Gold From Mats Lewan’s Impossible Invention Book (Engineer48)

  • To notice the cracks in Rossi's experiments you need to be looking for them - and people looking for them are - well - likely to be people who are naturally skeptical. Anyone not like that would detect the natural skepticism and reckon that such people must be biased, as often they are.

    The problems with the 1-year test were readily apparent, as described in Exhibit 5, and by the photos of the warehouse. You do not need to be a skeptic to see them. I would say that to deny them you have to blinded by wishful thinking.

    It was not so difficult to find errors in the Lugano test. McKubre and others found them, and described them. See:…ne/issue118/analysis.html

  • Jed

    The Lugano report is not debunked, the answer of IH didn't contain any specific critiques. Which means they can't find big errors. IH has to debunk the Lugano report. They can’t claim that Rossi is a fraud and have a credible test by 3 universities of his reactor with a COP 3.

  • STDM wrote:

    The Lugano report is not debunked, the answer of IH didn't contain any specific critiques. Which means they can't find big errors. IH has to debunk the Lugano report. They can’t claim that Rossi is a fraud and have a credible test by 3 universities of his reactor with a COP 3.

    Well, its debunked by the TC paper (as well as other studies from GSVIT and MFMP). Those all show the profs to have made a clear mistake.

    I recommend the long discussion here quite a while ago between Paradigmnoia, TC and others.

    I agree that given two academic papers (see lenr canr for the links) working out which is correct would require expert witnesses. That is possible if the Lugano experiment results are needed in IH's case. Personally I don't suspect they are relevant, unless Rossi claims that these results prove his case. Then IH will reify the contrary arguments and could easily find an expert witness or three to support them, since they happen to be correct.

  • Alan,

    Not sure what you mean. What I know is that the Swedes have NOT been running continuous tests. Rossi, and Darden both visited them (separately of course)...Darden to persuade them to disown their Lugano conclusion due the e controversy. They refused I think because Levi was sticking to his guns on that. Rossi succeeded though in having them run the test again to try and replicate their own earlier Lugano replication.

    My guess is that Rossi enticed the Swedes into doing it again, by giving them that fuel ash sample from the 1 year "GPT" as a sign of good faith. The analysis of which was released onto the net a month or two back, and showed almost a carbon copy signature as the Lugano ash.

    That is my recollection.

  • From the book of Dewey Says:

    "The Uppsala folks are good people and they want to set the record straight if their revised findings mandate a change to the Lugano report. I don't know exactly where they are in their review at present or what their timeframe will be but do know they are well into this reconsideration. We'll all know soon enough."
    - LENRF, May 13, 2016

    "I think that the Lugano review is going to be released once it is completed but have no idea when."
    - LENRF, June 4, 2016

    "The Lugano emissivity settings have been independently tested with a finding that Levi's settings IR camera adjustments were materially low. This group is expert in thermal and emissivity matters. Just to make sure that we have covered our bases, yet another expert group is repeating this process. No I cannot share the numbers as this pertains to the IH legal defense in the Rossi civil litigation."
    - LENRF, June 20, 2016

  • @THHuxley

    Some investors indeed do check the internet chatter before committing large sums to controversial investors -- Dick Smith checked Rossi and Defkalion at least with Krivit, Wright, and me and probably with others, in person, by telephone, SMS and email. Obviously, Darden rushed ahead without such precautions. Thus he failed to note two huge red flags. The first was Rossi's past. Imprisonment, indictments, obvious fraud (thermoelectrics), obvious disastrous failures (Petroldragon) and no record of accomplishment of any sort. Then, somehow he failed to note and his consultants, whoever they were, failed to tell him, that a one year endurance test of a set of reactors ganged together was a completely idiotic thing to do absent better testing of one reactor. That, as I noted and would have told Darden had he asked, can be done in a short time for little money.

    That's not hindsight. When a "megawatt plant" (a loose collection of 50 rusty pieces of junk) was announced, I pointed out the appropriate thing to do was to PROPERLY test a single component. And of course, the test results for the "plant" and the mysterious customer rep were all obviously phony. When a one year test of more junk was proposed, I again noted as did others, that such a test was grotesquely inappropriate and did not need to be done for any valid reason whatever. Sure, the believers buy into all the crappola about military customers, robotic factories, and other Rossifiction lies. But why would Darden buy that if he had arranged for due diligence to be properly done?

    There is really no valid excuse for what Darden did. One can hope it will be a lesson for future investors but if the history of Steorn, Dennis Lee, Carl Tilley, Brillouin and BLP are is an indicator, nothing will have been learned.

    @STDM The Lugano test was badly done and insufficiently calibrated. It was debunked THOROUGHLY by Clarke. To prove Rossi's tech, it was unnecessary and the wrong device to test. Instead, the much easier to regulate and calibrate Levi flow calorimeter test should have simply been repeated as a lot of observers from Krivit to Josephson were asking Levi to do. He ignored them all. Levi's unavailability, the lack of response from the three Swedish scientists, and Rossi's refusal to EVER allow proper calibrations -- all should have been more giant red flags for Darden and his advisors. If he had any.

    Finally, the tests were not from "3 universities" -- they were from a few unknown and undistinguished low level professors, acting on their own. In 2011, U of Bologna agreed on a formal testing program if Rossi paid a nominal fee to support it. Rossi at first agreed, then reneged. Of course he did. The tests would have shown, as we know now, that the ecat is just junk parts thrown together and doesn't work.