IH considering counterclaims

    • Official Post
    Quote from JedRothwell

    Actually, I am pointing out a fact about incandescence that has been common knowledge for thousands of years. All materials glow at the same color at a given temperature.


    While theory suggests this should be so, it is not strictly true. Some materials - like copper and Aluminium seem to make it harder to see the glow. Steel and many ceramics make it easy. Thorium gas mantles for example glow brighlty at relatively low temperatures. My experience with naked Alumina tubes withdrawn from a brightly glowing reactor housing (quartz and Kanthal inside a foamed Alumina block) running at (say) 1000C is that they glow a dull cherry-red looking much cooler than the housing they come from. Steel at the same temperature will glow orange. There has been much discussion in here about the band emissivity of Alumina -I suspect any difference or anomaly in the glow colour is related to this.


    So I think it safer to say 'all similar materials glow the same colour at the same temperature.'


    ETA- steel glow colour chart.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Scientifically, the issue will be measurement precision, and we do see some analysis of results as "significant" when there is 5% "excess energy," i.e., COP 1.05 or higher.


    ABD: It's easy: How can you tripple an output energy by doubling the input? That's Your, and TC's and many others claim.


    So we finally unmask you, ABD, as an infinty energy scammer - oh pardon - using infinity energy scammer slang to discredit an experiment, which was indeed conducted very bad.


    Your COP 1.05 is just a simple scam. It cannot explain the tripling of the Lugano rods energy dissipation!


    How is live on the ABD-Galaxy? Are all chicken well up?
    Bdw: Lugano was once a nice place: To many banks, to much black money...

    Quote from frankwtu

    AlainCo wrote:


    Yes it was, but was it a condition with clear 'success and failure standards'?


    No, it was not stated that way. However, I expect that the jury will understand this, and easily.


    Quote

    For example, the $89 million was due on a successful ERV report.

    Which was simple to define, as a formal requirement, apparently Rossi set it up that way. However, I cannot imagine that this is what IH wanted. My conclusions is that this is how it was written because Rossi was demanding it. It is known how to negotiate problems like this in business. Standard binding arbitration is an example, which can be done with experts. Easy. So what wasn't it done that way. That is an easy question to answer!


    Quote

    How can it be judged that IH has or has not received the required IP?

    The same as any other contested fact is judged. At this point, Rossi has not contested any claim that he did not deliver the IP. He has not affirmed that he did. Some of what he has been writing recently implies that he did not deliver the IP. There is a reason why his attorney may have told him to STFU. He has ignored that advice, as he apparently ignored the advice of attorneys before.


    The way this is judged is through the assessment of a jury, presented with evidence by the parties. If it is true, and if IH made diligent attempts to confirm the IP, with Rossi's assistance as he was obligated to provide, they will have no great difficulty showing this in court, and the Planet Rossi claims that they were stupid idiots and couldn't follow instructions will have zero impact on the jury, and if Rossi's attorney makes that claim, he will make himself look like an idiot.


    Quote

    Here is a scenario, completely hypothetical. Rossi asks the Swedes to replicate his E-cat, for this he gives them some IP which is a copy of the IP he gave to IH. The Swedes successfully replicate.


    Of course we will never know, or will we?


    If this happens, you can be fairly sure the information will come out. Consider how this "scenario" would be used by Rossi. He would claim "I told the Swedes how to do it, the same as I told IH, and IH now pretends that they couldn't manage it, the snakes!


    But this is in court, not the blogosphere. IH would call him on it. "Here is the IP we received. Is the Swedish IP the same or different?" And how were they "successful"?


    Here there is an idea that a single test is a 'successful replication," which it can be, but what IH needed was not a single test, rather an ability to make devices with reasonable reliability. So to make this realistic, this has to be a bulletproof, repeated test by the Swedes, not just Rossi's friends sitting around laughing while a device pretends to get very hot for the IR cameras. What I'm saying is that such a sequence could actually happen. it could be real, and Rossi could still lose.


    It is highly unlikely that the IP that Rossi gave them was adequate. But if the Swedes were to use the same IP and be successful, as reasonably defined, not the Planet Rossi definition, IH would be, I'm sure, very interested. After all, they have a license for that technology for half the planet. That is worth billions.


    So, suppose they really were doofuses who couldn't make a tube of toothpaste squirt. They still had a lot of money and were skilled fundraisers. How would a sane Andrea Rossi deal with this? It's really not a difficult problem. It's called "training." So he hires people and trains them, and they run the reactor, not him, and he uses a real customer -- or just a heat exchanger -- not this silliness he set up. He demonstrates that he has the goods, and that the goods can be manufactured and that they work. He "crushes the tests," instead of playing the Rossi primadonna game.


