Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

The Lugano reactor did not produce nickel-62 as ash, which is what AR wants
> the world to believe. The nearly pure isotope was there from the start.


What you say may be true. Bob Higgins's interpretation of the strange
Lugano ash assay result, where one is led to believe that all nickel
transmuted to 62Ni, but really didn't, because the samples were
unrepresentative, is consistent with this.

Here's another take on the larger context, however: the 62Ni could in fact
be a byproduct of whatever is releasing heat in the system. Rossi had a
series of analyses done and noted a correlation between heat and 62Ni.
Mistaking correlation with causation, he concluded, or tentatively
concluded, that 62Ni is doing something, and so has behaved in a manner
consistent with this understanding ever since.  In this scenario, a more
thorough analysis would show that 62Ni is, in fact, just a byproduct,
contrary to the understanding that led Rossi to purchase the 62Ni and
include it in the fuel (assuming this is what has happened).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Brad Lowe]

I don't get it. Dump the 1 MW of heat energy into an Olympic sized
swimming pool and in a few days it would be uncomfortably hot.. in 9
days the whole pool would be boiling. If he used diesel for the input
energy, the test would be conclusive in days. What are they doing for
the other 11 months?

That said, anyone know where the test was run? Where the heat energy
was supposed to go? The input (natural gas or electricity?) Does Rossi
have other units running, and if so, where? I'm heading to FL and
happy to knock on a few doors or look for massive quantities of steam.

The only thing I can think of is that results look convincing with
thermocouples and IR cameras, but for some reason,extracting the
energy is proving impossible... which would explain positive "reports"
and zero proof.

- Brad



On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Teslaalset  wrote:
>
>> Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden
>> because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur and
>> not somebody who is payed by society. What he tells us and what he doesn’t
>> tell us is up to him.
>
>
> I agree. That is what I said. However, I think he makes a big mistake when
> he does half-assed public tests and then publishes incomplete,
> poorly-written descriptions of them. Of course he has a right to do this. Of
> course it is up to him. But it is still a stupid thing to do. It hurts his
> credibility and it makes the whole field look bad to some extent, so I wish
> he would cut it out.
>
> It is ironic, but in some ways his tests have been better than the published
> descriptions of them indicate. He could have made a more convincing case for
> himself just by publishing more details. For example, in one test, he used
> flow calorimetry. He listed the approximate flow rate in the report, with no
> indication of how it was measured. I asked him how he measured the flow
> rate. He did not respond so I asked other people who were involved. No one
> responded. Other people asked -- still no response. This made the entire
> test questionable. A flow rate might vary without your noticing it. In the
> past, he said he measured the flow rate with a bucket and a stopwatch
> periodically. This is a good idea but it is not adequate for a multi-hour or
> multi-day test. Plus you have to say how periodically, how many times, and
> what the results were.
>
> Several months after this, someone pointed out to me that a photograph
> showed a flowmeter attached to the equipment. I zoomed in, read the make and
> model, and looked up the specifications. It was a conventional residential
> digital water meter; a low-flow model often used in apartment complexes.
> These meters are very reliable. This model is precise enough to give a good
> answer in the range of claimed heat. Like all water meters it records both
> flow and volume. In short, it was an excellent choice for this test. So, WHY
> DIDN'T THEY LIST IT IN THE REPORT?!? For crying out loud!
>
> Really, what is with that??? Were they trying to make themselves look bad?
> Is McKubre right, and is Rossi deliberately trying to make his own results
> look doubtful? Jim Patterson used to do that; it is not out of the question.
> I don't know. I cannot read Rossi's mind. I can only say that in my opinion
> and in the opinions of most people I know in business, this is a stupid,
> counterproductive, self-destructive thing to do.
>
> - Jed
>

RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Jones Beene]

From: Teslaalset 

*   Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden 
because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur and 
not somebody who is paid by society… Give Rossi a bit more credit on what he 
shares and what he doesn’t share. From his angle it very understandable. 

I agree with your synopsis – as far as it goes. But there is more to the big 
picture of understanding what is going on - behind the scenes. We have 
discussed this before, circa 2013, but never really took the thread about 
Rossi’s real secret (not-so-secret secret) to its logical conclusion.

