Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion



  • I wanted to reply to KevMo but his link did not work.

    Schwartz has said that his devices have a relationship between output power and lifetime such that the high power ones do not have high COP. Looking at his data, most of the papers (including the results you reference) show temperature of a tiny device enclosed in a bulb, and take this as a proxy for heat by comparing with temperature of a resistive heating element.

    The problem with this control is that in this system (to make it sensitive to very small output powers) the system thermal resistance is deliberately engineered high. That however mean that various aritfact that change thermal resistance: surface changes, gas changes in bulb, or more likely to be significant.

    I don't doubt his results, I doubt his interpretation of the results. I see two artifact sources:

    (1) Transient: chemical release of energy from a highly loaded electrode (whether this is D -> D2O or something else)
    (2) All-time: issues due to differences between control and active system in inherently difficult to prove safe glass bulb calorimetry.

    As for his integrity (KevMo's issue) I think in such things you don't have to be a liar to insist that your positive results are sufficiently validated by the validation you have done, when in fact that validation is not enough and errors remain. These experiments would appear cherry picked (by reality, not humans) never to yield definitive results. Difficult to get these when the only times you see sustained high COP power production are when the output power is very small.

    His contention, that these restrictions are a characteristic of the system that generates the power, not the artifact, could be right. As a skeptic who would like LENR to exist, but who has a long memory and sees continued lack of clear evidence as negative evidence for an effect that should, if it exists, be relatively easy to fine, I see the way that scaling his stuff up makes the COP lower as evidence - not compelling but real - for artifacts.


    Back to the Stirling engine topic. He mentions this here, but not what precisely where the results (peak COP in this case is irrelevant since power generation transients can occur for all sorts of reasons in highly loaded reducing chemical systems, and system heat storage can lead to apparent peaks in COP when in fact no excess power is generated.


    Whoever said he was dishonest might have been frsutrated by the continual positive gloss put on a whole series of results (like the Stirling Engine reference) that seem more designed to generate positive PR than scientific clarity. Better IMHO not to bandy such words around, especially because those accused of dishonesty when wrong can easily be genuinely convinced that they are right.


    The moral (as in - what should scientists do) issue is: when does positive interpretation of results that could be artifact become dishonest?

    Those here will say skeptics can always find possible artifacts, and that the various artifact sources have been well covered by the various controls in these experiment

    Skeptics will say, while the effects stay elusive as this one, capable of various lab demos on a very small scale but resisting anything useful, that those generating the small scale positives have inevitably an interest in seeing positiev results and this will color their interpretations and prevent them doing the cross-validation that would confirm or deny a whole set of possible artifacts.


    The thing is this: Schwartz has demos that appear totally replicable. They could be subjected to black box testing by skeptical third parties designed to generate much stronger results. Then, his commercial efforts would receive enormous and large funding, the value of his company would become stratospheric on hope alone. So why does he not spend a good deal of money and get such genuinely critical indpendent tessting done?

  • [email protected]


    Re Rossi court evidence. I wonder if you really can't see the point we are making here.


    Discovery evidence, under oath, has weight because anyone who lies and is found out to lie will be subject to very large penalty. And most people just will not do this.


    When might they be found out to lie? Most likely, if the trial proceeds, and they are subject to cross-examination.


    So somone who states, in discovery, something obviously prejudicial to their own case will be doing this because they have to - they are not prepared to perjure themselves either because honest, or through fear of being found out.


    There remains a temptation to lie, or to color the truth, when this is to your own advantage. For example suppose Rossi did make a heat exchanger, but (as the figures show) it was not capable of dissipating 1MW. He can correctly argue that he thought it was capable of doing this, and it would be just about impossible to to disprove that. The fact that Rossi gave his expert a (wrong) reference to internet data which was used inappropriately does not make eitehr rossi or his expert guilty of perjury, though it does discredit their evidence. But, if he did not actually build the heat exchanger, and factual holes can be found in his story, he would be worried, especially because not everyone is good at telling consistent lies under cross examination.


