Industrial Heat's James A. Bass: President of Reactance Engineering Inc and Engineer for JM Products

  • if long runs of self sustaining were possible then why not just unplug and produce power for a month or two.
    That should "prove" things and get him all the attention and offers he could ever handle.


    If you have a self sustaining system with even a few watts of heat then you should be able to generate electricity
    with no problem (Peltiers, Stirling engines.....)
    Such a demonstration would be very appealing and you would not need fake customers, or steam quality assumptions, and so on.
    My guess is that he does not have such a system or he is a fool not to try such a demo.

  • But with more information now available I also wonder whether the description was partly legal strategy/flair: wrong-foot the plaintiffs by using a label that will make them look very bad if the label turns out to be true, giving them an incentive to correct the description and provide enough information for IH to serve Bass process.


    I think you have summed up IH's legal strategy in a nutshell. Such strategy is also likely being applied in other parts of the suit, such as the JMP nonsense, the Johnson Matthey-connection nonsense, the Exhibit 5 nonsense of mysterious authorship, and so forth.

  • MrSS wrote:

    The issue in this case was this individual who I called a naysayer (I'm not implying that person is you by the way or any other user on this forum) demanded that every bit of applied energy to the device be considered as magically "stored" when cooling water was running through it. I would obviously admit that some portion of the input energy could have been stored.


    Let us then not go over the details of that test, since it is OT.


    I'd like to remark upon your interpretation of this way of analysing an experiment.


    We have here a system which is well insulated, an internal block of metal (presumably, given the density) and an electric heating element. The storage of energy in this system is not magical: in fact for energy NOT to be stored would be contrary to conservation of energy.


    The issue is whether the total energy loss is large enough to invalidate the standard calculation of total energy in - total energy out.


    Obviously cooling water, and indeed other losses, mean that some of the input energy will be lost. But unless you can put a bound on it, for example by measuring temperature delta and flowrate of the cooling water, you cannot know how large is this loss. In that case the only sensible thing to do is what this "virulent naysayer" did - which is to ignore the unquantifiable and possibly very small losses.


    Personally, in that situation, I'd be inclined when challenged to estimate the unknown quantities and note that plausible values did not alter the overall equation (assuming that they did not, which in this case is true). But the onus is really on somone claiming this system exhibits extraordinary behaviour to show why they are so sure those values are larger than would be possible from stored energy. Without such a "I know the power lost is at least X" the "some portion of energy can be stored" could be anything up to 100%. You need the limit here when trying to see whether the system proves unexpected energy production.


    I'm trying to understand why this process seemed to you so irrational that you use words like "virulent naysayer" - or perhaps you gained this impression from other things at the time and your judgement of the argument here was biassed by your feelings about the person?


    Let me put this another way. Suppose you have a loose black box experiment where you are trying to estimate parameters. One of the ways we (as humans) often make mistakes is by over-interpreting qualitative indicators. Thus we might estimate energy out as:
    10MJ +/- 5% (known, measured)
    but it is higher than this because of X
    and it is higher than this because of Y
    and it is higher than this because of Z


    Where X,Y,Z are all heat losses we have not included.


    Unless we quantify X,Y,Z we have no business to therefore come to any different conclusion about the energy out lower bound, because on examination these values might prove to be very small. We could however note that the energy out higher bound is much larger. We are notoriously bad at guestimating these things, especially in unknown and uncalibrated systems where our engineering intuition is based on only partial information. They can be included, but only by explicitly putting assumptions and numbers into the guestimate, these can then be challenged or changed based on further information, or maybe just further analysis. For the argument about claimed extraordinary heat production it is the lower bound that matters.


    The statistical argument that "well they can't all be small because typically any one of them might be large" does not wash in this case where the experiment has been specifically designed to maximise the apparent output. In that case you would expect losses to have been reduced any way that is possible, and in a black box system exactly what was possible may not be apparent, and the real value likely skewed towards the lower bound.

