Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Anyway, I mentioned Papp because I try to look at everything (another example is cavitation).


    I, too, am interested in the Papp claims. I would not worry too much about Mary's very critical take on them. It's good to be wary and critical of woo, but it's also good to do a proper investigation of specific technical claims rather than painting a person with a broad brush and then throwing everything out.

  • They all saw it. I saw a sample of the data, and I knew within minutes it was fake.


    You knew within a minute that was fake ? Really ? Are you so expert ?
    can you write a report on that ? can you show us the data sample ?
    Or are you just lying ?
    If it was SO evident why was Rossi to sue IH and not IH to sue Rossi.


    Rossi escorted them out.


    Really ? There is a long list of people who visited Doral. All of them where just business people ? Without any consultant ? Not credible.

  • Do you have specifics for this?


    I have few specifics. Some photos of the equipment and some sample data. I cannot share either one. The equipment is industrial standard HVAC equipment, of the type used a million times a day to measure the heat from boilers. The methods were industry standard. The results were positive. As I recall they measured every day for a week or so. That's all there is to it.


    I'm not aware of any of the Rossi tests that provide credible reasons of this type


    It wasn't all that credible. But okay, you are now aware.

  • ou knew within a minute that was fake ? Really ? Are you so expert ?


    It does not take an expert. Anyone who understands instruments can see the data is fake, and the results are impossible.


    can you write a report on that ? can you show us the data sample ?


    There is already a report with sample data. It reveals more than I could tell from the data I saw. It is Exhibit 5:


    https://drive.google.com/file/…MAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E/view


    Or are you just lying ?


    No, Rossi is lying.


    If it was SO evident why was Rossi to sue IH and not IH to sue Rossi.


    You would have to ask I.H.

  • ele:"If it was SO evident why was Rossi to sue IH and not IH to sue Rossi"


    1) Rossi sued before the deadline for payment What was left then was for them to counter sue.
    2) IH did not believe that the testing in FL was for the GPT
    3) If IH did not think that the testing fulfill the requirements (as per signed document - start date agreed to, ERV approved,....)
    then what was there to sue concerning the 89M?

  • JedRothwell wrote:


    You knew within a minute that was fake ? Really ? Are you so expert ?


    Well, compared with about everyone who posts in this group, he is. However, what he saw could be recognized by anyone. He saw a version of a file, allegedly from Rossi, that showed certain characteristics. The same characteristics appear, he tells us, in the description of preliminary Penon reports, described in Exhibit 5. Yes. To use technical terms that us experts like to employ, the data was fishy as hell.


    Properly collected data will show certain characteristics. If you haven't read Exhibit 5, you don't know the freaking hell what you are talking about. Come back when you have done your homework. If you still have questions, someone may be able to answer them. In particular, here, these are some of Murray's questions from that exhibit:



    ele again:


    Quote

    can you write a report on that ? can you show us the data sample ?


    This has already been discussed at length here. How about reading what has already been written before barging in like a bull? Jed has written at length and so have others. At some point, enough should be enough.


    Quote

    Or are you just lying ?


    He is a real person, long known to the LENR community (25 years?) and respected. He has paid his dues, making major investments at times, supporting researchers, and maintaining the library at lenr-canr.org. You are bupkis, to ask him such a rude question.


    Quote

    If it was SO evident why was Rossi to sue IH and not IH to sue Rossi.


    Again, all this has been explained, though IH has not stated why they did what they did, there are plausible motivations and IH was, from a very reasonable point of view, successful. They got what they wanted, which was to find out the reality behind the Rossi claims. What they found may not be complete, but it's a lot more than anyone else except maybe Rossi himself knew. Why did Rossi sue IH? Good question. Try to answer it instead of bluffing with questions as if you find the answer obvious.


    Quote

    oldguy wrote:


    Really ? There is a long list of people who visited Doral. All of them where just business people? Without any consultant ? Not credible.


