THHuxleynew Verified User
  • Member since Jan 18th 2017
  • Last Activity:

Posts by THHuxleynew

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]


    Alan, it is always good to do calculations. Also good to recognise GIGO.

    The only evidence of excess heat is the assumption of phase change. There is zero evidence here for phase change, even if you believe these figures.


    Believe the figures?

    • We have flow meters, pressure meters, operated outside their spec (very minor issue, compared with rest, but shows at minimum lack of competence)
    • We have a confirmed liar backing the figures with Penon, the ERV in charge, not there to vouch for them. Why not?


    But, even if we believe this flow rate and pressure it offers no indication there is a phase change, and no excess energy without one.


    Where is the ERV analysis of the piping and instrumentation proving that there is no liquid flow? Rossi has history on this one.


    If we knew for sure the exit pipe diameter and length (Jed?) we could work out the pressure drop needed to force dry steam though. The idea that Rossi has a vacuum pump on the customer side just to allow pressure readings that appear to invalidate his system is weird even by Planet Rossi standards.


    It seems absurd to me that anyone can see these figures as positive for Rossi.


    Regards, THH

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    IH paid only $10 million and $1 million for testing unit, not the remaining $89 millions for license. Is it really so difficult to read the contract?

    IH didn't pay the remaining $89 millions for license in five business days after test - so he got sued with Rossi and he doesn't own license.

    Everything is clear and simple.


    42Rk0p7.gif


    Zeph: I agree that Dewey is possibly not addressing your point, but you are definitely not addressing what has been said.


    The license agreement governs the license to sell stuff, and also certain conditions that must be met by either party. So, I agree, if the test is the GPT, if it is properly conducted, if it has met the performance requirements, IH has voided the license to sell. Those ifs are big ones you seem to ignore.


    However the IP transfer is not the license, it is a requirement Rossi must meet. Rossi agrees to transfer IP in return for IH paying 10.5M. IH did pay, therefore Rossi is contractualy obliged to transfer IP. Not being a lawyer I'm not entirely certain whether if IH does not pay the bonus payment when it is required to do so Rossi is still obligated to do the license tranfer but I'd expect he is. Why? Because that is linked to a previous part of the license and money previously paid. I am pretty certain that if the bonus payment is not paid because the conditions for it are not met, Rossi still owes IH the IP from the 10.5M payment.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    If he paid up, why Andrea Rossi filed his lawsuit against IH due to lack of payment? And why IH says, he won't paid for license, because the test failed if he has paid up for it already? My understanding of your "facts" is very shallow here..

    Zeph -


    IH say (and I have no evidence to the contrary) that the IP depended only on the previous 10M payment. Therefore they have a perpetual license. The 89M is then a bonus payment on certain conditions being met. Maybe IH freedom to sell units (as distinct from use IP) also depends on this payment? I'm unclear. And I'm also unclear whether not fulfilling the 89M payment, were it due, would invalidate the previous IP assignment. I guess it would, but I doubt this will ever be tested, see below.


    Anyway, you can see the LT test is a separate matter from the IP assignment. Also, if you have paid attention to what IH say here they argue (with evidence):

    • that the test Rossi conducted is not the contractual bonus payment test anyway.
    • that if it is, then it does not in fact meet the required conditions

    As for Rossi's motivation. That is speculation not fact. I'd guess he wanted the $89M and thought IH would settle and give him some of it rather than fight. That would be money + a PR victory.

  • The Playground

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    @THH: Did TC's report use the correct Optris formula with T3 emissivity? Or does it base it on your wierd assumptions - like T2.. ??


