Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from MrSelfSustain

    What do you think about the 18 hour test that Dr. Levi conducted back in 2011.

    I do not know about it. Was it described in this paper, which is in Portuguese for some reason?


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


    I don't speak Portuguese, and Google translate has its limits, so I cannot judge. The text of the first paragraphs is appended below.

    Quote from MrSelfSustain

    Although the numbers might be slightly off -- I'd have to go look them up -- he reported that after a short warm up period using a greater quantity of power, the reactor produced 15kW (with a spike of 130kW) for eighteen hours, utilizing only about a hundred watts which was consumed by the control box.

    That sounds interesting but until it is repeated several times it has no significance. It doesn't mean a thing. As Tom Darden says, you have to "crush the tests." That means you do it again and again, over several weeks or months, with good instruments. Also you calibrate and you do blank tests that do not produce an effect.


    You also have to use good instruments. MOST IMPORTANT, other people have to independently replicate it. Then, and only then, we can be confident the result is real. Until you reach that point it may be interesting. It may be worth investigating, and worth investing in. It may be fun. But it ain't real. You can't believe it. You shouldn't not believe it, either. You just don't know.


    One of the essential skills in science is to learn to live with not knowing the answer. Also to know that you do not know. Misplaced assurance causes big problems.


    Here is the Google translated text from that paper:


    Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device in the corporation

    Leonardo, Bologna March 29, 2011.
    Participants: Giuseppe Levi, David Bianchini, Carlo Leonardi, Hanno Essen,
    Sven Kullander, Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi.
    Report of the event by Hanno Essen and Sven Kullander, April 3, 2011.


    We met at the Leonardo Corporation building, where the 10 kW apparatus for the production of anomalous energy by nickel and hydrogen was demonstrated during a press conference on January 14. References [1] to [4] for the original articles describing the innovation are listed at the end. In the same building, two CHP facilities were placed, based on biodiesel from residues that Andrea Rossi had developed prior to its activity in Ni-H present.

    The present test was done on a smaller device [5] than the 10 kW device that has been used before during the January press conference. One of the reasons for this is safety according to Rossi. The conclusions of the papers [1] to [4] are that nickel and hydrogen provide the process nuclear fuel inside a small vessel that is shielded from radiation and that no radiation other than environmental radiation has been found in the room.


    Figures 1 and 2 below show the isolated device used for the experiment along with three standby devices. As can be seen on the naked devices, there is a horizontal section with a central container. The tube is copper, the reaction chamber is hidden inside the central part of stainless steel, according to Rossi. Note the main heating resistance, positioned around the copper tube made of stainless steel (Figure 3) you can read the dimensions and rated power (50mm diameter and 300W). The vertical chimney is for the escape of water vapor. The inlet of cooling water of about 18 ° C comes from a reservoir through a pump (yellow). The clear blue rubber hose from the reservoir to the device is visible above the yellow pump to the left of the picture in figure 1. To the right in the chimney, a heavy black rubber hose for high temperatures leads to hot water / steam To the sink in the adjoining room wall. At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the heating and also to act as safety if the heat evolution gets out of control. The central container shown in Figure 3 has an estimated volume of 50 cm 3 and contains 50 grams of nickel. The container has at its top, a pipe to receive the hydrogen. During the execution the device was used to the right of the devices, figure 4, which is surrounded by a lead shield 2 cm thick and with an insulation, as Rossi stated, Figure 5. We had free access to the electric heater, the hose Inlet water, steam valve 2, outlet hose water and the hydrogen feed pipe.


    The total weight of the device was estimated at about 4 kg.


