Why was the one-year test performed?

Quote

Were I MY I would no doubt say something scathing - but in truth we can all be fools.

Indeed. But most scientists are smart enough to cut their losses. Levi should have done that in early 2011 when Krivit interviewed him. He should have recognized that his test of the greatest advance of the current century was amateurish and wildly deficient. He should have retracted it or fixed it with a repeat test and proper calibration and safeguards against Rossi's meddling. Instead, he did nothing, refused to respond to questions and ended up looking like the North end of a South-bound horse.

Quote from Alan Smith

ETA. It is the Upsalla guys who continue their involvement. They were there too.

I am not clear on the nature of their "continued involvement." Mats Lewan has:

Quote

Last week, Andrea Rossi made a visit to Sweden, and apart from meeting with the team of professors in Uppsala, with me and other persons, he made a trip from Stockholm to the south of Sweden to have look at a 10,000 square meter factory building for sale.

So the professors met with Rossi. That doesn't show much involvement. Rossi gave Bo Hoistad a "fuel sample," and Bo had it analyzed. But he did not release that, it was leaked and he has made no comment on it, to my knowledge. Rossi denied being involved,, but, then, when the actual pdf surfaced with the clear attribution to Rossi, it could be seen that Rossi did not actually deny having provided a sample. This was classic Rossi plausible deniability.

What is apparently more established is that Rossi and Hydro Fusion are cooperating in some way, but, again, the information about this is thin. Remember that Rossi can be a source of money as well as a sink. Given the history, it would still be reasonable for Hydro Fusion to arrange some power installation. At Rossi expense! What will probably not happen again is that someone pays $1.5 million for a reactor. But they might put that in escrow, to be paid if the reactor passes true independent testing. No more Rossi and pals running the thing. Until he allows completely independent testing, he will be finding all doors closing.

And there is a possibility that he might find another door closing, of a jail cell. Clank! They are loud, I can still hear them from being a prison chaplain almost twenty years ago.

I do not know if the evidence is strong enough for a criminal prosecution, it merely seems possible at this time.

Quote

I don't have any data to share on that but I hear it is not all bad by any means.

I don't claim any special knowledge about this but I suspect the good news will evaporate as fast as Rossi's completely absurd QuarkX will upon close examination.

Quote from Alan Smith

@Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax. The nature of the relationship between Rossi and HF is pretty serious - based on ongoing work in Upsalla. I don't have any data to share on that but I hear it is not all bad by any means. So relations are cordial for sure.

This is all vague, Alan. "Not all bad." What does that mean? It's explicitly rumor, not direct report. Relations between whom and whom are "cordial for sure," and how do you know?

What I wrote was about what we know publicly. Planet Rossi has run on rumor for years. I'm not terribly interested in rumors. I like testimony.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

For testimony, consider that Mats said (based on communication with the Professors) that the Lugano reactor was opened up using a diamond saw, while the report claims it was opened with pliers. Perhaps that is bordering on rumour, but it seems to be a strange sort of communication mixup to add a diamond saw to the story.

Notice that Mats' report was second-hand. However, to agree, my thinking is that "diamond saw is specific" and not likely to be made up. Opening with pliers could be a general description, overlooking a specific event.

By the time I was in high school, I'd noticed that newspaper accounts, where I had personal experience of something, were commonly full of small errors. Often they made no significant difference. In fact, usually. In this case, I don't think it is terribly relevant.

Quote from Alan Smith

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Perhaps it is because on this topic I have better information than your suppositions. It happens sometimes.

Well, I'm sure you have more information. Whether it is better or not cannot be independently determined. You haven't told us what you know, nor have you been clear about what I asked about.

A rough equivalent here would be as if Jed Rothwell, instead of telling us what he had seen of a report from the "ERV," had just written "You're wrong. I know because I have private information," but gaving no details at all.

Sure, he could have said that, and you can say what you said, but it is essentially useless, and if, later, more information becomes public, your comment is not falsifiable, and you could say, almost no matter what that information is, "See! I told you!" or at least you could say nothing. "Oh, I was talking about Rossi and Hydro Fusion."

The topic here is why "the one-year test" was performed. And that's obvious.

I find it fascinating to look back at all the comments about the lawsuit, before IH answered. Planet Rossi was certain that it was open-and-shut. The Guaranteed Performance Test had been completed, the ERV had approved performance, so IH should have paid, and that they did not pay is proof they were scammers and crooks.

