Posts by quizzical

    Rossi never clearly explained what Sigma-5 meant as far as I'm concerned, although apparently it has something to do with reliability. Also, I find it odd that he spent so long (1 year?) testing just 3 QX's. If he was doing reliability testing I would have assumed that he would test many of them in parallel. Based on the fact that he was only testing a few QX's I am guessing (assuming that he is not deluding himself or pulling a scam) that the testing involved improving his protocol for stimulating and/or controlling the QX in order to ensure that it either continued to work with the expected COP, or it didn't melt down and/or fail during extended time periods. In other words, my guess is that he was primarily debugging the control/stimulation procedures, and not the physical design of the QX. This IMHO is consistent with his many statements regarding having a problem during the testing and within 1 or 2 days claiming to have made a breakthrough in resolving this problem.

    Given your history of testing the limits, the next two-week timeout will be swift and without much ado.

    I found Sifferkoll's post interesting and informative. Not sure why it was moved to the clearance bin. On the other hand, this post by Walker is not, and seems intended simply to bait and/or irritate. It's interesting to me to hear that Sifferkoll will be meeting with Alan Smith in Stockholm (presumably) later. I look forward to hearing more first-person accounts from at least one of them and possibly both (assuming that Sifferkoll was also at the demo).

    Like Sweden.. Switzerland uses few fossil fuels

    Little incentive to back LENR.

    On the other hand, Switzerland is one of the leaders in the development of solar cell technology including the dye-sensitized solar cell developed by Michael Gratzel (https://phys.org/news/2013-07-…s-rival-conventional.html) , the more recently developed perovskite solar cells (https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2017/09/170928142002.htm), as well as multi-junction solar cells (https://www.nrel.gov/news/pres…r-efficiency-records.html).

    It is only, what, about five times more water than there could possibly have been? And as you see, the flow meter was installed in a mostly-empty gravity return pipe, where the manual warns it will not work. You mention "to the nearest 1000 kg." Do you realize this flow meter can only measure to the nearest 1000 kg? That puts it in a different light, I think. It only registered (clicked) every 40 minutes or so. A flow meter or similar instrument should register a pulse many times per minute or per second to be accurate. Once every 40 minutes is preposterous.

    The detailed location of the flow-meter was not mentioned in the report, so just reading the report does not indicate that there is any problem, in contrast to your many repeated statements. Regarding the flow-meter I don't know how it worked since I haven't studied this but your assumption that it should be able to measure much accurately (and often) than to the nearest 1000 kg is quite reasonable. On the other hand, it's also reasonable that Penon may have rounded all measurements (which WERE more accurate) to the nearest 1000 kg.


    What I don't believe is that you saying that. Sufficiently endothermic? Is that supposed to be a joke? There is NO SUCH PROCESS, other than melting tons of ice every hour, and no one saw tons of ice coming into the building. All endothermic industrial processes (such as baking bread) absorb only a tiny fraction of the heat. If you say that is not so, then tell us what industrial process absorbs more than this. Oh, and tell us where were the tons of materials needed to absorb that heat, because Rossi claimed he stored 1 MW of continuous heat for year in a few grams of metal. That's 31,400,000 MJ or 7.5 kilotons in a few grams of metal. That is more potent than the 5 kg of critical mass in a 15 kiloton uranium bomb.

    As I mentioned, none of this is mentioned or assumed in the report, and so, again as I mentioned, this is an EXTERNAL consideration based on detailed knowledge and/or estimates of the power dissipation capabilities of the building and your belief (which again is irrelevant to the report itself since this is not discussed in the report) that the industrial process COULD NOT have dissipated significant excess heat. I note that several possible processes which could do so HAVE BEEN discussed although you are apparently unaware of them, although I would certainly admit that we have no direct evidence for any of this, and that Rossi's secretiveness regarding this is very suspicious.


    My conclusion is that your statement that "any one can see just from reading the report that it is fabricated" is completely unjustified.


    P.S. My guess is that this is why IH settled the lawsuit. If it was so certain "just from reading the report" that it was fabricated then surely they could have brought in expert after expert and convinced the jury that this was the case, and then countersued Rossi as Dewey swore they were going to do (rather than settle).


    Is that how you describe the Penon report??? Seriously? You and I have utterly different standards of what constitutes high preparation and competence. I have never seen such garbage as Penon's report, and I have seen LOTS and LOTS of garbage in cold fusion.


