Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from oldguy

I will also add that the removal of fuel and meters were done before Rossi filed his suit against IH.

Rossi finished the test and did what he considered appropriate with his instruments. If there was no suit, those objects were not evidence. It may be that he has decided to sue IH some time later, or it may be that he, having no more confidence in IH, wanted to prevent them from tampering with the tools as they liked. The world is more multifaceted than you see it.

Quote from maryyugo

Once again: there is not and never was the slightest need to test a so-called megawatt plant or the so-called hot-cat or the "six cylinder" contraption. According to Rossi and Levi's measurements, the best performing ecat EVER was the first series of steam producing ones. Levi's test produced the highest power peak (130kW) , the highest average power (18kW if memory serves) and a run plenty long enough to exclude absolutely any other power source except nuclear.

You do not take into account so many factors. A prototype can be abandoned for various reasons, for example it may be unsuitable for the market, or it may have been unstable over long duration test (if you sell a reactor, you must be sure it does not cause problems for several years) or it could have a technology too similar to another already patented, and so on. Rossi has continued to make improvements to his creations, improvements that do not necessarily concern the COP.

Quote from SSC

Rossi finished the test and did what he considered appropriate with his instruments. If there was no suit, those objects were not evidence. It may be that he has decided to sue IH some time later, or it may be that he, having no more confidence in IH, wanted to prevent them from tampering with the tools as they liked. The world is more multifaceted than you see it.

You assume to know how I see the world....?

What I said is true. It is you who try to read peoples motives and viewpoints into things and judge others. I prefer to just state the facts.

Minute entry added to the docket (doc. 323):

• PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 6/22/2017. Total time in court: 1 hour(s) : 43 minutes. Attorney Appearance(s): Christopher Rebel Jude Pace, Brian W. Chaiken, Court Reporter: Stephanie McCarn, 305-523-5518 / [email protected]. (cmz) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

Quote from maryyugo

No, Rossi did not. He simply changed his sleight of hand tricks and in so doing, came up with devices whose inputs and outputs were far more difficult to measure and which were far easier for him to mismeasure and tamper with. It also went from a claimed 18kW average net output to something around 4. This sort of lack of improvement (after 6+ years) and constant meaningless and evasive design changes while avoiding credible independent measurement are CLASSICAL for free energy scams. Steorn, for example, did exactly the same things.

How can you say that there have been no improvements? You have no idea how that reactor works, so how do you know if its technology has been improved or not? You only rely on the COP, which is not the only important parameter to evaluate the performance of an object which is intended to industry or, worse, to home. Reliability, safety and stability are equally important. And stop saying that E-Cat has never been subject to credible independent measurement: the Lugano test was performed by credible and competent scientists, and Rossi's presence did not affect the independence of the test, since In the Lugano report there are no references to constraints or limits imposed by Rossi, nor it is said that he decided how to perform the measurements.

Quote from maryyugo

I do not take these into account because their consideration is purely spurious. Market? What market? What exactly did Rossi *ever* market except for scams and disasters? Unstable? Funny -- neither Rossi nor Lewan nor Kullander, Essen, Focardi, and the Swedes *ever* mentioned stability as an issue. And you hardly gain stability by going from a simple small liquid cooled steam-temperature device to a purely unforced radiation and convection cooled free-standing glowing red and white hot one with unnecessary three phase power inputs. What you do gain by these machinations are other ways to cheat on measurements. Sell a reactor? When and to whom? Rossi CLAIMED for five years to be selling them including the military. Where are these clients and customers and factories he talked about so much on his silly blog? WHERE?

On the market you enter with a finished product. If Rossi continued to make improvements to his reactor it is clear that he did not think it was ready for sale. What do you think would happen if you try to sell a revolutionary object that might be unstable or stop working after a time considered inadequate by the buyer? When you announce to the world (the real one, not the LENR microcosm) that you have a revolutionary object, you can not afford to make mistakes, you must be sure everything will work at the best.

Stability was not a problem for scientists .... is that strange? For them already a COP 2 is an event, they do not need to go further to be able to confirm the phenomenon. But for the market you need higher values and great durations. Maybe Rossi knew that his reactors were not stable beyond a certain level of operation. And as far as military customers are concerned, if Rossi sold something to them, you will never know!

the Lugano test was performed by credible and competent scientists, and Rossi's presence did not affect the independence of the test, since In the Lugano report there are no references to constraints or limits imposed by Rossi, nor it is said that he decided how to perform the measurements.

should I rise to the bait?

