I believe we are getting off the topic of the question asked of IH Fanboy. Those who do not believe that Rossi has a valid product all would happily change their mind if Rossi would just offer the product for sale that he has claimed to already have sold to several (secret) buyers. What would it take those who believe in Rossi to stop believing in him and his product?
Edited for spelling.
I believe we are getting off the topic of the question asked of IH Fanboy. Those who do not believe that Rossi has a valid product all would happily change their mind if Rossi would just offer the product for sale that he has claimed to already have sold to several (secret) buyers. What would it take those who believe in Rossi to stop believing in him and his product?
Edited for spelling.
I think we'd also need someone real to buy and test it!
Anyone for Orbo?
But the other way round. I've yet to hear a straight answer...
Oh my God..... Do you really think that VC people could move even just a finger "for the good of the planet"? They didn't tell explicitly and in a timely manner that they did not consider the Doral test as the GPT because they did not want Rossi to stop the test before the result was clear but they had never been inclined to pay him.
SSC - what in your fictional scenario does IH get from 52 weeks of test that it cannot get from 1 week of test?
Your point here makes no more sense than the test itself, which no-one sensible would want to run.
I think we'd also need someone real to buy and test it!
Anyone for Orbo?
But the other way round. I've yet to hear a straight answer...
Thanks for clarifying my statement. I forgot to make that part explicit.
For your second part, the crickets are still deafening.
SSC - what in your fictional scenario does IH get from 52 weeks of test that it cannot get from 1 week of test?
A bill for $89 MM.
I think that you would encounter at least 2 problems there. Firstly, who would be accepted as 'independent'? Someone inside the field already?
As I said before, this is not a problem at all. All you need to do is hire a licensed boiler engineer, and have him perform the standard procedures these people have done for 137 years. Engineers have to pass a test that covers this, along with much else. The procedures are spelled out in detail in the textbooks and regulations.
These procedures are no mystery. I do not recall the ones for steam, but for hot water they are conventional flow calorimetry. You measure inlet and outlet temperatures and flow rate. You confirm the instruments are working by letting the water flow into a bucket for a timed interval. You test the instruments in various ways.
There is an important difference between the regulation methods and the methods we have discussed here. Everything in regs is defined in detail. The type of instrument and configuration are spelled out. You have to use a certain type of thermometer, and it has to be installed on a straight pipe a certain distance from the boiler. In this forum, people offer all kinds of interesting suggestions and novel ways of doing this. If a boiler engineer uses a novel, do-it-yourself method he will lose his license and the boiler may explode. It has to be done by the book.
All of the machines that Rossi has shown can be tested with conventional, regulatory methods. When you get down to a much smaller scale, such as a laboratory bench cold fusion experiment with ~1 W of excess heat, these methods no longer work. The basic principles are the same for a flow calorimeter, but not for a Seebeck or isoperibolic calorimeter.
Obviously, with a conventional electric boiler, output energy is never greater than electric input energy. If the Rossi gadget works as claimed, output will be greater. This result has never been obtained by any licensed engineer, but if were obtained, everyone would see it is real. The procedures do not have to be altered to test for an over-unity result.
I know about this because I spent several weeks working with HVAC and boiler engineers, and I read the regs. I myself could not begin to do many of the procedures they do, but the calorimetry for hot water is one of the easier ones.
They didn't tell explicitly and in a timely manner that they did not consider the Doral test as the GPT because they did not want Rossi to stop the test before the result was clear
The results were clear from the first day. Look at the Penon report. The results are the same for the first month as for every other month. In all cases, the data is blatantly fake and the results are absurd and impossible. If what the report described had really happened, everyone would have been killed in the first few hours and the test would have stopped. Rossi admits that is true. That is why he invented the imaginary, invisible mezzanine heat exchanger. It is not shown in the Penon report which is one of many reasons why the report should be rejected out of hand.
Even if the claims were true, no one should pay a dime based on this sloppy report and this sloppy, outrageous test. It was sloppy from day one to the end. There were no changes, and no improvements.
Rise about 250M$ ..... pay to Rossi about 11M$ close everything and you get a net cash of 239M$...... not bad, legal, and also probably without taxes.
You seem to have a very weired opinion about what's legal in business! (How comes?)
