Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Paradigmnoia

So there is actually just the inner reactor tube made of alumina, and maybe the sealing cement. The cap, ribs, and even the plug are made of Durapot.

This conflicts with what Rossi has maintained over time, and reiterated today, that "the larger drums at the ends of the cylinder" (i.e., what you are calling the caps I believe), are the only part of the device made of Durapot. I could easily see how a miscommunication between T. Dameron and Dewey could have occurred. For example (hypothetical), "Yes Dewey, I made those things out of Durapot using my own hands, and look, I even still have some of it left right here" (without necessarily pointing out which specific things). Rossi talks with confidence about the materials used, and the analysis at a renown university backs him up. Remember, in times past, when there has been a discrepancy in a public battle between Rossi and Dewey (e.g., temperature data), remarkably, Rossi has turned out to be right.

"Andrea Rossi

March 10, 2017 at 8:25 AM

Anonymous:

The reactor tested in the Lugano experiment was made by pure Alumina. We used Durapox to make the two caps ( the larger drums at the ends of the cylinder of the reactor ), but these drums did not contain any charge: they just contained the cablings of the terminals. The thermocamera was focused only on the cylinder of the reactor, made by pure alumina, not on the lateral caps, made by Durapox. By the way: the material the cylinder was made of has been analyzed by the Professors and resulted to be pure Alumina, as reported.

Warm Regards,

A.R."

Quote from Rossi

The thermocamera was focused only on the cylinder of the reactor, made by pure alumina, not on the lateral caps, made by Durapox.

So I guess that means that the data for caps and rods is just made up...

Quote from Paradigmnoia

So I guess that means that the data for caps and rods is just made up...

I don't see how you would draw that conclusion. It might be wrong, but why would it be made up? Perhaps they should have analyzed a sample from both the "caps" and the "rod" and adjusted their IR camera accordingly (assuming it even makes a significant difference between pure alumina and Durapot--for which at least one commentator here insists it doesn't).

What was made up was that total emissivity is used for the IR camera emissivity setting. The whole thing falls apart right there.

One thermocouple, no matter how crappily attached, attached nevertheless to the reactor body would have been sufficient to immediately flag the high temperature readings. If it got to 1380 C or higher, the thermocouple should be melted, a good visual indicator.

oh snap. A thermocouple was stuck in it the whole month.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

One thermocouple, no matter how crappily attached, attached nevertheless to the reactor body would have been sufficient to immediately flag the high temperature readings.

Even a spot check with such a 40 $ probe would have done the job:

http://www.omega.co.uk/pptst/KHXL_NHXL.html

Amazing, that nobody of the prestigious professors came up with the idea to perform a simple sanity check on the temperature measurement values they read from the IR thermometer.
Amateurish?

Quote from IH Fanboy

I take a slightly different perspective on this point. I think Rossi filed this under court seal because some of the materials were marked confidential by IH. There is no good reason, in my mind, why Rossi would not want this information out and well-known by all.

This is an extraordinary reading of facts, contrary to the reason that the Court documents state.

One thing we forget here is that there are two suits in play.

The first, Rossi's claim for $89M + damages, was looking effectively lost a long time ago. I think there is a decent chance of a Summary Judgement because Rossi has shown not one scrap of evidence that IH ever considered this to be the GPT, and the only direct communications released to Court between him and IH bear out the non-GPT meme. The fact that Rossi on his blog, and no doubt to engineers on site, talks continually about the test as though it is what he wants it to be, a chance at $89M, is evidence only of Rossi's willingness to believe falsehoods that accord with his wishes. (Other examples: Nobel Prize candidacy, his reactors work, etc). For IH defence of this suit Lugano seems pretty irrelevant.

The second, IH's counter-claim against Rossi for fraud, looks much more difficult for them to win. The burden of proof is different and Rossi's manifest delusion tends, here, to help him. Eccentric inventors are not considered fraudulent. Still IH have a decent chance at this because Rossi's misdirections and outright lies are plain so far in the evidence. For this second suit whether Rossi (and friends?) deliberately spoofed Lugano is relevant. Rossi's paranoia will make him sensitive to the possibility that IH are "out to get him" in this area as indeed I'd expect they are.

