QuoteWhy in the world would anyone, anywhere believe anything this guy says?
To be honest, that is the only thing that is genuinely interesting about this whole affair.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
To be honest, that is the only thing that is genuinely interesting about this whole affair.
Observing LENR denialism generally is more interesting, at least to me, especially among people who would not be disadvantaged in any way by the advent of LENR. I can understand why plasma physicists would deny it as it threatens their funding, so they are acting rationally. But anyone else who spends even a few weeks investigating the evidence, would come to conclude that LENR is real and has the potential to greatly uplift the status and living standards of all humans.
-
Not only that, IH (i.e., specifically Dameron) built reactors themselves. Darden (yes, the VC guy) apparently fueled them himself. They produced COPs upwards of 9.
Yes, that is the Dameron who was using in IR camera for calorimetry. You aren't going to like my comment, but using an IR camera (no matter how expensive) for calorimetry says a lot more about Dameron than it does about any measured COP. We know that Rossi also eschewed any non-IR-camera calorimetry, and this speaks volumes about him as well.
Here's something for you to ponder: IR camera's have fourth order sensitivity to error. What that means is that a 'minor' error or bias in observation can be raised to the fourth power. Throw in phase change and pressure errors in assumptions leading to calculated power (because all of the non-water bath measurements relied on calculated power, not physically measured or expressed power), and it is not hard to imagine how they came up with those errant estimates. IR cameras are BAD at measuring absolute heat energy - that's not what they are designed for. They are designed to do an accurate job of measuring spatial differences in thermal output.
But if there were any doubt, we know that a dummy reactor was measuring high COP. Do you suppose they were using Rossi's mandated thermal camera for that?
We also know that Vaughn, to his credit, was trying water bath calorimetry and getting measurements very close to unity (within hundredths) on either side of unity.
You realize, I hope, that a toaster will measure very close to unity, and if the electric cord is included in the water bath system, quality water bath measurement will attain a measure extremely close to the theoretically predicted (according to the First Law of Thermodynamics) value of 1.0000000?
Note: If, like Vaughn, you happened to use a slightly less precise approach on your toaster (he admitted uncertainty about water volume, which is critical) and measure 1.01, please don't bother running out into the streets shouting 'Eureka, my toaster is a perpetual motion machine that will solve the world's 'energy crisis'.
If Rossi really had a COP above 6, a non-experienced business major (like Vaughn) should reasonably be able to measure excess heat using water bath calorimetry, because even if he was off by a lot, he'd still end up with a 'big' number, and 'big' could be as little as 1.5.
The highest number we have from the Docket where we know it was water bath is Vaughn's 1.042 Perhaps they managed to mistakenly measure 1.3 (but we don't know that that was water bath).
If you're trying to measure COP's with precision out to several decimal places, you need to have an experienced technician or researcher involved if you hope to achieve reliable measurements. But of course, tiny COPs do not translate into anything commercializable. The best you could hope is that they lead to further research that might eventually be expanded to commercial viability. To do that, you would almost certainly need to have a better sense of the mechanisms of action.
-
We need the test data and reports. The emails indicate some tests were producing high COPs. You assume it is due to a thermal camera issue. Para disagrees with you. The emails do talk of Vaughn trying water calorimetry with >1 COP. I'm sure Dameron has a significant amount of test data, engineering notebooks, etc. wouldn't you think? You all here have assumed for some time now that the COP 9 tests were invalid, but there is no evidence on the record that refutes or withdraws those tests. The fact that Dameron was still testing the Dameron/Rossi built reactors as late as January 2016 speaks volumes.
-
...You all here have assumed for some time now that the COP 9 tests were invalid, but there is no evidence on the record that refutes or withdraws those tests. The fact that Dameron was still testing the Dameron/Rossi built reactors as late as January 2016 speaks volumes.
I speak with evidence. IH says under oath in deposition that they did not achieve excess heat. So they are either lying, mistaken, or telling the truth. It is you who say that there is no evidence because you assume they are lying.
Also, we know from the docket that Dameron was using IR Camera-based calorimetry. That's called evidence from the docket.
You don't think it's possible that Murray, for instance, finally went into Dameron's set up and showed him the multitude of possible errors that could result in Dameron's single-point error. (Notice that Murray, from the start, used an array of thermocouples.)
And for you to make the point that Vaughn's statement that he 'got' over unity COP of 1.042 when in the same sentence of the email he wasn't sure about the water volume is evidence to me that you aren't willing or able to weigh evidence properly. Again, you understand that if Vaughn was instrumented properly and able to capture all energy in and measure it accurately using a water bath, he would get exactly 1.00000, assuming no LENR reaction and according to theory, right?
But instead he got values both below and above that (to a few hundredths) which is exactly what we would expect a 'null' (no LENR) result to look like from even an experienced experimenter, let alone a 'rookie'.