On the larger stage of commercial reality - Rossi has had no choice but to put 
the identity of the secret sauce on the table (and then try to hide it in 
practice by a string of deceptive disinformation). It has been crystal-clear 
for 3 years that the one and only public detail which is relevant for the 
successful Rossi-effect  reaction, and is protected by Patent - is the use of 
nickel-62 as the active isotope. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

62Ni is the only major detail which is protected in Rossi’s granted Italian 
patent, according to experts, and also it is in the pending EPO application 
(EP2259998). Rossi’s wife is a top Italian Lawyer, so it can be assumed that 
she knew the importance of disclosing (and then trying to cover-up) the one 
critical detail – the active ingredient. Yet, the requirement for the rare 
isotope could now be the thorn in Rossi’s heel, since it is expensive and 
renders the entire device commercially non-competitive, if no substitute is 
found. 

Rossi has tried to gloss-over this fact in the past - by claiming that he could 
enrich bulk nickel in this isotope cheaply. Can he? It is clear from the Lugano 
report that he ran the test with a reactor (one of 3 which he brought) which 
contained pure isotope at the start, in the hope of throwing competitors 
off-guard by claiming that the reaction produced it in pure form - as ash! 

Wow – what a brilliant deception. Hats off to AR. Most surprising is that many 
observers, including Levi and his crew, actually bought into this ridiculous 
falsehood. The Lugano reactor did not produce nickel-62 as ash, which is what 
AR wants the world to believe. The nearly pure isotope was there from the 
start. 

One of the remaining reactors which Rossi brought to Lugano (of 3) was indeed 
opened to show the “starting fuel” content - but of course, this one had no 
isotopic enrichment. That is the crux of the deception which has lingered on 
for years. Brilliant.

The reliance on a rare and expensive isotope is why Craven’s started the thread 
below some time ago – trying to find a logical substitute based on the physical 
parameter of 62Ni which makes it unique (ironically: it is high nuclear binding 
energy). In fact 62Ni is a singularity in the periodic table, but its 
characteristics are almost the same as an iron isotope. 

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg80458.html

So – in conclusion – the LENR “surprise” in the upcoming report is very likely 
to be partially hidden away, once again. Since the year-long report will be 
positive in terms of gain – that will divert attention from the big problem. 
The report will probably not show that the secret sauce – the one which allowed 
it all to happen, is a rare isotope which costs around $10,000 per gram, unless 
you make it yourself. But the accolades and “told-you-so” boasts from the Rossi 
fan-boys could regrettably cover up the hidden reality… that the emperor has no 
(commercial) clothes.

If there is happy note which can arise from the year-long test, it will be that 
Rossi finally discloses the resolution to the problem: which is that he has 
indeed found an inexpensive way to enrich the nickel fuel cheaply in the active 
isotope.

Chances of that happening are slim.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Jed Rothwell]

Teslaalset  wrote:

Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden
> because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur
> and not somebody who is payed by society. What he tells us and what he
> doesn’t tell us is up to him.
>

I agree. That is what I said. However, I think he makes a big mistake when
he does half-assed public tests and then publishes incomplete,
poorly-written descriptions of them. Of course he has a right to do this.
Of course it is up to him. But it is still a stupid thing to do. It hurts
his credibility and it makes the whole field look bad to some extent, so I
wish he would cut it out.

It is ironic, but in some ways his tests have been better than the
published descriptions of them indicate. He could have made a more
convincing case for himself just by publishing more details. For example,
in one test, he used flow calorimetry. He listed the approximate flow rate
in the report, with no indication of how it was measured. I asked him how
he measured the flow rate. He did not respond so I asked other people who
were involved. No one responded. Other people asked -- still no response.
This made the entire test questionable. A flow rate might vary without your
noticing it. In the past, he said he measured the flow rate with a bucket
and a stopwatch periodically. This is a good idea but it is not adequate
for a multi-hour or multi-day test. Plus you have to say how periodically,
how many times, and what the results were.

Several months after this, someone pointed out to me that a photograph
showed a flowmeter attached to the equipment. I zoomed in, read the make
and model, and looked up the specifications. It was a conventional
residential digital water meter; a low-flow model often used in apartment
complexes. These meters are very reliable. This model is precise enough to
give a good answer in the range of claimed heat. Like all water meters it
records both flow and volume. In short, it was an excellent choice for this
test. So, WHY DIDN'T THEY LIST IT IN THE REPORT?!? For crying out loud!

Really, what is with that??? Were they trying to make themselves look bad?
Is McKubre right, and is Rossi deliberately trying to make his own results
look doubtful? Jim Patterson used to do that; it is not out of the
question. I don't know. I cannot read Rossi's mind. I can only say that in
my opinion and in the opinions of most people I know in business, this is a
stupid, counterproductive, self-destructive thing to do.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Teslaalset]

Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden
because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur
and not somebody who is payed by society. What he tells us and what he
doesn’t tell us is up to him.

