Nope. Every competent person I know who has read it agreed with me, starting with Murray and Smith.
Murray and Smith were working for IH as far as I know.
Isn't possible that their opinion was biased ?
randombit0
Member
- Member since Apr 27th 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by randombit0
-
-
But that has nothing to do with Rossi. He is not doing cold fusion. He is engaged in fraud and extortion.
I was speaking in general not about Rossi.
If you are so sure that Rossi is a Criminal why FBI had not got him ? Why don't you go to FBI and denounce him.
Why IH has not denounced him ?
-
The visible participants I know (that is, people still breathing) denounced Rossi.
Is there any people not breathing here ? I hope not !
I see many attacking Rossi, but, interesting to say, they appear connected in some way to IH,
Also the attacks are quite generic and in the form "As is well known and evident Rossi/Penon is/are the fraudolent." But without any real proof.
If the proof were there then IH should had won the trial without any settlement.
-
The Penon report was resounding proof. No one needs to look any further. It left no doubt that Rossi is fraud and the 1-year test was crude mock up that did not fool any sensible observer.
You can't ask for more sufficient proof than this. The fact that it came directly from Rossi makes it unimpeachable. The fact that he later made up the lie about the invisible heat exchanger proves that he himself agrees the Penon report was fraudulent.I don't agree with you. On my opinion you are completely wrong. And the proof is in the facts.
If Penon reports was so bad why IH had come to a settlement ?
If the fraud was so evident why IH has not won the trial and taken back all the money from Rossi ?
Maybe you are the only person that see in such an evident way that the Penon report was bad.
-
I have heard comments on cold fusion by Nobel laureate physicists in charge of the DoE and other illustrious grand pooh-bahs of science. They know a lot about a lot, but when it comes to cold fusion, they don't know shit from shinola. Unfortunately, they do not realize that they know nothing. They assume the mass media reports are correct and there were no replications and there is no literature, so they never even look for papers.
Jed we should conclude that you are much better then the Nobel Laureate Physicist of the DoE.
There was also a Nobel Laureate that was positive about LENR.
I don't think that they really take the mass media reports as correct and for sure they don't look in this forum......
Be more specific. What comment regarding what ? I'm not asking who but just what.
-
LENR community should be highly skeptical and require a high quality of proof.
Hello again boys,
I had fun following all the discussions during the trial. But because there was an ongoing trial I preferred not to post.
Dear THH, who set the standard of a proof ?
A group of University Professors is not sufficient for you ?
And other researchers like e.g. Piantelli, Celani, Focardi or Arata have not a sufficient standard ?
Seems that all this people put their name, their lives and their careers on stake and end to be judged not by peer but by anonymous posters who, in many cases, are not expert of the matter.
There is already so much skepticism around LENR now there will be also the LENR skeptical over LENR.
-
With the admission in Document 93 by JMP that they have no parent company in the UK, thereby no product and no need for the steam, I would say this all but over.
"Thereby"?? Why these things should exclude each other? We already knew that JMC was owned by “an individual or entity formed in the United Kingdom”, not necessarily a corporation. Much ado about nothing.....
-
IH have never boasted in an e-mail that they have lied to a prospective business partner and faked a test to get out of it, calling this behaviour "a magnificence".
You really can say that IH is honest in accordance with this assertion?
Did you ever read IH's emails??? Maybe Rossi has his own evidences about the IH deceptive attitude but he decided to show them just to the jury, instead of submit them during this phase.
It is a long way till the end.....By the way......the word "magnificence" is not present in the email you are talking about.
You can find this word in the message that Rossi left in his own blog the 8th of July (a message that IH didn't deny in any way):
"......for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare, manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us."There is no doubt that Rossi wanted the test to be considered the GPT - though in the written evidence to get it started he certainly made clear that it was something quite different (a PR stunt with a "real" customer). I'm sure IH were well aware that Rossi would represent this test as a GPT to try to get his money. That does not mean they thought it was the GPT and they seem to have been quite careful to ensure that it was not.
If IH knew from the beginning that this test was the GPT from Rossi's point of view (whereas they considered it just a test for which they would not pay a cent), why they accepted this situation?
Why they did not put the record straight instead of carry investors around the plant? I can't believe how you can consider this behavior as a fair attitude!Whatever else you think, it is clear that the calorimetry (all under Rossi's control) would not be proper for any test of performance with $89M riding on the result. Regardless of what any contract said. There are rules about fairness etc and obeying the spirit of the agreement, which in this case was clearly meant to be a safe way to establish that Rossi's stuff worked, and equally clearly was not safe.
What do you really know about the calorimetry? Have you ever read one of the four Penon's reports?
You are jumping to hasty conclusion, following IH's words, which are not confirmed by any evidences. -
-
for a dummy, COP=1. Exactly.
This is never true. In fact the dummy serves also to measure energy losses of the measuring apparatus. So if one measure COP 0.98 for the dummy knows that is over estimating the input or underestimating the output energy of about 2% . This can be eventually added to measure error.
this "obviously" if all such losses were on the output side.
