flowmeter" controversy is in the forecast.
Well that is interesting, and if the setup has no non-return valve, and the actual flowmeter is direction-independent, it is a known loophole.
Also the lack of crucial data in a report is interesting in itself. Rossi has past history on this with one of the Penon reports which did not specify whether the meters used were true RMS or average when the use of average meters would allow the observed COP of 2.5 from an electric heater due to mis-measurement issues. And when Rossi claimed to Mats personally that his attempt to do the same (use average meters to measure a spiky waveform) was valid in spite of clear information to the contrary.
It may of course be, as Mats believes, that Rossi is just a very bad scientist who has no idea that there can be measurement problems using the wrong equipment.
a specification problem was noted and questioned without a response before the final "ERV" was issued.
So was the "specification problem" responded to in the ERV report? (You said it wasn't before the ERV report.) And if so, how was it responded to? Of course, you are talking using fairly vague terms, so not even sure what you are getting at. Are you alleging fraud by the ERV?
QuoteBut trickery can always be alleged. That is why working products must be widely distributed around the world and independent reports generated by many different people and organizations. There really is no other way.
(1) Trickery is essentially not a problem if truly independent testers are used. This is simple procedure.
(2) The issue with Rossi's tests is not primarily trickery. It is that all have incorrect methodology. That is not always the case. In fact it is very rarely the case, especially because even if one test has an error that would normally be corrected in that next one and Rossi has many many tests.
Your comments are just not true. I mean - if Rossi got past first base with one positive truly independent report it is true that worldwide scientific interest would await confirmation from a second independent lab. But any VC would be faster. The only independent lab test of Rossi's device was negative, so multiple lab confirmation for a Nobel prize really does not enter into the picture.
Again, like saying that because all string players make mistakes you might as well pick one who makes LOTS of mistakes for a demanding role playing Bartok quartets...
QuoteDemanding this or that test will get us nowhere.
No-one demands Rossi do anything. It is a matter of what conclusions to draw from tests that do not demonstrate what he claims because they have obvious effects that Rossi ignores which generate the positive result.
IHFB - Just saying that flow rate cannot be determined from the "ERV" report. That is a problem.
There is more information which points to issues beyond omission of flowmeter details from the report, but that will be sorted out in the courtroom.
Rossi was hawking a contract he wanted that is against all normal principles of inventor/VC practice
On balance, the agreement is favorable to IH. My guess is that IH probably did most of the hawking.
, because it front-loaded all the money based on the results of one test and that test was not one providing useful information.
If you had been offered hundreds of millions of dollars for transfer of ownership of all e-Cat technology by a U.S. government agency (read An Impossible Invention), and therefore knew the magnitude of interest surrounding your invention, would you settle with IH for a drawn-out royalty based on unit sales of something with a high-risk profile of ever reaching the marketplace? I think I would front load any agreement myself, had I been in Rossi's shoes. Nothing too extraordinary about that. Also, lump sum payments are quite common in licensing deals.
Thus proof of concept and COP could be got from a much shorter test, without a customer. Reliability could be got from a different type of test and would need to include operation without a person sitting in a container 24/7 during the test.
I'm pretty sure IH had the negotiating power to get this had they wanted it. Why they didn't is interesting to ponder. But Rossi should not be blamed for IH's lapse.
As Eric says, you can draw your own conclusions as to what this means, but what you cannot do is represent Rossi's tests as normal and logical based on standard practice.
What you define as "standard practice" for a commercially viable LENR test with significant money on the line the likes of which has never occurred in the history of the world? It would be nice to have the general handbook for these wistful adventures, but I'm pretty sure everyone involved is forging new territory. It certainly makes for some of the best entertainment available on the Internet today.
Thomas:
"The difference between dry (and superheated is equivalent for this purpose) and wet steam is up to 1000kW. "
Yes, 1000KW between 0% steam and 100 % steam. But I would be surprised If no one (ERV and IH people) noticed the rather noisy two phase flow of water and steam, If not all water went to steam.
