Posts by STDM

Quote from Eric Walker

Indeed — there was no calibration run through the operating temperature range. I never tire from hearing this general point repeated whenever the Lugano test is brought up. Another bottom line (apparent on the day the report was released): don't trust a byzantine calculation of radiative power using a fourth-degree polynomial (the Stefan–Boltzmann law) without a good cross check (e.g., several thermocouples).

So for you to accept a critique as true, it doesn't need to be validated by a person with professional and practical knowledge? We have till this day no validation, no one here takes the time to seek advice from professionals. The basis of the critique at this moment is some copying-and-pasting of quotes out of manuels without understanding the practical context.

Maybe we can all donate to the MFMP to get them a certification in how to use an Optris IR thermographic camera?

So maybe then after a few years their comments on the Lugano test does have some crediblity.

Reading the comments(and the update) of Rainer Rander made MFMP look like real amateurs.

Quote from DNI

To my knowledge none of the authors of the Lugano Report where known expert in infrared thermographic calorimetry. Does this mean that their findings doesn't matter?

One can assume that at least one member has the right experience. I see their claims and their names. What I don't see, is someone with practical and professional experience who critiques the report. You know why that it is? Because there is nothing to debunk.

That just shows that alot of people here don't really care about the truth. It's all about endless trolling. Most sceptics here can't even explain how the Rossi scam just works. There is only one scenario that makes sense and that it just works.

Quote from Alan Smith

The only way to get sworn testimony from Professor Focardi is to hold a seance. Possible, but unlikely.

The fading health of Forcardi was the reason why Rossi made his invention public in the first place btw.

Quote from Shane D.

Sifferkoll,

Hydrofusion could end some, or all, of this madness right now if they simply sold one of their 1MWs to a real customer. Or at the least, make a public statement of support for Rossi and the Ecat technology they are licensed to sell. Maybe…

Are you joking? Do you really think that anything will convince the sceptics here? After 10 million of IH, 50 million of WF, Lugano report, ERV report of Penon, testimonies of Fabiani, Focardi....

Quote from THHuxley

Here is an expert review of Lugano, one of several Abd is aware of. That is, it is substantive, it is expertly written, and has conclusions that have withstood very considerable critiques, unlike the original report.

It is also very well known by everyone here so I don't understand the point of your question.

TC is a self described expert, he is not an known expert in infrared thermographic calorimetry. It's strange that he asked for an answer while he doesn't have any professional or practical experience. He could always send an email to his colleagues at ICL to check out his findings. But then he could embarrass himself for making basic mistakes.

If you don't have the right scientific qualifications, your findings doesn't matter.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

I have blocked STDM because ... he is either a troll or so ignorant and obsessed that he might as well be one. But I do sometimes look at posts of blocked users, now that I know it's one-button. In this case, I decided to answer this "logic" issue, with fact.

IH did not "make" Penon the ERV for the Validation test. They accepted Penon at Rossi's insistence, and, from their account, Rossi refused to allow independent experts to observe, saying it would "cause big trouble" for him. They accepted that (they could have refused to accept Penon, and an impasse could have been created. My model for their behavior has it that they had already decided to go ahead, period.)

That they accepted the test does not show lack of doubt. This is a "logic" that makes far too many assumptions about how people on the level of Darden and Vaughn operate. They are very much not "ordinary."

It is understandable, though, that one would think that the placing of $10 million in escrow for transfer to Rossi was an acceptance; thinking that acceptance indicates the absence of doubt, though, is completely failing to understand how venture capitalists work. They allow doubt, and make choices based on assessed probabilities and potential benefits. If the Rossi technology is real, the license they bought could be worth a trillion dollars. If there is an 0.1% chance that the Rossi Effect is real, that makes it worth $1 billion. $11.5 million is a sound bet, if you can afford to lose the $11.5 million, and they could handle that, and were fully prepared for it.

However, as to the "second test," they deny having "made" Penon the "ERV," and so assuming this as part of an argument about my "logic" is crazy.

My assessment is that IH never consented to the GPT, that the impression that they did is all based on "Rossi says." There is no evidence in the case, Rossi v. Darden, that they accepted the Doral installation as a GPT. I find it extraordinarily likely that there was no signed, written agreement, as expressly required by the Second Amendment, and no act establishing estoppel (a defacto consent to what they knew was a GPT).