    Against this background:


    • Rossi sued IH (wanting his $100M). IH never wanted a legal battle.
    • Rossi made terms, after the case started, just before he was due to give evidence (and be cross-examined) himself. He got nothing from the whole legal challenge except PR (poor inventor is oppressed by capitalists) and the Doral e-cat IP which he now says is worthless.
  • He got nothing from the whole legal challenge except PR (poor inventor is oppressed by capitalists) and the Doral e-cat IP which he now says is worthless.


    Hmm. Maybe Rossi believed the E-Cat IP as defined in the license agreement §13.4 is very far from worthless... What bugs me is the fact that you so deliberately ignore this fact in your arguments. What is your reason for doing that?


    License Agreement

  • Hmm. Maybe Rossi believed the E-Cat IP as defined in the license agreement §13.4 is very far from worthless... What bugs me is the fact that you so deliberately ignore this fact in your arguments. What is your reason for doing that?


    License Agreement


    Because the devices Rossi works on now share absolutely nothing with the Doral devices. Have a look at the patents and you will see they do not cross over.


    You can of course argue the IP has little value because what is patented does not allow anyone skilled in the art to make anything work (not surprisingly, given it does not work). But, it is true that there are some arguable ways round that. However they do not transfer from a solid-state reactor to a mercury vapour lamp.


    However you are correct in one respect. We can never disprove speculation about what Rossi believes. He appeared to believe at one point that he was in the frame for getting a Nobel prize...

  • This doesn't make much sense to me, because IH was asking for Rossi's IP in their initial countersuit. Something doesn't add up.


    Maybe so. The License Agreement reads to me like Rossi retained some rights to the IP. That is supported by his comment from the Lewan interview right after the settlement:


    “To us, the most important thing was to regain complete ownership of the IP and of all the rights that were conceded through the license. At this point, it had become very clear that a continued collaboration had become impossible because of the choices IH made and because of other reasons. The development, the finalization, and the distribution of the technology—any agreement regarding this would have been impossible,”


    So here he wants to "regain complete ownership of the IP", so that must mean he never lost all of it. Many have commented on what a poorly written agreement it was. Had they continued the partnership, and if the tech worked, they would have been constantly fighting over it's interpretation.


  • Because the devices Rossi works on now share absolutely nothing with the Doral devices. Have a look at the patents and you will see they do not cross over.


    You can of course argue the IP has little value because what is patented does not allow anyone skilled in the art to make anything work (not surprisingly, given it does not work). But, it is true that there are some arguable ways round that. However they do not transfer from a solid-state reactor to a mercury vapour lamp.


    However you are correct in one respect. We can never disprove speculation about what Rossi believes. He appeared to believe at one point that he was in the frame for getting a Nobel prize...


    Why do you even bother to post anything when you do not even bother to read the comment you're quoting?


    I was not talking about any patents. I was talking about the license agreement and what i was supposed to cover regarding E-Cat IP (and all possible derivatives) in an unlimited? future. But I guess it is not in your interest to understand that aspect of the story.

  • I don't doubt his results, I doubt his interpretation of the results. I see two artifact sources:

    I have some concerns about the calorimetry. If I understand correctly, there is a large thermal mass of water and the temperature change is small. This could lead to artifacts from thermal gradients if the water is not stirred enough. I do not know whether it is stirred enough.


    I have some other concerns, but I do not understand the details well enough, so I will not comment. They may be my misunderstandings.



  • Schwartz has said that his devices have a relationship between output power and lifetime such that the high power ones do not have high COP. Looking at his data, most of the papers (including the results you reference) show temperature of a tiny device enclosed in a bulb, and take this as a proxy for heat by comparing with temperature of a resistive heating element.

    ***Proxy for heat... Sounds a little bit like that "pseudo heat" that I posited upthread. If you can find the artifact that generates the fake results extending all the way to COP of 1000 or can show why Rossi's 1MW magic heat exchanger wasn't necessary then you will make a big name for yourself in science, and there might even be some usefulness from such an effect.


    The problem with this control is that in this system (to make it sensitive to very small output powers) the system thermal resistance is deliberately engineered high. That however mean that various aritfact that change thermal resistance: surface changes, gas changes in bulb, or more likely to be significant.

