I was wrong about Rossi, but what I fear most is that I might be partly right

  • Please, anyone reading these comments realize IH and their partners are spending millions on the best propagandists in the world to spread their version of the truth and to further their agenda.

  • Please, anyone reading these comments realize IH and their partners are spending millions on the best propagandists in the world to spread their version of the truth and to further their agenda.



    And Darden will spend as much of his investor's money as it takes to protect himself from a personal judgment against him.

  • Is it possible you to give time-line, when you changed your mind was it slow process within last 6 months or so, or was it one single event like seeing flow meters changed?


    I guess I can discuss that. I have agreed not to say anything that has not already been revealed by I.H. or Rossi. I do not want to interfere with the legal procedures. So, leaving out some details . . .


    During the one-year test I heard from I.H. and from some other people outside of IH who visited the test site. They said they were not happy with the way things were going. They said the instruments and methodology were not up to snuff. They were hoping Rossi would fix the problems. They did not tell me many details but I got the picture. I have seen plenty of bad calorimetry, I have done enough of it myself to know what it looks like. I had no reason to think there was any fraud involved. I figured it was just Rossi being sloppy as usual. I assume Rossi wanted the $89 million so I figured he would fix the problems.


    I did not hear anything for the last six months or so. I figured the problems were fixed and it was finally working. Mats Lewan proposed his symposium and invited me. I was nervous. I asked him "Have you talked to I.H.? They had some doubts." He assured me that he would not hold the symposium unless the ERV was released and experts agreed it was positive. That was a good policy and he stuck to it, to his credit.


    On March 10, I.H. released the statement saying: "Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from both. . . .That’s why any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have verified our results in repeated experiments." http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741


    I thought "Yikes, the bottom has fallen out. Apparently it did not work after all."


    Later, Rossi filed the lawsuit, which came as a complete surprise to me.


    I.H. made some statements familiar to everyone here, claiming the instruments did not work, the reactors were inoperative, and so on. Rossi claimed it produced 50 times input. Who is right? That is a technical question and the only way to answer it is to look at the technical data.


    At some point, I got a sample of the data from the ERV. I am sure this is actual data. I have confirmation of that fact from observers outside of I.H. Based on that, I agree with I.H.'s evaluation.


    I also saw that Rossi arranged to have the hot fluid leave the room and go to his pretend customer. He himself then said that publicly. That was the final nail in the coffin for me.


    Let me explain that if this test had been done correctly, with the instruments and procedures designated for a boiler efficiency test in the Florida safety codes, then there would be no need for anyone to go to the customer site next door. All of the information would be right there next to the boiler, displayed on instruments in plain view of an HVAC engineer. In a normal boiler efficiency test, the engineer does not go chasing through the building to find out where the hot water or steam ends up. Several people have pointed this out to me. The problem is, this test was not done according to code. The instruments in the reactor room are not adequate. The only way to fill in the blanks is to go to the customer site. From the test data it seemed likely to me there was nothing next door but a small radiator. But suppose the IH expert had gone next-door and discovered a huge machine consuming 1 MW of process heat, and suppose people outside the building had seen a gigantic plume of hot air or steam coming out of the vents on the roof with an IR camera. We would know that Rossi was telling the truth after all, and despite his abominable calorimetry, his claim was real. In that case, I am sure I.H. would have paid him the money. But, alas, that did not happen. I do not think there is any way 1 MW of heat is coming from next door. It is possible there is a little excess heat. I cannot rule that out.


    My information is quite limited. There are tons of things I know nothing about. Dewey mentioned some additional details here indicating there is only a small radiator next door. Readers here know as much about that as I do. I have not seen anything or heard anything other than what he said here, so I cannot comment. The I.H. announcement mentioned there are multiple reactors. Again, I have no knowledge of any reactor other than this one, so I cannot comment. I.H. told me they did some measurements other than the ones Rossi reported, but I have no information on their results. They would be crazy not to do additional measurements.