All this has been explained and described and supported with evidence, many times, and that STDM continues to assert what, if he were paying attention, he would know is either wrong or at least contested, shows why I have blocked him. It gets old very fast. I find it hilarious that an anonymous troll calls a known person, writing under his real name -- the same as Jed Rothwell -- a troll!

Display More

You blocked me because I asked you to show me an expert review of Lugano, and you couldn't say that there are none available. That would be a painfull concession for you. Sorry again for hurting your feelings.

By paying the amount they accepted Penon as the ERV. It's not that difficult. Read the first amendment of the contract.

So they made a bet to become a billion dollar company, So when WF invested 50 million dollar in IH to get 5% of the shares, does that confirm that they made the right bet?

I didn't see that email where Tom Darden stated to Rossi that the 1 year long test is not the GPT. You?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Quote from STDM: “Didn't they pay the 10million?”

That was after Validation in Ferrara, and has almost nothing to do with Florida. It's not like Penon was hired as ERV for life. Note that he is present in the background of many tests, for many…

You miss the point, IH had already experience with Penon(see point 57 below). He made the evaluation test report. If his report didn't match the findings of IH. Why would IH make Penon the ERV?(both Rossi & IH had a say in it)

"57. The Validation testing occurred from April 30 through May 1, 2013. The testing
lasted for slightly less than the 24-hour period required by the Validation Protocol and included
only 18 E-Cat reactors. On or about May 7, 2013, Penon issued his Evaluation Test Report on
the Validation test (the “Evaluation Report”). According to the Evaluation Report, the 18
individual E-Cat reactors tested over the course of the 23 1/2 hour period produced a COP of 10.85."

Quote from Paradigmnoia

<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1706-STDM/">@STDM</a>,
IH denies there was a GPT
IH denies there was an ERV for a test in Florida, or that Penon was the ERV in Florida.
Even Rossi does not state that Penon was the ERV for Florida in his lawsuit. He only says that Penon was the ERV for the Validation.

Didn't they pay the 10million?

Quote from JedRothwell

Quote from STDM: “If they had doubts about the first test, you think they would hire him for the second?”
Did they have doubts about the first test? I did not know that. Where did you hear it?

Did they hire Penon? I have not heard that. Rossi hired…

so Jed, you confirm that the e-cat produces excess heat?

A few tips for some new posters here

Don't engage with trolls(Jed, Abd, ...), they don't react to logic.

Example of logic:

For the first payment(10million) of the contract Penon was the ERV. IH made Penon AGAIN the ERV for the second test of 89 millions. Which shows that they didn't doubt the first test. If they had doubts about the first test, you think they would hire him for the second?

Quote from THHuxley

That is the definition of religion, not science.

There is by definition more than one interpretation of anomalous data, and skilled experimentalists know it.

Of course, it is possible that me356 has cast-iron data, such as a switchable and clearly measurable neutron flux, that would validate LENR to a third party with no compromise of trade secrets. In that case the evidence is indisputable, and he would be in line for a Nobel Prize and/or large amounts of money were he willing to submit to such black box testing.

In your world calorimetry is only valid when the COP is 1, your belief is purely religious. There is no doubt that LENR+ is real. Lugano proofs it, after 2 years no expert has come forward to validate the calculation errors stated here by some people (with no professional or practical experience - VERY IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER).
The answer of IH, which didn't specify any critique was the final nail in the coffin of the sceptics here.

Just accept science! Stop believing in things that aren't true

Quote from Eric Walker

I feel that if the Rossi thing has taught us anything, independent of whether Rossi ever had something that worked, it's to require real evidence before spending a lot of time devoting attention to someone's claims. I hope that that affair will have provided a small inoculation against the kind of gold rush mentality we've seen in the past. That does not mean that LENR cannot also be investigated in a more casual, inspiration-based Edisonian approach by engineers who prefer to do things in this way. But let's also not get caught up in chains of assumptions that, when you take a moment to look at each one, go back to or are derived from claims made by someone unwilling to provide any evidence to support them. In this context, a statement like "me356 said that he's using such and such" would not provide the basis for extended discussion. It would just be noted.