Thomas "There is no reason to suppose that during this test the return temperature is typical and Rossi has for reasons of his own asked for this not to be taken into account: it is therefore unlikely that it will be in the ERV report."
Rossi did not Ask ERV to disregard the temperature, but to disregard the energy required to heat the water to Boiling point.
It should therefore be MORE LIKELY that the ERV reports the temperature to indicate the conservatism of not including this energy requirement.
Thomas "Rossi has never (to my knowledge) said that his device has a separate superheating stage."
Well, he did say the "steam was superheated", which means he claims dry steam out. Many ways of engineering to achieve this. It does not necessary mean a separate heat stage. It could mean that water was boiled under pressure. Pressurised wet steam let through a pressure reducing device will produce superheated /dry steam.
Thomas "Alan is also right that we will not know whether we have that until after seeing the ERV report - and likely not then if it is incomplete."
The question is If the ERV was competent or incompetent wrt the job he was supposed to do, using his own instrumentation. We may speculate to death of what is included or not in the report. But time will tell.
Thomas "However, this test is supremely easy to spoof, and difficult to be sure about, because:
(1) The power is delivered as phase change which is difficult to quantify"
No, it's not difficult to quantify. It easy to know If H2O is in the form Of pure liquid phase at input. And for output, this is wat you need, very easy instrumentation:
Steam quality using a separating and throttling steam calorimeter. Which means pressure, level and temperature measurements.
In addition I would include
- Pressure of water in and steam out of plant
- Temperature of water in and steam out of plant
- Flowmeter
- A sample station at inlet to analyse fluid 
Thomas "The measurements of liquid temperature before and after the ecat, which together with flowrate would give a lower bound on output power of around 70kW - enough to be sure commercial levels of LENR magic were actually happening - are specifically not considered."
So, you have read the ERV report allready? You mean A competent ERV did not do such basic measurements?
Thomas "Rossi is responsible for both of these existing facts, and that is negative. "
You mean Rossi have stated that flowrate and temperatures where not measured? That must be a joke???
Eric - the body of the report mentions the blocked shipment of what I think was the original 1MW unit to a customer in the US.
Does anyone know if this is the same unit that Rossi later claimed was shipped but then ended up spotted and photographed in his possession after the stated ship date?
Dewey,
Not the same "customer", but the same 1MW plant which was later that same month "sold" to the military customer, and photographed months later in his garage still. He got lot of mileage out of that thing! He only had one 1MW unit though, as far as I know, until IH got involved. Even then, I am not sure IH built one themselves, although Fabiani said in his Lewan interview that he and his team built the one being used in the 1 year test.
About that 6 Oct 2011 test...his best to date. He used a single Ecat for the demo, but guess how many Ecats were in the housing? LOLs...3, but he told the invited guests that the other 2 were backups, and not used as they were not needed. I think his COP was 3 also.
Your comments are just not true.
Well, how offensive. I think my comments are well-reasoned, thank you very much.
Are you saying that working products that are widely distributed around the world, with independent reports generated by many different people and organizations showing that the devices work as claimed, would not provide the much-needed finality in this whole affair?
You might have your way of arriving at the same conclusion, but I think that my suggested way is not only better, but certainly the truth.
Not the same "customer", but the same 1MW plant which was later that same month "sold" to the military customer, and photographed months later in his garage still.
I'm not sure how many 1MW units have been discussed over the last few years, but according to this article, provided by IH Fanboy, there was a contractual dispute with a US customer that prevented shipment.
Interesting side note: at the end of April 2013, when the ERV was originally to validate the 1 MW plant before shipment to North Carolina, as part of the license agreement with IH, instead he validated two 30-unit E-Cat modules (with only one of the tests having any consequence for this milestone in the agreement). So the 1 MW unit being sold to IH was not available for testing for one reason or another.
About that 6 Oct 2011 test...his best to date. He used a single Ecat for the demo, but guess how many Ecats were in the housing? LOLs...3, but he told the invited guests that the other 2 were backups, and not used as they were not needed. I think his COP was 3 also.