  • Obviously cooling water, and indeed other losses, mean that some of the input energy will be lost. But unless you can put a bound on it, for example by measuring temperature delta and flowrate of the cooling water, you cannot know how large is this loss. In that case the only sensible thing to do is what this "virulent naysayer" did - which is to ignore the unquantifiable and possibly very small losses.


    Just in case the "virulent naysayer" is me, no heat loss has been ignored in the numerical model of the Ecat test held on October 6th, 2011, and described here: Mats Lewan's Test Report


    The heat loss due to ALL the cooling water exiting the internal reservoir was taken into account since the beginning of the test at 11:00. In particular, the model calculated an outflow of dry steam starting from 16:10 ca, well in advance with respect of the time (15:53) from which "the E-cat was considered to be completely operating" after having reached the so called SSM.


    Moreover, the model estimated the heat exchange between every pair of elements in the model, including the heat loss (C1) from the outer wall of the external case (C) toward the surrounding air (1).

  • Just in case the "virulent naysayer" is me, no heat loss has been ignored in the numerical model of the Ecat test held on October 6th, 2011, and described here: Mats Lewan's Test Report


    The link was not to the report of Mats Lewan, but to a post of Ascolo65 here. However, even without seeing that, I realize that I assumed that this device was being demonstrated with a claim of full evaporation. If the demonstration was accounting fully for overflow water and water temperature, it was not a demonstration of the artifact proposed.


    My own analysis of how the E-cat was purported to work suggested that avoiding overflow water would be very difficult without something like a float valve in the steam generation chamber. Otherwise matching flow to evaporation rate would be very difficult.


    This is Lewan's report: https://animpossibleinvention.…st-of-e-cat-october-6.pdf


    The experiment used a heat exchanger. I am not examining it in detail. This is the basic problem:


    Once it became known, as it has become known, or at least it appears probable at this point from the evidence in Rossi v. Darden, that Rossi can be actually deceptive, not merely secretive or eccentric, demonstrations become totally inadequate, fully independent testing would be necessary. In 2011, I wrote that we could not distinguish between the possibilities, i.e,. fraud, delusion, or paranoid or hypercautious inventor, in the absence of independent testing, because it is always possible to arrange a demonstration if the "inventor" has major control.


    In the situation here, it's been mentioned that the reactor could store power. It could store substantial power, with a hot core and then carefully managed water flow through it to recover the heat. But that does not end the list of possibilities! They are practically endless. That is why when a claim is heavily controversial, fully independent confirmation is required.


    And then we run into this problem: if Rossi had such good technology in 2011 -- even if it sometimes didn't work -- why was Industrial Heat unable to verify any of it, as they are claiming. Are they lying? This is pretty much where Planet Rossi is forced to go, into believing in a conspiracy to suppress the technology. Yet if the technology were real, as real as perhaps Mats thought the test showed -- though he noted the imprecision -- it would be worth major and continued effort and investment. It doesn't make sense.


    That is not a proof of anything, but an explanation of why I think it's a waste of time, right now, for me to take the time it takes to thoroughly review a report. I do not recall reviewing this one in 2011.


    I was much more willing to reserve judgment in 2011. At this point, I still note the possibility that Rossi, in the lawsuit, will pull a Wabbit out of the hat. But I don't expect this, at all. I think this is WYSIWYG.

  • Abd,


    My internet connection is acting up so I don't know when I'll be able to post again in the near future.


    1) You are not factoring in something very important. Rossi is not an academic, and I'd go so far to say he isn't a great writer either. The only documents we know for a fact that he transferred to IH were the "Licensed Patents." We also have heard a claim that he imparted some information to Darden orally. What I don't think he transferred -- or was even able to transfer -- was his EXPERIENCE with these systems. Literally, he has built, loaded, worked on, and tested hundreds of reactors. LENR is a tricky phenomenon. We've seen multiple examples (outside of the E-Cat technology) where one person gets results (even in palladium based systems) that other experimentalists cannot replicate. This is because no one recognizes the value of HANDS ON EXPERIENCE. When someone works intimately and continuously in any field, he or she acquires a wealth of information some which isn't even easy to articulate. In short, I think the E-Cat isn't necessarily easy to replicate by those who are in experienced and who only have vague, non-detailed patents rely on.


