Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Ok, being interested in both sides of the equation I clicked on your link. It says exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're saying.


    Levi et al. publish a second, extended report on Rossi reactor

    October 8, 2014

    The professors who published a report on Andrea Rossi’s high temperature reactor have followed up with second, extended test and a more detailed report:

    Levi, G., et al., Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel. 2014, Bologna University. A copy is here.

    Five outside experts in mass spectroscopy and related fields contributed four appendixes covering the radiation, materials, SIMS and ICP analyses. The research was sponsored by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Elforsk AB., Officine Ghidoni SA, and Industrial Heat LLC (USA).

    This test produced 1.5 megawatt-hours of energy continuously, over 32 days. This is 5,825 MJ, or as much energy as you get from burning 139 kg of gasoline. This is a new record for a cold fusion reaction. Previous large reactions produced 50 to 300 MJ.

    Michael McKubre reviewed the paper here.

    Mats Lewan described the paper here.

    Thomas Clarke reviewed that paper here, citing a number of errors.

    Here is the Abstract and part of the conclusion:

    Quote
    New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat, is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400°C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260ºC and 1400ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume. A sample of the fuel was carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before the run and after the run, using several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with the natural composition before the run, while after the run it was found to have changed substantially. Nuclear reactions are therefore indicated to be present in the run process, which however is hard to reconcile with the fact that no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run.
    In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding. . . .

    Magnus Olofsson, the CEO of Elforsk wrote about this paper in NyTeknik. He said (Google translation):

    Quote
    Elforsk has in recent years followed the development of what has come to be called nuclear reactions at low energy, LENR – Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Elforsk include published a compilation of knowledge about LENR. Elforsk has also co-funded the current measurements and earlier measurements. While the earlier measurements showed an unexplained excess energy. . . .
    Elforsk takes now the initiative to build a comprehensive Swedish research initiative. More knowledge is needed to understand and explain. Let us engage more researchers in searching [this] phenomenon and then explain how it works.

    Here is the official statement about this paper at Elforsk’s website, in Swedish and English.



  • OK, so I guess you are new this, and understandably skeptical. But you are very hasty in your judgement. The link states what the Lugano guys claim, links their paper, and gives a number of later critiques. You have not read (even as headlines) the critiques. Unlike some here I reckon that to inform others you need to give them the whole picture - not just cherry-picked evidence. Of course, for Lugano, that must start with the highly positive Lugano report itself.


    Try reading TC's paper from that link? It is quite definitive. I'll lead you through the maths if you like and others here, notably Paradigmnoia , will fill in details and point out that they have themselves verified them experimentally.


    Then go to MFMP and find their analysis - orthogonal to TC's but similar and based on experiment rather than theory:


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…the_Lugano_HotCat_Reactor


    And as a curiosity note that GSVIT and Bob Higgins had identified (but not properly characterised) major errors in Lugano earlier than TC - see the references in TC's paper for links.


    The key take-home here is that to evaluate scientific papers you actually have to read the papers that cite them.


    in this case we have consistent proper papers citing Lugano and going over its calculations from:

    • TC
    • MFMP
    • GSVIT (very early work, not so convincing, and perhaps the least properly written up of all this stuff, but in retrospect very accurate)
    • Bob Higgins (early work gets half the story right but itself has a subtle error for the other half as identified by TC)


    Examining the problem and reading them all you get a much stronger understanding than reading just one. Though, I have to say, TC's paper is still pretty good, covers all the earlier work, and is acknowledged by the later MFMP work to be accurate. None of these later papers support Lugano (except Bob Higgins who identifies a major error but incorrectly calculates its effect and so ends up with a smaller but still definitely positive result). Bob's work was early, and both TC and MFMP, written later having read Bob's early work, show why he was half-wrong.


    Against this barrage of quantitative criticism we have the Lugano authors clamming up and saying nothing in their defence. We have Levi, informally to Mats, saying that his shown to be flawed IR calculation method is correct because he talked it over with colleagues and they agreed with him.


