Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander)

    Quote from THH

    However, equally, adducing any positive information from anecdotal accounts of yellow color and "uncomfortable to be near" device is unreliable and must be ignored.


    Quote from Abd

    The account of "yellow" is not enough to radically shift the problem, but I will disagree, again, with THH in his claim that this is without value. It has some value, as a rumor passed on by someone whom we do not expect is lying. It all goes in the hopper.


    Quote from Alan

    As I said, my comment was based on an anecdote, and does not in any way reflect my opinions about any of the evidence presented for or against in any of the many stories presented so far. I think you really don't have to point that out, my story adds little but colour to the tales.


    Quote from BobG

    As harsh as your words are, we have received similarly harsh words from those that criticise us for saying we cannot fully dismiss all of the excess heat based on our experimental data.


    I'm putting these comments together to make a point about how evidence can be analysed. Here, I agree with Alan, his comment is interesting as are all anecdotal comments, but has no merit. Abd takes a different view and thinks that all these "no merit" fragments are best squirrelled away and perhaps when correlated will reveal something. Technically, Abd is correct. It is unconsidered trifles from which new concepts often arise. However practically I judge he is wrong. Here the color "evidence" translated into "(very weakly) maybe Lugano was hotter than the critics think". In combination with other evidence, later, that has no value.


    Similarly Bob H's comment. First: as a definite skeptic I can say that I have no harsh words for the detailed work done by MFMP on Lugano. It is interesting of itself, adds to our understanding, and of significantly greater sophistication than the original report. Also, I agree 100% that we cannot fully dismiss the possibility of excess heat based on MFMP data. In fact excess heat can never be dismissed, No experiment is accurate enough to show it does not exist, quite apart from the fact that LENR advocates convincingly argue that the conditions for excess heat are subtle and will not always exist.


    Bob here goes further, saying (effectively) that his data is accurate enough to validate excess heat here. There is a world of difference between:


    "This data contradicts (some) excess heat" (impossible, always)


    and


    "This data validates excess heat". That is, the carefully judged lower error bar lies above COP=1.


    I cannot say whether I will agree with Bob until I have seen his data written up properly. And, excess heat in these experiments does not necessarily imply LENR (since the N is a leap at lower excess energy density levels). This was a long test and therefore more likely to present a real anomaly that could push thinking towards "N" or some other non-chemical mechanism, but Bob's comment is not precise enough for us to know whether that is his view - we would need the numbers.


    The point of this rather complex post is that I agree with LENR advocates here that much of the "LENR cannot exist" argument is facile. Also as a matter of technicality LENR, as a hypothesis, is too weak at the moment ever to disprove because it makes no definite predictions. However, I see that much of the "there is so much evidence LENR must exist" argument is just wrong, but subtly wrong. Many people find an accumulation of thousands of little fragments of evidence, each non-conclusive, of the same nature as Alan's "yellow color", to be conclusive. People are not good at such integrative reasoning because we all look for interesting patterns. Therefore we can easily find them when they do not exist. And when evidence is so weak, we can select (and on this site have selected for us) a biassed set of weak evidence showing an undeniable pattern. For example, no-one here is going to post, or remember, "this is very weak anecdotal evidence that points in the direction of an experiment looking for excess energy having a lower energy than the analysis suggests". It is just not interesting. Whereas the converse statement sticks more, because it is interesting.


    So how do we distinguish the "helps find new concepts" patterns from the "informed by bias" ones? It comes down to specificity and detail. If a particular unlikely set of circumstances leads to excess heat that is potentially of value in discovering the reason. If "many people have found excess heat, but they were all looking for it and the evidence is never strong" the evidence has less than one binary bit of value. It pushes us in the direction of an already conceptualised possibility without adding detail.

    Quote from THHuxley

    Ironic, that the Planet Rossi guys spend all their time talking about internet propaganda and deliberate PR FUD when the (admittedly not at all definite) evidence we have for this comes from them, specifically randombit0s profoundly PR-driven interventions here. I don't count Rossi's logorrhea - which seems more for his benefit than anyone else's.


    It is not immediately clear whether Rossi is randombit0, and randombit0 is Rainer Rander. Rainer's writing style differs greatly from that of Rossi's. The alleged impersonations by you and others are no more than that: allegations. It is more likely that those who keep making such allegations are doing the impersonations. The imposters probably feel like they are toying with Rossi. But Rossi is likely just going along with it and toying them back.


    Rossi is cunning, but no more so than IH and IH's surrogates. It is a dog-eat-dog world.

    This is also quite amusing.
    A guy named Jed forgets his own name and signs as Mark. Oh my.


    Of course it could be trolls. But normally you find the troll bragging on some other blog for his achievement and happy like a child. This was often the case on Ecatnews.com .



    "Jed
    October 9, 2016 at 2:32 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    I totally approve your answer to Mark Leiber.
    Godspeed,
    Mark"

    • Official Post

    IHFB,


    You could be right, although I tend to agree with the others that this Rainer is Rossi writing to himself. He has done this kind of stuff almost since JONP's inception, although it became pretty blatant, and more frequent, as his relationship with IH deteriorated. A not so clever way around his lawyers advise to shut up about the suit, IH, or anything related, until this is resolved in court, mediation, or settlement.


    Obviously, and comically, he is signaling IH, the jury pool, judge, us, other licensees, anyone who will listen, that his IP has been replicated...lending weight to his court filings contending IH is a bunch of bumbling idiots, as they are too incompetent to do what others around the world have done.