The field he is trying to explore is unique and started by pure
experimenting things. Some of his findings contradict conclusions on
earlier ones. Some find that amateuristic and unreliable but in fact it is
quite understandable if you think about it for a moment.

>From what currently has been shared by Rossi it’s very clear that the core
principle of creating LENR his way is extremely simple compared to what the
ITR community is doing. Rossi understands very well that it will be very
hard for him to control the market with his technology. Secondly he, in the
mean time, also knows that this technology is so new and not well
understood that his progression is mainly based on trial and error, so
sharing all details will compromise his reputation if there is lot of
contradiction in his shared insights. An example of that can be noticed
from the patent applications he has filed so far. Originally he indicated
that nickel powder requires a catalyst, later he claims that nickel powder
is the catalyst. This shows he’s still building up knowledge. I bet there
will be completely new claims to follow that may contradict some of his
earlier ones.

Give Rossi a bit more credit on what he shares and what he doesn’t share.
>From his angle it very understandable.

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Russ George  wrote:
>
> What part of my qualifying word about Rossi’s test “as openly” did you not
>> understand.
>>
>
> I understand perfectly, but I disagree. He has not been very open. He has
> repeatedly withheld critical details. He has refused to answer questions,
> or to allow qualified people to attend his demonstrations. Other
> researchers have been more open than this.
>
> As I said, he has no obligation to be open. No one could object if he kept
> everything secret. But, if you are going to be open, and you wish to
> establish credibility, I think you should be more forthcoming than he has
> been. Assuming the machine works as claimed, it would not be difficult to
> do a definitive test with many qualified witnesses. Of course it might not
> work on the day you try to do a test. In that case, you try again some
> other day.
>
> I do not see the point of doing a demonstration if you do not wish to
> establish credibility. I think you should either do a good job, or do
> nothing.
>
>
>
>> I see no complaints about Rossi’s work coming from those who have a
>> history of work at the lab bench as opposed to the keyboards.
>>
>
> Many professional and academic scientists in this field have complained
> about Rossi. Most of them have the same objections I do: the tests are
> often sloppy and poorly documented.
>
>
>
>> I am all for an open society, let’s begin with the revelation of all
>> computer code everywhere.
>>
>
> Open source code is very popular these days.
>
> Rossi is engaged in commercial development, so obviously he cannot reveal
> technical details before he files a patent application. However, there is
> no need to reveal such details. IBM, Intel and many other companies
> demonstrate products in a convincing fashion without revealing technical
> details. Rossi could easily convince expert observers by doing good
> calorimetry with a black-box device. Many people have urged him to do that,
> but he refuses.
>
> McKubre speculates that Rossi does not want to establish credibility. He
> wants there to be a margin of doubt about his work, to reduce competition.
> Perhaps that is true. I wouldn't know, and I will not speculate about the
> reasons. But I am sure this is deliberate. Rossi told me repeatedly that he
> will not allow "tests" but only demonstrations. He told me he will do
> nothing to improve the calorimetry. Many qualified people have recommended
> improvements. He categorically refused to consider these suggestions.
> Again, let me reaffirm that he has every right to do things his way, and to
> refuse advice, but his credibility suffers because of it.
>
> I am talking about the calorimetry in his public demonstrations. I have no
> knowledge of the calorimetry in his lab or in the 1-year test.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Terry Blanton]

My guess is that this test is to determine if the customer is going to convert 
an entire factory boilers to this unproven technology. Probably to decide 
whether to make a $50,000,000 investment or more.
Probably doesn't care how it works. :-)

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Jed Rothwell]

Russ George  wrote:

What part of my qualifying word about Rossi’s test “as openly” did you not
> understand.
>

I understand perfectly, but I disagree. He has not been very open. He has
repeatedly withheld critical details. He has refused to answer questions,
or to allow qualified people to attend his demonstrations. Other
researchers have been more open than this.

As I said, he has no obligation to be open. No one could object if he kept
everything secret. But, if you are going to be open, and you wish to
establish credibility, I think you should be more forthcoming than he has
been. Assuming the machine works as claimed, it would not be difficult to
do a definitive test with many qualified witnesses. Of course it might not
work on the day you try to do a test. In that case, you try again some
other day.