    "they don't-a trust-a me? they can take a flying-a leap-a!"

    Quote from frankwtu

    JedRothwell wrote:


    So that's where you inherit your logic from, dinosaurs.


    Frank is unclear on many topics, including the age of the dinosaurs. Jed's point was that those working with forging metals and ceramics have known about heat and light for thousands of years. He's right.


    Planet Rossi seems to be running scared, my impression. Desperate. It really doesn't make any difference, because I see no move from Planet Rossi to actually support Rossi. For example, how about a fund to help him with legal expenses? Or I mentioned actually buying stock in Hydro Fusion, his Swedish licensee. All this smoke and mirrors has no substance. It's like a child's game. "Stupid!" "No, you're Stupid!" "You are!" "No, you!"


    There is a real show going on, in Miami Florida. I'm watching PACER for developments, and put them up in the newvortex filespace as soon as I see them, which is sometimes a day earlier than they appear on pacermonitor that others are following. Mats Lewan gave up putting up the documents, his list is over a month old. Other than a few early procedural documents, like waiver of service, all Rossi v. Darden documents are in https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…tex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/


    To download them, you will need a yahoo account and to subscribe to newvortex. If you really are allergic to my writing, you can set your subscription to "Special Messages," which we have not, so far, ever sent. Or if you actually get the mail, you might see a message a day from me, or less, on average. And you will get an email notice of any new file, which is, I'm sure, how Engineer48 got the info he gave to Frank Acland the other day.


    Don't be square! Be there!


    I'd love to go to Miami for the trial.... Anyone else want to go, maybe share hotel expenses?

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    How is live on the ABD-Galaxy? Are all chicken well up?

    Life. At 72, never been better.


    I don't have chickens any more, I did for some time. The kind that lay colored eggs. Very fun. They eat about anything and turn it into eggs. Amazing creatures.


    What I have now in the apartment is a rex rat, very sweet, with curly whiskers, a hermit crab, and a 14 year old girl who has taken over most of the place, and she has a friend, who is 18, who brought more animals: the cutest baby rabbit imaginable, and a black guinea pig.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    What are the Rods' temperatures for Active Run1 part 1 and Active Run part 2? Which section?


    Only the adjacent(to caps) part is important:


    Test run: T-rod= 151.5C; productive full 353C (308C reduced full)


    This gives a delta T (Cap/Rod) of 160C (test) 250C (Full) 235C (reduced full). Only the delta T drives heat-flow !!

    Quote

    I've built 4 houses in the past 40 years and all of them were on well water. One each in Maryland, Florida, Alabama, and recently in West Texas. All had good water, including the one on Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay. The one in Florida was only 10 meters deep. In every case, the driller asked me where I wanted the well. "How about over there?" "OK" was the invariable answer. The only legal code requirement was that they be at least 30 meters from any septic system or drain field. At least in my experience, a person with divining rod would have 100% reliability; no special skills or sensitivity needed.


    So would a person WITHOUT a divining rod. The rod has been reliably shown to be powered *only* by the ideomotor effect (look it up) and it does not detect anything. Every properly designed double blind test of dowsing has failed to detect the item or material being dowsed for, be it gold, water, silver, human bodies, auras, whatever. It makes no difference how good or intuitive the dowser is.


    The idea that someone would sell dowsing rods so people could rely on them as explosive detectors is beyond the most extreme contempt. People who do this should be jailed for life without possibility of parole -- it's murder in the first degree and in some instances, it has been mass murder (an incident in Thailand and many in Iraq). Or, my favorite alternative, they should be placed with a helicopter in the middle of a dense and lethal mine field and given only their own dowsing rod to get themselves out.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    So would a person WITHOUT a divining rod.


    Sure, and a conductor can conduct without his baton, but if he used to using a baton, and he prefers using it, you wouldn't take it away, would you? You don't go around telling professionals what tools they need for their work.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    The rod has been reliably shown to be powered *only* by the ideomotor effect (look it up) and it does not detect anything.


    Yes of course it is the ideomotor effect! That's the whole point. It amplifies unconscious motions, bringing them to the attention of the person himself. It concentrates his attention on his hand movements. Apparently, in some people, the nervous system connection to the hands are more reliable or sensitive to stimuli relating to water than connections to other organs. The hands respond first. The person looking for water lets the nervous system responses in his hands guide him.


