Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from PIH

    But please remember.

    Pro IH <> anti LENR

    and more importantly, Anti Rossi <> Anti LENR.

    Ohhh..... if it was not you (another pseudonym probably from IH) I would not noticed that !

    In fact IH has bought (not with money but with shares of no value as far as I know) all the patents on LENR it was able to buy.

    A move done to calm angry investors I presume.

    I wonder if and where IH is developing and experimenting all this technologies .......

    But I presume they are not experimenting anything......

    I guess :

    they want need more and more money from other investors to really start hiring and open the laboratory..... :)

    Quote from ele

    Insulting the US Legal System.


    If IH will lose it will be just because "the US legal system is not good enough" and not because IH is wrong.


    I apologize beforehand.

    My reply to you will not be the same as it would be for someone like IHFB,

    who it seems, genuinely wants to KNOW.


    BUT, You are either ignorant or not from round here.


    Checks and balances RULE.

    Evidence can and usually (but not always) wins.

    And when it doesn't win, we can easily find out what minutea was involved to make it so.

    Such as the example Jed gave previously about the McDonalds Coffee.

    Because it takes no effort to find that she was held mostly to blame,

    but because the company knew that the temperature was required to be excessive,

    they lost out. She F'ed up, she won. No need to go further into this since the Mods don't like deviation.



    You fail if you think that the majority would blame the US Legal system for an IH loss.

    Maybe that would be the de facto assumption in your country of origin.

    (I assume someone from your area of the world knows what "de facto" means)


    If IH lose (as defendants remember), it means that the plaintiffs proved their case.

    At least in the US (maybe not the leg looking part of Europe),

    The Defendants (IH) are presumed correct unless proven otherwise right ?


    So the bottom line is that if Rossi Proves that his one year experiment with a real customer

    was in actual fact the GPT without at least 3 signatures,

    and that the GPT was realized, then he is good to go. Give the man $270 Million.


    That is the court case, Full Stop.


    And you Rossi wins.


    Pete

    My first name is Pete.

    Probably no surprise to most here, since that is how most of my posts end.

    My middle name is Ian. Also the name of my Eldest Son.

    And I am F&*kin damned if I am going to tell YOU my last name.......


    Were you christened Ele. Is that your full name ? Like Madonna ?


    And if Neil has an issue with the money he invested in IH,

    then he is smarter than me and a Hell of a lot smarter than you,

    to figure out if he wants to get his money back.


    Pete Ian H&*&$%^&%%$

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    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).


    I didn't quite follow the Lugano photoshop allusion. It seems like there might have been something that was discussed before here or elsewhere which I missed.


    There was nothing in the two images that you attached that looked obviously photoshopped. It looked like there was a small popup window that had an "x" that could be moved around, and that the smaller window was placed in the corner above another window that was behind it, possibly covering over a temperature reading that is normally there in the main window of the Optris application. Nothing in this scenario seems out of the normal. Am I missing something important?

    Eric Walker ,

    Like any typical Windows window, the border should be white or maybe light grey (unless modified in the display settings). The Lugano image (figure 7, from memory) window border in the first of the two images I posted has been (somewhat sloppily) filled in with the IR background colour. If you look closely, you can see the irregular purple-ish paint brush fill, especially on the top of the twin temperature window.

    I'm not sure why the color was added, really.

    (I'm not sure, without checking, that the temperature window can actually be moved onto the active camera display like that. It might be pasted onto the image, but I can try that out to be more certain.)

    I think this must be the image you cropped:




    In a former life, I worked with Windows for several years. This image does not stand out to me as being out of the normal. I think there might be a theme where the window borders are translucent and the background color shows through. I could be wrong. I have not used Windows in a long time.


    Here is a translucent window from what is probably a more recent version of Windows:




    It would be pretty remarkable if one of the authors of the Lugano report went to the effort to photoshop an image. I'm skeptical at this point.

    What I am having a hard time with is getting that purple-ish magenta background with hot orange-yellow ceramic at 235 C.

    Even with emissivity set to 0.69

    It looks a lot more like Lugano report Figure 11.

    See:

    Edit: Added the color reference bar. I'll fiddle with the colors and see what it takes to get the magenta and yellows to display at the same time without an 80 C background. (you have to click on the image to see the bar)

    How do you like these apples?

    L & R set at 0.12 emissivity, and Area 3 set at 0.95 (the correct E based on thermocouples). No way the tube hot spots vary this much.

    The skinnier I make the R rectangle, the more the background contrast drops, and the brighter the ceramic gets...

    The area measured makes a HUGE difference.


    The part 2 image has no emissivity or color pallet range changes from the first image.

    The only change was the R box expanded to the size of Area 3.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Alan, is there an object at 200 - 237.5 C in that image?


    No. The camera was focused on a point on the wall behind a reactor in a warm lab. But it is the actual camera used at Lugano with AFAIK the same settings. I have no idea what temperature the reactor parts were at at the time, but probably not very hot - less than 100C at a guess. This image just happened to be part of a larger (blurry) photograph I took 'on the fly'. I thought the background colour would be of interest, rather than the image.

    Re: Lugano IR measurements and Rossi's "errors" (with a digression honouring the real Huxley).