It was in SSM for hours. Doesn't matter if there was 1 or 3 active during the SSM period. Of course, there is always the possibility of trickery.
Quote from OystlaYes, 1000KW between 0% steam and 100 % steam. But I would be surprised If no one (ERV and IH people) noticed the rather noisy two phase flow of water and steam, If not all water went to steam.
(1) Rossi advocates have spent most of their lives being surprised by events?
(2) Who said no-one noticed this?
(3) perhaps it was all liquid phase => no noise
QuoteRossi did not Ask ERV to disregard the temperature, but to disregard the energy required to heat the water to Boiling point.
Shall we wait and see? Rossi's demand allows temperatures to be disregarded, and he has an ERV who in the past has put his name to a report with a lot of details missing. Maybe this measurement will be in the report. If not will you admit I'm right, or find an excuse - oh - I remember - Rossi has just given you one!
QuoteWell, he did say the "steam was superheated", which means he claims dry steam out. Many ways of engineering to achieve this. It does not necessary mean a separate heat stage. It could mean that water was boiled under pressure. Pressurised wet steam let through a pressure reducing device will produce superheated /dry steam.
Since a recorded early test where rossi was convinced his output was vapour and in reality it was water I do not take as accurate what Rossi says in this instance. That is surely fair? In any case my point was that an internal architecture specifically designed to produce vapour was not even claimed by Rossi.
QuoteSteam quality using a separating and throttling steam calorimeter. Which means pressure, level and temperature measurements.
With careful trapping so there is no possibility of liquid phase run-by, and mixing so that measurements are known to be typical. I have said, it can be done. Just that it requires an elaborate setup and therefore, with a superficially convincing but less elaborate setup, easy to spoof. The contract requires that output be determined from flowrate and deltaT. Think that will work?
QuoteSo, you have read the ERV report allready? You mean A competent ERV did not do such basic measurements?
Penon has allowed his name to be used in a report which left out crucial data in the past. IH say (via Dewey who I don't think would directly lie - though others may disagree) that crucial data is missing from the final draft (but not earlier drafts) of the ERV report this time.
This is the same point as before. I used words carefully, Rossi said that he wanted this power to be discounted, which means not considered. That leaves the way open for an ERV report that does not give these figures. But, I might be wrong. We will see. No-one can prove that Rossi does not have working devices. Ever. I'm merely saying that Rossi is following form so far in this final test by discounting the more definite evidence.
I should say that Dewey hints that, with flow-meter deleted from a final draft of the report, analysis of setup and flow-meter type will show another way to spoof the measurements (by giving an apparently much higher flow-rate than is really the case). That may be true, in which case the temperature evidence would count in Rossi's favour and we may get it. We will see.
QuoteYou mean Rossi have stated that flowrate and temperatures where not measured? That must be a joke???
We will have to wait to see if these are missing in the final draft, or the earlier drafts which it seems IH has, of the report.
Quote from IHFB
Well, how offensive. I think my comments are well-reasoned, thank you very much.
Are you saying that working products that are widely distributed around the world, with independent reports generated by many different people and organizations showing that the devices work as claimed, would not provide the much-needed finality in this whole affair?
I'm sorry if you found my bald statement offensive. I did not mean to criticise your reasoning, only its result which was untrue.
Your second question does not logically relate to this matter, because my point was that such overkill testing was not required in this case, not that it would not make for absolute proof.
Thus back to the string players:
IHFB: Nobuka Imai would be a perfect string player for the orchestra, but she's not available. So we will never get a perfect string player. Fred Bloggs is good enough.
me: you don't need a perfect string player, just one who is reasonably good. Fred Bloggs is hitting one wrong note every three notes they play!
IHFB: You are wrong! Do you mean to tell me that Nobuka Imai would not make a great string player for our orchestra?
me: sigh...
me: you don't need a perfect string player, just one who is reasonably good. Fred Bloggs is hitting one wrong note every three notes they play!
me: your reasonably good string player is in my subjective opinion not good enough. He has flaws. He might be faking his talent, you never know. Maybe he practiced one or two tunes so well that he skirted by the cuts, but overall, he is flawed, or tricky, or fraudulent. Best to have your alleged "reasonably good" player replaced with a symphony performing in various halls around the globe. Let the people taste for themselves and report their findings independent of all other subjective opinions.
