Whatever, it begins with F. If a reader knows me, the reader will expect that, every time, I’ll vote for Fun. Yay, Rossi! Endless generation of excess fun!
Okay, was it fun for IH? I recommend they declare that. Otherwise, $20 million down the tubes, a stupid mistake, start to finish. But fun is irrevocable, if we say so. Life is fun, and then we die. Does that change “life is fun”? I say not.
Onward with FFFF:
JONP coverage starts with FFFF.
First, a word from our sponsor. Me.
I may decide that dealing with some “serious work” should take priority, but … reading JONP is easy, takes a moment, and Presto ! Fun! Color me addicted. Serious work is “boring.” The payoff is too far in the future. I tend to do it in fits and starts. If I get some serious funding, first expense in line is a secretary who keeps me on track. That’s classic, for people like me.
So, some Fun to share. Sharing is Fun. Opinionating is fun, to a degree. And this is a blog, designed for opinion — or conversational reporting — from the beginning. Don’t like my conversation? The door is there, take your crap with you, I’m not your lap dog, or dancer.
However, if you are here to respectfully participate in the conversation, including pointing out errors or disagreement, have a seat, coffee, tea? Water?
People who actually help, bringing in new fact and analysis, or helping clean up the mess which happens when we have parties like this, Wow! You win the prize! even if you disagree with me, because good conversation is truly fun. Worth dying for, in fact. Purpose of life.
Conversation, and especially what it takes to maintain it as fact-based, is how I learn, and it is how Mats Lewan didn’t learn. He turned off the conversation. Too confusing. Mats is getting too old, while I’m cheerfully regressing, I’m about back to a teenager. I live with one and my language shows it.
By the way, JONP is organized terribly as a blog, though this is how Rossi uses it. However, the Rossi blog reader makes it easy to find recent posts, organized. Finding older posts can be a bitch, but if one has the timestamp, it’s relatively easy with a google site search. The blog reader gives links to the posts. If I were to copy and paste the blog reader posts straight into my blog (which would keep the links), it would garbage up my HTML code, it really makes a mess, so I copy as text and then manually add the links. A bit more work, but that’s the breaks.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Will you make also an [analysis] of the isotopes of the charges that have passed the one year test of Doral?
July 21, 2017 at 12:34 PM
Your comment is the #38 000 of this blog
This is of interest because it is possible that Rossi provided a sample of the Doral fuel already to Bo Hoistad. The story:
Last year, a document appeared on the internet and was discussed on ECW and LENR Forum, purporting to be an analysis of fuel. This document had been stripped of identifying information. The analysis showed similar results to the prior Lugano analysis, which is often considered evidence that a nuclear reaction was taking place in the Lugano reactor.
Rossi denied, on JONP, having anything to do with the analysis, as I recall.
A copy of what appeared to be the original PDF, including the cover letter came into my possession. I had no means of verifying authenticity, and the chain of custody was lost. But there it was, and it identified Bo Hoistad as the author, and identified Rossi as having provided the sample. The Mats Lewan May interview placed Rossi as meeting Hoistad at about the right time. I decided to publish the copy, with appropriate qualifications, i.e., I could not guarantee that it was not a forgery. But Hoistad could simply deny that he was the author (and then research could have followed into the provenance, because someone would be lying, and that matters. If a scientist lies — very distinct from making an interpretive erfror — their career is toast, forever. It’s career suicide for a scientist to lie about anything. Inventors and entrepreneurs can get away with it, sometimes. Depending.
No denial appeared, and my rebuttable conclusion was that the document was authentic. Problem is: the results were very similar, but the test length was an order of magnitude different. From that, some possible conclusions:
- The sample was from the same material, possibly salted with a lithium isotope. For small samples, this would not be prohibitively expensive, and one of the Lugano shortcomings is that samples were handled by Rossi, not only the Lugano professors. They, or one of them, may have observed the sampling process. That’s not adequate for rigorous independence.
- The new sample was from Doral and Rossi had stolen it. The reactor and fuel belonged to IH, and Rossi had no permission to take it. He had “refueled” the last day of the test, thus thoroughly spoliating possible evidence, based on being ready for continued operation — which didn’t happen.
- the sample was from a different run, though none were reported with a month of operation. Hoistad may have been told, but nobody has questioned Hoistad, AFAIK, and there is no sign that Lewan paid any attention to this.
- Bottom line, as to scientific evidence, the Doral reactors are now hopelessly compromised, if they were not before.
- The Doral test itself was hopelessly compromised by almost total Rossi control, it was far from an independent test, and that it “passed” was a Rossi contention in the trial, whereas IH — with a high obvious interest in positive results, because they then could have been used for much more fundraising — was oviously far from convinced. But this belief is common among those who post on JONP, and they assume multiple witnesses from IH were lying, based on what evidence? Well, Rossi Says ….
Daniel G. Zavela
July 21, 2017 at 10:36 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi:
I was surprised at [your] comment as regards the 1 MW E-Cat that had been run for 1 year.
“Now we are dismounting all the reactors, the bigger ones and the small ones that did not work.” My impression had been that all the reactors were the same size, had been made according to the Lugano design, and that they all had worked? What were the “small ones”?
