Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from IH Fanboy

I take the quote to mean that the control box was excluded from the measurement. What do you mean by "the power was measured on 3 phases"?

Quote from IH Fanboy

"Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the instrument in single-phase directly on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on average, about 810 W. From this one derives that the power consumption of the control box was approximately = 110-120 W."

p.16

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf

Is that what you are referring to? What specific concern do you have?

It is quite simple. The power measurements were gotten from the PCE-830 measuring the 3-phase input to the control box. I don't care about how the control box losses are estimated, but I do reckon Rossi + 3 phase = likely X1/3 underestimation of input power, and the coincidental COP of almost exactly 3 supports this hypothesis. Of course, he might have done it some other way...

What is it about this story?

(we_cat_global)

So, if Rossi and IH both legally entered into this test, IH's only chance to win this case is to discredit the test and everything Rossi has ever shown. Because if Rossi at one point was able to show a COP higher than 1, chances are that the test was a success.

That is legally untrue. If we suppose the test is accepted as GPT then we need to have a certain performance measure proven by the ERV. If one of Rossi's devices in the past worked it puts up the probability that something works in his stuff, but does not guarantee that this test works as billed, and no court would accept such evidence. Like: pay me $100,000 for a new car, it has not been tested, but don't worry, it is likely to work because in the past we have made other cars and they work. I'd guess you can work this out yourself if you think not from your perspective, but that of the Law.

IH has not argued that Rossi's stuff does not work. You will see in their argument they say they cannot tell if his stuff works, merely that the reactors he gave them did not work, and therefore he has not transferred the IP.

IH never really complained about the reports and visited the plant with third parties and thus silently confirmed the reports. Only very late, when they realized the liabilities, they started (materially) complaining.

If you read the depositions you will realise they did not complain at an early stage because they wanted to keep Rossi happy and any criticism he would (has in the past on two occasions: NASA tests and the reactor test) storm out swearing in a rage. When you deal with somone as volatile as that and still think he might be able to help you get a miracle invention to work you tread softly.

The issue is then legally whether their not complaining more forcefully makes this a valid GPT. I agree, if that were the only issue in play IH would be on shaky ground, but IH have other arguments:

1. The second amendment was not signed (for good reasons, one of the parties refused) and therefore the test was too late to apply to the contract
2. Rossi broke the contract terms first by not transferring IP. specifically the contract calls for Rossi to transfer the knowhow to allow IH to manufacture his ecats. IH have give sworn evidence that his reactors as given to them do not work, nor do the ones made by them as per his instruction, and Rossi has not challenged this in his evidence. IH argue on this basis that Rossi has not fulfilled a license condition that is supposed to happen before the GPT. This is as far as I can see true both legally and morally.
3. Rossi told them there was a real customer in order to get the test arranged, there is a paper trail about this and Rossi arguing that the test was for the purpose of demonstrating with a customer (not the GPT) so IH can reasonably claim that Rossi would know initially this was not the GPT but some different test run according to the Term Sheet which he signed.
4. Rossi lied about the real customer (abundant evidence not contradicted) and deliberately deceived IH in this matter (abundant evidence not contradicted). Such fraud related to the license from Rossi invalidated any later provisions. Note that this is a separate point from number 3.

IH also argue that the test was rubbish, and not independent, etc, and Rossi has submitted no evidence countering this except Wong, whose evidence will not help him. This argument is more complex than the previous ones but the evidence that Penon was not a proper ERV is there in the depositions, and taken with Rossi's lies about the customer would probably sway a Jury.

So, points 1-4 Rossi has not actually defended in evidence submitted. His defences are purely legal because he can't deny the facts, and those legal defences look ropy. If any one of 1 - 4 is held valid by the Judge then IH win soon, without a Trial.

In the unlikely event they do not, they will argue not that Rossi's devices do not work (which no-one can ever know, including Rossi) but that the GPT measurements from the ERV were all wrong and therefore cannot be relied on to fulfill the contract.

IHFB's statement therefore is very true (in my own words); IH will have a hard time to convince the jury that there never was any excess heat, that everything Rossi ever produced was a lie.

On the basis of Discovery, and evidence shown so far, Rossi looks like a scheming liar. To win the second part of the Action (their case against Rossi for fraud) they do not have to convince the Jury that Rossi has never had excess heat, merely that he has lied to them in various ways that matter. I'm not sure they will manage that but there is a good chance since it seems likely Rossi has perjured himself and Courts do not like that sort of thing.

