Good digging AhiAhi - we had one heck of a team before we had to break up due to legal expenses.
Surely the IH warchest is still bulging after that 50 large from Woodford?
Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions
-
-
Good digging AhiAhi - we had one heck of a team before we had to break up due to legal expenses. A PhD astrophysicist IP attorney was a pretty good
asset for the company at the time.
Is this from a press release? Or is IH about to put out a press release?
-
Z - impact investors don't expect you to hold their coin - it is put to work.
LINR - Ahi assembled info on Letao from the internet and presented in his unique special sleuthsayer approach. Most of the IH team was disbanded to conserve cash for the litigation and some really great folks got really good jobs elsewhere. Planet earth's loss - we still have a chance to recover but in a different configuration and capacity / approach.
-
Rossi could have easily avoided much of his legal mess in Italy had he simply proven his biomass plant worked as he said it would. He could have arranged for a team of experts to attend a test, with the public/reporters invited, and if it worked, the prosecutor would have almost no case. But Rossi did not do that.
Rossi had a biomass plant, this business worked fine and that's why they blocked him .... obviously he bothered someone. But it was not a scientific test, it was a job, so what would he have to prove? What experts would have to test his job? The false accusations that struck him prevented him from defending his belongings: when he was acquitted, all his properties had been already confiscated, and certainly this thing had nothing to do with the fact that he had to demonstrate the operation of his technology.Shane, I think you are a bit confused...........
-
Who claim on web his miracolistic and disruptive technology from 10 years without scientific evidences?
There are scientific evidence, the first dates back to the years of the collaboration with Focardi, then there were the tests of Ferrara, Bologna and Lugano, and the first IH (positive) tests, and there are the Swedish professors who are doing a replication of the E-Cat. How many tests do you need to understand that his technology works? Probably they will never be enough because the only fact that there is an industrial secret that covers some aspects of those devices is enough for you to say that not everything is demonstrable and therefore it is not possible to confirm that the E-Cat works. That's why I think it's useless to continue testing, people like you will always find some criticism to do and will not be satisfied with the results. When Rossi will succeed in transforming his invention into a commercial product, you will have nothing to cling to for keep on talking this way. So vent out now!
-
Cook (Department of Informatics ) wrote just another miracolistic "nuclear theory", none verifiable proof has been provides of his claim.
Peer review buried TPRs because they contain big errors. So what technology are you talking?What problem do you have with Mr.Cook? Do you think he can not formulate a valid theory for the fact that he is affiliated with the Department of Informatics? Do you think that only a Nobel can deal with science? It is difficult to seriously consider your way of judging Rossi and his associates if these are your judgmental parameters. In addition, Cook has formulated a theory. If you think that every time someone presents a theory should also make an experiment that validates it, then you are showing all your ignorance about these themes. And not just on these issues: what peer reviewed magazines would have buried the TPRs? Tell me their names, please, I'm just curious to see what you invent!
-
There are scientific evidence, the first dates back to the years of the collaboration with Focardi, then there were the tests of Ferrara, Bologna and Lugano, and the first IH (positive) tests, and there are the Swedish professors who are doing a replication of the E-Cat. How many tests do you need to understand that his technology works?
Really? and where are the proves of? You believe to fusionists's rumors, not need proofs.
You have a strange ideas of what is a real scientific evidence and probably you also miss that Focardi paper and theory have been "not confirmed" even by Rossi himself. LOL
QuoteWhen Rossi will succeed in transforming his invention into a commercial product, you will have nothing to cling to for keep on talking this way.
Oh, when? "The year of the cat" ?
-
What problem do you have with Mr.Cook? Do you think he can not formulate a valid theory for the fact that he is affiliated with the Department of Informatics? Do you think that only a Nobel can deal with science? It is difficult to seriously consider your way of judging Rossi and his associates if these are your judgmental parameters. In addition, Cook has formulated a theory. If you think that every time someone presents a theory should also make an experiment that validates it, then you are showing all your ignorance about these themes. And not just on these issues: what peer reviewed magazines would have buried the TPRs? Tell me their names, please, I'm just curious to see what you invent!
In his "paper" (where published? on Nature ? No?) Cook even ignores how works the nuclear fusion he invoked. He wrote a fusion equation for Li+p is:
.
claim the absence of Gamma Rays and Neutrons emission
This is his dream... in nuclear Science (it's not my invention, LOL) it's s well known and proved that kind of fusion it's a lot more complex, just to summarize:
and the fusion paths are overlapped, the fusion results depend by the proton energy and value of CS.