  • @Keieueue


    There are many pieces of convincing evidence that Rossi is a scammer and a fraud but there is one obvious one:


    Back in early 2011, Rossi was criticized for using a measurement method which involved the assumption that his ecat was making dry steam from water. He was told that this was probably wrong, resulting in a very wrong assessment of the output heat from the ecat. Grabowski and associates, from the US Naval Research Laboratory, calculated that the potential error would exactly account for the purported 6X power gain of the ecat, resulting in a "COP" of one. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf (thanks to Jed Rothwell for hosting this document)


    On the basis of this and other reports readily available to Rossi, Jed and I exchanged emails and then Jed made Rossi a straightforward proposal to send a team to Italy to assist Rossi in correcting this issue-- in this instance, the proposal was to condense (sparge) the steam and measure the temperature rise in an insulated water bath-- a very reliable method of measuring the heat content of wet or dry steam. Rossi categorically refused saying there was nothing wrong with his method because some friends of his had used inappropriate HVAC equipment to determine that the steam was dry. A bit later, I wrote to Rossi, asking that he use the large electric heater in the ecat to make a blank run with no hydrogen (or no nickel) and to use the electrically produced (Joule) heat to calibrate his instruments and prove that they worked properly. He refused to do it, with the very stupid, or more likely crooked, reasoning that "I already know what would happen."


    In my opinion, these events alone are plenty of reason to doubt both Rossi's device and Rossi's honesty. Any normal inventor would have allowed these tests and much more to prove that the invention worked. Unpredictable and temperamental do not cover this behavior. Rank dishonesty, cheating and knowing he was cheating do. And of course, much much more data suggesting lying and cheating and a classical free energy scam became available with time. I was still a little unsure of Rossi's dishonesty but the hilarious fiasco of November 2011 settled that issue for me. If you recall, Rossi claimed that he would demo a megawatt plant to dignitaries but instead, a huge diesel generator was running the whole time, the guests were only given brief and unhelpful glimpses of the device running and all the data were collected by a mysterious and otherwise anonymous "NATO colonel" who represented an equally anonymous "military customer." After this ridiculous performance, I became convinced that there was no customer, the NATO colonel was a friend of Rossi's, perhaps from Rossi's days in prison, and that the ecat was unequivocally a fake. Nothing since has shaken my convictions about that. In context, IH's refusal to pay $89M to Rossi makes perfect sense. What doesn't is that they gave him $11.5M previously on the flimsiest of due diligence, incompetently and negligently performed.

  • Grabowski and associates, from the US Naval Research Laboratory, calculated that the potential error would exactly account for the purported 6X power gain of the ecat, resulting in a "COP" of one.


    <ahem> Ken did not mention Rossi but I believe Rossi is who he in mind.


    in this instance, the proposal was to condense (sparge) the steam and measure the temperature rise in an insulated water bath-- a very reliable method of measuring the heat content of wet or dry steam.


    Recommended by the ASME and written into the Florida test codes. The links to the test codes are broken. I wish I had saved copies of the documents. Anyway, several state codes say you should do this, with a boiler up to a certain size. You can't do it with a huge boiler, like in a nuclear plant!

  • Back in early 2011, Rossi was criticized for using a measurement method which involved the assumption that his ecat was making dry steam from water.


    Tests have been done without a phase change from water to steam. The fact is, it is unlikely that you will ever accept the results of any test of Rossi's reactors, no matter how many are run and no matter what configuration is used, because like you say, you made up your mind long ago.

  • Jed:

    Quote

    But suppose the IH expert had gone next-door and discovered a huge machine consuming 1 MW of process heat, and suppose people outside the building had seen a gigantic plume of hot air or steam coming out of the vents on the roof with an IR camera. We would know that Rossi was telling the truth after all, and despite his abominable calorimetry, his claim was real. In that case, I am sure I.H. would have paid him the money. But, alas, that did not happen. I do not think there is any way 1 MW of heat is coming from next door. It is possible there is a little excess heat. I cannot rule that out.


    I vehemently disagree and I think this is a good illustration of how easily you get hornswoggled. Did you see or hear about the huge diesel generator at Rossi's first demo in Nov 2011? Someone identified the model and said it could provide something like 500kW (IIRC). In the photos of his current installation, Rossi has a giant switch panel which supplies his device with 440V 3 phase power! Even if Rossi had a giant plume coming from the building and was supplying a large production line of some sort with heat, there would be no iron clad reason why this energy could not come from that huge power supply connected to the mains. I suppose you could look at Rossi's bill and get an idea of how much power he was buying but unless he allowed the full cooperation of the utility company directly, you would not know if Rossi bought a second line whose bill he did not show you!


