Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from woodworker

I had to respond, just had to:

On the JONP:

"JPR:

Am I one of those persons you allege to be a troll and is being paid by Rossi’s enemies? After all, I believe he is a fraud and am willing to state that on the record. I base that conclusion primarily on the statements he made and documents introduced in the IH litigation (note that a primary source for my conclusion is Rossi’s own words and actions).

My name is Howard Michael Appel and my email is howardappel@yahoo. I live in California and if you look me up on the California State Bar website (a directory of all attorneys licensed in California) you will find my complete contact information.

If you believe that I am being paid for my posts, please say so on the record and please make sure to provide your name and address."

Display More

This is an interesting article about trolls.

http://www.blogworld.com/2012/…nswer-might-surprise-you/

Quote from sam12

Rossi does have the goods with the QX.

But you are entitled to your interesting opinion.

As are you. Although you are not one for serious answers, it would be quite fascinating to hear on what basis you arrive at your opinion about the QX.

Go ahead: surprise us all and answer like a rational human being.

Quote from axil

I found the reference and the Russians had nothing to do with the IH testing. The Russian reference was something that Rossi just said.

The test was conducted by I.H. Why do you say it had nothing to do with them?? Rossi "just said" that to distract attention from the fact that the test proved the calorimetry does not work.

Quote from axil

If Rossi did not permit dummy testing, how did the dummy come to be built? It sounds like IH was trying to discredit Rossi.

However it came to be built, it showed the calorimetry does not work. If I.H. was trying to discredit Rossi with the empty reactor, they succeeded. There is no better way to discredit him. Your statements are a distraction and an evasion.

Quote from axil

By the way, the fuel carries the LENR active agent that is directly released into the structure of the reactor, assuming the reactor is a tube reactor. After the agent is released, the fuel could well be removed and the reactor could still become active.

This is utter, complete, impossible bullshit, without a hit of experimental proof. Why do you make up stuff like this? What is the point? You are wasting your time inventing impossible nonsense to explain events that never occurred. Why do you take the trouble to try to justify Rossi's lies? Anyone can see he is lying. You are not convincing people that these are not lies when you make up fabulous nonsense about reactors that work without fuel.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I find it likely, as an unbiased observer. that Rossi will present a working QX system sear;y next year.

You are not an unbiased observer. Neither am I, but I do not suffer from the illusion that I am.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Fake news and unsupported opinions fill these pages and I have given up pointing out the errors because it has no effect.

You sound like Trump. No, this is not fake news. Documents from Rossi are direct proof. Documents from I.H. that Rossi failed to challenge are direct proof. You cannot ask for better proof than this. You have refused to look at these documents. You deny they say what they plainly do say. For example, an empty cell showed the same excess heat as cells with fuel. I.H. testified to this, and Rossi did not challenge the account or deny it, so both sides agree it is true. You refused to believe it, but that does not make it any less true. Axil makes up a preposterous story to explain it away, but that does not work either. If anyone is posting unsupported opinions here, you are.

You lack self-awareness.

Quote

What you need to explain is why IH DID NOT OBSERVE deterioration.

Then. after that, please explain why IH did not observe a megawatt of power generation. They did not observe any IIRC.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Axil: As I said in my last post, and you ignore, I fully understand the possibility of deterioration.

What you need to explain is why IH DID NOT OBSERVE deterioration. Specifically they had a whole load of these reactors on test, all giving the same positive results. They did not observe slowly decreasing results. The results were stable and positive from day 1. The issue was that these possitive reuslts were in fcat (as they dicovered0 a measurement artifact. Therefore a whole load of Lugano-style reactors given to IH by Rossi as working product, in fact never worked.

Do you understand that? How could the IH reaction to never-working reactors documented in discovery be deterioration? Were that true they or Rossi would have been able to validate the devices by making a new one.

In addition, if Rossi's previous technology suffered deterioration how does that fit with the Penon super-flat graphs of power out vs time over a year? If you believe those, which of course sensible people do not...

Display More

I suspect that there were at least two completely different LENR reactors under development/evaluation at IH during Rossi's tenure there at IH. You'll are mixing thing up. There was the Lugano style tube reactor and the wafer fueled reactor. The Tube type reactor produced Rossi's Russian comment, not the wafer reactor that underwent the dural testing.

