Posts by quizzical

Like many of you, I've been following the Rossi saga for several years, always with the hope, supported a few years ago by the IH due diligence and subsequent investments, that his technology would help solve the world's energy, climate-change, and pollution problems and would also help to usher in a new scientific era. Now, we are confronted by a myriad of contradictory claims. Some of Rossi's earlier tests (including those carried out by IH) were apparently successful, and we also have evidence (from Focardi, Celani etc.) of nuclear emissions. On the other hand IH and Jed Rothwell (who has apparently seen data leaked by IH but not the ERV report) claim that the 1 year test was a fraud, or inconclusive, or poorly done etc. In contrast, Mats Lewan states on his blog (see https://animpossibleinvention.…ilding-plus-more-updates/) that "people with insight into the MW report....told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 ... would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH)."

This is of course in total contradiction to the (somewhat unclear) claims by Jed Rothwell that he has seen samples of data from "the report", or perhaps it's samples of Rossi's data and not the ERV's data, or perhaps it's IH's data, all supplied to him by IH which indicates that there is no excess heat etc. So, what are we to believe?

Unfortunately, I have the distinct impression that Rothwell, unlike his usual more reserved and careful statements, has gone somewhat overboard, calling Penon "an idiot" etc. More seriously, I have noticed a somewhat heated exchange over on Vortex (here is the link: [email protected]/msg110505.html">https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg110505.html) in which Rothwell repeatedly states that based on Rossi's own figures and some vague complaint he has about "round numbers" that Rossi's (or perhaps it's the ERV's) results must be incorrect. Here is the relevant quote from Rothwell on Vortex:

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1Jed Rothwell Sun, 05 Jun 2016 08:29:37 -0700
Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Of course there is evidence of laziness or an utterly poor understanding
> of measurement instruments with the presentation of the apparently fake
> measurements (3 or 4 trailing zeros according to Jed).
>
That's not according to me. That was Rossi himself, in the Lewan interview: https://animpossibleinvention.…ilding-plus-more-updates/

Quotes: "The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.

A total of about 31 MJ of electric energy was input. At 0,9 g/s, a total of
about 26 kg of water was input during the test from 11 am until 7 pm.
Heating this water from 25 to 116 degrees centigrade requires about 10 MJ.
During the last 5 hours, 16 kg of this water was also evaporated, which
required about 36 MJ."

- Jed

Here are my comments on the above:

(1) I don't see any trailing zeroes here.

(2) While the first sentence above (e.g. "The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.") is indeed a summary by Lewan of what Rossi apparently told him about the 1 MW test, the second full paragraph ("A total of about 31 MJ of electric energy.. etc.") has NOTHING to do with the 1 MW test, but is a summary re-analysis given by Lewan (not Rossi as Jed claimed) of the October 6, 2011 test carried out by Mats Lewan.

So all of these objections raised by Jed on Vortex about "weird numbers", "obviously wrong numbers", "round numbers" etc. are based on a COMPLETE MISQUOTE!

Given this obvious error and apparently complete misquote, why should we believe that Jed is being fair and impartial in his analysis?

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from quizzical: “Here is an update on the project (dated November 24, 2015) which confirms that the Japanese government’s initiative to fund LENR research has moved forward:”
No, it has not. Here is the Japanese government's initiative to…

Jed,
The link I posted (here it is again: http://news.newenergytimes.net…dership-in-lenrs-continue) comes DIRECTLY from Clean Planet's website under "PAST NEWS (October 2015)".
Here is an excerpt:

"Takahashi’s e-mail confirms that the Japanese government’s initiative to fund LENR research — for the first time in two decades — has moved forward. The LENR research is sponsored through the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), a national research and development agency. New Energy Times first reported the NEDO story on Aug. 24, 2015. “The nano-metal hydrogen energy project (NEDO-MHE),” Takahashi wrote, “has been adopted, conditionally, by NEDO for one of leading projects of eco-energy innovation. The NEDO-MHE project started on Oct. 26, 2015, officially. “The joint research team (Nano-METS) comprises six institutions: two companies, Technova and Nissan; and four universities, Tohoku, Kyushu, Nagoya and Kobe.”

As I mentioned, this NET news item is linked-to directly from the Clean Planet website (see http://cleanplanet.co.jp/news.php?lang=en). Next to this link they also give the link to the study group (in Japanese) you mentioned, although I don't see any clear connection with LENR.

Anyway, since Clean Planet links to a news item which states the above, and this is accompanied by their statement next to this link that "Japanese government has started to support our clean energy project with Tohoku University", I can only conclude from reading this as well as the associated articles that, consistent with previous information that I have seen, both the Japanese government and industry (including Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Technova) in association with Clean Planet, are carrying out and supporting significant research into LENR.

