As for snide comments, you are pretty liberal with them yourself. At least mine are funnier than yours.
This is not a laughing matter.
I could make it purple if you like.
If you must change the color, make it something similar to black, with a strong contrast to white.
You are rediscovering your sense of humor. Excellent. This is darker green - how's that?
Jed: I suggest you cut the crap.* Small motor difficulties. At the risk of being accused of terrorism by Peter Gluck let me say that I am handy with an ax.
Jed sure has a burr under the saddle of his high horse. My my my.
@ Mary Yugo, you wrote:
- "So no, I did not "find an error" as such."
Sorry, you didn't find an error just because you have not looked at the documents with the necessary attention. In the calorimeter report (1) of the demo held on January 14, 2011, there are 3 errors, each as big as an elephant!
1 - The most important instrument of all the experimental setup, the one with which the dryness of the outlet steam should have been assessed, it just was ... absent, as the first jpeg shows: http://i.imgur.com/YC4W0Ax.jpg
So we can assume not only that the steam was not dry, but also that, as easily deductible from other considerations, that the outflow was almost completely in the liquid state. This leads to an overestimation of the heat produced by a factor of six, at least.
2 - The maximum deliverable flowrate of the dosimetric pump used to inject the coolant was only about 40% of that stated in the report, as shown in the second jpeg: http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg</a>
This results in an overestimate by a factor of 2.5 of the thermal power produced.
3 - The duration of the boiling period was doubled compared to the real one, as evidenced by this third and final jpeg: http://i.imgur.com/kaHK3GV.jpg
This last error leads to an overestimate by a factor of 2 of the total energy generated during the test.
In total, the heat output during the Bologna first demo was overestimated by a factor of 15 for the power and by a factor of 30 for energy!
Moreover, as shown by the above jpegs, these are not errors of which any PhD in physics may not be aware!
And, please, stop with the issue of the missing calibrations. This complaint holds only if you can trust the testers.
There have been many reports of "successful" Ecat tests going back to at least 2009. None though have been corroborated with an official report. They are more like urban legend, or better yet...Rossisays. Rossi actually included his own Rossisays into his early patent applications to "prove" his Ecat's utility. This recent Gary Wright article documents it well:
http://freeenergyscams.com/and…nd-misleading-statements/
There have been others too. In the early days Stremmenos recounted his own successful, and impressive, Ecat DD he arranged with Rossi for a group of investors (later to form Defkalion). To this day he is still a believer. In fact, his son is, or was last year, working with the former Italian licensee (Aldo Proia) to develop their own LENR product, after Rossi bought them out.
Ironically, the only real, legitimate test performed on an Ecat failed miserably, and quickly, and that test was commissioned by Hydrofusion...the only licensee left I believe, and a Rossi loyalist to this day. Yes, even after their tester from ST walked out after quickly discovering Rossi's ruse (triple input), Hydrofusion stuck with Rossi.
Go figure. Nothing ever seems to add up with this story. When fed tidbits, I guess it seldom does.
Well, Lewan says just now on ECW that he knows of another "success":
"BTW, I was told about another E-Cat test, outside of the US, made without Rossi's knowing or participating, on a real E-Cat, that apparently was positive."
Mixed emotions. Another unconfirmed success, nothing official. Yet more gossip of how Rossi actually did submit his Ecat to scrutiny. Again, we don't know for sure Lewan, or the others, are right, but there have been so many accounts/scuttlebutt like this, it is hard to believe they are all figments of the imagination, or made up.
In addition, Rossi also allowed almost unfettered access with the Ferrara test, Lugano, and even the 6 Oct 2011, which lends some validity to the earlier reports that he allowed equally generous, unsupervised access. If you have a fake product, you do not willingly hand it over to experts to examine, but it appears he has done so many times in the past. Why would he do that if he was a scammer?
I think we need someone who has read a psychology book to put this all together...Abd! 
Mary Yugo, you wrote:
- "So no, I did not "find an error" as such."
Sorry, you didn't find an error just because you have not looked at the documents with the necessary attention. In the calorimeter report (1) of the demo held on January 14, 2011, there are 3 errors, each as big as an elephant!
That is a different test, with a different reactor, and a different report.
