Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • My opinion is that the "protocol" mentioned in the Lugano report is possibly incomplete and that additional steps needed to understand what they really did where left out.
    I tried to fill these steps in and can state that even without calibration at high temperatures you can arrive at the correct temperatures using another protocol of which the "protocol" in the Lugano report is only a sub part and not even correctly written down.
    Using a part of the derived protocol I did a test adjusting some Optris temperature values as reported by the MFMP and after correction they had exactly the same values as the Williams pyrometer. The differences between the two had disappeared ! For me that proves that indeed it is possible to use the Optris to obtain correct temperatures without calibration (The calibration is basically part of the literature data used in the protocol).
    Does that mean the Lugano testers made no error ? Sure they made errors as you and I would also have made. Did they use the wrong emissivities ? Maybe, but in my opinion too much weight is given to the possible emissivity errors by people who do not know if the methods in the Lugano report where reported correctly or where even reported complete.



    LDM


    The method they (and probably you) used will work for any grey body, where the emissivity in the IR band 7-14um is the same as total emissivity. For alumina at high temperatures that is (badly) not true, but for most things it is (roughly).


    If you read TC's report you can see that the emissivity error they made is known, not guessed. They stated, in the report, precisely what steps they followed, and those are the correct steps if you assume 9as they did) that total and band emissivity are identical. In fcat, if they had obtained a correct graph of IR band emissivity vs temperature to use they would have got it right....


    THH

  • The method they (and probably you) used will work for any grey body, where the emissivity in the IR band 7-14um is the same as total emissivity. For alumina at high temperatures that is (badly) not true, but for most things it is (roughly).


    If you read TC's report you can see that the emissivity error they made is known, not guessed. They stated, in the report, precisely what steps they followed, and those are the correct steps if you assume 9as they did) that total and band emissivity are identical. In fcat, if they had obtained a correct graph of IR band emissivity vs temperature to use they would have got it right....


    THH


    Not true, the method I used takes into account the difference between in band emissivity and total (grey body) emissivity.


    And as I stated I do not think that in the report they "precisely stated" what they did and what steps they followed.

    I am of the opinion that they have made errors in their reporting and thus the protocol they used was not precisely stated in the report.

  • Not true, the method I used takes into account the difference between in band emissivity and total (grey body) emissivity.


    And as I stated I do not think that in the report they "precisely stated" what they did and what steps they followed.

    I am of the opinion that they have made errors in their reporting and thus the protocol they used was not precisely stated in the report.


    In that case, perhaps you should go through your method, and we can check where you got it wrong, or why you are not testing the temperatures from the report?


    Also, please state where you feel is the ambiguity in the Lugano Report description of method. I'm familiar with it and I'll explain. We have confirmation from Levi after the event (via Mats' reporting) that indeed they thought band emissivity irrelevant to their calculations - Levi still does as far as I know).


    You are making strong claims here that contradict a lot of work done by Paradigmnoia, TC, Bob H, MFMP. That is fine, but people here are willing and able to engage with the details and see whether what you say is correct.

  • In that case, perhaps you should go through your method, and we can check where you got it wrong, or why you are not testing the temperatures from the report?


    Also, please state where you feel is the ambiguity in the Lugano Report description of method. I'm familiar with it and I'll explain.


    You are making strong claims here that contradict a lot of work done by Paradigmnoia, TC, Bob H, MFMP. That is fine, but people here are willing and able to engage with the details and see whether what you say is correct.


    I knew this question was coming !

    Indeed I am making strong claims, however I decided already some time ago that I will not discuss the method here, at least not at this moment.

    You may blame for that but the problem is that discussions here tend to end up in pro or contra Rossi stances and I intend not to spend my time on those.

    Not answering posts would put me in the same category as the Lugano testers which did not give answers on the issues with respect to their report.


    But you made the correct conclusion that as a part of the solution you need to have the correct graph of IR band emissivity vs temperature. The question is how to get such graph from literature data and where to find that data.

    It can be done and I am sure seeing your technical background that if you spent some time on it you will find the answer.


