Posts by THHuxleynew

Quote from monty

So levi was/is part of what you call "planet Rossi"? How big is this construct/conspiracy for u?

Monty - that is uncalled for. Maybe Dewey means that, but it is not needed. Levi is merely (as some scientists are) so attached to his own pet theory and unwilling to look at evidence that he persists in error. Since anyone thinking LENR is likely real reckons 90% of scientists are like this adding Levi to the total should not be a problem?

For famous (and much more celebrated) examples of this you could note Laithwaite, the "father of MagLev". i remember reading his testbooks when at school and finding them inspiring, as did many. He ended up in trouble claiming that gyroscopes proved non-Newtonian forces must exist (anti-gravity - so much more impressive even than MagLev!). He had his own experiments which he thought did this. He was alas a lousy experimental scientist in spite of being a great Machines engineer. Such a shame that he could not recognise his own limitations: but his other work remains inspirational.

Quote from ele

Really so simple ? As far as we know the report circulated among experts before it was published AND is also signed by a number of other Professors and NOT only Levi.

I sincerely don't think that contains trivial errors. To many people has seen it and has to many authors that scrutinized it.

The report is still available at University of Bologna link after years.

Is quite strange also that discussion, on a report with a 3.6 COP, also after that the ERV data has been published with COP>70 !

Is much more easy for me to think that NOW after so much time the only subject who would like to "destroy" the report is IH for his own interest.

Are there any of those experts willing to put their head above the parapet and show how TC's paper is wrong? They way things work is that in science you reference previous work and make your new points showing how this differs from previous stuff, and why your work is an advance. that is exactly whast the TC paper did, and it has convinced every scientist who has read it (except possibly Levi - but from his comments Levi has either not read it, or not understood it).

Maybe TC was wrong. But then it would be easy for anyone to write a proper rebuttal explaining the error, making precise references to previous work including TCs. that has not been done because it is not possible.

You should ask yourself why, if they are correct and TC wrong, there has not been published any correction of TC? Anyone will tell you that in terms of formal quality the TC paper is good, and better than the original report.

As for the UoB report being still available. That is normal, and anyway the report contains valuable data. You don't retract a paper except in extreme circumstances. Luckily there is a published correction (TC's paper) so nothing else needed except for people like you.

Quote from DAK2

Do you have a reference to the "massive over-reading of input power...." comment (i.e. URL link)?

It was at the failed hydrofusion test. Rossi turned up to this with average V & A meters, and proceeded to measure the input power as 3X smaller (or so) than it really was due to the spikiness of the waveform and the average vs rms issue.

You'd need an impossible invention, or abd's summary of the issue here

The Rossi/IH PR game

Looking at the speculation here, on minimal evidence available, what I find fascinating is how this plays out psychologically.

We have partisans looking at this limited evidence trying to find stuff to support our views. IHFB tries to fit everything to a "Rossi's device works" view. Dewey, Jed, me, and many others try to find stuff to prove the device does not work.

Thus. If the pipe is DN40 the case against Rossi is proven. If it is DN80 not so. Important to note that "case against not proven on one point" does not mean "device working is likely true" or even "case against cannot be proven".

In this case we don't know what is the pipe diameter. I'd expect it to be DN80 or above, if Rossi has had any contact with a steam engineer, of if he is using an IH original design (IH would I'd expect use a steam engineer). I can't see Rossi has any reason to change this from DN80 - though I'm willing to think that he might get the pipe sizing completely wrong. I know Rossi is very selective in which technical details he pays attention to - and capable of making enormous errors in things he does not consider. That makes his capacity for generating bad tests pretty well limitless, since he does not in a normal way learn from mistakes. The Exhibit 5 DN40 is interesting. Maybe it is a red herring, and as P suggests part of a manifold. Or maybe Rossi deliberately undersizes this pipe for some reason that we could work out given time and the complete piping diagram - which we have never had. IH, on this matter, would be wise to keep its powder as dry as it can whilst forcing Fabiani et al to participate. IHFB has good evidence the old pipe was correctly sized.

As Dewey says, we will have to wait and see.

