Posts by THHuxleynew

Peter:

Quote

One who writes lies, slander, libel, uses aliases to try and control narrative, uses puppets to demean others and perpetual partial truths, dupes and plys journalist, bloggers, scientist with lies, etc...etc...etc....

Which bit of this do you feel is so false? Perhaps if you state I could say why either it is clearly documented (for some bits) or why somone here might reasonably surmise it is true (for other bits).

Quote

They cannot possibly accept that the other side could be telling the truth.

This is about IH supporters, masters of insulting.

In these matters either IH is lying, or Rossi is (or possibly, if you want logical completeness, both). Given what Rossi has done there is no win-win. So the idea that nicer IH supporters would accept all Rossi says as true is ridiculous.

Quote

143 makes it clear he is not just an aggrieved investor, but a paid operator, and thus posts with the full authority and support of IH, Jones Day and Apco. Appendix B (IH/DRV contract) is a bit weak on non-disclosure, but section R indicates that company approval is required for "dissemination" of company information.

I'm afraid Alan it does not. Quite apart from the inherent implausibility - you seem to be following many here and thinking that Rossi's allegations are truth? What evidence, other than a RossiSays, do you have? And what company information has Dewey disclosed? (He has been quite careful, to my knowledge).

You are demonstrating what I said: and why it is necessary in a boring repetitive way to point out Rossi's known lies.

Quote from interested observer

Again with the paid poster idiocy? Could somebody explain to me why anyone would spend money to have posts made on a fringe website impugning the character of either a free-energy scammer or a shell company that invests in cold fusion? What is the payoff and to whom? Do people think that this childish infighting will affect a multimillion-dollar lawsuit in any fashion? Will it affect the course of science? Do people here actually think that the petty squabbles on this website are important to anyone but those who hang out here? That strikes me as delusions of grandeur.

Sad though it is, the answer for many here would appear to be yes.

Well, Rossi alleging that Dewey is paid by IH to assassinate his reputation is understandable - though if so I'm pretty sure Dewey could find more profitable assignments and IH could find more effective assassins. So like many RossiSays it has blog plausibility but looks flaky when closely examined.

I prefer Dewey's story that he is here unpaid to defend his friends against the monstrous allegations of a known liar whose cause is nevertheless championed by many here. Either way I don't think Deweys' posts win any hearts and minds - but they are good fun!

Quote

group identification - for them the attacks of Rossi are sort of vicarious bullying

Not sure what you count as an attack. I find it necessary to remind posters often that Rossi lies, and that he is incompetent technically, because they keep on taking rossisays about technical matters as somehow liklely to be true.

I am happy to substantiate the two statements made here but it would be tediously repetitive. On the other hand - the way that some accuse a blameless (as far as I know) and avowedly philanthropic company of evil acts based only on the words of Rossi is tediously repetitive.

Quote from StephenC

Umm has any one calculated just how much water would flow per day if a DN80 gravity return pipe with even a very slight slope was half full across its diameter under continuous flow?

Half full is not a scientific assessment. I'm not sure what Jed means when he says this other than "not empty and not 100% full". For a 15% full pipe you get a speed of (approx) 25cm/s, and so on. With a gradient you will get faster flow at the bottom, up to a speed limited by turbulence, and therefore a less full pipe at the bottom. If you imagine poring 500g/s into your pipe you can see what I mean.

Dear Peter,

I'm afraid private discussion would be difficult because I value my anonymity, and therefore would disclose private details only to those I could trust to preserve it.

Peter:

Quote from Peter Gluck

Dear THH,

Let's use a professional, systematic approach- it helps me too.

Make take the list of technical issues you disagree with me so we can discuss methodically.

Possibly step by step, problem by problem.

I am just in the middle of my news, papers hunting activity for my blog.