    Yes. All were apparently business people until the test was over. (Though it is not impossible that an investor rep was an engineer.) Maybe you should read the list? Only Murray was an engineer, and Rossi did not allow him to visit (until the test was over).


    I'm not sure who oldguy was talking about, but it would not have been Doral. Many times, though, over the years, Rossi expelled people from his demonstrations who showed signs of expert curiosity. So in July, 2015, IH attempted to arrange a visit with their newly retained engineer, Murray. Rossi was contractually obligated to allow that visit, in several ways, but he refused. IH could have immediately shut the installation down or sued if necessary, but they chose to ride it out. They were definitely not knee-jerk. They were giving Rossi every opportunity to show his stuff.

  • Seems that ele knows how to press the hot buttons quite well.


    Lets see how I do:


    1 MW Plant null reaction calibration ?
    40DN steam ?
    80DN water ?
    156 thermocouples ?
    millions of data points ?
    boiler permits ?
    100 m^3 pulses ?
    Sensors rated for working temperature ?
    115 reactors ?

  • Jed wrote:

    It wasn't all that credible. But okay, you are now aware.


    Thanks for this Jed. It is of course very proper for you to reach your own judgement on the data you have but cannot share. But I cannot agree with you that this makes me aware of credible data - especially since you say it was not all that credible and I know that I tend to be somewhat more cautious than you in evaluating this type of data.


    But I am now aware of why you might have a different view of this matter than I have.


    Abd wrote:

    Well, compared with about everyone who posts in this group, he is.


    I can see why you might believe that, but it is an unwise comparison when there are various people here who in some areas at least show greater technical competence than Jed. Let us just say that he has good general competence without making specific comparisons? Expertise is a slippery term, and has many forms.


    Regards, THH

  • Since we're talking about exhibit 5 ITT, I pulled this quote from another thread:



    The thing I find odd about exhibit five, is that they mention 40mm tube, and infer that is the steam pipe. Which wouldn't be able to carry the necesaary amount of steam unless it's at a silly velocity.But the photos, as I recall, show two pipes, a thick one and a thin one. The thin one looks to be about 40mm. That's clearly the water return pipe.



    As a reminder, I'll quote the corresponding section of exhibit 5:



    Quote

    5. The flow of steam through the pipe to J.M. Products. You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia). The steam passed through a stretch of insulated pipe that was at least 6 meters long before entering the JMP space. (Presumably there was additional steam pipe on the JMP side.) According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on average 33,558 kg/day (1398 kg/h) and the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively. The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40. For steam to flow, a pressure differential is required to overcome the losses in the pipe. Given the foregoing, this would require that the pressure on the JMP side of the building was significantly below atmospheric (vacuum) and that the steam would flow at extraordinary velocity. But this was obviously not the situation present at the location. Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 29-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2016 Page 3 of 4 3 Given your reported measurements, how do you account for the lack of an adequate pressure differential to provide for the flow of steam?




    Now, let's go a bit deeper into this steam drop issue. I happen to have found this steam drop calculator: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…op-calculator-d_1093.html



    If we use Murray's data in the above quote:


    1398kg/h flow rate


    6m length of pipe
    ~40mm pipe inside diameter (DN40's ID can vary it seems, so I made an assumption based on this link)
    0.590 kg/m3 density (from this link @ 1 bar)


    Then the differential pressure is: 430572 Pa = 4.3 bar



    Now understandingly, Murray is perplexed.



    However, is the pipe really a DN40? What if inside diameter is 100mm?


    Then differential pressure becomes: 2569 Pa = 0.025 bar << 1 bar



    So as we see, if Murray got the ID wrong, his question #5 goes out the window.



    Maybe we have some info/picture somewhere about the actual ID of the steam pipe?

  • Abd wrote:
    Well, compared with about everyone who posts in this group, he is.


    I can see why you might believe that, but it is an unwise comparison when there are various people here who in some areas at least show greater technical competence than Jed. Let us just say that he has good general competence without making specific comparisons? Expertise is a slippery term, and has many forms.