And why did you decide to vary your cell design for such an important test?
Best of luck with your E-Cat QX R&D.
Daniel G. Zavela
July 21, 2017 at 12:38 PM
Daniel G. Zavela:
The 1 MW E-Cat was made by LT E-Cats.
Lugano Experiment has been made with a Hot Cat.
I could have written Rossi’s response. This was well-known, even before the lawsuit. In the lawsuit, we got a lot more information, but, personally, I am still confused as to what, exactly, was used at Doral. Rossi had previously tested a “1 MW plant,” though at reduced power. When the Plant was delivered to North Carolina, it appears to have included two kinds of reactors, a set of original LT (low temperature) reactors, and a set of newer reactors, larger (delivered on the roof, I think). When Rossi was setting up the Plant in Doral, the original small reactors were powered up, but were then shut down for the duration of the Doral operation. The reactors actually used were the four “Big Frankies.” I have some impression that the Big Frankies were actually made by IH. I would want to gather and review all the evidence we have on this.
In each Big Frankie, it appears, there were six individual LT reactors, each with its own cooling water metering pump.
The Lugano test was of a design made by IH, IH is credited in the Lugano Report. That was a “new design.” It was not a reactor prepared for actual use, just a reactor core. IH would have preferred Rossi continue working to support their replication in North Carolina, but did accept the claim that an “Independent professor” report could be valuable, though they had reservations because of high Rossi involvement with that test — a whole other issue which takes a lot to understand.
Zavela’s “impression” shows how utterly false these can be (not based on evidence, but perhaps some shallow appearance of some statement — or on what others have assumed and written about on blogs — can be “impressions.” As usual, there is no source for the “impression.” Zavela learns that he was wrong, but what is truly interesting to me, when I find I’m wrong, is how I got there. What assumptions did I make and why did I make them? This is how I learn, and if I’m going to ask a question like that, the first thing I’ll do is look to find sources for my own impression. If I can’t find any, it may not be worth taking up anyone’s time with the question! I often start to write something, based on my impressions, and then look at sources and recognize my error. I either then report on that (if I think others may be making the same error) or STFU. There is already far too much confusion reported as fact on the blogs.
Nothing wrong, on the face, with Rossi’s answer here, but, as is again common, there is no depth to the answer, no increased revelation of detail.
July 21, 2017 at 5:09 PM
The picture of an E-Cat QX was recently posted in the Rossi-Gullstrom paper. It appears much larger than the dimensions you presented earlier. i.e. (length 2 cm Diam 0.6 cm Rating 20 W Warm Regards A.R.) Was this a different version of the reactor with different dimensions for purposes of the experiment?
July 21, 2017 at 5:51 PM
The dimensions you see are the dimensions of the calorimeter. The E-Cat QX is inside and has the dimensions you correctly reported.
This was also obvious. The paper and image were announced in a misleading way: E-Cat QX Picture Posted in New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (COP of 2000 reported with Calorimetry)
I thought, wow! a QX picture! But when I looked, what was visible was not the QX, a device which is quite small, reportedly “pen-sized” — or smaller in later incarnations — but the test apparatus, as Rossi says here. Acland’s actual description in the blog post is accurate. Again, what this shows is how erroneous assumptions arise. Sometimes the problems are not noticed and the assumption then becomes a meme, believed because it has been widely repeated. These abound, and can be quite persistent, because few people bother to check what “everyone knows.” And if you point out the problem, you are the “enemy.” (Serious participants, challenged, will find the source and clarify.)
The QX is apparently a two-terminal device. We have no pictures of it (other than the fuzzy blue glow, deliberately not disclosing much of anything other than, we may assume, if it is not entirely fake, light given off by a QX in operation.)
July 22, 2017 at 1:40 AM
Dear Dr Rossi,
About the Rossi-Gullstrom paper, input power measurment:
To be perfect, it would be preferable to serialise an ammeter with the input while measuring the input voltage: a resistor is temperature dependant, so it can lead to a false input power measurement.
P=U²/R supposes the brown resistor is stable, which is not certain. People could ask you about this during the presentation.
July 22, 2017 at 5:53 AM
Actually, the resistor is at room temperature.
This shows how Rossi thinks. Someone objective, asked a question, will think of how the question might have a foundation, and will then address that, preferably with verifiable fact. Rossi doesn’t do this. He answers the implied skeptical objection with a denial, which denial is actually incorrect, technically (though it is not actually a serious problem, but only shows how the report is not thorough.)
First of all, Michel is correct about the assumption, but doesn’t go far enough. The real question is how one knows the actual resistance of the 1 ohm resistor. Yes, resistance will vary with temperature, but what is shown is actually a classic ammeter assembly. A ammeter in that range will often use a 1 ohm shunt, thus deferring the problem. The best ammeters will be temperature-compensated.
The calibration of all the meters can be raised as an issue. However, for the purposes of this relatively informal experiment, and with two meters being used, we can assume that the measurements are accurate well within the needs of the experiment. So the overall imagined objection is not cogent.
The current shunt resistor will be heated by the current through it, at a dissipating 10 mW, estimated from the voltage shown and a “1 ohm brown resistor.” For measuring current, the voltmeter will be across the resistor, not the voltage source.
