Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

@Tony

This is kind of interesting "We’ve seen a number of tests and we’ve had a lot of people looking at tests.".

Does not really correlate with the "blame the swedes" narrative used today, does it?

Well it does, for an at the time naive IH. Not as naive, obviously, as the centre of opinion at ECW, but still not aware of how in Rossi's hands, using multiple different mechanisms, large false positives can reliably be generated in Rossi-controlled tests. Neither seeing the tests, nor other people looking at them helps, as those who have watched this from the start (like me) realise. You need skeptics looking to see these errors because if you buy the "Rossi is very clever, and honest enough not to falsify tests" you tend to believe his test setups when the errors in them are not immediately detected by apparently qualified observers. This happened time and time again. And the evidence from the Swedes appeared independent and from decent scientists. it was very credible.

You might parse the above paragraph to mean i'm saying Rossi consciously falsifies tests; that would be incorrect. I'm merely saying that his tests have all had unchecked error mechanisms that could account for the results (the Ferrara tests are the nearest to ones where the actual likely error mechanism cannot be determined from close analysis of public data). Of course Rossi is not the one to do checking: his famous comment that control experiments are unnecessary says it all.

So, Darden was naive then. Is not so now. You can sort of tell when things changed from the "we will be very cautious" PR during the 1 year test.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed. You may be correct, but I doubt this. it was operated by Levi, in Rossi's factory. You think Rossi was not there as well?

That is what the report says, p. 5:

"A wristwatch was placed next to the wattmeter, and a video camera was set up on a tripod and
focused on both objects: at one frame per second, the entire sequence of minutes and power
consumption were filmed and recorded for the 96-hour duration of the test."

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

(That may be a little unclear. They explained it means the test was under video surveillance the entire time and they are certain no one touched it.)

I suppose Rossi set up and initiated the reaction. As I recall, the instruments were provided by and installed by Levi et al.

Quote from Thetruemonty

I am still wondering why IH bothered with this ridiculous 1 year test.

I think Rossis motivation for this was to win time. Maybe for R&D. Maybe for something else.

But why did IH take part this charade?

I think the court documents show that IH did not think they agreed to take part in a 1 year test. They viewed the time for the test was past when Rossi started things in FL. Instead they viewed as Rossi attempting to sale heat to a customer. It was not until well into "that year" that Rossi claimed it to be the test.

It remains an interesting coincidence that the independent testers and Rossi choose to use the same equipment for measurements.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

Dewey has stated here that they were influenced by the Swedes. The Swedes did not "promote" the e-cat. They tested it, and reported their results. Their first test was impressive, but the second one (Lugano) was a fiasco. I have no idea when I.H. invested but if it was after the second report, that was a mistake.

According to Darden, the starting point of his involvement in the Ecat affair was "the coincidence of three phone calls" he received (1). Whoever called him should have been quite important and provided him with really convincing arguments, if he later set up a team of investors, raised a lot of million dollars, and funded the subsequent developments of the Ecat. These phone calls took place well before the Ferrara test, which is not the first documented test on the Ecat, as you keep saying in a futile attempt of postdating your interest and involvement in the Ecat story.

I guess the real promoters of the Ecat are those who phone called Darden, but I fear their names will remain unknown.

(1) http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

That is what the report says, p. 5:

"A wristwatch was placed next to the wattmeter, and a video camera was set up on a tripod and
focused on both objects: at one frame per second, the entire sequence of minutes and power
consumption were filmed and recorded for the 96-hour duration of the test."

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

(That may be a little unclear. They explained it means the test was under video surveillance the entire time and they are certain no one touched it.)

I suppose Rossi set up and initiated the reaction. As I recall, the instruments were provided by and installed by Levi et al.

Display More

On evidence now from Lugano, here is what I think. Levi (not et al) installed his equipment (of type recommended by Rossi) as Rossi suggested in a Rossi-designed setup. The test methodology was all determined by Rossi. With those parameters I would not trust the results. Et al turned up (I think only for the second experiment) and probably looked at what there was asking a few questions that would have been satisfactorily fielded.

There is no mechanism here to examine or prevent Rossi having a setup that contains errors, as was the case at Lugano. They just have to be subtler errors than if it is a live demo with Rossi at the controls.

