@AN: You just forget, that all useful reactors were built by IH...
Rossi claimed that he built some. He claimed they worked. I.H. tested the ones he made and the ones they made. None of them worked. But, anyway, if Rossi has one that works, he can have it tested independently. If it works, I.H. will pay up. Or, if they don't pay up, he can easily win the lawsuit by citing the independent replication. Either way it is in his interests to have the claim confirmed independently.
Or maybe they are feeling some competitive pressure from Airbus' advancements in the LENR space?
------------
Exactly what advancement are you referring to that are causing pressure on Boeing?
I.H. tested the ones he made and the ones they made. None of them worked.
Except for the ones that did.
Exactly what advancement are you referring to that are causing pressure on Boeing?
You can gain some understanding of what is happening by reading Airbus' LENR patent applications. Other than that, I suggest you follow the LENR news, the conferences where Airbus reps present, etc.
QuoteBut, anyway, if Rossi has one that works, he can have it tested independently.
One can only hope that the court will eventually require such a test, perhaps with experts of its own choosing, perhaps from a prestigious government lab like Sandia or ORNL. This almost happened when the Sniffex company, makers of a fraudulent explosive detector, sued for libel the James Randi Foundation which had exposed their fraud. When the judge began talking about a court-appointed expert who would choose a test lab, the libel suit against the JRF was dropped. (Eventually, civil action by the FTC and others against Sniffex along with private tests that showed the detector to be a fraud bankrupted the company)
Of course, there is a better chance that the moon is made of green cheese than there is of Rossi's ecats working.
QuoteYou can gain some understanding of what is happening by reading Airbus' LENR patent applications. Other than that, I suggest you follow the LENR news, the conferences where Airbus reps present, etc.
In other words, they have only vapor, words and hype, and have never built and properly tested and demonstrated any high (or, to please Jed) medium power LENR device that works.
If your point is that Darden is a sinister VC guy,
Sigmoidal,
Consider this...
Rossi had not defended himself with any technical evidence. He has only argued legal maneuvers. His only "expert" witness will have no effect on the case as everything he reported was only from "Rossi says". He saw nothing, knows nothing of the actual Doral setup other than what "Rossi says".
There are a very few here that demonize IH. Probably 4. They MUST demonize IH because if they do not, they have ABSOLUTELY NO grounds to support Rossi. If IH is not the bad guy, then Rossi IS! Why? Rossi has lied over and over again. He continues to lie. He continually fails to deliver. So his devout followers MUST have an excuse for his actions and lies. So they blame IH because they CANNOT blame their great and honorable inventor!
That "excuse" - IH IS EVIL!
Rossi has NOT been able to maintain any relationship with any reputable company or corporation. HIs faithful MUST have an excuse for Rossi's action.
That "excuse" - All his partners were EVIL! IH being the last one!
Rossi has NOT provided any real tests nor WILL he. He has not provided any product nor WILL he. He moves on to the next model, the next "miracle" and his faithful followers MUST make an excuse!
That "excuse" - IH has PREVENTED him from making tests, making production and showing ANTHING to support his case! It is "THIER" fault, not Rossi's!
The Rossi faithful have NO argument based upon Rossi's own validity! They only can attempt weak excuses that IH is the evil problem and Rossi is the poor, elderly inventor! They must make excuses outside of Rossi, so they try feeble attempts to blame IH. They cannot support Rossi on HIS own merit, they try to support him by attempting to demonize someone else.
That is why these people demonize IH! They MUST find a fall guy to excuse Rossi's OWN behavior. Without that Fall Guy, Rossi has no excuse! That is all they have, and it is so terribly weak and sad!
Rossi continues to lie to his loyal followers. He stated he had a new QuarkX customer, he does not. He stated he had a new QuarkX partner, he does not.
His "Factory" is the Doral facility and his "Team" must be the day laborers that he hires from the streets Yet his faithful followers STILL put faith in him!
So I ask these few remaining loyalist : six months from now, when there is nothing more to show for the QuarkX than more "testing", more "customer NDA's", more "improvements", more "long term tests", will you still be singing his praises? Of course you will! You HAVE to! When Rossi STILL refuses to conduct proper testing what will you say? "HE MUST TEST THIS WAY BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS EVIL AND TRIES TO STEAL HIS IP"
The faithful MUST accept that the 1MW plant is obsolete and meaningless! Why? Rossi has said so! He has stopped working on it and is concentrating on the QuarkX! Amazing! A plant that he states delivered a COP of 80+ for a year and he is simply going to drop it! His followers are faithful indeed!