We wonder what the color has to do with anything. Instead of “brown,” a serious paper would have reported the exact resistor used, as well as how it was mounted. It appears that this resistor is mounted, suspended in air, so it will not be efficiently cooled. Resistors are made for this kind of purpose, designed to be screwed tightly to a heat sink, precisely to control the temperature better. With a known resister, and thus with, almost certainly, a specified temperature behavior, the possible error here could be calculated. As well, the report could simply say, “the resistor was not warm to the touch,” – which is more or less what I’d expect, from experience with resistors, but the power specification of the resistor really matters. So the report might call it a “1 watt resistor” or a higher value, whatever was actually used.
I might wonder if Gullstrom was allowed to touch the resistor. If the obvious possibility is reality, it could be dangerous, though a circuit could be designed where it would not be hazardous.
What all this shows is lack of scientific caution. Rossi is not a scientist, period. He is an inventor and entrepreneur and a sort-of, seat-of-the-pants engineer. A scientific answer would have been, say, “the temperature rise was less than X degrees C.” There has to be a rise, that’s physics. Rossi simply denies it, that’s Rossi.
I think Rossi elsewhere says that the two voltmeters are redundantly connected. The paper describes two experiments. The “first” was previously published, I’d thought. I should check that. Results from it are given in this paper. (There is no citation of the first paper in this one, which is quite odd.)
Description of the apparatus: The circuit of the apparatus consists of a power source supplying direct current, a 1-Ohm resistor load, and a reactor containing two nickel rods with LiAlH4 separated by 1.5 cm of space.
During the test, a direct current was switched on and off. When the current was switched on, a plasma was seen flowing between the two nickel rods. The current was running through the plasma but the plasma was found to be charge-neutral from a Van de Graaff test. This implies that the plasma has an equal amount of positive ions flying in the direction of the current and negative ions(electrons) in the opposite direction.
Input: 0.105 V of direct current over a 1 Ohm resistance.
This is, again, odd. Normally, a plasma created from a gas or ordinary matter will be “charge neutral,” there will be equal positive and negative ions. I.e., this is completely expected for a plasma. So the point is? An article on plasma physics.
There is no complication to the described apparatus. The power input is “direct current.” No special stimulation, no complicated waveform, terminally simple. The current was switched on and off. The context suggests that it was on or off for extended periods (not in some rapid waveform, which then would create a series of effects and issues).
If this is a plasma in the device, it would be charge-neutral, and would conduct current, but the language implies that there is something unusual, mentioning current through the device “but” it was found to be charge neutral. That’s contradictory, indicating low writing skill, if nothing else. This paper shows no sign of having been peer-reviewed, arXiv papers skip that process.
I was unable to find references for a “Van de Graaf test.” Maybe the original paper. Ah. This is not a new paper, and what I found explains why it isn’t cited. The “new paper” is a revised version of the original paper. Announcements of this were highly misleading. Here is the original version. 9 March, 2017. It says the same thing, but the original called it a “Van deer Graaf” test. That’s almost certainly an error. Van de Graaff generators are used to easily generate very high voltages (at very low current); I had one as a kid. Great fun!
The older version was discussed on LENR Forum and E-Catworld. Reading the first discussion trying to find information there is like reviewing a collection of boogers. Nevertheless, ccasionally some factoid is mentioned, often it is completely off-topic. (For example, Luxe was an IH project!) Occasionally someone knows what they are writing about, but not usually. Nobody is in charge, there is no coherent accumulation of knowledge or organization of discussion. The usual.
There is a mention of “van der graaf test.” It’s sarcastic. It’s actually a reference to an Axil question on E-Cat World. I.e., Axil has the same question as I had. I knew “van de Graaff” as a method of generating high voltage, not as some kind of “test,” but one might do some kind of test using high voltage. Testing the effect of a high voltage field on a visible plasma could be interesting (and also magnetic fields are classically used for this), but what exactly was seen?
Gullstrom and Rossi mention a test, as if it would be obvious, and gives the conclusion, not the actual test results. Gullstrom has no clue how to present experimental results, in a serious paper. Nobody actually looks at the context and significance.
THHuxley new describes the discussion as “depressing.” I get it. Where does one start?
Spending much time analyzing an experimental report, missing many crucial details and thus unverifiable unless some amazing accident happens and someone correctly guesses the details, is often a waste of time. Those with the skills are commonly busy elsewhere. But THH often does look, it’s a kind of hobby. You can read his considerations, I have my own.
It is being assumed that the full voltage in the circuit is 1.05 V. The paper doesn’t actually say that. From other Rossi comments, he doesn’t want the full voltage known, if I’ve read them correctly, because this could give operating parameters for the Quark-X, which are Super-Dooper Sekrit. THH mentions that there could be pulse power; and that’s quite sensible; creating a plasma with 1.05 V is … odd. I played a lot with neon tubes at one point. Striking voltage, necessary to create a plasma (which is then seen by the glow), about 90 volts. The bulb then becomes a conductor and then takes far less voltage to maintain the discharge. As is described in the Wikipedia article, this can be used to make relaxation oscillators and logic circuits, and I did that. What I learned was, among other things, how to use an oscilloscope. Ah, fun.
