Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

Quote from Paradigmnoia

So the MFMP thermal comparison seems to have some sort of flaw. Their device concentrates the heat in the main tube, but barely heats the Caps, due to the heater coil design. The Lugano device has fully 1/3 of the entire resistance-heater wire length within the Caps and extending into the Rods at least 4 cm. So it takes more power in total to heat the Lugano Main tube in comparison to the MFMP device.

IMO

If the Lugano device has about 1/3 of the heater wire resistance within the caps (Possibly meaning that the windings continue within the caps) and the MFP device not (Having a straight heater wire within the caps) it would mean that the MFMP device was not a good replication of the Lugano device.

It also explains why the temperatures near the caps decreases much faster and to lower temperatures then the Lugano device. I was already wondering about that,

And it also would indeed mean that the Lugano device needed more power to get to the same temperatures near the center of the device then that of the MFMP replica.

Would be nice if somebody has a finite element thermal simulation program and would model both situations, run some tests and compare the results with the contents of the reports.

Quote from guest111

but he lost his bold Ultimate Con quest when his bluff was called.

My impression is that Rossi was not counting on winning the 89 million (or 267 million), which was probably just a lever for negotiating. I assume he was aiming more for something like the present confidential settlement. Although we don't know what the terms are, we might suspect they favor Rossi, as both sides must cover their own attorney fees.

Let the handling of this episode leading up to the lawsuit be a lesson to anyone seeking to fund a high-risk LENR venture.

Quote from LDM

If the Lugano device has about 1/3 of the heater wire resistance within the caps (Possibly meaning that the windings continue within the caps) and the MFP device not (Having a straight heater wire within the caps) it would mean that the MFMP device was not a good replication of the Lugano device.

It also explains why the temperatures near the caps decreases much faster and to lower temperatures then the Lugano device. I was already wondering about that,

And it also would indeed mean that the Lugano device needed more power to get to the same temperatures near the center of the device then that of the MFMP replica.

Would be nice if somebody has a finite element thermal simulation program and would model both situations, run some tests and compare the results with the contents of the reports.

For the purposes of checking IR temperature measurements and emissivity issues, the MFMP replica was quite good.

When the MFMP went to the point of comparing total power in to specific temperature levels, their replica falls short and the comparison is unfair. The Lugano device is very difficult to replicate exactly, even ignoring the fuel-LENR part. It is a pain to power up, requiring a very robust and costly power management system and industrial three phase power supply. The Lugano twisted calibrated resistance heater wires are very large diameter for heater application and have very low effective resistance (and therefore are capable of huge current flows). The heating circuit could be approximated more closely using single phase and higher resistance wire, but a good understanding of the Lugano device heat distribution is required.

Comparing radiant power in specific areas of the MFMP device to the Lugano device would open a large "can of worms", and I can see why the MFMP would want to avoid doing that.

@Azil: pseudoskepticism is a real thing, as your lengthy description indicates. What I posted described the false use of the term for pejorative purposes and for dismissing the arguments of an opponent.

As you put it: "The analysis employed in a skeptical argument involves scientific principles and logic. Absent that, an argument based on emotional criteria is Denialism." Do you seriously believe that the actual evidence (as distinguished from what Rossi and his cronies say which is as far from evidence as you can get) does not provide grounds to reject his numerous claims and obvious falsehoods? If so, then supporters like yourself and IHF are basing your arguments entirely and blindly on emotional criteria and certainly not on scientific principles and logic.

Quote from JedRothwell

This is not "business." It is fraud and theft. If businessmen acted like Rossi, commerce would cease to exist. No one would negotiate contracts in good faith, or abide by them. Without trust there can be no business.

You have weird notions about how the world works. Calling this "business" is like calling armed bank robbery, "an innovative financing technique."

Your are lucky you are posting in USA. If you were in Italy, your post would be enough for a criminal charge for defamation (in Italy defamation is both a tort and a crime) 😉 You speech is full of violence.

Alan Smith

PASCUCCI AVV. ORESTE Studio Legale - Via Ottaviano 66 - 00192 Roma (RM)

Excellent law firm specialized in patents disputes.

we_cat_global : I think most whose opinions I respect will agree that, apart from showing a certain naivety about doing business with sketchy types, IH have shown themselves to be flexible, patient and well-intentioned business partners. They come out of this affair looking pretty good in terms of their assumptions and intention, if not execution.

Sometimes people must learn a difficult lesson the hard way, I suppose. We can be grateful to them nonetheless for what information has become available in the process.