If people have trade secrets to protect, let them protect them. They should remain on the down-low, then, like Bay area startups in stealth mode. This is, thankfully, what me356 seems to be doing now, so my intention is not to criticize him.

Wrong, Rossi has shown us that LENR+ is possible(Lugano). Now 5 years later we have the first credible experimentalist(see his contributions on this forum + bob greenyer knows him personally) who claims to understand his proces and can improve from that. That's a very significant claim. He's an expert experimentalist which means there only 2 options he is lying or he's telling the truth. It will be Interesting to see where he goes from here.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

STDM:
I suggest you test the &quot;proof&quot; and statements. That is science.
Both Jack and I have tested various aspects of the stories, and have not been able to substantiate them.

Sometimes the negative propaganda is actually true.
I'm not saying that the…

But the problem is that you and Jack don't have any authority, which means you can say whatever you like and be totally wrong but it will have no consequences. So it's doesn't mean anything. If the Lugano testers made a fundamental basic error, it will haunt them for the rest of their careers. They have actually something to lose. It's like TC who wanted to get a comment from Levi about his paper and then got mad when someone posted his CV. He could have sended his paper to his colleagues at ICL to verify his findings but then he could embarrass himself and his reputation. That's why it matters.

Rossi's reactor works, Lugano proofs it. If you don't like that fact, find an expert who disagrees.

An actual Nasa engineer with practical & professional knowledge(and experience with alumina) confirms that it's done by the book.

IH mentions the report but doesn't add any critiques, there is your proof that the report is still standing.

I thought this is a science forum, not a propaganda outlet where I can read Rossi is a fraud 1000x a day without real proof. And then after a few years reading the same lies over & over , you have certain open minded people who really starting to believe he is fraud without actual evidence.

In McKubre's own review he states:

"The mode of calorimetry employed to measure the output power and by integration energy, is one with which I have little direct hands-on experience."

Again, find me an expert.

Jed,

Can you stop saying that Lugano is debunked? There is no evidence to suggest so. No expert to date has validated the critiques made here by people(with no professional or practical knowledge) on this forum.
As long as this not is the case, can you stop repeating your statement without facts to back it up.

Do you remember your own words?

"An expert reviewed and approves of this configuration

Brian Ahern just called me to say that he spoke with expert in thermal imaging. The expert went over the paper and said this was exactly the right kind of camera for these materials and this range of temperatures. The guy said surface roughness and various other factors come into play. He knows something about alumina and he said these are the instruments and wavelengths he would select.

Brian said his own doubts have been resolved.

Normally I would have jotted down more details, such as the expert's name, but I didn't because Brian promised to send me a note with the particulars. It occurs to me he is not a good correspondent. He is a busy bee. If he does not send me the info I'll call him back and get it.

This expert does things like measure the temperature of rocket plumes. I told Brian I have heard of people using IR cameras for volcanoes. They are good for uncontrolled, high temperature phenomena.

Details to follow.

Brian is a good egg.

Jed"

@Abd
In McKubre's own review he states:
"The mode of calorimetry employed to measure the output power and by integration energy, is one with which I have little direct hands-on experience."

Again, find me an expert.

If you think Rossi is all one big fraud, explain me the following:
Why didn't IH cancel the licence if it's all one big fraud?
How did they raise 50 million of WF?
How many employees are working at the moment for IH? And what are their activities?

IH needs to debunk the Lugano report. As long as it stands the e-cat works as advertised. We know that dewey was working to find errors in the report, they couldn't find any big ones, else they would have added it in their answer.

As it stands now, the proof is there that the e-cat works. If you disagree find me an expert with actual professional and practical expertise who disputes the report.

@Bob
Can you explain me how IH can ever win this courtcase? Instead of going to the police for fraud they accepted investments of 50 million of WF. Very credible

Jed

The Lugano report is not debunked, the answer of IH didn't contain any specific critiques. Which means they can't find big errors. IH has to debunk the Lugano report. They can’t claim that Rossi is a fraud and have a credible test by 3 universities of his reactor with a COP 3.