    I don't tend to add extra words without cause. "About" is a qualifier that allows exceptions. The situation is obvious: Jed has seen a lot of work, both skilled and not. He reviewed some private reports and thought that they were prima facie sound. But he also is aware that even such can be misleading. He is not claiming that you should therefore be convinced about "credible evidence." This is secondary evidence, which is, as a standard matter, weak. It can be a reason to look further, possibly to postpone judgment, that's about it.


    I wrote in 2011, mostly privately, that it was possible to fake any test, that magicians were highly skilled at this, and could fool any expert. Jed argued against that, as I recall. He had a higher trust in "experts" than I. There is a reason why science wants independent replication or confirmation, as distinct from observation of some demonstration. It is demonstrations that magicians can fake, because they can control attention and what is visible and what is not. Magicians are typically highly skilled at attention control. If they are facing skeptics, they know what skeptics will be looking for, and they do something else.


    It is far more difficult to fake independent testing, that is actually independent. If, say, Rossi set up reactors for IH, showing them how they were generating XP, and then IH was left alone with them, able to run any tests they wanted, very difficult to maintain a fake. The mechanism the "trick" or "error" will likely be found, with controlled experiment. In a demonstration, one is looking, typically, at a fixed data set, missing any of the many other tests that might be performed. It can take time and a lot of attention to develop hypotheses of artifact from fixed tests, possibilities, and then some can argue about them forever, because a hypothesis of artifact is rarely proof. Lugano? The fundamental error is known, and it's entirely possible that was entirely the doing of the "independent professors," who, if so, managed to fool themselves, but in a context where this might produce an immediate social reward. It also might produce long-term opprobrium, but short-term can outweigh long term, the former is immediate, the later might be quite delayed.


    If there is an open magician, the game is clear, and "success" simply means that the skeptic can't figure out how the magician did it. With a practically infinite world of possibilities, and the limited observational powers of an expert, this game favors the experienced magician. This is not a claim that Rossi is a magician, but that this is within the bounds of possibility. As well, there are people who function like magicians, but who believe in what they do. Not all "magic" is deliberate. Sometimes the force of belief of the person is enough to draw people along. Pseudoskeptics are contemptuous and think anyone fooled by a magician is gullible.


    Somewhere recently I saw this rustic advice: "Believe none of what you hear, little of what you read, and half of what you see."


    I reserve belief for what I've seen, at least in theory, and even then, I believe that I saw it, not that "it actually happened," and that is rebuttable. After all, memory is defective!

  • The diameter of this piping, at least, would be known to IH and can be checked after the end of the test. As always we do not have definite information, but Rossi is keeping quiet and we have from a likely IH expert witness a definite and easily checkable statement. People make mistakes, but I'd not expect it here.


    Abd wrote:

    If there is an open magicians, the game is clear, and "success" simply means that the skeptic can't figure out how the magician did it. With a practically infinite world of possibilities, and the limited observational powers of an expert, this game favors the experienced magician. This is not a claim that Rossi is a magician, but that this is within the bounds of possibility. As well, there are people who function like magicians, but who believe in what they do. Not all "magic" is deliberate. Sometimes the force of belief of the person is enough to draw people along. Pseudoskeptics are contemptuous and think anyone fooled by a magician is gullible.


    I can see that there are pseudo-skeptics, but don't find the word very useful. I could for example similarly call 90% of the people on blogs who support LENR pseudo-believers for the same dismissive lack of attention to details. That would be insulting, and not I think helpful. Generally labels do not help.


    The thing about Rossi independent tests is that it all depends on the experience and attitude of the testers. Rossi can provide a box that apparently performs miracles (and perhaps believe it is truely doing this, though I'd say more that he does not acknowledge that question as important), in many ways:


    mis-placed TCs
    mis-used flowmeter
    mis-measured electrical supply
    mis-wired electrical supply
    wrong assumption about water phase
    wrongly calibrated IR camera
    large internal high temperature block of metal


    All of these are "magic" when not understood, and things automatically checked when understood. Jed has had a long learning experience and now is aware of pretty well all of these things (maybe not the high temperature block of metal one). These are however only things that I am aware of: I'd be very surprised were there not other "magic" I'm not considering. Few "experts" will be aware of all of them.


