Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from LENR Calender

I've never heard of an electronic thermometer that registers to the nearest 0.5 or 0.6 degree either, but this is what it appears to be until someone comes up with a better explanation.

Recorded values depends on the DAQ chain. There was probably a rounding to eliminate unnecessary figures. Anyway taking the lowest value ensure the corrctness of the measure obtained as a lower limit.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

The best help we could find couldn't get anything that was attached to R IP to work

Dewey

Letting a device work and verifying that the same device is working are two different tasks.

Maybe you need Rossi to turn on the ECAT but surely you don't need him to verify if the Ecat is working.

Should I remember here that IH conducted a test in Ferrara in which verified that the reactor was working ?

Most temperature IC's with a digital interface such as SPI or I2C will output the value in pure binary, not decimal, thus the fractional part will give a precision of .5, .25, .125 degrees etc.

Ele - You know that Rossi was not interested in helping turn on an ecat or in any other demo that he or Fulvs were not directly in control of. That is why Boeing was needed before Joe joined the scene. Ferrara was interesting but you have to remember who was present and observing the demo - they were admitted easy targets. Once you get into the generator and reactor details from Ferrara then it all goes squirrelly anyway.

The Uppsala IR (owned by Levi per the gang from Sweden) and the high COP dummy issues are clear now.

If you take $10M for an IP license after claiming ready for commercialization then you have the obligation, and should also have the desire, to support and take the IP into the marketplace with your customer. Rossi chose an antithetical path instead and will be held accountable - we are all the sum of our decisions.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Ele - You know that Rossi was not interested in helping turn on an ecat or in any other demo that he or Fulvs were not directly in control of. That is why Boeing was needed before Joe joined the scene. Ferrara was interesting but you have to remember who was present and observing the demo - they were admitted easy targets. Once you get into the generator and reactor details from Ferrara then it all goes squirrelly anyway.

The Uppsala IR (owned by Levi per the gang from Sweden) and the high COP dummy issues are clear now.

If you take $10M for an IP license after claiming ready for commercialization then you have the obligation, and should also have the desire, to support and take the IP into the marketplace with your customer. Rossi chose an antithetical path instead and will be held accountable - we are all the sum of our decisions.

Ele -

While many of the points Dewey makes are as full of unproven assertion as yours, many are substantive.

This one has substance. Rossi has always been highly nervous about any independent test setup for his devices. Look at lugano, where he was nervous even though he or Fulvio were there the whole time doing the test and no doubt giving the other testers advice.

This behaviour is not surprising if you read the documents, where it is clear that unless Darden and Vaughn are perjuring themselves in easily detectable ways, IH found itself with Andrea-Fulvio tests that worked, and other test setups that did not. We know why, in some cases. For example the Lugano IR mis-measurement issue calculated theoretically by TC and validated experimentally by MFMP.

It is also clear from the documents, and became so to Darden et al, that Dameron was not up to the job of detecting Rossi's measurement errors. You need to be highly technically skilled and able to reason independently to catch these.

However, once a specific error is identified (clamp reversal, IR mis-measurement, or whatever) it can be used by technically sophisticated analysis to knock out a whole load of previous apparently large positive results. Without such large results a COP of 1.2 is best interpreted as experimental error in these setups which have inherently quite large errors.

I don't exactly fault IH's intent: given apparently independent tests showing COP of 5 or more, they must reckon it requires no great technical skill to prove devices actually work. They underestimated Rossi's ability to put together test setups with technical errors that overestimated COP. I don't think anyone saw Rossi as trustworthy. Just as with stage magic even when we know the magician is trying fool us we always underestimate how easy it is to do this.

I'm not sure from your posts here how complete is your denial that Rossi's test strategies (and those of the independent testers who happen to follow Rossi) are flawed. We could go through the long lists of known flaws which Rossi refused to correct and you could perhaps say for each one whether you view this as just a mistake, or whether you deny the flaw? Such a conversation would be revealing, so would you like to tell us now are there any documented cases where Rossi actually was measuring wrong? And did he ever admit it?

Rossi must have been very unhappy about Murray's ability to look at his instrumentation and detect errors. He was not used to such an audience, and most unfortunately for him, in the contract with IH, he had no ability to shut down such investigations. No wonder he abandoned his E-cats for the new, secret, and differently tested Quark-X. It looks as though he will be much more careful now about allowing anyone else to be in charge of tests.

Regards, THH

Quote from Alan Smith

How do you know AR was 'nervous' at Lugano? How well do you know what his normal demeanour is? And what bearing does that have on the price of spinach? This does not sound substantive to me. I have mentioned before your intention to embellish real facts with imagined ones. Tut tut.