    I see no evidence anything was photoshopped: nor any need for that to obtain the erroneous Levi/Rossi results. Rossi's tests typically make assumptions that are badly broken by the real system - but if the assumptions were correct the result would be correct. There may be a few more egregious issues - like substitution of bought Ni-62 sample or Cu sample in ash given up for testing. In the first case Rossi now states this was contamination. Doubtless he will explain away the Ni-62 as contamination as well...


    So:

    • Many early tests - assume TRIAC waveform is sine wave, so that average V and A meters can be used to determine power
    • Water flow calorimetry - assume phase change when there was none
    • Water flow calorimetry (2) - assume TC measures water temp when in fact it measures higher metal tube temp
    • "Samovar" test (6 hours SSM claim that confused many) - assume no hot core storage of heat - also water flow calorimetry error type (2)
    • Lugano - assume alumina is grey body: that not only explains the COP, but also the mysterious (and more difficult to explain) COP acceleration [Clar15]
    • QuarkX - assume fluorescent radiation is black body, assume transparent container surface temperature is same as radiation temperature [Gull17]

    For somone interested in technical magic - Rossi goes on giving. I think his "persecution" from IH after his heroic health-destroying time in the container has unleashed his creativity. He has gone from COP=5 max IR thermography errors to COP = 1000 or so fluorescent radiation errors. It is an elaboration of a theme where the assumption that radiation is black body (or grey body) gives an error. (The other error apparent from the QuarkX paper was below Rossi's usual standard. Conflating input power, with power dissipated by a current sense resistor in series with the QuarkX. I'd guess he has corrected that one now, while keeping the very large radiation error).


    Done properly IR thermography would be an OK way to do calorimetry. Not great, because as previously noted the radiation power out scales as T^4, amplifying errors by 4. Also there are many ways in which emissivity can vary from expected, e.g. view factor (from ridges) or just a rough surface, as well as classic non-grey-body behaviour. None of that need matter, because correctly done IR measurements will be exactly calibrated by control TC measurements at temperature on the surface to be measured, as all IR camera manuals say you should do. You also still need to be careful about surroundings affects - where variation in the temperature of the line of sight surfaces alters the power absorbed by the target object. Finally you have to make assumptions about the amount of turbulence to calculate power loss through convection. So even given exact temperature the power dissipation calculation is more complex and therefore subject to challenge than you'd want...


    One lesson from this is how easy it is to fool scientists. A nuclear physicist, for example, would likely remember enough basic physics to agree with a power calculation based on IR thermography but ignoring some of the complexities. Easier to fool such a semi-expert - who can follow and understand a partially correct method - than someone with no science education who accepts results on trust.


    Levi seems to have bought wholesale into the Lugano mistake to the extent of claiming it is not a mistake when challenged and even that colleagues agree with him on this. He thereby shows himself either incompetent, or deliberately deceitful. The human mind is a strange thing and people, even otherwise competent scientists, can get stuck in a rut where they are unable to question an initial premise. The whole point of scientific challenge and peer review is to correct this: but the whole point of being a scientist is to be aware of this tendency and strive to your utmost not to fall for it. By that standard Levi is no scientist.


    <digression>


    Quoted from T.H.Huxley (1825-1895) in a great and powerful letter written 23 September 1860 to Charles Kingsley [Hux1860] after the death of his 4 year-old first-born son, dealing with his lack of belief in the Christian religion. Huxley was a true scientist in that he passionately committed to uncovering the truth, and believed this in principle to be possible - an area where perhaps his Victorian certitudes are not to modern tastes:


    Quote

    Pray understand that I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force, or the indestructibility of matter. Whoso clearly appreciates all that is implied in the falling of a stone can have no difficulty about any doctrine simply on account of its marvellousness. But the longer I live, the more obvious it is to me that the most sacred act of a man’s life is to say and to feel, “I believe such and such to be true.” All the greatest rewards and all the heaviest penalties of existence cling about that act. The universe is one and the same throughout; and if the condition of my success in unravelling some little difficulty of anatomy or physiology is that I shall rigorously refuse to put faith in that which does not rest on sufficient evidence, I cannot believe that the great mysteries of existence will be laid open to me on other terms. It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions. I dare not if I would.


    and the more often quoted (Levi would do well to pay attention):


    Quote

    Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing


    Huxley believed passionately that morality did not require the carrot and stick of heaven and hell, and that moral action was rewarded in this life - a view I find all too lacking sometimes in modern discussion:



    Quote

    The ledger of the Almighty is strictly kept, and every one of us has the balance of his operations paid over to him at the end of every minute of his existence.

    If I, born a bloodthirsty and savage brute, inheriting these qualities from others, kill you, my fellow-men will very justly hang me, but I shall not be visited with the horrible remorse which would be my real punishment if, my nature being higher, I had done the same thing.

    The absolute justice of the system of things is as clear to me as any scientific fact. The gravitation of sin to sorrow is as certain as that of the earth to the sun, and more so–for experimental proof of the fact is within reach of us all–nay, is before us all in our own lives, if we had but the eyes to see it.


    </digression>


    The other Lugano testers seem to have gone along with Levi - or else are behaving unprofessionally in not retracting the sort-of published - and still used as a definite reference - Lugano Report. The mystery of precisely why they do this is one that we still have almost no information about, and it interests me because it is so unexpected. You do not think so many academics would be deliberately deceitful. Perhaps many of them reckoned that they took no part in the IR calculations and therefore it is not for them to comment - leaving this to Levi.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.