    So an independent tester can be deceived by any of this magic. Given enough time, and repeated checks, these things get uncovered. For that you need the right mindset. I'm not confident this was present in the private tests that Jed knows and we do not.

  • The diameter of this piping, at least, would be known to IH and can be checked after the end of the test. As always we do not have definite information, but Rossi is keeping quiet and we have from a likely IH expert witness a definite and easily checkable statement. People make mistakes, but I'd not expect it here.


    Looking at this table, what pipe diameter would you pick for 3000lbs/hr of steam at 14.5 psi? Probably 5 or 6 inches.


    What's more likely, that Rossi picked an absurdly small steam pipe, or that Murray mixed up the inflow and outflow pipe diameters?


    Maybe @Dewey Weaver can contact Murray and clarify that?

  • The diameter of this piping, at least, would be known to IH and can be checked after the end of the test. As always we do not have definite information, but Rossi is keeping quiet and we have from a likely IH expert witness a definite and easily checkable statement. People make mistakes, but I'd not expect it here.


    I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find an error in Exhibit 5, the Murray document. Peter Gluck has radically misunderstood what Exhibit 5 is. To be sure, Jed has somewhat led him down this road. Exhibit 5 is a memorialization of questions asked of Penon at the conclusion of the Doral "test." It includes some quotations from the preliminary Penon reports, and then a few of Murray's observations. This is not intended as proof of anything, necessarily, not in itself. It is just questions that were asked by the IH engineer, Murray, of the supposed expert paid to measure plant operation. That there was no response is much more the point than what can be derived from the questions and comments. I have not reviewed the pipe size question, because I have not seen it laid out for clear review. If there is an error, and if it's important, this would surely come out when all this is examined in discovery and perhaps at trial. Some get a bit hysterical about this stuff....


    Quote

    Abd wrote:

    .
    I can see that there are pseudo-skeptics, but don't find the word very useful. I could for example similarly call 90% of the people on blogs who support LENR pseudo-believers for the same dismissive lack of attention to details. That would be insulting, and not I think helpful. Generally labels do not help.


    You could say this about any language, and it would be an error. When I'm careful about "pseudoskepticism," it is about a known behavior, and some level of pseudoskeptical behavior is not uncommon for humans. I distinguish this from "genuine skepticism," which is essential to science. Pseudoskepticism masquerades as skepticism, but is founded in something much darker, typically contempt and disrespect.


    I'm not sure what "pseudo-believer" means. I'd think it would have to mean someone who pretends to believe something, but doesn't. Now, this is something I have observed. Pseudoskeptics go ballistic over the word "pseudoskeptic." I have seen strident claims that it doesn't exist. This is all utterly unsurprising, and it is called "denial." Anyway, that is "pseudoskepticism."


    But sometimes I call a specific person a "pseudoskeptic." That is a judgment of mine that their behavior is commonly or at the moment characterized by the traits of pseudoskepticism, commonly contempt of others and certainty as to one's own beliefs. I commonly refer to this certainty as a skeptic forgetting to be skeptical of his or her own ideas -- but this is normally men who show the strongest and most offensive forms. The pseudoskeptic demands that others follow the scientific method, but don't consider it applicable to their own ideas, which they claim as a default, with arguments like "the burden of proof is on the claimant." And they make plenty of claims without proof. They place the burden of proof on others, not taking it on themselves. It's obvious: this isn't science, and it is this kind of attitude that led Truzzi to coin the term "pseudoskeptic," and to regret how CSICOP had become a den of debunkers instead of the original intention, for actual scientific investigation, not merely figuring out what was wrong with the claims of others.