Quote from Ascoli65

It seems, on the contrary, that at least one of this potential investor, specifically Scanlan, discussed this argument with you.

He did not invest. He and I discussed the technical issues and our impressions of Rossi's personality and credibility. There was never any investment to discuss, and he would not have asked me about that. Or if he had, I would have said: "I don't know anything about investments."

I have talked to just about everyone in the field at one time or another about a variety of subjects, but not about investments. No one is interested in my opinion about that, nor should they be, since I know nothing about it. Okay, I guess I can say: "I do not buy claims by Prof. X. so I would not recommend investing in his work." But I assume anyone who is seriously considering a large investment will know MUCH more about the particulars of Dr. X.'s work than I do. I would not make a serious technical analysis without spending weeks in the lab, and poking around at the data from hundreds of tests in my own computer. If I did not understand the technique in depth, I would not make an analysis at all. For example if it were something like Iwamura's mass spectroscopy instead of calorimetry I would just say "I can't judge."

I said countless times that Rossi gave me the heebie-jeebies and I suppose most businessmen would run from the room after seeing his presentations. He looks like a confidence-man from Central Casting. He inspires the opposite of confidence. I guess you could call that investment advice, at a stone-age level.

I.H. did not consult with me or ask me anything before they got involved, as far as I recall. (They may have read various papers and comments by me; I wouldn't know about that.) I first heard about them after they had already invested in Rossi. I guess they had already paid $10 million, but I am not sure of the timeline. I was very surprised to learn it was that much money. If there was any influence it went from them to me. I thought, "maybe Rossi has something after all." I assumed these were sharp investors who had done careful due diligence. In retrospect, based on the technical lawsuit documents, I think they jumped the gun and paid too much in the first round. But I do not know the details or why they thought such a large sum was appropriate.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

It remains an interesting coincidence that the independent testers and Rossi choose to use the same equipment for measurements.

Well, I assume they talked about it, and decided this was a good choice of instruments and techniques. For the 2013 tests, I would have concurred. Other instruments, such as flow calorimeters, would not work well.

Rossi often does know what he is doing. I think he knows how things should be done. That is why his crappy tests are unforgivable -- and highly suspicious. For example, in one test he brought a high quality handheld thermocouple reader with four slots and an SD-card holder. That was an good choice of instruments. If he had placed all 4 TCs in carefully selected locations, it would have produced convincing results. However, he used only two thermocouples and he did not bother to insert an SD card! So Mats Lewan had to periodically read the meter and write down the numbers manually. I do not think that was sloppy, or stupid. I think it was a deliberate effort to produce low quality, iffy, unconvincing data.

Jim Patterson once set up an demonstration that as deliberately designed with low-quality, unreliable instruments so that it would produce half-assed, somewhat-believable results. I saw it with a group of people including George Miley, who asked me, "why are they using such cheap amateur instruments?" I had no idea at the time. Years later I learned it was deliberate. They wanted to impress some people at Motorola, but not make it too convincing, to avoid triggering competition from other people. From Miley, I guess. They wanted a 100% market share. That was a lunatic business strategy.

Quote from THHuxleynew

On evidence now from Lugano, here is what I think. Levi (not et al) installed his equipment (of type recommended by Rossi) as Rossi suggested in a Rossi-designed setup. The test methodology was all determined by Rossi. With those parameters I would not trust the results.

It seems like a pretty good choice of instruments and a reasonable setup. I don't see why it matters whether it was designed by Rossi or by Attila the Hun. Levi could evaluate the instruments and techniques on their own merits no matter who designed them. Or, if he could not do this, he had no business doing the test.

Other methods of measuring heat such as flow calorimetry would not work well at these temperatures and power levels.

I think you have to have a technical reason not to trust the results. I do not see how Rossi could select these instruments and techniques with a hidden agenda to produce the wrong answer, but you, or I, or Levi would not see that. Instruments do what they are supposed to do, and Levi is supposed to know what it is they do. Or he shouldn't be doing the tests.