Am I wrong?

Here's a quote from a posting by Bob Higgins on Vortex:

"Bob Higgins Mon, 06 Jun 2016 08:52:38 -0700
I have heard that many of the anonymous (avatar) supporters of Rossi's case on LENR forum and other blogs are Rossi himself - posting under various names."

I don't know about other forums, but I see little evidence here of this claim that "many of the anonymous supporters of Rossi's case on LENR forum" are Rossi himself. As we have already discussed extensively, most here are merely observers, some of whom (like myself) are waiting for actual evidence (not Rossi says versus IH says or "IH leaks") before making a final decision regarding "Rossi's case".

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from quizzical: “Here is a link for you which indicates a $27M budget for 2015: news.newenergytimes.net/2015/0…fund-lenr-research-again”
Ah, yes. That is what I think Alan Smith has in mind. That program never launched. As far as I know it…

Here is a link to the Japanese "Clean Planet" project website: http://cleanplanet.co.jp/news.php?lang=en

See info there. I note that they will co-host the 20th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ICCF-20) see: http://iccf20.net/

Here is an update on the project (dated November 24, 2015) which confirms that the Japanese government’s initiative to fund LENR research has moved forward:

http://news.newenergytimes.net…rship-in-lenrs-continues/

Quote from Tom Paulsen

Quote from quizzical: “Consider Piantelli's NICHenergy which is privately funded. And in this case they apparently gave 6 times more than that elsewhere.”

Can you please give me a source for your statement about the connection between IH and …

I wasn't trying to start a rumor. Apparently, my statement was misinterpreted. Piantelli's NICHenergy is an example of LENR research - and perhaps the most advanced along with Rossi(?) and Mizuno - which has been funded using significant additional private funds which were NOT contributed by IH. My other statement was simply that based on IH's account they have given 6 times more money to other researchers than they have given to Rossi.

I might add that I have the distinct impression that Mizuno's recent apparently quite successful research has been strongly influenced by Rossi's use of microscopic Ni particles which he revealed around 2011/2012 I believe, as has the research of a number of other LENR researchers.

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from Alan Smith: “and I know Takahashi. That good enough for you?

ETA. $20M state support in 2015, $30M in 2016, plus contributions from Toyota, Mitsubishi et al. Some sparrow!”
Where is this information published, in English or Japanese? I…

Jed,
Here is a link for you which indicates a $27M budget for 2015: http://news.newenergytimes.net…fund-lenr-research-again/
I notice that Akito Takahashi is also mentioned.

Dewey wrote: "The 1MW system left Raleigh with an installed steam trap that was removed by Rossi in Miami before the system was started."

Dewey,
What is a steam trap, and what would have been its function in this case?

Quote from Eric Walker

Quote from quizzical: “Perhaps you have put a significant amount of money into Rossi's research? Is this why you are making these comments?”
Full disclosure: I have no financial connection to any of the parties involved in this dispute. Do you?

Eric: No. I do not either. Well, I guess we've settled that.

P.S. As I'm sure you know, I was just responding to your rhetorical question with a question of my own. In any case, apparently we disagree on the long-term impact of Rossi's research on LENR funding. As I've stated, I think that even if he turns out to be a fraud, while there may be some short-term blow-back, he will have had a long-term beneficial impact, for all of the reasons I've stated above.

Eric Walker: "Perhaps you have put a significant amount of money into LENR research, and you are able to say this from more than the comfort of an armchair."

Perhaps you have put a significant amount of money into Rossi's research? Is this why you are making these comments?

Quote from Eric Walker

Quote from Tom Paulsen: “Delusion is not a criminal action, but deceiving others to cash in 11.5m$ is not only &quot;harm and foul&quot; it is called fraud. And this is a criminal action.”
To add to this point, that's 11.5 million dollars that did not go to…

Actually, unless the entire Piantelli, Focardi, Brillouin, Ni-H research is a dead-end, I would argue that Rossi's work has significantly raised the profile of LENR and also significantly increased interest. Rossi's work also motivated Piantelli to "get-back-in-the game" and restart his LENR research. To some extent, I think that it may have helped Brillouin (even though unfortunately they do not publish scientific papers either). There's also the work of Etiam and the Swedish group studying "ponderomotive forces", which has been sparked by Rossi's work. If it turns out that Rossi is fraudulent, then yes there may be some blow-back for a time. But in the long run, I still think that Rossi's work will have actually led to an increased interest and amount of research in LENR.