    Calibrations. The inlet water flow was calibrated as follows. The time to fill 0.5 liters of water in a bottle was measured to be 278 seconds. Visual checks showed that the flow of water was free of bubbles. Sized for a flow of 6.47 kg / hour (assuming the density of 1 kg / liter). The water temperature was 18 ° C. The specific heat of water, 4.18 joule / gram / ° C which equals 1.16 W / kg / ° C which is used to calculate the energy required to carry 1 kg Of water 18-100 ° C. The result is 1.16 (100-18) = 95 W / kg. The heat of vaporization is 630 W / kg. Assuming all water will be vaporized, the energy required to bring one kg of water from 18 ° C to steam is 95 630 = 725 W / kg. To heat the adjusted water flow of 6.47 kg / hour from 18 ° C to steam will require 7.256.47 = 4.69 kW / hr. The power required for heating and vaporization is therefore 4.69 kW. It should be noted that no error analysis was done, but according to Giuseppe Levi, a 5% error in measuring water flow is a reasonable over estimate. Even with this error, the conclusions will not change due to the magnitude of the observed effects. . . .

    Hi, zeus46,

    Quote from zeus46

    let's just skip to the good stuff.... If your thesis is correct, who (or what) was ultimately behind the hoax, and what benefit did/do they derive from it?


    Sorry, I have no thesis. I'm just proposing to consider some important aspects which are usually ignored in this debate.


    As for the benefit, we are talking about energy. Everyone is benefited, in some way, by the use of energy. So, it's not a matter of "they", but of "we". We know that the energy resources are limited. The CF/LENR proponents, as well as those of other revolutionary energy technologies, promise a way to have safe, cheap and limitless energy. These promises influence the way in which we use the present energy sources, so they affect the lives of all of us, as well as those of our descendants. It's very difficult to evaluate the consequences, in terms of benefit (and of its opposite), deriving from this hoax.

    That paper does not describe the test I'm referring to. In the test I'm referring to, there was no phase change.


    http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/IE96Rossi.pdf



    Here is another reference.


    http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…cludes-combustion-6421304

    Quote from MrSelfSustain

    That paper does not describe the test I'm referring to. In the test I'm referring to, there was no phase change.

    Ah. So there was a test on Jan. 14, 2011, and another (described in Portuguese) on March 29, 2011.


    The description by Scott Chubb in I.E. has almost no technical details. I cannot draw any conclusions from it. Lewan's description is no better.


    Before I believe anything, I want to see the test repeated again and again. I want to see calibrations and blank tests. I want to see spreadsheets and graphs with detailed, minute by minute measurements of the flow rate, and the temperature measured at different points with different instrument types, the ambient temperature, and any other relevant data. I want to see a careful analysis written by someone who has done that kind of calorimetry before.


    If it passes those tests, good! We're getting somewhere. Then, as I said, someone else has to test the machine independently. Then someone has to make a machine from scratch, and show that it works.


    What you see here in these two reports does not meet the essential first steps for a scientific evaluation. These are interesting news items. Your only response should be: "I look forward to seeing the details." Don't dismiss these reports, but don't get excited either. You can't draw any conclusions from them. Believe me, I have seen dozens of similar reports of interesting results over the years which evaporated like the Cheshire cat.



    I see that Scott Chubb's article ends with a typical idiotic Rossi statement:


    Rossi tells IE, "We are making a thorough series of tests with the University of Bologna, which will be 12 months long with a reactor in operation 24 hours per day. During this year we will make a long theory of measurements and tests, also in collaboration with CERN researchers. A report will be made at the end of the 12 months of measurements."


    I said we need a few weeks of testing. Not 12 months, for crying out loud! I'll bet this was the genesis of the 1-year travesty in Florida, where he set up the wrong kind of instruments with a configuration that could never work, and then he either wrote down the numbers once a day, or made them up when he was not in the mood to glance at the instruments. No computer data, and no graphs. No consultation with experts or licensed engineers. No mid-course corrections in response to criticism. No independent measurements. That test should not have continued for one hour, never mind one year. During that test, everyone who learned the details about it, including me, said it was ridiculous and should be stopped. I was hoping it had been stopped, fixed and done over.