The Tube reactor was an IH reactor. IH patented that reactor. Rossi was just engineering it for IH.

Quote from JedRothwell

The test was conducted by I.H. Why do you say it had nothing to do with them?? Rossi "just said" that to distract attention from the fact that the test proved the calorimetry does not work.

See post 5691. The wager fueled reactor was tested at Dural, not the tube reactor.

Ruthwell:

However it came to be built, it showed the calorimetry does not work. If I.H. was trying to discredit Rossi with the empty reactor, they succeeded. There is no better way to discredit him. Your statements are a distraction and an evasion.

The Lugano reactor was under development. It had problems that happen in development. It is not valid to mix the Dural testing with the tube reactor testing. This mix-up in reactor types confuses two completely different situations.

Rothwell:

"This is utter, complete, impossible bullshit, without a hit of experimental proof. Why do you make up stuff like this? What is the point? You are wasting your time inventing impossible nonsense to explain events that never occurred. Why do you take the trouble to try to justify Rossi's lies? Anyone can see he is lying. You are not convincing people that these are not lies when you make up fabulous nonsense about reactors that work without fuel."

The proof is contained on this site. If you are interested, you will look it up.

Axil: If Rossi did not permit dummy testing, how did the dummy come to be built? It sounds like IH was trying to discredit Rossi. Who first loaded the fuel in the 10 test reactors? Rossi must have done that loading. IH had no desire or know how in regard with such fuel loading.

By the way, the fuel carries the LENR active agent that is directly released into the structure of the reactor, assuming the reactor is a tube reactor. After the agent is released, the fuel could well be removed and the reactor could still become active. MFMP saw signs of the agent all over the LION tube after it escaped from the diamond carriers. In addition, me356 submitted to this site a dozen SEMs of the active LENR agent leaving fuel particles. There is also ECCO fuel micro-graphs showing the agent leaving fuel particles. Rossi's solid commercial reactor came with a sealed 12 by 12 inch steel fuel wafer. Rossi was developing the Lugano type tube reactor that IH latter deminstated. This must have been the Rossi was selling to IH, not the Lugano type tube reactor. That reactor was IH's baby.

Axil: if you bother to read the Discovery evidence (there is a lot, it is high quality, and makes interesting reading) you will see that IH was constructing a whole load of reactors to Rossi's spec, using his fuel (which he gave them the spec for).

• They at that time were convinced the Lugano-type reactors worked, with sustained COP of > 3. Being sensible they would realise that nothing could prevent decent engineers turning that into a high power out / in sustained power source.
• However, they wanted to check reliability and replicability of these devices, so made lots of them.
• They had ones in which the secret fuel (recipe a carefully guarded secret known only to Darden) had been added, and one by mistake without fuel at all. They numbered each reactor. They got the numbers wrong so by mistake tested a reactor that had not yet been filled (ever) with others that had been filled. they checked this by cutting the reactor open, showing indeed no fuel or ash.
• They discovered to their surprise that the filled reactor behaved identically, with a COP of > 3. At this stage the just though they had made a mistake, so cross-checked everything. Tested with new unfilled reactors. Checked with Rossi: who stormed off in a huff saying the fuel must have been stolen.

Here is how axil's fantasies about these events do not fit facts:

(1) Deterioration. NO. These were new reactors, they did not work, had never worked, proved the test setup had been generating false positives for all Rossi's reactors.

(2) IH trying to do down Rossi. NO. They discovered his setup was generating 100% reliable false positives BY MISTAKE. Surprising they did nor find this out earlier, but Rossi had indoctrinated them with his "controls are unnecessary" philosophy. They could then see how utterly misguided this advice was.

(3) IH got it wrong. NO. It was in their and Rossi's interest for those reactors to be working. Rossi would get his $100M. IH would have a world-beating product demonstrable (in its COP > 3 form) to bigger players who would take it to the next level, re-engineering in the process with an active cooling system to allow operation with much lower input power. All this (well, not the active cooling system, that is just engineering obvious) is on record from Discovery.

THHuxleynew

Thank you for your response. You put much work into its construction.

The COP of three from an unfuled tube reactor must have been produced by experimental error if what you say is corrrect. We now know that the tube reactor temperature sensing first applied to tube reactors was flawed because of the alumina emissivity issues. These testing issues have nothing to do with the Doral tesing. That Doral test was applied against a completely different non alumina reactor type.