  • This is a bit funny LDM. Why not submit your work to a peer review, and there is no better place than this, that welcomes any viewpoint. Of course you are free to do as you please, but critiques will not be pro Rossi or pro IH. They will be pro or contra your method and its application. Otherwise your claims remain empty.

  • This is a bit funny LDM. Why not submit your work to a peer review, and there is no better place than this, that welcomes any viewpoint. Of course you are free to do as you please, but critiques will not be pro Rossi or pro IH. They will be pro or contra your method and its application. Otherwise your claims remain empty.


    Otherwise your claims remain empty.


    So be it


  • LDM - can I recommend that you read in detail TC's paper and run his Python 2.7 (or was it 2.6) code. This not only tells you how to do it, but does a (rather crude, but OK) implementation. And you can follow up all his refs - there is no magic.


    If you have done the equivalent work - perhaps better - it would be fascinating to compare and contrast. But, since TC's working is all out in the open and has been discussed and challenged here on threads in detail (mainly by Paradigmnoia, but also others) you will forgive me if without such a process of critique, and without the transparency allowing us to see what you have got, I view your comments as unhelpful.


    Better to say that you have been trying to work things out for yourself without bothering to read the literature, but are not yet ready to subject your conclusions to scrutiny. (If you had read and understood what other's had done you could state in what way your stuff differed from them).


    If, for example, you only difference from TC is in determining the optris sensor band emissivity then you could easily state what you have, and this could be conmpared with what TC/Bob H are using. And, if you are using band emissivity at all, you can be certain that for alumina your results will be very different from those of the Lugano authors. Whichever way you slice it:

    @1400C (iterated temperature for emissivity used in lugano for hottest test)

    total e ~ 0.4

    band e ~ 0.9 - 0.95


    See the difference?


    Nor can I see that a tech discussion of Lugano need have anything to do with pro Rossi or pro IH. It is what it is.


  • Actually page I-14 (27 in the PDF) is the best graph of band emissivity at temperature. IR emissivity is seen to be fairly high at 1300K as confirmed in MFMP's video.


    Another interesting read is page I-21 (34 of the PDF) which shows how dispersed the total emissivity data are, and shows how optimistic the error computation is in the Lugano paper, (on top of the conceptual mistake of using total emissivity for the IR camera setting). The iterative search for a temperature-emissivity pair that the Lugano authors describe is done with reference to the best fit curve. But data points are at least +/-20% dispersed around this best fit.


  • Actually page I-14 (27 in the PDF) is the best graph of band emissivity at temperature. IR emissivity is seen to be fairly high at 1300K as confirmed in MFMP's video.


    Another interesting read is page I-21 (34 of the PDF) which shows how dispersed the total emissivity data are, and shows how optimistic the error computation is in the Lugano paper, (on top of the conceptual mistake of using total emissivity for the IR camera setting). The iterative search for a temperature-emissivity pair that the Lugano authors describe is done with reference to the best fit curve. But data points are at least +/-20% dispersed around this best fit.


    Subtley -


    It is not band emissivity at the claimed temperature that matters. it is band emissivity at the real temperature, which was 800C. This is 0.95 or so. it will be lower at 1400C, not sure how much.


    My previous post compared band and total emissivity at 1400C. Well that was misleading, because what matters in seeing how the Lugano lot went wrong is band emissivity at the real temperature of 800C vis total emissivity at the (wrongly calculated termperature) 1400C. It is easy to get this wrong - as I half did in my post above! And that BTW is why with anything complex you need to write it down as TC did, check, and double-check. Without the equations, thinking about it, you can easily go wrong.


    Work it through, and you will see what I mean...

  • by the way law360 reporter published an article (short) about the opening of the trial

    https://www.law360.com/trials/…-89m-in-licensing-dispute


    note that it is behind a paywall/trialwall and publishing the content here is illegal beside being unfair for the reporter who is paid to write the article.


    nothing new if you follow LENR-Forum.