Could Cook be a good "Informatics" ? Maybe... but a Nobel (ROTFL) for his funny "nuclear theory" is absolutely out of discussion, that's paper is ticky-tachy.
-
Quote
When Rossi will succeed in transforming his invention into a commercial product, you will have nothing to cling to for keep on talking this way. So vent out now!
It is a common misperception of LENR enthusiasts that skeptics hold out for commercial products. But that is complete nonsense. What most do ask for is a respectable power level, long duration and high "COP". We can argue about how those are defined. Only Captain Obvious requires commercialization. As for Rossi producing a commercial product, don't hold your breath. He told us he was just about to do that in late 2011. And look where we are now. His most ardent and remunerative supporter said publicly that they couldn't make his stuff work and they gave up his option.
-
What most do ask for is a respectable power level, long duration and high "COP".
Where "respectable" is defined as:
A much higher power level than has been obtained. If 10 W are observed, only 100 W are "respectable." As soon as 100 W are reported, only 1000 W will do.
Long duration is defined as much more than 3 months, which is the longest duration on record. This is despite the fact that no chemical reaction could continue for more than 10 minutes with the cell in question.
A "respectable" high COP is any COP greater than infinity, since many reactions with no input power have been reported.
This is the Mary Yugo school of goal-post moving, in which the goal posts are moved down the field, off into the bleachers, into the stadium parking lot, and then into the next county, as needed.
-
Jed,
Immediately after your quoted sentence
What most do ask for is a respectable power level, long duration and high "COP".
, is another sentence.
We can argue about how those are defined.
No goal posts were moved.
Context is important when quoting.
-
We can argue about how those are defined.
Incessantly. That is the entire problem in a nutshell, or some other convenient receptacle, the precise nature of which is unlikely to be acceptable to everybody.
-
We can argue about how those are defined.
No, we cannot. You cannot have a COP higher than infinity. When reactions continue 100,000 times longer than any chemical reaction could, it make no sense to demand they last even longer. There is no rational or scientific basis for Yugo's demands. This is know-nothing obstructionism. Yugo's only purpose is to replace science with confusion & nonsense.
-
"What most do ask for is a respectable power level, long duration and high "COP".
Is 500 Pa a respectably high pressure? Is a COP of 2.0 economic versus gas and electricity price?
Is a duration of 82.5 kiloseconds long or short?
My requirements for " respectable intellect, long memory and high competence"
have only been enforced by blocking one on this forum
Saves a lot of long duration
-
Yugo's only purpose is to replace science with confusion & nonsense.
He succeeds in wasting people time...
Jed. I have tried to reduce the spreadsheet confusion on the Mizuno thread.. I think that the constants 2.119 etc.. are unnecessary.
-
Quote
You cannot have a COP higher than infinity. When reactions continue 100,000 times longer than any chemical reaction could, it make no sense to demand they last even longer. There is no rational or scientific basis for Yugo's demands. This is know-nothing obstructionism. Yugo's only purpose is to replace science with confusion & nonsense.
That, except for the last sentence, is all obvious and true, of course, but like most of arguments you used when you argued in favor of Rossi, it's also irrelevant and arguing that way means you failed to understand what I (and others) were telling you.
First of all, the problems you have are not with me. I am simply trying to explain why very few scientists attend to this at all. It doesn't help when you consistently misstate, misquote, quote out of context and answer with insults. Maybe some experiments last long enough, some claim high enough energy and others claim high enough COP. The problem is that an experiment must combine ALL of these in order to impress. Because if it does not, alternative explanations to LENR, mainly errors, are likely. And the results must be clear enough and must be replicated. And of course, replication must bear out the claims. That's always been the goal post. Nothing has changed. Confusion, if not nonsense, is how many scientists view all of LENR work if they bother to consider it at all. YOU NEED MORE IMPRESSIVE RESULTS. Insulting critics won't change that. Like I said, we can argue about the levels and about the details.