    The Penon report is here:


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

    Jed,

    Thanks for posting the report. I've just looked at it, and what I see is an extremely conservative calculation based simply on the average water flow per day (to the nearest 1000 kg) and the heat of vaporization of water (approximately 627 Wh/kg) as well as the total electrical input power. The energy of heating water up to 100 C and of superheating the steam has been ignored (to be conservative) and the heat of vaporization has been discounted by 10% (again to be conservative). Assuming that the average electrical power input per day, average water flow per day, minimum steam temperature (> 100 C, actually greater than 103 C) , and input steam temperature (just needs to be clearly less than 100 C) are correct, then this is an extremely conservative calculation indicating a very large COP. All that needs to be correct (as already indicated) is that the steam temp is clearly above 100 C, the input temp clearly below 100 C, the water flow, and the electrical input. How is it possible that - as you have stated numerous times - just by reading the report you can tell that it is "garbage"? If Jed doesn't reply, perhaps someone else can enlighten me?


    P.S. The issue of significant figures in the water flow is not something I am worried about nor am I concerned about small errors in the heat of vaporization and/or density of water as a function of variations in atmospheric pressure or temperature. The lowest reported daily COP is greater than 60 (!) even with this conservative estimate of the output power and the 10% discount.


    P.P.S. I realize that there may be some additional external justification (such as you don't think the heat could have been dissipated in the building, you don't believe that Rossi's "industrial process" in the building existed or if it did could have been sufficiently endothermic to dissipate a significant fraction of the excess heat, you don't believe the electrical input numbers, you don't believe the flow numbers) based on external information for your claims regarding the Penon report. However, I'm trying to get you to justify your statement that "anyone who reads the report can immediately see that it's garbage". As far as I can tell the only justification for this statement that you have previously offered is that the electrical input energy and water flow are rounded to 2 significant digits ("whole numbers" to quote you) which apparently makes you suspicious that the data has been fabricated. Such types of rounding are quite common in science (and I would hope also in engineering) and indicate that the COP should also be accurate to 2 significant digits.

    Ok, quizzical. You are clearly free to persuade yourself that this kind of sophistry makes sense. We are each entitled to an opinion.

    OK Eric. First it was "unbalanced", then it was "sophistry". You might have noticed that I haven't used any similar adjectives to describe your "opinion". But you're right that this discussion is useless. I could certainly never compete with you in terms of number of postings or perhaps even debating style. I attempted to make a few points which I thought were obvious. But perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, we are each entitled to an opinion, and so I won't pursue this subject (e.g. the subject of IH's suffering) any further, especially since I would have to agree that it is not that interesting.

    Ok, quizzical. It seems you have imbibed a rather imbalanced view of the matter. I don't want to prolong the discussion by rehashing specific points ad infinitum. Readers will be the judge of whether your argument, that it is not problematic that IH are now out of millions of dollars with no tangible benefit in return, is a persuasive one.

    I'm sorry. But this "millions of dollars" you keep talking about has nothing to do with the settlement. Rossi was suing IH for many more millions of dollars. He forwent the money and received the "worthless" IP instead (which was returned to him). The settlement is not unjust. It saved IH $89.5 million dollars! My view is not at all unbalanced. I'm simply describing what the lawsuit was about, and also reminding you that (a) IH made the settlement (it was not imposed on them) (b) this despite their claims that they claimed they would crush Rossi at trial and even claw back money in countersuits.


    So, again IH may have "suffered". But this has NOTHING do to with the settlement. The only thing they lost in the settlement was the "worthless" IP (and perhaps their reputation).

    Surely you'll recall that more than the IP was lost; namely, many millions of dollars in addition. If I were a Rossi hopeful, and ignoring all other details in the case, I would find this detail by itself most unsettling.


    I have no inside information whatsoever.

    Eric,

    That's completely incorrect. They were not suing Rossi. Rossi was suing them. They had already "lost" the $10.5 million (but continued to claim rights to the IP and patents). The only thing they lost was the IP (and patents) that they said they don't believe in.

    Darden is not, as far as I can tell, a bad guy in the slightest. IH have been one of the few groups that have gone out and obtained funding for LENR researchers, and they have helped out several well-known ones you may have heard of. They have had an unlucky run-in with Rossi and have lost millions in what will history will no doubt judge to be an unjust settlement. Blame this on inadequate due diligence and not moving to cut ties with Rossi when they should have. Let us hope that others seeking to invest in the field benefit from IH's difficult lesson.