  • Quote

    I knew it would not be long before Dewey Weaver and Maryyugo would team up against Rossi. ;)


    I've never met Dewey Weaver or corresponded with him and I don't have any idea what the line you quoted even means! If Mr. Weaver and Darden and Vaughn had bothered to contact me and other skeptics of Rossi such as Krivit *prior* to committing MILLIONS to a con man, I could have saved them this entire debacle. I did exactly that (along with others) for Australian billionaire Dick Smith in 2011 when he wanted to invest in Defkalion. I did not tell him not to invest. I told him what specific independent tests of the "Hyperion" to ask for. He relayed this to Defkalion. They refused. He declined to invest -- they had asked him for a million American dollars or more and he had considered it.


    Instead of Smith's rational approach, the principals of IH and Cherokee (and Woodford) rushed in without proper vetting and proper testing. The furshlugginer mess they got derived from that.


    Quote

    US - it is interesting how right Krivit, MaryY, FredZ and several others have turned out to be on R'ster related matters. More truth is on the way so brace yourselves Planet Rossi.


    Thanks but a bit late after all the insults, invective, banning, censoring and doxxing. There was a time when any post with my pseudonym in it could not post to ecatnews.com. It took several years for Paul Story, the owner's pseudonym, to admit that Rossi was a scammer.


    IH should have realized EARLY ON that Rossi and Defkalion had all the classical signs of a high tech scam:


    - declining power and output/input ratio numbers with time instead of the other way around (the best performing ecats were between 2007 and 2011)

    - no test ever done exactly the same way twice and no test improved according to expert recommendations from outside Rossi's inner circle

    - ever increasingly exorbitant claims without the slightest evidence for their veracity (see any QuarkX's recently?)

    - no truly independent verification ever and no correction of previously badly done tests

    - dismal history of no accomplishment, failures and probable frauds in the principal person's background

    - falsifying credentials (Kensington University) and associations (Philips, National Instruments, U of Bologna, U of Uppsala, US Army, NASA, NATO, etc. etc. at various times)

    - no sales

    - no papers in main line journals

    - no meaningful patents

    - all sorts of silly crap like the so-called self-safety-testing

    - constant lying including to distributors who tried to sell megawatt plants Rossi could not provide

    - failure to respond to appropriate and polite critics


    ... and much more. IH and Woodford gave Rossi millions and promised millions more DESPITE all those CLASSICAL warning signs.

  • A report by Abd

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rvd-trial-day-1/

    to my surprise, Bo Hoistad is called by Rossi. Levi too.

    many unknown to me : Mazarino, Wendy Carter, Pace (is it Claudio Pace?), Di Giovanni,Fogelman...

  • Some details of the initial shots fired by IH & Rossi:


    https://www.law360.com/tria...

    Law360, Miami (June 30, 2017, 9:57 PM EDT) -- An Italian inventor suing over an $89 million licensing agreement for an energy catalyzer patent opened trial Friday in Miami, telling jurors that the licensees had repeatedly touted the technology and said it had "potential to change the world" before reneging on the agreement.


    Brian Chaiken of Perlman Bajandas Yevoli & Albright PL, who represents Italian inventor Andrea Rossi, told the jury that Rossi and his Leonardo Corp. are owed $89 million from licensees Cherokee Investment Partners LLC and related entity Industrial Heat LLC, which boasted about acquiring the technology for a low-energy nuclear reactor called the E-Cat through a 2012 agreement but failed to live up to their end of the deal.

    "They wasted no time telling investors and potential investors that E-Cat actually works and that they were in possession of the technology," Chaiken said.

    At one point, in an investment memorandum, International Heat said the future success of the company was dependent on one key individual: Rossi, according to Chaiken.


    "They're (Industrial Heat ) telling their investors they've got LeBron James on their team and if they're going to the NBA Finals, they're going to ride him all the way there," he said.


    But International Heat changed its tune in May 2015, he said, when it successfully sold 4 percent of the company for $50 million. After that investment, Chaiken said the narrative changed, and the company began to say that Rossi was unreliable and that the test results of his E-Cat technology were unreliable.



    The case is Andrea Rossi et al. v. Thomas Darden et al., case number 1:16-cv-21199, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.