Why was the one-year test performed?

Quote

I am just passing on a fact (that they will never respond on the web)

OK then, So the web is, for the Swedes and Levi, an appropriate place to publish their definitive test of the greatest technology of the current century. But it isn't an appropriate place to defend their data collection, data reduction, and conclusions when someone has politely and clearly contested them. That what you are saying? That makes sense to you? Nobody is saying they should respond to insults. But it seems reasonable that they might want to respond to carefully assembled and excellent evidence against the way they did their work and the conclusions they reached.

Quote

Maybe if someone published a proper rebuttal on arxiv that would get a response, but nagging in here is simply a waste of time and pixels.

I regret I don't recall exactly but didn't TC do something like that? Pretty much the entire thesis in one place? And I don't suppose that if this is the case, that they would respond to an article in Arxiv, they could just have a surrogate (say Lewan for example) say so on a forum? Anyway, Arxiv is so much like a forum, what's the diff, really?

A better explanation than their considering responses to be futile or counterproductive is that they have no valid response and they are embarrassed that they allowed Rossi to pull the wool over their eyes in the manner that he did.

Quote from Shane D.

I begrudgingly admit that was a good post Mary. Wish I could say why, but Alan may take me to the woodshed again. I can only take so many "let us be clear Shane" before my feelings are permanently hurt. What is it with these Brits?

Hey, if MY writes something good, link to it and I'll read it. I have that account blocked, because the information and utility density went way too low.

Meanwhile, on JONP, this forum has been called a "hostile blog," and I've been directly accused by Rossi of being "a puppet paid to write bestialities." For saying that his usage of "kWh/h" was idiosyncratic.

I'm calling this the reductio ad absurdem of Planet Rossi. If anyone has doubts, just read the guy.

Quote from LENR Calender

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Since you tend to like being fussy about details, I have to make one comment: no one (except maybe IH?) that we know of has actually tried to build the fluid heater exactly as described in Rossi's patent.

It goes without saying that IH tried. However, we would not "know of" most attempts. Most would be private and secret.

This is not "proof." it's a form of circumstantial evidence. I'm aware that the nickel conditioning may not have been done by some. However, is that described well enough? I'm reasonably certain someone would have tried.

Quote from Shane D.

One of the mysteries is Ampenergo (AEG), and how they play into this. They seem to pop up often in the suit records. Obviously they have been intimately involved with Rossi since the beginning, as they formed in 2011 specifically for their role as the first Ecat "America's" licensee. But their relationship with Rossi actually goes much further back. Recently they played a crucial role in arranging the first meeting between Rossi and Darden in Rossi's Miami condo. I think they also invested in Woodford? So who are these guys?

This old NYTeknic interview with the founder sheds a little more light on the story, and adds a little more context. It should also make the Rossi believers happy as he talks of their OWN validation of the Ecat long ago:

http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…-gets-u-s-partner-6421312

They are not invested in Woodford. Rather, they may have been invested in Industrial Heat, but now own shares in IH Holdings International, Ltd, the same company that Woodford put $50 million into in May, 2015. IHHI is the parent company to IH. So Rossi sued a company that was paying Ampenergo, apparently, "millions of dollars," and which was cooperating with Industrial Heat.

One idea that has, today, been rattling around this cage is that Rossi lost his marbles. He, once highly inventive and innovative (and who may have found something), -- and who made many friends like Cassarino of Ampenergo -- followed the path of his paranoia, and it took over.

How far back does this go? Cassarino mentions demonstrations in 2008 or 2009. There are people in the LENR community who witnessed some. The strong reaction to anyone attempting to independently verify measurements goes way back. That is either paranoia or a sign of fraud (or both).

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax: “Okay, I'll say a little. Kwh/h is a Rossi trope, he uses it all the time. 1 kWh = 1 kWh/h.”
Arata also uses this, and so do some other elderly Japanese scientists I knew. So it is not unheard of.

Arata and some Japanese publishers also put units in square brackets, which annoys me. For example: 10 [km/h].

Someone took this to Ross, and Peter Gluck quotes it on his blog without comment. https://egooutpeters.blogspot.…ut-toughness-of-lenr.html

This is the reductio ad absurdem of Planet Rossi. For reference, my original post here: Why was the one-year test performed?

Quote

4) From Rossi's JONP- about his enemies.

