Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • JedRothwell : "I should start a new thread"


    Jed, you should. I would (and probably others) would like to know the current state of LENR. It's future state.... and what Rossi has done to the field. I may be bummed with what I learn , but it would be good to know. As "our" librarian, I am sure you know where the bodies books are. I encourage you or someone to do this.

  • What is funny about IH and IH supporters here, is that they hang their hat on an unsigned mysterious Exhibit 5, and hold it up as if it were the gold standard of truth. And when it gets picked apart, they go into denial mode.

    No not on 5 but Rossi's lack of proof that Doral was to be the GPT and not as he previously claimed - a 2 year sell of heat to a real customer. If the work in FL was not the GPT it doesn't really matter about the pipe sizes and flow rates. First things first. Do you believe Rossi when he said the work in Doral was for a sell of heat for 2 years to JPM?

  • @oldguy


    On the GPT, here is my view: everyone acted as if it were the GPT, including hiring an ERV, paying the ERV 50/50 IH/Leonardo, and all. I think that will carry the day with the jury. On the other hand, if the JMP situation is as IH has made it out to be so far, then that will work against Rossi before the jury.

  • @oldguy


    On the GPT, here is my view: everyone acted as if it were the GPT, including hiring an ERV, paying the ERV 50/50 IH/Leonardo, and all. I think that will carry the day with the jury. On the other hand, if the JMP situation is as IH has made it out to be so far, then that will work against Rossi before the jury.



    It's amazing to me that the GPT does not seem to be mentioned anywhere with regard to the 1 year test. Of course we do not have all the data especially correspondance and emails. One would think Rossi would have said at some point this is the GPT (and indeed he may have) and could easily release such information in the court documents. Penon's test plan however refers to running 350 days which exactly corresponds to the GPT requirement so this *could have* alerted IH that this was intended to be the GPT even though it wasn't explicitly stated it was.


    I once went through Rossi's blog with regard to the characterization of the 1 year test. It was very interesting to see how it changed in terms of what its purpose was. Nowhere does Rossi state that an important project/payment milestone depends on this test. Also Barry West said something like he only found out late that it was the GPT.


    All in all, given the formal requirement of this test and the $89M riding on it, if the GPT was not mentioned anywhere then it would be hard to argue that it was the GPT.

  • No not on 5 but Rossi's lack of proof that Doral was to be the GPT and not as he previously claimed - a 2 year sell of heat to a real customer. If the work in FL was not the GPT it doesn't really matter about the pipe sizes and flow rates. First things first. Do you believe Rossi when he said the work in Doral was for a sell of heat for 2 years to JPM?

    I think it was intended to be. Whether it worked out or not is still up in the air, but I think if the customer backed out for some reason that Rossi was reasonable with continuing the test.

  • Doc. 170, an order, on the docket.


    So IH must produce the DRV communications, but nothing else. Rossi must produce the Leonardo Tax Returns

    No, of course not. But on the whole, I have found Rossi's statements to be more consistent than what is made out here. When a public tit for tat dispute has arisen in times past between Rossi and Dewey, Rossi has eventually proved to be right (e.g., temperature data). Still waiting on who is right about the make-up of the main body of the reactor, another little niggly public disagreement between Rossi and Dewey. My guess is on that one: Rossi will be right again (he already has a major university backing him up on that point). On the taxes, given that he made some statements in the pleadings, I think it will turn out once again that Rossi is right, i.e., that he did pay the appropriate amounts due.


    What is funny about IH and IH supporters here, is that they hang their hat on an unsigned mysterious Exhibit 5, and hold it up as if it were the gold standard of truth. And when it gets picked apart, they go into denial mode.


    Much more of this and I lose the will to live (virtually!). Tantalus had nothing on the monotonous labour of correcting IHFB's poisonous and biassed, and contrafactual guesses.

  • The fact that I.H. initially persuaded people on the internet that the technology does not work, or even initially persuaded a jury, would make no difference once the money starts coming in.

    So in this way you confirm that this is exactly what IH want to do. Using Internet in order to poison a Jury so to try to win the trial.

    I presume that this behavior is really out of law.

    Also is not true what you affirm in the previous statement

    Rossi could then easily win any lawsuit

    IH hopes that after that one if Rossi fails he will not have enough money to start another.

    So the scenario is that IH seems to act like a bandit diffusing FUD in order to poison a Jury and acting without scruples to win.

  • Jed Rothwell has said yesterday re watermeter readings:


    This is one of the reasons I think Peter Gluck has gone off the deep end when he insists that water meters are reliable and we can be sure Rossi's meter worked, and it could not have been off by a factor of 4. Oh yes it could! I expect Rossi deliberately set it up incorrectly, but I have managed to make mistakes on that scale by accident, and DeKalb county has made mistakes on this scale hundreds of times.

    Dear Jed,

    discussions with you are really difficult and tormenting, you are a perfect example of the oppressors systematically described in my recent

    blog postings.

    Here you are mixing things- it is not clear if the errors were in measurement or in the programming and Rossi's flowmeter was chosen

    to be sturdy and constant for long term, reliable not smart.