And when IH pointed out, in their Motion to Dismiss, the obvious missing signatures, there was much derision. But that was just the tip of the iceberg. At that point, I read the Agreement and Second Amerndment carefully. It was not just that the signature of all parties was required on the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment then required, again, the signature of all parties to the start of the GPT, which was being postponed by agreement, if the 2nd amendment was valid. This all made sense. It's very clear that the 1 MW Plant was not ready for a GPT on delivery, and the GPT would have had to start *immediately.* Rossi had not alleged any such agreement to the start. Instead, he simply asserts that Doral was the GPT, giving a set of conclusory statements.

The parties could easily have agreed to a modification, to a set of single-unit tests, instead of a 1 MW test for a year. Rossi blamed the delay on IH, but without presenting any evidence for that other than his own claim. So ... where was the agreement to start up the GPT? That this was not alleged and evidenced makes it seem likely that it never existed. So Rossi busted his butt, or whatever he did in baby-sitting the plant for a year, "Rossi Grease," I call it, without ever setting up the contractual conditions to be paid.

The contemplated GPT in the Agreement would have been very different. It would have taken place in the IH facility, with direct supervision by IH and the full ability to monitor actual output steam (independently of the instrumentation attached to the Plant).

That did not happen. It could have happened at Doral, if "access to the customer area" had been allowed. The Terms Sheet appears to have contemplated full access. Rossi stopped that, and then further stopped any access to the Plant itself by the IH engineer (not just the "customer area"), blatantly violating the Terms Sheet which he had signed.

At this point, Rossi has not responded, but this is what is visible in the evidence, this is not just "IH claims." Evidence can be impeached, because it could be forged, or presented out of context. However, it stands until impeached, and all Rossi has said, pretty much, in public, is "lies." What lies? He hasn't said, but he does say a lot through the sock puppets on his blog. Rossi has become, as happens, more and more visible, and often through actions he took, and wrote about.

Quote from Eric Walker

Alan Smith wrote:
The nature of the relationship between Rossi and HF is pretty serious - based on ongoing work in Upsalla. I don't have any data to share on that but I hear it is not all bad by any means. So relations are cordial for sure.

Random speculation — Rossi will seek to settle the lawsuit by buying back the license from IH with money forwarded to him from HF. The amount of the settlement would include the following:
The 11.5 million for the license and the 1 MW plant
The millions that IH paid to Ampenergo
The expenses incurred in Doral, FL
What is HF's capitalization?

Unknowns, above and beyond the usual uncertainty for random speculation:
Will there be contempt of court or worse charges that arise incidentally to the lawsuit?
Would IH go along with with such a settlement, even if the terms were generous?

Display More

Just my opinion. Yes.

Now, what would cause them to refuse this settlement? If they have reason to think that Rossi has a real technology but merely refused to show them, they might refuse it, preferring the status quo of their hedge against a Rossi Surprise. However, it is possible that a settlement could be more complex. Good attorneys here will look for win-win. Or at least Not-too-much-loss vs the same.

I've seen nothing so far that could be a basis for a contempt of court citation.

It will be important to keep in mind that IH"s purpose was not profit, per se. It was an environmental concern, and that drove them and still drives them. If Rossi technology works and is commercialized, this is probably very good news for the environment.

On the other hand, if Rossi is a scam, this is causing ongoing harm, diverting resources that could be better applied.

My guess would be that Hydro Fusion would drive a tougher bargain than what IH offered Rossi. No more equivalents to a GPT with Rossi In Charge. And no more half-assed "independent professor tests" where the professors have just about zero expertise in what is needed, and don't understand the need for full controls and verifications of results, and are willing to stand for those.

It doesn't take much to imagine how the Rossi-IH agreement could have been improved, from both sides' point of view, assuming Rossi is not a pure fraud, and the same with IH. Even if one or both were, the experience incorporates major examples of problems to be studied.

The most obvious: the Rossi "GPT" was an instrumented power plant, with weak measurement of input and outputs. That could be greatly improved, with, for example, exhaustive study of the coolant coming in and the coolant going out. Steam quality should not be inferred from circumstantial evidence, easily incorrect of unstated assumptions are violated. And then there is the other side, the application or usage of the power. In a pure test, this power would simply be dissipated, with a completely different system measuring the dissipated power. There could be more than one dissipation mechanism. For example, with the Doral plant, suppose there was, as Rossi claims, an endothermic reaction normally handling the bulk of the heat. I imagine that is impossible, but perhaps I'm wrong. In a full open and independent test, that product would be studied, but because the plant operates 24/7 (if it does), there must be alternative cooling. That cooling could be a large radiator, raising the temperature of air, with a known volume of flow and a known temperature increase, a completely indpeendent measure of power, and if a customer is using the power -- great idea, itself -- the customer should be independent and actually measure the power themselves and pay for it. (Where the Plant measure of power differs from the customer measure, then, there would be an inquiry process.)

