why not an independent 3rd party test?
Around here affiliation is determined by your conclusions from your observations. (Rossi is right vs. Rossi is wrong.)
Independence (on this forum) is only maintained by not having any conclusions.
The purpose of a test is to have conclusions.
Around here affiliation is determined by your conclusions from your observations. (Rossi is right vs. Rossi is wrong.)
Independence (on this forum) is only maintained by not having any conclusions.
The purpose of a test is to have conclusions.
strange view point. I have no idea where "around here is".
The roll of a third party verification should be to investigate and try to doubt claims and remain in doubt until all reasonable explanations of errors, mistakes, and "mischief" are ruled out. That is they should try to falsify claims by measurements and investigations free from ties to the one making the claims.
...remain in doubt until all reasonable explanations of errors, mistakes, and "mischief" are ruled out.
Sagan's requirements can never be met since "extraordinary" has no bounds.
Extraordinary claims will only be accepted when they are no longer considered extraordinary.
(Look! An airplane... yawn.)
Display MoreRossi has described what he plans to show when he unveils the Quark X (now the E-Cat QX):
"It will be plain and simple calorimetry. We will have a flow of water that will not change phase, well below 100 Celsius degrees, a measurement of the water flowing through the plant and a measurement of the delta T and of the electric energy consumed by the E-Cat QX. Plain and simple."
Because this will not be an independent 3rd party test (can there ever be such a thing?) what measurements would the people here like to see?
Is there a place were a sample of water can be sent to verify its specific heat?
What redundant measurements can be made?
Yes I agree with you completely. Especially in light of how Defkalion once said something about using a liquid besides water in their device. Here is a link to common liquids' specific heat. Most of them have specific heat below water, meaning they would show a higher delta T than water for the same heat added.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…ic-heat-fluids-d_151.html
I might add that you could also "spike" the water and not completely replace it. It could look and flow like real water. But it would have enough of a lower specific heat liquid added so that it would show one of these unverified minimal COPs of 1.25 to 1.3 that people often use to say that CF/LENR might be real.
If the past is prolog, the upcoming Rossi demo won't change any minds. The LENR reaction will be made real to an E-Cat customer when a money back guarantee certifies a reduction in power consumption in the thousands of percent over an extended period of unfailing performance. The customer will not understand how such an unfathomable thing can happen but he will be overjoyed that such a miracle does happen.
I might add that you could also "spike" the water and not completely replace it. It could look and flow like real water. But it would have enough of a lower specific heat liquid added so that it would show one of these unverified minimal COPs of 1.25 to 1.3 that people often use to say that CF/LENR might be real.
I have pondered this before, and never come up with an adulterant for water that would fool me. What material would you suggest is used to look and flow like water but has a helpful effect on COP?
QuoteBecause this will not be an independent 3rd party test (can there ever be such a thing?) what measurements would the people here like to see?
If the test is under Rossi's control, based on prior experience, it's worthless. Prima facia, a priori, and flagrante delicto, to quote Julius Caesar.
I have pondered this before, and never come up with an adulterant for water that would fool me. What material would you suggest is used to look and flow like water but has a helpful effect on COP
Ethanol would be good for COP of 1.5 or so? Mixed with water. Perhaps some vodka?
Water and alcohol are both polar so they mix evenly. A solution of just over 50% water and the rest a clear alcohol with a specfic heat of about 2.5 KJ / (K*Kg) gives a COP of about 1.2. Since most observers at demos do nothing but clap at the end, if the system were completely closed they wouldn't know it was not pure water. There are other clear polar liquids that could also spike the water. Not to imply anyone has done this, but it's something that needs to be ruled out for these lower COP claims.
I think the QuarkX is purported to have a COP in the hundreds, and if that really is the case, I think we can rule out spiked water.
I think the QuarkX is purported to have a COP in the hundreds, and if that really is the case, I think we can rule out spiked water.
you seem to have a lot of IFs, all pointing the same direction.
In this case you could go read Rossi's newer paper. This is important (mildly) because it makes crystal clear that the skeptics who thought Rossi's input power measurement before was nonsensical were indeed correct. See my comment on the later experiment just posted here.
With data like this, you don't need fakery!
No mystery . Rossi had the technology, IH don't honored the contract, obviously there was a legal battle and then Rossi won taking back his IP .
keep repeating your few talking points, you are jousting at windmills, convincing no one, as only you and a handful of Cult Members believe your own fantasies.