I do not see the point of doing a demonstration if you do not wish to
establish credibility. I think you should either do a good job, or do
nothing.



> I see no complaints about Rossi’s work coming from those who have a
> history of work at the lab bench as opposed to the keyboards.
>

Many professional and academic scientists in this field have complained
about Rossi. Most of them have the same objections I do: the tests are
often sloppy and poorly documented.



> I am all for an open society, let’s begin with the revelation of all
> computer code everywhere.
>

Open source code is very popular these days.

Rossi is engaged in commercial development, so obviously he cannot reveal
technical details before he files a patent application. However, there is
no need to reveal such details. IBM, Intel and many other companies
demonstrate products in a convincing fashion without revealing technical
details. Rossi could easily convince expert observers by doing good
calorimetry with a black-box device. Many people have urged him to do that,
but he refuses.

McKubre speculates that Rossi does not want to establish credibility. He
wants there to be a margin of doubt about his work, to reduce competition.
Perhaps that is true. I wouldn't know, and I will not speculate about the
reasons. But I am sure this is deliberate. Rossi told me repeatedly that he
will not allow "tests" but only demonstrations. He told me he will do
nothing to improve the calorimetry. Many qualified people have recommended
improvements. He categorically refused to consider these suggestions.
Again, let me reaffirm that he has every right to do things his way, and to
refuse advice, but his credibility suffers because of it.

I am talking about the calorimetry in his public demonstrations. I have no
knowledge of the calorimetry in his lab or in the 1-year test.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Jed Rothwell]

Having said all that . . .

I believe that Rossi took part in the first Levi experiment, which was
pretty good. He deserves credit for that. He reportedly played no role in
Lugano. Perhaps it would have been better if he had.

His work is sometimes sloppy, but I have seen worse. I guess that is
damning with faint praise.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Russ George]

What part of my qualifying word about Rossi’s test “as openly” did you not 
understand. I see no complaints about Rossi’s work coming from those who have a 
history of work at the lab bench as opposed to the keyboards. Of course there 
is no end of whining from many who are his ‘competitors’ and self-appointed 
pundits who would love to see if their ranting and trolling might tweak some 
additional insight out of Rossi as to how to make progress in the field that 
they are demonstrably proven unable to contribute to. 

 

I am all for an open society, let’s begin with the revelation of all computer 
code everywhere.

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 11:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

 

Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

I for one have no end of admiration for Rossi in performing his test so 
diligently and as openly as he has done.

 

He has not been open. He has withheld many critical details.

 

The tests he has published have been poorly done and not convincing, in my 
opinion and in the opinions of many experts. He did sloppy things, such as in 
one test, he neglected to insert an SD card in the handheld thermocouple. Mats 
Lewan had to manually record temperatures because of that. He also neglected to 
measure the outlet temperature just downstream of the reactor, even though he 
had a free thermocouple. I and others urged him to do this before the test, but 
he refused. That made the results inconclusive at best.

 

He has every right to withhold details. He is under no obligation to report 
anything. I have no objection to secrecy. However, I believe that when a 
researcher decides to report a result, he should do a careful test, and then 
publish a credible, detailed report. I think it is a bad idea to publish an 
unconvincing report. That is how I would describe both Rossi's reports and the 
Lugano report. I agree with McKubre's analysis of Lugano, which is linked here:

 

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1589

 

Levi's first report was better than Lugano. I do not understand why they did a 
worse job the second time. Usually, people do a better job the second time 
around. This is baffling, and disappointing.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Jed Rothwell]

Russ George  wrote:


> I for one have no end of admiration for Rossi in performing his test so
> diligently and as openly as he has done.
>

He has not been open. He has withheld many critical details.

The tests he has published have been poorly done and not convincing, in my
opinion and in the opinions of many experts. He did sloppy things, such as
in one test, he neglected to insert an SD card in the handheld
thermocouple. Mats Lewan had to manually record temperatures because of
that. He also neglected to measure the outlet temperature just downstream
of the reactor, even though he had a free thermocouple. I and others urged
him to do this before the test, but he refused. That made the results
inconclusive at best.