    How else would it work if not by the ideomotor effect? By magic?


    This could be training. An orchestra conductor looking at a score will begin moving his hands as he thinks about it. He may reach for a baton to begin conducting an imaginary orchestra. An artist seeing something interesting will pick up a brush or pencil and begin moving her hands. She doesn't talk about it; she sketches. Even if there is no piece of paper, she may sketch in the air. Her first response is movement of the hands, sometimes even before she is aware of it.


    The hands have a large number of nervous system connections compared to most other organs. They are very sensitive to the brain.


    I think your problem is that you reject the phenomenon because some people offer a magical explanation for it. It is more logical to assume that it actually works. It is widespread and has been in use for thousands of years in cultures all over the world; there are many reliable reports that it works; and many smart, experienced people say it works. You should assume it probably does work. You should also assume there must be some naturalistic reason why it works. Where do you start looking for a reason? In human biology and evolution. Where else? That's were all behavior originates. Do not reject experimentally replicated phenomena because the theory seems wrong. Reject the theory instead.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Every properly designed double blind test of dowsing has failed to detect the item or material being dowsed for, be it gold, water . . .


    People are not evolved to find gold in nature. That's absurd. We don't need gold, but we die without water. Primitive people and other animals have an astounding ability to find water in arid places. To understand dowsing, or any method of finding water by any animal, you have to start with an understanding of animal behavior, stimuli, survival, evolution and so on. This is natural science.


    The only "double blind test" I ever saw for dowsing for water was absurd. It violated every tenet of biology and natural science. No field scientist or behaviorist would even consider such a test. As I recall, James Randi was involved. They ran PVC pipes underground, and asked the dowser to determine which pipe had water running through it. This is like putting ripe fruit in safe deposit box in Michigan and seeing whether a chimpanzee in Georgia can tell which bank it is in. * Chimpanzees are very good at finding ripe fruit, but only in nature. If dowsing works, it must work in response to natural stimuli from underground water. Anyone who knows about geology or water can tell you what these stimuli are like: the shape of land where water is usually found, the sort of rocks, plants, scents and so on. A freshly laid PVC pipe will have NONE of these attributes, and there is not the slightest chance a person or any other animal can detect the presence or absence of water in it.


    Doing a test of a natural science phenomenon without having a natural scientist in charge of it (or even consulting with one!) is the height of ignorance. It is bound to fail. Randi and the others had no clue how to go about this kind of study. I did natural science and behavioral field observation research in Japan as an undergraduate. I or any undergrad could have told them why this was ridiculous. It is very difficult to elicit behavior in the first place. If you remove all the stimuli, and the reason for the behavior, obviously you will see nothing. It reminds me of the outrageous cold fusion experiment I described on p. 10 and 11 here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf



    * Yes, we do have chimpanzees in Georgia, at the Yerkes center.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Those are Watt figures from the report ( ie: Table 5, page 20), how do you derive the temperature for the rods from them?


    My fault: I've forgotten to apply the T4 ... From the wattage of the rods you can deduce that 1/3 of the energy is dissipated by the first part of the rod's. (40W ,100W, 116W)
    By applying reverse T4 (emissivity constant) you get: T-rods = 263, 283C (for the productive runs) which gives a delta T of 187, 217 for the two productive runs. (corrected)


    This is an approximation. In fact the difference should be slightly smaller because T4 law is also valid for the rods and the first part dissipates stronger in the production phase...
    But as the nice guys did not measure the rods again... we are hanging in plain air...


    My main conclusion is that the internal temperature must have been much higher than the externaly measured one, which is in line with TC critic. To get a reasonable heatflow explanation we must assume that the caps were much hotter (+100) in the inside, because of the additional joule heating. So again I would work outside in to model the E-cat T courve.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Eric Walker wrote:
    How did they show that there was a failure to detect auras?


    Quote from Eric Walker

    Mary Yugo wrote:
    Every properly designed double blind test of dowsing has failed to detect the item or material being dowsed for, be it ... auras ....


    My favorite double blind study is placebo A against placebo B. The result was highly significant placebo A outperformed placebo B 70/50% !! success. (something big pharma dreams of!)


    A more recent and more severe case: They tested a new version of eye drops against a "placebo". Result: The placebo is now a succesful medicament, while the supposed medicament did show no effect...


    Conclusion: Medicine is sometimes mere luck! Commenting may be also...

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.