@Ascolfi65
Everyone makes mistakes. Those like Jed who have strong and not nuanced opinions will sometimes make big mistakes.
As you know I agree with you over the tech details of those early tests, interesting enough, which Jed did not pay enough attention to. But maybe it is unfair to chase him further on this, he has admitted he was wrong.
Whoever understood what happened during his first tests, held in Bologna at the beginning of 2011, doesn't need to go beyond the name of the first author of the TPR1 (the Ferrara test), as well of the TPR2 (the Lugano test), to realize that those reports don't worth the time spent to read them.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but you seem to be suggesting we should have rejected the 2013 tests based on the Lugano test which was published two years later. We should have seen into the future and known that the next set of tests would have problems that the first tests did not have.
For example, in the first test, the IR camera temperature readings were confirmed with a thermocouple. In the Lugano tests they were not. I do not know of a reason to doubt the temperature readings in 2013, whereas it is was obvious they were wrong at Lugano.
After Lugano, I expressed doubts about the 2013 tests, but I still do not know of any specific reasons why they were wrong. All of the problems with IR camera were at Lugano as far as I know.
As you know I agree with you over the tech details of those early tests, interesting enough, which Jed did not pay enough attention to.
What details? The main details you have discussed are problems with the IR camera at Lugano. In the first tests, the IR camera readings were confirmed with a thermocouple, so your critique does not apply:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf
Did you find any other tech details that I overlooked?
For Lugano, I found problems and listed them publicly. I said here and elsewhere many times that I found it baffling that the second set of tests were worse than the first set. Usually, people do a better job the second time around. I still do not know what to make of it.
Dewey Weaver said: "Speaking of - does anybody know why Fulvs (Fabiani) is no longer listed on the Uppsala website?"
Probably because mission accomplished, and that soon the Swedes will report the successful replication of their own Lugano, although I could be wrong on that.
Regarding resources, at peak LENR for IH, more than 50 folks were either researching or in support of research in some capacity for the IH team.
Regarding R, the 24 hour test in Ferrara pushed us over the top for the uberisky bet and that was followed by the Lugano test which boosted confidence (even though it violated numerous clauses of the agreements including sending some of the ash outside network for analysis / disclosure).
The interest and reputation of the Uppsala researchers was reassuring for us. You can only imagine the disappointment when we learned that the pinball wizard was so strongly in charge of the Optris settings, implementation and interpretation.
Display MoreWhat details? The main details you have discussed are problems with the IR camera at Lugano. In the first tests, the IR camera readings were confirmed with a thermocouple, so your critique does not apply:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf
Did you find any other tech details that I overlooked?
For Lugano, I found problems and listed them publicly. I said here and elsewhere many times that I found it baffling that the second set of tests were worse than the first set. Usually, people do a better job the second time around. I still do not know what to make of it.
I thought we were talking about the early tests - Samovar heater etc?
As for the second set being worse: it was better scrutinised and therefore it would need to be less good. Rossi was there to ensure, for example, that the dummy did not become a troublesome control.
In various ways (that I suspect some of the Upssala guys worried might be an issue in the Ferrara tests) there was an attempt - not totally successful - to tighten things up.
I thought we were talking about the early tests - Samovar heater etc?
Those early tests were never written up in detail. I was hoping they would be, but after a few years I dropped them from consideration. Especially after the NASA visit fiasco. I paid no attention to Rossi again until the 2013 report from Levi (linked to above), "Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder." That was the first real report of Rossi's work. It seemed impressive, but in light of what followed, I am no longer impressed by it. On the other hand, I still don't see any major problems in it.
As for the second set being worse: it was better scrutinised and therefore it would need to be less good. Rossi was there to ensure, for example, that the dummy did not become a troublesome control.
I heard from some of Levi's co-authors that Rossi played less of a role in Lugano. I don't know what to make of that, or whether to believe it now, after all that has happened.
In my opinion, just comparing the two reports, the first one was much better. It had things like the thermocouple to confirm the IR camera, and better calibrations. I cannot imagine why they did not have those at Lugano! But anyway, Rossi had no objection to the thermocouple or calibration in the first test. Why would he interfere in the second test?
Okay, maybe he did interfere. There is no point to asking "why would he?" because nothing about Rossi makes sense.
In various ways (that I suspect some of the Upssala guys worried might be an issue in the Ferrara tests) there was an attempt - not totally successful - to tighten things up.