    He must think his ruse will cause IH to come knocking on his condo door with a check for $89 million in hand, or at the least sway the jury. I am sure IH is getting a chuckle out of this, as much as many of us here are. :)


    BTW, you never answered my question the other day: If it was your money, with what we publicly know, would you have written the check for $89 million?

    Quote from Shane D.

    If it was your money, with what we publicly know, would you have written the check for $89 million?


    If I were in IH's shoes and based on the express language in the Rossi/IH agreement, I would never write a check for $89 million because there is no incentive to do such a thing. IH got everything they wanted with 2 of the 3 payment installations.

    Quote from THHuxley

    Bob here goes further, saying (effectively) that his data is accurate enough to validate excess heat here. There is a world of difference between:


    One thing is clear: An emissivity of 0.95 for Alumina cement is to high. The literature gives values between 0.65 and 0.95 (peak!! see handbook fig. 4). I would calculate with 0.85.


    An other error not disscussed in the papers is the spot measurement on a spheric body which underestimates the Temperature (of Lugano.. & mfp?).
    As a conclusion we can say that mfp is on the underestimating side of the guess play...



    For those who like to dig in the manual: http://www.optris.co.uk/spot-s…ds/Zubehoer/IR-Basics.pdf
    The handbook of ALU ceramics: http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/1996/T1792.pdf
    Or here from a specialist of hot alumina: http://www.em-ea.org/guide books/book-2/2.5 insulation & refractories .pdf

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    One thing is clear: An emissivity of 0.95 for Alumina cement is to high. The literature gives values between 0.65 and 0.95 (peak!! see handbook fig. 4). I would calculate with 0.85.


    Thank you for collecting some useful reference links. A brief look at Fig.4 of the Handbook seems to show emissivity of 0.92 - 0.97 at ~1000°C over most of the spectral region of interest.(7.5-11 um). ε declines in the tailing region of 11 - 13 um to about 0.7, for an average over that region of ~0.82. Thus the average over the entire spectral region of interest is about 0.90.


    Higgins takes this into account in his calculations, and also includes corrections for the non-linear spectral sensitivity of the Optris camera bolometer. His paper is available for further study at https://drive.google.com/file/…4cOM2TWU5Vk80VkxwYVU/view

    Quote

    IH got everything they wanted with 2 of the 3 payment installations.


    You mean a non-working collection of junk plumbing and some off the shelf electronics? That's what they wanted for their #11.5M? Wow.

    • Official Post

    What I wait if Lugano is exact, is exact explanation why they clearly wrong explanation (IR cam band emissivity is not total emissivity) is not so wrong after all.


    clearly the explanation is wrong, but maybe multiple mistake may conspire to make the result good... I want the conspiration explained.
    Until it is explained, I assume they make a pathetic mistake that is simple to understand, and hard to admit.

    Quote from AlainCo

    clearly the explanation is wrong, but maybe multiple mistake may conspire to make the result good...



    The Lugano proff's simply used the wrong type of emissivity. But there were many more mistakes, which true professionals never would commit. The mfp result is in line with the estimated COP based on the rod's temperature.


    This "final" verdict is a blow for both side's. Both, Planet Rossi / "Universe IH" failed fatally. It's time to reboot certain brains and start in-depth analysis concerning what is good/bad...


    Call me what you wish, but I can assure you, the state of hopelessness is one in which I am not well-acquainted.


    Think of it this way. The folks behind IH will very likely act rationally. They are highly experienced investors and businessmen. Cunning, but rational. Without an inducement, no rational actor would write a check for a cool $89 mill. In this instance, there was no inducement. IH already had what they wanted, and the language in the contract provided a way forward to build a successful world-wide LENR+ company. And when the smoke clears, there is little doubt in my mind that this is what they plan to do.


    The evidence is plain as day for me. Here is a good exchange that will cast additional light on the likely motives underpinning IH's behaviors.

    I have to say that I'm rather annoyed with Rossi's constant soliloquizing on his blog, so today I wrote a post to him explaining why it has become very obvious by now to any half-intelligent reader of his blog with good English skills that he writes all those questions himself (e.g. his use peculiar, non-standard phrases, the equally non-standard habit of inserting spaces before paranthesis, exclamation and question marks and so on), trying to convey everything as diplomatically as possible and also mentioning the split personality Jed/Mark post as the final proof of my assertions.


    Well, of course he "spammed" my comment, but soon after writing to him these posts appeared:



    Well, you can say what you want, he does stick to his guns...

    Regarding adding Mg to change ε, I have this spectral ε file, from somewhere. I normally make a better note of the source. It may have been GSVIT.
    Anyways, note that adding Mg probably slightly lowers the emittance in the short wave end of the 7.5 to 13 micron band IR, but increases slightly the longer wave end of that spectrum. Overall it looks like it might flatten the overall spectrum in the Optris sensitive range slightly. This might get it closer to a 0.94 or so... , if sufficient Mg were added.

    Quote

    ...because I want not to put my real name.


    This is a classic Rossi-ism construction. An Engrish-speaker would have said, "I don't (or "do not") want to put my real name on it."

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    This is a classic Rossi-ism construction. An Engrish-speaker would have said, "I don't (or "do not") want to put my real name on it."


    Yes, MY, to be a good impersonator, one must know these oddities well. I have no idea if it is Rossi masquerading. But I think it is just as likely to be someone else attempting to make it look like Rossi is doing so. And Rossi is probably playing along and toying with them back. Then again, I might be assigning too much intelligence/playfulness to Rossi, admittedly.

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.