The tube reactor became the basis for the QX reactor that was shown to be gainful at the QX demo. We will know if the QX is real when it is released to the market in just a few months.

The tube reactor type has eventually been shown to be gainful in LookingForHeat development, MFMP testing and Parkhomov tube reactors.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

[You have refused to look at these documents.]

AS usual, you are making things up that are untrue.

Either you have refused to look, or you refuse to acknowledge anything written in the documents. It is impossible for me to tell whether you are actually ignorant, or you are just pretending to be. I don't see much difference. So I'll go with "actually ignorant." Or "willfully ignorant."

If you have actually read these documents yet you insist over and again they do not say what anyone can clearly see they do say, that would be kind of crazy. I suppose you are sane, so I'll just assume you must be ignorant.

Quote from axil

See post 5691. The wager fueled reactor was tested at Dural, not the tube reactor.

The tube reactor was tested by I.H. at their lab. It had no fuel in it, yet it appeared to produce as much heat as tubes that did have fuel. Obviously, the calorimetry was wrong. Anyone would conclude it is wrong except you and Axil. You make up a story that reactors that never had any fuel and have never been run have magically "conditioned" the reactor to work. Axil denies it ever happened.

THHuxleynew

Regarding unfueld tube reactor LENR activity.

LION put some flacks of his tube reactor that he kept from that reactor he sent to MFMP for evaluation. After a year, LENR reactivated those flecks in another tube and he generated LENR radiation from those flecks of this year old tube reactor's structure.

I found the post as follows:

The New Plasmoid Paradigm

Quote from JedRothwell

The tube reactor was tested by I.H. at their lab. It had no fuel in it, yet it appeared to produce as much heat as tubes that did have fuel. Obviously, the calorimetry was wrong. Anyone would conclude it is wrong except you and Axil. You make up a story that reactors that never had any fuel and have never been run have magically "conditioned" the reactor to work. Axil denies it ever happened.

There is a difference between a reactor that NEVER had any fuel in it and a reactor that has had its fuel removed after the fuel has been loaded. I am almost certain that IH never loaded any fuel in a tube reactor. This leads me to suspect that the non fueled reactor had it fuel loaded by Rossi and then had its fuel removed from the reactor by IH as a sting.

Quote from axil

There is a difference between a reactor that NEVER had any fuel in it and a reactor that has had its fuel removed after the fuel has been loaded. I am almost certain that IH never loaded any fuel in a tube reactor. This leads me to suspect that the non fueled reactor had it fuel loaded by Rossi and then had its fuel removed from the reactor by IH as a sting.

Leads you to suspect . . . Almost certain . . . based on nothing at all. No, that isn't what happened. There was never any fuel in it. THHuxley described the events above. BUT you will not read what he wrote, AND you will not read the original description, SO you will continue making up these nonsense assertions that anyone can see are wrong.

What kind of "sting" would that be, anyway? It showed that Rossi's calorimetry does not work, and his results are meaningless. How would that be a "sting" by him?? It would be a sting of him, wouldn't it? He stung himself. What was he supposed to say? "Gotcha! Ha, ha! Now you see I am an incompetent fraud!" He didn't say that. He said the Russians stole the fuel.

Dardin's disposition...

Quote

“He [Rossi] didn’t like running dummy tests — I mean, not side by side because — and he would say, ‘No, the dummy might interfere with it’ or there was always some reason — sort of a technical reason. And, you know, so he’s the expert so we were thinking, you know, maybe he’s right. Maybe we’ll mess it up. So we tended not to do that. But we had a dummy. And these things were all numbered. And there was a six — you have one through ten or whatever. And so a six and a nine are the same number, just inverted. . . . The device got built with a dummy charge. And later in going through the list of the different devices or which ones we had, I realized that. . . . And the results were good, very consistent with the other results. . . . {T]his was around Christmastime or early January of ’14. And I remember that date. . . . [To Rossi:] ‘We have a serious problem. We need to talk about this because there’s a big measurement error that we detected.'”

"Got built with a dummy charge"...Rossi would never build a "dummy charge" because he did not beleive in running dummies. Rossi always put fuel into the tube reactors that he build. Somebody from IH must have removed the fuel from that "dummy". IMHO, once fuel is placed in a reactor that reactor is useless as a dummy because it is active even without fuel.