    Continuing a stupid, misguided test for one year does not make it any better than a stupid test that lasts a few hours. It doesn't improve with age, like wine in a barrel.


    The Lugano test was another 1-year fiasco. Kept in the dark for no reason for a whole year! They should have consulted with experts after the first days. Any expert would have told them they needed to calibrate through the full range of input and output power, and they needed to use more than an IR camera. Heck, I am no expert, but I would have told them that in 5 seconds. Plus I would have told them the orange color of the thing indicates it is at ~800 W. And where the hell are your calibrations?!?

    Rossi has claimed self sustained operation from the earliest days of his research. This test seems to be an example of one of his systems performing at high power in self-sustain mode. This was one of his earliest systems, but he continued to assert -- up until the Quark X -- that every one of his reactors were capable of self sustaining without input while producing high levels of output. Continual operation at high power output without input is the Holy Grail of cold fusion research. And, if you can achieve it utilizing a cheap element like nickel (or recycling reverse spillover catalysts like palladium) the paradigm shattering potential goes up even higher. As far as I'm concerned, the whole freaking debate about Andrea Rossi and the validity of his technology should revolve around his technologies ability to self sustain at high power. This is the most central specific claim he's made about his technology. After claiming to be able to achieve self sustain from the start (TEN YEARS AGO) he should certainly be able to produce the same results today with his increased knowledge, experience, know how, and understanding of the Rossi Effect. I personally have no doubt he is capable of making systems self sustain -- although others feel differently. Now, if he would ever be willing to openly and completely share such know how with another party is up for debate. I think the truth is that the so called "secret sauce" isn't too hard to figure out if someone with an obsessive compulsive mindset and a crazy work ethic is willing to run experiments non-stop for a couple months. I think this is how Me356 figured out how to get results.


    Back to what I was speaking about, I think the whole debate about COPs of 1, 1.3, 2, and so on is a total joke. Even higher COPs that may seem more significant (lets say 3-10) are meaningless when self sustained operation is possible. I personally wish that the judge would look at Andrea Rossi and say, "You've been claiming that your reactors can operate for hours at a time without input for ten years. I've reviewed the patents, documents, transcripts, and blog posts where you have repeated this hundreds of times. If this lawsuit is going to continue, I want to see such a reactor operate with my own eyes with my own court appointed engineers taking measurements."


    If Rossi wanted to do so, I am confident he could satisfy such a request from the judge. But I'm not convinced that even under direct threat of life imprisonment that he'd obey an order that he didn't agree with -- even if he lost everything. But I think if some sort of request or push for such a test could be made, it would be far more productive than squabbling and debating about low COP figures. With the so called "hot cats" we're depending on temperature figures from IR cameras that can be debated for months on end. Such never ending arguments have happened on this forum! With such a self sustaining system, a control and an active system (the only difference being one with hydrogen and one with none) would have an equal amounts of power supplied. If after warm up and triggering the self sustaining system operated for hours producing a flow of heat with no input power (AFTER THE CONTROL COOLED DOWN TO NEAR AMBIENT) the evidence would be rock solid. You wouldn't need a freaking IR camera and advanced calculations to see what was taking place!


    I sure hope in the deposition of Andrea Rossi that his claims about self sustained operation of his systems are brought up again and again. His under oath answers about them should be placed on the record. Maybe his description of getting a reactor up and running (with only heat/pressure variations), cutting the power off, and allowing it to run for hours at a time in self sustain mode would entice the judge to ask for proof!


    Again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know if there is any realistic situation in which a judge would ask for a demonstration in a case like this. But if I were IH, it would by my number one goal if my lawyers claimed the strategy was viable.


    If I end up reading excerpts from Rossi's deposition where low COPs are debated, I'll probably barf.


    Again, HE CLAIMS THE FREAKING HOLY GRAIL AND HAS FROM ThE START!

    Dewey,

    The photos were stills snapped from either Sterling's tour of the Plant, and/or possibly from a Ny Teknik video where they went around the Plant the same day.