    ***These guys are PhD scientists at MIT. And alongside them are the 153 peer reviewed papers of the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect, many of them from the top electrochemists of their day. So to knock them down with a postulated artifact, the artifact needs to exist.


    Here is what Jed had to say about such chimeral proposed artifacts:

    --------------------------------

    Post#422

    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?


    you cannot say "they could well be some sort of artifact." That isn't science. You have to say what artifact they might be. Show evidence. Make your case. Your assertion has to be backed up with as much rigor and proof as the assertions made by the authors of these papers. You do not get a free pass.


    A negative opinion does not get a free pass. When you predicate your opinion by saying "I don't know" or "I have not read this carefully" or "it looks to me . . ." then your opinion is nowhere near as credible as the authors', because they are world-class experts who spent years studying these issues. They carefully ruled out every plausible artifact, and they listed the ways they did this. I am 100% confident that you cannot find an artifact they did not already rule out. In fact, I am confident that you have no specific artifact in mind. In experimental science, you must be specific or you have no case.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

  • covered that 6-cylinder thing in the other thread

    and you were wrong then too


    see guarantee performance in agreement:

    payment was "contingent on a six-cylinder Hot Cat"


    and all energy measures were to be on energy flow in and out of a six-cylinder unit.


    Read the agreement.


    Unless you find a written agreement (required also by contract) signed by ALL parties, then there could be no

    alterations from the agreed upon six cylinder unit.


  • As for his integrity (KevMo's issue) I think in such things you don't have to be a liar to insist that your positive results are sufficiently validated by the validation you have done, when in fact that validation is not enough and errors remain.

    ***Then point out those supposed errors. That is the JOB of scientists. Yet they don't do it, they let things like those 153 peer reviewed replications of the PFAHE just sit there for a whole generation.



    These experiments would appear cherry picked (by reality, not humans) never to yield definitive results.

    ***A COP of 1000 is a definitive result. Dolly the Sheep was cloned after more than 100,000 failures. No one is interested in the failures.


    Difficult to get these when the only times you see sustained high COP power production are when the output power is very small.

    ***So a guy like Swartz puts a small Stirling cycle engine on it, and his detractors say he is a liar. Just as I said upthread.


    His contention, that these restrictions are a characteristic of the system that generates the power, not the artifact,

    ***WHAT ARTIFACT?



    could be right. As a skeptic who would like LENR to exist, but who has a long memory and sees continued lack of clear evidence as negative evidence

    ***153 peer reviewed papers by the top electrochemists of the day replicating the effect, and it continues to be called "continued lack of clear evidence". Your argument is a simple logical fallacy of an argument from silence, and in this case particularly egregious because there is no silence.


    for an effect that should, if it exists, be relatively easy to fine,

    ***Should? That's completely off into the weeds. The effect was very difficult to find, even by what Jed calls the "who's who of electrochemistry". And the physicists completely blew chunks when they tried their hand at the calorimetry.


    I see the way that scaling his stuff up makes the COP lower as evidence - not compelling but real - for artifacts.

    ***Back to these chimeral artifacts you keep arguing for. In order to knock down the top electrochemists of your day and folks like Hagelstein & Swartz at MIT, you need to be VERY DEFINITE about these ob

    scure artifacts you're bringing up.



    Back to the Stirling engine topic. He mentions this here, but not what precisely where the results (peak COP in this case is irrelevant since power generation transients can occur for all sorts of reasons in highly loaded reducing chemical systems, and system heat storage can lead to apparent peaks in COP when in fact no excess power is generated.

    ***What? Excess heat is claimed. A Stirling cycle is attached to this tiny little LENR device and , sure enough the results are called a lie. Or, someone comes along and invents an artifact that doesn't really quite yet exist that could explain it away, an artifact that the top electrochemists of the day are unfamiliar with.




    Whoever said he was dishonest might have been frsutrated by the continual positive gloss put on a whole series of results (like the Stirling Engine reference) that seem more designed to generate positive PR than scientific clarity.