    You claim based on the XXXXX (censored) Exhibit 5 that it was in the gravity retour pipe to the reservoir- impossible- there it does not work, and cannot give constant measuremments

    You ignore the effective readings- recordings of the ERV report- or do not have them. Without them you cannot evaluate how the Plant has worked.

    OK, that is about Rossi and you have een indoctrinated and self-indoctrinated to hate him.


    But this became you mode of thinking I have to confess you amde me checkmate with the discussion if PdD can be a source of energy.


    I said:

    - World power is some 12TW, anual production

    of Pd is 200 million grams, power per gram 100 W

    Pd can produce 0.002TW -subject to be closed for normal people.

    But you come explain me that 20 years of PD production- 4 billion grams will be accumulated and all go To make CF energy (in an imaginary

    Cold fusion loving world) Then you come with a sci-fi palladium asteroid story and invoke authority, Martin Fleischmann has told to you, and only to you that CF will give 1/3-1/2 of the world's electricity- say 5TW thermal power.

    power If I answer to this, I make a blasphemy offending the memory of our Founder- who BTW was a nice, bright and realist creative scientist


    I really do not understand why you do such things

    PERHAPS this quote explains how you think:


    Anyone knowledgeable about flowmeters can

    tell you a dozen ways to make the answer 10 times too large. It hardly matters which of these methods Rossi used. As I said, read the manual and you too will learn how to get the wrong answer


    Something similar is your assertion that Rossi has made a great harm to Cold fusion.


    It would perhaps better if we mutually ignore our messages- my thinking is incompatible with yours

    peter.

  • The Lugano emissivity problem was demonstrated by March, 2015.

    The real problem is the false information that you and others are disseminating in the net, probably on behalf of IH.

    For example in your same post you mess up information saying that the iterative method is wrong and that two measure at two different wavelength are necessary.

    What you say is false.

    1) The iterative method is commonly used to solve equations numerically.

    2) The two wavelength measure is used only if you don't know the material that you are looking at and so you have to measure his IR emissivity.

  • it sure would say something about the general temperature range of the reactor.

    Without knowing the exact position and the calibration, TC have not to be used. If it was near the resistor was reading hi values, if it was far much lower values.

    You have criticized the Lugano team for almost everything and now you would like that they used data coming from a detector that was put on by Rossi ?

  • I believe Lugano was one of the conditional tests that the 10 million was paid on.

    No. The 10 million were already before.


    IH is not going to listen to some anonymous poster on some little read blog.

    Maybe not IH but others could be. Many of the post on this forum are written just to form the opinion of the readers.

    Darden's report, he was dubious of the Lugano optical measurements before the test!

    Really ? why he never contacted the authors about that before the test ? He anyway used the two reports Lugano and Ferrara to write patents for IH. No problem at that time.

    I presume that the use of part of the Lugano and Ferrara reports text and figures was done even without the permission from the authors. (again a near out of law behaviour)

    Rossi stated many times that "millions of data points" were taken at Doral. Were they?

    Probably the ERV, IH and Leonardo have the data. Because it was a private test they will not diffuse it.

  • "No" means that you never heard conflict of interest, like in banana republic.

    a bit of ethic should suggest to anyone else it would appear as "independent and reliable tester" a different behaviour.

    I do not understand your first line. I presume that is just an insult (to me ? to Levi ? to Unibo ? who would you like to insult today ?)


    Did you want to blame Levi because he has done an activity openly and asking the permission to his own University ? Universities give a permission to an activity only if that respects their internal Ethical Code.

    Levi also was not the only author of any report.

    So again, you appear to disseminate FUD.

  • The real problem is the false information that you and others are disseminating in the net, probably on behalf of IH.

    For example in your same post you mess up information saying that the iterative method is wrong and that two measure at two different wavelength are necessary.

    What you say is false.

    1) The iterative method is commonly used to solve equations numerically.

    2) The two wavelength measure is used only if you don't know the material that you are looking at and so you have to measure his IR emissivity.


    Ele,


    Perhaps we could be clearer in this discussion. As you perhaps do not realise: Paradigmnoia, I, many other observers here, Bob Higgins, MFMP, I'm sure IH by now if not at the start, all reckon that in order to measure temperature using a single wavelength IR instrument such as the Optris PI-160 you need the IR band emissivity, and this is not necessarily the same as the total emissivity.


    For a long time, (perhaps still) Levi maintained this was not true, that the total emissivity is all that is needed to do this calculation of temperature.


    Now, if you agree with Levi, then you will reckon what Paradigmnoia says is false, but only because you think he is wrong anyway. His point is that the reference in the Lugano Report does not settle this matter (as the Report claims) because it deals with a different situation. If you don't agree with Levi on this matter what you say does not make sense.


    You should also realise that although in this case you (it seems) and Levi agree, there is no-one else I know capable of understanding the concept of spectral emissivity who, reflecting on this issue, shares your views. Possibly I should leave off the qualifier and simply say that no-one I know capable of understanding spectral emissivity has this view.