Personally, I'm infinitely patient, and like Paradigmnoia I enjoy chewing over these minutiae. I feel a bit guilty doing it. Anyone following the details might get the idea that it was plausible that Rossi had a working system, simply because we have so little information it is difficult to prove he does not. All the attempts to prove this that do not 100% succeed actually provide a PR weapon for Rossi, because people see such a failed attempt as evidence that Rossi's stuff works - which it is not. For me, the lack of information is a challenge and I go on shaking the little scraps we have. I'd like to know how Rossi got those readings. Not because it is particularly difficult to see how it might be done, but because there are many ways, and I'd like to know which one.

Regards, THH

Rossi's system, rather to my surprise, was open, if I remember the schematic. I think that means the pump input side has to be at 1 bar abs. A low pressure condensor is then not possible because the water would have to be at 1 bar abs, unless there is another pump on customer side, which seems a bit elaborate because not needed.

Please correct me if I've got the system schematic wrong.

Another objection. Given the large pressure drop needed to drive steam through DN40 piping the temperature delivered from this would be << 100C. That is weird and not normal. But then Rossi's customer is the same, so perhaps that is not a valid objection. Getting 1MW OUT from a system at such a low temperature is maybe quite a challenge.

You cannot rule out anything without more concrete info. Just for there truly to be 1MW or anything like delivered by this system looks highly unlikely.

Hi Stephen

I keep an open mind about deliberate. Rossi's history of demos is quite something. They have glaring defects, some, like Lugano, really quite astonishing. Who can say whether this is deliberate? I can say it would be in character for Rossi to insist that an obviously wrong setup was in fact perfectly OK and call anyone questioning that a snake.

The way I see it is that Rossi has a very loose grasp of the importance of test integrity. He will apply equations making assumptions (like 100% phase change) that are most obviously wrong.

Quote from StephenC

Hi THH,

I'm curious how you think the water gets into the "steam pipe" ? If I recall right doesn't it come from the top or at least very near the top of the E-Cat?

is it your view that the water it is pumped up there?

What do you think about the back pressure argument by the way? The way I see it it would only reduce the pressure drop along the pipe resulting in change the flow rate but would never exceed the supply pressure.

Stephen

Display More

There are as I see it three obvious ways it could work (maybe others I've not considered - I don't claim to be good at this steam stuff - and you or others will no doubt correct me). And therefore two of them must be wrong.

But this "e-cat" is an enormous number of separate modules in parallel. Surely possibilities for mixed flow out? The water is certainly pumped. And do we know the pipe with steam is not isolated internally from the water flow? I'm very unclear because without investigating the eqpt in detail I'm not sure we could say.

Three obvious ways are:

1. water @ near 100C

2. water @ near 70C

3. condensor and customer bypass on Rossi side

1,3 have water circulating near 100C bypassing tank

2 has measured steam separated from circulating water.

Re back pressure. I don't see that as significant because the pump input side is I believe at roughly room pressure.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Okay, let's unpack your conjecture a little. If the customer had a "diverter" tube that contained a car radiator, then whatever steam/hot water entering the car radiator will be at a considerably lower temperature when it exits. That is what a heat exchanger such as a radiator does--extracts heat energy from the fluid. So even if the "diverter" tube was somehow secretly jerry-rigged to skip the water tank reservoir, and go straight back into the e-cat reactors, there would still be a significant divergence in temperature between the fluid entering the e-cat reactors and the fluid exiting the e-cat reactors. And if you assume that the flow rate was probably measured correctly, as you did in fact assume, then the COP would still likely be sufficient to meet the requirements of the agreement. So the hypothetical diversion tube, water tank reservoir-skipping conjecture does not get you to where you want.

As for the potential vacuum, I never stated that Rossi has a "vacuum pump" in the customer-side circuit. I stated that a slight vacuum on the exit side of the pipe going into the customer area could account for the measured pressure readings. Whatever form that slight vacuum takes, is not necessarily pertinent. It could be the heat exchange equipment itself that creates a slight vacuum, as others have pointed out is possible using standard heat exchange equipment. Jed states that heat exchange equipment can only cause back-pressure, but he hasn't provided any support for that statement.

Quote

If the customer had a "diverter" tube that contained a car radiator

My point was that the diverter tube would be in parallel with the radiator. Easy to do. Hard to detect. So the rest of your para does not apply.

