Maybe not IH but others could be. Many of the post on this forum are written just to form the opinion of the readers.
That's one reason why there is a process of jury selection. It's not perfect, but this case is of such little significance that it will be easy to find people who know nothing about either AR's astroturfed puppet-farm blog comments or limited aspects of IH's position (as espoused by only Dewey as far as I can tell). AR is not a significant player on the world stage.
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 know capable of understanding spectral emissivity agrees with you and Levi.
Yes, and this has been demonstrated empirically utilizing multiple methods. MFMP measured temp in multiple ways. Almost everyone here wanted the Levi et. al. test to be true, but it is invalid. There is not great need to go beyond the lack of a proper calibration in the criticism. Despite that, it has been empirically refuted by those not seeking to refute it!
If that is not enough, there has not been one credible or repeatable demonstration of excess heating out of likely hundreds of replication attempts utilizing the formula published in his patent. Some try to hold out hope that the reactor pop occurring at IH is indicative of something. Well, it is: chemistry. These things happen, and there is no need to resort to new physics.
IH hopes that after that one if Rossi fails he will not have enough money to start another.
If this device works and it is commercialized, everyone will soon know that Rossi discovered it. There is a massive paper trail proving this. Rossi will become world famous overnight. Every major law firm in the U.S. will be eager to take on his case against I.E. They need not charge him up front. They can take a percent of the winnings. By the time this happens, I.H. will have billions of dollars from license fees from major corporations world-wide. Rossi will be in position to take all of that money.
There is no accepted industry standard that I am aware of for the term "Smart Meter".
Like "Clean Diesel", If independently asked, 10 people would come up with 10 different responses.
All flowmeters with any kind of output, whether analog, digital or even serial comms, can be purposefully made to report innacuratly, (of course this implies a conspiracy).
These outputs must be weighed and scaled and be pressure and temperature compensated, then calibrated to insure accuracy.
This includes power meters where simply inputting (telling the meter), incorrect line voltage or current transformer ratios would result in incorrect readings.
After 6+ years of cloak and dagger skullduggery, I simply do not trust Andrea Rossi to accurately measure anything, nor do I believe that he has developed an Energy Out > Energy In machine.
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
Do you dispute that? Do you think that is not the case? Why wouldn't 4 billion grams of palladium be accumulated for 20 year? That is assuming a 5% annual loss rate from recycling. The loss rate for recycling lead from batteries is much lower than 5%, so that is a conservative number.
If you have found an error in my analysis or my numbers, tell us what it is.
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.
Remember the "customer" was Rossi and his lawyer.
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.
"Probably on behalf of IH "....... totally wrong
#2, totally correct. Now when did they know what the reactor was made of?
Every major law firm in the U.S. will be eager to take on his case against I.E. They need not charge him up front. They can take a percent of the winnings. By the time this happens, I.H. will have billions of dollars from license fees from major corporations world-wide. Rossi will be in position to take all of that money.
I don't know how to say this nicely, but you are completely disconnected from the real world.
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 ?
The "Rossi" thermocouple delivered real information, no matter where it was placed. Apparently it was good enough to control the temperature enough to maintain a fairly constant temperature. Another thermocouple could easily be attached.
The Lugano team deserve to have everything criticized. The report is a full of errors, some serious, some minor. It is hard to believe that such esteemed Professors could make such a series of blunders. But they did, regardless of their affiliations and special knowledge.
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 conflict of interest is so clearly and evident to anyone not talk here just as a supporter that loves the banana republic.
The problem is not the ethical code of University (LOL), it's the "ethic behaviour" of who conducted and signed the TPR with the hope to to be considered reliable.
You have ideas a bit confused about ethics of who would like to be a reliable tester even if he's part of Rossi's team.
You "disseminate" odd and funny opinions, now making some kind of difference if Levi signed the TPR alone or with others. There is not any difference, it's not so difficult to understand.
QuoteLevi also was not the only author of any report.
