Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    A quick note to everyone: opening statements are not evidence.

    Quote from LDM

    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


    I do believe it is possible to do fairly effective calorimetry using IR, with proper calibration and a well-measured device (for area).

    I was able to get nearly 98% of the input power measured with a rudimentary device and IR set up.

    With better equipment I could do better, I am certain.

    However, using total emissivity in place of the correct IR spectral emissivity for the Ir camera emisivity setting, where the object is not a true grey body, a correct power measurement is extremely unlikely, and almost always going to be wrong, ranging to terribly wrong.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I do believe it is possible to do fairly effective calorimetry using IR, with proper calibration and a well-measured device (for area).

    I was able to get nearly 98% of the input power measured with a rudimentary device and IR set up.

    With better equipment I could do better, I am certain.

    However, using total emissivity in place of the correct IR spectral emissivity for the Ir camera emisivity setting, where the object is not a true grey body, a correct power measurement is extremely unlikely, and almost always going to be wrong, ranging to terribly wrong.


    :)

    Quote

    I do believe it is possible to do fairly effective calorimetry using IR, with proper calibration and a well-measured device (for area).

    Maybe so but why do it when you can use a highly accurate (if properly calibrated) fluid cooled calorimeter which will not only give reliable results but is also safer? See: https://translate.google.com/t…ia-a-flusso%2F&edit-text=


    Better yet, why not use Levi's old method with the 2011 ecat which gave appx 10X better results both in terms of absolute output and also in terms of "COP" and showed no stability issues? With no phase change? Would easily prove that Rossi had LENR. But never repeated? In a rational world and if Rossi and Levi aren't crooks, how the hell does that happen?

    For what it is worth, I was also able to show that an approximate blackbody object runs cooler than a lower emissivity greybody or selective emitter using the same power input and object dimensions, by painting a test selective emitter object with high emissivity paint.

    Quote from maryyugo

    Maybe so but why do it when you can use a highly accurate (if properly calibrated) fluid cooled calorimeter which will not only give reliable results but is also safer? See:

    Personally, I wouldn't get water anywhere near that Lugano device.

    Sure, the device could have been made safer to do fluid calorimetery with.

    But then Trade Secrets might get out....:)

    Quote from [email protected]
     

    I think Rossi's bloviating blog entries could be admissible as evidence. It just takes one witness to say that that's what Rossi said on his blog. Then all of his blog stuff would be admissible. I'm surprised IH's lawyers haven't already angled in that direction.

     


    Generally speaking, statements made by the opposing lawsuit are not considered hearsay. So IH can probably get Rossi's blog statements in fairly easily when Rossi is on the stand, by asking him about the statements.


    However, the statements in question must be relevant - which means that they have to have a tendency to show that a fact that is of consequence to the case is more (or less) likely to be true. So not all of the bloviating is likely to be relevant.

    1 Cranch 137, 177

    • Official Post

    MD,


    IH has submitted a couple JONP Rossisays into evidence. Forget which exhibit, but they are in there, and they are relevant. Not sure if one of them was Rossi claiming JMP's product (FTR, there was no product)) absorbed 100% of the supplied thermal, but if not in the docket now, it will probably be presented at trial. JONP is a rich source for Rossi contradictions (Rossisays), and no doubt JD has gone over it with a fine tooth comb.

    • Official Post

    Well, if the trial were not already interesting enough, Levi and Hoistad showing up shoots it through the roof for us Rossitechies. In an earlier submission, they were listed as "may present" to "opine" about the Ecat. No doubt they will have some interesting things to say about Lugano. Odd too, after 3 1/2 years of refusing to answer to their peers about their methods and findings, they choose instead a courthouse venue to start talking?


    I would think JD is ready to present them the TC/Higgins/MFMP/GSVIT reports showing Lugano had some serious flaws, and I am certain Levi/Hoistad expect that and are somehow prepared. They have to know they are going to have to answer with something more than "well, I had a couple colleagues I can not name review it, and they thought it looked fine"...which is about what he told Lewan.