If Rossi or Defkalion claims had been real, nobody would have any doubt. The claims were extravagant and easy to test. But instead of proper testing, we got constantly changing methods and ever less impressive results-- a hallmark of free energy type scams. One way to get respect for LENR would be to obtain what those guys claimed except, of course, it has to be real. And I have to point out that most LENR enthusiasts were extremely late to acknowledge that Rossi and Defkalion had nothing --some still don't including you when you argue for Levi's experiment. This lack of discrimination is not encouraging.
In another thread, you asked me about a specific early test of the hot cat and what was wrong with it. For openers, it was done with Rossi. And Levi supervised it. Thomas Clarke documented the infelicities of the assumptions used in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. IIRC, others remarked about possible irregularities in the method of measuring input power. On Moletrap, it was noted that the thermal photos did not suggest that the fuel areas of the reactor were hottest in the thermal images but instead that the hottest areas were the heating wires. BTW, Thomas Clarke was ridiculed and harassed for his work on these items so he stopped contributing. In any case, nobody has been able to replicate the work and as we know, IH could not make anything Rossi gave them work properly. That's all I have to say about the hot cat tests except that they were OBVIOUSLY not necessary and not appropriate as long as Levi's earlier test with much more spectacular results on a small, low temperature device and a much better method of calorimetry was not repeated with proper calibration and independent observation.
-
Quote
Jed: Yugo's only purpose is to replace science with confusion & nonsense.
bocijn: He succeeds in wasting people time...
Gee, bocijn, in that case, why don't you just ignore the offending posts?
-
I am simply trying to explain why very few scientists attend to this at all.
You have no idea how many scientists attend to this. I do know, because I know where many of the readers at LENR-CANR come from, and I know how many there are. Also, I know why they attend to this, because they tell me, and I know why others oppose it, because they wrote books about their reasons.
It doesn't help when you consistently misstate, misquote, quote out of context and answer with insults. Maybe some experiments last long enough, some claim high enough energy and others claim high enough COP.
Hundreds of laboratories have reported experiments that lasted far beyond the limits of chemistry. That is the only scientifically meaningful criterion. You would substitute an arbitrary number that keeps getting larger whenever you learn that someone already achieved it. All of the major experiments claim high enough power (and energy) to be sure it is significant and far above the margin of error. Again, there is no other scientifically meaningful criterion.
The COP is a meaningless canard. Many experiments have no input power, so the COP is infinite -- which is still not good enough for you. With other experiments, there is input power, but it is easily measured with great precision, so it can be subtracted. It produces very little noise. It has no direct connection to output, so calling it a COP is a misnomer that causes confusion.
The problem is that an experiment must combine ALL of these in order to impress.
First, every major experiment has combined ALL of these. Second, nothing will impress you, or Robert Park, or crackpots such as Shanahan who think that 20 L of water can magically evaporate overnight in room temperature conditions.
-
In another thread, you asked me about a specific early test of the hot cat and what was wrong with it. For openers, it was done with Rossi. And Levi supervised it.
I asked for a technical reason. You said there are obvious scientific errors. What you just gave are not technical or scientific errors. Those are reasons why a person might feel suspicious about the work, but they are not technical in any sense.
Thomas Clarke documented the infelicities of the assumptions used in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculations.
Clarke was wrong. The temperature was confirmed with a thermocouple to within a degree. There was no error in the temperature measurements. Again, you & Clarke have not found an error, so you should stop saying you found one.
-
Oh, OK, Jed. You convinced me. LENR power is just around the corner. I'll stop reading forums and I'll just watch my Home Depot ads instead. I'll expect a Rossi or Brillouin (McKubre) or a Mizuno product for sale any day now. Or a Miley bench power supply (several hundred watts) or even Dennis' infamous balls.
Look, sarcasm aside, something is seriously amiss with this field. Else, it would not be so controversial almost three decades after the supposedly definitive experiments for it were performed and allegedly replicated. And enthusiasts supposedly knowledgeable in the field such as you, Lewan, Levi, and Focardi accepted Rossi's extremely poor tests and constant flagrant lies without objection for going on six years! Not to mention that IH, supposedly getting expert advice and vetting, gave Rossi $11+ million in return for absolutely nothing. My point is that experts in LENR all seem to have very poorly functioning baloney detectors. So it may all be baloney and you are missing that.
Part of the problem is that enthusiasts often simply don't understand what the skeptics are saying or asking for. For example, I don't know anything about Parks but I've been reading what Shanahan has written here in discussion and to me, nothing about it says "crackpot." On the other hand ...