He has every right to withhold details. He is under no obligation to report
anything. I have no objection to secrecy. However, I believe that when a
researcher decides to report a result, he should do a careful test, and
then publish a credible, detailed report. I think it is a bad idea to
publish an unconvincing report. That is how I would describe both Rossi's
reports and the Lugano report. I agree with McKubre's analysis of Lugano,
which is linked here:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1589

Levi's first report was better than Lugano. I do not understand why they
did a worse job the second time. Usually, people do a better job the second
time around. This is baffling, and disappointing.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Russ George]

It seems to me that all the chatter about the 350 day term of Rossi’s test is 
just so much babble from armchair dilletantes. It is tantamount to trolling. I 
for one have no end of admiration for Rossi in performing his test so 
diligently and as openly as he has done. In the face of the nasty trolls that 
he seems to have attracted one thing is clear this guy is no shrinking coward. 
Of course his real test comes with making some report of the test public and of 
its effect in the real world. 

 

From: Mats Lewan [mailto:m...@matslewan.se] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 8:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

 

Jed,

I would expect the 350-day term to be a condition in some kind of agreement, 
e.g. something between IH and Rossi.

To me it looks like a condition set up by managers, not engineers, who want to 
find a water proof condition for making sure the technology is valid, not only 
for themselves but also for convincing customers and the public. Thus not for 
convincing engineers only. 

In this sense, from an engineering perspective, you could say the story is 
incomplete. 

 

I also think you should make a distinction between the Lugano report and this 
one. 

The Lugano report were produced by academics, whereas I expect this one to be 
produced by experienced industrial experts/engineers. 

A part from taking some time to analyse all data and produce a report according 
to internal standards for the certifying institute, whichever it is, I guess 
there’s also the issue that IH, Rossi and the client have to agree on what to 
report to the public, and when. 

 

So even though I have reported that sources say the result was successful, I 
know nothing of the evaluation the third party is doing, and it could of course 
be different.  

 

Mats

www.animpossibleinvention.com <http://www.animpossibleinvention.com> 

 

 

 

On 21 Feb 2016, at 04:29, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com 
<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

<mix...@bigpond.com <mailto:mix...@bigpond.com> > wrote:

 

That may be true of normal commercial equipment that has already had the
teething problems removed, and where one may expect consistent action. However
that is not likely to be the case with Rossi's reactor.

 

If it works for an hour, any HVAC engineer could confirm that. Or if it is not 
working that particular hour, the equipment would show that, too. The whole 
purpose of HVAC test equipment is to sort out whether the machine is working 
consistently or not. Things stop working in an ordinary HVAC installation. 
Baffles get stuck; fans turn off. It often happens at my office. That's why the 
guy comes around with his air flow vane velocity fan and thermometer.

 

I am just saying the story is incomplete. This cannot mean a "test" in the 
normal sense of the word, because people test heaters a hundred thousand times 
a day, and these tests take an hour.

 

 

He was baby-sitting it for the year, and fixing things whenever it broke down.

 

If it is broken that day, the HVAC guy comes back the next day. My point is, 
you can confirm it is working in less than a year.

 

 

The customer needed to know that it would pay off in
the long term. Hence the year long test.

 

If so, I could have saved the customer the trouble. No, it is not possible this 
thing can work trouble free for a year. And even if it could, the machine would 
be obsolete long before that. Rossi demonstrated that when kept describing new 
configurations and new gadgets during the test.

Prototypes are never stable in performance. They are obsolete in months. Even 
first-generation production devices are soon obsolete, and seldom on the market 
for a year. Frederick Brooks described prototypes in his book "The Mythical Man 
Month", in the chapter "plan to throw one away:"

In most projects, the first system built is barely usable. It may be too slow, 
too big, awkward to use, or all three. There is no alternative but to start 
again, smarting but smarter, and build a redesigned version in which these 
problems are solved. The discard and redesign may be done in one lump, or it 
may be done piece-by-piece. But all large-system experience shows that it will 
be done. Where a new system concept or new technology is used, one has to build 
a system to throw away, for even the best planning is not so omniscient as to 
get it right the first time

 

The management question, therefore, is not whether to build a pilot system and 
throw it away. You will do that. The only question is whether to plan in 
advance to build a throwaway, or to promise to deliver the throwaway to 
customers. Seen this way, the answer is much clearer. . . .

 

- Jed

 

 

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Mats Lewan]

Jed,
I would expect the 350-day term to be a condition in some kind of agreement, 
e.g. something between IH and Rossi.
To me it looks like a condition set up by managers, not engineers, who want to 
find a water proof condition for making sure the technology is valid, not only 
for themselves but also for convincing customers and the public. Thus not for 
convincing engineers only. 
In this sense, from an engineering perspective, you could say the story is 
incomplete. 