I don't see that attempt. On the contrary, it looks like they loosened things down. They got sloppy. They made mistakes they did not make in the previous test. Also, the test took far too long.
I don't know what to make of it. It is a mystery.
After the first test and during the second test at Lugano I heard from some of the participants from time to time. They were friendly. But, after the Lugano report was published, I never heard another word from anyone. I along with several other people asked them technical questions. I recall there was a formal arrangement set up to elicit and respond to such questions. They never answered a single one, as far as I know. They just fell off the radar. I guess they made mistakes and they were embarrassed to admit it? Who knows??
Whereas IH (after they employed Murray) were able to put together proper well controlled tests that would deliver real information. Running them long-term is then just a matter of patience. IH if anything seem to have had too much of that...
You're joking, right? Are we talking about the same people who gave interviews full of praise for Rossi at the same time (they said after) could not get the reactors running? The same people, however, who initially talked of tests where they got COP = 5? The same people who gave to the Boeing a reactor with the wrong fuel and then did not even seize the opportunity to provide another properly charged reactor? Do you think they would be an example of seriousness? Their long-term test would have convinced you, while the one made by Rossi (side by side with two people paid by IH) and certified by an ERV from the remarkable curriculum does not convince you? I think you see the world through a couple of lenses signed IH ....
@ THHuxleynew,
Everyone makes mistakes. Those like Jed who have strong and not nuanced opinions will sometimes make big mistakes.
I'm very sorry. I don't want to chase anybody. I know, I give this impression with JR, but this is not my intention. I have nothing against him or anybody else in this affair, I'm just trying to understand the real role played by each protagonist of this saga, and in doing so it's impossible to ignore the role that JR had in the January 2011 demo. It's not a matter of mistakes, but of roles.
I guess that most of the followers of this story started to look at it due to that event, happened 6 years and half ago. In the meanwhile most of those who initially believed in those results realized that the Ecat didn't produce any excess heat. Now, they are asking themselves how this could have happened. For instance, just a few comments above, someone asked how it is possible that so many millions have been paid, in spite of all the warnings which could have been easily found on the web. Almost everyone try to explain these facts, attributing some extraordinary deceiving talents to one man. That's simply impossible.
Focusing on only one man prevents the possibility to have a realistic view of what happened along the years. It's necessary to better understand the role played by the people around him. JR knows a lot about the tests held in 2011, but he always divert the discussion toward the more recent tests. Did you notice this behavior of him?
I have the impression that he is bamboozling whoever ask him something about the 2011 tests (1). Is it only a my impression?
(1) Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
The same people who gave to the Boeing a reactor with the wrong fuel and then did not even seize the opportunity to provide another properly charged reactor?
That was not a total waste. I hear the Boeing are carrying on with LENR research anyway.
@ JedRothwell
Perhaps I misunderstand, but you seem to be suggesting we should have rejected the 2013 tests based on the Lugano test which was published two years later.
I'm sorry but I can't believe that you have misunderstood what I wrote. THH just here above has perfectly understood what I meant. I just think that it is the usual tactic you use to avoid facing the 2011 facts. Anyway, just in case my English could have been misunderstood by someone else, I repeat my position with other words:
The 2 reports issued by Levi et al. in 2013 (Ferrara tests) and in 2014 (Lugano tests) should, IMO, be ignored just because of their leading author. At least until the same person will not have fully explained why he used some invented data to calculate the claimed excess heat in the report he issued after the demo held in Bologna on January 2011.
I'm sorry but I can't believe that you have misunderstood what I wrote.
What? You don't understand the concept of time, past and future, and the impossibility of knowing something a year before it happens?
The 2 reports issued by Levi et al. in 2013 (Ferrara tests) and in 2014 (Lugano tests) should, IMO, be ignored just because of their leading author.
Again, how would you know to condemn or ignore the 2014 test in 2013? Do you have a time machine?
Have you found a serious problem with the 2013 report? I haven't. As I said, in light of what we now know, I do not give it much credit. You seem to be insisting that I should have known in 2013 what did not happen until 2014, and what happened later in Rossi's 1-year test.
At least until the same person will not have fully explained why he used some invented data to calculate the claimed excess heat in the report he issued after the demo held in Bologna on January 2011.
After he published the 2013 paper, Levi and others answered many questions from me and others. They issued a revised version of the report with corrections from various people, including me. (My corrections were minor, mainly in copy editing.) So, in 2013 they were doing normal, academic science according to the rules. You insist that we should have rejected their work because we should have known they would publish a worse paper a year later. This makes no sense.