These are off the shelf instruments, and many people would come up with a similar design. If these were non-standard instruments, peculiar instruments or instruments designed by Rossi himself, that would be a reason not to trust them. For example, the instruments used in the 1-year test in Florida were off the wall. The wrong types, the wrong size, installed incorrectly according to the manuals, with key instruments deliberately removed. Using a flow meter that only measures to the nearest 1000 L is utterly ridiculous. Using it in what is clearly a gravity return pipe, as you see from the photos -- when the manual says "don't do that!" -- is outrageous. I assumed that when people saw those details alone -- never mind all the other problems! -- they would dismiss the whole test as a farce. I was surprised at how many Rossi supporters continue to support him. People like Axil manage to this by the time-honored method of refusing to look at the report. Others, I cannot fathom.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Et al turned up (I think only for the second experiment) and probably looked at what there was asking a few questions that would have been satisfactorily fielded.

The second experiment (Lugano) was a fiasco. Much worse. At a minimum they should have left the thermocouple on the surface of the reactor to confirm the IR camera results. So, if Rossi designed the first experiment and the second was designed by a committee of A. N. Others et al., Rossi did a better job by himself.

I do not know who designed the first experiment. It might have been Rossi. Whoever it was, I wish that person had more say in the Lugano experiment.

JedRothwell ,

I don't have any problem with instruments used by Rossi and the testers per se. However, I would be much happier if the independent testers brought equivalent instruments of a different make from Rossi's equipment, so that if there are settings or "strange tricks" or whatever that could be used with equipment Rossi was familiar with, these could not be easily done with different equipment. It just help keep any ideas of faking things with equipment tricks out of the picture. Any tricks, if there were any, would have to ones universal to measurements by that style, rather than specific type/brand, of measurement equipment.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I don't have any problem with instruments used by Rossi and the testers per se. However, I would be much happier if the independent testers brought equivalent instruments of a different make from Rossi's equipment,

As I recall, Levi et al. brought their own instruments from the university.

Regarding "independent tester" -- I do not know if Levi qualifies as an "independent tester." I gather he is Rossi's friend, but I do not know to what extent.

As I said, the 2013 test was pretty good. Not a slam drunk, but good. It should have been followed by a better test, and another test after that, and yet another test, this time by a different group. If that had continued until 5 or 10 groups had seen the effect, using a variety of instruments that they selected, by now we would all be convinced the effect is real. That is how things are supposed to work. Replication! Until that happens, we can't be sure. That does not mean we should reject the finding, it just means we can't be sure.

It is not reasonable to demand a single test that will convince you the effect is real. Or that it is not real. Make or break tests have seldom happened in the history of science. Even the first transistor amplifier test was iffy. They could not be sure it was amplifying until the next day or a few days later when they attached it in a feedback loop and saw sine waves. As I have often said, the first flight of a powered airplane on Dec. 17, 1903 looked a lot like many previous powered flights, except those earlier ones were not flights, by a strict engineering definition. They were uncontrolled, powered hops. Only an expert could tell the difference. Fortunately, the world's two top experts were there.

(Orville later spelled how and why this was the first sustained and controlled flight. I cannot find the document at the moment.)

Quote from JedRothwell

As I recall, Levi et al. brought their own instruments from the university.

Regarding "independent tester" -- I do not know if Levi qualifies as an "independent tester." I gather he is Rossi's friend, but I do not to what extent.

Perhaps it is the other way around, then, where Rossi purchased the same instruments as used in the test. It that case there is no coincidence, and not really much more to say about it.

I seem to recall an Optris in his Bologna space, when Aftenposten did their film. Perhaps late 2011 or early 2012. (Where the flat square reactor held together with with clamps was on a metal stand). I could be mixing that up with the validation test though. I'll look.

EDIT: The July 16, 2012 test by Penon seems to be where the Optris shows up first, as far as I can tell.

Hmmm, that's strange ...

The keywords "Paradigmnoia", "Optris" are normally enough to trigger randombit0.

Let's add "bandwith", "spectral emissivity of alumina" and "measurement error".

Does it work?

bang99 ,

Try this :

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

He did not invest. He and I discussed the technical issues and our impressions of Rossi's personality and credibility. There was never any investment to discuss, and he would not have asked me about that.