    2) I don't know whether or not I.H. are lying. I'm not going to make a final judgement until a lot more information is provided. One possibility is that they performed exhaustive experimentation and honestly never produced a single watt despite trying every protocol, fuel combination, and reactor variation possible. Another is that they performed a few failed tests (the ones they are talking about in the court papers), but have an extensive secret research program that has produced excess heat. However, I think there is a more probable middle ground in which they performed a series of tests without success and quit trying. I think in this case their reasons would be: they wanted the E-Cat handed to them on a silver platter (which they would deserve even if reality doesn't always work that way) and they wanted to be able to say HONESTLY in court that they couldn't produce excess heat.


  • They would first demand refund. Further, if they could make significant excess heat, independently confirmed, the technology was worth far more than they had committed to paying.


    SS, your story depends on the E-Cat technology being real, you are constructing a scenario that allows that possibility. I have never rejected this as a possibility; however, relying on what is merely possible, but where the rug has been pulled out from under reasons to place some trust in it, is nothing more than attachment, which blinds.

  • Abd wrote:

    Quote

    The 1 MW reactors are impressive.


    Really? Then you are easily impressed. Perhaps you should look inside. I bet all you find is an electrical heater purchased off the shelf somewhere. Hardly impressive. All the rest of the gear, from what can discerned from photos, is just assemblies of commercially available components and boards. Give me $10M and I guarantee you I can come up with something that looks more like a Star Trek set and less like a collection of junk. And I won't even spend more than 1 or 2% of that.

  • Perhaps you should look inside. I bet all you find is an electrical heater purchased off the shelf somewhere.


    That's incorrect. I know several reliable people who have looked inside these devices. They are what is described in the patents and elsewhere, with nickel powder and whatnot. However, the ones used in the 1-year test did not produce any excess heat.

  • Mary, Abd


    Quote

    the 1MW reactors are impressive


    They are superficially impressive. You might think that only unthinking people would be so impressed, as Mary does. And some inhabitants of Planet Rossi are such on this issue. But, more subtly, a lot of Planet Rossi will argue: "so much effort, no-one would do it for something that was just a giant electric heater! And, it would be obvious if it did not work, so unless you believe Rossi to be a fraud it must be real!"


    Now there are two errors here, as I see it:


    (1) There are many ways in which Rossi might convince himself that it works even when it does not. Abd views, tentatively, Rossi as not sane, but you don't need this for him to have selective cognition over the matter of whether his pet invention operates. Or, as I tentatively claim, he could be essentially incapable of distinguishing between appearance (public effect) and reality. In our celebrity culture there are many who get close to this malady...


    (2) If he is a total (conscious) fraud, or if he believes his stuff could save the planet, if only he got more money, and reckons one faked large-scale test is all that is needed for this desirable outcome, again the 1MW PR machine will be built.


    Abd here naturally sees the grey areas between rational and insane: perhaps his wordiness is from a desire to be more precise about matters which are in the hands of God and difficult for us to know, and more difficult for us to communicate.


    (Alan, I can feel your snarky comment at this point!).

  • Jed:

    Quote

    They are what is described in the patents and elsewhere, with nickel powder and whatnot.

    Sure, with millions to waste, Rossi added window dressing. BTW, know anyone credible who looked inside the original ecat and made correct, calibrated and blanked measurements with it? You know, the one whose design featured a huge band heater which heated only the cooling water?


    TTH:

    Quote

    There are many ways in which Rossi might convince himself that it works even when it does not...


    Always a very distant and remote possibility. But why is it IMMENSELY unlikely? You have to look at Rossi's history including Petroldragon and the thermoelectric project with the DOD and you have to look in some closeup detail. Do you really think he could be self-deceiving with those two entirely different scams?


    Also, his purchased diploma mill credentials in physics bought from Kensington College. Also his consistent refusal to ever and I mean **EVER** allow proper blank and calibration runs and truly independent replication (Jed's claims to mystery people doing this notwithstanding). None of that makes sense if Rossi really believed his own crappola.

