Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from THHuxley

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'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.

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

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.