    Reading TC's report, the only assumption he makes is that the Optris camera correctly combines band emissivity with temperature according to the Planck curve. If it does not do this it will simply deliver wrong results for band emissivity not equal to 1. Since over the temperature range the correct dependence (T on epsilon) varies from approx 1 to 0.1 or less it is just not possible that the camera uses a single figure, as you claim. You have no evidence for this except a manual written in German which is illustrating how the camera works, not specifying its precise operation. Note that were you correct, the camera accuracy would be out by 50% or more for some cases, so this cannot be. The TC report does not explicitly state what dependence is used here because for all the figures it is worked out from first principles from the Planck curve - it will therefore be (slightly) different in each case. however looking at the figures I think T should depend on epsilon by somewhere around 0.5, or epsilon on T (what you quote I think) by something around 2.

  • The Playground


    rb0. Have you actually duplicated the numerical calculations in TC's report, or linked those to the equations therein? I have. Like to discuss?


    Or, if we are just playing PR word games let me point out that you have repeated your view on here many times and patiently by various posters been led through what are your misconceptions. each time when we get to the nub of it you vanish. Only to pop up a few weeks later making the same statements. That is the behaviour of a propagandist, and I have no sympathy with it.


    "The emitted energy vs emissivity dependence is weak". That is only true if, as you have consistently misstated, there is only one emissivity value of interest here. It is true that the band emissivity change and total emissivity change alter COP in opposite directions. What you neglect is that over the relevant temperatures band emissivity does not change, and over the relevant (used in the Lugano report) temperatures total emissivity changes a lot. From 0.8 to 0.4.

  • The Playground

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    This doesn't explain, how the COP could change during experiment and even how it could rise, when the temperature of reactor also raised.

    The increase of temperature would lead into increase of thermal loses and if they got systematically underestimated (because of lower emisivity or nonplanar geometry of the reactor), then their increased underestimation should also lead into lowering of COP - which didn't actually happen.


    bLRDEi3.gif


    Zeph -


    You have been consistently and strongly saying there is much evidence Rossi's stuff works, those who don't see this are willfully blind, etc.


    I am happy to consider this evidence, with you at length. So that any blindness can be considered. It is important that we be careful doing this because as I'm sure you know anecdotes and web facts (not to mention now alternative facts) often look different when examined in detail.


    I'll start with your impressive graphs above. First, I'll agree with you. They are impressive. When you first look at the Lugano evidence, although you might reckon there are a bunch of mistakes that could account for the claims, this acceleration in COP where 100W in turns into 600W out, is quite something.


    As Paradigmnoia says, the numbers show this to be an artifact but i expect you think he is willfully blind. Certainly P has not now justified his position, though as he and I point out there are hundreds of pages here doing exactly that. In many of which P was arguing your side. So this is a matter that has been hotly debated and the consensus now reached amongst those who stuck through that debate might count for something.


    I'm going now to give as simple an answer as i can to this X6.


    Firstly, the known issues about emissivity account for the approx X3 COP, which turns 800W into 2400W. The output power is indirectly measured via temperature and scales as T^4. The temperature was massively over-estimated via its indirect measurement and the problematic Al2O3 surface used.


    Secondly, and this is the issue I will address at length here, the way that thermography error operates is quite subtle and leads to surprising results. In fact it leads (using the figures from the Lugano report, but correcting the errror) exactly the COP acceleration that is shown in your graphs.


    If you want to validate this it is not so difficult:


    Take the code from TC's report (as found on lenr-canr) and run it, to generate numerical results. There are various fudge factors which can move the COP up or down by 20% or so. The code as given shows this by printing COP figures bracketed with different values of fudge. BUT - these don't affect the COP acceleration (because most have nearly the same affect at the two test temperatures). What is remarkable is that this acceleration goes away when COP is correctly calculated and the two COPs become identical to within 0.5%. This lack of change is resilient as you alter the various fudge factors. BTW what I mean by fudge factors is that you need a few assumptions to get any results from Lugano. Change those assumptions you alter the COP results. But not the COP acceleration. The Lugano authors were aware of this which is why the noted this acceleration as particularly significant. Except it is not because it is an artifact when things are calculated correctly.