Thanks,

Peter

Display More

(1) I had worked many times with f-meters and I am not able to see how can it e spoofed this way and if it is in a half full pipe how gives it regular constant readings. See post #1945 for my answer

(2) you argue that the Rossi test setup (even as disclosed in the Penon diagram and test methodology, or the "report" now disclosed) is adequately instrumented to demonstrate excess heat

(3) you argue that Rossi and/or Penon is technically trustworthy. I put as evidence against that Rossi's known severe errors, and the released (by Rossi) Penon report from 2013 (I think) in which he did not provide any information about the meters used to measure input voltage and current. That fails Testing 101. (We could follow these things up if you disagree. the technical details are fascinating).

I'm happy to deal with (1) first.

Quote from ele

Yes. Is a pseudo scientific writing full of errors. More similar to a Sci-Fi story but much less amazing.

An artifact to diffuse FUD.

That is a strong statement. Would you care to justify it, by detailing an error, and sticking to the point while we show you why you are wrong (as has happened in the past on this forum)?

Quote

B. Setup according to Jed
FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system.
Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.
BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper.
Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?

Peter: I have disagreed with all your other arguments : and I notice you have not answered. However, this is an argument from you that no-one here has yet addressed. In the case that the flowmeter is wrongly positioned, and therefore in a pipe half-full of water, you might expect readings to be erratic. That would make achieving the apparently constant flow shown in the data difficult.

This argument has merit, in that it is not obviously wrong.

But nor is it obviously right.

• The given flowmeter readings are in 1000kg units! So there is no "jumping about" possible. And to achieve the miraculous constant flow noted all that is needed is to get within 500kg of the desired answer, once per day.
• Rossi seems to have spent most of his time in the box, with the system controls, for reasons that remain obscure. So he could quite easily have been adjusting flowrate manually as needed to get the once per day checkpoint come out OK. (Someone will correct me if we have data on resolution better than one sample per day - I don't think so). And such correction does not even require Rossi to be deliberately spoofing the test. He can claim he is just keeping it running correctly.
• The complex control system Rossi boasts about could easily be modified to keep flowrates constant. Trivial bang/bang negative feedback. In fact that would be a reasonable thing to do for anyone not thinking had about error mechanisms and such issues.

Suppose however that the flowmeter was accurate. In that case there is still the possibility that either the inlet or out;let claimed temperatures are wrong. We know nothing of the outlet TC siting, and if flow there is unmixed with water + gas it could easily be totally wrong. We know nothing of inlet TC siting except that it is claimed to be in a tank. That is fine if the tank water is well mixed with the inlet water stream, and useless if not.

You are arguing that this data leaves no room for the results to be, as Jed claims, null. So that this proposition is absurd. You have not achieved that. In fact there is lots of room, as well as a whole non-existent customer worth of circumstantial evidence and lies from Rossi.

This is a slightly artificial conversation. Jed claims (and it seems pretty likely) to have additional information he is not allowed to disclose that would help elucidate these matters. We get bits of this from Jed's comments, but we cannot weigh them properly because of what he cannot disclose. it is a shame but entirely understandable. Jed must be sorely tempted to release more than he is allowed to, but I am confident he will not do that, nor should anyone ask him to do so. IHFB seems to think that Jed should behave with superhuman resolve and give no information in absence of complete disclosure. That is silly. It would no doubt be the politic thing to do. But Jed is no politician.

Regards, THH

Quote

In my very first working day Ju;ly 31 1959 at the artificial fibres factory I ahave worked with two flowmeter one for air and the other for nitrogen and the iar f exploded just whe i was at the other. I had worked many times with f-meters and I am not able to see how can it e spoofed this way and if it is in a half full pipe how gives it regular constant readings.

What is too much is too much.

Peter,

I don't think anyone is getting angry at your claim that Jed is lying. It is just we strongly don't agree with you. And we strongly feel that calling people liars without clear evidence is inflammatory and unhelpful.