    Jed,

    I have that "Levi" 2011 paper in English that you suggested was in Portugese . The Dept. of Radiation Sciences is listed as Author in the document properties.

    This should be it here: Essen and Kullander Travel Report 2011

    Quote from Ascoli65

    It's very difficult to evaluate the consequences, in terms of benefit (and of its opposite), deriving from this hoax.

    The consequences are awful, awful, awful. Much worse than people realize. Rossi may have strangled what little hope remained for cold fusion. Now, it may be lost forever because of him.


    Many dreadful things have happened in the history of cold fusion. I guess the worst events were the initial ones, such as the attacks by the scientific establishment, scientists getting fired, experiments sabotaged, Stan Pons driven out the country . . .


    Rossi ranks number two in damage. He may be the final blow that destroys the field and any hope of cold fusion energy for mankind.

    Para - thank you - I had not seen those before.


    If I may ask another question - from your Weekend Drop slide, did you load in the Reported COP, Tank T C and 100.1 Tank T C data from the Rossi produced exhibit that contained Penon Annex data for this graph?

    Also, I believe that you said that you overlaid FPL daily data along with the FF and Penon data on the same graph. Some stretching and squeezing was needed but you made it turn out nicely.

    Are these correct assumptions? If yes, did you use PNGs in layers to make the final chart?


    Apologies for so many questions - curious as to how you produced the chart.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I have that Levi 2011 paper in English that you suggested was in Portugese . The Dept. of Radiation Sciences is listed as Author in the document properties.

    Is it this one? Please check.


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


    Apparently I have a version in Portuguese as well, which I pulled up while searching for this one. I must have pressed the wrong button. This is the one in Portuguese:


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


    This is pretty good. I think it has more detail than the English version. I don't recall where I got it. I have several good papers in Portuguese, mainly from Brazil.


    I wish I had more material in Italian.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    The consequences are awful, awful, awful. Much worse than people realize. Rossi may have strangled what little hope remained for cold fusion. Now, it may be lost forever because of him.


    Many dreadful things have happened in the history of cold fusion. I guess the worst events were the initial ones, such as the attacks by the scientific establishment, scientists getting fired, experiments sabotaged, Stan Pons driven out the country . . .


    Rossi ranks number two in damage. He may be the final blow that destroys the field and any hope of cold fusion energy for mankind.


    If Rossi has what he claims -- regardless if he has behaved morally or ethically -- I don't think he has strangled cold fusion. Even if the worst case happened and evidence came out to prove his trickery at Doral was absolute and total, there is enough known about his technology and enough replicators having success for high powered Ni-H and/or Ni-H-Li to thrive. For example, there are a number of replicators whom I think produced valid results such as Songsheng, Parkhomov, other Russian teams, and other parties who are doing work quietly and confidentially. All it will take is for one person like Me356 (with an obsessive compulsive mindset and endless supply of energy) to perform long series of tests changing individual parameters (mostly about optimizing hydrogen absorption) until success arrives and be willing to share all the details. Once the know how to optimize hydrogen absorption (with simutaneous creation of the dislocations/defects in the lattice which are the NAE) for a specific purity/grade/size of nickel powder (or wire) in a specific reactor design, more replications would follow.


    So, in the worst case, I think Rossi may possibly have slowed down the acceptance of Ni-H by being unwilling to cooperate more closely with partners. Basically, the "Patterson Syndrome" was at work. If he had been willing to partner with a company in 2011, sharing EVERYTHING, I think we could have LENR devices sold at Walmart today. But I think via the replications of his work by multiple parties, a trail of tests have been established that will keep Ni-H research going. My hope is that in the not too distant future various parties will be ready to openly share results from their successful tests. Then again, some of these individuals may come down with "Patterson Syndrome" as well -- a highly contagious disease. In the best case, which may not happen, the lawsuit somehow ends up with Doral not being a total sham, him not being thrown into jail, and the Quark X somehow being further developed. But I really hate even mentioning the Doral test, because it distracts from his original claims that no one seems to care about. Either he was telling the truth about self sustain or not: I don't see room for a middle ground. I wish this issue would be pushed in court.

