Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    THHuxleynew : You still try to hunt light-green unicorns. May be you have no clue of LENR or are a professional cheater!


    In LENR, the reaction only happens on the surface, in a layer some 100 atoms deep ... The analysis was made by dissolving just the surface. A total conversion is impossible!!


    Try to improve, or stop your FUD.


    That does not help, and you will note that my statements above indicate knowledge of this agument without going into detail:

    (1) any such limitation would mean the reaction slowing down as the surface becomes fully converted. No sign.

    (2) we then have not enough nuclear transmutation to give the claimed energy released. That is not a problem for me, since I don't see the excess heat results as indicating any excess. But you must see how you cannot then use transmutation evidence as something linked to excess heat - they become less strong.

    (3) Characterising this type of argument as FUD is IMHO completely unfounded. Except inasfar as given such a paucity of evidence as we have here, any extraordinary hypothesis, such as the existence of a world-beating new energy source, can reasonably be both uncertain and doubted!

    • Official Post



    Peter,


    As you always say; "if you do not speak Iranian, do not try and speak Iranian", ;) so I will leave the Lugano/Parkomov ash analysis to those of you that speak the language.


    However, I do speak Rossisays, :) and would like to remind you...if you did not know, that Rossi has salted an ash sample before, and admitted doing so. In 2011, he gave Kullander a sample salted with Cu , admitted years later on his JONP to doing it, then justified his trickery by claiming he had informed Kullander of what he had done at the time he handed over the sample.


    Unfortunately, poor Kullander seems not to have heard what was told him, and went on for the next 3 years -until his death, lecturing on how the Rossi Effect might convert Ni>Cu, exothermically, with no ionizing radiation. There is a lesson in this for those willing to listen, and that lesson is how Rossi treats his friends.


    Another point I would like to make, is that we now know from the last document dump that Lugano was not independent. Rossi/Fabiani probably were there most, or all, of the time. It also appears that only 2 of the 5 Swedes were there on occasion. That leaves Levi and Foschi, and my guess is that Foshci seldom visited, leaving Rossi's friend, and staunch believer, Levi there to assist, or vice versa. An arrangement that Levi neglected to mention in his report.


    Oh, and yes, almost forgot...did you know Levi was an amateur magician? He really is! So in all honesty Peter, can you trust that the Lugano ash was not salted? We all hope it was not of course, as that would alone would make it impossible for the scientific mainstream to ignore...if verified But I am about all out of hope when it comes to Rossi.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Parkhomov also obtained ash analyses showing transmutation. So his initial results do not rely solely on Calorimetry.


    OK. Found it, I think:

    https://drive.google.com/file/…4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view


    Quote

    After operation in the reactor, the 6Li / 7Li ratio increased.


    No significant changes in the isotopic composition of Ni was found.


    The changes in 6Li vs 7Li are not surprising given the high temperatures and the fact that 6 vs 7 Li, with a 15% mass difference, have significantly different diffusion rates etc.


    Edit - here are the results. Note the small Li changes. This level of change is commonly seen due to fractionation. The Hg in CFL bulbs mystery show how much larger changes, on a much smaller mass ratio, can occur. https://phys.org/news/2013-02-…bulbs-unique-isotope.html (this is not the original refs, but you can find Mead's very comprehensive analysis via http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es303940p behind a paywall. I've read it, but can't post it.



    Quote from Nigel Appleton

    I find it difficult to believe that Levi was complicit in such chicanery. What would he have to gain?


    I would not rule that out, not being able to read other people's hearts, but it was not what I was implying (maybe Shane was). Levi could very well just be easily swayed by Rossi suggestions. People follow leaders, and Rossi no doubt would only have close working relationships with those who are willing followers. In retrospect the extent to which people help others in doing nefarious things, while not being overtly complicit, can surprise.


    I meant, re the prestidigitation, that an interest in performance could make a common bond between the two men.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The changes in 6Li vs 7Li are not surprising given the high temperatures and the fact that 6 vs 7 Li, with a 15% mass difference, have significantly different diffusion rates etc.


    The accuracy and precision of the lab is also unknown, since we have only one analysis each for Li6 and Li7.

    There is a substantial variation from the natural isotopic distribution for nickel shown in these analyses.

    The natural abundances are probably the textbook values.


    A high quality analysis of Rossi fuel and ash was done by Andersson & Schoberg in 2012. It shows no change in isotopic distribution of nickel.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…i-Isotopes-LIG1204121.pdf

    • Official Post
    Quote from Hans Moog

    It's quite funny how a lot of really smart grown up people are behaving like kids when it comes to the IH and Rossi affair. I am quite sure that not even IH knows for sure if Rossi has sth or not since he definitly behaved deceptive to a certain degree, The fact that other people like me356, parkhomov and so on claimed to have success (which of course still has to be proven) let's me think that there is at least some truth in his claims.


    Hans,


    So you are claiming we are young at heart? :) I will take that as a compliment.


    As to your: "there may be some truth in his (Rossi) claims", I and many others, including Lewan, would agree. Rossi having a smaller, and less reliable effect than he claimed, being the theory, best IMO, explains much of the baffling behavior on the part of the many characters in this story. It makes a lot of the pieces fit together, where the other two options: 1. he has nothing at all, or 2. he has all he claims, do not...or at least to me they don't.


