Posts by THHuxleynew

    Ehh? What? Are you not listening? I was talking about Rossi valueing the ECAT IP - as defined in the license agreement with IH (including infinite derivatives). Did you bother to read it or am I maybe arguing with the outskirts of some random AI? Do you grok §13.4 of the license agreement? What does it mean to you, for example regarding (a hyphotetical) ECatSK?

    I'm not quite sure what has got you riled.

    Also not sure how you equate non-working Rossi tubes with IP? Infinite derivatibves of a non-working device are not helpful.

    IH bought what they thought was an industrial-scale working device. Read the specs and the (bogus, but well advertised) demo performance.

    Had it worked they could have raised > $100M, paid Rossi off, and gone on to disrupt industry.

    It did not work.

    To square it working with facts you have to assume IH real idiots, and Rossi a real idiot (he abandoned those v stable and simple and robust devices for something more complex, less powerful, though since it also shows no sign of working I guess one is as good as another. Not according to your fantasies however.

    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.

    He did not - he fought so hard to get his $100M. When it was clear that would not happen (or at least the risks of being convicted of perjury balanced that) he gave up.

    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'm sorry, this is weird. You were talking about value. that equals eitehr patents or some valuable industrial secret. The latter could only be those e-cats IH was playing with, none of which worked, or the Doral e-cats (different) which equally did not work.

    In addition to Darden's sworn testimony and physical evidence as documented in Discovery, we have the unanswerable fact that in the time since he reclaimed this IP Rossi has ditched it.

    I'd be happy for you to contradict this by showing some activity related to Rossi's old and rusty devices?

    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...

    [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.

    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?

    Rossi gave IH what IH thought was convincing evidence his devices worked - their whole business plan was based on that. They paid $10M+ to get these devices.

    The devices did not work. But. measured in the Rossi approved manner, they did work (even dummy ones) because of a now known measurement error that generated false positive results.

    There is direct evidence (damning) from Court depositions and indirect evidence (Rossi now has control back over these devices, has done nothing with them, even stating that they will not be used.

    IH lost a lot of money.

    Most people would call that a con, unless Rossi himself was so careless as not to know himself whether his devices worked. Your choice.

    OK, so at worst this device is a small electric heater. Why on earth should anyone other than ECW guys (who have some weird ideas) say it is impossible to power a Stirling cycle from such?

    ***An excellent question. Perhaps you could extend that question to the detractors of Dr. (Swartz). Because that is exactly what they said. So.... when he DID power a Stirling cycle engine from his Phusor/Nanor precursor, the detractors then downshifted into claiming that he's a fraud... Are you claiming that Dr. (Swartz) is a fraud?

    Link please. context is all.

    It would generate the same bifurcation of possibilities that happened when Dr. Hagelstein hooked up his PHUSOR device to a Stirling Cycle Motor over several months. Basically, the criticism was that since it was impossible, he must be a crook.…at-mit-the-nanor-emerges/

    OK, so at worst this device is a small electric heater. Why on earth should anyone other than ECW guys (who have some weird ideas) say it is impossible to power a Stirling cycle from such?

    What one should notice is that Rossi has never demonstrated work being done with his steam.

    He supposedly makes all this steam, then vents it or chills it somehow to the atmosphere, but never shows it doing anything substantial.

    Just to note the obvious:

    To give him credit: it does seem to generate a lot of hot air.

    Thanks for the warning. Note that since I'm interspersing my comments inside of the others, what you are perceiving as a lack of substance is actually a lack of ORIGINAL:substance from the person I'm responding to.

    Y'all seem to have trouble identifying what an insult is because your insults have been unanswered for so long that you started to think certain stuff didn't stink.

    KevMo - everything that could be said has been said here. We all paid attention. You did not.

    There ARE facts still posted here, when one of us feels particularly at a loose end and thinks something is worth repeating. You do not answer them.

    The point you have also not answered, from me, is that your posts are contentless. You insult others (hence my insult, in reply, nicely highlighted). You claim to have found faults in others argument. Since this is the internet you are right, there is quite a bit of vacuous or faulty argument. But there is also (unusually) quite a bit of sound argument. Which you avoid and do not answer.

    For example: the key public evidence that Rossi's device could not have worked comes from the thing Rossi never thought about. WHERE DID THE HEAT GO?

    If you have 1MW you need to put it somewhere. Rossi always claimed this went to the "customer" and given the external dimensions of the "customer" box and its sealed nature many here pointed out that was not possible. There was some absurd speculation on ECW about an endothermic reaction that would absorb 1MW 24/7. Now, after discovery, we know that said customer was Rossi himself at most doing a few low power small scale experiments.

    In answer to this, Rossi invented the heat exchanger. Why invented? Because he unwisely specified precisely how it was constructed. There seems no evidence it was so constructed, and plenty that no heat exchanger existed. But that is arguable, Rossi has removed (or claims to have removed) all evidence.

    What is NOT arguable is that such a heat exchanger could not work without ginormous fans that would be noticed because they take more power than the whole e-cat system. That comes from crucnhing the well known and solid heat exchnager equations which I did (though the IH experts did not do). It was all discussed here (with spreadsheets) ages ago.

    Doing that properly is a bit of work at High school Physics level. You could instead note that Rossi's "expert" was manifestly wrong in his calculations. He uses an urban myth "constant" that no good textbook will contain because the relevant value varies enormously with wind speed. And it is a give-away that his reference to this constant (not written properly as his other references) is an italian website and in fact incorrect. It does not have that constant. I looked it up. Again, all posted here and discussed at the time. This website was Italian only. Now, why would a non-Italian expert reference an Italian website that does not actually contain the constant he claims, and which is central to his conclusions?