    So that is the numerical answer, based on Lugano figures. Can it be explained theoretically. The key to understanding this is that total emissivity in Al2O3, changes rapidly over the range of temperatures calculated in Lugano here. The report uses this change in total emissivity (because they feed it into the Optris device) to calculate temperature. That gives an error because ove rthe same range band emissivity does not change and stas close to 1. Therefore the inflation of temperature their wrong method generates depends strongly (and nonlinearly) on the temperature - because it comes from the difference between total and band emissivity which is much larger at higher temperatures than low.


    it is in reality not COP acceleration - but "Levi thermography artifact acceleration". (I attribute this to Levi since when last heard of he was still to Mats robustly defending this flawed method - he seems very invested in it).


    PS - I realise you quote other evidence. And that this other evidence must also be examined in detail. Could we however first please deal with Lugano? I'll happily lead you through either running the python code, or any of the theoretical equations it embodies.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    57. Defendants admit that from April 30 to May 1, 2013, Penon conducted measurements in connection with the Validation test of certain E-Cat reactors operated by Plaintiffs. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 57. The Validation test did not follow the Validation protocol as set forth in the License Agreement and the First Amendment (the “Validation Protocol”). For example, the Validation Protocol required 30 E- Cat reactors to be operated as a unit (“Unit A”) for twenty-four consecutive hours. However, only 18 E-Cat reactors were operated as Unit A during the testing period. In addition, the Validation Protocol required the flow of heated fluid from the E-Cat reactors to be measured during the Validation test. However, these measurements were not taken during the Validation test. Furthermore, the Validation Protocol required that twenty-four consecutive hours of testing be done on Unit A. However, less than twenty-four consecutive hours of testing was done on Unit A. There are various other examples of the Validation Protocol not being followed during the Validation test.


    The rest can be read in the following (..58..) paragraphs where IH confesses that they have been fooled...


    I guess, that after reading this, you understand something more about business and how it should not be done... Paying for an invalid test...


    The distinction here is that between an invalid test not following agreed protocols and IH's decision to pay for the IP. They did this, and as a result have their own (valid) analysis of Rossi reactor and technology performance. Whether it was wise for them to pay this money must surely be a judgement call and for the reasons stated here many times IH could reasonably - both because of the possible value in this technology, and because "the Rossi effect" while rumoured but not substantiated was inhibiting other LENR investment - pay even knowing that Rossi behaved badly and the test was flakey.


    There is then a legal point of whether, having made the validation payment, the performance during the 1 year test is moot. Without being a lawyer, the license agreement says that payment is contingent on test performance. Also, we know that if Rossi's case holds up that far (which seems unlikely) it will be on the basis of reasonable intent not literal reading of the contract. Reasonable intent here is surely that the $89M is, as IH state, a bonus payment available for technology so advanced it can be commercialised in short order. Hence we need the thing to work, not just be stated as working from fake figures generated by Rossi and published by an absent ERV.


    Worth noting that as a side effect of such a genuine successful test, it would be trivial for IH to leverage further money from Woodford or others.

    Worth noting that, even knowing the test is not the GPT, a successful test with a genuine customer would be highly interesting to IH because difficult to spoof and therefore proper validation given secure input measurement - which surely the electricity supplier could provide. That if it were real IH would (very possibly) pay Rossi to keep him sweet and quiet while gearing up for a disruptive commercial effort. Can't say I'm sure about this: but it could be justified.


    For the life of me I cannot see where in all this IH has shown evil intent, or managerial stupidity. If you sup with the devil, you need a long spoon. Perhaps IH's spoon was in retrospect not quite long enough - but that again is a judgement call. IH look like they will get what they want from this matter, which is to discover whether or not the Rossi effect is real. That, for people who put money into chasing LENR, must be their first objective.


    Personally I'd argue that not having a better analysis of the Lugano/Levi Al2O3 thermographic calorimetry at the start was a scientific lack but we can all say such things with hindsight.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]


    This interpretation is close to clear prejudice. IH can reasonably now claim the 24h validation test report was unsafe, given that they would trust Penon and his judgement less now. There is a wealth of difference between the position now - when they claim (with reason) that they know Rossi/Penon is fraudulent, and then, when they did not know this. And they might well have accepted the Validation test (10M$) on spec to get the IP and validate for themselves even not trusting it. That however in no way requires the trust Rossi wants to put in it - claiming that it proved the device worked.