Could I ask why you continue making these erroneous links between Rossi's devices work and IH loses the court case? the two matters are completely separate.

Quote from we_cat_global

IH intentionally set up this test with Rossi.

No, they set up another test in North Carolina. It failed. This was not a test; it was an installation to sell heat to a customer. It turned out to be a fake customer owned by Rossi. This was emphatically not the test. Ampenergo denied permission to make it the test.

Furthermore, this test departed from what Rossi agreed for the original North Carolina tests.

Quote from we_cat_global

So, if Rossi and IH both legally entered into this test, IH's only chance to win this case is to discredit the test and everything Rossi has ever shown.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can discredit this test. They do not need to discredit "everything Rossi has ever shown" but only this test. The Penon report is proof that this test was invalid.

Quote from we_cat_global

Because if Rossi at one point was able to show a COP higher than 1, chances are that the test was a success.

Nope. He would have to:

1. Get I.H. and Ampenergo to agree this is the test, which he did not do.

2. Install instruments and use procedures that can measure the COP, which he did not do. There is no way you can measure the heat balance with these instruments. Even if the pressure gauge and flow meter had been working -- which they were not -- you still would not know the steam quality.

3. Answer the questions posed by Murray. He didn't even try to answer them. He cannot possibly account for the heat dissipation, so he made up that absurd story of the mezzanine heater.

The instruments and data shown the Penon report prove that this test was meaningless.

Quote from we_cat_global

[I.H.] have to discredit, besides everything Rossi ever produced, MFMP, me356, Parkhomov, the Swedes, Levi, etc.

They do not have to discredit any of that. None of it is mentioned in the lawsuit. The lawsuit is about the test in Florida only.

None of those other groups has detected excess heat, but even if they had, Rossi did not. Not in North Carolina and not in Florida. The Penon report proves that even if his machine generated excess heat, he could not have detected it.

Quote from Rionrlty

#joshg. If you will email me ... I will relate to you a particularly compelling example of how the "energy industry" reacts to potentially competitive new scientific breakthroughs.

Mike, thank you for e-mailing me your story.

Everyone else: Mike has a fascinating and quite relevant story to tell about his close-up eyewitness account and personal involvement with Gerald Schaflander's Consumer's Solar Electric Power Corporation. In the 1980s, Schaflander developed a cheap way of creating hydrogen-based fuel that could be used in easily modified gasoline engines. But he was crushed by allegations of fraud. Apparently, though, his invention was later validated. For anyone naive enough to think that energy interests couldn't care less about LENR at this stage and who are dismissive of so-called conspiracy theories, Mike offers an eye-opening tale. You can read his "not just another conspiracy theory" here at ECW.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Did you note that the March test was single-phase?

The March test was done with a three-phase supply but a single-phase load.

With such a setup, an inverted clamp results both in matching the pictures in the appendix (where the currents I1 and I2 are suspiciously in phase instead of being out of phase) , and in underestimating the input power by an amount variable with the TRIAC setting.

This is more subtle than in the plain three-phase arrangement of Lugano where the misplaced clamp can only account for a COP of 3.

In the March test , when increasing the duty cycle one can get any apparent COP, for example the 5.6 claimed for the "HT1" device. At low regimes, the apparent COP decreases to 1 or less, which is good for making a low power calibration run credible.

I have made available a while ago a spreadsheet for anybody interested to play with.

[ETA: spreadsheet updated to correct an error spotted by @LDM]

https://drive.google.com/open?…ubncFIhCFaNF83OUgzUDcwenM

Just change the triac phase setting and you can get the (apparent) COP you like best.

[ETA: updated spreadsheet screenshots. Apparent COP goes from 0.8 to 5.6 by increasing the conduction interval from 1/5 to 2/3 of a time period]

Quote from joshg

Mike, thank you for e-mailing me your story.

Everyone else: Mike has a fascinating and quite relevant story to tell about his close-up eyewitness account and personal involvement with Gerald Schaflander's Consumer's Solar Electric Power Corporation. In the 1980s, Schaflander developed a cheap way of creating hydrogen-based fuel that could be used in easily modified gasoline engines. But he was crushed by allegations of fraud. Apparently, though, his invention was later validated. For anyone naive enough to think that energy interests couldn't care less about LENR at this stage and who are dismissive of so-called conspiracy theories, Mike offers an eye-opening tale. You can read his "not just another conspiracy theory" here at ECW.

