Why was the one-year test performed?

Quote

The thing is, pathologically evil people and insane people have, at times, made important discoveries. They have done first-rate research.

Fair enough. But, if we are to do "likelihood from character" Rossi is neither evil nor insane, merely much much more interested in dramatic effect than his stuff actually working. To the extent that he has always said tests that might establish that are "not necessary".

Or, if we do likelihood from ability, training, etc, Rossi scores zero.

So, while you could I suppose claim that anyone could make a serendipitous world-shattering discovery, Rossi looks a supremely unlikely candidate.

His only qualification would appear to be a good opinion of himself and the ability to convince others of that.

Quote from THHuxley

Fair enough. But, if we are to do "likelihood from character" Rossi is neither evil nor insane, merely much much more interested in dramatic effect than his stuff actually working. To the extent that he has always said tests that might establish that are "not necessary".

I'm open to the idea that he was trying to play it straight at first--although this is not really necessary. I think a lot of the appearance of being "hard working" is part of the dramatic effect. "Gee, look at how hard I'm working." The reality is that dedicated others have probably done most of the hard work of building devices. He does not seem very technically skilled, but is able to inspire others to work hard in order to be part of the biggest revolution in the history of energy generation.

I agree that based on his history, behavior, and skill, the chances of him ever making a breakthrough in LENR (or perhaps any technical field), are diminishingly small.

Quote from Shane D.

Well, you have to take that up with E48, and his buddies over on ECW. They think the 1MW is everything you don't.

Apart from the main story, this side story, about different groups of observers coming to such different conclusions and assessments of relative likelihood when looking at the same evidence, has been entertaining, eye-opening and dismaying all at the same time. I now have a much better understanding about why Brilliant Light Power still has a continued and devoted following after two decades for example. It reminds me a little of the old Kurosawa movie Rashomon, where four different witnesses to a crime described four very different accounts of it.

Personally I'm following this discussion with some interest because is a good example of how a closed group can create his own reality.
Many of you think that the fact that no academic member have ever answered you is just because they feel "ashamed".
None of you could ever consider that nobody is answering you because of no interest and because in fact some of you have created a "Negation Church".
In this kind of worship everything is mixed and confused (an industrial size low temperature plant with a high temperature prototype), you have found your own Devil (Rossi) and a Sinner (Levi).
You even pretend to be capable to judge "behavior patterns" (do you ever know what "behavior" is ?) and psychological characters. (Have you ever seen a real psychopath ?)
All that could be fun for you (as is for people discussing of sport, politics or celebrities) but I think that here is quite insane.
Instead of asking "Why somebody else is doing this" try to ask yourself :
Why you are doing that ?
Why you need to pass hours and days writing ? (Seems like a real work)
What are your motivations ?

Quote

...appeals to authority...

I thought you'd know by now that you wouldn't recognise authority if it bit you in the... ah never mind. Just had a deja vu ... of sorts.

Quote

Mary - you know very well why the various professors don't and won't engage in debate on the web - you have been told several times. For various reasons, all of which you have been told about, you are never going to hear a peep from any of them. Pretending you don't understand why not is just your excuse for trotting out the same old grumble. Come on now, you are smarter that that.

Alan,

I'm confused here. I understand why now none of them (if sensible) would want to debate matters on the web or anywhere else except in private. I can understand why at the time none would want to go on internet forums engaging in informal discussion.

What I cannot understand is why when first sent TC's paper (and if you disbelieve him that he sent it you could check with them) they did not properly consider his point and in an addition either agree publicly that there were errors or refute it. This was a definite difference in interpretation separate from the empirical data, that any competent scientist could review. Mats claims he has now asked a few to do this but has been very silent as to the results. If, for spectrally variable emissivity, the IR band emissivity is necessarily the same as the total emissivity then TC was wrong and Levi et al right. Or if not, the published extraordinary conclusions were premature: both the "acceleration" and the "heat excess" have a possible mundane explanation. And while TC was only one voice there were others before and after him making the same point.

At that time IH and Rossi were happy with each other. Had proper reply been made at the time all parties could have been clearer.

The only reason I can see is that they were under an NDA - and in that case the might well be required not even to say that they were under NDA. If so the way that their work was presented (as an independent test) was false.

Regards, THH

Quote from Alan Smith

This refusal to discuss further has nothing to do with NDA's AFAIK, or anything beyond a feeling that it is a total waste of time. No means no in this case, and perpetual nagging will NOT change that decision.

I feel that this attitude, if it was adopted by the Lugano scientists, is both understandable and unfortunate. It's understandable because there are people, well-meaning or otherwise, who are at all levels of understanding and goodwill who will intrude on any productive discussion on this site or other forums, and bring down the level of conversation, introducing fake disagreement. (Fake, because if you control for intelligence and understanding, there may be no real disagreement after all.) But the attitude would be unfortunate at the same time, because (1) some of those Internet critiques could well have hit on real issues that the Lugano authors overlooked; and (2) if they released to the public an account that puts the E-Cat technology in a positive light that turns out to have been flawed, without correcting the picture later on, they're indirectly responsible for any funds that are misdirected to Leonardo or similar outfits as a result. They're providing advertising copy for the E-Cat.

Quote

...discussion on the web is pointless, since as you have just seen in another thread, it not a place for agreement or clear discussions, but a place that enables perpetual disagreement...

Hang on - we're not talking about Cornell refusing to discuss his latest paper from Science or Nature on an obscure nutcase blog. We're talking about a paper that was chosen to be published on an obscure nutcase blog in the first place. There is no conceivable reason for a high horse here.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

To be valid, it must disclose how to make the invention so that anyone POSITA (possessing ordinary skill in the art) can make it. It's not just IH that couldn't do this. Nobody has. That's prima facie evidence of worthlessness.

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.