In this case my reading is that Jed claims he has clear evidence that the Flowmeter was in the wrong place, and (less clear how definite the evidence) that it was over-reading by approx 4 which neatly fits the data. I have no reason to think Jed is untruthful. WRT the placement he might have made a mistake, though that is unlikely so I'm inclined to think it was misplaced. With a misplaced FM of impellor type in an open system as here it will over-read, as others have stated they know (and it is general knowledge, and obvious). Over-reading by 4 is certainly very possible. I'm not quite sure how strong was Jed's claim about this, nor exactly what evidence he based it on (sorry, I can't remember).

But whether right or wrong about these matters, there is no way he is likely to be lying. Calling him a liar is both unevidenced and very impolite.

Perhaps it would help if I also say that Jed may not be right. He has made quite a number of statements, many of which I judge to be correct. A few I think are likely wrong. But I don't know! So it is my (uncertain) judgement against his. Jed honestly gives his views here - in my judgement. In fact he is one of the more transparently honest posters here, which is why IHFB goes after him because he does not try to be political in what he says, or give the careful answer that will best convince people. I know, out of him and IHFB on this matter, which I prefer.

Quote

Failed or not, it must get published in standard way - or nothing like this did ever happen and the pluralistic ignorance takes place. Work, finish, publish.

I'm aware that mainstream journals avoid the publishing of negative results, but such an ignorant attitude is already the intrinsic part of pluralistic ignorance mechanisms.

In medicine, for example, the publishing of results can often give a skewed overall picture of the data. Results here are typically correlations, and then neither strong nor informative as to cause. Selection mechanisms winnowing down tens of thousands of results can then seriously bias findings (and at the low quality end of the spectrum you get totally random results published as real).

The general criteria is that papers must be interesting, and negative results where a positive is not expected do not count as this. After all, if they did, generating new interesting publishable data would be trivial. Just test anything expected to be false and obtain the expected result.

Quote

It is very difficult with the methods used by Swartz. But with a microcalorimeter it should be easy. Microcalorimeters take some expertise to use, and they are expensive, but they can easily measure much smaller power levels. Bob Duncan made one to measure the effect of a single cosmic ray whacking into a space based detector. These people are making one too:

Thanks Jed. Yes I expect such could be used, with care. Though I have not studied how to do this and would not like to be confident that this would be easy until I had. Anyway it seems that the barriers to testing Schwartz's device are set quite high. A shame, if it worked, since clear evidence of such large qtys of excess heat (over input power, and integrated over many days) as Schwartz claims would make scientific headlines.

I find myself sort of in the middle over this matter. Although I'm clear about Rossi, the matter of how to evaluate all this evidence is logically separate from that.

Quote

You are correct, all of the "data" has been compromised, so the last 6+ years boil down to this:

Do you believe that Andrea Rossi has developed a product, (Ecat), that produces Energy Out > Energy In.

So first: I agree, Rossi has been noted many times to mislead and a few times (known) to overtly lie. Therefore data (as this) where there is no clear independence in its generation is compromised. In this case neither the setup, nor the nominal report writer, nor the authentication of the report we now have by the nominal report writer, is independent of Rossi. So: compromised data.

But, nevertheless, it is interesting to chase down lacunae in the data and to try to determine the truth. Just because the data is compromised does not mean it is overtly incorrect: though obviously it does not preclude that. Perhaps as pro-IH PR all this interest in the data is bad news. But I'm not very PR oriented, and myself much more interested in the truth.

Quote

What do you think why the IH supporters here do not want the diagram shown as they do not wanted the ERV report shown? Why they like info-chaos?

I have no idea whether IH supporters here want the piping diagram shown. I'd imagine, if you mean Jed who I expect is the only one who might possibly have access to it, that he is morally and/or legally obliged to treat any such information as confidential. Reason enough for an honourable person. Perhaps you ask: why does IH not allow all data it has relating to the test to be disclosed now? Well, my guess is that they are doing what their lawyers tell them is the best thing to win their case. They are so duty bound. And no sensible person is going to blurt out in public all the details of their case against another before they have to do so. From the outside, their case seems pretty strong. But law courts are funny things, and a lot of money is being demanded by Rossi. Therefore you do absolutely everything to make sure that your case is as strong as possible. Don't you?