    EDIT - PS - why do truck radiators (easily able to dissipate 1MW) have a lattice of small diameter tubing? Because heat exchangers are much more efficient like that. Rossi's homebrew heat exchanger, if it ever existed, was made out of large section (200mm? I forget now) tubing. As such it requires much more power, and higher air speed. No-one real makes heat exchangers out of large-diameter tubing for that reason. Rossi, however, is not real.

    I'd be Ok with KevMo if he actually said anything that i could comment on. But he fills these hundreds of posts with stuff that is strong opinion and nothing else, and then insults anyone who counters this with facts. Weird.

    >>>>> warning ad hom coming up >>>>>>>>

    Maybe he was a bully at school?

    <<<<< end of ad hom <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    So why is it my job to "engage over what happened to the heat" when I am saying the missing heat exchanger is a real issue? I think I have it figured out. Basically, Dewey just thinks of whatever negative and insulting he can say and get away with it while hiding behind the skirts of moderators, and throws it out there. He is deliberately polluting the thread.

    You are correct in that the missing heat exchanger is a real issue.

    It is your job to address this because you are the one here claiming you think there is some positive evidence for Rossi's claims in spite of the many negatives. If you admit Doral is another negative, we can move on. Otherwise the missing heat exchanger is an issue. Unless you can show a viable way that 1MW can have been dissipated Rossi is lying about the output of his e-cats, as is the Penon report.

    • Rossi's (non-Italian-speaking) expert gave the wrong reference for a critical constant used to claim the stated heat exchange would work. It was from an Italian-only website of data values. And that website did not have the relevant constant (it had an entirely different one).
    • That constant was an informal web urban myth "guestimate" for a quantity varying with parameters. Accurate calculation for the relevant parameters in Rossi's claimed design from standard heat exchanger equations gives a very different number
    • The fans needed to make ANY heat exchanger using the type of tube Rossi claimed - and that is about the one solid fact - if you believe Rossi - dissipate 1MW would use more power than the e-cats and be very noisy - needing wind speeds of > 70MPH
    • Rossi claims to have repurposed the heat exchanger parts so that they are no longer available. There is no evidence of such a heat exchanger, nor did Rossi ever mention it until asked to justify where his 1MW went, Rossi's claimed design cannot have worked.

    You can guess it is a real issue when the number of Rossi obvious lies / circumlocutions as here gets larger.


    Re Mills before 2103 designs. They did not use plasma at all. One with an electrolytic cell, the other a solid state cell. neither was gaseous plasma state or anything like it.

    There has been a steady move from easier to do calorimetry on systems to more difficult ones where the claims rely on assumptions that may not be true.

    • The electrolytic cell has high peak in/out powers with a very small average value relative to the peaks, claimed positive but easy to mis-measure
    • The Suncell has input and output power both very unclear, due to the dynamic and spiky nature of both, and the fact that output is not all thermalised and used with conventional calorimetry. Both can be corrected, with some effort, and were both corrected and black-box style testing done by non-believers Mills would get all sorts of things, like masses of money, perhaps Nobel prize, etc etc.

    And still the laughable Rossi videos since Doral are ignored.

    And yet these are the epitome of Rossi’s technology...

    Indeed. Rossi's genius, which seems completely to have bamboozled IHFB, is to turn "one specific potential error did not happen" into "my stuff works.

    It is identical to a stage magician, who taps the sides of a box to show they are absolutely solid - while misdirecting so that you do not think of the trap-door in the floor.

    All it needs is charisma, self-belief, and an understanding of what will motivate your marks. Rossi has all three in spades.

    In the case of IHFB and many others Rossi wins by playing: "big bad capitalists out to get me" together with "I can save the world and help children with cancer" and "I'm a practical inventor ignored by almost all the science establishment (except those plucky swedes / my pal Levi".

    These three cards, together, have served him well in the past and seem still to be working. Concentrate on them (watch my eyes, not my hands...) and you can ignore:

    • Laughably bad latest demo (cue conspiracy theory for why Rossi wants to look daft, or more plausible "discourage marks with any sense who will not ante up" strategy)
    • Appalling QX demos where the input power was never measured
    • Doral plant replumbed by Rossi in some unknown fashion so it is not even the (not great) test origially agreed. Sure, blame IH for being neglectful, here - they though naively that either Rossi's stuff worked, in which they would pay him, or it did not, in which case he could not possibly claim that it did...
    • Doral technology, developed apparently to long test working 1MW plant level, IP returned to Rossi, abandoned without trace


    In a thick plasma by definition the inner radiation is in thermal equilibrium with the ions, which themselves are in thermal equilibrium. There is relatively very little radiation from the outer edge, so the radiative characteristics are the same as for a black body. That is borne out by what you say, which is the power calculation equation is the same.

    The way to look at it is that you get direct (non-thermalised, non BB spectrum) radiation from the electrically pumped electron transitions in the ions. Then you get thermalised (BB) radiation from the non-pumped transitions. Nearly all the non-BB radiation gets absorbed and re-emitted as BB in a thick plasma. The radiation is not quite exactly BB since the plasma itself is not in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, but good enough.

    At least that is my understanding, and it shows why for example the sun radiates as a near black body.


    Absolutely - in fact it has been said before here. If Rossi's plasma were optically opaque at all frequencies then it could be treated (from the outside) as a black body and Rossi's calculations make sense. But it looks like, and behaves like, an electric discharge system, as used to drive the fluorescence in CFLs, and that is not in thermal equilibrium and very very different. We cannot actually determine which it is, since that (surprise, surprise) depends on details like the internal bulb operating pressure and composition that we do not know. I doubt there is enough evidence from the demos even to guess this, but someone more expert and/or with more energy than me might try.