    I am glad to see this development. Hopefully they shed some light as to why they have stuck by Rossi, and why they still think Lugano is good. Looks as if THH, Paradigmnoia, Andrea S., are going to be real busy once they take the stand and start talking.

    • Official Post

    DiGiovanni is the "owner" of JMP, and is now going to be a witness for Rossi. There has been little talk about him since the suit was filed. When Rossi first mentioned him in the depo, I thought he might be fictitious, but true to Rossi's history...he usually has a connection, however tenuous, to the truth, and so DiGiovanni is real. Surprise.


    But Rossi fans...do not get too excited. Just because Rossi was not the actual owner -as he claimed from the start, by all intents and purposes he was JMP. And JMP was a total scam, with no need for steam, no product, and no money.


    Anyways, I am surprised JD did not depose him. Can not wait to hear his story.

    Quote from we_cat_global

    Well done. It seems that Thomas Darden has been very sloppy (negligent?) with his SEC paperwork as well. Mmmm..it must be a pain for Thomas Darden that his reputation is further tarnished by this court case. Once one has the SEC on its back it is hard to focus on anything else..

    Darden is recidivist .... obviously for him (or his collaborators) it's really too complicated to fill out those modules properly;) Looking at the list provided by Sifferkol, it would seem that for Cherokee is a habit finding shortcuts and tricks to get the biggest profit and then skip out on their duties ... obviously TD and his friends are not very interested in their reputation and very focused to their advantage.

    Quote from guest111

    Spoken as a true peanut-gallery worker, who has never run a business, or created a single job or product; if so, you would know that every business deals with these hoards of bureaucrats and paperwork that police every aspect of one's business, waiting to find some technical violation of paperwork or whatever, to fine the business and justify their existence--they are, in fact impossible to avoid at one time or another. In fact, I would wager that in addition to never running a business, or ever creating a job or product, you all are probably one of these public dole bureaucrats (or similar). But, everyone knows that you are simply grasping at straws to somehow draw some moral-equivalence to all of Rossi's dubious behavior and claims--keep jousting at them ecats, quarkxxxx's and invisible heat-exchangers.

    A ridiculous comment. I have highlighted some omissions in the ADV Form that are so obvious that they can not be mistakes or distractions. Those who filled out that form could not ignore or have forgotten that Cherokee has affiliates dealing with real estate or that have been involved in causes and appeals. Those are obviously deliberate omissions and as such are punishable by law. You may be bothered by this truth, and pour out your frustration by accusing me of everything you want, but these facts are true, public and irrefutable. Accept it.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    They still have a duty to retract or defend their (more boring and believable by others) calorimetry results.

    A duty? You talk about duty, obligations, academic ethics ... if the scientists who did that test are certain of the work they have done, they are not obliged to give explanations to anyone who ask for them. Wait for their upcoming publications to know their point of view, because that's how professors usually communicate: with tests and articles.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    They refused to answer questions, discuss the critiques or -- alternatively -- retract the report. In my opinion this violates academic ethics. It is unprofessional, as THH says.

    How could they violate academic ethics? First of all, scientists have not been sent to Lugano by the deans of their universities, but participated in the test personally, not representing their universities. And then it is their right not to consider the criticisms arrived from every kind of voice - they may have considered them not valid, or they may have chosen to respond in due time with a replication and a related article. But of course they are not required to account for their article to anyone who criticizes them from the pages of a forum.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Well, if the trial were not already interesting enough, Levi and Hoistad showing up shoots it through the roof for us Rossitechies. In an earlier submission, they were listed as "may present" to "opine" about the Ecat. No doubt they will have some interesting things to say about Lugano. Odd too, after 3 1/2 years of refusing to answer to their peers about their methods and findings, they choose instead a courthouse venue to start talking?