The Lugano report is not credible, and has been severely critiqued by Pomp et al (in general terms), and specifically by GSVIT, Bob Higgins, Tom Clarke, MFMP. It is pretty well the definition of not credible since specific holes have been found in it by multiple independent reviewers, and these have never been defended by the scientists.

You don't need all that stuff: to your second point, ROSSI switched off the control test at low temperatures to prevent it from showing up the active test. Rossi claimed this was to prevent it from breaking which if you think about it is absurd, given the much higher temperatures in the active test.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The Lugano report is not credible, and has been severely critiqued by Pomp et al (in general terms), and specifically by GSVIT, Bob Higgins, Tom Clarke, MFMP. It is pretty well the definition of not credible since specific holes have been found in it by multiple independent reviewers, and these have never been defended by the scientists.

You don't need all that stuff: to your second point, ROSSI switched off the control test at low temperatures to prevent it from showing up the active test. Rossi claimed this was to prevent it from breaking which if you think about it is absurd, given the much higher temperatures in the active test.

[ Non-fact-based comment removed. ]

"ROSSI switched off the control test.... " ? Technically, yes - but that makes it sound as if it was against the wishes of the experimental team. (And don't forget the start-up melt-downs, as in the Levi report).

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omvärld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf (my bold)

Quote

However, it was not meant to compare the operation of the loaded reactor to the dummy run. In fact, such a procedure would have required that the same amount of power be supplied to the dummy and to the reactor. Moreover, at the start
of the measurements, there was no way of knowing what input power the loaded reactor would have absorbed. In fact, it is well known that some Inconel cables have a crystalline structure that is modified by temperature, and are capable of withstanding high currents only if they are operated at the appropriate temperature. If these conditions are not met, microscopic melt spots are liable to occur in the cables. So, there was some fear of fracturing the ceramic body, due to the lower temperature of the thermal generators with respect to the loaded reactor. For these reasons, power to the dummy reactor was held at below 500 W, in order to avoid any possible damage to the apparatus.

The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually
brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the
following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and
powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred;
moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.

....

After 23 hours’ operation, the dummy reactor was switched off and disconnected from the power cables, to
allow for one of the caps to be opened and the powder to be inserted.

Display More

(Note that the maximum input in the test run was 923.71 W). Again, "intervened" does NOT mean against their will.

So Rossi had nothing at all to do with the military?

Quote from Rends

The feeling that everything here is ultimately only about agitation is annoying me very much, because a energy revolution. which is called LENR, has the potential

save us ALL.

I fully agree - but Rossi's wishful thinking and ongoing ecat fraud won't save none of us...

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Pomp is a pompous ass.

"ROSSI switched off the control test.... " ? Technically, yes - but that makes it sound as if it was against the wishes of the experimental team. (And don't forget the start-up melt-downs, as in the Levi report).

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omvärld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf (my bold)

(Note that the maximum input in the test run was 923.71 W). Again, "intervened" does NOT mean against their will.

Display More

Alan - I think it is very helpful to judge arguments on their merit - not inferred character of the arguer. For example, were Rossi to put forward proper arguments the fact that he continually lies would not, were they good arguments, make them any less good.

Pomp et al's critique was not insightful, some of the things they said were scraping the barrel, others however were relevant. even without a proper analysis elements of the test looked highly unsafe.

To your other point: I'm sure the Lugano testers agreed with what Rossi did. They viewed him (rightly) as the expert on the device and its testing, and had no sense that following his recommendations might be problematic. That was why, even though they had nominal control, it was not independent. The cut short control run is the most glaring example of this.

The maximum input in the test run was 923.71W. Yes, and the maximum input to the dummy run was (reportedly) 500W. When you work out the figures the active run shows the IR issue strongly, the 500W lower temperature run shows it much more weakly. Why does this happen from relatively close powers? The effect gets amplified because they use emissivity values form the wrongly calculated temperature of 1250C/1400C corresponding to an apparent power of 3kW. The very large difference in power moves the IR curve from something close to 1 and constant as temperature goes down, where their error does not show, to 0.4, and not constant as temperature goes down.

There is still an issue, and they corrected the emissivity table at the lower temperatures to make the wrong method fit, instead of asking why it was wrong. Then, they did not question whether correction at higher temperatures might be similarly necessary. MFMP had not trouble affixing TCs at higher temperatures - the testers with Rossi seem to have been experimentally disadvantaged in exactly they ways required to sustain a massively false positive result.

THH

Quote from Rends

save us ALL.

Prayer of today:

"Oh lord, please save me from all zealots who believe that it is their mission to save me (and the entire world)!"