Quote

I stated that a slight vacuum on the exit side of the pipe going into the customer area could account for the measured pressure readings.

Others have done the calcs. You need a lot of vacuum to get the flow unless the steam tube is larger than DN40. But given any vacuum how does that work without a pump to restore pressure on the Rossi side? The system is open and I'm pretty sure that is before the pump. You are trying awful hard to make facts fit a container the wrong size for them Why?

@IHFB

Quote

If the circulating water somehow skipped the water tank reservoir, and went straight back to the e-Cat reactors, the incoming water would still not be anywhere near 100C all the time (as you suggested was an alternate possibility), assuming there is a heat exchanger on the other side of the wall.

The only way it would ever be at around 100C all the time is if the pipe simply went through one hole in the wall, and immediately looped back through another hole in the wall, and back into the reactors. I'm not sure anyone has claimed that is the case--not even Dewey.

You assume that even if there is an unmixed flow, then the water in that flow going out must be at 100C. But I see no such constraint. It is easy to measure steam at 104C in a pipe and also have a flow of water at 60C. Without detailed 3D piping diagram, showing instruments in the correct place, with suitable traps etc to ensure there is no problem, and also the confidence that the actual position of the instruments was as stated on that diagram, we have no way to know this. Given Rossi's previous deficiencies in the area of measuring steam, and Penon's deficiencies in reporting on Rossi experiments, and the deficient nature of the report, and the mythical customer, it would be highly unwise to speculate that the water leaving is at 100C.

I should raise another (very simple) possibility, which is that there is a diverter tube on the customer side (which from anecdotal reports contained something like a car radiator) The diverter would recirculate a lot of the water directly as you say is unlikely. Given the high flow rate that is entirely possible and I don't see how anyone could know about this without detailed inspection of the customer-side setup which as you know was not allowed to any qualified person.

So I stick to my statement that water could be happily recirculating at anything between 100C and 60C.

One final vignette here. The very low steam pressure does not allow water to be pumped at high pressure round the system, unless the steam measurement point is isolated from the circulating flow. Speculating that Rossi has a vacuum pump in his customer-side circuit is far-fetched, so we have another inconsistency with your reconstruction.

Regards, THH

Quote from DAK2

BTW: I was always confused by the discussion of emissivity vs. temperature vs. radiation. To me, emissivity is a fudge factor that makes radiation and temperature approach an ideal black body. If you just make emissivity 1, then you will always underestimate temperature. You can see that if you plot the Jones data and match it to a pure t^4 curve. The emissivity will vary to make the curves match.

That was Levi's argument - sort of. "Well even if you set e = 1 you still get COP=2". But of course if you make emissivity = 1 you overestimate power output. In the Lugano case the Al2O3 gives emissivity in IR band close to 1, but total emissivity (determining output power) of only 0.5 or so. The conditions and material used just happen to maximise the errors from any assumption that emissivity seen by the camera is the same as emissivity used for power output calculation.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Sorry, it's a bit of a mashup, the FLP-report electricity is just superimposed, and a bit messy. This one is only slightly better.

Excellent work, P.

So: since no-one else is taking the bait, here goes. The alleged customer JMP seems to be using power beyond the dubious numbers presented in the now published report. Maybe about 20% more. Well, Rossi could perhaps poiint to various way in which the official figures underestimated generated power. Though we both know the discrepancy is more definite than that it might be hard to prove.

More interesting to me (but harder to work with) is the relationship between water flow, COP, electricity in. Well, as far as the ERV goes we have COP = K * water flow / energy in where k is a constant, I think since the alleged water heating addition to energy is discounted. I'd like to know precisely what are the various data you are plotting? Is FLP the Florida Light & power energy in for the whole site? Or just Rossi's side? Fabiani and Penon: are these the calculated output power data from two separate sets of instrumentation? Do we know anything about what the instrumentation is, or how Fabiani and Penon claim to have calculated their data?