That led me down quite an interesting trail, through ammonia storage in salt pellets (I didn't realise that ammonia can be used as a fuel in IC engines!) to what seems to be a pretty good new method (validated and now being used on 55 London buses) for reducing NOx emissions from diesel engines.

http://www.amminex.com/news.as…ewsId=27&M=NewsV2&PID=850

Apposite because there's been (rightly) a deal of fuss recently in UK about NOx emissions from diesels. Perhaps I won't have to feel guilty about driving my 3-litre V6 diesel for much longer - the system can be fitted to cars, apparently

Quote from joshg

Mike, thank you for e-mailing me your story.

Everyone else: Mike has a fascinating and quite relevant story to tell about his close-up eyewitness account and personal involvement with Gerald Schaflander's Consumer's Solar Electric Power Corporation. In the 1980s, Schaflander developed a cheap way of creating hydrogen-based fuel that could be used in easily modified gasoline engines. But he was crushed by allegations of fraud. Apparently, though, his invention was later validated. For anyone naive enough to think that energy interests couldn't care less about LENR at this stage and who are dismissive of so-called conspiracy theories, Mike offers an eye-opening tale. You can read his "not just another conspiracy theory" here at ECW.

Schaflander makes claims that technically don't make sense, and are too good to be true. He had apparently invented a solar cell in 1980 manufacturable for $0.27/W. That is 3X cheaper than the current cost, and 100s of times cheaper than the 1980 cost:

https://cleantechnica.com/2014…el-cost-trends-10-charts/

He also claimed some way to make fuel for cars out of hydrogen that could be used with minimal conversion. You can do this with methane, but not with hydrogen.

Instead of developing his technology - worth billions - He never disclosed his secret and dies with non-one able to replicate. He was convicted of fraud.

The case report is damning.

Now - whether the fraud conviction was fair or not I don't know, but I go by the duck test for these things. This one walked and quacked like a duck - it was probably a duck.

There is a whole media industry of conspiracy theorists - who look at these one-off stories of incredible inventions never independently tested and see suppression.

The overwhelmingly likely solution here, as with Papp, is an inventor with nothing, who either deliberately or because of delusion claims they have a miracle. The parallels with Rossi are strong so it does not surprise me that those who support Rossi find this guy also interesting.

I feel like neither Papp nor Rossi fall into the category of one-off stories of incredible inventions. These are both harder cases. In both you had a series of inconclusive tests by outside parties. Eugene Mallove was able to look into the Papp story after the fact and found some interesting information to corroborate parts of it, and I would say that Feynman's informal investigation did not get too far. The main difference between the Rossi and Papp cases is that we have so much more information on the technical side of things with Rossi now, unlike with Papp. In the Papp case that is perhaps unfortunate, because it is hard to get much further into an assessment of his (admittedly far-fetched sounding) claims on the basis of what I've seen, now so many years after the fact. Whereas fortunately it's fairly easy to come to an overall assessment of Rossi's claims.

Sounds like Schaflander put his PhD in social psychology to good use...

THHuxleynew:

Schaflander was not the inventor, as I red it, he organized the development and with no documentation, that was seized, I would think it would be hard for him to reproduce the inventions. I agree that it looks too good to be true though but

I'm careful to pass a judgement pro or against, what really happend depends of lost documention, your link did not supply that documentation.

Quote from JedRothwell

Who told you they did not do this? Where did you get this information?

@JED: It's your turn to tell us where in the DOCK, we can find this written complaint by IH. If they don't file it, then they don't have it!

You just tell things, without backing them!

Do you remember the outrageous Penon report? Even if there was no steam, to heat 1500l water by about 34 degrees (measured by 4 independent T-couplers..) then you still get a COP of at least 10! (Input 6kWh output 60kWh!)

Thus for no LENR at all you need a flow of 150l of water/minute or you have to accuse Florida power for fake bills. Just make some more tries!

Wyttenbach

Where is the data for these 4 independent T-couplers? How are they independent? Who says this? From Court docs I'm only aware of one set of data sent to Penon.

Where is the denial of a dual-flow system recycling mostly hot water and invalidating this calculation (you know, with that extra pump)?

And why do you assume the flowmeter was not over-reading?

Your argument has too many assumptions - is this because you were not aware of the holes, or because you feel they should be ignored when presenting rhetoric?

Quote from maryyugo

There is no reason to believe anything Papp ever said. There is no reason to believe his claims because he never had a single properly done replication or verification or test.