    (1) Are there any strings associated with this funding? Do they have rights and/or use of the IP as in the case of Rossi? Have they filed patents behind the backs of these researchers as they did with Rossi? Have they put them under NDA? Are they just giving them money with no strings attached? I doubt it.


    (2) "have lost millions.." They are venture capitalists. That's what venture capitalists do. They take risks. It was their job to test before they gave the $10.5 million as agreed in the contract. Is this an IH forum where we spend all our time trying to sympathize with IH more than trying to support LENR? BTW, if something useful in the public domain comes out of their support for LENR (I doubt it) then great. If not, then they are just venture capitalist sharks who are trying to sew up the rights to LENR and control the technology. Why should I feel any sympathy for them when they had all of the opportunity in the world to do their due diligence, and then pissed off Rossi by filing patents behind his back and working with competitors. My interest is in seeing LENR technology develop freely and not under the control of a small group of "venture capitalists".


    (3) "a bad guy in the slightest." Do you know Darden? Have you met him? Are you familiar with their multiple bankruptcies, failed environmental remediations, and shell companies? Is this the sign of someone who is "not a bad guy in the slightest"? I have no idea if he is a "bad guy" (whatever that means) but I'm not impressed by any of these aspects of their behavior, or by a number of other aspects of their behavior which were revealed in trial depositions (and elsewhere). I'm also not impressed by their secretiveness, nor was I at all impressed by Darden's speech at ICCF19 (or was it 18)? I found his tone and manner rather strange, especially for someone who is supposedly very excited about LENR.

    Darden is not, as far as I can tell, a bad guy in the slightest. IH have been one of the few groups that have gone out and obtained funding for LENR researchers, and they have helped out several well-known ones you may have heard of. They have had an unlucky run-in with Rossi and have lost millions in what will history will no doubt judge to be an unjust settlement. Blame this on inadequate due diligence and not moving to cut ties with Rossi when they should have. Let us hope that others seeking to invest in the field benefit from IH's difficult lesson.

    Unjust settlement? They made the settlement. (After Dewey repeatedly said that they would "crush" Rossi in the trial.) This was their choice. It was not imposed on them by a judge. How can a settlement they made of their own free will (in circumstances in which they claim to have the upper hand) be unjust? Also, to quote Jed how the hell can it be unjust, when all they lost (compared to the status before Rossi's lawsuit) is the IP that they already consider to be worthless? They had already paid Rossi $10.5 million based on their tests and this was not an issue in Rossi's suit. Perhaps you have some inside information from IH regarding the "unjustness" of a settlement they agreed to? How were they hurt by not paying Rossi $89 million for IP they claimed does not exist? Huh?

    There's nothing perpetual motion about LENR, the same E=MC^2 and entropy losses apply just like anything else.


    The USPTO has given several patents over the years to LENR and LENR-related devices because they didn't realize they were doing so. This requirement of theoretical proof before issuing patent protection is unique to LENR among peer-reviewed scientific developments (except perhaps Polywater, which was proven conclusively to be contaminated samples).


    If Rossi's IP is nothing but a hot dog cooker then why does IH want to hold onto it, even in the face of an offer of refund by Rossi?


    For those who are interested the statement regarding Rossi's refund offer comes from Mats Lewans's blog, see https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/


    Below I have cut-and-pasted the relevant portion:


    "After my meeting with Rossi (first time for me since September 2012), I have a few other updates.

    Claiming that everything he said could be proven with documents (or that he otherwise would be lying), Rossi told me regarding the one-year 1MW test that:

    • All the instruments for measurements were installed, under observation of IH and Rossi, by the ERV (Expert Responsible for Validation) Fabio Penon, who had been communicating also with Darden, receiving technical suggestions from him on this matter. All communications with the ERV were made with both Darden and Rossi in copy.
    • The flow meter was mounted according to all standard requirements, for example at the lowest point in the system.
    • The MW plant was placed on blocks, 33 cm above the ground, to make sure that leaking water or any hidden connections would become visible.
    • The two IH representatives present at the test were Barry West and Fulvio Fabiani (who worked for Rossi from January 2012 until August 2013, when the MW plant was delivered to IH in North Carolina, after which he was paid by IH as an expert who would make the technology transition from Rossi to IH easier). West and Fabiani reported to JT Vaughn every day on the phone.
    • Three interim reports, about every three months, with basically the same results as in the final report, were provided by the ERV during the test.
    • During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.
    • The unidentified customer (‘JM Products’) using the thermal energy from the MW plant, had its equipment at the official address—7861, 46th Street, Doral, Fl. The total surface of the premises was 1,000 square meters, of which the MW plant used 400 and the customer 600.
    • The equipment of the customer measured 20 x 3 x 3 meters, and the process was running 24/7.
    • The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot air through the roof.
    • The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant. The ERV accepted. (This was conservative, decreasing the calculated thermal power. The main part of the calculated thermal power, however, derives from the water being evaporated when boiling).
    • He also insisted that an arbitrary chosen 10 percent should be subtracted in the power calculation, with no other reason than to be conservative. The ERV accepted.
    • IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no importance.
    • The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.
    • At the end of the test, the ERV dismounted all the instruments by himself, in the presence of Rossi and IH, packed them and brought everything to DHL for transportation to the instrument manufacturers who would recalibrate the instruments and certify that they were not manipulated.
    • After the test, IH wanted to remove the MW plant from the premises in Florida, but Rossi would not accept until the remaining $89M were paid according to the license agreement. Rossi’s and IH’s attorneys then agreed that both parties should lock the plant with their own padlocks (as opposed to the claim by Dewey Weaver—a person apparently connected to IH, but yet not clear in what way—that ‘IH decided to padlock the 1MW container after observing and documenting many disappointing actions and facts’)."

    me356 (and others): I am not sure what the phrase "it changed completely due to complications of longer runs" means, especially since MFMP did not carry out any long runs. Are you referring to the hydrogen leaking towards the end of the run? Perhaps you could explain?


    On a related point, I note that MFMP posted on the night of May 29th (as they were leaving me356's place) a nice video on their Facebook page thanking me356 for his graciousness, and discussing the fuel preparation process and the fact that (according to me356) fuel is also further processed (but less efficiently) during the run, but unfortunately it died due to a hydrogen leak. The impression I got from this video was that you (me356) had switched technologies to the current one which you are working on now, and that at the time of the test (perhaps just because you didn't have any "covered" reactors, but perhaps also because of other concerns [such as safety or length of run?] ) and time-issues, you did not want to test the older technology, nor have available a version of the new "covered" reactor in which the fuel had been adequately processed. Is this correct?

    There is no credible or repeatable empirical evidence of LENR occurring with nickel-hydrogen. You have no legs to stand on other than suspicion and conspiracy theory. The data support IH's claim that AR did not transfer the IP--almost certainly because there is no IP to transfer. It doesn't work. It never has, and there is not a shred of good empirical evidence showing otherwise.

    This seems to be a rather absurd and discouraging statement. What about the original (and later) work by Focardi and Piantelli? What about the more recent (last few years) claims by Piantelli? What about the work of Brillouin energy, which has been verified by SRI (Stanford Research Institute)? What about the recent work of Parkhomov (he will give a talk on this at the conference in Italy in a few days I believe)? What about the work of Tom Claytor (previous and recent) in which he detected tritium production? What about the recent work of Mizuno et al - here's a link: http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol13.pdf#page=432 (although these results may have been "corrected") and another more recent paper by Kitamura et al involving Ni-composites and hydrogen: http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol19.pdf#page=143


    You believe that all of this work, including the recent JCMNS reference above and the SRI/Brillouin work is not credible?


    It would be nice to know why you (and others) repeat these flat, but poorly justified statements. Are you the expert on all research in Ni-H? Is there any reason I should believe your subjective evaluation of these works, as opposed to those of other experts such as SRI?


    For the purposes of discussion, it would be nice if you could provide credible reasons for your statements and how they apply to the works I have cited above.

    For all of those who argue how many COPs can dance on the tip of a needle:


    he said that his reactor has heated his home for a year.


    What part of that is hard to disprove by, sorry I'm not an expert, going to his frigging house?

    Just to set the record straight (again) it was pointed out by another poster (on the original thread) that this is not what me356 said but instead, Bob Greenyer stated that he was planning to heat his home with a reactor.


    P.S. While useful discussions do occur on this forum, misquotes and misinformation (corresponding to unsupported speculation and interpretation) are also VERY common. This greatly lowers the signal to noise ratio.