  • The word for Rossis maybe is "Confabulation". (I am not Abd who probably has a better answer)


    It's a disturbance of memory, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive.


    or


    He is denuded or self-deception. I find it interesting that THHuxley is willing to see both sides. He must be smoking thinking that "quantum uncertainty". :)

  • BTW, know anyone credible who looked inside the original ecat and made correct, calibrated and blanked measurements with it?


    Yes, I do, and I have a summary of their results, as I mentioned before. Unfortunately they do not want me publish.


    I do not have enough details to be confident of these results.


    Anyway, your previous claim was that the e-cats probably only have off-the-self electric heaters in them. I am sure that is incorrect. Whether people have tested them or not, they have looked, and confirmed that the devices are as described in the patent.

  • Mary, Abd


    I wrote this. It was not intended to mean "real." It was a comment about appearance.


    Quote

    They are superficially impressive. You might think that only unthinking people would be so impressed, as Mary does.


    What Mary thinks is irrelevant. "Impressive" doesn't necessarily mean what an unthinking person might imagine. That ex-DARPA director actually said more or less the same thing about a demonstration that was far less impressive in appearance than the megawatt Plants. This was not the run-of-the-mill energy scam.


    And some inhabitants of Planet Rossi are such on this issue. But, more subtly, a lot of Planet Rossi will argue: "so much effort, no-one would do it for something that was just a giant electric heater! And, it would be obvious if it did not work, so unless you believe Rossi to be a fraud it must be real!"
    The argument has a cogency to it, but is also flawed. One would think that something would be obvious, but this does not factor for what insanity can accomplish! Step by step, a reality is constructed from appearances. Denial can run very deep. But, granted, "fraud" is a relatively simple explanation, but ... it's not about stupid people, in general. Further, that is a useless hypothesis, it creates nothing of value. Self-satisfied smug is not of value.


    If I had an opportunity to spend an afternoon with Andrea Rossi, or with Mary Yugo, which would I pick? I have no hesitation. One of them is actually interesting. Do remember, though, that I was a prison chaplain. I met some remarkable people in that work.


    Quote

    Now there are two errors here, as I see it:


    (1) There are many ways in which Rossi might convince himself that it works even when it does not. Abd views, tentatively, Rossi as not sane, but you don't need this for him to have selective cognition over the matter of whether his pet invention operates.


    I consider selective cognition as a kind of insanity, albeit fairly common. It can develop and grow into quite complex self-deceptive constructions. Rossi is obviously "high functioning," at least in some contexts. I would predict that this would degenerate, over time, unless he confronts the central issue for him, and I don't know what that issue is. Rossi is not big on deep self-disclosure. If he were to become so, everything might shift.


    Quote

    Or, as I tentatively claim, he could be essentially incapable of distinguishing between appearance (public effect) and reality. In our celebrity culture there are many who get close to this malady...


    The resemblance has been noticed.


    Quote

    (2) If he is a total (conscious) fraud, or if he believes his stuff could save the planet, if only he got more money, and reckons one faked large-scale test is all that is needed for this desirable outcome, again the 1MW PR machine will be built.


    This is not surprising for an inventor, this kind of thinking can exist, I have no doubt about it. In this scenario, the inventor fakes something in order to move to the next stage of development, where he is sure that he can solve the problems.


    There are many shades of grey. We have less than about ten days now for Rossi to Answer the countercomplaint. In court, Planet Rossi collides with reality.


    Quote

    Abd here naturally sees the grey areas between rational and insane: perhaps his wordiness is from a desire to be more precise about matters which are in the hands of God and difficult for us to know, and more difficult for us to communicate.


    And I wrote "grey" above before seeing this. I would not say "precise," though a desire for precision of expression, combined with issues of the time it takes to write, can lead to more words. To find the optimal expression can take a lot of work, as is well-known to writers. "I would have made this letter shorter, but I didn't have time."


