Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • IHFG - both the empty reactor and the loaded reactors showed the same results. I know you find that hard to believe and there were other people in the room witnessing the takedown. Fulvs thought they were all loaded reactors but one was not. Turnabout was fair play.


    Forgive me for not believing this story as told. According to Darden, he discovered the dummy reactor in Jan. 2014. If this were true, he would have never pursued landing the investment with Woodford later on. Woodford stated that Rossi's technology was core to their investment. At that time, Darden probably believed that the e-Cat worked. I don't think he would otherwise have had the gumption to land that large of an investment with Rossi being core to the investment. I think the dummy reactor story has been embellished, and at the time Darden gave the testimony, he probably hadn't quite thought through all of the implications.

  • Forgive me for not believing this story as told. According to Darden, he discovered the dummy reactor in Jan. 2014. If this were true, he would have never pursued landing the investment with Woodford later on. Woodford stated that Rossi's technology was core to their investment. At that time, Darden probably believed that the e-Cat worked. I don't think he would otherwise have had the gumption to land that large of an investment with Rossi being core to the investment. I think the dummy reactor story has been embellished, and at the time Darden gave the testimony, he probably hadn't quite thought through all of the implications.

    "It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have been once deceived". (not to mention four, six, eight... times). IHFB has mostly unsubstantiated, unverifiable, selective "thoughts" and "beliefs", just like Rossi et.al. --that is the "Rossi Scientific Method" as practiced by his followers.

  • It's close but not quite exactly 1 deg F


    As mostly in this story it goes on giving, technically.


    We have temp and pressure readings. These are, as far as I can see, the master measurements on which $89M is resting, coming from a sensor known to be quantised at 0.5ish C or 0.02ish Bar. That means a low resolution ADC, probably 8 or 10 bit.


    Now i'd expect that for these hundreds of individual reactor measurements each (we presume) with a little uC with lousy built-in ADC.


    It is not likley that respectable calibrated measuring equipment will have such low quantisation unless the measuring range for these devices is way out of what is reasonable. What we must have is an electronic sensor providing a voltage out - that may be calibrated - and what seems likley to me - a Fulvio-special ADC + software etc.


    My problem is this: who calibrates the ADC, and therefore the whole setup? Not the manufacturer because I just can't see any manufacturer selling a precision temperature gauge with such poor resolution.


    We know nothing about how the whole equipment chain was calibrated (not just, say, the sensor itself). And errors can come as easily from a lousy Fulvio ADC as from a badly calibrated sensor.


    I'm not saying I know things here are badly calibrated. Just that the quantisation is very surprisingly bad, and the GPT (since that is what Rossi says it is) validation does not seem to have disclosed anything about how the ADC part of the sensor chain was calibrated. Test 101, ignored by Penon in a previous report he signed but then (it was claimed for him by Rossi) was not actually written by him, but by Rossi, means you specify your measuring equipment, and its calibration. So when were these lousy ADCs calibrated? And by whom?

  • IHFB - you're the best that Planet Rossi has to offer in sticking with your piecemeal points / arguments and of course you're forgiven because you cannot help yourself. I'm really looking forward to more details coming out about the empty reactor that Fulvs said was performing so well and that caused Rossi to absolutely blow his top once confronted.


    LHH - no one on Planet Rossi seems to know that before and after measure instrument and data acquisition calibration matter in real world research and engineering environs. Joe remains an absolute stickler for that because he lives in the real world. Rossi could not produce real documentation during discovery but has never stopped him before - everything is possible on Planet Rossi, especially now that we have to deal with the add-on post-rental event stealth heat exchanger ( I hope he puts that miracle on the market soon as well - he can double his money on every QX sale). Penon didn't even think about including critical calibration information in his "ERV" report which tells those who deal with reality all that we need to know and, as you point out, was not even "his" (JM invoice precedent noted).


    As if it was needed - doubt upon doubt will soon be going exponential.

  • IHFB - you're the best that Planet Rossi has to offer in sticking with your piecemeal points / arguments and of course you're forgiven because you cannot help yourself. I'm really looking forward to more details coming out about the empty reactor that Fulvs said was performing so well and that caused Rossi to absolutely blow his top once confronted.


    I thought discovery was over?

  • I think if the Lugano report had been forthright about the involvement of Rossi and Fabiani, with the professors only being there occasionally, people would have not put much stock in it long before the emissivity problem became apparent later on.

    I do not think the professors have been involved in a farce: they would not go back and forth for a test they could not control. I am sure that in the two most important phases (the start and conclusion of the test) they were present and active. It may be that they all together were not in Lugano for the entire duration of the test, because once started, there was nothing else to do that letting the data acquisition systems work.

  • I agree Rossi should let the MFMP do a black box test. If it works, he literally has nothing to lose.

    I do not agree with this. If the secret of running the E-Cat is in the way it is start or driven, Rossi has so much to lose in revealing these details. He is a businessman, not a scientist or a professor. He made a discovery and wants to sell it, do not donate it, and I find nothing wrong with this.

  • because once started, there was nothing else to do that letting the data acquisition systems work.


    That's not quite correct. As we've seen with the control run that was cut short, it is a very important detail that Rossi and Fabiani were so involved in the Lugano test. They really should have been included as authors on that paper.

  • And Darden's alleged timing of the discovery of the scam is intriguing: Jan. of 2014, well before taking the pitch and landing the investment from Woodford. Sorry, doesn't add up.