The Quark-X, as described, appears to be a glow discharge device.
The most likely gas is hydrogen, but it has a much higher breakdown voltage than neon. On the other hand, geometry matters and, as well, the breakdown voltage of a gas may be lowered by adding a radioactive element (and that’s actually done). However, the light given off by a glow discharge lamp will not follow Wien’s law, at all, so the use of Wein’s law in the Gullstrom paper is, to use the technical term, bonkers. Worse than any mistake made at Lugano.
Back to the paper.
Input: 0.105 V of direct current over a 1 Ohm resistance
This guy would get a poor grade in a high school physics test, if he wrote that, because “Volts” are not a measure of “direct current.” He is probably referring to a voltage drop of 105 millivolts across a 1 ohm ballast resistor, and using a ballast resistor is exactly what one would do with a glow discharge lamp. This, then give a current through the resistor of 105 mA. Presumably from the circuit, this gives us the current through the device. However, it does not tell us — at all, what the input power is. To know that, one must know the voltage across the device, and that information has been withheld.
To give an example, suppose the power supply is set at 200 V, and suppose this is well-regulated. With some gases, this would be strike voltage and the tube would conduct. These tubes often are not terribly good conductors, as I recall. However, let’s assume that the current is 105 mA. The voltage across the tube would be 199.9 V. The power into the device would be … 20 W. This is consistent with the experimental report.
It is what isn’t said that can make a huge difference!
The newer experiment gives us a little different perspective, but not much. it does not address the basic problem, lack of voltage across the device. many suggested measuring that and I think that Rossi replied that it was secret. The power dissipation used in the calculation was for the ballast resistor, not the device. If the 105 millivolts was the full voltage, then we don’t know the current, because the resistance of the device is not stated. If the calorimetry is decent (a big if with anything Rossi!), I think that Rossi is correct, that this is voltage across the resistor, but then we have a different amazing invention, probably, a plasma generator operating with a tenth of a volt DC, at a gap of 1.5 cm. There would need to be some initiator event for the device to conduct as claimed. The gas is likely hydrogen. It has a higher breakdown voltage than neon, which is roughly as low as it goes for non-radioactive initiation. Mystery.
This is appalling as a scientific report, but it isn’t a scientific report, that’s obvious, it’s a piece of ungrounded theoretical speculation, founded on unconfirmed evidence. Rossi has fooled people with much deeper credentials than Gullstrom.
I have often thought that his main purpose is to skewer stuffed shirts. It would make some kind of sense.
What happened to the $50,000,000 invested in IH by the British Investment company Woodford on the basis of IH having the US rights for the ecat which they now no longer have?
could you shed light on this?
July 22, 2017 at 5:54 AM
It is no more my business.
This is old behavior. Rossi believed various ideas about that investment, and asserted them in his pleadings. There is now no confidentiality requirement (if the settlement agreement is actually in place). He could tell us what he knows or thinks. However, this question was always obvious for those who became familiar with the case documents.
First of all, the question incorporates an assumption that is misleading, that the Woodford investment was “on the basis of IH having the U.S. rights,”
We have no direct information on this, only Rossi Says, and Rossi could not know. What we know about the situation is that the Woodford investment was used to support other LENR research, and to obtain other IP rights, which Rossi called his “competition,” in the Lewan interview, so he certainly knows what they did with it. He calls it “not his business,” and, in fact, it never was his business, but he made a huge fuss about it.
The investment was not into IH. It was originally planned to be in IPH, which had been assigned the Rossi IP rights, and which had been planned to become the overall holding company, but Woodford insisted on this going into a new company that would purchase IH with a stock swap, IHHI, a U.K. company. This not only put the $50 million investment in a company they could watch and control if needed, as being close to them, it also put it out of reach of Rossi. Strange way to invest in Rossi technology, if that was the goal. IPH was a defendant in the lawsuit, but Rossi could not touch IHHI. He could just make a lot of noise about it.
Including overstating the valuation, by the way, see How to drastically overvalue a company.
No, the goal of IHHI (like IH, actually) was to support LENR research and development, with an eye to eventual profit, if possible. Nobody knows if profit is possible, to know better will take research. I claim, frequently, and claimed in a peer-reviewed article, that the FP Heat Effect is real and nuclear in nature, per multiple independent confirmations of a single experimental report (the heat/helium ratio with the FPHE), but that does not translate to “commercially viable,” not even close. It is possible that billions of dollars could be thrown at the program, without commercial results. That’s the field. Very, very risky. I suggest taking one small step at a time, building a knowledge base, with what has been called “due deliberate speed.”
The IH attempt to support Rossi with funding for commercial development was a bust. In mercato veritas. Rossi now faces much more difficulty in raising that kind of money, I assume. But there may be those who will pay no attention to history.
My job, here, is to organize the information available, to make it easier to access. I also state my opinions, which is a separate task; much easier. Just write!