    This is a common refrain from planet Rossi. They assume that IH knowledge of events must remain constant over some period, and deduce from that an (incorrect) contradiction in IH behaviour. Or they assume that lack of rejection (of some flakey test) by IH must mean acceptance (by IH) that the test proves its claims.


    I think it is an inability to process uncertainty. I find this surprising in Wyttenbach (though not others) since his posts otherwise show an ability to argue in a sophisticated way.

  • Just for fun: Let's bet, what we can expect from Rossi in February... anyone interested ?

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I would start with emissivity. That is the main issue.

    The total hemispheric emissivity was conflated normal spectral emissivity, which ultimately causes an error that almost exactly cancels the excess heat reported when corrected.

    There are other minor issues that confound exact solutions, but they can be ignored in the first pass.


    The Lugano authors headlined excess heat and acceleration of excess heat with temperature as the two facts that could not be explained.


    The error above catches the excess heat to within experimental errors. More interestingly (to me) it also catches the acceleration in excess heat exactly (to within 0.5% of heat. That just falls out of the calculations without fudging and is strong validation that there is no exothermic reaction. In spite of this the meme that Rossi-like systems generate exothermic LENR survives, as far as I can see on no solid evidence.


    Pages here document all of this.

  • Just for fun: Let's bet, what we can expect from Rossi in February... anyone interested ?

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Except that the same people, who are saying that A. Rossi has no working technology also say, he has stolen it from Piantelli via Focardi...;-) Rossi has multiple collaborators: prof. Levi and Bianchini from Bologna, Bo Hoistad from Sweden, Norman Cook of Kansai University, Osaka or Fulvio Fabiani, an engineer who has worked with Rossi for many years.


    Zephyr - it is like Alice in Wonderland here.


    What evidence, from whom, do you use to support the proposition Rossi has working technology? Just interested...

  • Just for fun: Let's bet, what we can expect from Rossi in February... anyone interested ?


    DNI has made this point, but it is worth repeating.


    Your stated "I can be quite sure what Rossi wants" here is absurd at every level, and you would perhaps like to come back and modify it.


    Firstly no-one can know what Rossi wants, merely what he says he wants. We have plenty of evidence that what he says and reality do not match even when he is talking about provable external facts like the existence of customers, let alone when he is claiming to describe his internal motivation.


    Secondly Sifferkol is the most unreliable reporter that exists in this saga, up to his eyebrow in unproven and unlikely conspiracy theories, for example basing a speculation that TC as used to post here was a paid promoter of "fossil fuel" interests engaged to destroy Rossi on the fact that some academic's open web page mentioned consultancy for British Gas (a UK commercial gas supplier) more than 20 years ago, and in spite of their being no other of subsequent link.


    Your stated "I can be quite sure the ecat works because otherwise IH would not want to keep the license so obstinately" is equally fantastic.


    You know nothing of how much IH wants to keep the ecat license. They were sued by Rossi and are replying, to defend their reputation and if possible retrieve badly spent money. This is just what is expected. You can of course argue they have some other motive - say fanatical Rossi hate, or the wish to promote the cause of Song-birds in Ireland, or anything else under the sun. You have no evidence for this and it is inherently unlikely. Furthermore if the ecat does not work IH would still reasonably be expected to hold onto a license paid. The ecat IP comprises many things, and is probably worthless, but who can be sure given LENR is not understood? That is a quite different question from whether Rossi, using that IP, has been able to substantiate his claims even one little bit. As a VC company you know that the utility or otherwise of IP from research is very unclear. You keep every scrap of it just in case. Some of the ecat IP might relate to real research given Rossi's inheritance of Focardi's stuff. Personally I'd say that is unlikely, but that is not the point.