You seem to have missed my (perhaps pretty narrow) point. Papp's case is somewhat shrouded in questions, because we lack information and because there is corroborating testimony. What are the occasions for doubting that he was simply a conman? Primarily (1) from firsthand eyewitness testimony of tests that were carried out, documented by Eugene Mallove here. (2) Feynman's inconclusive investigation. And (3) the possible transfer of technology to Bob Rohner, as observed and testified by Mike McKubre, here. That takes the case out of territory where Papp can simply be written off into territory where there are observations that must be explained (if possible; this is probably not possible at this point). It's a small point. It's certainly different than saying that Papp had something.

Quote from maryyugo

And absolutely no reason to believe you can extract power from "noble" gases.

If Papp had stumbled upon some physical mechanism that was actually interesting, there's no reason to assume that he correctly identified it.

Quote from maryyugo

Often, when you try to figure out a well done sleight of hand magic trick, it's very difficult to figure out and your guess as to how it was done is very likely to be wrong. Magicians and con men like Rossi are quite resourceful.

I had no difficulty finding the errors in the Penon report. Rossi's attempt to look credible failed completely in this instance. I do not know enough about previous tests to judge.

Quote from maryyugo

It is equivalent to a belief that Madoff was a financial genius who would have eventually made good on his promises if only he had not be arrested and jailed.

Actually, Madoff was a financial genius. Or at least, he was in the top tier of Wall Street moguls. That is one of the reasons his crimes seem inexplicable. His legitimate investment business made millions and he was given important responsibilities in the establishment. I have a book about financial crises with chapters by noted experts such as Krugman. It includes a chapter with an interview of Madoff when he was still considered legit.

@THH and andrea.s,

All you get is a different sign on the inverted clamp. So if you have had -I1, +I2, and +I3, anybody with a half a brain would know that the total current is I1 + I2 + I3, not -I1 + I2 + I3. The PCE-830 will still calculate the correct power for each clamp.

Quote from maryyugo

to know an old doctor, now dead, who actually met and treated Papp for a clearly self-inflicted gun shot wound of his arm which Papp claimed happened when he was shot in the desert by a hitman and managed to escape. He said Papp was a flaming nut case (not his words-- he said a florid paranoid schizophrenic). There is no reason to believe anything Papp ever said. There is no reason to believe his claims because he never had a single properly done replication or verification or test. And absolutely no reason to believe you can extract power from "noble" gases. Believing that Papp had anything is sort of a classic lowest common denominator of gullibility when believing free energy scams. It is equivalent to a belief that Madoff was a financial genius who would have eventually made good on his promises if only he had not be arrested and jailed.

The problem with this argument is that people can be both schitzophrenic and genious during the lifetime (but of cause not at the same time). See "A beautiful mind" where the life of the prisewinner ( the prise to nobels memory in echonomics e.g. not a true nobel prise) John Nash is told. You simply need to conclude that his inventive phase co-inside with illness. Also there are nut cases that live perfect normal life, doing brilliant work, but for which we loose to insanity a couple of months every 5th year or so. I would demand proof in order to believe any words of Papp though, everything can very well be crazy work.

Quote from andrea.s

I have made available a while ago a spreadsheet for anybody interested to play with.

https://drive.google.com/open?…ubncFIhCFaTTRVT0o3d21ZTXc

Just change the triac phase setting and you can get the (apparent) COP you like best.

I looked at your spreadsheet and the numbers seem not to be right.

With your values I calculated in my own spreadsheet a power dissipation of 43.3 Watt instead of the 96.6 Watt mentioned.

In the case of the I1 clamp reversed I get a total power dissipation of 96. 6 watt, in case of the I2 clamp reversal -96.6 Watt.

To check I simulated the same circuit in Microcap (Electronic circuit simulation program) and got the same values as in my spreadsheet calculations.

A value of -96.6 watt would have given an error indication on the PCE 830, a value of 96.6 Watt instead of 43.3 watt would have resulted in a too low COP instead of a too high COP.

Thus the conclusion that a clamp reversal would have resulted in a too high COP value seems not to be true for the case that only two of the three phases are connected.

(at least not for the timings given)

LDM

Did you identify a mistake?

Can you show your diagram and the waveforms you are simulating? It is tricky to get the thyristor controls right. I did check my spreadsheet against a circuit simulator back then. Maybe we are assuming a different schematic.

IH Fanboy

I doubt you can compute mentally (let alone with a half brain) the power out of a chopped AC waveform. I propose you take a look at the spreadsheet. Then if something isn't right I will apologize and correct. LDM claims different results but it is hard to judge without a schematic diagram.