-
We need the test data and reports. The emails indicate some tests were producing high COPs. You assume it is due to a thermal camera issue. Para disagrees with you. The emails do talk of Vaughn trying water calorimetry with >1 COP. I'm sure Dameron has a significant amount of test data, engineering notebooks, etc. wouldn't you think? You all here have assumed for some time now that the COP 9 tests were invalid, but there is no evidence on the record that refutes or withdraws those tests. The fact that Dameron was still testing the Dameron/Rossi built reactors as late as January 2016 speaks volumes.
Yes, speaks volumes of the desperation to find ANYTHING to justify continued investment in what was being realised to a boondoggle. It is to their credit that they tried for so long. My heart goes out to them - I have spent many a long day and night in the lab trying to confirm some potentially valuable but ultimately ephemeral effect. I've never had more than a few hundred quid tied up in it, though!
These ephemera invariably turned out to be founded on error- error of mine, of a colleague, of instrumentation, of understanding.... but then I've never had a problem admitting error when shown it.
-
@sig,
Yes, I think the APCO inspired unable-to-substantiate-all-without-success is BS. And I think Darden and Vaughn did their best to stick to that story line in their depositions. Dewey suggested awhile back that he suspected Rossi's team is gearing up to impeach witnesses. And it probably has something to do with deposition testimony compared to disclosed test report data.
-
You assume it is due to a thermal camera issue. Para disagrees with you.
Please don't put words into my mouth, I specifically stated that Camera PLUS errors in other measurements and calculation could explain big errors in COP.
And please let Para decide and state if he disagrees with me or not, since your previous posts demonstrate to me that you may not be a reliable observer in that regard.
Thanks in advance.
-
Yes, I think the APCO inspired unable-to-substantiate-all-without-success is BS. And I think Darden and Vaughn did their best to stick to that story line in their depositions. Dewey suggested awhile back that he suspected Rossi's team is gearing up to impeach witnesses. And it probably has something to do with deposition testimony compared to disclosed test report data.
Well, not suprisingly I think your thinking is absurd, as I have implied over and over again.
But even with the extremely remotely possibilty that you are not simply seriously deceiving yourself and Rossi actually has something, there is nothing stopping him from demonstrating his high COP system, right now, this instant. This would have the effect of demolishing IH, winning the court case, awarding him over a quarter of a billion (with a 'b') dollars, completely destroying Darden's reputation, opening up vast amounts of VC capital in Europe and other regions not covered by the license, result in fabulously increased quality of life for all, be the greatest discovery since fire (and that is no exaggeration), result in a virtual lock for the Nobel Prize Rossi so covets, and more.
However, Rossi has moved on to even better inventions. The mind boggles trying to imagine how awesome that will be!
-
But if there were any doubt, we know that a dummy reactor was measuring high COP.
Yep, according to Darden's story, he must have known as early as January of 2014 that it was all a big scam, because a dummy reactor gave the same COP as the other reactors. The problem is that we have these little things called facts. Such as, Darden then proceeded to secure tens of millions of outside investment over the course of the next year and a half, and also required everyone to leave the lab in Dec/January 2016 so that he could carefully and secretively load the scam fuel into Murray's modified reactor. Wouldn't want the secrets of the scam fuel to get out.
-
there is nothing stopping him from demonstrating his high COP system, right now, this instant.
It wouldn't change anything. You wouldn't believe it, even if it was completely independent. We already have a 3rd party PhD student from a respected institution vouching for the Quark X, but you don't give that any weight, do you?
-
Yep, according to Darden's story, he must have known as early as January of 2014 that it was all a big scam, because a dummy reactor gave the same COP as the other reactors. The problem is that we have these little things called facts. Such as, Darden then proceeded to secure tens of millions of outside investment over the course of the next year and a half, and also required everyone to leave the lab in Dec/January 2016 so that he could carefully and secretively load the scam fuel into Murray's modified reactor. Wouldn't want the secrets of the scam fuel to get out.
None of your 'facts' say anything at all to refute the dummy reactor issue. Instead, they make the case that Darden was in some manner sinister in seeking out more funds. I've discussed that seeking more funds is reasonable for IH because IH had a portfolio (not just Rossi), investors own shares (equity) that are unlikely to 'go to zero', and all investments with potential reward involve risk.
If your point is that Darden is a sinister VC guy, well, I disagree that that's a reasonable summary of the evidence, but I actually don't care about that - it's not my interest in the case. So I'm not interested in arguing that point. Go ahead, make your case to others about how sinister IH is. I won't try to refute you on that anymore (I promise).
I'm far more interested in the overwhelming evidence showing that Rossi habitually goes to extreme measure to intentionally deceive people. I happen to have an extremely bright and talented friend and colleague who has wasted a lot of time and money on his own experiments as a result of Rossi's deceptions, despite my warnings (he never found excess heat). He's finally come around, thankfully, as a result of this case.
-
None of your 'facts' say anything at all to refute the dummy reactor issue. Instead, they make the case that Darden was in some manner sinister in seeking out more funds.