There are a few points here:

• IH may well not mind too much if this piping diagram gets published, I don't know.
• How do we know that the actual position of the flowmeter on a piping diagram corresponds to where it now is? You'd need the real diagram derived from the equipment which I hope is in a locked container and available as evidence. Does anyone know whether that is the case?
• Whether IH have this piping diagram or not, Rossi presumably knows the pipe layout. If it proves him one of the angels (or helps to do that) why does he not publish it? There would in that case be less of a legal imperative to "keep powder dry".
• If the real pump position is good, and the flowmeter good (contrary to what Jed says - and he might be mistaken but in my judgement not in a million ears would he deceive) my other two points remain in play. The compromised data taken at face value does not prove Rossi's contention.

Quote

Who will put a flowmeter above te reservoir, its place is down under after the pump.

This sort of argument based on psychology is not strong. you notice that above I'm simply pointing out that IH could reasonably do a given thing - I'm not saying that psychological insight tells me they could not have done anything else!

But, to speculate as you encourage:

• Someone who is incompetent in the relevant area. Rossi has provable track record in this regard, where Mats caught him mismeasuring his demo by a factor of 2 or 3 on input to give an artificial X2 or X3 uplift in the resulting COP which actually measured 1 when proper (true RMS) meters were used. So in this documented case - an impossible invention - Rossi is either technically out of his depth, not knowing this, or deliberately faking a positive test.
• Someone who just does not care about technical accuracy, and reckons anything that gives a good result is fair game. That is not quite the same as overt dishonesty, and fits what we know of Rossi's character where he is more concerned with appearances than reality. (The letter to IH about why this test would be better than a test on IH premisses).
• Somone who deliberately, badly, wanted this test to give a positive result, thinking they would be $89M richer as consequence, and was unscrupulous about how the positive result was achieved.

Since the ERV seems to be out of it now we have no evidence from him that Rossi did not control this layout.

Of course the test result would be positive regardless of this X4 issue. The incorrect (based on current information) assumption of phase change is enough to give a strongly positive result. But Rossi has not shown himself to be entiely rational in this whole matter, and I'm reluctant therefore to try to limit what he might do from arguments about what a rational person would do.

Quote

I do not want/wait the smallest reward from Rossi but I do not like when engineering is humiliated by people who discoveed bad things about Rossi and the plant only when Rossi asked for his money on the basis of a valid contract.

I agree, but don't think it applies in this case.

• We know that IH were concerned about the test long before Rossi asked for his money
• We know that at the start of the test, Rossi was not claiming to IH that it was the GPT, to which money attaches. he had another reason for arguing it would be good to run. So IH's chnage in stance could be related to Rossi's suddenly chnaging the rules of the game
• We can imagine that maybe IH full well knew Rossi might claim this was the GPT, but reckoned either it would work, in which case they'd gladly pay up, or it would fail, in which case Rossi would be an idiot to sue them. The fact that Rossi has been an idiot is no argument he has a strong case.
• We can surely see that IH would have no wish to air doubts in the open on blogs etc unless they actually had to. It is just bad for everyone, and not what business partners do unless they have to. IH has its reputation (as a sound business partner) to protect.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

This consideration is already contained within pluralistic ignorance being subjectivistic. The existence of attempt for replication indeed doesn't imply the conviction about factual existence of effect in question at all.
Such an attempt for replication can be even completely dismissive, i.e. with negative result - but it must be done and published. No attempt means no actual interest about subject.

The actual conviction can come much later. After all, even by now - after 200 years after Darwin - about 60% of USA citizens doubts the evolution and this is even quite correct stance.