Display MoreRossi has described what he plans to show when he unveils the Quark X (now the E-Cat QX):
"It will be plain and simple calorimetry. We will have a flow of water that will not change phase, well below 100 Celsius degrees, a measurement of the water flowing through the plant and a measurement of the delta T and of the electric energy consumed by the E-Cat QX. Plain and simple."
Because this will not be an independent 3rd party test (can there ever be such a thing?) what measurements would the people here like to see?
Is there a place were a sample of water can be sent to verify its specific heat?
What redundant measurements can be made?
Everyone has seen those Rossi charades before, lots of luck to Rossi and Brethren on gathering more into the Fold, much less Rossi getting any more money from anyone (his main objective).
ele - if Rossi had the technology, his mission (by contract, signatures and receiving 10,5Mio for this) was to transfer this technology (=IP) to IH. So something went wrong, didn't it?
I can't believe that IH with all their experts (?) were not able to refill their reactors with the correct recipe from Rossi - if he did provide this. ...
Yes, something went wrong, but that does not mean that Rossi didn't transfer his technology to IH. The first tests carried out by IH have yielded positive results, although there is still somebody who persists to deny it. It was also Darden himself to admit that he did not fill the reactor with the right fuel and then gave it to Boeing. When Boeing made his test and was negative, no one in IH thought to provide them the right fuel for a second and more veritable test. Maybe at that point they didn't want a third party to prove that the E-Cat is working, or they are just a bunch of incapable .... you choose.
Your last sentence at least makes sense, and sums up the entire fiasco succinctly---IH ended up with nothing in their hands (and their wallets about $15M or so lighter), as Rossi had, and has NOTHING (why IH was suckered to such a degree is really the ONLY mystery in the whole farce).
Rossi has the 1MW plant, a license for every E-Cat model, and has a new prototype that he will exhibit in a few months. For you it can be nothing, but in fact he has in his hands all that really is worth. As for IH, it is just one of countless daughters of Cherokee, a mother who is used to flop.... (see Sifferkol for evidence)
you seem to have a lot of IFs, all pointing the same direction.
In this case you could go read Rossi's newer paper. This is important (mildly) because it makes crystal clear that the skeptics who thought Rossi's input power measurement before was nonsensical were indeed correct. See my comment on the later experiment just posted here.
With data like this, you don't need fakery!
I responded to your silly conjecture in the other thread.
If IH really thought Rossi's IP was worthless, why did not they first proposed the same conditions that then they have accepted in the settlement? They would certainly have saved all the money spent on the lawyers. Maybe IH hoped Rossi would give up first by renouncing the process so he would not have to incur lawyer's cost? If this is the scenario, it really means that Darden never understood who he was in front of. Now IH has to return to Rossi all the know-how on the E-Cat, packing each piece of paper where the secret formulas are annotated and then sending it back to the inventor. If some member of their portfolio were to present an E-Cat-like reactor in the future, there would be the conditions for another process. Really IH comes out of this dispute with nothing in their hands....
Nobody knows what either side might have proposed as a settlement prior to the final settlement. As both I and Mike D have stated, and as the Federal Rules of Evidence provide, settlement discussions are not admissible at trial, so any alleged settlement discussions are just that, alleged. For all you know, IH proposed months ago what was finally agreed to and Rossi refused.
Nobody knows what either side might have proposed as a settlement prior to the final settlement.
Well, the people actually on each 'side' would know... 
Not that I'd necessarily trust them to tell the truth though.
although some key emails between certain conspirators did unfortunately not make it to sunlight
Darden/Uzi Sha? 
I don't see Darden as a bad guy here. He played a key(important role) in lenr. Take a look at the man positively, look at lenr now. This is not about who is loser nor winner, they took the risk, both parties can still do business at many possible means. Woodford is still Woodford, If you could imagine without him, there would be no Doral test, no potential investor, he helped kickstart LENR.
@kg,
Welcome to the forum and the fun.
But my apologies, I'm going to have to disagree. Darden set the LENR+ field back by at least a few years, in my opinion. He turned the anti-LENR crowd on us. He brought bad headlines. He showed lots of incompetence. We would be further along had it not been for IH. Darden will be a footnote when the full LENR histories are written.