Double LOL, you are a bit misinformed, ignore (or "forgot") also the past:
Ask the people who conducted the test if they have still the data after three years !
My dog ate my homework regarding the world-changing, Nobel-worthy, discovery of the century?
LOL
Do you dispute that? Do you think that is not the case? Why wouldn't 4 billion grams of palladium be accumulated for 20 year? That is assuming a 5% annual loss rate from recycling. The loss rate for recycling lead from batteries is much lower than 5%, so that is a conservative number.
If you have found an error in my analysis or my numbers, tell us what it is.
Your analysis is absolutely implausible and not more than wishful.
Who will cumulate Pd? In what CF philesociety?
Look the first MW unit will need 10kg Pd that
today 239000 $, add to this the price deuterium and find an investor for this disaster.
Somebody has said here there is no contact between you and reality, it is painful but I subscribe to this.
Everybody makes errors, are you unable to see that this PdD scenario is impossible in a real world?
Are you unable to see that the technical data from Exhibit 5 are fairy tales in wait of naive people to take them seriously?
peter
The Lugano team deserve to have everything criticized. The report is a full of errors, some serious, some minor. It is hard to believe that such esteemed Professors could make such a series of blunders. But they did, regardless of their affiliations and special knowledge.
The professors had plenty of opportunities to defend their report, yet did not. Had they done so, this issue would have been resolved, one way or the other, long ago. Almost immediately after Lugano's release, there was controversy. The professors knew this, as they responded by promising to address questions through the Elforsk (a sponsor of the report) website. That never happened though, and no reason for their not following through on their word, was ever given.
Since then, thanks to Lewan's occasional reports, we know that at the least, the Swedes on the team kept themselves informed as to developments, so there is no excuse for them not speaking up. Now, from the recently released 167-05 document, we see that Levi himself had been following developments also, and like the others, has no excuse:
"Mr. Sha then asked me a series of formal questions about the Lugano Report. All of the critiques and questions that Mr. Sha asked me had been raised previously raised in blog posts that aim to discredit Dr. Rossi and the Lugano Report.; none of Mr. Sha's questions had any scientific basis or varied from the unscientific attacks made in the blog posts"
Lugano is dead by any scientific measure. It has been reviewed by GSVIT, Bob Higgins, MFMP, Thomas Clark, Andrea Calone, Paradigmnoia, and all have concluded there were major errors in the methodology. Not all conclude there was no excess heat, but all have concluded the Levi team results can not be trusted, and do not meet basic scientific standards...therefore worthless. By their neglecting to address these criticisms, as any scientist would be expected to do, the Lugano team has by default admitted their results are not defendable.
(1) There may have been NDAs in place preventing the Lugano group from responding to critiques; if so, it was perhaps an error in judgment to release a signed report that one cannot defend. But anyway, there is that possibility. (2) As of April 2016, there has been a lawsuit with many millions at stake, and if I were one of the Swedes I would not want to get pulled into it.
So in hindsight I don't hold it against the Lugano team for not defending the report. With specific individuals on that team, there does appear to be a failure to take the internet critiques seriously, which seems like an error in judgment.
I don't know how to say this nicely, but you are completely disconnected from the real world.
As you so often do, you have given an opinion here not backed by facts. We have no idea why you think I am disconnected or the scenario I describe is unrealistic. If you have a reason, I suggest you state it.
(1) There may have been NDAs in place preventing the Lugano group from responding to critiques;
They solicited critiques from me and from leading researchers. They said they would respond. But they never did. So I do not think there were any NDAs. If there had been, they would not have promised to respond.
To Shan,
Ok however the isotopic shifts show that something has happened. They can be or real, or fake tertium non datur.
The same will be with the ash samples from the 1MW plant and they are many.
It is not about nuclear reactions, they are nuclear interactions.
Or you think the Lugano guys have cheated with
the analysis? Or at the 1MW plant the entire quantity of ash in all E-Cats was changed with one showing isotopic ahifst?
You remember the leaked analysis?
Conspiracy or working technology?
Peter