I do not know about invented data, and I do not recall the 2011 Bologna test. Was that the megawatt test? That was useless.
JR knows a lot about the tests held in 2011, but he always divert the discussion toward the more recent tests. Did you notice this behavior of him?
Oh come now. I gave my reason for doing this! We saw far more detailed information on the tests starting in 2012, in Levi's papers. Levi answered my questions, and other people's questions. He revised the paper. It is a far better presentation than anything Rossi himself ever published, or anything from Lewan.
Before the 2012 Levi paper we had only impressions and a few data tables. They seemed to indicate a positive result, but they were not scientific papers in the usual sense. They were mere summaries. Levi was far better. And, as I have said several times, I still do not know any reason to throw out the 2012 paper. I have depreciated it now because the Lugano work that followed was bad. That made me suspect there may be something wrong with the 2012 papers as well. That's just a guess. When someone makes a big mistake, naturally you lose confidence in them. Especially when they were previously open, friendly, happy to explain and revise, and then they suddenly stop talking to you. Those are bad signs!
Why do you find it strange that in 2012 I put more stock into a detailed report than the previous impressionistic summaries? Who wouldn't?
@ JedRothwell,
You don't understand the concept of time, past and future, and the impossibility of knowing something a year before it happens?
Year 2011 came before years 2013 and 2014.
QuoteAgain, how would you know to condemn or ignore the 2014 test in 2013? Do you have a time machine?
Again, you are pretending not having understood the years I'm referring to. See above, please.
QuoteHave you found a serious problem with the 2013 report?
Yes, a critical one: the credibility of the leading author.
QuoteYou seem to be insisting that I should have known in 2013 what did not happen until 2014, and what happened later in Rossi's 1-year test.
Again. You seem to not have understood what I meant. But we both know you did have.
QuoteYou insist that we should have rejected their work because we should have known they would publish a worse paper a year later. This makes no sense.
I insist that his 2013 work, as well his 2014 work, should have been rejected on the basis of what Levi wrote in 2011, two years in advance. This makes sense, to me.
QuoteI do not know about invented data, and I do not recall the 2011 Bologna test.
I wonder who can believe you on this.
What an incredible comedy!
That was not a total waste. I hear the Boeing are carrying on with LENR research anyway.
In light of the furtiveness of Boeing's attorney who frequently interjected during the Boeing engineer's deposition testimony, I'd say yeah, that's a pretty safe bet.
Interesting, that multi-billion dollar companies like Boeing and Airbus with all their thousands of R&D staff and high-tech labs are still running experiments, to find out if they might be able to power deep space probes some day with a LENR reactor, while our friend Dr. Rossi has sold more than a dozen LENR 1MW plants years ago to his satisfied customers.... . So if Rossi's hand-made ECAT technology would really work as he and his followers claim, Boeing and Airbus would have found out long time ago...but they are still investigating...
Curious to see the content and outcome of that experiment (!). They porbably are following a different path/technology.
It's prediction time since the Qx test is approaching. My prediction for this test is they won't do a public calibration run. What this means is I doubt they will run the test normally but with an unfueled reactor to gain the inactive COP of the system in public. I guess they will just run it with the fueled reactor as always under the assumption that inactive COP =1. In normal science, real COP ~ COPactive/COPinactive with some adjustments. In LENR, real COP = COPactive/1 = COPactive since in LENR we are supposed to always assume the system COPinactive =1 without any verification. This is why so many LENR excess energy claims have been debunked. The LENR scientists would claim they had COPinactive=1 when in reality COPinactive >=COPactive when measured by experts.
I am wondering anyway how Rossi will be able to do a comparison between a fueled (?) and unfueled (?) reactor if his QX-toy (which btw will run at 2700°C) is 30 mm long and 1 mm thick only. He probably invested in micro and nano technology as well in his garage to be able to build and control such amazing little LENR reactors. Imagine that each individual stick requires its own control electronics and wiring - otherwise there is no way to power it up, let it run in SSM and shut it down. WIll be an unbelievable amount of wiring if he combines many of them for x20W power output, which again needs to reliable work at 2700°C next to the stick.... to me this sounds like alien technology and I am really looking forward to what Rossi is going to present in his demo...
He will probably eschew the demo because of the sudden discovery of the Dilithium Uber Maxi Beam version of the ecat that doesn!t just emit heat, light, magnetism and n-rays, but also produces original music.