All these calculations assume that the water flowing through the circuit as measured here is all vaporised in the shipping container by e-cats and condenses on the "customer" side to form what recycled to the e-cat. That assumption we have never had evidence for - and some strong but circumstantial - because piping details not known - evidence (not enough pressure for given flow rate of vapour) against. my ballpark first view of this was that this assumption was wrong (rather than the water flow being massively different from that stated). I'm still of that view but I can't say I have hard evidence for it, so it must remain speculative.

My (speculative) guess for mechanism would be:

• The e-cats vaporise some small portion of the flow
• This is measured (at 104C no pressure)
• The rest of the flow stays liquid and is pumped round the system
• The circulating system water temperature could be the tank temperature, since there is no reason for it to be up at 100C. Or, the mixing between circulating system and tank could be minimal, with the circulating system temperature up near 100C all the time.

The key issues are: thermocouple siting, piping diagram, connections to/from tank. (And position of flowmeter if flownmeter spoofing is an issue).

We do have some evidence on all this from documents so far which alas I've forgotten.

While it is difficult to trust any of this data my speculation would be that the temperature, flowmeter, pressure data is all true - though maybe not very accurate because of the various ways in which equipment is out of spec, just the assumptions made around it are invalid. I'm inclined mildly to think we don't have major flowmeter spoofing here. though that is obviously very possible

Quote

Yep. I was ignorant about how less than honest and manipulative Rossi can be at times. Now I am much more careful. But I'm making sure to differentiate the E-Cat technology as a whole from Andrea Rossi as a person. Some people are unwilling to do this. They like to point, "Look, Rossi lied about THIS so the entire E-Cat technology must be one giant fraud! He has lied about everything! And everyone around him has lied about everything!"

Much of the claimed positive evidence for Rossi's technology (as you have noted elsewhere) comes from those positive early demos. That Rossi is now proven to be both a liar and manipulative must surely decrease whatever confidence anyone might have had in their integrity. Personally I never had any confidence in them because they nearly all have known (obvious) reasons for false positives, and the others have plausible guesses for that. But were I more sanguine then a change in my view of Rossi would affect my view of those tests.

The involvement of Levi and the Swedes does not provide extra validation. We know that they managed to overestimate COP X3 in Lugano even when they had control over everything, in Lugano, and plenty of time to discuss and cross-check! A badly documented test conducted by Levi on his own, for example, cannot therefore trusted. To hold these views you don't need to think Rossi lies about everything. Merely that he does what is needed to make his demos appear successful. You don't need to think the others around Rossi lie at all, merely to note that they are not good experimental physicists in this unusual area of "Rossi-related calorimetry". There is ample evidence of that.

Trump's statements on a number of subjects are flatly contradictory. That may be a disadvantage diplomatically, we will see, it certainly confuses everyone else. I guess if you think uncertainty makes for good international relations you'd approve of it.

He has shown a decent ability to defer to others in his team when his core beliefs are not involved. I think most people hope that after a bedding in period this will allow wise decisions - always assuming his advisors are well chosen.

His attitude towards science is appalling. He thinks scientists should be politically censored. He has weird ideas about some topics (e.g. climate change), not shared by 97% of scientists, and clearly has a distrust of science (not that that is unusual in US politics). Of course scientists are sometimes wrong. But, who would you reckon is more reliable? Scientists over 100 countries who have a fertile and variable but nevertheless pretty solid consensus, or a few politicians, out-of-field science mavericks, and people with no scientific knowledge at all?

Trump supports fossil fuels. That is pretty short-sighted given the current good position of PV as a long-term energy source and fact that continued research shows every sign of driving up efficiency and down cost/W (you need higher efficiency as well as lower cost/W since total cost is installation + panels. The arguments about intermittency are complex but a wind/solar mix with lots of EVs, and smart charging that allows the EV batteries to act as load-balancers, will go a long way to reducing this extra cost.

So for PV solar all the technological drivers are towards lower cost and as long as research continues there is no reason to suppose they will not end up cheaper than fossil fuels.

Another issue in balancing these factors is pollution. In Europe the evidence linking diesels and PM2.5, and PM2.5 and bad health, have just recently gone from "probable but not quantified" to "known and nastier than previously thought". Now, diesels can be made clean. But that costs more. In the end all these decisions are about costs, present and future.