So, these few will remain quite content on seeing missing window panes, accusing others of misconduct to cover up for Rossi's own lies and keeping the faith as long as their leader provides them with a morsel of "Rossi says".
So I come away concluding this : To those few, it is black and white. Rossi is to be supported and anyone or thing that does not support him is simply and totally wrong. Period. End of Discussion. There is no seeking of truth, there is only "support of Rossi". 
Display MoreYes, 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.
No one with any knowledge of engineering in general, much less technicality of thermodynamic measurement, would suggest using a an IR camera for calorimetry. In addition to your cogent points above about the absolute lack of applicability, Rossi, et.al, had fun playing with the pretty graphics images in Photoshop, changing around all the pretty colors with all the options in Photoshop. What a laughable fraud, if I were IH, I'd be so ashamed I'd craw under the carpet.
Rossi, et.al, had fun playing with the pretty graphics images in Photoshop, changing around all the pretty colors with all the options in Photoshop. What a laughable fraud, if I were IH, I'd be so ashamed I'd craw under the carpet.
Hmmm.... Like this?
Edit: Note that when using the Optris software, that particular temperature box doesn't show up there. The spot temperature (hot spot usually) shows up in that location (covered up by the box, in the image below).
Edit 2: Added the typical Optris PI Connect temp display.
One can only hope that the court will eventually require such a test, perhaps with experts of its own choosing, perhaps from a prestigious government lab like Sandia or ORNL.
I do not think the court has the power to do that. I have never heard of a court doing anything like that. Anyway, this is trial by jury, so the judge will not decide anything. Her role is to keep things fair and within the law.
No one with any knowledge of engineering in general, much less technicality of thermodynamic measurement, would suggest using a an IR camera for calorimetry.
That is incorrect. I have seen it used in industrial calorimetry. It works well on a large scale. If you calibrate it and compare it to thermocouples, it works reliably.
And I think Darden and Vaughn did their best to stick to that story line in their depositions
The major defect in your argument here is that the email where Vaughn reported his COP measurements was between Vaughn and Darden. Heck, he got 1.042 and tried to make the case that this was a positive result - so clearly he was hoping to report the maximum COP that he could - in fact, that's the exact context of the email, which was a follow up to below unity measurements. On what basis do you think that Vaughn would intentionally mis-inform Darden, years before any lawsuit, and why would their private communications have anything to do with APCO? This email and the others are NOT deposition, they're from evidentiary discovery.
Regarding deposition, your argument still doesn't make any sense. IH had (and has) every reason to report positive results that are credible. Unless you start veering down the conspiracy theory road (to be clear, I'm not saying that you are doing that, yet).
So I come away concluding this : To those few, it is black and white. Rossi is to be supported and anyone or thing that does not support him is simply and totally wrong. Period. End of Discussion. There is no seeking of truth, there is only "support of Rossi".
Yes, I agree with all of your reasoning, which is well stated. I feel less motivation to argue this point because the moral assessments of VC's is not as interesting to me, so thank you for making this point. If you don't mind, next time IHFB or others try to make that point, I'd like to refer them to you. 
No conspiracies. In fact, I believe that for the most part IH acted in good faith, including with its investors, up until near the end (probably around early 2016 sometime). When it became clear to them that Rossi was not going to roll over (based on letters they were getting from his lawyer), the spurious APCO "all without success" narrative began to emerge.
The emails provide snapshots in time of what was going on. Nearly all of them purport to show COP >1, up to 9 for IH-built reactors. Sure, there are caveats in the emails, but who doesn't include those? Anyone who knows anything about CYA includes caveats. I think that Dameron was still observing >1 COP as late as January, 2016 (although this is admittedly speculative on my part since the emails we have on the record tend to bunch much earlier). Given that Dameron was testing at all in the same building next to Murray suggests that he was likely still getting >1 COP. I think that is the part where Darden/Vaughn are going to have to grapple with at trial in an attempt to stick to the "all without success" narrative.
Yes, but I couldn't find the character o with two dots, so thanks for that.
Para responded nicely. Gullström has a load of theory. Your statement that this paper has him "vouching for the Quark X" is not really accurate if you actually read the paper. It has him working out a theory for energy calculation under a number of assumptions, that he thinks might explain the Quark X. Importantly, he claims no actual measurements of the Quark X. In that regard it is not dissimilar from Cook's paper, which analyzes ash and concludes that no known reaction can account for it. For your information, that is not vouching for something, it is investigating it and proposing possible explanations.