Quote from Eric Walker

Quote from Tom Paulsen: “Delusion is not a criminal action, but deceiving others to cash in 11.5m$ is not only &quot;harm and foul&quot; it is called fraud. And this is a criminal action.”
To add to this point, that's 11.5 million dollars that did not go to…

I tend to dislike this type of "could-have" argument (which in this case is still based on a hypothetical anyway). All research is risky, that's why they call it research! IH is by far NOT the only potential source of research funding for LENR research, although it may currently be the most visible. Consider Piantelli's NICHenergy which is privately funded. And in this case they apparently gave 6 times more than that elsewhere. Also, IH is a private, venture-capital firm, which takes risks! Certainly, if Rossi has committed fraud this is a problem, but it is primarily IH's problem.

P.S. As far as I can tell, no one with actual knowledge of the situation - even IH - has yet claimed fraud. That's probably just as well, because if they did, then their own patent applications would be fraudulent as well.

Quote from Mark H

Rends. Nobody is arguing that LENR wouldn't be a great gift to the world. The rights you are so espousing were sold for a hefty amount. IF Rossi had something (BIG if), he'd have no problems being rewarded for his efforts.

Given the incredible potential of the IP, I would certainly not call $10M a hefty amount. I would call it "peanuts"!

Furthermore, IH knew what they were doing and signed the contract. My concern is not with a venture-capital firm which has clearly stated that it doesn't mind taking risks, but with the future of LENR.

If Rossi has nothing in terms of IP, and has simply deluded himself, then no harm, no foul. IH took a risk and it didn't pay off, and if they're right about the 1 MW test, they should win easily in court.

On the other hand, if Rossi has a valid technology then I certainly don't want his attempts to develop and commercialize this (at least in the territories allowed under the contract) to be jeopardized by threats and/or bullying by a much more well-funded and well-connected concern like IH.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Quizz - I don't know the answer to your question regarding SSM and IH testing. I think they would have needed to see some XP first then would have contemplated SSM after verifying that the system has a positive COP.

Dewey,
Thank you for your response.
I can understand that you don't know the answer to my question regarding whether IH tried testing the Lugano device (or copy) with SSM.

On the other hand, your suggestion that they "would have needed to see some XP" before trying SSM does not make sense to me since:

(a) the Lugano test was believed for a long time to be successful (and as I understand it was used to attract additional investors)

(b) if you have a device which puts out a fixed amount of power (in terms of heat) even during periods when there is no input power, then it should be easy to determine (via calibration during an extended period using the non-SSM mode) if there is excess heat when the same amount of power is produced but there is no input power.

(Yes, I know there are questions about heat storage and transfer etc. but since IH built the thing, they should certainly be able to deal with this.)

(c) It makes no sense to me that IH would not have done this test.

P.S. On a related note, I note that some have made claims that the COP of Rossi's device was less than 1. How is this possible, while still satisfying conservation of energy - unless electrical energy is returned to the power source? My first thought is that any such claim is an indication that the claimant has either underestimated the output power or overestimated the input power or both.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Thanks Quizz - I remember now - it would have been interesting to see that attempted. Who do you think was part of that decision not to try SSM?

I would guess that it was the authors of the Lugano report, e.g. Levi, Foschi, Hoistad, Petterson, Tegner, and Essen.

Getting back to my question, didn't IH try this?

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Quizz - thank you for your curiosity. You know that I am not going to be able to share any details with you regarding how IH is investing in LENR R&amp;D. Rossi insisted on using his own agreement as the draft of the IH Leonardo agreement and was not open to…

Dewey,
Thank you for your candid response.

Regarding the SSM switch and the Lugano report, this is mentioned in the report on p. 7, see the following quote:

"We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, despite the fact that we had been informed that the reactor was capable of operating under such conditions for as long a time as necessary. That power input mode, however, would have caused significant temperature increases during the brief intervals of time in which power was fed to the reactor. Moreover, the emissivity of alumina is temperature-dependent: this would have made all calculations troublesome and rendered analysis of the acquired data difficult."

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Rends - I'm starting to really wonder about you. IH is clearly capable of placing big bets on the possibility that high impact breakthrough technologies can be characterized / verified then made ready for market. If the E-Cat would have worked as Rossi…

Dewey said: In your opinion, where would LENR research be today without the ongoing IH investment to date of $70M into the field?

Dewey,
This is very interesting. You should really be the one to answer this question since we know almost nothing about this.

Can you tell us more about the $60M that you claim that IH has invested in work other than Rossi's?

Can you give us the names of the companies, scientists involved, and a description of the progress so far?

How much is in Pd-D and what fraction is in Ni-H, and what fraction is in other?

How much has been invested in Brillouin Energy?

Can you tell us about the IP assignment, non-compete agreements, and associated non-disclosure agreements? Are they as strict and one-sided as the agreement with Rossi?

Thank you.

P.S. On the Rossi front, my best guess is that you still think that there's a reasonable possibility that he has something but for some reason has not transferred it to IH. Is this correct?

