Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint)

So a self-proclaimed non-expert but who makes, through expertise he doesn't have, expert critical reviews (?) of a phenomena he doesn't understand nor acknowledges, is to be trusted?

Ha sorry I though it was a real post, but it's only "Jack Cole" (aka, random FUD machine)

Quote from DNI

Why do you require people whom critizise the report should be known expert in infrared thermographic calorimetry. When you don't have the same requirements for the authors.

Was the Lugano test an experience in calorimetry?

Or was it an experience in the "Rossi effect", whose excess heat was witnessed by the various people present (who are all in the scam, and mind-controlled by Rossi ofc!)?

This calorimetry meme is the only straw skeptopaths and paid shills can cling to, because the measuring protocol is extremely granular and serves as a good vessel for all the FUD a wholesome fellow like TC can cram into

Was the Lugano test a test in calorimetry?

Was remote viewed calorimetry the only way to assess excess heat?

Were the people who wrote the report present at Lugano, or not?

The question is :
- was the Lugano test a test in calorimetry -in which case the Lugano scientists should have been calorimetry experts just like the beloved TC-
- or was it a test in excess heat?

If it was a test in excess heat:
- was remote viewed calorimetry the only way to assess excess heat because nobody was physically there
- or did the Lugano scientists present on the crime scene have other methods to assess excess heat, that took place right before their eyes?

So many questions...

Thankfully TC is a real scientist and produced an expert analysis of the gadget which didn't work, nada, zilch, also the fuel sampled was pre-prepared by Andrea "10-year long scam involving various scientists" Rossi, sorry I'm running out of bingo cards!

Quote from DNI

Keieueue wrote:

I'm sorry but I can honestly don't understand what you mean. Maybe it's because englisch is not my native language.

English is my native language. I can understand what Keieueue "means." You have difficulty if you assume that these are coherent and sane questions. I have Keiueue blocked because almost all his posts are trolling. This one presents a supposed explanation of critique, i.e., spreading "FUD." This is part of the standard Planet Rossi conspiracy theory. (I do not claim that all Rossi supporters buy that theory. Some don't. But it is common with the trolls.

Keieueue would have meant to say "experiment" rather than "experience." The use of IR thermometry and then theoretical calculations of heat generation based on calculated temperatures was not an established technique, so this would have to be considered experimental. Yet they did not establish any independent measure of heat or of expected device IR emission based on input power, i.e., they did not run a control experiment with no fuel at the same input power range as used, which would be minimal. A control experiment using the calculated thermal power output as electrical input power would have clearly fried the device. But "same input power" should have been okay, and then with some care would have indicated possible XE.

This is all basic calorimetry and well-known to people like Jed Rothwell, who probably knows more about calorimetry than those "professors." It would not be a part of their training, and there is no evidence that any of these people were expert in IR thermometry. They did not check their work. Instead they presented page after page of fluff. Radiation measurements showing nothing. A Ragone plot (which is only an attempt to convince the naive.) A simple sentence would have sufficed.

Even after there is extensive and cogent critique of Lugano, those who want to cling to a belief in Rossi Reality point to this experiment. That's understandable, given many common assumptions, such as the idea that a physics professor must be knowledgeable and properly and scientifically cautious. In fact, those assumptions fail. Anyone familiar with the history of cold fusion would know this. Lugano has a very poor reputation among experts, but most experts do not write in public fora!

If anyone wants to become truly familiar with this field, establish a reputation for cogent comment, and then ask for an invitation to the CMNS list. Skeptics are not necessarily excluded, if they create cogent comment and discussion. Trolls generally are excluded. The list is real-name, like all real science.

The claim of "all in on the scam" and "mind-controlled by Rossi" is a straw man. Nobody claims that the scientists were "in on" a scam. Some small possibility exists for Levi, alone. I certainly would not claim this with any confidence, I have only claimed that he was not properly considered independent, as was implied by Rossi when he first started writing about the Lugano test on his blog.

There is a phenomenon that is worth looking at, a high density of errors by scientists in his presence. This is not terribly difficult to understand, given human psychology and how Rossi operates. Someone who is not going to allow the Rossi Way without questioning it will be excluded from the start, so it is a filtered population. His history of demonstrations, since 2009 or so, shows this. Why did Kullander and Essen not check for overflow water? Here is my understanding: there was a claim that a humidity meter could show steam dryness (it cannot!). Kullander and Essen had never considered this question, obviously. It sounded plausible, and they probably looked at the meter, which showed kg/m^3. They did not know what that meant and assumed it meant what it did not. Rossi's patter claimed that this established steam dryness, and they were so distracted by the amazing claim that they failed to check for overflow water. It would have required doing something Rossi probably did not want them to do. And they could sense that, and "nice people" will instinctively avoid causing offense.

The Lugano results were heavily contradictory to the direct evidence of the senses, i.e, the color temperature of the reactor. There is no sign that the Lugano professors even noticed this. Instead, they trusted their calculations. This was another face-palm error! It does not take credentials in science to understand this. It is direct evidence of the temperature of the device. It was nowhere near the 1400 C external temperature claimed and used in the calculations. Now, perhaps the photo was saw was misleading. Perhaps the reactor was actually white-hot, and they simply did not tell us. However, this critique has been around, as I recall, since 2014. Nobody who was there has claimed "white-hot." It would be obvious, probably painfully bright to look at.

Quote

STDM claimed that anyone whom criticizise the Lugano Report have to be a known expert in infrared thermographic calorimetry. I was only wondering why he didn't require the same from the authors of the report.

It is obvious why.

Rossi's attorney is now doing what Planet Rossi thought completely outrageous when the IH attorneys did the like of it, in his motions to Strike and to Dismiss, but Planet Rossi -- at least for the most part -- doesn't seem to care.

It depends on whose ox is being gored.

Ha, I get it now: scientists were physically fooled on site and did bad calorimetry that reinforced their newfound albeit unconscious bias

It's not like they witnessed something real and measured it, nonchalantly however, the flaws thankfully allowing random online filibusterers a knowledgeable fellow like TC to expose the manipulation!