You should be never sure and satisfied with any theory or observation, as Popper methodology teaches us. The methodology of science is about falsification, not confirmation of theories.

But the absence of falsification can be replaced in no way in it - and this is just what can be interpreted like the pluralistic ignorance.

We will have to disagree about evolution. And about Popper. If a theory consistently makes non-trivial predictions which are validated it has merit. Modern genetic research has allowed neo-Darwinist evolution to do that, in many areas.

I'm not sure I understand how the rest of your post applies to LENR. And again you leave out the possibility that replication attempts fail because the original result was erroneous.

Zephir. if I follow your argument you are saying that results which are claimed but not published with peer-review provide evidence for pluralistic ignorance. But, surely, that could equally be just that the claims are too weak to pass peer-review? But, in any case, there are very many LENR results that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, so i'm not sure how that applies here.

I'll try to answer your questions Peter.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Dear THH,

You seem to be scientifically- technically educated and knowledgeable so

it is nice to discuss with you

I may hope that you do not swallow absolute crazy things as half full pipes and 40mm diameter steam pipe- it is a well calculated pipe, believe me.

I remain neutral on those issues. If I had to guess I'd say the pipe size was most likely correct. But, given Rossi's previous bad setups, I would not be very surprised if it were wrong. The same with half-full pipe except I think that likelier both on the specific evidence Jed claims (which is stronger) and because it is a less obvious mistake to make.

Quote

Where is your fatal error here: The ERV data ae not invented they are based on recorded, verifiable at the time when obtained INSTRUMENT READINGS and Jed et Co have put the set of logically consistent data in doubt.

He denied the [1500kg/h-103 C steam] data and replaced them with [600 kg/h 103C water] It is the same as going with a policeman in your car, the speedometer shows the legal 80 km/hr but the policeman says actually you went with135 km/hr and you hve to pay a fine. Or your bathroom scale shows 80 km but your wife says you are 140 kg obese guy and divorces (Arthur C Clarke had a saying with honesty and zero on bathroom scale)

The IH people have seen the readings for a long year.

How can you convince a pretty standard flowmeter to read all the time 4 times more kg/h than real?

So the issue here is whether validated readings from a flowmeter could over-read by 4X. That would be very easy if both of:

• It was an impellor-style flowmeter
• It was in a quarter-full pipe (or it was subject to an oscillating flow)

We know that it was an impellor-style flowmeter. Jed claims the second point, and I have no evidence this flowmeter was in a full pipe. Do you have that evidence? If so, it would be great to hear it.

Quote

Then Jed makes he childish blunder to invoke testimony of visitors in the plant who were able to see that the readings are quadrupled he told but only now about more witnesses.

I'm not sure i understand that point.

Quote

About tempeatures- water goes through the ECats- do you know how high was the temperature of the core?

No I do not. but I can say that however high was the temperature of the core it makes no difference to the issue of whether there is water phase change.

Quote

In stationary condition (i.e. input power = output power, temperatures are fixed) and object with low emissivity must have a temperature higher than an object (with same shape) but with hi emissivity in order to emit the same power.

No, that was not agreed unless the object is a black body, or you qualify the comment to make clear that you mean total emissivity and not band emissivity. You agreed this, because at the time you did not seem to realise that spectral emissivity is a characteristic of materials and given non-uniform spectral emissivity you cannot assume band emissivity and total emissivity are the same.

Quote

And BTW convective characteristics (use the write spelling please) can be calculated only if you know the object geometry and temperature AND fluid in which immersed.

Just to be precise.

I always admire precision. And I absolutely agree with you. How is this point relevant to the matter here, when no-one concerned disputes that the relevant gas here is air? You would not be just filling space trying to make sure people scroll past #1639 ASAP, would you?

Quote

If you want to learn something about all that read the Lugano Report ( ) and all the references therein.

I have.

But as always in science you do a forward and backward citation search to get the important stuff. Have you read TC's paper and the references there to other work post-Lugano report?