I know, Scanlan didn't invest, but at that time he was anyway a "potential" investors. Maybe many others like him were contacted without success. We know his story thanks to the mail that he sent to CMNS, and that Krivit published, where he wrote: "Prior to the meeting I had constructed a consortium committed to funding $15mil provided we could establish mutually agreed upon test conditions." Now, in a previous comment, you just confirmed that meeting, and informed us that exactly the same day you spoke with him. So we can wonder if it was by coincidence, or if someone at the meeting (assuming you were not there) invited Scanlan to call you, in order to be reassured about the Ecat results.

Quote

I have talked to just about everyone in the field at one time or another about a variety of subjects, but not about investments. No one is interested in my opinion about that, nor should they be, since I know nothing about it. Okay, I guess I can say: "I do not buy claims by Prof. X. so I would not recommend investing in his work."

I didn't mean that you acted as an investment adviser. But at that time you were by large the main promoter on the web of the reliability of the results claimed by the professors who tested the Ecat. In that same month of June 2011, you claimed on Vortex to be aware of some unpublished information about the Levi's tests, and about some other private tests (1), and this unique knowledge even allowed you to write (2): "People today who claim they will not believe cold fusion, and the Rossi device in particular, until it is shown in self-sustaining mode, are being ridiculous."

(1) https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg48078.html

(2) https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg47569.html

Quote from Ascoli65

Now, in a previous comment, you just confirmed that meeting, and informed us that exactly the same day you spoke with him. So we can wonder if it was by coincidence, or if someone at the meeting (assuming you were not there) invited Scanlan to call you, in order to be reassured about the Ecat results.

Nope. I knew him long before that. I knew he was going to meet with Rossi. I had no inside knowledge of the e-cat results. Only what was published by Lewan and in Vortex. I have never met Rossi, although I used to e-mail him often.

He knows that I would never endorse a result that I have not spent weeks or months investigating first hand.

It was a disappointment. He ducked a bullet, didn't he? He is a smart guy.

@ JedRothwell,

Quote from JedRothwell

I knew he was going to meet with Rossi. I had no inside knowledge of the e-cat results. Only what was published by Lewan and in Vortex.

Thank you for all your answers, but in the mail to Vortex, linked in my previous comment, you wrote: "Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about this test, and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge amount of information, but enough to give me more confidence in the results."

In another mail to Vortex, you wrote (1): "Only a few details were released. If you believe these details, then the second test conclusively confirmed the first. […] I heard a few more details about the test than have been released, so I have somewhat more confidence. I was expecting they would publish all that they told me, and more. As I said, I am disappointed they have not. It is unprofessional."

Quote

I have never met Rossi, although I used to e-mail him often.

I don't know who provided you with all the unpublished information that you said you were aware of. You cited Levi in a subsequent mail to Vortex (2): "Also, as I said, I am a little irritated with Levi for not publishing a detailed description of the second test."

But in the previous comment you were using the plural ("they told me"), so it seems that since the very beginning of this saga you were in personal contact with more than one of the people who tested the Ecat.

(1) https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg48014.html

(2) https://www.mail-archive.com/v…@eskimo.com/msg48070.html

Quote from Ascoli65

Thank you for all your answers, but in the mail to Vortex, linked in my previous comment, you wrote: "Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about this test, and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge amount of information, but enough to give me more confidence in the results."

That was another test, years earlier. Independent as far as I know. I wish they would publish it, but they still will not. I guess by now after all that happened to I.H. and in Florida, those old results are no longer credible. Subsequent tests devalued them, the way they devalued the 2013 Levi tests.

Quote from Ascoli65

But in the previous comment you were using the plural ("they told me"), so it seems that since the very beginning of this saga you were in personal contact with more than one of the people who tested the Ecat.

That was before Rossi thought of the name "E-cat". He was still working with Focardi.

In a video Focardi once discussed a similar machine. It was space heater installed in a factory. Photos of it have circulated, and it was mentioned in a patent. He said it it worked. I have no details and no idea why he thought it worked, or what sort of calorimetry was applied. Really, it is just a rumor. Anyway, I have somewhat more info. on the other tests, and the machine looks about the same size and vintage to me.

If the thing did work, then Rossi is crazy. Why didn't he demonstrate it and develop it? He would have a trillion dollars by now! None of this makes sense. I grew tired of thinking about it many years ago. I try not to think about Rossi, or Patterson, or the other wasted opportunities and missed chances. (Assuming Rossi is about a missed chance and not just fraud -- but who knows?)