QuoteShane D wrote:
In addition, Rossi also allowed almost unfettered access with the Ferrara test, Lugano, and even the 6 Oct 2011, which lends some validity to the earlier reports that he allowed equally generous, unsupervised access. If you have a fake product, you do not willingly hand it over to experts to examine, but it appears he has done so many times in the past. Why would he do that if he was a scammer?
Shane,
We're back to the question of "where are the lies and how far do they extend?" If he could make it work, why doesn't the patent formula work? Why didn't he transfer full knowledge of how to make it work to IH? Did he only lie to IH and in the patent (smaller scam)? Does it work very well sometimes because he has lied about an important parameter?
As a converse to your question, is this the behavior of someone acting in good faith?
Dewey, settle down, you are getting upset. Go on holiday, wait for the court to decide.
It is fascinating to see who upvotes useless comments like this. I look and it is never a surprise. We could all wait for the court to decide, and, in fact, it is only the court that actually decides anything, this is discussion, kibbitzing. So why are some welcome to kibbitz, and one, in particular, with more actual information to provide when he chooses to, is not? So, the voting patterns are interesting.
Dewey is perfectly welcome to go on holiday. I hope he enjoys his summer. I hope that he swims or does whatever like likes in waters cleaner than this environment. I once worked at a sewage treatment plant (a great one, a demonstration model for generating clean water and harmless ash, though this would not be a present-day solution, probably too power intensive, it was still fun). Somebody has to do it.
Would this report be 'discoverable' to the court?
Maybe, but who would ask for it. This was not IH, it was, I thnk, before the IH Agreement. Jed has not said who it was.
QuoteDoes Rossi have a copy?
I would guess that he does. He had to allow the test, obviously. The E-Cat World report is an example of how people get excited by what they read and run off with it as if it is a Big Deal. ooo! lookie what we found! Anyone reading carefully would not make the assumptions they made.
As a converse to your question, is this the behavior of someone acting in good faith?
No, of course not. But I am sane, he may not be. Actually, come to think of it, he doesn't even have to be insane to explain his bizarre behavior. I have run across so many in my life that functioned well, sort of, in the workplace and social situations, but would perceive threats, see insults, take offense, where you and I wouldn't, and react differently, strangely than you or I.
You can see the same personality issues in play here, which explains Para's "WTF" happened to LF. Rossi believers, for which I was once, often explain his odd behavior away by comparing him to Tesla, and Edison. One thing they forget, is that those two actually produced products, whereas Rossi has yet to do that. He is still at the promise stage, 9 long years into his promises, and that is starting to ring hollow. Very much so.
Mary Yugo wrote:
ONE FROM THE GREEN INK PARTY. Alan Smith
Please stop doing that. It makes the message hard to read.
Not to mention being incredibly rude.
Mary Yugo is a pseudonymous pseudoskeptic/skeptic (kind of a mix), much more sane than, say, Sifferkoll, though Sifferkoll, is, at least a real, known, acknowledged person. If you are going to color, why not all contributors with fixed positions. I'll call Mary, "George" because ... hey, nice name. My middle name, my father's name. George is far from outside the norm here. When site administration picks sides, the site goes south, and I have now seen lots of signs of that. If that is a site owner, well, can't be helped. If, however, the owner is a trustee for a community, and is responsible to the community, maybe the community can advise the owner. If most here want this blatant rudeness, so be it. I have no critical interest here. Right now, it is mostly an opportunity to research the Federal case, and I get snippets here and there from Dewey, who also is harassed. Of course, he is also rude and uncivil on occasion. These environments can be like bars.
Ascoli65 - there you are! Very happy to see you posting on LF. I really appreciated your postings on Mat's blog while comments were still being allowed and would like to be able have a direct conversation with you.
Can you please send me a contact email to [email protected]? Any conversation from there-on will be private.
Good post btw..
All the best,
Dewey
Rossi believers, for which I was once, often explain his odd behavior away by comparing him to Tesla, and Edison. One thing they forget, is that those two actually produced products, whereas Rossi has yet to do that. He is still at the promise stage, 9 long years into his promises, and that is starting to ring hollow. Very much so.
Yes indeed. Edison was an infuriating at times. He drove his investors nuts. He went way over budget and demanded lots more money, then he spent it on things which were not in the budget and not agreed to by them. He was sharp dealer (a cheater), and he did not pay his bills. But he worked quickly and came through often.