    ***It's the same chyron call from the skeptopaths, drowning out the research done in this field. It's been going on for a whole generation and will continue until someone commercializesl it and gets rich.



    Better IMHO not to bandy such words around, especially because those accused of dishonesty when wrong can easily be genuinely convinced that they are right.

    ***No, those who are accusing of dishonesty are the guys like Parks who drop LENR papers to the floor rather than be exposed to the facts.



    The moral (as in - what should scientists do) issue is: when does positive interpretation of results that could be artifact become dishonest?

    ***There you go again with that "could be artifact" which seemed to elude the top electrochemists of our day. No, the moral is that by pushing for such an artifact without being specific about it (and in Shanahan's case, basically being a crackpot about it) is that such an effort is dishonest…...


    Those here will say skeptics can always find possible artifacts,

    ***Like Jed says, that aint science. You have to find the ACTUAL artifact, not pretend like the artifact exists.


    and that the various artifact sources have been well covered by the various controls in these experiment

    ***They have been well covered, just like those 153 peer reviewed replications of the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.


    Skeptics will say, while the effects stay elusive as this one, capable of various lab demos on a very small scale but resisting anything useful,

    ***That's just pure horse manure.



    that those generating the small scale positives

    ***Cop of 1000 is not a small scale positive. Same with the earlier COP of 80.


    have inevitably an interest in seeing positiev results and this will color their interpretations and prevent them doing the cross-validation

    ***Complete and utter nonsense. Replications are for OTHER scientists to do. No one replicates themselves, it is completely invalid. Your hyperskepticism of these results is just another example of what this field runs into.



    that would confirm or deny a whole set of possible artifacts.

    ***There you go again, with those fabricated artifacts.




    The thing is this: Schwartz has demos that appear totally replicable.

    ***In light of your earlier hyperskepticism, a comment like this would mean that you're running some kind of agenda.


    They could be subjected to black box testing by skeptical third parties designed to generate much stronger results.

    ***Or they could simply be replicated, like those 153 peer reviewed replications of the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.


    Then, his commercial efforts would receive enormous and large funding, the value of his company would become stratospheric on hope alone. So why does he not spend a good deal of money

    ***You've got to have money to spend money.


    and get such genuinely critical indpendent tessting done?

    ***Because it is simply so much easier to call him a liar & a fraud and ignore his results.

  • Re Rossi court evidence. I wonder if you really can't see the point we are making here. Discovery evidence, under oath, has weight because anyone who lies and is found out to lie will be subject to very large penalty. And most people just will not do this.

    ***That is your point? And you wonder if I can't see the point? I keep saying over and over that if y'all think Rossi committed perjury then pick up the phone and call the Florida Dept. of Fraud. Put him in jail. It's all supposedly right there for any lazy prosecutor to see. But that aint happening, because there is not nearly enough evidence to put him away nor was there enough preponderance of evidence to move forward against him and prevail in Civil court, let alone criminal court. And you say I can't see your point?

  • When might they be found out to lie? Most likely, if the trial proceeds, and they are subject to cross-examination.

    ***It doesn't matter when they lied. If they lie and it's entered into the docket, any judge is going to forward obvious fraud to criminal investigators. If you say you couldn't have been there that day arguing with the defendant because you were robbing a bank across town at the time, then the judge is going to refer it. It doesn't matter when the lie was committed.




    So somone who states, in discovery, something obviously prejudicial to their own case will be doing this because they have to - they are not prepared to perjure themselves either because honest, or through fear of being found out.

    ***So now you're downshifting into the basic testilying that goes on all the time, when people lie under oath but there's never really going to be any consequences to it. That's different than calling Rossi a fraud and that his perjury is obvious enough to get him criminally convicted. Obviously, if Rossi lied (and he sure seems to have a habit of doing so) then it was up to Industrial Heat to point out such lies and slamdunk his case back to the stone age. But they didn't, so his lies are the ordinary lies you see all the time in ordinary court cases.




    There remains a temptation to lie, or to color the truth, when this is to your own advantage. For example suppose Rossi did make a heat exchanger, but (as the figures show) it was not capable of dissipating 1MW.

