Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    The most credible so far, IMHO, is SRI's independent testing/replication of results of

    Brillouin's NiH reactor system. For whatever reason (probably due to the ongoing dispute with Rossi), Dewey tends to minimize IH's involvement with Brillouin, but apparently they are an investor, and are involved.

    I hope you are right about SRI's testing of Brillouin's device. I fear probably it is a false positive. I would also remark that it is not a replication, but simply involvement in the calorimeter design and running the device at SRI's facility. They saw similar results when the device was operated at SRI as was reported by Brillouin.


    After many personal attempts to partially replicate Brillouin's electrolysis system, I came to see that the most likely error would be on the input power measurement. I have suspected that BE has made mistakes with this all along, because it is quite difficult to measure the input power precisely with the Q-pulse system. BE used an ohmic control in previous electrolysis experiments, which I do not trust based on a lot of experience with this producing false results. You absolutely must perform an electrolytic control using material theoretically inactive (e.g., the only thing changed is the cathode material).


    Tanzella of SRI noted that he just basically relies on the expertise of BE's electrical engineering for the input power measuring system. While understandable to an extent given that he may have felt it was beyond his expertise, it is the weak point of the entire system. They need to calibrate using a theoretically LENR inert metal in the reactor using the full range of pulse width and input power settings. They need to run secondary and tertiary methods of measuring input power. Rest assured, it is not overunity measured at the wall socket.


    I don't blame IH for not investing further. They (BE and SRI) have not disproven potentially valid alternative explanations at this time.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    @Roseland67


    The most credible so far, IMHO, is SRI's independent testing/replication of results of

    Brillouin's NiH reactor system. For whatever reason (probably due to the ongoing dispute with Rossi), Dewey tends to minimize IH's involvement with Brillouin, but apparently they are an investor, and are involved.




    I looked with interest at the (preliminary) report. We must all reserve judgement till we see a more complete writeup, but based on what I've seen I'd qualify the statement that the work is independent. They tested the same calorimetric setup that Brillouin used (and that they advised on). They note that this setup can be moved (possibly remanufactured) which makes these results very repeatable.


    I do not question SRI's expertise with typical calorimetric errors - although since no-one should take anything on trust a proper write-up would be needed. Let us assume that the calorimetry checks out and that the resuts are indeed replicable.


    However there remains the possibility of systematic error due to the experiment itself. This involves high amplitude RF stimulus (specifically pulses with fast edges that have lots of power pushed up to high frequencies when you look at the spectrum). The positive results correlate with the use of this stimulus. Calorimetry experts are not necessarily EMC experts, so potential errors here can go unspotted.


    This type of stimulus is known to create issues with any electrical measurements - most obviously with thermocouples where rectification of RFI can look like low amplitude Dc signals. There was no discussion of what steps has been taken to measure the errors caused by EMC problems that might masquerade as excess heat, or even a statement that any steps has been taken, in the preliminary report. (I can think of definite ways to investigate the matter - so it is not that it cannot be elucidated. And a report that did that would be much stronger).


    Thus I reserve judgement till this is done. I'm not just being picky here. I stated 5 years ago when Brillouin results were first publicised that there system was a classic example of one that could suffer these specific problems. I've been expecting to find a full analysis with the controls, time constant measurement, etc that prove that whatever they observe comes from excess heat and not EMC issues. I'm hoping the full report from SRI will provide this - but worried that the preliminary report does not even mention the matter.


    If there are EMC issues these would be a systematic error with the setup, so you'd expect false positive results to be replicable.

    Roseland-I am not familiar with any single "replication" of excess heat created by any nickel hydrogen based experiment.


    I don't know if this is exactly Ni hydrogen since it is a layered Ni Pd system, but George Miley did some replications of Patterson's (CETI Patterson power cell) and got both heat and transmutations. I seem to recall it was a duplicate cell and perhaps one supplied to Miley by CETI.


    Then you might check for a duplication by NASA of the Thermocore trials.

