The Uppsala IR (owned by Levi per the gang from Sweden) and the high COP dummy issues are clear now.
All we've got on the high COP dummy story is Darden-says. No contemporaneous record. And Darden's alleged timing of the discovery of the scam is intriguing: Jan. of 2014, well before taking the pitch and landing the investment from Woodford. Sorry, doesn't add up.
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.
Yes, I was very excited when the report was released, but started to experience pain in the first page or so when reading about what they did for the un-fueled part. I really wanted to believe anyway, because surely they used more than one method to measure temperature right? Well, no. In the end, they did a really good job of putting lipstick on a pig.
You could make a case that they lied about some things (e.g., the extent of AR's involvement). With the facts as I know them so far, I would say it is more like Levi just took AR's word for everything. "Well, he said that he didn't touch anything the whole time, so 'he only intervened on two occasions.'"
AR could settle this whole thing within the next week or two if he wanted to. Have the MFMP guys come run a live black box test on any one of his reactors. He won't, because he has nothing at all that works.
All we've got on the high COP dummy story is Darden-says. No contemporaneous record. And Darden's alleged timing of the discovery of the scam is intriguing: Jan. of 2014, well before taking the pitch and landing the investment from Woodford. Sorry, doesn't add up.
For Rossi's side, that the reactors work, we have no expert testimony at all. Other than the lugano report with a known and validated, both experimentally and theoretically, error that shows that reactor did not work to within experimental error.
All we've got on the high COP dummy story is Darden-says. No contemporaneous record. And Darden's alleged timing of the discovery is intriguing: Jan. of 2014, well before taking the pitch to Woodford. Sorry, doesn't add up.
It is Darden-says story consistent with known empirical evidence.
I agree Rossi should let the MFMP do a black box test. If it works, he literally has nothing to lose. It would go a long way with the community that has stuck with the story since 2011. That he hasn't permitted this yet raises more suspicion in my mind than anything Dewey has ever said.
It is Darden-says story consistent with known empirical evidence.
You'd be hard pressed to get a fake COP of 9 using a thermal camera, according to Para. We know IH got a COP of 9 on a fueled reactor. We don't know what the supposed COP was on the alleged dummy reactor. Some have taken Darden's words to mean a fake COP of 9 on the dummy reactor, but the record doesn't include such specificity.
For Rossi's side, that the reactors work, we have no expert testimony at all. Other than the lugano report with a known and validated, both experimentally and theoretically, error that shows that reactor did not work to within experimental error.
I do hope the Lugano scientists are able to defend their test on the stand. Too much conjecture swirling around.
Display MoreThe number of digits showing up on the screen doesn't matter. Today MFMP ran an experiment where heat exchanger output temperature was 19.8331 deg C, but no one is claiming 6 digit precision.
I think we agree that the last digits in the Doral temperatures are not significant.
But again, I don't know why, but you only have temperatures of 103.9, 104.5, 105.1. And 103.9 is always 103.9364 etc.
There are no 104.0, 104.1 ... 104.4 values
Hence 0.6 deg C precision. Hence a lower set of possible minimum daily values. Hence repeated values.
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.
These distributions are not what you get from normal measurements. To me this looks like the Temp values are derived from other measurements through a formula a + kx, which is much more general than what you may think due to small variations and taylor expansions. if we assume that measurements varies as 1,2,3,... * 10^-m then the output will vary as k,2k,... * 10^-m and you can get the seen effect of the smallest units not following the decimal system.
You'd be hard pressed to get a fake COP of 9 using a thermal camera, according to Para. We know IH got a COP of 9 on a fueled reactor. We don't know what the supposed COP was on the alleged dummy reactor. Some have taken Darden's words to mean a fake COP of 9 on the dummy reactor, but the record doesn't include such specificity.
You must be selectively reading. I've pointed out several times that 9 = 3 X 3 and you get 3 from input (e.g. reversed clamp) and 2-5 from IR.
Input errors unthinkable?
MFMP think the Lugano guys must have had a X2 input error on the dummy test. Read their paper from JCMNS.