Sorry but there is no side. Evaluating losses is the normal procedure.
-
Rossibit returns in a burst of brilliance. I'll take the bait because it is fun. R'bit - which referenced forums are democratically controlled?
BTW - Tell the boss that it looks like multiple engine flameouts from the cockpit monitoring system - warning lights and buzzers everywhere - you need to get some of those restarted or we all know the end result.
1) I have no connection with Rossi. On the same basis I can presume YOU have connection to IH.
2) Discussions must be open to everyone otherwise they are useless.
3) I note also a obscure style i your comments. Are you trying to scare someone?
-
but given the accusation on Lugano emissivity
Come on we have discussed all that in another thread !Need a review ?
-
BTW - the forum management needs to straighten up if it expects to have a chance to be relevant in the coming next phase of LENR. Amateur hour needs to end.
Dear Mr. Weaver,
is that a threat an order to the forum administrators or what ?
I think that the real basic working of a forum is to be open to various voices in a democratic way.
If you don't agree with somebody why don't you try to answer with effective and sound arguments ? -
Actually, Fred Z is precisely the sort of person you need to address some theoretical claims for LENR.
Mary, Fred Z is just and old retired guy who never contributed to Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, Fundamental Interactions Physics or Solid State/Condensed Matter Physics.
Even if he was younger he was missing the basics knowledge to understand LENR that is not a simple field. -
It's an odd thing to strive for — fame/infamy among a small group of disputatious souls at the edge of the Internet.
Guys you are ignoring the enormous amount of papers published by many authors and industries involved if you speak ONLY of Rossi and ONLY against him the natural question is why only him ? and the Leonardo vs IH case could be a good answer.Here is non-exhaustive list of Academics and industries involved in LENR research:
AIRBUS activity documented by the following patentEP3047488 (A1) - ENERGY GENERATING DEVICE AND ENERGY GENERATING METHOD AND ALSO CONTROL ARRANGEMENT AND REACTOR VESSEL THEREFOR (2016)
MITSUBISHI HEAVY IND LTD
EP1202290 (B1) - Nuclide transmutation device and nuclide transmutation method (2013) GRANTED
WO2013115155 (A1) - NUCLIDE CONVERSION METHOD AND NUCLIDE CONVERSION DEVICE (2013)
Toyota is also known to have replicated Mitsubishi experiments.
NASA is also conducting research on LENR.Academics:
Dimiter Alexandrov (Lakehead University, Canada)
Jean-Paul Biberian (Aix-Marseille University, France)
Sangho Bok (University of Missouri, USA)
Francesco Celani (INFN-LNF, Italy)
Norman D. Cook (Kansai University, Japan)
Konrad Czerski (University of Szczecin, Poland)
Volodymyr Dubinko (Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Ukraine)
Igor Goryachev (Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia)
Thomas Grimshaw (The University of Texas at Austin, USA)
Peter Hagelstein (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA)
Hiroyuki Hama (Director of ELPH, Tohoku Uiniv.)
Kimio Hanawa (Executive Vice President, Tohoku Univ.)
Jinghao He (University of Missouri, USA)
Tatsumi Hioki (Nagoya University, Japan)
Yuki Honda (Tohoku University, Japan)
Takehiko Itoh (Tohoku University)
Yasuhiro Iwamura ( Tohoku Univ.)
Jirohta Kasagi (Tohoku Univ.)
Takao Kashiwagi (Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan)
Hidetoshi Kikunaga (Tohoku University, Japan)
Tony La Gatta (University of Ferrara, TSEM, Italy)
Emanuele Marano (University of Turin, Italy)
Melvin H. Miles (University of La Verne, USA)
George Miley (University of Illinois, USA)
Florian Metzler (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA)
Trey Morris (Howard University, USA)
Tomoyoshi Motohiro (Nagoya Univ., Japan)
David Nagel (The George Washington University, USA)
Ken Naitoh (Waseda University, Japan)
Ken-ichi Okubo (Kyoto University, Japan)
Sveinn Ólafsson (University of Iceland, Iceland)
Jean-Luc Paillet (Aix-Marseille University, France)
Iraj Parchamazad (University of La Verne, USA)
K P Rajeev (Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India)
Tetsuo Sawada (Nihon University, Japan)
Hitoshi Soyama (Tohoku University, Japan)
Katsuaki Tanabe (Kyoto University, Japan)
Vladimir Vysotskii (Kiev National Shevchenko University, Ukraine)
Wu-Shou Zhang (Chinese Academy of Sciences, China)Are all of them mad people ? Dreamers ?
We think not. Many of the people who make critics simply fire and spit venom against ONE target ignoring deliberately the big picture.
Now what to think of people like Zoepfl that make harsh and gross comments almost only against Rossi ? https://disqus.com/by/FredZ777/
We searched for him because he says he is an "Nuclear Engineer" but found only a person who do not publish scientific papers from more then 30 years.
