Posts by JedRothwell

    The problem we as a community have is that you have a history of making big claims with nothing to back them up,

    You have described Rossi, not me. I make few big claims. In proper academic style, I wrap all claims -- big or small -- in layer upon layer of doubt, equivocation, and then-again-maybe-not disclaimers.

    This is a very poor paper from 2004. It is a waste of time and I suggest that you draw no conclusions from it.

    I do not know enough about spectroscopy to judge, but . . . you sound like you do know, and I know there are many bad papers in the cold fusion literature.

    f it had been correct, Focardi would have got the Nobel prize.

    That does not follow. If the discovery is real but there is a great deal of opposition to it, the Nobel might be delayed for years. Or someone else might get it for rediscovering the effect.

    Than at least post some copy of this non disclosure contract!

    Why should I? What difference does it make to you whether I signed a formal agreement, or whether I simply made an informal gentleman's agreement? It amounts to the same thing. I would honor the agreement either way. You can see that I am honoring it.

    It is none of your business in any case. It is irrelevant to this discussion. And nobody cares whether you believe me or not. I sure don't care.

    You argue about strange things. Why on earth do you care whether I have signed a contract or not?

    but at least give a hint about that famous hypno-flowmeter. The knowledgeable people here will surely understand what has taken place . . .

    Anyone knowledgeable about flowmeters can tell you a dozen ways to make the answer 10 times too large. It hardly matters which of these methods Rossi used. As I said, read the manual and you too will learn how to get the wrong answer.

    So you cannot find a cause to report Rossi Jed.

    I never said I did have a cause to report him. He has done nothing illegal as far as I know. He has violated no safety codes. It may be a violation to run a 20 kW boiler with inadequate instruments, but I wouldn't know about that.

    He violated contractual agreements with I.H. That is a civil matter, not criminal. It is not something I or anyone else can report to authorities. Government authorities do not enforce or investigate contractual obligations or disputes. The courts may rule on them, but the government does not enforce them.

    If the gadget actually worked the way he claims, it would be a violation of safety regulations. I am sure it has not been certified the way Rossi claims. There is no certification on file for that address. Also, as I explained earlier: "I find it absolutely impossible to believe that the authorities in the Boiler Safety Section would ignore a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles, one that is producing dangerous levels of heat in a building not zoned for that. They would not let Rossi go on testing this device in a building with other people, in a crowded neighborhood."

    And that something similar must be kept secret?

    By me, yes. Rossi or I.H. can tell you. Ask them.

    So these are arrows in IH's quiver waiting to grasped and released by their litigation bow? They don't want you to steal their thunder?

    I have no idea why they wish to keep this confidential. I know nothing about litigation, but I suppose that is the reason.

    Jed, you have told the flowmeter has and is a great problem and you are obviously unable to tell anything about it.

    I have agreed not to say anything that Rossi or I.H. have not revealed. If you would like to know about the flowmeter, you should ask Rossi for the make and model.

    With a minimum of intelligence you could give a technical explanation- it is flawed because this or that

    I could easily tell you, but I agreed not to. Ask Rossi.

    Have you ever worked with a flowmeter?

    Often, with several different types.

    Elsewhere, you claimed that it is not possible to deliberately set up a flowmeter incorrectly to produce the fake result you want. You are wrong about that. I know of several methods, including the one used by Defkalion, and the one used by Rossi. You probably have not used a flowmeter if you think it is not possible to cheat with one.

    as Dewey Weaver reported, is that Rossi was discovered substituting a fake flow meter which exagerated the flow rate by a factor of 10 or so.

    Yes. Not exactly "fake" but the wrong type, installed in a way that gives the wrong answer. As I pointed out previously, Defkalion did something similar. They installed the flowmeter without a backflow check valve, and then ran it at low flow rates so that the meter measured the flow much too high. Rossi did not use this trick, but he did something similar.

    Defkalion's trick is described here:

    Did you provide the flow meter for this experiment, Jed?

    No, I had nothing to do with it.

    It is pretty good flowmeter though. I like that type. Bob Higgins posted a photo of this model in Vortex, with this description:


    When one cup fills to 10g of water, it flows over and presents the other cup. Each flop causes a magnet to pass a reed switch which causes a pulse. Parkhomov said he measured a noise of about +/- 0.1 g for each flop. The +/- 0.1 g may not have been the repeatability or noise - for example the left cup could be 9.9g and the right cup 10.1g depending on the level of the system.

    My comment: Ed Storms and Mike McKubre both used this style of mass-flow meter. This has some advantages over turbine types, calorimetric types (that heat the water) and others described here:

    The direct mass flow ones are less likely to clog up, and they are accurate over a broad range of flow rates.

    The Q&H from Higgins does not have much detail, but I like what I see so far. The calorimetry is much better than it was in Parkhamov's earlier experiments.

    You're so full of BS Jed. I'm saying they did visit and that Darden pocketed the $50M. Are you saying they did NOT visit,

    I am saying you have no idea what they told Woodford. You think they told him that Rossi's experiment was a complete success. I have some idea of what I.H. may have told Woodford, and I think it is unlikely they said that. While this was happening, I.H. was telling me and others that there were problems with Rossi's test. They expressed doubts. It is unlikely they would tell us one thing and Woodford another, because Woodford would hear from us sooner or later, and then file suit against I.H.

    In any case, you will now see if you are right. If Woodford withdraws the money or files suit, that may mean you are right. If they do not, you are wrong.