Dan
August 31, 2016 at 8:55 PM

Dr Andrea Rossi:
a guy in a hostile blog has written that when you write ” kWh/h” to indicate energy you make a mistake due to your poor knowledge of mathematics, because the h at the numerator and the h at the denominator cancel each other and remains only kW. What do you answer?
Dan
Andrea Rossi
August 31, 2016 at 9:57 PM

Dan:
HA,HA,HA,HA,HA !!!
That statement is a paradigmatic example of the fact that, as Prof Umberto Eco wrote, in the blogs every imbecile can sell himself to somebody as a scientist even if he is an analphabete.
As every person that has a knowledge of the concept of energy will confirm to you, kWh is a quantum of energy: this is the shortcut of the full name, that is ” kilowatthour”.
Therefore, when you write “x kWh/h”, you shortcut the expression ” x kilowatthour/h”, which means “the kilowatthours that you are generating or consuming in one hour are x”.
To say that the two H eliminate each other because one is in the numerator and the other is in the denominator is not just wrong, it is extremely stupid, because is like to eliminate the letter h from the word kilowatthour at the numerator, where an amount of energy is defined, and the total time from the denominator, which is the Hour of time during which the energy is produced or consumed: in a nutshell, the two H stay for two completely different things, therefore they cannot be eliminated !!! The guy who wrote this bestiality not only has not a minimum knowledge of Physics, but also of Mathematics ( or, better, of elementary school Aritmetics) because not only has not understood what is the concept of energy, but also how the fractions work and when they can be reduced.
So, if you want to be correct, please remember: the definition “1 kWh/h” is absolutely correct, and corresponds to a precise amount of energy ( 860 kcal, or 3526 kJ ) consumed or produced in one hour. When you write that you are consuming ( or producing) 1 kWh/h, you mean that every hour you are consuming or producing 3526 kJ. And please do not eliminate the h from the fraction!
(He,he,he,he…)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S. The guy who wrote these bestialities must be pardoned: he is a puppet paid to write bestialities and, as they say in Italy ” Pure lui tiene famiglia” ( he too has to feed his family )

Walter
September 1, 2016 at 12:20 AM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Obviously your answer to Dan is correct. We had another example of how incensistent your foes are.
Just ignore them and proceed with your great work.
Cheers,
Walter
Andrea Rossi
September 1, 2016 at 6:48 AM

Walter:
They are not inconsistent, they are consistent as a series of puppets that take advantage of non expert readers to create a hostile environment around the character they are paid to destroy. It is an old story that many years ago worked, today does not: twenty years ago it was enough to buy a couple of corrupted journalists of main newspapers to assassinate a character and prepare the environment against his work. Today, with the internet, it is impossible, because if you write a stupidity or a falsity it backfires immediately if the reaction is proper. This is the double edge issue of the blogs: from one side, they allow to any imbecile to play the guru, from the other they allow anybody to make the guru naked like the famous king, in real time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Display More

Indeed. JONP is a blog, Rossi's. I did not actually explain the problems with Rossi's explanation of power and energy. Anyone who knows the topic can do that, and this is not difficult to teach. What both his informant and he seized on , and he claimed it was "extremely stupid," however, is a technique which is highly useful to anyone learning physics. Units do, in fact, cancel out like that. The equations of physics use units and the symbols represent quantities and the units of the quantities follow them.

I do not know why anyone would use kWh/h instead of just kW.

http://electronics.stackexchan…-mwh-h-as-unit-of-measure

kWH/h can be a measure of average power, But one could just say, "the average power was X kW." Think of the average power as a rate is confusing, because it is varying. The h/h adds nothing. What is very odd is that Rossi apparently thinks dropping it is wrong.

And he called kWh/h a unit of energy.

Ampenergo (weird and lame name) has never done anything publicly that I am aware of beyond the interview they gave long ago to Mats Lewan for NyTeknik. In it, they said that they paid Rossi considerable sums so they were probably his first victims. It is possible they recouped part of that money by selling their rights to IH, an even more gullible assembly of people. They also distinguished themselves with this web site which has remained unchanged since mid 2011:

http://ampenergo.com/

"Tomorrow's energy today" they say? Maybe tomorrow's energy S∞N? LOL.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Ah, well. Dan is probably Rossi anyways, which moves it from wierd to almost creepy.

Rossi continues flogging the horse: I have commented at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…onversations/messages/857

A basic and clear understanding of the distinction between energy and power is essential for understanding LENR research. Rossi's explanations, in spite of the glowing recommendations by some (Rossi sock puppets?), would confuse almost anyone if they believe he knows what he's talking about. He recommends a manual of physics. That author has written exactly what Rossi calls a 'stupidity." (i.e, that with kWh/h, you just cancel the hours and you are left with kW -- probably as average power.)

