Different lab - similar results. Nada. Capish?
And another NDA bites the dust.
Snidely Whiplash thinks he struck again.
Except, if you look at the discussion so far on ECW
So far, it has only been posted for about 8 hours and already....
"...... (like consulting on how to build a jet engine), and much less than actually testing one. Considering they are showing up on Rossi's side and not being brought out by IH, that also is suggestive (could be they are the ones behind JMP in that case,......" (emphasis mine)
Nice, three supportive rolls being pointed to!
"Keeping up with/ahead of the Airbus work?"
"Presuming Rossi's revocation of IH's license to the E-Cat IP & technology holds up in court, I can only imagine Darden's regret"
Give it another 12 hours!
Bob - they'll continue to create alternate realities as long as they possibly can. Fake news is real news on Planet Rossi.
Interesting Dewey, good to know.
A self sustaining E-Cat (especially a Quark X) producing continual electrical output could power an EM Drive or other exotic propulsion technology.
Yes. So could unicorn farts.
Of course much more work would need to be done to guarantee reliability and space worthiness,
Indeed, much more work would be needed. First, you have to actually invent the thing.
This is why I do not feel that someone who has more knowledge is a threat to me.
To me too. Anyway what I'm talking about it's not secret, it comes from the web, and I always indicate the links to the pages where I find the information. The only difference between us is that we probably are more attentive to different aspects, so we tend to remember different details of this story.Quote
Who or what do you refer to? What director or producers?
I'll tell you. The Ecat saga is too long and too complex to be attributed to a single person. As in a movie, the protagonist doesn't coincide usually with the director and the producers. However, I don't know who they are, but I think it's necessary to figure out who they could be in order to understand the many obscure points of this story.
In order to do that, a good starting point has been recently provided by Krivit:Quote
Krivit, on November 2, 2016 (1):
"That is precisely the analysis of potential investor Brian Scanlan, who met Rossi and Darden at a meeting arranged by Michael Melich and Marianne Macy. (PDF) The husband-and-wife team of Melich and Macy was the first Rossi promoter in the LENR community. They strongly encouraged members of the LENR community to support Rossi and the E-Cat idea; Melich compared Rossi to inventor Nikola Tesla. Scanlan eventually saw through the smoke."
This only excerpt lists the main protagonists of this story. Krivit talks of a single meeting. In reality there have been at least 2 meetings in different times and with different people, as explained in the mail linked in the Krivit's article:Quote
From Scanlan to CMNS on April 11, 2016 (2):
"In June 2011 I met Rossi in Miami along with his partners from Leonardo. Mike Melich and Maryanne Macy were also present. Prior to the meeting I had constructed a consortium committed to funding $15mil [...omissis...] Rossi is a character sprung from Hollywood central casting.
I met with Tom Darden only once, in February 2014 in NYC for several hours. [...]"
These quotes give rise to some other questions. Let's just consider a pair. It seems that Melich had a proactive role in finding some financing for the Ecat back in June 2011, before the breaking of the agreement with Defkalion. This attempt didn't succeed, but I wonder: did he also the same with the IH investors? In particular, is there some relationship with the following comment?Quote
Dewey Weaver on L-F, June 26, 2016 (3):
"I spoke with another of the US Navy researchers who were involved with the Rossi investigation years back. They reached the same conclusion as IH. Rossi's mysterious sale to the US military did not go to Navy and his test / demos did not work to the satisfaction of the most respected hard science scientist in the mix."
Ascoli65 - good to see you posting in this forum.
The NRL researcher that you reference in your above quote was not Michael Melich although I have had numerous conversations with both Michael and Marianne over the past 4 years. Very good people who really do care about this sector.
We all got fooled for at least a season.
This is a mischaracterization. Since 2011 Rossi has been the subject of much speculation and doubt both among long-time CF researchers and among hobbyists following the story on Vortex and other forums. At no point has a report from Levi received anything approaching unanimous endorsement, although his reports have been taken seriously.
I said "almost" unanimously. "Almost" is not a well defined adverb, but if you consider the number, and the importance (the weight) of the long-time members of Vortex community (at that time the most representative site debating on this subject) which strenuously supported the reliability of the data provided by Levi, I think its use is not a mischaracterization.
Krivit got the same impression, as expressed in this recent article:Quote
Krivit on November 2, 2016 (1):
"Longtime LENR researchers who played the most significant roles in promoting Rossi's fraudulent E-Cat were Michael Melich (b. 1940), Edmund Storms (b. 1931), Michael McKubre (b. 1948), David Nagel (b. 1938), and Mahadeva Srinivasan (b. 1937). Among the credulous promoters was Nobel laureate Brian Josephson (b. 1940). ..."
These people are among the main protagonists of the CF/LENR hystory. In addition, Krivit forgot (?) to mention Jed Rothwell, and his overwhelming role in support of the Ecat (2).