    The criticism here is not "well, there could be something wrong, because we have found some fault". It is "hey look, you did this calculation wrong, this is the maths, and when you do it right, like this, the figures make more sense (but the COP vanishes)". Read what TC says about internal consistency and the way that the mysterious COP acceleration, cited by Lugano authors as evidence of a temperature-dependent reaction, vanishes when you do the correct IR calculation.


    You will find that the only subsequent statements in support of the Lugano report come from people who read it briefly and think it looks positive - there are also people who do the same and cast stones [e.g. Pomp et al] - but neither is a serious critique which gets to the heart of what it means, unlike the substantive work I cite above. There is NO scientific defense of its errors simply because such is not possible. Also, even at the initial - read it and see what we think level - you should note that scientific responses are negative, whereas only the less formal non-scientific reponses are positive. But that is no way definitive, and you could argue just follows bias of the author, because the initial comments were just that, they did not explain what was the error.


    In the context of the Court case you might note that Rossi cannot find a scientific expert to defend the Lugano Report.

  • In the context of the Court case you might note that Rossi cannot find a scientific expert to defend the Lugano Report.


    How do you know he has even looked, or that the Lugano report forms any significant part of this trial which is AFAIK a contract/payment dispute? Are you straying a little too far from the facts here?

  • How do you know he has even looked, or that the Lugano report forms any significant part of this trial which is AFAIK a contract/payment dispute? Are you straying a little too far from the facts here?

    AR and/or his lawyers have claimed it to be important in their allegations against IH for attempting to tamper with important witnesses (e.g., Levi). That has since been rejected by the magistrate. AR wants it to be important since it is part of the repeated BS about his technology being demonstrated scientifically. IH may want it to be important because of shenanigans of AR during and after the test (salting the spent fuel and intervening in the null run; probably a great deal more as well). We'll see how much of a role it plays, but it *could* play a significant part in the trial. I think THH is correcting the record for someone new to the Lugano report and its refutations. It is a very good summary.

  • How do you know he has even looked, or that the Lugano report forms any significant part of this trial which is AFAIK a contract/payment dispute? Are you straying a little too far from the facts here?


    He mentioned it in his deposition as evidence that his stuff works (if I remember right). The Lugano report is irrelevant for the contract dispute, but could be relevant to the counter-suit of fraud.

  • Please show me the evidence that 'there were cameras that have always record every action of the people present', as I have not seen that evidence provided anywhere.


    That would be helpful information to add to the debate. However, it wouldn't be definitive because there all sorts of subtle ways to tamper with the fuel sample.


    I've given the only proof needed to support the conclusion that ash tampering is a reasonable alternative explanation for the Lugano fuel analysis results:

    I remembered a reading about the cameras, but maybe I was confused with the Doral Test. However, this is not an important point. If you are convinced that there has been a deception in the reactor charging, you will always fabricate different ways to support this thesis, especially if you really believe that you have provided "a proof". I rely on what is written in the Lugano report, where it is said that Rossi intervened in certain actions, not that it was alone when he did them.

  • SSC you seem to be very confused regarding what scientists mean when they say that they have 'independently replicated or verified' someone else's research.


    The Lugano team did not/does not assert that Lugano was an independent replication - it was a demonstration, not independent replication.

    You seem confused: I never said that Lugano was a replication, indeed I pointed out it was not. A replication involves using its own reactor, while scientists have tested a Rossi reactor built by IH. Regarding independence, I find it normal for Rossi to intervene in some operations, as there are industrial secrets to be protected. However, these actions did not compromise the independence of the test, which was nevertheless conducted by scientists.

  • I remembered a reading about the cameras, but maybe I was confused with the Doral Test. However, this is not an important point. If you are convinced that there has been a deception in the reactor charging, you will always fabricate different ways to support this thesis, especially if you really believe that you have provided "a proof". I rely on what is written in the Lugano report, where it is said that Rossi intervened in certain actions, not that it was alone when he did them.