    The only way to have tested Rossi's "plant" was to have a completely independent and competent third party unaffiliated in any way with Rossi or IH, make the measurement of the total input power, having first provided their own switch panel and their own wiring upstream of anything furnished by Rossi. And plumes and production lines are not accurate measures of output. Fortunately there are dozens of ways to do that with proper instruments, all of which I am sure you know about.


    This isn't the installation of a laundry or bakery! It's supposed to be a $100 million proof that the greatest invention of the century works. One doesn't do that by eyeball. Not even an expert eyeball like Jed's.


    Finally, as I have noted innumerable times before, the whole idea of testing a collection of ecats for a year in a practical use setting with Rossi's attorney as the customer was beyond idiotic. This should have been done with ONE ecat, in a few weeks, and by a competent and prestigious organization officially. That IH allowed this travesty of a test speaks to their incompetence, negligence, and gross (IMO criminal) lack of concern for their fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

  • IH Fanboy

    Quote

    Tests have been done without a phase change from water to steam. The fact is, it is unlikely that you will ever accept the results of any test of Rossi's reactors, no matter how many are run and no matter what configuration is used, because like you say, you made up your mind long ago.


    What is it about proper calibration and really independent testing that you don't get? Are you really that dense? You must be, you couldn't even read what I wrote. I said that the facts convinced me, not that my mind was made up. You probably don't know the difference.

  • Jed:

    Quote

    <ahem> Ken did not mention Rossi but I believe Rossi is who he in mind.

    Yes, I know, but the target of the paper, especially the last figure is crystal clear.


    Quote

    I.H. told me they did some measurements other than the ones Rossi reported, but I have no information on their results. They would be crazy not to do additional measurements.

    It seems quite clear that they failed to commission a properly calibrated and properly independent, competent test of an original ecat for a few days. That would have settled the whole issue in the negative and was discussed on the internet many many times long before IH invested in Rossi. Many blog posts and responses to major publication articles pointed out the idiocy of a year test of a huge kludge made at the time of 100 individual ecat units. Not that this shouldn't have been obvious. As I did before, I attribute these failures to incompetence and negligence on the part of whoever (we don't know, do we?) advised Vaughn and Darden. But the buck stops with them.

  • Quote from &quot;JedRothwell&quot;

    Anyone glancing at the specifications for the instruments will see that they could not work.


    So, was it a blatant trick Rossi played to doctor the results, or him being incompetent, and if so, then why more solid means of measurements were not implemented during the year-long test?


    If it was a trick surely you do realize his whole LENR saga hinges on this particular measurement thing: this was the key to 100 million dollars. Surely he would have put some work into it so it passed, but you say it was sloppy?


    So let's entertain the idea that it's just the result of him being incompetent, and then didn't IH had something to say about it? were they afraid of making him angry?


    Do those kind of ventures need relationship counselors or what? but then again if the tech is here and completely revolutionary maybe it's logical that people act irrationally around its breakthrough (civilian one?)

  • What is it about proper calibration and really independent testing that you don't get?


    Jed has stated that he has seen a report of a test carried out entirely independent of Rossi and that it (the reactor) appeared to work according to the test results. Mats backed up Jed's statement. Now, you might complain that this is yet another secret test and customer, and you would be justified in that complaint, and I would share the same frustration. But that doesn't change the fact of the matter that two individuals have publicly made statements that there was a fully independent test carried out without the presence of Rossi.

  • Jed has stated that he has seen a report of a test carried out entirely independent of Rossi and that it (the reactor) appeared to work according to the test results. Mats backed up Jed's statement.


    Is this is a test that featured a half hour "self-sustaining" on a smaller version of the fatcat preceding the Oct 6, 2011 test? There have been leaks about that, and again a model similar to Ascoli65's hot core model will explain the continued evaporatIon after removal of the electrical input.
    You may want to take a look here:
    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…sustained-system-or-cop1/

  • The instruments used were not those that should have been used in the one-year test. That is what I.H. said in their motion to dismiss. I agree.


    May be You should once make a point and divide it out: What You really know and what IH says.