    Quote

    After many personal attempts to partially replicate Brillouin's electrolysis system, I came to see that the most likely error would be on the input power measurement. I have suspected that BE has made mistakes with this all along, because it is quite difficult to measure the input power precisely with the Q-pulse system. BE used an ohmic control in previous electrolysis experiments, which I do not trust based on a lot of experience with this producing false results. You absolutely must perform an electrolytic control using material theoretically inactive (e.g., the only thing changed is the cathode material).


    Jack I take your point. The extra power added by the Q pulses is also problematic to measure, and that, as well as the possibility of EMC, needs to be carefully checked unless the excess power is high enough to be insensitive to this. All you'd need would be to measure DC in to the pulse generation system and not try to factor in the efficiency of that system (which might vary, and would be difficult to measure). If the excess heat is high enough it would not matter taking an upper limit.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    If the excess heat is high enough it would not matter taking an upper limit.


    I think this is an important point. Any experiment that is in or barely above the noise is not going to be very persuasive. By contrast, if an experiment can be found that is consistently well above the noise when carried out by independent labs, that will be a very positive development.

    Old guy,


    I am generically familiar with some of George Miley's work, beyond brilliant man,

    ( U of I guy after all he has to be, right? 😎).


    I guess In "Roseland67 world", Replication means something different to me than it does to others. (See my complete post you are responding to).


    Did Miley's work follow these steps?

    Did he exactly replicate it with the same results? Or did someone say he did an experiment "LIKE" Patterson and had some success? I don't know as I have not researched it yet and am to lazy to start.

    Not casting aspersions anywhere and not implying anything other than meeting my personal requirements of Replication.

    He actually had his graduate student do the work. Ceti supplied him with a cell. I am not sure but I think that it was that cell that he did his transmutation study. You may want to ask him. At first I believe he used Paterson's beads, later he made his own "beads".

    It is also worth noting that Motorola also did some studies of CETI's cells and offered to buy the tech but Patterson wanted more control. At least that is the story I remember.

    This may be old news, I did not see it here. It's a link to ECW always open thread. Bernie Koppenhoffer asks the Doctor multiple questions # "1- you did not ever deliver any 1 MW plant after the end of the test with IH"

    The Dr. responds to question #1 Correct. I did not want to copy/pasta it. It's multiple choice. I do not know if this will have any bearing on the case.

    THHuxleynew A quick question to THH who I respect for considering possible ways a system could be tricked, even if I am and remain personally more of an optimist 😉


    If we take the supplied power to the building according to FPL. Could either a steam and condenser circuit or a heated water circuit account for the flow meter reading taken whether that meter is placed correctly or not?


    I think 300 kWh/day is about 12.5 kWh/h


    If we assume a steam circuit then if my earlier calculations is right I think eve 20 kW worth of steam condenses to about 1/2 tablespoon a second which I think would struggle to move the flow meter on a DN80 (3inch diameter) pipe however it is placed correctly or not ? Could this amount of flow barely a trickle cause the Meter to read such high values even if misplaced? Personally I think a steam circuit would imply at least some level of LENR heating would be necessary to cause the meter reading we see. But that's just my opinion based on the low flow rate. Feel free to correct my error if my assumptions estimates etc are wrong. I won't take it personally 😉


    Assuming DN40 piping was used. Would a DN40 steam pipe be too large for 20kW steam?


    It seams to me if the steam pipe was DN40 and had an appropriate steam flow rate it would be something like 6000 liter a day which would still imply a COP higher than 10)


    If we assume a heated water circuit on the other hand which I personally think is unlikely given the high elevation of the pipe but could be considered. A typical 20kW domestic water heater heating the water by 30 degrees C. Circulates about 2 gallons of water a minutes. So about 1/6 liter per second(14400 liter/day). Could this flow rate in a 3 inch pipe cause the meter to read a higher flow rate of more than double that if wrongly placed? Would 1/6 liter a second in a 3inch pipecause a wrongly placed meter to behave like that? I don't know but I supposed in this case it could be possible but am not sure how the meter would double the flow rate.