You repeatedly have difficulty properly interpreting technical issues and manuscripts (and I'm not talking about simplistic ideas like pro/con good/bad). That's not unexpected since it is clear that this is not an area where you have any expertise.
It's very clear that you believe Rossi likely has an effect and that IH is trying to squelch Rossi for some selfish or otherwise untoward purpose (maybe as simple as avoiding payment of $89Mil). And it's clear that you believe that sincerely and passionately. I certainly recognize that, and I would say everyone who has spent any time reading this thread recognizes your position as well.
I might suggest, however, that when you sense that you don't know what you are talking about, you do more for your 'side' if you refrain from making declarative statements. In those situations, using "I think" or "in my opinion" actually increases your credibility rather than decreases it (in my opinion). And reflexively reacting to comments you disagree with by simply exchanging parties' names usually isn't very winsome either, in my opinion.
For what it's worth.
But if for some strange reason we do end up meeting each other (unlikely because I'm not willing to disclose my identity), I'd like to offer to buy you a beer and we'll have a good laugh about all of this, no matter the outcome.
P.S: if you use a Mac, you get the 'ö' by first typing <option> u and then typing o. You can also accent a vowel with 'option e' e.g. á, and 'option o' gives ø
@sig,
Thanks for your suggestions on how I might improve, albeit unsolicited.
I'm pretty sure we would get along just fine in the offline world.
I'd like to refer them to you.
I have reduced the time spent at this forum greatly so I may not be here to "refer to". When I do visit, it is mainly to check up on Bob Higgins work, which is impressive (to me) and shows what true research should look like! 
Not the Rossi vaudeville act for certain!
I have only stopped in on this thread on rare occasion lately and have made a commitment to myself to stay away for the most part! I see it as "beating the dead horse" to a great extent and I have much more fulfilling projects to spend my time at. To me, there is no point arguing with some people and that is what it has boiled down to. Arguing. There is little real discussion of real facts. Imagined missing windows panes certainly does not trump solid math such as THH's. That was pretty much end of story for most, but for some..... (see my above post!)
However...... sometimes I just cannot help myself from taking a peek and make a post! 
Oh well! Kind of like people slowing down to look at car wrecks, they just cannot help doing it! This drama has been more like a full scale train wreck since 2011!
Re can you get COP=9 from Levi's IR method:
It is quite interesting. For a band/total emissivity ratio of 2.25, say, about the max you'd get from alumina, the error depends on the temperature. The higher this is, the nearer is the band dependence of radiance on temperature to T^1. Also, for higher temperatures the (real) total emissivity gets close to the (calculated from higher temperature) total emissivity, because the total emissivity graph flattens out, so the reduction in calculated COP error due to this factor decreases. For a high enough temperature you get 2.25^4 which is more than 9, but only just, so all the stars would need to be right.
But I'm not sure that is achievable - the temperature would maybe be too high - X5 looks more achievable to me. If set up it by Rossi the test could easily have one of the well known X3 input power errors, so that with X3 output IR (as Lugano) that is also possible for "Rossi-COP" of 9. We know at this stage it would be Rossi vs Dameron for technical stuff - so no challenge there...
Those two options I'd say cover all the likely errors...
Re can you get COP=9 from Levi's IR method:
It is quite interesting. For a band/total emissivity ratio of 2.25, say, about the max you'd get from alumina, the error depends on the temperature. The higher this is, the nearer is the band dependence of radiance on temperature to T^1. Also, for higher temperatures the (real) total emissivity gets close to the (calculated from higher temperature) total emissivity, because the total emissivity graph flattens out, so the reduction in calculated COP error due to this factor decreases. For a high enough temperature you get 2.25^4 which is more than 9, but only just, so all the stars would need to be right.
Based on some of the Manara et al papers, especially the one regarding the Christiansen wavelength, I think an IR (wrong) COP of 9 could be done. The pore size and grain size of alumina would have to be optimized to concentrate the peak IR emission band significantly more than is usual for typical alumina materials. If someone wanted to fund this, it may have industrial applications, like heating specific materials without heating the surrounding environment much, sort of like the way a microwave oven is optimized for heating water molecules, but using IR radiation instead.
Possibly using a band pass filter on the IR camera could accomplish something similar.
It would be hard to do a false COP of 9 by accident using IR, though, in my opinion, without also measuring electrical input poorly due to wavelength manipulation or delta-wye mix-ups.