Consider this possibility, which is somewhat like what could have happened in Doral, but probably didn't, there was a different problem.

The plant delivers a megawatt, but it is secretly fueled. So the customer measures and pays for power, and that power is real. Who owns the plant and who is covering the real costs?

In Doral, it looks like the customer had no independent measure and the "invoice requests" were based on the number of units ("Tigers," 250 kW each), not on any measure at all. Now, should IH care? They were being paid. The only real problem for them was that Fabiani, hired to please Rossi, most likely, was expensive. We don't know about Barry West, but how many people does a reactor need to operate?

If a test is properly set up, and if this is operated for long enough, so that someone is faking power that they pay for, as is likely in Doral, can't continue it indefinitely, this could be very reliable, long-run. Hydro Fusion will do well to look at power installations, district heating being a great idea, and setting up a sale of power with Rossi, where if it works, Rossi gets paid handsomely, and if it doesn't work, it is at Rossi's expense.

This could protect Rossi IP. If his company is operating the plants, they would be in containers as in Doral, with security. Once we get the "OMG nuclear!" out of our brain -- it's a huge distraction -- who cares where the power comes from. This is the ultimate market test, can power be sold, rather than licenses and promises?

With a district heating application, the Plant would not be the sole source of power. If the Plant fails to function at some point, not necessarily a big deal, the slack is taken up with traditional sources. The Power supplier company would be paid for actual power delivered, reducing fuel costs elsewhere.

And the ultimate impact, if this is successful, would be enormous. Further, if Rossi and Penon are truthful, Rossi could do this almost immediately. Fastest way: settle with IH, including buying the Plant back from them. Install it and run it in an application where they get paid for power. Frankly, if the customer in Florida had been real, all Rossi would have had to do would have been to pay IH to make another Plant -- since they made that one -- and ship it to, say, Sweden, while IH continues to reap $30,000 per month. Somehow, though, that "customer" was not at all upset about the loss of their so-much-needed power, and my guess is, that agreement was toast, it had served its purpose and Rossi was not about to continue paying $30,000 per month for nothing but splash.

But if Rossi wants to continue to pretend -- or alternate scenario, operate the plant -- why not? The only reason why not was created by Rossi: he was planning on suing them if they didn't pay the $89 million, my guess is that IH knew this before the "Test" ended. So they needed to lock the plant up, as evidence.

Quote from Alan Smith

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

As you say, the quality of my information cannot be independently determined. But a knife like that cuts two ways as I am sure you realise.

You are correct. I do.

Quote

However, the content of my response to your incorrect guess about the state of relations between Rossi and the Swedes/Hydrofusion seems clear enough to me. What part of the word 'cordial' don't you understand?

This is an overfocus on one word, when the communication was more complex. You wrote:

Quote

Alan Smith wrote:
@Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax. The nature of the relationship between Rossi and HF is pretty serious - based on ongoing work in Upsalla. I don't have any data to share on that but I hear it is not all bad by any means. So relations are cordial for sure.

what had I "guessed"?
Why was the one-year test performed? (my post)

Nothing there contradicts the report of relations being "cordial." Now, what was unclear? Let's parse what you wrote:

The nature of the relationship between Rossi and HF is pretty serious - based on ongoing work in Upsalla

I'm not sure what "serious" means. Further, what kind of work in Upsalla? In any case, this does not automatically imply "cordial," and relations being cordial between whom? I asked that. You have now answered, but you were not clear before.

I don't have any data to share on that

but you just did. Weak data but data.

but I hear it is not all bad by any means.

People can have verbal habits. "Not bad" can mean "fantastic!" to some people. Is this British? However, "it" is not defined here. Relationships? There are multiple relationships involved: Rossi/HF, Rossi/Uppsala, Uppsala/HF.

Again, you just shared data.

So relations are cordial for sure.

You presented this as a conclusion that would be clear from the "data" you presented. Yet the meaning was unclear and so was the conclusion. .... so, back to the question asked here by Alan:

Quote

However, the content of my response to your incorrect guess about the state of relations between Rossi and the Swedes/Hydrofusion seems clear enough to me. What part of the word 'cordial' don't you understand?

I did not guess about the state of relations.

I stated what was known and what was not known. Those were not guesses. (and I went on with some possibilities not presented as fact.)