I think to be a wise capitalist in a massively interconnected world where human activities have significant effect on the global (rather than local) environment you need to think beyond national horizons. I don't see Trump doing that. Hope I'm wrong.

I see all these technological factors as moving us over time in the direction of wanting PV (and some wind) quite irrespective of climate change. And I see Trump's choices of team so far, with strong links to big oil, as not likely to help him go down that path.

Quote from IH Fanboy

I'm sorry if you get worked up by my comments. Certainly not my intention.

Well, it was a stark contradiction, was it not? And to say that a COP of 1.3 is immeasurable is not true. Many within the LENR community are credibly measuring COPs of 1.1 - 1.3 (and more). SRI recently publicly announced that they are credibly measuring COPs of 1.45 using an NiH device. These are measurable values. Now, Dameron hemmed and hawed a little during his deposition when talking about the COP. Some interpreted that to mean he was uncertain about the 1.3 value, and that it was probably less. Another interpretation is that he was being evasive. His language appears evasive to me, and I think IH have probably measured COPs that are more, although probably with their "own" improved IH-cat (for which Dewey always side-steps questions about).

And what does the very first numbered paragraph in IH's 4th amended answer state?

"Defendants deny that the energy catalyzer (“E-Cat”) technology “generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy” along the lines claimed by Plaintiffs – which is that a reactor using the E-Cat technology produces more than 50 times the energy it consumes. . . . Indeed, using the E-Cat technology Plaintiffs directly provided them, Industrial Heat and IPH have been unable to produce any measurable excess energy."

Let's unpack this statement. First off, they adamantly deny that the E-Cat produces more than 50 times the energy it consumes. Okay then, what about 49? And how can they even make such a hard and fast statement without knowing what is on the other side of the wall? They probably are basing their conclusion from the 0.0 pressure value, which has been thoroughly discussed here, and is really IH's best and last hope. But that conclusion requires a speculative assumption (unless IH knows the kind of equipment on the receiving end). Now, if IH does know what was hooked up on the other end, then perhaps they should state that (but they don't). Jed claims that you need a perfect vacuum. It has been pointed out elsewhere, however, that even with a small 2 or 3 inch pipe, only a few psi of vacuum would be necessary to move 1 MW of steam, and that some industrial heat exchangers operate in just such a manner.

So, now on to the weasel words. In 1954, Dwight D. Eisenhower took the French to task for using "weasel words" when promising independence. IH uses them throughout their court filings. I've bolded a couple of them above. They refer to technology "directly provided" by Plaintiffs (Rossi), or "using the E-Cat technology," and the like. What they are not telling you, and the probable reason that they are using such weasel words, is because they have probably developed their own improved IH-cat by tweaking a few things. Which provides a motive not to pay Rossi, because they probably now consider it "theirs" anyway. I can not think of any other reason that they so carefully use these weasel words, and why Dewey so carefully side-steps my questions about IH's improved NiH systems.

Display More

Quote

Well, [Dameron saying COP=1.3 had been measured, and IH saying no measurable excess energy] was a stark contradiction, was it not?

As I explained in detail in the post you are replying to, this is not a stark contradiction. Unfortunately you have deleted the meat of my post from your quote, so the casual reader might not realise that. Note the contrast, I do readers the courtesy of quoting your entire post. This is one habit of yours that I find deceptive.

Quote

And to say that a COP of 1.3 is immeasurable is not true. Many within the LENR community are credibly measuring COPs of 1.1 - 1.3 (and more). SRI recently publicly announced that they are credibly measuring COPs of 1.45 using an NiH device.

this is a non sequitur, which I find deceptive (but maybe you do not understand the point). I never said a COP of 1.3 is immeasurable. Merely that it would not imply excess heat without knowing the errors in the calorimetry. This is not idle speculation. TC estimated (and this was broad brush, no guarantee errors are not larger) the errors in Lugano-type calorimetry - even after the bad Levi theoretical error is corrected - to be +/- 30% or so. We have no context to this quote hence cannot know what the statement about COP=1.3 means. I'd be willing to bet it was an answer to something like "What is the highest COP you have ever measured in a Rossi device". In that context COP is an experimental result. linking this to real excess heat (and hence IH's overall statement) requires one to know what are the errors in that experiment, how credible was it, etc, etc.