Rossi would have to be strange indeed to want these facts exposed: but for him I guess a higher imperative will be to prevent IH from investigating the people he has had close relationships with.

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…-can-it-get/#comment-1591

Quote from AlainCo

Since long I don't understand, after MFMP and many, bashed the Lugano report with credible claims, that Levi's team did not make new test with better protocol...

If they believe in their work, they should be confident.

I do remember that the team of professors was supposed to make an independent replication of their work. Photos made by Parkhomov after visiting ICCF19 of a (reportedly) empty reactor ready to be tested in Bologna have been showed too.

Quote from can

I do remember that the team of professors was supposed to make an independent replication of their work. Photos made by Parkhomov after visiting ICCF19 of a (reportedly) empty reactor ready to be tested in Bologna have been showed too.

This is a case where result selection definitely applies, since they have never formally admitted to be doing this. You can be sure that if they had clear positive results they would make this known. What we cannot know is what, if any, additional experiments they performed with negative results.

Quote

Anonymous
February 21, 2017 at 7:59 AM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,

In the reactor of Lugano the reactor was made by Durapox?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

So I guess that means that the data for caps and rods is just made up...

Right, and amazingly when you look at the data only for the caps, it doesn't appear that there is excess heat (at least the best I can do on the stingy data release by the professors). Levi can go on about imaginary conspiracies, but can't imagine that he could have made a mistake or been scammed by AR!

Without even going through the more technical arguments, the temperature of the diseased sealant caps (Durapox) appear to refute excess heat.

Quote from Alan Smith

There were none. Unibo (at the highest levels) told all concerned 'no more talk of LENR, no cash for related equipment, stay away'.

That's unfortunate. According to Mats Lewan and Parkhomov in April 2015 (when the news broke) they were in the process of performing calibrations, with plans of performing the loaded test in May within that year. No more news since.

Parkhomov Reports on ICCF-19, Meeting with Lugano Testers (Who are Also Replicating) (2015-04-18)

Parkhomov visits Levi, discuss with Hoistad and Peterson, and they have a device that they will show mid-may (2015-04-18)

Доклад на ICCF19 А.Г. Пархомова (2015-04-18)

ICCF19 OVER, BUT HAS ECHO AND IMPACT (2015-04-18)

Пархомов_ICCF19_Падуя2015.pdf (2015-05-29)

Quote from AlainCo

I feel fooled if it is confirmed [that Rossi and Fabiani were present at the Lugano facility the entire time, and the professors showed up intermittently] as I defended the test based on the limited presence of Rossi's team...

It have to be confirmed, because it is a huge, not only about the independence of the test, but even more on the ethic of the test team.

I also think this is an important point. The Lugano test was so interesting because it appeared to be independent, and the writeup makes it out as such, describing the minimal intervention of Rossi at the beginning and end of the test, and saying that he stepped back from it for the remainder of it. But if Rossi and Fabiani were there every day, and the professors were not, this means that once more we will have had to place trust in Rossi not to interfere. Trust that we would not have afforded him at the time the report came out. Was the Lugano test for us in the peanut gallery, and do our feelings about it matter? Presumably not. But one wonders why, at any rate, it was released to the public.

The professors were operating in the mode of researchers collaborating with other researchers on an experiment, where a great amount of trust is placed in all of the parties to be forthright. But they were dealing with a wily inventor who had up to then gone to great efforts to control the circumstances of his demos in the manner of a showman. The professors, then, if the new detail is correct, lent their name to a report that assumes the best in people, relying on the honor system when it was not warranted. That was poor judgment on their part. There were the video cameras that were running, so maybe that's something.

Speculation: we now have Levi, seeing the Lugano test and what followed it primarily through the lense of a battle between Rossi and his erstwhile funders, strongly attached to the report's conclusions and unwilling to revisit them, and reassured in their soundness by immediate colleagues; and the Swedes, on the fence about the whole thing and hoping not to become party to a lawsuit worth millions of dollars. I know the feeling of not wanting to step into a lawsuit and can sympathize with them if this is what is going on in their heads. People I know have sued or threatened to sue one another and wanted me to do something for them, and on those occasions I have very much not wanted to get involved. This could potentially explain their silence on the report as much as anything (e.g., NDAs).