    Would a DN40 pipe be appropriate for a 20kW water circuit for a heater. I would think a narrower pipe would normally be used.


    Well just some thoughts on my side. To me it seems hard to explain the flow meter reading if we assume just 300kWh/day with out LENR, but I'm curious what you think.


    Edit: Apologies for using mixed units in the above post. I find imperial units more illustrative in some cases. But prefer SI units for the science.

    I'd expect that a 100% steam flow that moves that water meter would be more than 20kW. I would not say that is a cast-iron proof because in theory flowmeter spoofing can give large apparent flows with no actual flow. In this case that would mean water moving in both directions through the flowmeter (between reservoirs on either side) and all that flow never emerging as steam. That is possible we know, it can even happen innocently with the right (bad) piping, but I don't feel it is likely here. Most likely for me is either the reading is bogus, or more likely the flow is real but there is no significant phase change and a relatively small deltaT. That seems consistent with all evidence so far.

    THHuxleynew. I guess that it's possible a limited delta T with a water circuit could explain the results if the meter readings are wrong some how. I guess that would imply either the temperature readings or the flow meter readings were wrong though. I guess we will have to see. For now I prefer to remain optimistic but am always curious about data and also your interpretations.


    Thanks for your reply.

    Quote

    I guess that would imply either the temperature readings or the flow meter readings were wrong though.

    We don't have the real piping diagram. The temperature readings don't tell us anything unless the tank temperature is the flow inlet temperature, and the steam temperature is the flow outlet temperature. Both those assumptions can easily be wrong, and just one wrong would be enough for deltaT to be small.


    Regards, THH

    Quote from Shane D.

    Dewey dropped a bombshell on us last night when he told us that the Lugano reactor IH built, was painted after being shipped from their NC facility.

    A bombshell? It seems to me more similar to a blank cartridge. IH received the first copy of the paper of Lugano, therefore they read it before it became public. If there had been something wrong in the description of the reactor (a reactor made by them!), they could have raised objections from the beginning. So, if we have to believe to this story, we are facing one of this two cases:

    1) They read that document without paying much attention to it. Moreover, during all this years they kept on ignoring the contents of it ....... quite a shallow attitude!

    2) They realized from the beginning that something went bad in the Lugano test, but they chose to be silent. After all it was their interest to collect investments! Same thing seems to have happened with the Plant in Doral: they say they suspected that it was a bluff, but anyway they showed it to investors.

    IH claims they have never been able to create a working E-cat but the reactor they have built seems to have worked in Lugano. This fact creates a crack in their beautiful wall, and therefore now they must somehow try to close it. These late discoveries does not convince me at all ......

    Quote from THEDEBATEISUSELESS

    I will say that if they had big questions about the setup, steam traps removed, measurement devices, total heat dissipation, heat transfer through an allegedly small tube, lack of supplies being transferred, no real connection to Johnson Matthey, and lack of manufacturing they would have saved everyone time (regardless if they were right, wrong, or somewhere in between) if they had told Rossi early on that they would not pay for the results the way the test was being conducted. Someone they *seem* to trust, Barry West, was (as far as I know) working there on a regular basis. Via what he witnessed and observed and reported back to Darden, IH should have had most of the same information after a few months -- that made them object to ERV reports -- as they had near the end of the test. If they thought the whole thing was a scam early on, they should have called out Rossi immediately and at least told him they wouldn't pay.


    This argument is flawless, probably that is what bothers some people.... What was the role of Mr. West? Why no one has tried to stop the test if there were so many doubts? Maybe too many interests at stake on both sides?

    SSC, I guess this is an attack, your options lack scope. Maybe think of #3 whatever it could be. As in we do not know what is in the minds of others. So maybe they were not sure, but they were sure they were still in business. And acted on it.

    Dewey,

    I hope you can answer my questions. Is this case in open court? Does the Doctor show up every day? Or has never shown up, possibly waiting for the trial phase?

    I would also like to ask in your opinion only, when will the trial phase happen? Tickets from DC to MI range from $87 to $126 avg. Just wondering.

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.