Quote

First off, they adamantly deny that the E-Cat produces more than 50 times the energy it consumes. Okay then, what about 49? And how can they even make such a hard and fast statement without knowing what is on the other side of the wall?

Surely you can see that they are taking a benchmark large figure - clearly lower than the ERV claim, and clearly larger than what is possible given their knowledge of the setup. IH have indicated the arguments they might use to substantiate this in Court - all they need to do at this stage. Given just a tiny bit more information about the setup we could deduce this ourselves. (They may also have chosen 50 because it is a limiting value given in Rossi's documents - I vaguely remember it might be that). How do you expect them to make the point that the ERV claims are clearly wrong in the legally safest way?

Quote

They refer to technology "directly provided" by Plaintiffs (Rossi), or "using the E-Cat technology," and the like. What they are not telling you, and the probable reason that they are using such weasel words, is because they have probably developed their own improved IH-cat by tweaking a few things.

There is a non-speculative reason for those words (see the long quote above for more context). They need to make the point that IP has not been transferred. The most extreme and obvious form of this is that the devices directly provided by Rossi don't work.

Your reason is entirely speculative, and probable to you because you believe that Rossi's technology works. Not only is there no evidence of that, there is plenty evidence (no positive credible amateur replication after large crowd-sourced effort, IH unwilling to announce positive results when if they did so they would receive funding which makes $100M look like peanuts) that it is improbable.

Quote

I can not think of any other reason that they so carefully use these weasel words, and why Dewey so carefully side-steps my questions about IH's improved NiH systems.

I've answered the weasel word matter. Dewey's caution is necessary (if he knows anything positive), and obvious. Suppose he had information of some positive results from IH-funded experiments. It would be highly unwise to say anything about this until the results had been very carefully checked and validated. LENR reserchers above all know the perils of premature public announcements. And IH have personally (with Rossi and Lugano) had a taste of how two experiments claiming commercial levels of energy generation backed by 6 apparently independent academics can turn out wrong. How cautious would that make you?

If OTOH Dewey does not know anything positive there is no way he is going to make negative comments and trash all those hard-working researchers funded by IH. In reality I doubt he can know. As IH have recently said, some of their initial interesting opportunities have turned out obviously unproductive, but about half remain and are highly interesting. That is the type of good, positive, but not false statement that you would expect them to make.

Dewey might want to comment, but I expect has been firmly told he is not allowed to say anything about IH's current investments other than paraphrasing the PRs, for obvious reasons.

Quote

EDIT: here is Dewey on the recent results, confirming that he has to be cautious (and BTW there are legal reasons about this as well as PR ones)

Bob - Thank you for understanding that I am unable to comment on details but I did like Tom's quotes from the interview. I can confirm that we are encouraged by the progress we are seeing.

Quote from Bob

LHF Sam,

I understand wanting to be fact based and unbiased!

Please show me where you have called out Rossi or those who continually make supportive claims based upon only "Rossi Says" or even non-existent

data / facts! Where they are also defamatory about others who do not bow to the gospel of Rossi! You Sir are not even keeled either unless you can

show me incorrect!

.

Here is the problem. This whole issue has become a religion. To some, Rossi is God and to others he is the Devil.

Some Rossi supporters, they call out the speck of dust in the "infidel's" eye while ignoring the huge timber in their own!

IH is the "anti-Christ" and Rossi is the savior of the planet. However, there truthfully is very little real evidence to support this view!

Only "Rossi Says"

Some of those who disbelieve Rossi, see him only as a convicted criminal, quite obviously devious and worthy of defamation.

They point out much fact that supports this and some "heresy" that is not substantiated. Sometimes they are brash and "rude".

Not my choice either, but that is personality. However, fact is being presented that supports their view much more so that Rossi's.

To my opinion, the "detractors" rarely initiate the verbal fisticuffs. A "believer" repeatedly posts some rather far fetched ideas and the

"detractors" rebuke their view.