Often, but not always. He screwed up many times. I recall he blew away $10 million on magnetic separation, which was a lot of money back then.
See the book "Thomas A. Edison: A Streak of Luck" for details.
People forgive bad behavior when you make lots and lots and lots of money for them. See also Steve Jobs.
Frank Acland corrected the post on E-Cat World. Meanwhile, I looked and saw that a user wrote this:
"IH never intended to perform the 1 Year test (as they didnt make any effort to find a customer)"
Again and again, there are people who take Rossi's conclusory claims in the Complaint as if they were fact. Dewey has claimed that IH identified a customer in Raleigh, which would have been very convenient to IH, and Rossi refused to accept, giving essentially a bullshit answer. I would guess that at that point, IH gave up on arranging the test. These are things that can be established with testimony, if this goes to trial, and if there is conflict in testimony, the jury will decide what is fact, if it is relevant. I would guess that multiple people knew about that offer (including the prospective customer), so establishing this with testimony might not be difficult.
Nobody has corrected the obvious bias. This person goes on to say:
But then, Rossi updated the reactor and then with the improvement they started to see a COP of around 50. Too difficult to dismiss or argue agains it.[sic]
It's clear that there is no understanding of the lawsuit and the issues. If Rossi "updated" the reactor, it was no longer the reactor to be tested in the Agreement, and would not satisfy the condition for payment. Rossi sold a supposedly existing technology, not some new one to be developed. Sure, if he had a better reactor, he could have negotiated with IH, and the simplest negotiation would have been to dump the 1 MW test entirely, and rely on independent and multiple verification of individual reactor units, as made by IH with Rossi not touching them, just telling them what to do, and perhaps watching. And the same with the testing. No-Rossi-touch. But instead, Rossi went for completing the test as if it was something he could change at will, and he behaved as if he was completely in charge, apparently. And then appears to have assumed he could force IH to pay.
Now, the kicker: if he'd sued Industrial Heat, they might have $50 million sitting around. They'd spend some of that on legal expenses, and that would be planned. Instead, Rossi included Cherokee in the suit, a $2.2 billion corporation, on a very weak legal argument, and this practically guaranteed that the best lawyers in the country would be retained.
Rossi still thinks of Darden and Vaughn and the corporations as if they were one person, it is part of his massively dysfunctional world view. Darden and Vaughn are officers of Cherokee, responsible to the board and the investors in that real estate fund. They were personally interested in LENR. They, however, had no right to invest in an agreement with Rossi on behalf of Cherokee, not without risking an investor lawsuit. Apparently no Cherokee money was invested in IH. IH invested in something that was obviously very risky, the vast majority of analysts would say. Investors in IH knew that, you can ask Dewey and I'm pretty confident what he'd say.
This much I predict: the judge will remove Cherokee from the case. The judge may remove Darden and Vaughn personally, but that's not so certain. For example, suppose Darden and Vaughn did fraudulently claim that Cherokee would pay the $89 million if needed. Difficult to prove, but maybe. I'm not saying the argument would succeed, but it might be triable.
I do not see that Rossi has alleged what would be needed to keep Cherokee as a defendant.
Are you saying you still hold some hope that low temperature Ni-H or Ni-Li-Al-H fusion actually works? In Rossi's hands? (Wow if so!)
If you want to say this neutrally (do you?) the question would be about NiH anomalous heat. PdD anomalous heat is still a mystery, but we do know, now, that the main reaction is with deuterium, producing helium and basically nothing else at high levels. So I will happily call it "cold fusion." NiH reactions have been sporadically reported for a long time. For PdD cold fusion, there is direct evidence, with multiple independent confirmations. There is nothing like that with NiH, though there is some work from SRI that might be replilcable, this is still unconfirmed. The Texas Tech/ENEA collaboration has announced a program to confirm heat/helium correlation with increased precision -- basic science! -- and is also working with an exploding wires technique that seems to be able to vet materials, and they have results with NiH. I'm skeptical. But these are competent researchers.