    Dewey Weaver ,

    The combo was made in Photoshop, after the main graph was made in Excel. I used the ERV data to plot the input power in Excell, (with COP etc.), to line up the IH exhibit left-right, and the used the scale to get the up-down correct.

    All linework from the IH Exhibit of the FLP-Penon-Fabiani was extracted from the Exhibit image, by selecting the background color, then inverting the selection so anything other than background could be cut-pasted onto a JPEG of the Excel plot.

    I have since converted the FLP data by extracting it from the plot. Not perfect, but rather good anyway. Looks like the FLP data starts a day ahead of the ERV report data, so I had to stick in a day 0 at the start to get it to sit in the right spot relative to the IH Exhibit graph.

    (I have added something like 15 extra columns to the Excel conversion by Malcolm, trying things out. (I cleaned up the obvious billing period up-down spikes from the FLP data).


    Below is the Photoshop version, I used for confirmation that my FLP data conversion is OK. Blue lines (under the green line) are my conversion, green the original. The IH Penon ERV line and the ERV data lines are also on top of each other.

    The second image is just a look to see what it looks like when the month end spikes are removed from the FLP line. The green spikes are the original FLP values, coming out from under the orange line.

    Quote from MrSelfSustain

    As far as I'm concerned, the whole freaking debate about Andrea Rossi and the validity of his technology should revolve around his technologies ability to self sustain at high power.

    I don't believe that claim. He has never demonstrated that to anyone with the instruments and ability to confirm it. Fleischmann and Pons demonstrated self-sustaining, heat after death cells hundreds of times, to outside observers. Four cells at a time, repeated again and again for months. They published peer reviewed papers describing the effect. Other researchers replicated them. That's how you do science. Just making a claim on an Internet blog doesn't cut it.

    Quote from MrSelfSustain

    If I end up reading excerpts from Rossi's deposition where low COPs are debated, I'll probably barf.


    Again, HE CLAIMS THE FREAKING HOLY GRAIL AND HAS FROM ThE START!

    He claims this, that and an onion. It means nothing without proper scientific proof, independent testing, and independent replication.


    The guy is toxic. He has negative credibility. We knew all along he was sloppy and incompetent. He is the kind of guy who nearly causes an explosion when guests from NASA are there, and then freaks out, yells, carries on like a lunatic and throws them out because they refuse to pay a million bucks! That happened! Everyone who was there told me about it. Now we know he will send fake data from a ridiculous test and try to use it to sue for $89 million.


    Also, do not be fooled by high power results. Low COP, high COP . . . they can both be flat out wrong. I have seen that before. People honestly thought they were seeing kilowatts of excess heat, when they actually had nothing. On the other hand, Rossi's one-year test was far worse than any previous example I know of. It was supposedly 1 MW but anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it was at the kilowatt level, and probably produced no heat at all. It is impossible to say with those instruments and that configuration. The error margin is gigantic.

    Jed,



    I didn't think you would believe the claim. But since you don't and it seems IH doesn't, I think the claim would be the easiest and most straightforward attack path for anyone who believed as you do. By going for this central claim, I think Rossi could either be validated to the world, or less likely in my opinion, refuted and exposed as the arch conman so many people claim he is. Basically, if someone came up to me and claimed to be a multi-billionaire (and not a monk seeking to live out a vow of poverty while giving it away to charities) I wouldn't be convinced just because he drove up to my home in a brand new Ford Mustang. I'd want to see the ninety foot catamaran he bragged about over dinner, the ten thousand square foot mansion in Beverly Hills, or speak to the administrator of the library he claimed to donate a million dollars to. Just about any one with a modest income could figure out a way to lease a low range sports car and lie about it. But there would be little room to deny their wealth once out in the middle of the Atlantic with them dining on lobster prepared by their private chef.