We can all be mature adults here. However, the conflict will not go away. Wars have raged the centuries over religion. Millions killed. It continues on to this day. Rossi vs IH has become a relgion and certain people will not change. One is either a "believer" or and "non-believer". Arguing facts for a certain percentage is not going to make any difference. "Facts are only useful if they support your point of view." So whether it be "there could be a real customer using 1 mw of heat" or "the temp was 101.1 or 103" does not really make a difference in these arguments. To many, it is only if the "facts" support their predetermined belief of the subject.

If someone says they are unbiased or do not have an allegiance to one side, then show me the critiques and thumbs up posts one has made for BOTH sides!

Talk is cheap (posts included), but it is also revealing. Some hide under a cloak of "no allegiance" but their posts only support one view or defame the other view! Completely one sided.

I will state now if anyone is questioning my view! When I review the known facts, Rossi is found un-reliable and un-trustworthy. By his own documents and posts. I do not need any of Mr. Weaver's, Rothwell's or others damning remarks! Rossi has buried himself and seems to have over many years. Unfortunately, not agreeing with Mr. Weaver or Rothwell does nothing to improve Rossi's own character suicide! Why bother?

Display More

Thanks Bob, a good post. As somone strongly on one side of this debate I have to say that Jed and Dewey sometimes shoot themselves in the foot as far as PR here goes by arguing a (reasonable on evidence conclusion) as though it is fact. Which I don't mind, except I get really worked up by comments like that from IHFB below that make twisted insinuations with no evidence or probability. I try not to let this affect my posts but I guess it still does.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Subtle shift recently from "never any measurable excess heat, ever" to IH owns a fully paid up license to the e-Cat technology.

"The IH Ecat license is paid up and Rossi has not delivered on transferring anything that works."

Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

How is the improved IH-cat coming along?

Display More

I find this type of argument particularly despicable because it is wholly polemic, but sufficiently indirect that no-one can be bothered to call it out, and yet those not following details can find it convincing. IH have said they cannot measure excess heat after extensive testing of Rossi's devices. IHFB made a big deal of cherry-picked (by Rossi in an Answer) court evidence saying that one test (or set of tests on given system) showed COP = 1.3. That appears an exact contradiction. IHFB emphasises this by misquoting IH stance as "never any excess heat, ever".

To decode this you need a load of context which I hope the Court will get. Measurements of COP are never precise and always have errors. If these are not correctly analysed and given COP = 1.3 does not mean excess heat. Worst than this, in all complex experiments the errors are difficult to analyse. It is easy to miss out some systematic error (even a large one caused by a theoretical error, as in Lugano). If you test equipment and it comes up with COP in range 1.01 - 1.35, many times, you might take this as indicating some excess heat. Or, it might be some systematic error in the way the calorimetry is done (typically some defect in the chosen control, or variation in calorimetry characteristics that changes between active and control). You need a whole set of experiments and checks to find that, or tests with completely different calorimetry.

With the best will in the world decent research labs can be wrong about such things. IH, testing equipment supposed to produce commercial levels of heat, may be equally unsure as to whether there is some LENR effect (and therefore possible value in the IP) or not. But they can categorically say that devices given to them by Rossi claimed to generate commercial levels of excess heat do not do this. Being precise about measurable excess heat is a can of worms, because you can never be precise. IHFB, as all who simplify for polemic effect, ignores this. In the context of this legal action "we could never show any convincing excess heat" is what matters. Rossi's claims are for more than convincing excess heat - they are for reliable commercial excess heat. And crushing the tests on that matter is possible and no doubt has been done by IH.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Higher steam temperature is required for overcoming the pressure drop across 40DIN pipe, objected with Penon in Exhibit 5

For realistic pipes, much higher, or the "steam" is in fact liquid phase and there is no evidence for COP. So 103 vs 101 makes no difference.

Quote from monty

@THHuxleynew: Everybody can think what he wants but Rossi put this up as evidence. That means if this is fabricated or made up he will face severe consequences. So my first impression is that there is no fraud involved unless somebody can proof otherwise. Let's see if IH has anything to put up against these claims. I bet Dewey is very interested as well

As you say, everyone is entitled to their own view. My point is that putting something wrong - even badly wrong - up as evidence does not itself imply fraud. Look at Lugano where the IR calorimetry - badly wrong - was a mistake and there is no reason to think it was not genuine. Levi#'s reply to Mats shows that people can go on genuinely believing wrong things even when challenged. It is human nature.