    So my question is why don't you care more about where that cash went?

    As far as I know, the cash went to I.H. and it is now sitting in the bank. They are using it in various experiments. Unfortunately, they have to use a lot to fight Rossi's lawsuit.

    Rossi has no problems with the Flowmeter it was a pretty standard one.

    If he told you that, he lied.

    For Jed the flowmeter is a central piece the most unsuitable instrument, the most corruptible tool of measurement and,

    No, I said it was one of the problems with the test. There were several others.

    THE ESSENCE- if Jed is unable to tell something relevant about
    why is the flowmeter (which type) so a great catastrophy,

    You should ask Rossi for the make and model. As soon as he tells you, you will see the problem.

    I have agreed not to reveal any information not already made public by Rossi or I.H. I will stick to my agreement.

    Why do you let Rossi say anything, never challenging him, when you will not believe a single thing I say, even when Rossi confirms it? Such as his covering up of the fake customer site by not allowing people in. He was practically bragging that he defrauded I.H., and you don't even question it! You are grotesquely biased in favor of Rossi, because of wishful thinking.

    If you do not know the make and model, you do not know why there is a problem, and you have no business commenting about this problem, or taking sides, or criticizing me. Your only comments should be: I do not know. I cannot judge without the essential technical information.

    Well, Jed. IH was obviously exstatic about the MW test when they showed it to Woodford and pocketed $50M cash.

    How do you know this? Who told you that? Were you present, or did you speak with any of the people involved?

    If Woodford was deceived by I.H., it seems likely to me they will take their money back or file suit, now that every sane person knows the test failed. If they do not do that, it will show that you are wrong.

    Translation...."I don't know". You are making assumptions. My twenty years experience says you are wrong. Yes....individual devices sold commercially and installed will have been inspected and certified, but that typically happens before it leaves the manufacturers site.

    The Florida regs say that smaller devices below 117 kW are exempt. They are inspected before installation.

    Industrial R&D is done differently. And until you can come up with a concrete regulation,

    Why should I do your homework for you? Are you seriously suggesting that factory equipment is not regulated and inspected? This is not 1870.

    Please point out specifics as to exactly what covers industrial R&D in your postings, because I apparently missed seeing them.

    I did not discuss that, except to note that a university lab not used for teaching is classified "industrial" in the Florida regulations.

    I have not discussed the regulations in detail. I gave the link to the Florida government web site. You are welcome to read about this yourself.…ml?Action=ShowBoilersPage

    Who certifies the CERN accelerator??

    Tons of agencies do, I am sure. Government installations are certified to a fair-thee-well. It probably takes years to get anything approved. As I noted earlier, the Florida regs say that Federal installations must be inspected by Federal inspectors according to Federal regulations. They hand off the job to Uncle Sam. They do not, however, allow Federal facilities to operate without oversight or inspection.

    CERN equipment may be complicated, but power supplies are power supplies. I am sure all their wiring, safety equipment, fire suppression and whatnot conforms to E.U. standards. It does not matter what the machines do. Regulators only want to confirm the equipment meets safety standards for the operators.

    So are you saying that when IH initially agreed with Rossi's plan for the GPT, that at that time it complied with Florida's boiler regulations

    I do not know if the plan complied with the boiler regulations. I meant that it was reasonable calorimetry that would have determined whether there is excess heat or not.

    The original plan called for, I think, 10 or 20 kW input, and 6 times output. That would be 60 to 120 kW output, which is below the level of a regulated boiler.

    Still, I think this was a serious issue which both Rossi and I.H. failed to address, because if it really had been a fusion reactor without a theory, it might have been dangerous. It turns out, it was not a fusion reactor and the output is only 20 kW, the same as input. So there is no violation of the safety laws. There might have been, if it worked.

    But at some point along the way, Rossi decided to veer off the legal path, but IH was prevented from stopping him because the "funding was all paid up by that time"?

    They could not stop him because he would not listen. He was somehow in control of the situation. I do not know why. The issue was not legal, it was contractual. Although perhaps both sides should have paid more attention to legal, regulatory and safety issues.

    that he went rogue and violated safety regulations, yet they (IH) continued funding and support

    There was no more funding or support by that time. It was all paid up.

    then they are equally culpable for not doing their civic duty by stopping Rossi at that point.

    This is a private business arrangement. There was no civic duty. They had no means of stopping him, but on the other hand, they have not paid the $89 million either, have they?

    So, I do not believe that is what they mean't.

    It was what they mean. I do not understand why you doubt it. The meaning is clear. What else can it mean?

    Perhaps you are saying you don't believe they are telling the truth. That's different.

    Ih did agree with Rossi's plans for the GPT.

    As they pointed out in the Motion to Dismiss, they agreed to a plan, but Rossi then "depart[ed] from the purported test plan." Rossi did not do what he agreed to do.

    No one would agree to the configuration he came up with.

    What I am talking about is INDUSTRIAL R&D, not university labs. Those are two totally different situations/systems, and different rule sets apply.

    Yes, I know. Florida has different regs for them, as I noted. But there are regs for everyone. No one gets to operate heavy equipment without inspections and oversight. Not in the first world, in the 21st century.

    Ih did agree with Rossi's plans for the GPT.

    What does "GPT" stand for?

    This was also brought up during the test period, and I think someone said that as long as a real consumer product (intended for market) were not being made, it was exempt?

    Nothing is exempt from safety standards. There are different standards for different categories, but everything is covered.