(However, “Opinions are like assholes.”) Looking this phrase up, I came across this Dirty Harry snippet. Worth watching. The world is changing, some people are slower to notice, they are so certain of their own rightness. Dirty Harryparticipating in a review of a female candidate for inspector, expresses the “Neanderthal” view very effectively. We might notice that the Neanderthals went extinct. Best line, by the woman: “It’s my ass.” Fast thinking, under stress. Definitely, this woman doesn’t have experience as a line officer. One the other hand, she damn well deserves the opportunity! In other movies, Eastwood makes the point that his partners often get killed. Eastwood was here playing a role, an archetypal, stereotypical role, to the hilt. His personal politics were very different. I never watched the Dirty Harry movies. Color me culturally deprived.)
The first task is a lot more work and if it is only me, it’s not going to be nearly as effective. I did some of this during the trial. A single page might take a week of work, some did.
The final judgments are up to those who need to know, who will be putting their own time and their own assets at risk. They are the real jury in the real “market.” Not booing and hissing pseudoskeptics and not cheering and fawning fanatic believers.
While I was writing the above, it went on:
July 22, 2017 at 6:25 AM
You answered to Michel:
“Actually, the resistor is at room temperature.”
This is reasonable since the input power is about 0.01W. But the Ecat QX output power is about 20W.
Sigh. If I were Andrea Rossi, my faith in humanity would be very low. No wonder.
Yes, the power dissipated in the ballast resistor is 10 mW. But the photo shows a substantial distance between the calorimeter and the ballast resistor. At this distance, and with only 20 W (think a 20 W light bulb), there would be no significant effect. We don’t actually know the input power, see above, it’s been concealed, though quite a few are making assumptions and declaring it — including Gullstrom. What was actually stated:
In the left in the figure there is two voltmeters that measure the mV of the current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance.
As I point out above, the “mv of the current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance” could only mean the voltage drop across the resistor. I.e., from the current, not of the current. This is not what would ordinarily be done in an experiment like this, except partially. One would indeed measure current by the drop over the resistor (that’s standard) and either the total system voltage or the voltage across the device. The redundancy was dumb, not necessary for an experiment as rough as this. Rossi is concealing the full input power, and there is reason to suspect that the full input voltage is much higher, and, in fact, to then expect that the device would, in fact, dissipate something like 20 watts, if the voltage is high enough to cause a plasma to form. But Rossi doesn’t have an intelligent audience, mostly. There are a few exceptions, but they don’t challenge Rossi. Back to Marco:
Does this means that
1) the coil is bigger and far away from the Ecat surface?
There is no “coil.” The distance from the E-Cat to the resistor is clear from the photo.
2) the fluid circulates in contact with the Ecat, taking away the heat and leaving the coil at almost room temperature (or at most at water temperature)?
The resistor (not coil) will be close to room temperature, which is what Rossi just said. The fluid cannot be hotter than the device it is cooling. This idea of “taking away heat” that doesn’t understand, at all, the laws of thermodynamics, is far too common among some who comment about LENR. There is no “water temperature” probably. The calorimetric details are not given (the raw data would be important. It appears they are using flow calorimetry, with a set flow of oil, and a temperature rise of 1.58° C. The device would probably be a little hotter than that. 20 W in a resistor will ordinarily make it way too hot to touch. And I’m not looking at this closer than this. There are too many vague conditions.
3) the only stimulation is the constant magnetic field?
As far as I know, we know nothing about a “constant magnetic field” and a constant field would not ordinarily be “stimulating.”
4) or that a pulsed current to generate RF pulses is superimposed as I suggested many times, to replicate in small scale a magnetic resonance gantry?
“RF pulses” would contradict what Gullstrom reports, and there goes the input power measurement, even the current.
5) if the answer to 4) is no, could you please try to superimpose some RF train to test my theory? A sinusoidal pulse, convoluted with a sinc pulse, with main frequency 43.5*B MHz is the best, calculating B with the known formula of a solenoid…
Snowball’s chance in hell. If someone shows some coherence and that he — or she — is actually paying attention, Rossi might use an idea. Otherwise it’s chatter. Rossi’s comments about chatter are some of the most cogent things he writes.
Of course, I might ask why Rossi approves useless comments, which are a more sophisticated form of spam. Instead of saying “Viagra!” or something like that, it says “Me! Me! Pay Attention to Me!”
If someone seriously wants to learn, this is not how to go about it. If Rossi has what he claims (don’t mistake this for some belief that he does), his time is incredibly valuable. Maybe $100 million per minute. I’m kind of amazed by people who believe he has what he claims who will then waste his time like this. I don’t believe him, but I also think he has a right to his time and I am not and have never demanded he respond to me, I shook his hand in Miami and wished his good health, and meant it. But I also serve humanity as a whole, and hence I share what I see and know and think.
July 22, 2017 at 2:56 PM
I cannot give further information.
Yes, totally predictable. He could, if he wanted, but I doubt it would be useful for him. The question would have gotten more answer on E-Cat world or LENR Forum. where there are plenty of volunteers to help the clueless.
There was much discussion of the QX experiment on Rossi’s blog, I cover it here.
There is a little more there I notice, classic Rossi.
July 23, 2017 at 9:12 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
LENR Forum is full of comments of Jed Rothwell and Dewey Weaver that continue to insult your work.