I certainly hope that NiH can be confirmed, but most investigations are scattershot. To my mind, nothing is clearly established, merely possible. One of the explanations of Rossi's behavior is that he did see something, but exaggerated it and failed to nail down his measurement techniques and possibly he also faked some tests, which "eccentric inventors" have been known to do. It's not a proof that they have nothing, merely a very bad sign about their ethics. And sometimes they are deluding themselves, too. Many are coming to the conclusion that Rossi is just an elaborate con with some fairly unusual ability to generate confidence and belief. "Confidence man" is the original word. However, as you point out, there are others involved. So ... the current lawsuit may not resolve the question of whether or not Rossi actually has some real results in some of what happened. However, what the suit has already shown is that Rossi is, very likely, a dangerous and untrustworthy business partner.
Even if the 1 MW reactor actually worked! And it appears possible that it did not.
I'm copying this entire post by Mary Yugo and may comment on pieces of it.
Well, nobody can do that with certainty because Levi failed to provide his data to Krivit or anyone else. But here are some simple yet powerful facts -- yes, FACTS!
Well, perhaps. Or reasonable surmise, uncontroverted by the record we have.
Quote1. It is very simple to falsify the results Levi got, simply by placing the output temperature thermocouple too close to the gargantuan heaters in the original ecats. Note, incidentally, that the outer heater does nothing but heat... you guessed it... the COOLING WATER! I pointed this out in 2011! Others have since noted that irregularities in the flow meter measurement could also account for erroneous positive results.
Those are two possible error sources. "Gargantuan" is a bit of polemic, eh? I forget the design and am not sure we know it. However, a heater that takes the cooling water to boiling reducing the heat needed to take the reactor itself to the higher reaction temperature, isn't odd. The power would be input power, not a problem, as long, of course, as it is correctly measured.
Quote2. Levi failed to perform the very simple calibration step, using the built in gargantuan heaters to check the output power measurement method.
This is a generic Rossi failure. Calibrations are not performed. It's a huge lacuna, missing over and over, in spite of being pointed out again and again. There is some NiH work in China where they are calibrating with empty fuel containers. It's better work. There are still problems, and my position that, absent major and sustained heat, proof of nuclear reaction has not been attained unless there is correlated nuclear product. In the case of NiH, that might be difficult, if Storms is right and the product is deuterium, because substantial deuterium will also be present in the fuel, unless it is deuterium depleted (which is more expensive and nobody has used, to my knowledge).
Quote3. Levi never repeated the experiment despite multiple requests to do so, including one by email from Dr. Brian Josephson. Levi never even replied to that email (check with Josephson if you doubt that).
The protocols of science have extensively been ignored in the Rossi affair. He is sometimes called an "Italian scientist" in newspaper accounts. He is not a scientist. It's not his training nor his experience. He is possibly an engineer.
Quote4. Levi and Rossi never pursued the original ecat design even though it made more power and a better "COP" than the best hot cat result... by more than a full order of magnitude (10X).
The field of cold fusion was afflicted by a constant effort to "improve" experiments rather than thoroughly investigating and understanding them. Now, I know engineers. Some of them are perfectionists. They keep trying to make the product better. As a result, they do not deliver product. Managers must know and restrain this, deciding when something is good enough to market, and then taking that to market, and reserving improvement for future product. If Rossi actually had something, he could have had an investigational product for sale by the next year. But he wanted a 1 MW reactor, remember that? Flamboyant, is the word I'd use.
QuoteNow that isn't the discovery of an error in the test, which Levi made impossible by complete and incomprehensible failure to cooperate with anybody anywhere about doing the test correctly and making documentation available. But it is an error in methodology: no blank, no calibration! And several easy ways to cheat. Those features are true for each and every one of Rossi's tests and remain true to this day despite having been explained to Rossi and Levi by at least a dozen people, some rock solid reliable and using their true names, starting back in 2011.
Yes. I wrote quite a few critiques. The biggest thing I found was the possibility of overflow water, which reduced the COP possibly to 1.0, depending on how much. No testing for overflow water, everyone was distracted by what amounts to a lesser version of the same thing, low steam quality. And, of course, they used a humidity meter to measure steam quality, which is a total misunderstanding of how a humidity meter works.