THH
I do hope the Lugano scientists are able to defend their test on the stand. Too much conjecture swirling around.
No conjecture needed, if you can read the papers.
I do hope the Lugano scientists are able to defend their test on the stand. Too much conjecture swirling around.
Very unlikely any will attend.
Very unlikely any [Lugano scientists] will attend.
I think you mean it is unlikely they will be called as witnesses. I agree. I don't think there are any depositions from them, so I doubt they will be called. The trial will only be two weeks long, it has a lot of ground to cover, and in my opinion the work of the Lugano scientists is largely irrelevant to the case.
I have never heard of an electronic thermometer that registers to the nearest 0.5 deg C. It is always some decimal value: 1, 0.1, 0.01 . . . This one clearly registers to 4 digits, although I doubt the last 3 are significant.
Abd reminds me that A/D cards can have odd values at one decimal place or another. I was thinking of handheld temperature devices such as the Omega Digital Thermometer. These will show any decimal value, 0, 1, 2, 3 . . . in the lowest decimal place. They do not jump by 0.5, for example.
So, now that we have clarified that part, can we agree that a system that measures temperature with jumps of 0.5682 C (i.e. a limited of possible measurement values), having multiple days in a row with min(T)= 103.9xxx is not that unusual?
So, now that we have clarified that part, can we agree that a system that measures temperature with jumps of 0.5682 C (i.e. a limited of possible measurement values), having multiple days in a row with min(T)= 103.9xxx is not that unusual?
If we assume that the measurment is in Farenheit and then converted to Celcius via a mathematical transform (a + bx) you will get jumps of the order 0.56
4F = -15.55556C
5F = -15.00000C
So, now that we have clarified that part, can we agree that a system that measures temperature with jumps of 0.5682 C (i.e. a limited of possible measurement values), having multiple days in a row with min(T)= 103.9xxx is not that unusual?
No, that is completely out of the question. The lowest temperature of the day would never be exactly the same for days on end, to the nearest 0.1 deg C. That data, along with the flow rate data and the pressure data, is fake. It is too consistent to be real, and we know it is fake for many other reasons, discussed here at length.
If it were an average it might plausibly be the same for a few days in a row.
"For crying out loud", why do you keep repeating "to the nearest 0.1 deg C" when it is to the nearest 0.5 deg C (0.5682 deg C)?
Edit to add: If temperature is measured to the nearest 0.5 deg C, having a the same minimal temperature over multiple days is way more likely than if it is measured to the nearest 0.1 deg C.
Sometimes truth is more complex than "the data is fake".
IH should have considered advisors that are wanting to get down to the truth rather than make a list of gotchas that just sound good until you dig into them.
IHFG - both the empty reactor and the loaded reactors showed the same results. I know you find that hard to believe and there were other people in the room witnessing the takedown. Fulvs thought they were all loaded reactors but one was not. Turnabout was fair play.
IHFG - both the empty reactor and the loaded reactors showed the same results. I know you find that hard to believe and there were other people in the room witnessing the takedown. Fulvs thought they were all loaded reactors but one was not. Turnabout was fair play.
Beware of lawyers with IR guns.
I find that a small IR camera shows a lot in a lab and some look like just normal cameras --- 
I've been trying to find the format of a claim/counter-claim trial -- without success.
eg Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Business Law Basics : Steps in a Civil Case aren't much help.
I asked on a lawyerly forum
One said it's up to the judge to decide on what will be clearest to the jury (ie the claims and counter-claims could be intermingled around a particular issue).
Another said it might go like this:
A = Rossi
B = Darden/IH
C = 3rd Party
A opening
B opening
C Opening
A claims ... you owe me $90M x 3
B defense
[A rebuttal]
At this point B could file move for Dismissal on the claims ... which serves as a mini-closing between A and B
B counter-claims .. it's a scam! We're suing for fraud!
A defense
C defense
[ B rebuttal ]
A closing -- I'm not sure of the order here, but all three parties get to close.
B closing
C Closing