    That really is not good enough. You are relying on Rossi never being alone at a time when he could have done any one of these things. The fact that this is not stated true in the Report is completely irrelevant. It is not stated false. The report (incorrectly) gives the impression that Rossi and Fulvio were not there all the time, whereas in reality they were, and the Profs made only flying visits. It is therefore clear from what is now in the open record that Rossi could have made such a switch. It can never be proven that he did make this switch. As sigmoidal has pointed out such deceptive behaviour is consistent with other deceptions we now know Rossi has practiced, and you cannot show he did not make a switch.


    So we have: motive, opportunity, prior form.

  • Your claim is that there is indisputable measurement error. I see plenty of dispute and lots of obfuscation. If you have to dig through obscure reports and look at findings at just the right angle to catch the sunburst brilliance, you're not dealing with the indisputable.

    Well, read it, absorbing the content, and then I'll give more weight to your comment. In fact I'll answer any critique you have, whether informed or no. Have done this many times here.


    That is like saying an AGW argument can be resolved without reading the relevant papers fully, and carefully. Or that science should be judged by whether the papers look pretty.

  • Quote

    How do you know he has even looked, or that the Lugano report forms any significant part of this trial which is AFAIK a contract/payment dispute? Are you straying a little too far from the facts here?


    Whether or not the ecat works may bear on the outcome because if it does not, the contract is based on fraud (the assertion that it does and that Rossi is sure it does). So I think the question of whether or not the ecat has been properly shown to work will be a part of the trial. I am no attorney-- maybe Woodworker can comment on this. I doubt that there would have been a contract, absent Rossi and Levi's (and the Swedes') assurances that the ecat worked and represented a new energy technology.


    Based on everything that happened about this issue in the past 5+ years, the ecat is most assuredly not any sort of technology or working product.


    Quote

    He mentioned it in his deposition as evidence that his stuff works (if I remember right). The Lugano report is irrelevant for the contract dispute, but could be relevant to the counter-suit of fraud.


    Again, I am no lawyer, but I am pretty sure fraud is highly relevant to contract disputes. What I have always read/heard is that contracts based on a party's beliefs arrived at due to fraud perpetrated by the other party are not valid.

  • Again, I am no lawyer, but I am pretty sure fraud is highly relevant to contract disputes. What I have always read/heard is that contracts based on a party's beliefs arrived at due to fraud perpetrated by the other party are not valid.


    It is relevant in that fraudulent actions invalidate any subsequent contractual onus on the other party. But, in this case, the license itself does not depend directly on whether Rossi's other stuff works. After all, the test is suppose to be showing this. And whether the Lugano test device worked or not is irrelevant to whether the IH devices worked (needed to show IP transfer) or the tested unit works.


    However when claiming Rossi is fraudulent (which IH try to prove) a history of fraudulent tests and non-working devices claimed to work could be relevant. It would certainly matter to a Jury whether that Lugano device really worked or not.


    All IMHO, since I'm no lawyer.

  • And whether the Lugano test device worked or not is irrelevant to whether the IH devices worked (needed to show IP transfer) or the tested unit works.

    Lugano technology was totally different from Doral technology.

    Lugano reactor was working at high temperature while Doral reactors were used to make steam. So Lugano has nothing to do with Rossi/IH trial.


    Is quite notable that the only writing that is cited against Lugano (that was the second test done by the team after Ferrara) is the TC paper that is appreciated here only by people possibly connected to IH.

    MFMP replication could be considered a nice attempt but they, as they admit, have not used the same materials of Lugano reactor and have not used the same waveform to stimulate it.

    In my opinion is very risky for them to try to take conclusions analyzing their own prototype, with their own fuel, made by their own materials and stimulated by their own waveform and comparing it with the Lugano prototype.