We all know, because it has been put in evidence by the papers of the trial of the litigation Rossi Vs Darden, that Jed Rothwell is an Advisor of IH and Dewey Weaver is a consultant of IH and also we read on the papers of the litigation that these two individuals combined cashed from IH hundreds thousand dollars from IH, but they continue to represent themselves as neutral experts of LENR. Note: none of them has an education beyond the middle schools, none of them has education in Physics, being one of them a translator of English language and the other some sort of a patent consultant, not being anyway a patent attorney or a patent engineer…
This having been said, I have the following questions to put, if you can answer:
1) what do you think of the LENR Forum?
2) why you do not sue them for damages?
3) why do you not respond or react to their comments?
Giovanni De Magistris
This is classic for JONP. Claims are made about what is written elsewhere, and about evidence, with no links. Dewey Weaver is a consultant to IH and has been paid. We might point out that Penon and Fabiani have been consultants for Rossi and have been paid. This means little other than some obvious conflict of interest. Rossi has an obvious conflict of interest. Engineer48 claims to be working for a company in an effort to install a Rossi reactor. Conflict of interest. By itself, this means little.
Jed Rothwell, however, claims that he has never received any payments from Industrial Heat. He was listed as a possible advisor in an IH internal document, not as someone actually retained. This extrapolation from some possible hint in evidence is typical of Planet Rossi conspiracy theory. Rossi, by approving posts like this, is possibly committing libel, but the chances of being sued are relatively small. How small? I don’t know. It could happen.
Is LENR Forum “full” of comments by Rothwell and Weaver “insulting” Rossi’s work? Rothwell on Saturday and Sunday wrote 13 posts, some very brief, and only four of them could be considered critical of Rossi, and some of those were plain fact, not even close to libel. For LENR Forum, that is a low level of activity.
Dewey Weaver wrote no posts on Saturday and two on Sunday, and both Sunday posts were not insulting to Rossi or his work.
Weaver wrote one post today, so far:
Ele – As you may know, Rossi’s attorney proposed a walkaway moments before testimony was to begin. I presume that TD accepted to eliminate risk and to keep any further capital from flowing to law firms.
Rossi clearly wanted out for several obvious reasons. I’m personally disappointed that we did not see this through but completely understand and accept the decision.
I don’t see you anywhere near the finish line either – the one on your planet doesn’t count.
That is not insulting Rossi. It’s confronting ele, a bit. Ele had written:
Rossi exhibits bad business practice
Really? He was able to get a settlement with a company that was much powerful than his . He demonstrated to be much stronger then IH….. so I think he is not to bad doing business.
The “bad business practice” comment was not actually controversial. Many of Rossi’s friends acknowledge that. Ele’s comment, in context, was trolling, ele had made a series of posts effusively praising Rossi. Framing the settlement as a Rossi victory is possible, from within the limited view of Planet Rossi, convinced that the License was worth billions of dollars. To IH, however, it was worthless, and they had put more money into testing the technology than anyone had ever done. Rossi then, in the Lewan interview, framed the return of the License as being his goal all along. He gives details of his reasons for that in the interview, and they boil down to his being paranoid, which was obvious from his pleadings in the trial. That is not good business practice, and that paranoia is a major piece of what led him to lose in court in Italy. Contrary to Planet Rossi claims, he was not “exonerated” of all charges, the reality is far more complex, and he did serve time in prison, and some convictions stood.
The evidence in Rossi v. Darden shows many examples of what would be considered poor business practice. How about cheating Hydro Fusion — or, in the alternative, lying to IH about that Hydro Fusion test? Ele is proposing walking away with some cash left as showing good business practice. Under some circumstances, one might get away with this. In others, one may end up dead in an alley somewhere. Be careful whom you fuck with. Some get mad (Dewey Weaver), some blow it off (Darden) and some get even. Rossi, from his history, will be driven to deal with increasingly dangerous people, unless he is truly careful.
(If his version of the Italian story is at least partially true, he managed to piss off the Mafia. If it’s avoidable, not good business practice!) Rossi responded similarly to how he has responded in the past. Remember, he approved the post.
July 23, 2017 at 1:27 PM
1- I do not read LENR Forum
2- they did not cause damages to us
3- I have better things to do than feed a bunch of trolls
Many times I have seen Rossi respond to comments made on his blog, comments which displayed his own idiosyncratic language and point of view, referring to commentary elsewhere. His response assumes that the report was accurate. Ele’s point of view is so close to Rossi’s that some think ele is Rossi. If “she” is not Rossi himself, often ele writes as if a Rossi insider, and ele stimulates anti-Rossi comments, by proposing often preposterous justifications of this or that Rossi claim.
Rossi is again feeding the conflict, compared to what he could have done — and what I’d hoped he was going to continue doing, stepping back, letting go, as IH did. (Dewey Weaver is not IH, but an investor in and contractor for IH. He does not speak for IH on the blogs, and hasn’t ever done this, but he sometimes communicates a little inside information, that’s all.)
The discussion of the QX is getting more and more insane, and Rossi seems quite confused, in ways I haven’t seen before.
July 25, 2017 at 4:51 AM
Can you explain why the test cited in the recent Gullstroem-Rossi paper ran for only 1.8 seconds? It seems quite short to me.