If it would be so easy to cash in investors money, Darden would just have to shut down Cherokee IVP (worth about 2 billions), and he could keep 10 times that money than from IH - which would buy him a lot of Ferraris and yachts.
Amongst Rossi fans, such bullshit seems to be widely believed and accepted - as part of their conspiraciy theories.
QuoteRead also the story of Darden and how many start up business he has closed......
ROTFL - you better read (the now suspended) blog ecatnews.com and check what sceptics wrote there about all the failed businesses of CIP - and the lack of Due Dilligence by IH - already at a time when the Rossi Fans still celebrated Darden as the new messiah!
You know what: I think the contract IH made with Rossi, the GPT and license agreement, the "term sheet, all this documents are written in such a poor technical and legal standard that I wouldn't be too suprised when the judge would even rule in favor for Rossi - When lawyers (who should know better) agree to such agreements, they shouldn't be suprised when they finally have to pay the bill for that! (The immense costs of the lawsuit, or - worst case - even get defeated).
However - all this doesn't make the e-cat genuine!
I bet that this investment has been accompanied by the passage of many information that IH has taken directly from Rossi's technology.
In his deposition, Murray testified that I.H. has laid off its entire technical staff. They have closed down. So they have not taken anything from Rossi's technology, and they are not developing anything. There was nothing to take. Rossi's gadgets never worked. Using his methods of calorimetry, they got excess heat at 9 times input using an empty cell with no powder in it. Obviously, the method did not work!
I esteem Jed but he is not a scientist.
You do not esteem me. You wouldn't know steam if it bit you on the butt. But this is not about me. What you are saying is that the ASME experts and the people who wrote the Florida boiler regulations do not know what they are talking about, and Murray and Smith do not know what they are talking about. This has nothing to do with me or my opinions. This is about what experts say. Smith gave a long list of reasons why Rossi's test was crap. If you don't agree with Smith, you know nothing about boilers, calorimetry or thermodynamics.
A bill for $89 MM.
Exactly, and no additional validation of the (claimed by SSC working) technology, which is why SSC's scenario is not plausible.
So....let me try to understand your thought..... Do you really think that Rossi began such an expensive legal fight to pursue a plan conceived when he met IH for the first time (or soon after) and that this plan was founded on the certainty that the American court system is populated by idiots?
SSC,
When we first heard of IH partnering up with Rossi, we believers were quite ecstatic. The rationale then, was what yours is now: Why would Rossi do that if he had nothing, and surely he would not be so naive as to think he could pull one over on a well funded bunch of VC's. The thought was preposterous even to think he could get away with it if he tried. Alternatively, we felt that IH must have done their DD, or they would not be so stupid as to join forces with Rossi. So, from both angles things looked very promising.
Unfortunately, it is clear from the court docs that Rossi did, in fact, plan from the beginning to scam IH...actually, even before the agreement was signed he started. Did he factor in the jury system as a last resort?...who knows. Anyways, I could not make my point any better than IH did in doc. 279. Here they chronicle Rossi's deceit/lies leading up to the VT (4/31/2013)........
"Pursuant to the License Agreement, a “Validation” test was to take place involving a substantial number of E-cat reactors. Days before the test was to occur, however, Plaintiffs
falsely represented to IH that the test needed to involve fewer reactors to comply with Italian law in order to induce IH to agree to a “Validation” test using fewer reactors:
"This morning I had a meeting with the Health Office of the Province of Ferrara, which has to authorize the 24 hours test… We found an acceptable solution. He explained to me that the Italian law ‘DPR (Decreto del Preseidente della Repubblica) #551-Dec. 21 1999 requests an authorization for any plant that makes more than 35 kWh/h and this authorization takes at least 6 months…Therefore if we can consume up to 35 kWh/h without authorization, this implies that in out LENR case I can produce up to 210 kWh/h, which is a consistent amount of energy… In this case we do not need any authorization..."
The next day IH accepted Plaintiffs’ representations and request:
“[W]e will agree to do a test of only those reactors constituting the allowable percentage of the plant (eg 35kw/210kw instead of 165kw/1mw). We would like to get details about how this will work: how many reactors, how will you decide which ones, etc.”
Plaintiffs responded, on the same day:
“Very good. We will operate 30 reactors, no preference about which.”