    I find it shocking that you attach such a level of certainty to two statements for reasons that are just not credible. You have not even shown weak evidence to support them, let alone "I can be quite sure" level evidence. Unless that is your certainty is based on some inner conviction separate from the facts you quote.

  • Just for fun: Let's bet, what we can expect from Rossi in February... anyone interested ?

    Quote from ele

    Again another guy repeating the same story...... Some FACTS to remember.

    1) Rossi was cleared by all chargers about Petroldragon. Italy has even refunded him because of the damage and the guy that persecuted him was eventually arrested-

    2) Petroldragron technology was not a scam. The same technology (now public domain) is used also now.... and you can even buy plants to make petrol from plastic see e.g. http://www.huayinenergy.com/pr…to_Oil_Pyrolysis_Machine/ , TE devices are not a scam also, they are still used but efficiency is very low. (see e.g. http://eu.mouser.com/applications/thermal_energy_harvesting/ for an update about modern TE)


    2) is a non-sequitur. it is very difficult to prove a scam. All we know is that it was vapourware in that he collected all this industrial oil and never processed it. Similarly, everyone knows TEGs exist with low efficiency. Rossi was claiming high efficiency without a shred of credible evidence he had ever achieved that. Again, vapourware. Were these scams? You'd need to be closer to the matter to be sure, but the same pattern of grand false claims and non-performance can be identified.


    You don't in any case need this past history. Just look at Rossi's current lies. What stays interesting is why some people, like you, appear to be defending him in the face of such clear evidence.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]


    I'd agree with this. There is no way that this initial evidence can be definitive, it is not meant to be without Discovery and testing in Court. However we have heard nothing in rebuttal from Rossi in his answer. He needs to give some indication of his arguments in order for IH to have a fair shot at discovery. And he is giving nothing of substance here which means i guess there is nothing of substance. The Court will not like him introducing whole new lines of argument at a later date - if i read this correctly. Wish Abd were here...


    Which means: this evidence is damning, because not answered.


    There is also a whole lot of other evidence that points so strongly in the direction of this test being a charade that this is proven beyond reasonable doubt, even though any one piece of evidence, as this, can always be argued around.

  • Just for fun: Let's bet, what we can expect from Rossi in February... anyone interested ?

    Wyttenbach


    IH has shelled out real money to real researchers doing real work, as well as in the Rossi circus. So it seems whatever you claim their intent, their reality is to fund LENR research. I'd expect that is more than you have done?

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Supporting IH - just believing them to support LENR research - is childish behavior. Most investors are only interested in patents. (Words about progress, humanity etc. are just lies to fool you.) Then they wait until somebody else does the real work and then, they with the help of 100Mio. $ of patent layers work, suck in a big stake of the profits...


    Just do some research about investors and you will find this pattern, which is easy to understand.


    Investors are variable and it is likely that a strong component of "lets do this for the good of the world" affects IH investors, just as it does other LENR supporters.


    While protecting IP is important - having IP to protect that is commercial is even more vital. That is where LENR is now and IH knows it. Arguably, if/when LENR started to be commercial, especially given the long history of patents, having a team able to understand and exploit the effect matters much more than patents. I think for now IH would be hapy just to have some effect that survives all testing at commercially relevant levels. That would also be Nobel Prize levels for the researchers!

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If you do not think that the problems described in this Exhibit are sufficient to reject the claim, then you and I disagree. I have no additional inside information that would change your mind.


    Jed, there is no real difference between our positions on Rossi, except that I am less willing to make "proven negative" statements. My position is that you need high confidence to prove an LENR result positive. Similarly in this case you need high confidence to prove that this device did not partially work. The claims of MW output are I agree absurd at every level.


    Personally, I would view any LENR claim as unproven without very strong evidence. That certainly includes all Rossi's claims. But to reject it as certainly false is rather different and such rejection also requires very strong evidence.