    According to the rules: Only the ERV has the knowledge. Thus don't chew the gum any longer and make a final statement. Did You get an official ERV report or not.


    If not: Please stop writing.


    This has nothing to do with the credibility of Rossi. Its Your damn credibility!

  • May be You should once make a point and divide it out: What You really know and what IH says.


    I told you what I know. I have sample calorimetric data which I know came from Rossi. People who visited there saw the same numbers he reports in this data. He gave the same numbers to Lewan. I have the configuration, and some knowledge of the instruments. That's all I need to know.


    According to the rules: Only the ERV has the knowledge.


    That is nonsense. Anyone who walks into the room, looks around at the configuration, and reads the instruments will "have the knowledge." You cannot hide it. Anyone who looks at the data and configuration will have the knowledge.

  • That is nonsense. Anyone who walks into the room, looks around at the configuration, and reads the instruments will "have the knowledge." You cannot hide it. Anyone who looks at the data and configuration will have the knowledge.


    According to a Rossi statement, at the beginning of the test there were 56 thermo couplers in place. You want make me to belive that people like Dewey can read them out within one glimps of their eyes ????????


    Sorry: You definitly lost your credibility! You should switch to the fairy tale channel...

  • So, was it a blatant trick Rossi played to doctor the results, or him being incompetent, and if so, then why more solid means of measurements were not implemented during the year-long test?


    How would I know whether it was a trick or incompetence? I cannot read Rossi's mind. If it was trick, it was inept, because it did not fool anyone.


    Apparently, Rossi originally agreed to solid means of measurements, but then he removed essential instruments and screwed up the configuration. That is what I.H. refers to in the Motion to Dismiss, by "departing from the purported test plan." I am sure I.H. did not agree to the final configuration. No sane person would.


    If it was a trick surely you do realize his whole LENR saga hinges on this particular measurement thing: this was the key to 100 million dollars. Surely he would have put some work into it so it passed, but you say it was sloppy?


    Again, I cannot read his mind. So I cannot tell you why he did what he did. If I were him, yes, I would put work into it; I would not have pulled out essential instruments; and I would allow the I.E. expert into my customer site.


    Here is what I think. Every indication is that the gadget does not work. The calorimetry is crude, sloppy and clearly wrong, but you can still make a rough estimate. It looks like no heat to me. There is no significant heat coming from the customer site. So I think it does not work, Rossi knows that, and he is trying to fool I.H. into paying $89 million. That seems like a stupid thing to do, but Rossi does stupid things at times.

  • According to a Rossi statement, at the beginning of the test there were 56 thermo couplers in place. You want make me to belive that people like Dewey can read them out within one glimps of their eyes ????????


    There is no data from those 56 thermocouples in the sample I saw. People standing in the room could read the fluid temperatures. I am sure of that. That would be true even if there were 56 thermocouples. The fluid had to be reasonably well mixed, so the temperatures shown by visible instruments would agree with those 56 thermocouples.


    In Florida and everywhere else, you are not allowed to operate a boiler without visible thermometers on the inlet and outlet. Granted, Rossi violated many safety codes so he might have violated this one too, but apparently he did not.


    I doubt Rossi actually had 56 thermocouples. That would be a crazy number to have. That is about 50 more than you could possibly use. Rossi is not a reliable source of information, so I suggest you ignore this absurd claim.

  • Even if Rossi had a giant plume coming from the building and was supplying a large production line of some sort with heat, there would be no iron clad reason why this energy could not come from that huge power supply connected to the mains.


    Obviously I had in mind that they would check for that. The I.H. experts are top-notch people. I.H. is not going to hand over $89 million without checking for things like that. I did not mean they would cut a check five minutes after discovering a gigantic machine consuming 1 MW of process heat.


    I do not know how they decided to pay the initial $11 million. That looks like a dumb mistake to me. But I have no data from that, and no idea who looked at it or which experts may have looked. My comments apply to the 1-MW reactor test covered by the ERV only.


    In point of fact, I do not think power supplies for buildings like this go as high as 1 MW. So if the I.H. experts used calorimetry in the exhaust vent to determine there is 1 MW of heat, that would be inexplicable. It would also hugely contradict the data from the reactor room. It would be a complete mystery that would take weeks or months to sort out.