    What I'm saying is that Rossi has literally claimed the "world" so to speak, but potential investors and partners have been satisfied with what would represents a few kitchen scraps dug up from his waste bin. It's ridiculous in my opinion.


    I've dreamed many times of winning the lottery. If I were ever to do so (I only spend one dollar for one ticket maybe once every month) at this point I probably would try to start my own replication project. But years ago, before I know what I know now about Rossi's behavior, I probably would have tried to support his work with a large donation without remuneration. However, and I thought about this many times, in that hypothetical situation I would have demanded to see a self sustaining system at high power along with a control reactor. If that is what he claimed from the start, it would be what I wanted to see. If he wouldn't allow the test, I would have walked away and spent the money on some other type of exotic research.

    Quote

    But I really hate even mentioning the Doral test, because it distracts from his original claims that no one seems to care about. Either he was telling the truth about self sustain or not: I don't see room for a middle ground. I wish this issue would be pushed in court.


    I care about Rossi's early tests. I followed them with interest and faint hope but the time and the evidence of false results is a common and highly visible theme. Levi's 18 hour test, for example, is an anecdotal report with no data. Levi himself has been known unreliable in the case of Lugano - where he consistently misinterprets IR measurements. In one early test he is on record as recording a flowrate higher than possible from the relevant pump (this was discussed on Mats old thread and I'm not claiming to have done more than half-validated what oytehrs were saying - it was quite complex). Dewey here claims to have proof that Levi was unreliable in the chain of custody of an Al2O3 sample. Certainly the isotopic change results are effectively impossible to explain except as switched material - though there are many ways this could have happened.


    My point is that Levi is thoroughly unreliable as a reporter of Rossi's experiments. You don't need to consider the issue of why that is to note the fact. This 18 hour no phase change test has no data. It is therefore impossible to evaluate it, even were the experimenter concerned reliable.


    Finally it should be noted that Rossi has done other non-phase change tests showing apparent large excess where the results are neatly explained by TC mis-siting. Yet other tests have Triac control and input power measurements using average meters, guaranteed to underestimate input power by a large factor.


    Far from forgetting the old Rossi tests it is this very long sequence every one of which is bad (in different ways) that would make any open-minded person extremely cautious about Rossi. The fact that Rossi developed a fan club that ignored these defects is unfortunate in many ways.


    Making binary statements about truth does not clarify things. Just as guessing motivation does not clarify. The facts around Rossi's tests point to a consistent pattern of cleverly false results. That adjective does not imply they are deliberately false, though I cannot rule that out.

    THH,


    There is more data from the 18 hour test, I think, if someone is willing to dig around the web. However, even years ago, I had to scrounge around the internet to find more specifics. At this moment I don't know if all the documents are still available. For example, Mats Lewan posted several comments on various sites with input powers, flow rates, and quotes from Dr. Levi. I remember a few of the posts -- while not formal reports by any means -- contained a decent amount of information. Back then, studying the information I gathered, it convinced me the test was legitimate. Again, like everyone wants to force me to repeat over and over again at risk of being lynched, I'm not an engineer so no one should trust a word I say any more than they should eat the feces from their sewer drain in their back yard.


    I personally think Dr. Levi is trustworthy -- although I've never met him in person. Over the years I've only heard good things about him -- except for various accusations on this forum and a few other places on the net. Do I think he is infallible? Of course not. But I think the chance that he would intentionally deceive anyone about performance of an E-Cat or analysis of a sample is extremely low. If I were a replicator seeking an analysis of my data or a fuel sample, I would have full confidence he would be totally honest about the results. As a human being he could make an error, but I would have zero concern about dishonesty. In a similar manner I think Focardi was trustworthy. Those who think he intentionally went along with Rossi to promote a fake technology, knowing it was all a scam, are hateful people, in my opinion.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.