    Most of us never understood why Rossi never went to a big company in the beginning, proved his Ecat to them, and become an instant billionaire. Or why he mostly did carefully controlled demos...although I will admit the one time he allowed ST do a real test (failed) is a head scratcher, as it was so out of character for him. How he was accepted by Focardi/Levi, and the other UNIBO Physics Dept. professors in the beginning. Certainly they would be suspicious of anyone walking in the door with such aclaim given their years of NiH work, and would have given Rossi a real work-over (DD), before accepting him. And why Kullander/Essen came to believe in him. Why he would *allow* some of his demos to fail, and others to be successful...why not make them all successful if they were fake?


    His having a little something, would also explain why IH stuck with him so long. You read the court documents, and there is no doubt they saw something early on that obviously tickled their imagination, as so many others before had. Reading Document 167-02 again -which was written 6 months after the 1MW arrived in their NC plant, Darden mentions not one time his frustration that Rossi had not yet started the GPT. Instead he seems dazzled by some things they saw. I think that as time went on they came to the same realization as us...that yes, Rossi has something, but nothing like what he claims. They saw enough though, that they did not kick him out the door, and demand their $11.5 million back (until Rossi sued that is). And may be why they went along with Doral when proposed, and stayed with it even after realizing Rossi was setting a trap for them.


    Of course, if IH believed that, it would also put them in a difficult situation as to what to do both with Rossi and the tech? He clearly did not satisfy the contract agreement terms, lied to them, so they legally owed him nothing. But he did give them a little something of interest, that may be workable with the right talent...Rossi being too difficult, and paranoid to work with. So in IH's shoes, what would you do...with Rossi, the patents, R/D, bringing in other players from the field that may be able to help...like BE?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    So, we should take your assertions as infallible pontifications . . .


    No. But if I say they are blatantly ridiculous, you can easily see why by doing a few short Google searches. For example, you unequivocally state that there is no such thing as a jury trial in a patent case. That is ridiculous. And a simple search will reveal that to you. You don't have to trust me on certain things. You wouldn't believe me anyways.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Hans,


    So you are claiming we are young at heart? :) I will take that as a compliment.

    ....


    Indeed - I did not want to attack anybody and it is easy to get angry at others if it is a topic that really touches your heart - so I can understand WHY people are so mercieless when it comes to standing their ground.

    It is however a bit sad to see how the tone in this forum changed over time and even very respectable people like Peter Gluck and others get attacked just because they still believe in Rossi and LENR.

    All in all you wrote a nice summary and in fact your scenario makes a whole lot of sense. It would also explain why they wrote that they "could not substantiate" rossis claims instead of just telling everybody that he was a scammer.

    Here is a typical chunk of XRF data for some NIST reference materials. When the values change from analysis to analysis, it is not from transmutation.

    It is just the equipment not being perfect. (Pretty good for a hand-held device, though).

    Note that sulfur, phosphorus and chlorine values aren't quite as stable as for some other elements.

    (If you are very interested, the NIST certified values for these reference materials (soil in this case) are easily found on the NIST website).

    Elemental (or compound) concentration is in ppm.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    My understanding is that most patent issues are decided by judges.


    But that is not what you said originally, is it?


    You said: "In a patent lawsuit, nobody cares what you say or claim. They only look at the facts. These are not trials by jury. The judge decides, and the judge is an expert in patents."


    A word of advice. When someone corrects you, and there is no way around it, here are a few good words that will result in respect by others: "I stand corrected." When you make a mistake, admit it and move on. If you persist in your errors, you will lose the respect of me and others. Funny that, I've never once observed you retract anything you have ever said, save for the time that you eventually changed your claim on the temperature data (but not after tremendous pressure from LENR Calender and me).


    Most plaintiffs in patent disputes demand a jury trial. Most district court judges are not expert in patents.

    I don't see too many people here being attacked, but there are a few. IHFB attacks Jed (also above). I attack ele/rb0, whom I believe to be a troll deliberately posting technical stuff he/they either does not understand or knows to be false, and doing this repeatedly. Ele attacks many here imputing evil motives. Wyttenberg attacks me, because he dislikes my views and thinks what he sees as bias from me is subterfuge.


    Peter has in the past very strongly attacked TC (the doxxing incident, and weird conspiracy theories). It appears from his statements that over this matter he has in the past seen opponents as conspiring together in an evil manner, and that justifies to him his response. For me however this response is not justified. Peter also says things that get disputed, strongly, but that is attacking his statements, not him. It is true that strong feelings can lead to people getting impolite, and attacking. IHFB (or is it Wyttenberg), for example, thinks that by attacking people he can help to expose what he sees as the truth. I would not want to confuse that with strong argument, where there is no confusion between the person and the (attacked) person's arguments.


    Dewey attacked all and sundry when he was here in an entertaining but somewhat scattergun manner. So the place is a deal more peaceful (and dull) without him.



    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Not according to IH's lead engineer when placed under oath.


    I'm afraid you misunderstand the evidence given. In any long series of experiments there will be some positives when the effect is in fact null. MFMP has examples of these. It is from considering the whole sequence that you work out whether these positives are an indication of some novel excess heat mechanism, or just experimental error and confusion (as for example Lugano).


    if you are biassed, then you take a single positive as indicating that something works. But of course if not replicable (and that replication has been tried many times) it does not.

    @THH,


    Jed didn't say that. He said: "They made independent tests of his reactors and found no heat." Darden's lengthy email contradicts Jed's statement. Dameron's statement under oath contradicts Jed's statement. Jed's statement is simply false.

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.