    People don't realize that it is easier to write more, rather than less, for some. I do cut back, but this also can result in losses, so my writing is often "shared research notes." Not the final conclusions. Maybe there are no final conclusions, but people reading my writing wonder why I don't just get to the point. Maybe there is no point, or, more accurately, the "point" is yet to be revealed, it's, as was put above, "in the hands of God." I.e., not known to humans, not yet.


    I just spent more than a full day writing a commentary on the comments on the Chemistry and Engineering News article. It's very long. It was not written to make a clearly known point, I write these things to learn. And then others can follow along if they want, and if not, they can ignore it. I do not know what is best for others, and even if I did, it would still be their choice.

  • Abd wrote:

    Quote

    If I had an opportunity to spend an afternoon with Andrea Rossi, or with Mary Yugo, which would I pick? I have no hesitation. One of them is actually interesting.


    Abd, I think you are implying one over the other. This is a difference that I have with "your well thought out opinion". Where you elucidate your reasoning clearly, I struggle.


    As for me personally when it comes to peoples motivations, I am quite naive. You are worth the time to read because you are interesting and informative. I am not being patronizing here.


    I have tried to dig Mary out of the "shoot from the hip" when threatened, as he can be very informative. Maybe not to you but to me. Does he still take pot shots? Sure. Like almost all people I have conversations with he can up his game when he knows that he is not threatened (like many others).


    I care deeply for people in general, if someone can not get along with me, I know that it is not my issue. You perform (notice, I say you do this "not maybe I think so" but your thoughts) are in depth and with a strong logical analysis on every word, you have admirable concentration and fluency. Back to your point. I would probably want to eat with someone who may not say what I like, but I did not think was mentally trying to say whatever they thought I wanted to hear.


    Anyway, do you have news on Mr. Bass?

  • Abd wrote:


    Abd, I think you are implying one over the other. This is a difference that I have with "your well thought out opinion". Where you elucidate your reasoning clearly, I struggle.


    I have no idea what "reasoning" you are talking about. The statement is one of a possible affinity, an occurring, senses of attraction and non-attracting. This is not about reasoning. It might be completely wrong, I might find "Mary," in person, interesting -- and I could say some good things about this person -- and Rossi, boring. But what I know about each leads me to expect otherwise. I also have been trained to notice such expectations and, in real life, to set them aside, because they can be highly limiting.


    Struggle will not help you to understand me. Letting go will. I will say that it is much easier in person, presence is almost everything, voice is adequate, text is seriously defective except for certain kinds of communication.


    Quote

    As for me personally when it comes to peoples motivations, I am quite naive. You are worth the time to read because you are interesting and informative. I am not being patronizing here.


    Thank you.


    Quote

    I have tried to dig Mary out of the "shoot from the hip" when threatened, as he can be very informative. Maybe not to you but to me. Does he still take pot shots? Sure. Like almost all people I have conversations with he can up his game when he knows that he is not threatened (like many others).


    Yes, this is generally true for human beings.


    Quote

    I care deeply for people in general, if someone can not get along with me, I know that it is not my issue. You perform (notice, I say you do this "not maybe I think so" but your thoughts) are in depth and with a strong logical analysis on every word, you have admirable concentration and fluency. Back to your point. I would probably want to eat with someone who may not say what I like, but I did not think was mentally trying to say whatever they thought I wanted to hear.


    Yes. Agreed. Boring. Unless she is beautiful, then maybe. Only maybe. Wanting to please someone is not Bad. It depends on details.


    Quote

    Anyway, do you have news on Mr. Bass?


    The topic here? No. Bass, as we know, was found, served, and has legally appeared through an attorney shared with Johnson. My guess is, provided by Johnson. At this point, the only arguments have been legal, pursuing a Motion to Dismiss that is likely to fail. When that ruling is issued, assuming no dismissal, Bass, Johnson, Penon and companies will have a week or two to Answer. I expect the ruling from the Judge soon, so we should see some documents of interesting in the next ten days. Rossi's Answer is due December 14, based on an extension he requested and received.