A sensational endorsement has been provided 4 years after the Bologna demo in the special issue of the magazine Current Science entirely devoted to the LENR (3), probably the most important acknowledgment of the field in the scientific publishing of the last years. It contains two articles by Nagel talking extensively of the Ecat results since the first tests, and a Storm review on the "main experimental findings of the LENR field" citing as first reference the Lewan book, that in turns starts with the January 2011 demo. This last has been cited even in the preface:Quote
Preface at "Corrent Science" Volume, February 25, 2015 (3):
"It is precisely at this juncture that there comes the latest twist in the LENR story. An unknown ‘outsider’, an engineer–inventor from Italy, Andrea Rossi surprised us all by announcing that he has invented a working, industrial-grade Ni–H LENR reactor. On 14 January 2011, he gave a semi-public demo of the same in the presence of an invited audience ..."
The NRL researcher that you reference in your above quote was not Michael Melich
Ok, thank you.
May I ask you some more info about the timing? I mean.
How long ago was this NRL researcher "involved with the Rossi investigation"?
And, if possible, how many NRL researchers were involved in this investigation?
When did he "reached the same conclusion as IH"?
When did he inform you about this conclusion?
What do you mean with "a season"? About 3 months or a longer period, for instance a few years?
Thank you for your attention.
Hi Ascoli, 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?
(1) Ascoli65 assumes that Rossi is either misled/deluded or is a bit player in a larger scheme. (2) Ascoli65 draws special attention to the role that Jed and other people played in championing Rossi in 2011 and on in forums such as Vortex. (3) Ascoli65 suggests that the University of Bologna and similarly reputable institutions bear a heavy responsibility for having let things get this far by allowing their name to be used in connection with Levi's endorsements. (4) And (the radical suggestion that loosely ties the others together somehow) he hints that there might be agencies such as the US Department of Defence that had a hand in orchestrating things behind the scenes for ulterior purposes. Asocli65, please correct me if I have misstated anything.
In (1), I would exclude the first option.
For the rest, it is a quite good summary and description of my position. Thank you for doing that with such a fairness. In particular, I appreciate in (4) the wording "he hints that there might be ...". It sounds to me (and I hope it is) you mean that I propose to take into serious consideration also this possibility, only as an hypothesis. Of course I have no means to demonstrate it, and therefore I'm not going to sustain it with any certainty. But I think that, for those who want to give reason of the many inconsistencies of this weird story, it's worth to debate all the many clues which point in this direction.
Ascoli65, I'm glad that I did not mangle your suggestion too much. I find (4) somewhat improbable, because there would have to be a lot of collusion/collaboration between different parties to pull it off, some of which would have been done by people I get the impression are pretty innocent (e.g., Melich). And I also do not see a big payoff for the US DoD and other agencies, representatives of which I have worked with in the past in the context of software standards deliberations. That is not to say that US agencies have not done some pretty sketchy things over the years; just that this doesn't ring true in this particular case. Also, a general impression I take away from your thesis is that you seem to want to get the University of Bologna in trouble for getting caught up in all of this, but my own impression is that its role seems to have been as an unwitting and largely innocent bystander.
"Yes. So could unicorn farts."
Then we need to track down the unicorn ranchers and buy a canister of compressed waste gases, because if it is anywhere as near as amazing as the high powered Ni-H effect the world needs to analyze them immediately. But to match the potential of the "Rossi Effect" which can produce high powered LENR, it should be able to reverse cellular aging or cure a hundred forms of cancer. Let's just hope the unicorn ranchers are straightforward, open, and not in the midst of a extremely nasty lawsuit. As an outsider to the field of unicorn flatulence -- with no time or energy spent researching the miraculous gas -- I'd rather never communicate with any of them rather than step foot on their farm only to become part of a fecal matter fight. I guess I'll tip toe towards unicorn-fart-forums.com and try to determine if the field is safe to enter. If I'm being paranoid and they is no war going on, then I'll immediately start figuring out how to obtain a sample of their absolutely strongest vapors. Not just any kind mind you, but the ones claimed to hang around in the atmosphere in a self sustaining manner for several hours -- giving off a sweet flowery scent. Maybe we can get a major medical research center involved for a clinical trial. We can expose some elderly lab mice to the gas and let them take puffs -- along with a control group -- and compare their appearance, running performance, gene expression, and lifespan.
Ascoli65 - Seasons are relative and I do not plan to share details around NRL related conversations that I have been having since ICCF-18. I was initially concerned about CF suppression by DoD scientist but was able to eventually resolve that they are good hard science folks who mainly want/wanted to get to the bottom of things. In retrospect, I never picked up on any living trail of collusion or conspiracy for or against CF from any Gov't related entity. I've learned that more than one of the surviving elders who were so strongly opposed to the CF sector in the early days are now wondering if they will end up on the wrong side of history. Speaking of the wrong side of history, Rossi saw the CF sector as ripe for his skills and soiree'd right on into the mix with his patented methodology and business model. He is truly one of the best at what he does and may this cycle be his last regarding his ability to take advantage of well-meaning people.