That is one way to resolve the conundrum. But I give it little weight. It seems more likely that Darden is exaggerating the dummy reactor story after the fact, in a self-serving manner. I think Darden raised the money in good faith.
QuoteI've discussed that seeking more funds is reasonable for IH because IH had a portfolio (not just Rossi), investors own shares (equity) that are unlikely to 'go to zero', and all investments with potential reward involve risk.
There is one little problem here with your theory: Woodford stated that Rossi was core to their investment. Woodford was clearly disappointed, and from the latest financial disclosures, it appears that they may have clawed back some of their money from IH.
-
You wouldn't believe it, even if it was completely independent.
I unequivocally deny that. I would be thrilled if a reputable independent test of any of Rossi's inventions showing excess heat occurred (but apparently I would be close, but not quite as thrilled as Jed
)So please stop your speculative and untrue statements about my beliefs.
(And regarding Woodford, I disagree with you, but I promised not to argue this anymore, so go ahead, present your case to others. Let's just say that I think Neil knows how to put on his big boy pants in handling his investments.)
-
We already have a 3rd party PhD student from a respected institution vouching for the Quark X, but you don't give that any weight, do you?
Are you talking about Gullström?
-
IHFB,
Keep in mind that we have not yet heard from Boeing. According to Dewey, they confirmed what IH found...the technology does not work. Kind of hard to impeach them. Probably why Rossi successfully petitioned the court to keep their testimony secret for the time being. Nonetheless. they will be heard by a jury, and what they say will pretty much shoot Rossi's defense out of the water -that IH was a bunch of bumbling boobs, who were unsuccessful where the "Nobel scientists" were successful.
As a consolation, maybe Rossi does have a little something, but I would not hold out much hope that this court case will reveal that. Of course, as everyone else says as a matter of course....there is nothing stopping Rossi from proving his tech now. The fact he refuses to do that, tells me he probably has nothing.
-
Are you talking about Gullström?
Ah, Gullstrom. Indeed. Now what part of his theory explains what he (thought he) saw?
His theory actually seems to point to things that did not occur in the demonstration he witnessed.
Nothing in the demonstration seems to have had anything to do with the content of his report, other than he reported saw something happen.
-
Quote
I do not think I.H. was convinced by Rossi's crude experiments. My understanding is that they were mainly convinced by Levi's experiments. These were less crude. More professional. The first one was impressive. I still think it might have shown real excess heat. The IR camera readings were backed up by a thermocouple. The second set of experiments at Lugano were a big step backward. They were worse. I find this baffling. Usually, when a group of scientists do an experiment the second time, they do a better job.
My first thought on seeing those were "You dolts!" about the Swedes and Levi. WHY OH WHY go to such difficult and error prone technology when simple fluid (mass) flow calorimetry using the original ecats was a much better way to find out if Rossi told the truth. And his telling the truth should have been established in an ironclad manner before giving the crook millions of dollars! The test rig also made no sense. Who designs a device which produces high energy from a nuclear source and doesn't even have a forced cooling system? Hell, the silly tube didn't even have fins! That's because Rossi knew exactly what mediocre output to expect-- exactly what he put in with his electrical heater.
Finally, even if Rossi had made some breakthrough that mandated operation at high temperature (he obviously didn't based on IH's experience and even on the Lugano results) he could and should have used a calorimeter with precise accounting for the heat without recourse to fourth power calculations from temperature. And the device is very easily calibrated. An example of such a high temperature calorimeter which Rossi could have built is from Giancarlo et. al. here:
(Google translate works well with this paper)
All of Rossi's "improvements" along the years have simply been different and, I believe, carefully tested methods of obfuscation and deception. Otherwise, there would have been a calibration with the electrical heater each and every time over the full operating temperature range. The three phase power supply in some of the experiments was, again in my opinion, another deception method. There certainly was never an engineering need for it. Nothing Rossi ever did made any sense. And he never seemed to do the same exact experiment twice. It was beyond stupid for IH to give Rossi money based on the crude and incompetently performed early ecat tests conducted by Kullander, Essen, Lewan and Levi. There was never ONE SINGLE CALIBRATION run and when asked about it, Rossi said such runs (he called them "dummy runs") were not necessary. In that sense, IH got what they deserved but not Woodford's investors. I think they should demand or sue for return of their investment in IH due to gross negligence and gross incompetence.
-
Keep in mind that we have not yet heard from Boeing. According to Dewey, they confirmed what IH found...the technology does not work. Kind of hard to impeach them.
I find it very intriguing that IH went to Boeing. Boeing? An aircraft company to perform LENR calorimetry? Maybe Boeing are looking to power their version of the EmDrive using LENR? Or maybe they are feeling some competitive pressure from Airbus' advancements in the LENR space?
-
Are you talking about Gullström?
Yes, but I couldn't find the character o with two dots, so thanks for that.