    Is a fact confirmed by many sources and cited here even from Alan the Swedish group is working on a replica financed by Volvo and others.

    I don't think that if the Lugano report was so full of errors as IH and friends say, industries and Uppsala University would finance the research.

  • I doubt that there would have been a contract, absent Rossi and Levi's (and the Swedes') assurances that the ecat worked and represented a new energy technology.

    In your hate and angry you have totally missed that Lugano experiment was done months later then the contract was signed.

    IH has done his own test on the 1MW prototype before signing the contract.

  • You are relying on Rossi never being alone at a time when he could have done any one of these things.

    THH in modern world there are thing called data recorders. Reactor data and thermal images were recorded constantly and scientist were able to access them.

    If any manipulation had been done this would had left an immediate trace in the data recorded by the equipment and detected by the scientist.

    Now why don't you try to say that all the data were false ? Is that what you are trying to suggest ?

    Your hypothesis is out of any reality.


  • Joanne:


    Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am real. My name is Howard Michael Appel and yes, you have discovered that the address, 1100 Broadway, Suite 5752, Redwood City, Cal. is the post office box I maintain as my address with the California State Bar (I also use it as the address for my Cal. driver's license). I have practiced for over 25 years and the brief bio I posted is accurate. If you think that I have lied, please feel free to file a complaint with the California State Bar. Their toll free number is 800-843-9053 and here is a handy link: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Publi…s/How-to-File-A-Complaint. I just started posting on this site recently, but I have posted on The Fogbow for a number of years and have met in person with quite a number of other members who are also Cal. lawyers. If the administrator of this site wishes to confirm my identity they have my permission to contact The Fogbow administrator who will confirm who I am and that the ISP/address I am using are mine.


    As to your comment that no serious lawyer would discuss litigation in which they are not involved, you haven't a clue. Lawyers don't discuss litigation in which they are involved, but we love to discuss, criticize, praise, comment, play pundit, etc. on cases where we are not involved. After all, we don't have anything to lose in such cases. And I guess all of the legal blogs, as well as all the legal journals, never discuss active cases. Take a look at SCOTUSBLOG, which discusses pending SCOTUS cases (for non-lawyers, non Americans, SCOTUS is Supreme Court of the United States), or http://volokh.com.


    But please, feel free to call Rossi's attention to me. I would love to hear from him about how he is mistreated.


    Also, I have made it clear that what I post are my opinions, based on what I have read on these sites and in the publicly filed documents. I have no inside information and as I made perfectly clear to IHFB, I am not a shill for anyone here, I have no dog in this fight, I am not affiliated with and, to the best of my knowledge, do not know any of the players involved here. You however, are a cowardly, pusillanimous, recreant, spineless, milk-livered poltroon (just in case, here is a link to the online Oxford Dictionary definition - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/poltroon).


    Please enjoy the rest of your day.


  • I have never watched any Perry Meson shows, however I spent my first year of law school at McGeorge School of Law (I ended up first in my class the first year and transferred to Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley) where the Dean was a big friend of Raymond Burr, the actor who played Perry Mason. As to your citation to the "ATTORNEY ETHICS & SOCIAL MEDIA" if you actually read it you would have noticed that it addresses the following principal areas:


    1. Giving Legal Advice Outside Your Jurisdiction: I am not doing that, I am merely opining.

    2. Forming Attorney-Client Relationships: Again, not happening.

    3. Advertising and Solicitation: Nope.

    4. Using Social Media in Litigation: As I am not involved in these matters, not an issue.

    5. Revealing Information: I only have what is publicly disclosed and I have NO access to private, confidential or privileged information. So not an issue.

    6. Responsibility for Employees: Unless we count my cats I have no employees.


    So ELE, I guess this means we won't be exchanging Christmas cards this year (well, I celebrate Hanukah anyhow). As to my being who I am, any administrator of this site is welcome to confirm that.