July 25, 2017 at 6:09 AM
Come on, Frank: 1.8 seconds is a very nonsensical time at all: where did you find it?
I never said this obvious nonsense. If you found it somewhere, please tell me, it is obviously a typo waiting to be corrected.
I knew exactly where Acland found it. Why doesn’t Rossi know? Acland asked the question in a possibly confusing way, but the source was obvious, and there is indeed an obvious question. 1.8 seconds was the time required for a fluid to rise in temperature by 1.58 C in the reported heat generation measurement in the Gullstrom-Rossi paper.
The obvious question: given practical considerations involved in measuring temperature and time, that’s a very short time and a much longer time could have been used for a greater temperature rise, improving accuracy. Why the short time?
There are possible answers and what may become obvious is that the Gullstrom-Rossi paper is terminally vague. The more I read the last experimental report, the more I think Rossi wrote it, not Gullstrom.
But there is more.
July 25, 2017 at 6:39 AM
Sorry, it may have been a misinterpretation from the Gullstroem-Rossi paper”
Flow heating: 1.58 C / 1.8″ x 11 g
What does (“) represent?
July 25, 2017 at 6:47 AM
It is a formula to calculate the speed of heating: it means that we measured a speed of heating of 1.58 Celsius degree every 1,8 seconds in a mass of 11 grams of water.
Problem: water is not mentioned in the Gullstrom account, which has:
The system is displayed in figure 5. In the figure, the yellow thermometer
measures the temperature of the oil inside the heat exchanger.
The image shows nothing that looks like a heat exchanger. However, temperature is being measured, of oil (not water) inside a piece of pipe, The density of the oil may be 0.9 g/cm^3 (no units are given for “D”, but that’s plausible). The efficiency of the exchanger is given as 10%.
What appears to me is that the oil is in the top part of that T-junction and the QX is below it; 10% efficiency means that 90% of the heat doesn’t heat the oil. That could be established with calibration, but nothing like that is reported, this paper could get a bad grade in a high school physics class. The current is given and then treated as if this establishes input power, which, quite obviously, it doesn’t.
Rossi obviously doesn’t remember that it’s oil, not water, or something is drastically off. For example, perhaps the QX is immersed in oil and then the oil is in thermal contact with water above. But, then, the report is incorrectly stated and, in any case, it has the only thermometer be measuring the oil temperature, not water.
July 25, 2017 at 7:13 AM
Thanks very much — makes sense now. (I do wonder why pick a seemingly arbitrary time period like 1.8 seconds)
July 25, 2017 at 8:38 AM
The choice of a period of 1.8 seconds is due to our kind of calculations.
Rossi apparently gave “explanations” like this during the Lugano test, and the team swallowed them whole and then regurgitated them in the report. Nothing was explained here and if Frank was satisfied, he’s not ready yet to realize what’s happening. The calorimetric method is not being explained. Just some pieces of calculations without clear foundation. The use of ” for seconds is not normal for scientific papers (though it might be used in tables where abbreviations are needed, though “s” is much more common. ” is more common, as well, for seconds of arc.
On ECW, they are going nuts figuring out “explanations.” For example, it’s being theorized that the QX is a current source, but if so, again, the Gullstrom paper would be misleading.
The circuit of the apparatus consists of a power source supplying direct
current, a 1-Ohm resistor load, and a reactor containing two nickel rods with
LiAlH4 separated by 1.5 cm of space.
The QX is described as a two-terminal device, and that is what seems to be visible in the image (which doesn’t show the QX itself, but there are only two wiring points). As described, it would not be polarized. Again, one can imagine an entire universe of unstated characteristics, but, then, the simple description would be misleading.
Rossi confirms the “water” trope:
Steven N. Karels
July 25, 2017 at 12:54 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You posted “Flow heating: 1.58 C / 1.8″ x 11 g”
Just to make sure we understand your nomenclature:
11 grams of water flowed over 1.8 seconds causing a change in temperature of the water of 1.58C.
Water flow rate past the reactor = 11 grams / 1.8 sec = 6.1 grams of water per second
The thermal change rate was 1.58C in 1.8 seconds or 0.88C/sec
Therefore, the amount of water raised 1C in one second was 6.1 grams of water raising 0.88C in one second or 5.4 grams of water was raised 1C in one second
A Calorie is defined as raising 1 gram of water at normal pressure 1 C and 1 Calorie = 4.186 Joules
So raising 5.4 grams of water 1 C in one second required 5.4 Calories or 22.47W
Is this interpretation correct?
July 25, 2017 at 2:24 PM
Steven N. Karels:
Thank you for your insight,
What is described here doesn’t match the Gullstrom paper, which itself purports to show a heat exchanger with no provision for flow, and with the temperature of oil being measured, not water. If water temperature rise is being used, why is the specific heat of the oil given? (It is half that of water, apparently, so a given temperature rise will indicate half as much energy.)
Occasionally, I look at JONP and notice old posts. This one leapt out at me, grabbed me by the collar, and said “Write about this Or Else!”