    ***Here you're just going off into the weeds onto various Rossi lies that went nowhere because Industrial Heat didn't pursue their supposedly incredibly strong legal case. It has all just become noise as a result. I'm glad you would share my frustration with IH for not pursuing the truth, but rehashing minor lies that won't put Rossi in jail or even give preponderance of civil court evidence is just hyperskeptical horse manure.



    He can correctly argue that he thought it was capable of doing this, and it would be just about impossible to to disprove that.

    ***Which is what he did... ho hum.... I got better things to do , like file my nails.


    The fact that Rossi gave his expert a (wrong) reference to internet data which was used inappropriately does not make eitehr rossi or his expert guilty of perjury,

    ***If he isn't guilty of perjury then your whole point is moot and useless. You're wasting everyone's time.



    though it does discredit their evidence.

    ***It's just rehashing old piles of manure. There wasn't enough evidence to get IH to push the case for preponderance nor criminal sanction, so it's just endless hypercritical rehashing.


    But, if he did not actually build the heat exchanger, and factual holes can be found in his story, he would be worried, especially because not everyone is good at telling consistent lies under cross examination.

    ***So what? It never rose to the level of perjury by your own admission above, it didn't rise to the level of preponderance of evidence because IH settled, so it only rises to the manure pile level of standard that it qualifies for endless hyperskeptical rehashing.

  • So here he wants to "regain complete ownership of the IP", so that must mean he never lost all of it. Many have commented on what a poorly written agreement it was. Had they continued the partnership, and if the tech worked, they would have been constantly fighting over it's interpretation.


    The legal case was all about the IP. Rossi went out of his way to retain it.


    If the IP is worthless, then why did he retain it, why did IH want it in their countersuit, why didn't IH just settle the lawsuit much earlier?


    If the IP is real, then it makes sense that IH wanted it and were trying to separate Rossi from it, as Rossi said "it had become very clear that a continued collaboration had become impossible because of the choices IH made and because of other reasons. " Those other reasons are likely that Rossi is impossible to deal with.

  • All this new nonsense was edited, added onto your original post AFTER I had already commented on it. You're just rehashing the manure pile like another Rossi-Derangement-Syndrome adherent on this thread. It was addressed with a simple analogy, but you'll keep bringing it up, just like I predicted.

  • If the IP is worthless, then why did he retain it, why did IH want it in their countersuit, why didn't IH just settle the lawsuit much earlier?


    That has been the argument for those who think Rossi has something. Why did he fight so hard to regain full control of IP that does not work?


    On the other hand; why did he abandone that very same Doral IP immediately after the settlement? For good measure, he disassembled the 1MW plant, put the empty container outside in the parking lot, then vacated the warehouse....all before Lewan interviewed him. Told us the customers did not want it anymore, which was a surprise to Engineer48, who had 3 lined up ready to buy.

  • So IH owned the Ecat IP from shortly after the "successful" VT in Apr 30 2013, until the settlement 4 years later when Darden turned the IP ownership back over to Rossi.

    The end result after the settlement (which can't be revisited in court and hence it BECOMES the enforced contract ) is just as I stated:

    " they paid $11.5M for a year-long demo of the devices".

  • On the other hand why did he abandone that very same Doral IP immediately after the settlement?

    ***I have no idea. I stop following him when he doesn't generate inductive touchpoints such as court cases and demos. In Mercato Veritas. I can speculate just like everyone else here: He did it because he started working on his new & improved magnificence, etc. etc. etc. and also I think he might have salted that reactor so it wouldn't work for IH.



    For good measure, he disassembled the 1MW plant, put the empty container outside in the parking lot, then vacated the warehouse....all before Lewan interviewed him. Told us the customers did not want it anymore, which was a surprise to Engineer48, who had 3 lined up ready to buy.

    ***Again, my speculation: Rossi salted his reactor. It was worthless after he did so. It would be like working on a car that revv'ed up real high and ran for 5 minutes fantastically, but you know why -- you're the one who put sugar in the gas tank. Fixing such a car , when you know how it went wrong, is a waste of time. It is only suitable for the scrap heap.