    Note the usage of the word "sustain" by "anonymous", a direct translation from the Italian sostenere, which would be better translated as "support" in this context.


    We are a group of American citizens that sustain your work and we are disgusted by what is going on against you. We are preparing a dossier completed with all the precise references about what written here above. Where can we send it?

    If an anonymous poster uses this expression I do not immediately assume that it is Rossi or a Rossi-insider, since this could be someone else whose native language is Italian or some other language besides English. However, the claim that they are "American citizens" does send up a red flag. Of course the poster could be an American citizen who immigrated from Italy! :)

    Good point. Clearly total energy out/in is best measure.

    Except IH paid for the Plant in full ($1.5 million), and they paid a lot to refurbish it. So I would imagine that the Plant remains IH's.

    Perhaps they will allow Rossi to purchase it back for cost of the Plant plus refurbishment costs.

    It's not clear to me that either would want the plant (although some of the parts might be useful) since IH claims that it doesn't work and Rossi has apparently moved on to the QuarkX. Also, it was my understanding that some of the units in the plant were built by IH, but these were not used since they didn't work, while another set of units (which were used) were built by Leonardo. Perhaps someone could clarify this?

    One need not be "anti-Rossi" and by default pro-IH, although I am very happy that IH have come along. Why so? Because I've seen that LENR researchers are generally happy that IH have come along, and because I gather from what information that I have that Tom Darden is a pretty decent fellow who has the capacity and willingness to do the footwork needed to infuse capital into this field, which I view as a worthy investment. So I am "pro-IH," if we're going to use simple categories.

    Eric,

    Regarding LENR researchers that's probably true. On the other hand, I would be interested to know what kind of information you have that "Tom Darden is a pretty decent fellow". To be honest, I don't have any direct information, but I have to ask, does this "information" include the fact that IH created multiple shell companies (including in Europe which is Rossi's territory) and filed for patents behind Rossi's back? Does it include Cherokee's history of being sued by local townships for not keeping up their end of the bargain? If Tom is a sincere, decent investor who has been scammed by Rossi I feel sorry for him. (On the other hand, I wonder about his "due diligence". I also wonder about the money he apparently raised ("Stellar! Stellar!" he apparently told the Woodford investors when they were visiting Doral, according to Rossi) based on claims that Rossi's technology was working.) A few other "pro-Rossi" comments to put things in context. It is my understanding that Rossi sold one of his businesses and put a million dollars of his own money into the E-cat technology long before obtaining a manufacturing agreement with IH. Am I wrong on this? While Rossi may well be deluded, does this sound like the behavior of a scammer? To be even more of a Devil's advocate, I know that this is far-fetched, but is it not conceivable that one or more of the following may be true:

    (i) IH DID acquire a significant amount of IP (but perhaps not all of the IP) from Rossi but didn't want to pay the $89M

    (ii) IH for now is not interested in manufacturing until they can divest themselves from fossil-fuels and other investments

    (iii) IH may be using small investments in LENR researchers as a cover for "developing" IP they already had from Rossi so they don't have to pay?


    Edit: I've just re-read Tom Darden's speech at ICCF19 which seems to me to be sincere and somewhat moving, and clearly indicates a history (and desire) of fostering (primarily as a lawyer and investor) anti-pollution and pollution-cleanup technology. I was also impressed by his mention that he had built an experimental airplane (is this true?) On the other hand there are some apparent dichotomies in his speech which confuse me. One is his claim to be creating an environment at IH that fosters "open sharing" between scientists, which seems at odds with what I've seen and with IH's business practices. The other is IH's general secretiveness (coupled with the shell-company issues I mentioned above).


    2nd Edit: for those who are interested, here is the link to the text of his speech at ICCF19: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…speech-on-lenr-at-iccf19/

    In principle, neither! But in practicality, kind of anti-Rossi, since he has not brought any sustained, credible evidence to bear on his claims, and he has done much in addition. But I'll be grateful for any good argument from either side of that whole divide.


    I don't know what "he has done much in addition" means but I suspect that you meant "he has done much in addition to hurt his credibility" or something like that, and I agree. Regarding arguments, I'm with Mats Lewan. What counts are facts (or "Nature") as he puts it. There are arguments in both directions although at the moment I would agree that the over-riding evidence makes Rossi look bad. However, there is also a lot of circumstantial evidence that Rossi may have something. I don't have any dog in the fight, as they say,