    I've said it so many times, but the supporters of IH refuse to see possible wrong attitudes ... I think there are only two possibilities: 1) Darden tells lies or exaggerates a lot when he says he has never had a positive result from his tests on the E -Cat; 2) Darden asked for funds to investors knowing they were financing a bluff. In both cases its behavior is incorrect.

  • Once you get into the generator and reactor details from Ferrara then it all goes squirrelly anyway.

    so you are saying that the whole IH is a group of idiots uncapable to evaluate the details of a test that they have done !

    My goodness why any investor should keep giving money to this bunch of A$$holes ! You are affirming that not me ! :)

  • As we've seen with the control run that was cut short, it is a very important detail that Rossi and Fabiani were so involved in the Lugano test. They really should have been included as authors on that paper.

    ha ha ha ha

    That is very nice but try again ! The professors had taken all decisions on how take data and conduct the experiment. Because they ware having only one item to test empty before and filled after it is quite obvious that they ware very prudent with the unloaded device so not to risk to damage it.

  • If we are going to examine Levi's qualifications, it helps to check out his publication list. For someone around academia as long as he has been, it is trivial and he is not the principal author of hardly any papers. And one of his "works" is about coffee brewing! See anything about calorimetry? Anything about heat transfer or fluid flow? Anything about electrical or HVAC engineering?

    mary dear mary

    In many science fields (physics is one good example) papers are done by collaborations of hundreds of scientist.

    Also in experimental physics you have to acquire many types of skills that are useful to your experiment even if you don't publish on this topics.

    The works on coffee brewing ? Are patents registered by the University and done for an applied physics collaboration with industry.

    They mean that Levi was collaborating with industries much before he met Rossi.

    Those patents also are about a heat transfer device !

  • That is very nice but try again ! The professors had taken all decisions on how take data and conduct the experiment. Because they ware having only one item to test empty before and filled after it is quite obvious that they ware very prudent with the unloaded device so not to risk to damage it.


    Can you back up your assertion with support? Answer: you will not or cannot do so. Until then, your assertion is just that -- mere assertion. We do not know who was involved in the decision about cutting the control run short or how it came about, despite your implicit suggestion to the contrary. :) My guess: It was Rossi who made that call.

  • Can you back up your assertion with support? Answer: you will not or cannot do so. Until then, your assertion is just that -- mere assertion. We do not know who was involved in the decision about cutting the control run short or how it came about, despite your implicit suggestion to the contrary. :) My guess: It was Rossi who made that call.

    My guess is that it was the director of the JMP plant that told Rossi to cut the run short. :)

  • I do not agree with this. If the secret of running the E-Cat is in the way it is start or driven, Rossi has so much to lose in revealing these details. He is a businessman, not a scientist or a professor. He made a discovery and wants to sell it, do not donate it, and I find nothing wrong with this.


    I know a thing or two about business as well. And I assure you, the single best business decision Rossi could make at this point would be to let the MFMP do a black box test. Even those who are most supportive of Rossi here and at ECW harbor doubts about the e-Cat. If rossi can get the LENR+ community firmly in its corner, its a done deal. He will have hundreds of evangelists spreading the news far and wide for him. He wouldn't be able to buy that kind of PR--not even close. Any risk in revealing a startup detail of the reactor would be eclipsed by what would be gained.

  • ha ha ha ha

    That is very nice but try again ! The professors had taken all decisions on how take data and conduct the experiment. Because they ware having only one item to test empty before and filled after it is quite obvious that they ware very prudent with the unloaded device so not to risk to damage it.


    Ele,


    There is something positively loathsome - to me - about so many lies being told - you and SSC.


    SSC seems just to be incapable of imagining uncertainty - and then fits his rationalisation around his lack of imagination. In this case that IH could be confused by Rossi's setups, and the other independent tests, working when their own - done with much weaker technical resources, we know, Dameron, did not. So I have some sympathy with SSC - lack of imagination is no crime.


    You though...


    You seem knowledgeable - so you will remember that Rossi said he had several spare reactors - in case one broke. Indeed for a test of such magnitude it would be stupid for him not to have that. And given the long time of the test a day to rerun a control at a lower temperature is nothing.


    Furthermore the active test operated at two temperatures: (Levi 1250C = 750C and Levi 1400C = 800C). So the profs clearly thought 1250C was safe, or their lower temperature would not have been that. So why not test the control to 1250C? Were they concerned temperatures above (500C Levi = 350C) would be a problem they would surely have test the device with more temperature steps - starting with the control temperature they were confident about.


    Your argument here is a incorrect, or, if you are as sophisticated as you seem here, an outright lie.

  • the single best business decision Rossi could make at this point would be to let the MFMP do a black box test. Even those who are most supportive of Rossi here and at ECW harbor doubts about the e-Cat. If rossi can get the LENR+ community firmly in its corner, its a done deal. He will have hundreds of evangelists spreading the news far and wide for him. He wouldn't be able to buy that kind of PR--not even close.


    IH Fanboy I agree that more public tests could potentially raise his credibility, in the LENR community and beyond but you are assuming ongoing tests and demos are not taken place and that huge amounts are not already waiting in escrow accounts. If that would be the case he might not see much to gain from public black-box testing, unfortunately.

    I personally hoped the litigation would lead to those types of tests and disclosures you refer to, but so far it has not.
    Because it hasn't one could be led to think there might possible be things going on that we are not being communicated here in this forum...