    Ironically, the worse Rossi's calorimtry, the more impossible it is to show as false the possibility that his stuff works. That however is very different from supporting his claims, or his circus.


    In the Rossi supporting camp fantasies where his stuff works as billed but he nobly disguises this fact by lying and testing defective equipment seem to be usual. It is pretty difficult to say anything categorical when such hypotheses are advanced. They are inherently difficult to disprove.

  • Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]


    This is another misunderstanding of the issues here. From the Court documents so far we get indications of future evidential arguments - not proof. But adding them up Rossi has delivered nothing but words. IH has delivered credible points that can be tested fully in Court.


    Furthermore we already have prima facie evidence that rossi is a liar, and has lied to both Hydrofusion and IH. For this to be so clear at this preliminary stage is extraordinary.


    Jed here has more information than most of us, and delivers his strong verdict on the test evidence he has seen. I think many here will not entirely believe him, since his interpretations of matters that are public, and have been tested, are somewhat one-sided. Personally, without judging Jed's contribution (impossible given he has evidence i do not) the totality of physical evidence released so far makes it clear to me that beyond reasonable doubt Rossi's test is so corrupted that it cannot prove his device works. At all. Can it prove his device does not work? No, because the less reliable a test the more difficult it is for it to prove anything!


    In this case, with Rossi's test, we have not only the (typical for Rossi) problematic calorimetry - in this case the issue we know is assumption of phase change when evidence indicates no phase change - we have other problems with data as suggested in this exhibit. And were the physical evidence not so contaminated we still have a test overseen by Rossi 24/7 in his box, an ERV who has vanished, and no way to trust the data.


    IHFB and a few others here want strongly to find an explanation of these facts that shows IH to be an evil scheming corporation trying to cover up evidence of LENR for financial motives. I can understand that motive, though I don't share it. It falls down on so many levels when tested against public fact and common sense that I find it totally false.


    I think also from his comments above that IHFB misunderstands the relationship between IH corporate actions and blog PR. IH, as a serious company (whether you think them muddle-headed or visionary in what they attempt to do) have throughout avoided blog wars and prejudicial comment. They have always sought to minimise disagreement between themselves and Rossi, as you'd expect given the possibility for settlement. Rossi has done the reverse.


    IH have many motivations here. To preserve/regain money. To make sure the "Rossi phenomena" that they have "crushed the tests" on and found null does not inhibit other more promising research investment. To keep their reputation amongst the LENR community - from which they hope to have laid at some point a large golden egg.


    I find pro-IH commentators here - notably Abd, Jed, and Dewey, entirely understandable and straight. Though in Dewey's case he clearly believes in replying to Rossi's dirty tactics in kind with anti-Rossi PR. As an investor in IH whose friend's names are being dragged through the mud by people supporting a known liar and fantasist who can blame him? Personally I find his style a bit over the top, but always enjoyable to read. Jed is Jed and anyone who doubts - correct or false - that he is 100% straight needs IMHO their head examined. Abd is Abd and I regret his loss here though don't think he would happily exist in a place like this. he has even less sense of humour than me which says quite a bit. These commentators are not IH. i'd guess that IH does not mind what Dewey does. possibly they view it with favour as useful PR given the mud slung by Rossi and their legal inability to reply fully. Or possibly - quite likely - they see blog opinion here and on ECW as irrelevant.


    Regards, THH


    PS. IHFB and a few others might view this strong endorsement of IH from me as meaning I have some corrupting relationship with them. I have no such relationship (which of course I cannot prove). But even if I did - so what? The points I make are valid and can be independently checked and considered by anyone. I can't be as strong on the outcome of the Court case. Legal proceedings are sometimes strange and may not get to the scientific and factual truth, though I hope and expect this one will. Whether IH drag it out to the bitter and expensive end remains, to me, doubtful. They have multiple motivations.

  • Forum Software Update

    In this new forum layout (which generally I like) it seems I can't switch to portal? When I try to do this it switches immediately back to forum. Anyone else noted this?


    Chrome browser.


    THH