Quote from SSC

I don't recall melting down episodes of the 1MW reactor, but I remember that in several occasions Rossi spoke of leakages. It is obvious, however, that when you bring such a revolutionary product to the market, you can not make mistakes, so if during a one-year test Rossi understood that his technology could have some kind of trouble (even occasionally), it is logical that he has chosen to promote his new product, for which these problems do not seem to be present. It is a banal reasoning for anyone who understands a bit the laws of the market. Those who deny it only do so in order to have another pretext for attacking Rossi.

Why do think that Rossi was on site 20 hours a day for 7 days a week...because he had to be. Rossi was hands on to control the reactor. A automatic control system was not up to the task of keeping the plant stable and well controlled. Rossi even has to be on site as he was recovering from surgery. The reactor was not passively stable. Rossi could not sell a reactor that a numb brained operator could not mess up.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The Lugano twisted calibrated resistance heater wires are very large diameter for heater application and have very low effective resistance (and therefore are capable of huge current flows). The heating circuit could be approximated more closely using single phase and higher resistance wire, but a good understanding of the Lugano device heat distribution is required.

If you for these very low ohmic heater wires calculate the needed wire diameters from the resistivity for heater wires which can handle these temperatures (For example Kantal) and even for copper (low ohmic), then you will see that the number of turns will not fit on the area because the needed wire diameter becomes too large
One possible solution to this problem would be that the "average current" mentioned in the report is not the average RMS current but the average of the peak currents. This has the following consequences :

1. Since the peak current is for small pulses, the RMS current is much lower.

2. As a consequence the calculated Joule heating power in the Lugano report is too high (About a factor 10)

But if the "average current" is indeed the the average peak current, then for the dummy run it results in resistance of each of the three heater wires of about 25 Ohm. For Kantal A1 type wire the diameter will then be small enough to properly fit on the tube and to have enough spacing between the windings.

Quote from Eric Walker

Let the handling of this episode leading up to the lawsuit be a lesson to anyone seeking to fund a high-risk LENR venture.

Agreed. Any contract should not be one-sided. There should be mutual confidentiality and non-compete terms. There can be a lump sum up-front payment, but any production should be royalty-based, with milestones (e.g., so many sales per annum or else contract terminated). This aligns the interests of both sides. Contracts that are fair to each side are much less likely to be litigated. Let this be a warning.

Quote from Shane D.

You also understood the implications were JMP to turn out fake, and run by Rossi, having said many times you would consider it a fatal blow to Rossi...or something like that. Well, when it became clear that was the case, you just ignored it and continued on in his defense.

I thought it would have swayed the jury to IH's side. Apparently, IH didn't think so.

Quote

The last straw for me though, was the mezzazine heat exchanger. Reading his deposition where he describes it, was a window into the mind of a pathological liar. So, sorry I am not on the fence anymore like the good old times. Although Rossi himself could get me right back up there, were he to allow his tech to be tested by a truly independent, and credible third party. However, not having allowed that in 10 years, I do not see it happening ever.

You and I are some of the few here that have carefully studied the record, and I respect your interpretation of the evidence. And hopefully you will respect mine in that there was substantial circumstantial evidence in support of the presence of a heat exchanger at some point in the mezzanine. You and I both know this was a central issue in the dispute. And IH chose to settle, which I think speaks volumes.

I think the first lesson I would hope that any would-be funders would take away from this episode would be to do proper due diligence using a third-party lab and to walk away without hesitation at the first sign of funny business. They would not be beguiled by the romantic archetype of the difficult inventor. Or, if like IH they found themselves already deep into the matter as a result of the assurances they drew from a test such as the Lugano test, to at least cut their losses while they were able if they continued to encounter strange behavior. If IH had done either of these things, they might not have been more than another anecdote in a series of anecdotes such as the one about the NASA guy and would as a consequence perhaps have received little attention from us LENR watchers. Instead they chose to proceed against the clear warning signs at several important junctures, and things unfolded in a very different way. It is easy to benefit from this information in hindsight, although for them it was probably a difficult choice at each step of the way.

I cannot speak to the incentives built into contracts. I would not be surprised at all if a poorly structured contract would be a great liability and would predictably lead to a lawsuit. Nonetheless I do not think that a poorly structured contract can excuse the kind of behavior we've seen in connection with the Doral show, JMP, the invoices, the representations on JONP, the measurement data, the willful transmogrification of the Doral show into the GPT, the endothermic process, the claims of the initial lawsuit and the mezzanine heat exchanger.