See e.g. :
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.fieldName=author&start=1&resultsPerPage=20&searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.queryString=%22F. J. Zoepfl%22
See also:https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22FJ+Zoepfl%22&hl=it&as_sdt=0,5
And his field was more likely radio-chemistry
He is not certainly the kind of scientist that is needed to understand a MODERN, complex and interdisciplinary field as LENR.
-
Please comment this:
We have read carefully the new paper of Prof. Alexander Parkhomov and found the his results remarkable.
The method used and obtained results seems quite sound and reliable.The comment from about "ironing out" the Lugano paper to compare it with this paper is simply ridiculous. We should note that Prof. Parkhomov cite the Lugano paper as first reference. As a Scientist he does not make any critics to it even if he obtains a smaller COP and for sure the Lugano paper has been deeply analyzed by Prof. Parkhomov and his colleagues.
The reasons of the different results reside more likely in the different power supply and probably in a different fuel composition. -
A first note about Zero.
Zero is the most important digit in any numbering system. His history is quite fascinating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number) and was imported in Europe by the Italian mathematician Fibonacci who invented the name Zero because that number was "as light as a Zephyr wind".
Zero symbol also has a terrific importance in mathematics from calculus ( Zero of a function ) to set theory ( element Zero, Zero (empty) set ).But also remember that Zero was a long range fighter aircraft of the WWII https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A6M_Zero.
It was made ( what a coincidence! ) by the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.It would be absurd, yes. But it relies on your faulty idea that radiation in the IR band depends only on input power and band emissivity - so that a and b (with the same input power) would have the same band radiation.
Oh ho ! You are making a lot of confusion here.
What you must have because of equilibrium condition and energy conservation is that two bodies ( even not identical ) with the same input power should emit the same power. Power emission has three terms: Radiation, Conduction and Convection.
We have introduced the hypothesis that they are in vacuum in order to ignore the convection and conduction terms so that the two bodies must radiate the same total amount of power.Only in this point we introduced the hypothesis that the bodies are identical in shape and that their material has equal emissivity in the camera range (as it happens for Alumina and an ideal BB ).
By those hypothesis we can arrive to the conclusion that using the BB emissivity (band) would give the wrong temperature reading. So one must use total emissivity.
"Have to" indicates compulsion,
No compulsion, dear Abdul, I write much less and much short comments then yours so, if any, I'm not the one who has a compulsive disorder among you and me.
But:
"There is none so deaf as those who will not hear" and you don't want to hear.
May be you are a "selective listener"...... or don't want to hear because you must not. -
reductio ad absurdem
Dear Abdul, the right spelling is Reductio ad Absurdum or Argomentum ad absurdum.
If you want to disprove an hypothesis you first suppose it true then using logic reasoning yo must come to a conclusion that is clearly not true.
You have not used this way of reasoning in your writing.They did not appear to be aware of the band vs. total emissivity problem, and appear to have used the same value for both, leading to major error.
Let us now demonstrate that your affirmation is false using the Reductio ad Absurdum, with simple words.
First we must suppose that the argument is true so that we have to use the BB emissivity for Alumina in the range of the Camera.
Then we repeat the reasoning we have done already:
Let us have two bodies a) and b) with same geometrical shape and with the same input power:
a) being a perfect Black body and
b) made of alumina
We let the two bodies reach the equilibrium and suppose that they are in vacuum ( at least 10^-4 to stop convection ) so that the only way they can emit energy is radiation. Because of this equilibrium condition the power output from the two bodies will be the same.
This lead to the conclusion that b) must have a much higher temperature then a) but because of our first hypothesis the Camera would measure a temperature almost equal. This is absurd because is contrary to energy conservation so we conclude that the first hypothesis is not correct.Quite sure that I will have to repeat all that to you again.
-
What do you think about the idea of high pressure intragranular hydrogen bubbles being the trigger location of the Rossi Effect?
In fact the main place where Hydrogen is absorbed are the vitreous inter-granular regions. (few nm compared to the tens of nm of the granules )
Many groups try to let Nickel absorb the Hydrogen at low temperature before heating, but all the process must be done in a controlled atmosphere.
A layer of Nickel oxide would make Hydrogen absorption quite more difficult.
Is nice to write about real science. -
Lugano is dead.
Ha ha ha Dear Abdul,
Mixing up a lot of bad reasoning and second hand opinions you arrive to a wrong conclusion. Is interesting that your only reference is the TC "paper". You have not searched and not cite any other literature. But I can ensure you that there is quite a lot of literature to look at.
You seems also to ignore all the arguments we have proposed here, even in a simple and comprehensible form, that demonstrate that a body with an emissivity lower then a BB, must have a temperature higher then a BB, for the input power.
You accuse other to "cherry pick" data but seem that you are the first to make an accurate selection of what to cite and what not.
