Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    Quote from SSC

    Perhaps the engineers don't care that a plant works for a long time, but it certainly concerns an industrialist who buys it to put it in his own company. Anyone wishing to buy the 1MW plant would surely pay it a lot of money, he should adapt his company so that he can exploit it and then have to base his future production on the certainty that that plant supplies the necessary energy with continuity and safety. Would you do this for an object that was only tested for a few days or a few months? Or would you like to make sure that what you are buying will work for at least a year? And this guarantee, who can give it to you, if no one ever did a long-term test on that product? These are basic concepts, don't you really realize it?


    SSC - you need here to join the dots. I don't think you can be an engineer. At least not an experienced one.


    IH could happily do a long-term test themselves. Indeed, i'm sure they did, and got stable results over time. The problem is that those stable results were positive only on spoofed Rossi/Fulvio tests and COP=1 on genuine independent tests.


    The Rossi 1MW test was useless for this purpose since it was not properly documented. Rossi was there tinkering with things, mending non-working reactors, etc, etc the whole time.


    For commercial reliability measures you need to document failures, and investigate failure modes. All of which IH could do (and had ample time to do) in-house. None of which was done in the long-term test.

    The main problem with all these Ecat results is they rarely show what the results were during calibration, non-active runs. There have been at least three examples I can think of where the "excess heat" claimed during an LENR active run was the same when expert scientists came in and performed an inactive fuel free run. For example, IH might have initially claimed a positive COP when they ran the Ecat using the Ecat people's setup. Then, the expert scientists they brought in showed that roughly the same "excess heat" was measured whether or not fuel was present. Hence, A COP of 1.

    Quote from [email protected]

    Those 2 statements are internally inconsistent.


    Quote from SSC

    First of all, I don't think Rossi would want to sell his IP, [....] Now that the relationship is closed, Rossi has the chance to sell it to whoever wants it, [ and maybe he will do it after finishing his study]


    Not at all, I was not referring to the IP! Read back again:

    "As for the 1MW plant, Rossi had shown it years ago to IH (in its first version) and had started to make an agreement with them, which obviously provided the exclusivity for IH. Now that the relationship is closed, Rossi has the chance to sell it to whoever wants it

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The Rossi 1MW test was useless for this purpose since it was not properly documented. Rossi was there tinkering with things, mending non-working reactors, etc, etc the whole time.


    For commercial reliability measures you need to document failures, and investigate failure modes. All of which IH could do (and had ample time to do) in-house. None of which was done in the long-term test.

    Rossi has certainly collected a great deal of data during the test. Most likely he made measurements and took several notes. We don't know if he shared this data with IH at the beginning, but it is likely to be, since Barry was always present and was an IH man (how hide to him any problems or system failures?). Then, when Rossi began to be distrustful of IH because of the investments made on the competition, perhaps he even began to hold much information for himself. However, if the relationship between the two parties remained good until the end, it would have been IH to start the production of the reactors and therefore could certainly take advantage of all the data collected by Rossi because it would be a common interest sharing them.

    Quote from SSC

    Rossi has certainly collected a great deal of data during the test. Most likely he made measurements and took several notes. We don't know if he shared this data with IH at the beginning, but it is likely to be, since Barry was always present and was an IH man (how hide to him any problems or system failures?). Then, when Rossi began to be distrustful of IH because of the investments made on the competition, perhaps he even began to hold much information for himself. However, if the relationship between the two parties remained good until the end, it would have been IH to start the production of the reactors and therefore could certainly take advantage of all the data collected by Rossi because it would be a common interest sharing them.


    Do you mean the data Penon deleted? Or something else no-one has ever seen?


    There is no certainty about that test except that the customer was fake and the test system re-engineered by Rossi to some spec far from the test plan.

    Quote

    New AR companies, death or alive.

    Although sometimes legitimate companies have reason to generate other corporations, most often this sort of thing is done by crooks, trying to hide from the tax and licensing authorities in a maze of different entities. Having once worked for a regulating agency, I can tell you it really does complicate the work or bringing criminals like Rossi (and probably his attorney is one also) to justice.


    Rends What is REFC Real Estate? Rossi too?

    Quote

    That explains a lot. It fits well with a mantra to stifle innovation.

    Hardly. Encouraging innovation (especially relevant automation) and preventing fraud and abuse of medical billing systems. Is inane paranoia a requirement for believing in Rossi or what?


    Rends Thanks! Interesting. Makes one wonder what the next scam is going to be.

    @MY,


    Good on you for preventing medical billing fraud--there is certainly plenty of that going around.


    But as an aside, governments are better known for slowing things down rather than speeding things up, on the innovation front. They often justify their heavy handedness by crying safety concerns. But usually the concerns are uncalled for, and most often, it is a way to bolster somebody's taxpayer-funded paycheck or government career position.

    Last chance for betting (quatloos only) on the Prominent Gamma L flow test.

    Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test et seq.

    I'll post details just before the run -- the suction height starts at about 18 inches (-0.04 bar) below the pump center-line (and is NOT kept level during the run) , and the discharge head will be about 60 inches (0.15 bar).

    The volume will be measured between a low-mark (100 or 200ml) and high-mark (900ml) of a graduated liter cylinder. Time will be read from the video recording.

    Place your quatloo bet for flow rate l/hr in this configuration.

    I will calculate the winnings using two methods :


    a) Fixed bets of 1 gazillion quatloos : closest takes the pot (shared if multiple winners).

    b) Variable bets of 1 gazillion quatloos per abs(predicted-actual) l/hr (shared if multiple winners).

    (Minor edits for clarification)

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    But as an aside, governments are better known for slowing things down rather than speeding things up, on the innovation front.

    Sometimes not, look at the tremendously rapid culmination of nuclear weaponry over a four year period up to August 1945. Many examples show the influence of war (hot or cold) initiating and/or accelerating developments in technology.


    While patents are a "governmental function" that can enhance technological innovation, if properly applied-- We may rightly observe a telling example of government, through patentability constraints, likely slowing progress, that is in LENR, CANR, LANR, AHE or broadly "CF".


    Of course there is a substantial history of "patentability" being withheld for reasons of "national defense" (e.g. Gould laser patents). I suspect we cannot confidently exclude such influences today, in the CF area.


    Alan Fletcher,


    I'll bet one cl/h more than sigmoidal.


    Fantastic that you are doing this!


    Cheers,


    JB

    Quote from maryyugo

    Although sometimes legitimate companies have reason to generate other corporations, most often this sort of thing is done by crooks, trying to hide from the tax and licensing authorities in a maze of different entities.

    In fact seems that you are describing Darden behavior. He generate new companies and them let them die after he has collected money from private and public subjects.

    Sifferkol is always a nice reading and a good starting point for Internet search.

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    Place your quatloo bet for flow rate l/hr in this configuration.

    Betting is not quite scientific and we have no guarantee that the measure has been done in the same operating condition of the reactor.

    Tell me if your measure will go on the IH side of the strret what you will do ? what IH should do in your opinion ?


    Is quite strange because if a measure was necessary was much better done, asked by IH, on the very same Doral reactor.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.