Well, not actually. It’s really something that was very common. Someone essentially anonymous would ask Rossi questions about the facts behind the lawsuit, and Rossi would answer with “I can’t answer.” But so many of these questions are so tightly aligned with what Rossi was claiming in the suit that it’s very unlikely this was independent.
January 11, 2017 at 3:21 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
1- did IH know from the beginning (2014) that you were going to be a consultant of JM to set up their plant for the performance test?
2- did IH know that you were in daily contact with JM during the test?
3- did IH know that between Leonardo Corporation and JM there was a strict collaboration?
4- did you respect the confidentiality with both IH and JM not giving technological information about JM to IH and about IH and Leonardo to JM?
5- did Leonardo pay issues that had to be paid by JM (from IH accolites came chatters about this fact)
Thank you if you can answer,
This shows an awareness of the issues that Rossi was raising in his pleadings, to an extent I have never seen with independent supporters of Rossi. Mostly, they are not familiar, relying only on Rossi Says — and each other.
- Rossi at some point made noises like that. He made lots of noises, some quite inconsistent with this. First of all, the original “JM” was actually Johnson Matthey, that’s clear (and Rossi’s explicit denial of this was the sworn testimony of his most likely to create a perjury charge, so clear were multiple evidences). Then Rossi switched it to refer to what was then JM Chemical Products, which had been incorporated shortly after the declaration of the Platinum American Trust, with Rossi’s attorney, Johnson, as sole trustee. Platinum American Trust had, as sole beneficiary, an old friend of Rossi, and that friend put in no funds, only his name. The real legal question was whether or not JMC (later renamed JMP) was actually independent rather than merely a piece of paper. JMP was, for all practical purposes, Rossi.
- Again, they were probably told this. Now, what this implies is that there was Rossi, on one hand, and JM on the other. Both hands were Rossi. There was a level of communication with Johnson or Johnson’s secretary, but not every day. So here, if Rossi was responsible for this post (probable), he was still being thoroughly deceptive; here to fire up his base with arguments which, sure enough, they did repeat elsewhere.
- “Strict collaboration” is Rossi-speak for “undefined.” I have no idea what it means as to the case.
- There was no independent JM to have any confidentiality to protect. The only confidentiality was Rossi about what was actually happening. JM was Rossi, so whatever Rossi knew, JM knew. There was no independent entity. James Bass was an employee (contractor, I think) told what to say and do. He originally believed that the “real customer” was Johnson Matthey, that’s clear from his emails to Rossi that came out in discovery. That was all a lie — or to put lipstick on the pig, a Rossi plan that somehow never actually happened, but he pretended that it di.
- There are no IH “acolytes,” this is standard Planet Rossi cant. People who were critical of Rossi, some of whom were supportive of IH, have mentioned what was obvious from case documents: Rossi entirely paid all “JM” expenses, but asked for invoices to make it appear that there was some independence. All funding for JM came from Rossi, some of it based on selling product to Leonardo, Rossi’s company. The product was apparently no more than a few grams of processed platinum sponge, the raw material having been scavenged from Johnson Matthey catalyzers. Later there was some talk of graphene, another high-value product where only small quantities might be worth a lot of money. It was all a sham, Rossi all the way down, making all decisions but pretending, in various correspondences and on his blog, to be in relationship with others.
My claim is that study of the case documents leads to all these conclusions, most especially that, regardless of excuses, Rossi is highly deceptive, what he claims cannot be treated as reality. JONP is soaked with this, read almost any page some years later and it’s visible as, at best, something that didn’t happen. Anyone who trusts Rossi to be open and honest is not paying attention to what is clearly known. The story that Pace, the lead attorney for Darden et al, told the jury, the day in court before the settlement, was simple.
And as we have discussed, though, over the last 40 minutes, the fact of the matter is these E-Cat boxes, they’re not filled with magic. Turned out that they were just simply filled with lies.
(The full defense opening begins on page 138.)
That was rhetoric, of course. However, it was preceded by much reference to evidence.
I’m inspired to pull out the opening statements for the parties, and create documents annotating them. This can be a community project, because if, perhaps, I omit something, others can point to it and it can be incorporated. There are errors in Pace’s argument, pieces where it might be relatively weak, but, overall, I saw this as devastating. I was not watching the jury close enough to be sure of the jury’s response, but the Pace story was designed to be simple and easy to understand, and was skillfully delivered, which was not the case for the Chaiken opening.
Lawyers tell us that court outcomes are never certain, but it’s possible to assess likely outcomes, and what was likely was that Rossi was a going to lose, that he would not prevail on any Count, and that IH was likely to prevail on at least some of their counterclaims.
A problem was that some of the Pace claims were not necessarily legally recoverable. They were intended, however, to establish a factual background; for example the claims about the performance in Italy. There was a good chance that subsequent IH action or failure to act would lead to estoppel, to an inability to later claim fraud. But they could still show that it was probably fraud, thus reinforcing their story of later fraud, where they were not estopped from claims. Johnson, Rossi’s friend and loyal supporter, was in trouble, having clearly deceived IH.
The actual damages might have covered IH legal expenses. Or might not.
I’m wondering what a careful examination of the opening statements will show. In a sense, by settling in court, the parties moved the trial into one of public opinion. What are the arguments and what are the facts?