QuoteI've never been able to figure out Levi. He is an undistinguished assistant professor who should be at least an associate by now. He has never written a single paper on his own which meant anything. Most of his publications are about brewing coffee. How come he has not published a properly done ecat experiment with calibrations, in a peer reviewed journal, even if it were simply a cold fusion journal? I can't decide if this man is incredibly negligent and incompetent or whether he is crooked. I'd ask him which it is but I doubt that he'd answer me. I see no other possible reason for his behavior but maybe you do. Certainly, it isn't secrecy. If Rossi and Levi wanted secrecy, they would not have done public demonstrations and given interviews, for example to Krivit. And Rossi would not be posting an incredibly tedious and inane set of Q&A's on his misnamed blog, JONP, every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year!
One might think.
QuoteSo no, I did not "find an error" as such.
Right. Rather, you found nothing rising to the level of strong evidence. Too many possible artifacts, not acknowledged and investigated. Or at least acknowledged. Read McKubre's reports, when there is something missing, he normally says so. "It is possible that ... we were unable to investigate ....") Real scientists do this, they become very careful about reporting.
QuoteNote also that were the original ecat real (never mind the hot cat and the QuarkX [ROTFLW!]), Rossi and Levi could have been rich beyond their wildest dreams by now by simply marketing a small heater to the world at large or by licensing the technology to anyone of a large number of major industries and companies.
One might think so. You forget about the Vast Conspiracy to Suppress Free Energy that sucked in Rossi in 2012 by giving him $11.5 million and promising him $89 million more. Right? The snakes! Rossi is so innocent that he didn't read the Agreement and didn't bother consulting a lawyer. The rats, to delude such a saint!
Besides, Rossi hates lawyers, like any right-thinking person.
QuoteIt has been almost six years since Rossi's fun and games began. Or do you really believe that Rossi has "certificators" [sic] working on safety certificates for the small ecat for five years and in that time, looking at the greatest invention of the last two centuries, they have been unable to come to a positive decision? That's what Rossi uses as the lamest imaginable excuse for not making small ecats available to the public. Even if that were true, why could the small modules not be available to industry? So even on Rossi's own extremely suspicious terms, it makes absolutely no sense. None of it.
People have been noticing all this since 2011. IH, I'm sure, noticed it.
They took action to call Rossi's bluff, is one way to put it. They saw Rossi's claims as either real and of vast importance, or as fraud or false and doing great damage to LENR, by depressing research. After all, why go after watts if someone is claiming -- and appearing to show -- kilowatts? So they took a risk with $11.5 million. We can all thank them. If Rossi technology is real, he is more or less going to be forced to prove it, and yet the lawsuit, as it stands, warns any investor away. And he did that to himself.
Mary, he's insane.
Those are two possible error sources. "Gargantuan" is a bit of polemic, eh?
No, it is a mistake. Yugo has confused this test with small reactors with a previous test with large reactors. Gargantuan might describe the other gadgets, but the document I linked to, which I find somewhat credible, describes hand-held devices.
Mary Yugo wrote:
Well, nobody can do that with certainty because Levi failed to provide his data to Krivit or anyone else.
That is incorrect. There is a lot of data in the report:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf
Jed, that is not the work Mary Yugo was talking about, obviously. This was the first Hot Cat report, published much later on arXiv (which you do not show with the paper, by the way, it's not dated in the pdf itself) much later.
Mary might be talking about http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf, sketchy reporting of tests done in December 2010 and January 2011.
In addition, Rossi also allowed almost unfettered access with the Ferrara test, Lugano, and even the 6 Oct 2011, which lends some validity to the earlier reports that he allowed equally generous, unsupervised access. If you have a fake product, you do not willingly hand it over to experts to examine, but it appears he has done so many times in the past. Why would he do that if he was a scammer?
Because he is a very good reader of people. The Lugano testers were not going to do anything outside of what Rossi wanted them to do. Rossi selects people, it is obvious.
There is a great story by Dewey that rings true. If Dewey is lying, it will all come out and I will personally stick pins in a voodoo doll. ... Nah. But he will stand exposed, because the truth will come out.
It is on a post here that could be found if I had time, but this is my memory: he was present at an early Rossi demonstration at the IH lab. He had an IR temperature gun. When Rossi saw that, he told everyone to leave, because the reactor was out of control, but Dewey saw that the temperature was nowhere near what Rossi was claiming. Then Rossi told the IH people to keep that "lawyer" away. (Dewey is not a lawyer, he's an investor in IH.) They humored Rossi. Dewey describes Rossi as engaging and likable. That is a characteristic of a con artist -- or some high-functioning but very crazy people.