    I may err in this judgment, of course.... The similarity is actually between pseudoskeptics and fanatic believers, not between the former and "pseudo-believers."


    Quote

    The thing about Rossi independent tests is that it all depends on the experience and attitude of the testers. Rossi can provide a box that apparently performs miracles (and perhaps believe it is truely doing this, though I'd say more that he does not acknowledge that question as important), in many ways:


    Okay, this is about an independent test of a box.


    So, perhaps Rossi sets up a "box." An independent test will not rely on any of this, though he or she would look at it. All of these items are claimed possible artifacts or media of fraud. None of them would seriously impede true independent testers. This can only seriously fool those who cannot change the test setup, but an independent tester can do that. What is being imagined here is not an independent test. It is managed, everything is set up and the "independent expert" simply gets to look at everything. If they are constrained in this way, a magician can certainly fool them! But in a true independent test, suppose Rossi provides a sealed box. To protect his IP, looking inside the box is prohibited. Can this be independently tested? Yes, it could. Because the test cannot be duplicated -- the device isn't described internally -- it's not enough for scientific verification of an "effect," but it could be established that the device is generating energy, if it is, or that it isn't, if it isn't, and this is all pretty well understood. THH provided a list of possible "magics." So with each of these, what could be done?


    mis-placed TCs


    The tester doesn't use the supplied TCs except as a supplement or as confirmed. The tester does not necessarily measure any temperature in or on the black box. Rather, if energy is being released, it will cause heat, which may be delayed. So the tester puts the entire device in a calorimeter, or if it is water cooled, he or she measures the water characteristics, and water volume and temperature, input and output, is measured by the tester's own equipment, at locations not controlled by the inventor.


    mis-used flowmeter


    This would be a tester error. However, this would be calibrated by the tester. Remember the Defkalion fiasco? Gamberale wanted to measure water flow in a standard way, by running it into a container. Defkalion prevented that. An independent tester would not use a flowmeter at all, unless it were redundantly calibrated, and flowmeter has known failure modes, which any independent tester would cover. Rossi used a flow meter on the input water. How about actual flow measurement by accumulating condensed water, or taking it from a measured reservoir, and doing both would be ideal.

    mis-measured electrical supply


    Obvious, obvious. Caused by blatant ignorance, when it's happened. The electrical supply and the measurement of it would be set up by the expert tester. This, quite simply, is not likely to happen at all. It happened, perhaps, when Rossi set it up. Maybe there was such an error at Lugano.


    It all comes out with calibrations. The tester measures heat when there is no fuel, if possible. If not, it's a bit more difficult, with the idea that this is a single black box provided by the user. A dummy test could be another box of similar size with a heating coil in it, and the same mass. Not perfect, but it could be close.


    mis-wired electrical supply


    Again, an unlikely error for an independent expert as tester.


    All these things happen when the inventor sets *everything* up, or supervises or -- maybe -- advises it. And when there is no caution or extensive checking.


    wrong assumption about water phase


    Basic stupid error, not likely at all for an expert, free to examine the flow of heated water or steam. In fact, most would avoid steam if possible. It's simply much more complex to measure. It can be done, though.


    wrongly calibrated IR camera


    That's a great one. The real error was that it wasn't actually calibrated at operating temperature. No IR camera expert would have fallen for this.


    large internal high temperature block of metal


    That would fool no expert. It's one of the first and most obvious ways to create "self-sustain mode." The limit to this is quite definite, and this is where a Ragone plot might come in. Essentially, an independent test would be looking for heat continued well beyond the possibility of energy storage with known materials.


    Quote

    All of these are "magic" when not understood, and things automatically checked when understood. Jed has had a long learning experience and now is aware of pretty well all of these things (maybe not the high temperature block of metal one). These are however only things that I am aware of: I'd be very surprised were there not other "magic" I'm not considering. Few "experts" will be aware of all of them.