I do believe that one individual in particular at Bologna U should have to answer some questions about his long term relationship with the Rossi. There are just too many questionable events that he was deeply involved in. If I was you - I'd hunt there for some truth and justice. We're in the process of getting things taken care of things on this side of the pond.
In addition, Krivit forgot (?) to mention Jed Rothwell, and his overwhelming role in support of the Ecat (2).
That's a bit unfair. The quote from me at the end of Lewan's book is not what you would call overwhelming. As I often say, it was wrapped in layers of academic-style plausible deniability. I have seen too many claims come and go in this field to give full-throated support to one that has not been independently replicated. Also, I have no influence. I can't even persuade researchers to use the correct SI units in their papers.
I certainly agree that I thought, on balance, some of Rossi's claims were true. I still think some of them may be. The first study by Levi still seems valid to me:
There are some weaknesses here, but it seems pretty good to me.
The second study by Levi et al. (Lugano) has many more problems than the first one. That is disconcerting. Usually, a follow-up study is better, not worse.
The 1-year test was a travesty. The worst I have seen, and I have seen a lot of bad research. In other words, Rossi went from okay, to bad, to dreadful.
His earlier tests were inconclusive. Even before the first Levi study, Rossi had several strikes against him, in my opinion. I have described them many times:
- When Rossi & I become acquainted, his first act was refuse to let me visit and measure the flow rate and temperatures with my own instruments. That's a bad sign!
- The events described in the letter from Scanlan disturbed me. I was aware of that as it happened. I talked to Scanlan that day.
- His tests have been gratuitously sloppy on many levels, such as when he neglected to put an SD card in the thermocouple. It is almost as if he wants to get the wrong answer. Ya' think?
- He almost blew up the good people from NASA. Yikes! They told me about it months later, when we were at a meeting for a couple of days. Dewey described here how Rossi sometimes pretends there is danger in a ploy to call off a test or distract attention. In this case, there was actual danger but he refused admit it. That's crazy.
What do you think about the 18 hour test that Dr. Levi conducted back in 2011. 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. I don't think there is any reasonable explanation other than it worked. Not unless we want to buy the idea of some folks that the metal in the system magically "stored up" enough power during first brief stage to continually boost the temperature of the water for the remainder of the test. From what I heard a few years ago, Dr. Levi called Rossi to report the huge power spike. Rossi became very concerned and urge him to vent some hydrogen (in these early systems the nickel was under reasonably high hydrogen pressure). Dr. Levi obeyed and the power dropped to around 15kW. This is another reason I think the test was real: just venting some hydrogen wouldn't change the output if we were dealing with stored thermal energy from the first several minutes of the test. To me, this is the most conclusive test we know of that we have details about from a first hand witness.
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?
I don't speak Portuguese, and Google translate has its limits, so I cannot judge. The text of the first paragraphs is appended below.
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  to  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  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  to  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. . . .
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.Quote
Rossi and Levi have since conducted a longer test of the
at the University of Bologna on February 10. The ECat
was run for 18 hours this time. Also, a much higher flow rate
was used, to keep the cooling water from vaporizing. This
choice was made in response to some of the critiques of col
leagues; it makes moot concerns about dry steam.
Mats Lewan, of NyTeknik (http://www.nyteknik.se), interviewed
Levi about the test run. Levi indicated that the test was
instrumental in determining what parameters must be con
trolled and whether the device could run for longer periods
of time. Levi told Lewan:
“This is the third time I’ve seen the
device and again it produces energy. . .[W]e loaded the unit
with hydrogen at the beginning, and then the bottle was
closed. It then worked for 18 hours with the bottle closed. . .
I weighed container before and after charging, and including
the gas we let out to empty the tube of air, the consumption
of hydrogen was 0.4 grams. . .Minimum power was 15 kW,
and that’s a conservative value. I calculated it several times.
At night we did a measurement and the device then worked
very stable and produced 20 kW. Now that I have seen the
device work for so many hours, in my view all chemical
energy sources are excluded.”
Levi reports that power briefly peaked at 130 kW, with an
average of 15 to 20 kW; since all parameters and measure
ments have not been fully reported yet, the 130 kW is an
estimate and the peak period is unknown. Answering skep
tic’s concerns about hidden batteries, Levi told Lewan: “This
time I opened the control unit. . .[T]he box was empty
except for the control electronics. . .I have also seen inside
the unit itself—most of the volume is insulation and most of
the weight of about 30 kg is due to lead.” Rossi will have Levi
do analysis, before and after operation, of the nickel powder
involved in the process as a catalyst.
Here is another reference.
Para - may I kindly ask where you found the Ferrara / Levi jpgs that you posted last week?
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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:
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.