Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Defendants Amended Counterclaims against Plaintiffs and Memorandum of Law

Quote from Mary Yugo

And ad homs about what I do and don't read and know won't change it a bit.

How could that be an ad hominem?!? You yourself repeatedly tell us that you have not read papers, that you have no interest in "low level" effects, and that you know nothing about the general field of cold fusion. I am sure you are being honest about this, because your comments often reveal your ignorance. Since you yourself say this, again and again, and you even brag about it, how could it be an ad hominem for me to agree with you? How could it be an insult?

This is like saying I insult Trump by accusing him of being opposed to illegal immigrants. That is his platform! That's what he is running on. You are running a platform that says you know all cold fusion research is bullshit and fraud, and you are so certain, and so clairvoyant, you do not even need to read the papers. You say it would be a waste of time to do so.

Quote from Mary Yugo

And then there is all the work done and comments written, discrediting the thermal camera measurements, all by Thomas Clarke

If Yugo bothered to read and understand the papers, he would know that Clarke's reworking of the Lugano IR measurements do not apply to the above report.

Quote from JedRothwell

I disagree. I thought this report is somewhat convincing:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

I doubt that you have found any significant errors in this. Knowing you, I doubt you have bothered to read it.

There is also some unpublished data that looks pretty good to me.

Display More

Thanks for the report Jed!

This will falsify the IH claims not being able to reproduce the Rossi effect!
It also proves that the initial contract conditions were met as claimed...

This is a hard blow for the IH layer team...

Quote from Wyttenbach

This will falsify the IH claims not being able to reproduce the Rossi effect!
It also proves that the initial contract conditions were met as claimed...

This is a hard blow for the IH layer team...

That is nonsense, for the following reasons:

1. This test was done long before I.H. become involved.
2. Levi was unable to replicate this at Lugano.
3. I.H. knew all about this test when they invested.
4. Regardless of whether this actually worked or not, all recent tests have failed. If this test did work, evidently Rossi has forgotten how to produce the effect.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

There is overwhelming evidence that the Rossi Effect can produce copious excess heat both from some of Rossi's own tests (published and unpublished) and third party replications (published and unpublished and yet to be published).

It does not look overwhelming to me. I have not seen any third part test that is even mildly convincing. The only overwhelming evidence in this fiasco is that the 1 year test was a fraud.

Jed,

Can you stop saying that Lugano is debunked? There is no evidence to suggest so. No expert to date has validated the critiques made here by people(with no professional or practical knowledge) on this forum.
As long as this not is the case, can you stop repeating your statement without facts to back it up.

Do you remember your own words?

"An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows something about alumina and he said these are the instruments and wavelengths he would select.

Brian said his own doubts have been resolved.

Normally I would have jotted down more details, such as the expert's name, but I didn't because Brian promised to send me a note with the particulars. It occurs to me he is not a good correspondent. He is a busy bee. If he does not send me the info I'll call him back and get it.

This expert does things like measure the temperature of rocket plumes. I told Brian I have heard of people using IR cameras for volcanoes. They are good for uncontrolled, high temperature phenomena.

Details to follow.

Brian is a good egg.

Jed"

Quote from STDM

Can you stop saying that Lugano is debunked? There is no evidence to suggest so. No expert to date has validated the critiques made here by people(with no professional or practical knowledge) on this forum.

I do not use the word "debunked" but many experts outside this forum with practical knowledge found problems with the test. People such as McKubre. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1589

It wasn't calibrated correctly, and I do not see how it could have been at the claimed temperature, so I think it was a mistake.

In McKubre's own review he states:

"The mode of calorimetry employed to measure the output power and by integration energy, is one with which I have little direct hands-on experience."

Again, find me an expert.

Quote from STDM

In McKubre's own review he states:

"The mode of calorimetry employed to measure the output power and by integration energy, is one with which I have little direct hands-on experience."

Again, find me an expert.

He is an expert. That's false modesty.

I doubt you will find any experts who agree this was a good test. They did not even calibrate through the range of input power they used. That's an amateur mistake.

Jed said:

Quote

1. This test was done long before I.H. become involved

These Indications tests were done after IH signed the contract (October 2012). I strongly suspect that Vaugn was in attendance and observed at least one of these tests.

I became an accidental almost-expert in IR thermography, trying to defend the Lugano report from Thomas Clarke. I was unsuccessful, and eventually came to approximately the same opinion and results that TC had, within around 20 degrees C. Which might as well be identical, considering the cumulative error margins. I had hope for some excess, unaccounted-for heat hiding in the "transparent" IR band of alumina, but subsequently quashed that when I did enough research while trying to see if that potential loophole could be quantified.
I have done numerous experiments with IR, thermocouples, and alumina cast and mixed powders to demonstrate to myself that the negative conclusions about the Lugano report are consistent with reality.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

became an accidental almost-expert in IR thermography, trying to defend the Lugano report from Thomas Clarke. I was unsuccessful, and eventually came to approximately the same opinion and results that TC had, within around 20 degrees C. Which might as well be identical, considering the cumulative error margins. I had hope for some excess, unaccounted-for heat hiding in the "transparent" IR band of alumina, but subsequently quashed that when I did enough research while trying to see if that potential loophole could be quantified.
I have done numerous experiments with IR, thermocouples, and alumina cast and mixed powders to demonstrate to myself that the negative conclusions about the Lugano report are consistent with reality.

Good work Paradigmnoia. The Lugano results do not reflect anything close to reality based on many lines of evidence. Not incidental is the failure of the scientists involved in addressing questions after all this time (implying to many that they still believe fully the results). Although they may, or may not, believe the results, there are serious consequences taking place between IH and AR in the legal system as a result of their failure to respond.

They wouldn't even answer whether the picture they included in the Lugano report was from the device operating at full temperature. A "Yes" answer debunks the report by itself. There is no way that the device operated at the claimed temperatures during the time period of the test. If you have done these experiments, it is clear that the heating coil could not handle those temperatures. But you don't even need to have done these experiments, just look up the melting temperatures. You can't do it. Maybe you can imagine that there is still excess heat, but these facts alone invalidate the report. Imagination is not enough to penetrate the Coulomb barrier, we need validly conducted experiments.

If that is not enough, the very large number of negative replications utilizing the patented formula (also consistent with the Lugano fuel analysis) shows that the formula does not work. There are the outlier cases where proper calibrations have not been performed (Chinese and Russian experiments), or cannot be replicated even with the help of the experimenter (e.g., Parkhomov's work). There are anecdotes of amazing things, which have produced nothing but hot air (e.g., me356).

My opinion is the best thing you can say about Lugano is that the results must be thrown out, because the setup was not calibrated properly. Although you don't need to rely on TC's analysis or MFMP's empirical studies and analysis of the issue, when you combine those studies and analysis with the above facts, I don't see how you could rely on the Lugano report for anything.

@Jack Cole,
The moment of my absolute certainty of the degree of emissivity error was when I could successfully predict the temperatures (within usually 10 degrees C or less) achieved by the MFMP in their emissivity test by changing the camera spectral epsilon, based on the temperature reported, emissivity values, and matching the spectral radiance curves using the NASA-USGS radiance calculator. Before then the arguments seemed reasonable, but could have been cherry-picked. Using the independent radiance calculator, and some eyeball matching curves gave such a good match, that there was to my mind, no more doubt that the argument of TC was correct.

Of course when the report came out, there was much discussion of the wires, and whether they would melt, and how this could be explained away. At some point the pyramid of excuses just gets ridiculous.