    The concept here depends on the experts not being experts, first of all, and then on them not being the ones to set up the actual testing. This is not a "black box" test, it is a whole test setup controlled by the inventor. This is not an independent test by experts. Rossi never allowed that, until IH bought the privilege. And we know how that turned out, at least according to IH!


    Quote

    So an independent tester can be deceived by any of this magic. Given enough time, and repeated checks, these things get uncovered. For that you need the right mindset. I'm not confident this was present in the private tests that Jed knows and we do not.


    The confusion here is between an "independent tester" and an "independent test." An independent tester, a responsible expert, would not fully accept a managed demonstration. This was a basic error made by Kullander and Essen. They relied on the Rossi set-up, Rossi measurements, and simply, for the most part, observed them. Easily fooled. They were not, however, experts, a distinct problem. An expert might have said something like "I was unable to check for X."


    I cannot assess the quallifications of those whom Jed has communicated with. If they truly tested the devices independently, maybe there was something real there. But did they? We can imagine this or that, and Jed has not claimed that the "credibility" here was high. So my comments here are not about those specific tests, but about what I consider clear: if Rossi allowed fully independent testing, even if the device was a "secret," i.e., a black box, it could have been done and results would have been reliable. But if the tests were secret, as they were, the rest of this could not rely on this at all.


    A black box test would be a contained device, with specifications for input and a control protocol. If instead the control equipment is part of the "secret," then the black box must include all of that. The tester is going to independently determine all inputs and outputs with his or her own measurements. So a trick like a box designed to store massive heat in the box, and somehow designed so that it contains this heat when it's delivered (not impossible, I'd think, and maybe there is some thermite in it, which would certainly create a pile of very hot metal with very little input power), would simply show a fixed "XE" that is sustained for a time limited by the possibility of such storage. This time could be calculated from the object mass, which would certainly be measured. This would, basically, fool no expert. It can fool someone who comes in to observe a demonstration and maybe makes a few spot checks of this or that. Without much more detail, which is not available for the tests Jed is referring to, we can't derive much of anything.


    Jed told me in 2011 that he had reports he considered reliable that Rossi had a real effect. My reaction then was about the same as now. "That's nice. Let us know if there is anything we can rely on,." Like a real expert willing to sign their name on the line. My interest has been in the science, and commercial claims that cannot be verified are not science. If the devices show up at Home Depot -- or can be purchased -- then they become verifiable.


    "Not verifiable" is not a synonym for "bogus." That is, what is bogus may not be verifiable, but not all unverifiabilities are bogus, no matter what circumstantial arguments we may construct.


  • I know a good way to avoid all of those errors. You hire a certified HVAC engineer who follows the legally mandated methods described in the Florida boiler safety codes. These methods were developed by the ASME over many decades. They specify in detail things like what type of themometer you use, where it is placed (4' from the reactor in a straight, level pipe, as I recall); what sort of flowmeter you use and how you test it (with a bucket and stopwatch), and many other details. I have read these codes and I have made this kind of measurement, but a licensed engineer would know far more about this than I do, or than a typical scientist would know. A licensed engineer would know more than Rossi or Penon knows. I do not think Rossi could fool one of these people.


    I am pretty sure that if an HVAC engineer were hired to evaluate the e-cat, he would say something like: "This is completely out of code. It is dangerous and should not be used. That's the wrong kind of flowmeter -- as it says right on the face plate! That pressure gauge is broken and it is not designed for these temperatures. You need dial thermometers here, here and here, at least 4' from the reactor. Before I measure anything I will have to install a complete set of instruments that meet code. Plus I need to see everything in the hidden customer site."


    HVAC engineers find many problems with equipment, including life-threatening problems. Nature is better at hiding problems than Rossi is, or than any person is. A skilled engineer could see through Rossi's shenanigans. Heck, I can see through most of them. So could Murray, who knows much more than I do.