    I would think JD is ready to present them the TC/Higgins/MFMP/GSVIT reports showing Lugano had some serious flaws, and I am certain Levi/Hoistad expect that and are somehow prepared. They have to know they are going to have to answer with something more than "well, I had a couple colleagues I can not name review it, and they thought it looked fine"...which is about what he told Lewan.


    I am glad to see this development. Hopefully they shed some light as to why they have stuck by Rossi, and why they still think Lugano is good. Looks as if THH, Paradigmnoia, Andrea S., are going to be real busy once they take the stand and start talking.


    I disagree. IH, I think, reckon if this turns into tech expert vs expert it is too likely to be a stalemate. The fcat that they are correct and Rossi manifestly wrong on Lugano will not necessarily be clear to a Jury when all depends on the character of the experts. The IR thing is difficult for tech guys here to understand - I don't think a Jury will be able to do more than rate how convincing an expert sounds. Anyway, the Lugano test is peripheral to this case.

    Quote from SSC

    How could they violate academic ethics? First of all, scientists have not been sent to Lugano by the deans of their universities, but participated in the test personally, not representing their universities. And then it is their right not to consider the criticisms arrived from every kind of voice - they may have considered them not valid, or they may have chosen to respond in due time with a replication and a related article. But of course they are not required to account for their article to anyone who criticizes them from the pages of a forum.


    SSC this is weird. You are saying scientists are only ethical when under orders from their Dean? Scientists can publish papers from anywhere and are personally responsible for the content, and dealing with criticism. It has nothing to do with Deans! Nor is it relevant where, or if, a criticism is published - anyway TC's paper is published in as good a place as the original report.

    Quote

    I would think JD is ready to present them the TC/Higgins/MFMP/GSVIT reports showing Lugano had some serious flaws, and I am certain Levi/Hoistad expect that and are somehow prepared. They have to know they are going to have to answer with something more than "well, I had a couple colleagues I can not name review it, and they thought it looked fine"...which is about what he told Lewan.

    What they should say is that they are sorry. That they were bamboozled by Rossi into running the worst possible test design (energy measurement as the fourth power of temperature for Cripes' sake and insufficient calibration to boot). They should say that they should never have allowed Rossi to decide how input and output power were measured and that they should have never allowed him to handle the so-called fuel and ash. Then they should say that because of their omissions and negligent practices in allowing Rossi to ride all over them, the experiment was indeterminate and proved absolutely nothing. Because those are the facts.


    But of course they won't say that. I predict that if it gets that far, what they will say is that the experiment was done to the best of their ability, was less than ideal, and suggests something anomalous going on in terms of energy production but they don't know exactly what or how much and more research needs to be done. In other words, they will evade the salient issues. If it gets into the realm of how thermal cameras work, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, emissivity determinations and calibration methods, they will lose the jury (or most of them). Maybe that's what Rossi wants.


    Quote

    Odd too, after 3 1/2 years of refusing to answer to their peers about their methods and findings, they choose instead a courthouse venue to start talking?

    They didn't choose the venue. I suspect they were subpoenaed. I am guessing they will say as little as possible in the realm of the testable and the tangible as is possible.


    There was a time when Rossi could have come across to the jury as a genial, affable if misunderstood and eccentric genius but I think by now he is reduced more to frustration, anger, and incoherent babble and excuses based on English not being his native language. There's a chance he will come across as a lying crook or a whackjob or both.

    Edited once, last by maryyugo ().

    Quote from WMartin

    do so with facts instead of innuendoes

    So I see that you are now an unemployed plumber and would like to be hired by one of the parts.

    I have nothing against plumbers/pipefitters and is almost a miracle to find one during summer.

    But I have one question. You were not there, you have never seen the plant how you pretend to have any educated and valuable opinion? As far as I know there were Engineers on both sides that have seen the plant and released written reports.

    So how can you produce new facts ? And if you are able to do so why don't you contact IH (in fact you are doing so here) or Rossi ?

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