Now, it is implied -- not exactly stated -- that all the relationship pairs involving Rossi are "cordial." (and probably the other one as well).

And, of course,you have personal information about "cordiality," but opposing attorneys in lawsuits are "cordial" with each other. Scientists may disagree strongly and be 'cordial," even if some are not. If IH met with the Uppsala team, would the meeting be "cordial"? I would hope so. IH has not attacked them, they simply pointed out that there were criticisms, which is an obvious truth. I could imagine IH helping fund further research. They might have a few suggestions, though!

Essentially, "cordial" can have a wide range of meanings.

Given that IH put far more time and effort and resources than the Lugano team into studying that same reactor design, apparently, one would think the Uppsala team would be very interested in their experience, if IH is willing to share it.

Quote from Alan Smith

Methinks you do protest too much.

Of course you do.

Quote from THHuxley

Abd wrote:

If Rossi stuff works, then the validation any partner needs comes from independent single-unit testing showing clear energy generation under lab conditions. That is cheaper and safer than any "industrial power plant".

Agreed. However, Rossi wants his megawatt plant. So ... arrange it! What is not going to happen again, I venture, is someone buying a plant for $1.5 million with Rossi-dominated Validation or the like. However, a contingent payment arrangement based on actual power generation, as independently measured, has the advantage -- for Rossi -- of not so much exposure to reverse-engineering. It could be just as definitive, if maintained for a long time and under "black box" observation. What would not be under Rossi control would be the "customer" side.

("Black box" observation: the interested party has video surveillance of the container and has access to all inputs and outputs from the container. It does not know what was in the container originally, nor does it have any access to the interior. All, of course, unless Rossi grants it. And one would set up, ideally, many of these at various sites, so that Rossi could not long afford the cost of creating "fake energy" that is real energy but not from the Rossi Effect. Each would be operated by a Rossi employee and that video security would also help the Rossi side. If that power is worth $30,000 per month, there is plenty of cash flow for maintaining this, indefinitely. However, demand would not be 24/7, all seasons. So it's throttled back, units are shut down, as they were at Doral -- or there is a big heat exchanger, dumping extra (unsold) power. Or, hey, converting obtainium to unobtainium, always lucrative. I would think, though, that control could be automated with safety shutdown even more reliable than a site operator. And all the sites could have a single operator or central control room with the ability to shut an individual site down on any suspicion that anything had gone wrong. And fail-safe, communication lost, handshake lost, site shuts down. This is all simple to do.)

This is still not enough to justify a License, but it would show that Rossi has something to sell.

Quote

Rossi has stated in the legal documents why he wanted the large-scale "customer test". Because it would have "dramatic effect". However, a real partner, as IH would have been if Rossi's stuff had worked, will not care about dramatic effect if the device works, and will not want to be involved if it does not work.

Dramatic effect from a badly instrumented but impressive seeming test may be a way to get investment from others to support a non-working product, of course. And some partners would rely on that to get funding. Maybe Hydrofusion is such, I don't know.

I don't know either. If they don't understand Industrial Heat by now, what's it going to take? UFO landings? What?

Rossi has a couple of days to respond to the IH Answer. Don't be surprised if it is just a big pile of denials, not the crushing rebuttal he promised. Once again, popcorn, anyone?

Abd:

Quote

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:The heating element will burn out if we run full power through it. Really? They actually believed that? It won't burn out with full power in a cell with a lot of extra heat supposedly being generated, where the elements would get even hotter, but it will burn out without that extra power? Sure, you don't just flip a switch to full current, the inrush can burn it out. You ramp it up, slowly, to prevent shock, allowing it to heat. But avoiding doing a full-input-power control? What were they thinking? The song goes "they must have been drinking!"

Well, for once, we're on the same page. I wrote the quote below to ecatnews.com a year ago. I had to post as Al Potenza because maryyugo was still locked out, even then! "Slad", IIRC, was a troll, probably one of Greenwin's personalities.

Quote

Al Potenza
July 3, 2015 at 6:15 pm
Hey Slad, do you, or anyone else, have any idea why the esteemed professors (aka blind mice) did not use and report the temperature from thermocouples inside the reactor and on the reactor surface?
Any idea why they did not calibrate the Optris for the exact situation using the electrical heater built into the tube furnace Rossi made?
And please don’t cite Rossi’s idiotic claim, written semi incoherently, that the high temperature would hurt the heater. If that’s true, why is it OK if the same temperature is reached by a reaction rather than Joule heat? What’s the difference?

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2669&cpage=34