The sequence clearly demonstrates something about Rossi's character and identity.

He never admits error. Perhaps that would be "backing down." Peter Gluck puts up memes around "never give up." When we translate that into a firm belief in one's own rightness, as distinct from a more fundamental trust, something quite different, we set up disaster. With the more fundamental trust, we have no fear of being wrong, and, in fact, we welcome it.

Even though he made a face-palm error, claiming that 1 kWh is equal to 3526 joules, his claque says he is absolutely correct, and it appears from his recent comments that he is deleting many comments as "spam" that are trying to clarify the matter. He has betrayed a lack of fundamental understanding, which I can know because that understanding would lead to very sticky and easily accessible knowledge of the number of kilojoules equivalent one kilowatt-hour -- or "kilowatthour" as Rossi insists, part of what keeps him confused.

It's the number of seconds in an hour. Any problem remembering that, or calculating it if you forget? In your head?

The recent comments:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=159#comment-1231189
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=159#comment-1231269

Focardi's comment is a truism. Misunderstanding of these concepts is common. However, if he was their professor, did he take responsibility for their lack of understanding? That is precisely what a genuine educator will do, instead of dismissing them as stupid or lazy or whatever. (This is not a comment on Focardi, I have no idea what he was like as a professor.)

Power and energy are not "fundamental concepts" and the units are not "fundamental units." They are derived, like all units, from arbitrary "standards." The standards in question are units of length, mass, and time. If a student understands the fundamental concepts, then they will understand that energy is accumulated (integrated, actually) power. Power is a rate of energy (i.e., the first derivative of energy). This can be explained without integral calculus, though, and very little math. As Rossi says, "high school math," but I think it could be even more elementary than that.

I essayed it in a post to new vortex in this sequence, but some yahoogroups bugs suppressed it. I just posted it again.

Here is an approach anew. concepts are introduced in a sequence.

1. Mass is discussed and the distinction between mass and weight is explored. Weight is the force exerted on a mass by a gravitational field -- or by acceleration of the reference frame.

2. Force is then explored. We often express force in units of mass, based on common experience where we live. Because gravity varies, though, a new unit of force is used, the newton. One newton is a force that will accelerate a 1 kilogram mass at a rate of 1 meter per second per second. So one newton equals one kilogram-meter/sec^2. ("/meter/sec^2" is read as "meter per second per second. The division is the same as "per." This is a fundamental use of language to communicate.)

3. Then energy is introduced, and it might be approached through kinetic energy: One joule is a force of one newton exerted over a distance of one meter. Energy can be understood as the capacity to perform work (which fits with ordinary language.) Work is energy, the terms are used interchangeably. The relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy would be explored. Wolfson, Rossi's authority, does this, and a bouncing ball can be used, as force of gravity on the ball converts potential energy to kinetic and then back to potential (there is also a spring energy at the bottom of the bounce, which does the same thing). So the concept of conservation of energy is introduced, and there will be an obvious question: if energy is conserved, why does the ball's bounce decline and stop? Where does the energy go? With a ball it is normally not visible, but I would simply say at this point that the ball is heated up a little, and we would use other examples to explore heat as energy.

4. Then power is the rate of change of energy. "Change?" I thought energy couldn't be created or destroyed? Yes. However, it can be converted from one form to another, and when we exert a force on a mass and it accelerates, we are storing energy, as one example. The rate at which energy is stored is power. The basic unit of energy is the Watt. A watt is is one joule per second. In looking at some heat/helium plots, the energy (heat) is expressed in w-sec, or watt-seconds, often w-s per helium atom.

5. Units of electricity are also derived from fundamental units, and the system is designed such that a voltage ("force") of one volt, with a current of 1 amp, will generate one watt of power. Depending on age, the child may or may not have an understanding of electricity.

6. So, now, a power of one watt operating for a time of one hour is a "watt-hour". That is a a measure of energy, not power. If we have a tenth of a watt for ten hours, we still have the same total energy. This should easily be understood by a child. "kilo" is just a shortcut for a thousand, so now we understand kilowatt hours. One thousand watts for one hour is a kW-hour, or just written as "kWh."

Nobody who understands the physics of this is defending Rossi on all this, so far. Yes, "kWh/h" is not "wrong." It is simply not what most people use." The problem here is that what most people use is claimed by Rossi to be "stupid."

His ready reaction to others covers up his own ability to recognize his own mistakes, in addition to blinding him to the reality of others and substituting a cartoon parody for it.