P.P.S. In the Lugano test, there was a switch to use self-sustained mode (ssm) but the scientists chose not to use this since they were afraid it would affect their calibration. Presumably, IH could have easily repeated the test with self-sustained mode implemented. Have they done this?

P.P.P.S. Also, Rossi has frequently talked about a "cat" and "mouse" configuration in which the "mouse" stimulates and/or drives the "cat". Has Rossi transferred this part of the IP (even if it doesn't work) to IH?

Jed Rothwell: "If I.H. conducted tests, I suppose their tests also failed to show excess heat, but I wouldn't know. I am speculating based on the I.H. press release and motion to dismiss."

But you're sure that the E-cat does not work.

But you're only speculating.

But everyone else should wait before speculating.

But you can speculate (even claiming your speculations as fact) even though now you claim that you "wouldn't know" if the IH tests showed excess heat. I'm talking about the 24-hour test, which was specified in the contract, and required to show COP > 6 before IH paid Rossi the $10M! As I already argued, if this test failed, then why did IH pay Rossi the $10M?

Do you know whether or not it failed? If not, then why do you claim that you're sure that the E-cat hasn't passed any tests?

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from quizzical: “I'm waiting for the results of the ERV report before I can judge whether or not the one-year test was successful.”
That's a good idea. Plus, you should wait to see I.H.'s analysis. I strongly recommend you first hear from both…

Jed Rothwell: "That's a good idea. Plus, you should wait to see I.H.'s analysis. I strongly recommend you first hear from both parties in a dispute before making up your mind which is right. That's what they teach in first grade."

Apparently, that is NOT what you have done!

You announced that the E-cat doesn't work (i.e. you "made up your mind") but as far as I can tell, since you haven't seen the ERV report and Rossi's other evidence, you haven't first heard from both parties!

And yet you're preaching to me and others - who haven't BTW said that we DID make up our minds (only you have apparently) that we're below "first-grade" level?

This seems like a huge inconsistency on your part. What am I missing?

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from quizzical: “IH already conducted in-house tests to verify that it worked, and then paid Rossi $11.5 M based on these tests. Is IH so incompetent they couldn't do this properly?”

I.H. did not conduct these tests. They were conducted by…

Jed Rothwell: "He has had many years to prove his point. He did a test for a whole year that showed no excess heat. How much time and money do you want to give him?"

I'm waiting for the results of the ERV report before I can judge whether or not the one-year test was successful. BTW, as I understand it, the way the contract is written and judging by IH's actions and recent statements, IH knew beforehand and now also claims that they do not have to pay the $89.5 M to keep the IP, whether or not the 1-year test was conducted, and even if it was successful.

P.S. Are you telling me that IH did NOT conduct a 24-hour validation test to demonstrate a COP > 6, using an expert ERV chosen by mutual agreement between IH and Leonardo, as prescribed in Sec. 4 of the contract, before giving Rossi the additional $10 M specified in the contract? This is the test I am referring to. Are you claiming that this test also failed, but IH went ahead anyway and paid Rossi $10M?

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from Walker: “Now IH have lost E-Cat License and IP, who will manufacture E-Cats in the US?

There is talk of ABB.”

No one will manufacture E-cats. They don't work. The one-year test proved they produce no excess heat. Why would anyone want to…

Jed,
In my opinion, without the accompanying detailed test information for the one-year test, this statement of yours is pure propaganda. IH already conducted in-house tests to verify that it worked, and then paid Rossi $11.5 M based on these tests. Is IH so incompetent they couldn't do this properly? The purpose of the one-year test was NOT to verify that the E-cat cold generate excess heat, since that could be verified and presumably was already verified by IH by testing one unit or E-cat over a much shorter period of time, before the $11.5 M payment to Rossi. The purpose of the one-year test was to study the reliability (and time between refueling) over a longer period of time and over a larger number of units, as the next step towards commercialization. I might add that there is evidence that some of the previous Rossi tests (Levi, Lewan, Ferarro etc.) did provide COP greater than 1, while some of the other tests were - as you have stated yourself - inconclusive. Given that that is the case, and we haven't even seen the ERV report (have you seen it?) I don't understand how you can state flatly that "They [E-cats] don't work".
One other thing. Why the haste in dismissing Rossi? Why do you find it so necessary to explain to us that we are wrong, if we think that there is a possibility that Rossi's technology does work? Are you trying to protect "replicators" from wasting their time, or are you just trying to convince many of us "observers" that it doesn't work. Why? Do you feel the same way about Piantelli's work? Do you feel the same way about Mizuno's more recent work? As an observer, my attitude is wait and see....

P.S. Are you claiming that Rossi is lying when he stated to Mats Lewan that the steam in the 1-year test was superheated?