    I have some idea what the engineers know because I read a course description and a sample test from a certification training class. Classes range from 1 to 3 months. They cover many things besides calorimetry, but the calorimetry portions are rigorous. Just to get into this course you had to demonstrate a great deal of knowledge. Here is part of "The Boiler Safety Act." Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69A-51. This will give you a feel for what I am talking about. This is not related to calorimetry but it is the sort of thing HVAC engineers have to know to pass the certification test. (The calorimetry portion of this went off line months ago, and I cannot find a copy.)


  • I'm not sure what THHuxley meant. ANY independent test, if it truly independent and is done competently by appropriately trained people (no, Jed, not HVAC installers) will be reliable. THHuxley can't be referring to that with that list of potential errors. I think it refers to ROSSI sponsored tests such as Lugano and the rest of the Swedes' travesties along with all the Lewan et al nonsense. If not, please correct us THH. If THH meant Rossi-associated rather than independent tests than all that verbal diarrhea by the Abdominable Abd is as usual irrelevant and Jed's post makes no sense either.


    The problem is that we don't KNOW of an independent test properly done other than Jed's (Mr. Prime Principles) say so that one happened. I very much doubt it did. We certainly have no evidence that it did. No materials and method, no names of experts, no details of results, nothing, nada except some barely warmed over hearsay. As I said before, that is not evidence! If it were, I'd be selling my pink invisible flying unicorns to IH. I am sure I talked to an expert who said he saw them fly. Come to think of it, if it were not for their recent experience with Rossi, IH would have bought them as long as I said I was sure their motive power was LENR.

  • ANY independent test, if it truly independent and is done competently by appropriately trained people (no, Jed, not HVAC installers) will be reliable.


    How the hell would you know? Have read the ASME book chapters on calorimetry, or the Florida codes? If HVAC installers were not qualified to do this kind of test, dozens of boilers in Florida would explode every day. Measuring the heat flow is essential to safety. All inspections include these procedures. Installing equipment and locating and fixing actual problems is much harder than finding Rossi's stupid tricks. Most of Rossi's stupid tricks were obvious to me when I looked at Rossi's own data for five minutes. They would be glaringly obvious to a qualified engineer. As I said, I am sure the installation does not meet code -- it doesn't begin to meet code! -- so an engineer would rip out all of Rossi's phony baloney instruments and start over from scratch.


    When you install the proper test equipment, properly configured according to code, and you test it according to code, the test always works. These methods are extremely reliable. That's why boilers seldom explode. Before the ASME was formed, they did explode every day in every large city.


    Boilers are inherently dangerous. An actual 1 MW reactor could kill someone in a few seconds if a pipe failed. The safety regs and inspection methods are rigorous and proven. Because the people working with boilers are careful and well trained, boilers are as reliable as jet aircraft, which are also inherently dangerous. From time to time airplanes do crash or burn, which shows how vulnerable they are, and how careful the maintenance people are. See for example:


    Quote

    The right-side engine of an American Airlines Boeing 767 failed Friday during an attempted takeoff, sending debris as far as a half mile and passengers hurriedly down emergency slides onto a runway at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.


    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/us/ohare-aircraft-incident/

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
    Jed told me in 2011 that he had reports he considered reliable that Rossi had a real effect. My reaction then was about the same as now. "That's nice. Let us know if there is anything we can rely on,." Like a real expert willing to sign their name on the line.


    Hasn't happened yet, alas . . .


    Right. I never blamed Jed for telling me what he'd heard or read. It just didn't happen and I don't think Jed blamed me, either, for not falling into a swoon over "OMG! COP 20!" or whatever got people fired up. Many scientists, though, are accustomed to believing reports in the sense of not suspecting fraud. Cold fusion scientists did not have the natural protection of thinking LENR impossible. So some were quite vulnerable to fraudulent reports, not to mention error. The Rossi results were so strong, though, that ordinary error wasn't particularly plausible. Most scientists did adopt a wait-and-see attitude, but some came up with theoretical explanations of how NiH might work. None of this was shown through controlled experiment, so far. Storms predicts deuterium as the ash. Difficult to verify unless you have a high-power reactor to study. Lugano, if those results were real, should have been adequate, but they didn't even look for deuterium. Given that the heat was punk, what are we to make of the transmutation results? Well, there is an obvious explanation! Almost trivial!