If you remember his many blog comments at the time it was pretty clear - he said this. Perhaps however he was lying?

Quote from THHuxleynew

If you remember his many blog comments at the time it was pretty clear - he said this. Perhaps however he was lying?

I do think he was lying! Well sort of. Lying about what he was anxious about (e.g., whether the results would be positive or negative). I think he knew as long as someone didn't figure things out before the end he was fine. Then he had to figure out how to salt the spent "fuel." I can imagine that would have been nerve-wracking, or perhaps exciting, depending on your disposition. It is decidedly not an embellishment to state that he was nervous based upon his comments. If you believe him, he worked himself to the bone during the Doral test too, and was wracked with anxiety about??? (sneaky Russians and lawyers with IR guns?)

Alan - why to you autorotate into defensive position for Rossi? Do you know that he was not nervous?

He was nervous as a tick on a car roof in August - he shut down the control run-up in what could be described as a panic move.

An "independent test" with the inventor abruptly shutting down the control run. It should have ended there.

Quote from ele

Dewey

Letting a device work and verifying that the same device is working are two different tasks.

Maybe you need Rossi to turn on the ECAT but surely you don't need him to verify if the Ecat is working.

Should I remember here that IH conducted a test in Ferrara in which verified that the reactor was working ?

But to have IP TRANSFER as required by contract means others must be able to do it. If you sale a cake recipe, it is not enough to say, here taste my cake. The recipe must work so they get a cake when they use the recipe.

I see the interest in Exhibit 16 temps but my question remains: why are the pressure readings below the atmospheric pressure readings for Miami that day? Was there a vacuum from the customer's side and if there was how did the water flow out of that side to an open tank? It seems to me that there must have been a pump and not just pipes on that side.

We know from the evidence that there was a pump on the customer side.

Somebody has to keep some balance. Judge jury and executioner is not this forum's role.

In this case comment here will be quite similar to that of the Jury. We have a lot of the info they will have, together with rather more background than they will be allowed. So if it is of interest to work out, for example, does Rossi's stuff work, all these matters come into play whether this is convenient or not.

I think by balance what you mean is that we should sit on the fence neither arguing that Rossi is dishonest, nor that IH is dishonest. Every substantive comment is likely to do one of the other since if Rossi is honest, IH is not, and vice versa.

Or perhaps that there should, regardless of facts, be an equal number of pro-Rossi and pro-IH comments. That would explain your pretty well 100% posting of pro-Rossi snarky comments. LF does not censor arguments and so inevitably given the facts now available - which would have horrified ECW two years past - Rossi comes off worst. Strong partisan support from the likes of Ele does not help if he/she cannot make substantive arguments without using obviously wrong interpretations.

Anyway Rossi has IHFB to tell me how biased I am, so I see no overall problem with balance.

He was nervous as a tick on a car roof in August - he shut down the control run-up in what could be described as a panic move.

An "independent test" with the inventor abruptly shutting down the control run. It should have ended there.

What are the plausible reasons, if his device worked, for Rossi cutting short the Lugano control run? It was always a mystery why this was done till Dewey etc revealed that this was Rossi's action. I can believe it given Rossi's known dislike of running control experiments which he considers unnecessary. In this case though it was bad PR, and meant that, without even looking at the technical stuff, many people did not credit the report. So why would Rossi do this, other than to prevent known (by Rossi) spoofed calorimetry from being revealed?

IHFB: any ideas?

Quote from THHuxleynew

What are the plausible reasons, if his device worked, for Rossi cutting short the Lugano control run?

Ah, yes. The control run, where they stopped the run at a very low temperature, instead of going through the range of temperatures that would be seen in the live run. This was a controversial detail from the moment the Lugano report was released. I had figured it was Levi et al. applying an overabundance of caution, or possibly acting on a suggestion of Rossi. It now occurs to me that it was more likely Rossi himself, together with Fabiani, who made that call.

I think if the Lugano report had been forthright about the involvement of Rossi and Fabiani, with the professors only being there occasionally, people would have not put much stock in it long before the emissivity problem became apparent later on.

Invented figures usually differs from measured ones in the statistical distribution. I think that tax authorities knows this and use it to sieve out possible fake tax reports.

Anyway this is cool stuff for the number nerds and for your pleasure I give you the link:

Benford Law

Note the frequencies, I would take Rossis figures and see if those follows Benford or not. It is a simple matter to do a chi square test on it. Anyhow doing the correct analysis demands some know how

I'm a bit rusty so I'm not an oracle on this but there are people out there who are, why not check with one of those.