Eric,
Just finished reviewing JONP way back to the time leading up to the single reactor, 6 Oct. test, and the 1MW customer acceptance test on 28 Oct. Never again! Talk abut tedious. 
The first customer mentioned in the NYTeknic article *is* different than the next one. As the article mentions, that one deal fell through on the advise of his lawyer. Then, fairly abruptly in mid Oct, Rossi started mentioning "customer" again. Someone asked him if this customer was one and the same as the last one. Here is what Rossisays on Oct 22:
"is an Entity that wants not to be disclosed, for its particularity; this does not depend from me, the Customer is not the same we supposed would have been"
Back again to the 6 Oct test in front of many scientists (one from SPAWAR); Rossi did say that after the test, all watched him disassemble the container. It would have been difficult of him to slip in some extra wiring for the other 2 reactors the way he describes the process. Plus, those present were no dummies. It still stands as his best to date it seems. Still though, I always thought it funny he had two extra's in there. Never mentioned it before since I was a Rossi believer in my former life.
By the way...good points about the IH acceptance test being done with the 30 Ecat units, instead of the 1MW.
IHFB - Rossi insisted on a 1MW long term test. He was adamant that all other test options were a waste of his time. At the time, IH concluded that he must know what he was doing and decided that if he was successful then $89M would be a reasonable fee in exchange for an accelerated path to commercialization.
Dewey,
Are you saying Rossi was adamant about the 1 year test, because he felt doing it that way would satisfy IH's need for proof, while also advancing the tech towards commercialization? "Kill two birds with one stone" as they say.
If so, that sounds pretty reasonable on his part to me. One could even argue he was passing up a quick, easy $89 million pay out, for the heroic purpose of getting his Ecat to market.
[blah, blah]
I often comment on the obvious, because doing that, over the years, has paid off for me. Sometimes what is obvious to me wasn't obvious to others until I wrote it. Sifferkoll responded to my comments with a long post making many assumptions about me and my past that don't match fact. Mostly, here, the fact is what I wrote, it is not in controversy, the only issue would be interpretation, so we get to see how Sifferkoll thinks.
I could explain this, but won't. Explain for whose benefit? People who cares to read can read this for themselves. Now, if there is an issue of fact, if I have erred in some way, or if anyone other than Sifferkoll wants further exploration of some specific topic, ask me. I am a public, a known person. Here: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf ... but there is much more. I have been active with cold fusion since 2009, but I also put several thousand dollars into palladium metal in 1989. I knew the physics. It was a long shot. As it happened, I came to think, like everyone else, that the Pons and Fleischmann work could not be confirmed. I started to look at cold fusion in 2009 because I was confronting clear administrative abuse on Wikipedia, and it was around the cold fusion article. It would be interesting to look back at my wikipedia edits to see when I figured out that the corner had been turned. I was user:Abd. You can tell from the three-character name that I was early.
Sifferkoll reads what I write within a world-view that is about good and bad, and he assumes that I think within the same view, thus when he asks, "Do I understand you correctly that you argue I should ..." , the word "should" takes it outside how I think and what I do. There is no "should." There are actions and their effects. No, he has not understood me correctly at all. And he makes up much that is radically different from my history. So, again, if someone is tempted to believe that his description of me is factual, ask me! Meanwhile, my purpose here is, in part, to defend people who give sincere and sober analysis and opinions here, from libel, that could suppress their participation. That would include, by the way, Rossi, if he ever decided to openly participate here. An insider, in general, should be given great leeway, because they have special knowledge. I would say that "Rossi wrote" or "Dewey Weaver" wrote, and not attempt to shovel them into the pit of "liar" unless there is not only very clear evidence -- call it proof -- and necessity.