    But no proof, either way. So far, anyway. Industrial Heat came into the field and realized that Rossi was either far ahead of the entire pack, or a major obstacle suppressing other research by setting up a huge red herring (or both). Who wanted to work with a few watts if Rossi was claiming kilowatts? (The "megawatt reactor" was really a large pile of much smaller reactors, and Rossi could have had a product immediately, at $1500 per kilowatt (his price for the megawatt reactor) and this would all have been in the market like gangbusters if Rossi were not either crazy or a fraud or both.)


    This was all visible by the end of 2011. IH approached Rossi in 2012, and offered him his asking price for the IP. Given known Rossi behavior, this was the only way to break the logjam, probably. Whether or not it was the only way, it worked. They found out. It was quite confusing for outsiders for a time....


    By 2011, I was writing that Rossi was not necessarily committing fraud, even if his demonstrations were total fake. It is not illegal to fake demonstrations! Only if you sell something based on it, and even then, if you make proper disclosures to investors, it's not illegal as to what you do for the public. So when IH became involved, and it was known, I assumed that IH had seen much stronger evidence than was available publically. Actually, not. They basically saw the same, but decided to go ahead anyway. Still, because this was all secret, my position stayed about the same. A firm, clear, "Maybe, I suppose."


    What IH did was brilliant, I have come to think. Yeah, it might be considered expensive. But we could have been futzing around for another five years. Look at Brilliant Light Power. Or don't. Be sure to wear sunglasses. However, the good news: with all the light, you can see your wallet. If you are wearing sunglasses, that is, though a welding visor would probably be better. I absolutely love that BLP video where the screen goes green then completely white, while someone yells "OMG! Shut if off!" Really, that's a spectacular demonstration!


    I remember in 2009 or so writing that Mills was entering an end game, because he was claiming devices ready for sale. It appears that "end game" can go on far longer than I imagined! What he has done in 5 years is develop more spectacular demonstrations! Anything else? How would I know? All I could do is guess.

  • Jed if possible please clear up some question. Earlier in this thread (I think this thread) you said that one of the tests was done without Rossi involved, just the testers and I took that as he was physically not involved (he didn't touch the test).
    I know of no test where he did not touch the equipment (such as opening the device afterwards).

  • So as we see, if Murray got the ID wrong, his question #5 goes out the window.


    Maybe we have some info/picture somewhere about the actual ID of the steam pipe?


    The diameter of this piping, at least, would be known to IH and can be checked after the end of the test. As always we do not have definite information, but Rossi is keeping quiet and we have from a likely IH expert witness a definite and easily checkable statement. People make mistakes, but I'd not expect it here.


    I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find an error in Exhibit 5, the Murray document.



  • Quote

    Here is Mats Lewan's video of that 28 Oct. 2011 customer acceptance test...


    You mean Rossi's charade of an acceptance test? Who was the customer? Who bought any plant ever, except the dummies at IH? How do you know (if someone did)? Why didn't Rossi allow Lewan and others to take data from the test themselves? Why would you ever believe anything Rossi claims? Wow, are you ever gullible! There was no customer, no acceptance-- what there was was a joke: a huge electrical heater run by a giant diesel generator. Or what did you think the 480kW machine was for?


    Quote

    Para - is that a 500kW generator for the 1/2 power test?


    In the 2011 "test," the generator was capable of supplying all the power output claimed. And there is no evidence whatever that power output was actually measured. All that was presented was a dirty sheet of paper with nonsense scrawled on it, signed by a supposed NATO colonel, whatever that is (NATO does not award ranks) whose name was supposed to be Domenico Fioravanti and who seems to have left no military record or trace anywhere. He was probably an actor hired by Rossi or possibly a former cell or jail mate of Rossi's.