At his deposition, Rossi told a completely different story. Rossi testified that the Ferrara health office in Italy told him:
"we do not have authorizations for experiments. There is not something that is called an authorization for 36 hours. Your are either authorized or you are not… And so they said it is unthinkable that we can authorize you and take the reliability. The law does not foresee this. But if you find some kind of an agreement with your outdoor - - without your neighbor, we don’t come… So I have gone to my neighbors and say please, I have to make this and this and this and said they all right. You don’t make too much noise, and we can accept it because we want to sleep"
Plaintiffs make no attempt to reconcile this testimony with the April 2013 e-mails because they are irreconcilable: Rossi simply lied when he told IH that he and the Ferrara health official found a way to comply with Italian law by testing fewer E-cat reactors; per Rossi’s deposition testimony, testing any number of reactors would violate Italian law, but if the neighbors did not complain, any number of reactors could be used in the Validation test "
Oh my God..... Do you really think that VC people could move even just a finger "for the good of the planet"?
I was fishing, and that was the bait. 
As I said before, this is not a problem at all. All you need to do is hire a licensed boiler engineer, and have him perform the standard procedures these people have done for 137 years.
I know you seem to have a very high esteem for (every) licensed boiler engineers.
However, a testimony just from some engineer (e.g. a freelancer like Bass, or "another Penon") wouldn't have much (or no) weight, and for sure would not be convincing when it comes to prove a totally novel technology (which contradicts known physics).
A good start would be to hire a credible testing company like SGS, TUEV, BV as Darden suggested to Rossi, but - of course - Rossi objected to this proposal.
With a positive performance certificate from such a testing company in your hands, you can do the next step and approach university labs etc.
Square Bar
You know what: I think the contract IH made with Rossi, the GPT and license agreement, the "term sheet, all this documents are written in such a poor technical and legal standard that I wouldn't be too suprised when the judge would even rule in favor for Rossi - When lawyers (who should know better) agree to such agreements, they shouldn't be suprised when they finally have to pay the bill for that! (The immense costs of the lawsuit, or - worst case - even get defeated).
I am surprised that IH did not involve engineers and scientists to review the term sheet. The technical side of the contracts were just sloppy. The same with the evaluation. If they ever do this again (doubtful) they should not rest their approval on a single person but use an array of specialists. (oh yes, a control and no touching by the "inventor")
With a positive performance certificate from such a testing company in your hands, you can do the next step and approach university labs etc.
Unis are quite interesting as validators. They will do the job, easily, and cheaply. But if it is a member of staff doing this privately the integrity is low. Someone not competent enough, but enthusiastic or highly paid, can sign a report which is rubbish with no real come-back. If it is something endorsed by a whole department or higher level, done by whichever staff are deemed competent, then the integrity (from a top university) is very good. You will get the first version easily with no prior testing. You will get the second if you offer to pay enough over the odds, or if you convince a number of academics you are for real.
The issue with testing companies is that they are paid, and therefore do what you ask. You need a company competent and willing to formulate and stand by their own tests, rather than one that validates your tests. The best solution would be:
testing company + skeptical academic. Get the skeptical academic to agree a bomb-proof black box test with a testing company who conduct it. Better, get another skeptical academic to review the test protocol from the first and suggest improvements. You end up with a very carefully instrumented test with no motivation for any of the testers to seek positive results. The report from this would be convincing. For added validation you document iterations of the protocol with reasons for changes (though this is not really needed).
I am surprised that IH did not involve engineers and scientists to review the term sheet. The technical side of the contracts were just sloppy. The same with the evaluation.
OG,
FWIW, IH did try and bring in a couple of the big boys for the VT, but Rossi raised a ruckus, and IH backed down. That is all well documented. Hopefully, all others who follow in IH's footsteps, will learn from their many mistakes. There should be a plaque on the door to LENR land that says:
"Those who enter this door, beware. If you can not do a true DD, turn around now before it is too late."
I know you seem to have a very high esteem for (every) licensed boiler engineers.
However, a testimony just from some engineer (e.g. a freelancer like Bass, or "another Penon")
Yes. They are not licensed boiler engineers. Bass might be -- I wouldn't know. Anyway, the installation was nothing remotely like what an engineer would set up.