I'm not arguing that Rossi was, or was not, fraudulent, merely that the correctness of his evidence is a separate issue from whether or not he was fraudulent.

For example in science, when somone makes an eye-catching claim, it is treated with suspicion until validated. If found to be incorrect no-one views the person responsible as fraudulent. They just got it wrong. Non-scientists, like Rossi, are more likely to get things wrong.

GIGO

P - it would be nice to think there is enough info in this data to get a handle on what was going on but it must be a long shot. Until the ERV antes up with precisely where these measurements are taken and what is the piping we are lost. Especially because (presumably) if each e-cat is monitored individually these figures may be averages. Do we have anything anywhere that states what the numbers represent with reference to precise measurements and piping?

@IHFB

You do indeed have a different approach to this problem than me, or others. As I understand it you reckon:

(1) either this stuff works or Rossi is blatently and deliberately fraudulent

(2) You would not want to view him as fraudulent, and on general principle think others looking at evidence will be biassed against him

It might help to take a more nuanced approach. Whether Rossi is legally fraudulent here will be decided by the Court. What we do know for sure is that his statements and actions cannot be trusted:

"Customer" - nope

"Hydrofusion test" - Rossi claims results were faked negative, so either he is lying in this claim, or lying to a previous potential backer.

"Bass" - fabricated business card

"Test" - refusal to allow on IH premisses with proper controls, refusal to allow IH inspection, Rossi present 24/7 and penon swans in a few times and now does not support his report which as has been pointed out is farcically unprofessional and not fit for purpose

"Massive over-reading of input power using average V and A" Remained adamant he was correct doing this when Mats spent a long time explaining his mistake.

It is absolutely not necessary to get into Rossi's mind more than this. My pet theory (speculation) is that he is a performer who sees adulation of his audience as much more real than any physical facts. You don't have to decide whether he is deliberately fraudulent, laughing at others, or in an act of cognitive dissonance believes his own words or just does not care about facts, seeing them as ephemeral and truth as infinitely alternative.

Quote from zeus46

Only on Planet Thomas! The "ERV" data shows a COP above 6, even with no phase change. A 35C temperature rise of 36000kg water/day gives this. Fairly basic stuff here.

And shortly afterwards you would realise the pressure drop along the length of the the pipe would be negligible... (assuming no condensation and the pipe is properly sized - to clarify: DN40 is never ever transporting 1MW of steam).

We have no evidence there is a 35C temperature rise.

If there is water flow with steam (as is very possible) the water can be a very different temperature from the steam

If there is a recirculation path unmixed with the tank water then the water everywhere can be much higher than the tank temperature.

The data we have is too incomplete for anything unless we know supply pipe dimensions, in which case it is almost certainly provably false.

Not that this matters: it is Rossi's data and therefore worth nothing as it stands.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

IF the water flow is 36K kg/day AND the pressure is 1 atm (0 gauge) AND the steam temperature is 103 THEN there IS a 100% phase change AND some super-heating.

Not without additional information. There can be steam at that temperature coexisting with liquid water if there is not good mixing. True, at equilibrium you are right. Since when is a system pumped at 500g/s in equilibrium?

Quote from oldguy

data by Rossi. Yes, and remember per the agreement the "ERV" was to measure. I don't think he ever did If Penon did not take the measurements, then he could not be an "ERV" for the test.

Dewey, did IH ever get back the equipment that Penon said he had the manufacturer check? I can see it now- a flow meter exhibit Z and its spec sheet showing that it was not valid at the temperature, pressure and ranges that Penon claimed it was used on. - pass it around to the jury

Flowmeter invalid.

Pressure meter invalid (specced only up to 80C).

And the supposedly independent ERV has vanished. I feel in PR terms the fact that there are so many hard facts that cast suspicion on this setup is actually a problem. We talk about them, and Planet Rossi say - ah - well - if Rossi had a vacuum pump that could all be possible. Or whatever. We have an underdetermined problem here. Making reasonable assumptions it becomes determined in the negative for Rossi. In that case you cannot tell the device worked even if you trust the experimenters. No reasonable person could trust Rossi/Penon even 1% without a thorough and detailed defence by Penon.