A good start would be to hire a credible testing company like SGS, TUEV, BV as Darden suggested to Rossi, but - of course - Rossi objected to this proposal.
A good start would be any licensed professional, as I said. There is no need to call in a testing company to start with. If the licensed professional says it works, you can then call in a specialized testing company. They can confirm the result and do more tests to characterize the effect.
It might take the licensed engineer a week or two to test the reactor, because he would have to replace all of the instruments and some of the plumbing to meet code. As Smith pointed out, the test cannot work with the instruments Rossi installed. It would also have to meet safety codes. The engineer would install steam traps, valves to vent the steam, and so on. I expect he would need unimpeded access to the pretend customer site.
I am sure a licensed professional would find that the Forida Rossi device does not work. The investigation would begin and end there. I cannot be sure of the previous reactors. The small reactor tested by Levi does not produce steam or hot water, and it might be too small for conventional boiler instruments and techniques, so perhaps it would have to be tested by a scientist. The other ones Rossi demonstrated could be tested by conventional means. They should have been.
I am pretty confident that I myself could have tested most of the previous smaller devices. Rossi would not let me near them. He told me that I could come and look but he would not allow me to touch anything or measure anything with my own instruments, so of course I said no thanks. A professional engineer would do a much more credible job than I could. I could not have tested the Florida device because, as I said, you would have to rip out the plumbing and instruments and start over from scratch to bring it up to code. I couldn't do that. It is too big and too high powered for me, even assuming it is only 20 kW. Frankly, I do not think most academic scientists could handle it. On the other hand, the people at the NRL could do a splendid job. I have seen some of their large scale calorimetry. Someone like Murray with his experience with military apps could do a superb job.
At Hydrodynamics, I worked with an industrial scale calorimeter designed by the Dean of Mechanical Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. It was a thing of beauty. It was wonderfully designed, in ways that I would never have thought of, but which I could appreciate. It measured significant excess heat from the Griggs ultrasound cavitation gadget. As I recall, the gadget sometimes produced ~117% of input power for extended periods, where a blank test would be about 90% of input power, because of massive heat losses from the gadget. I mean heat losses on a scale that if you fell on the machine, you would be killed by third-degree burns.
I do not think the Dean ever acknowledged that his equipment proved an over-unity claim. As far as I could tell, it did, anyway. There was no follow-up. That is the only credible over-unity claim I have ever seen, other than cold fusion. Whether it has any connection to cold fusion I cannot say.
OK. Write them a nice letter asking them if they would be prepared to test a portable cold fusion device on their premises, mentioning that it produces excess heat. While you're at it write to National Physical Laboratory in the UK, too. Don't forget to ask them how much they would charge. Also, please don't forget to come back with the answer, but having discussed this two years ago with a couple of these outfits I'm pretty sure you will be wasting your postage stamps.
Wasn't NASA willing to test the e-cat?
Didn't SKINR try to replicate (and fail with) the "MFMP signal"?
And from the Rossi-IH depositions it seems that BOEING also tested (or was willing to test) an alleged LENR reactor.
Of course, you should not expect that when some garage tinkerer drops a piece of junk at an university lab and claims - without any grounds - that this is a nuclear reactor, or an OU magnetic motor, or a time machine, or ... , that the university would waste any time with it.
Or would you want that an university waste tax payer money with testing every "invention" like ZPE generator, fuel savers, magnetic motor, "ORBO", antigravity gadgets, healing EM-fields/shields, miracle spring water etc. etc. from every crackpot and/or scammer?
Surely, you need to represent a minimum on credibility in order to be taken seriously.
And when I just think about the videos and messages which Bob Greenyer recently published on the internet, that's surely not something what would enhance ones credibility - so don't be suprised when MFMP will face some problems to be taken serious...
Let me suggest a modification. Not "their own methods" but rather they should use: industry standard methods spelled out the ASME and incorporated in Florida state regulations and the regulations of all other states. These methods, and the instruments, configurations and so on, were first developed and adapted as industry standards in 1880. They have been updated and improved since then. There is no doubt they work. They could easily prove any of the COPs that Rossi has claimed.
These are the kinds of methods Smith referred to in his deposition.
There different methods for hot water and steam, and for different sized boilers.
The ASME tests do not consider overunit (gainful) determination.