I also think you should make a distinction between the Lugano report and this 
one. 
The Lugano report were produced by academics, whereas I expect this one to be 
produced by experienced industrial experts/engineers. 
A part from taking some time to analyse all data and produce a report according 
to internal standards for the certifying institute, whichever it is, I guess 
there’s also the issue that IH, Rossi and the client have to agree on what to 
report to the public, and when. 

So even though I have reported that sources say the result was successful, I 
know nothing of the evaluation the third party is doing, and it could of course 
be different.  

Mats
www.animpossibleinvention.com 



> On 21 Feb 2016, at 04:29, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> > wrote:
>  
> That may be true of normal commercial equipment that has already had the
> teething problems removed, and where one may expect consistent action. However
> that is not likely to be the case with Rossi's reactor.
> 
> If it works for an hour, any HVAC engineer could confirm that. Or if it is 
> not working that particular hour, the equipment would show that, too. The 
> whole purpose of HVAC test equipment is to sort out whether the machine is 
> working consistently or not. Things stop working in an ordinary HVAC 
> installation. Baffles get stuck; fans turn off. It often happens at my 
> office. That's why the guy comes around with his air flow vane velocity fan 
> and thermometer.
> 
> I am just saying the story is incomplete. This cannot mean a "test" in the 
> normal sense of the word, because people test heaters a hundred thousand 
> times a day, and these tests take an hour.
> 
> 
> He was baby-sitting it for the year, and fixing things whenever it broke down.
> 
> If it is broken that day, the HVAC guy comes back the next day. My point is, 
> you can confirm it is working in less than a year.
> 
>  
> The customer needed to know that it would pay off in
> the long term. Hence the year long test.
> 
> If so, I could have saved the customer the trouble. No, it is not possible 
> this thing can work trouble free for a year. And even if it could, the 
> machine would be obsolete long before that. Rossi demonstrated that when kept 
> describing new configurations and new gadgets during the test.
> 
> Prototypes are never stable in performance. They are obsolete in months. Even 
> first-generation production devices are soon obsolete, and seldom on the 
> market for a year. Frederick Brooks described prototypes in his book "The 
> Mythical Man Month", in the chapter "plan to throw one away:"
> 
> In most projects, the first system built is barely usable. It may be too 
> slow, too big, awkward to use, or all three. There is no alternative but to 
> start again, smarting but smarter, and build a redesigned version in which 
> these problems are solved. The discard and redesign may be done in one lump, 
> or it may be done piece-by-piece. But all large-system experience shows that 
> it will be done. Where a new system concept or new technology is used, one 
> has to build a system to throw away, for even the best planning is not so 
> omniscient as to get it right the first time
> 
> The management question, therefore, is not whether to build a pilot system 
> and throw it away. You will do that. The only question is whether to plan in 
> advance to build a throwaway, or to promise to deliver the throwaway to 
> customers. Seen this way, the answer is much clearer. . . .
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:


> That may be true of normal commercial equipment that has already had the
> teething problems removed, and where one may expect consistent action.
> However
> that is not likely to be the case with Rossi's reactor.
>

If it works for an hour, any HVAC engineer could confirm that. Or if it is
not working that particular hour, the equipment would show that, too. The
whole purpose of HVAC test equipment is to sort out whether the machine is
working consistently or not. Things stop working in an ordinary HVAC
installation. Baffles get stuck; fans turn off. It often happens at my
office. That's why the guy comes around with his air flow vane velocity fan
and thermometer.

I am just saying the story is incomplete. This cannot mean a "test" in the
normal sense of the word, because people test heaters a hundred thousand
times a day, and these tests take an hour.


He was baby-sitting it for the year, and fixing things whenever it broke
> down.
>

If it is broken that day, the HVAC guy comes back the next day. My point
is, you can confirm it is working in less than a year.



> The customer needed to know that it would pay off in
> the long term. Hence the year long test.
>

If so, I could have saved the customer the trouble. No, it is not possible
this thing can work trouble free for a year. And even if it could, the
machine would be obsolete long before that. Rossi demonstrated that when
kept describing new configurations and new gadgets during the test.

Prototypes are never stable in performance. They are obsolete in months.
Even first-generation production devices are soon obsolete, and seldom on
the market for a year. Frederick Brooks described prototypes in his book
"The Mythical Man Month", in the chapter "plan to throw one away:"

In most projects, the first system built is barely usable. It may be too
slow, too big, awkward to use, or all three. There is no alternative but to
start again, smarting but smarter, and build a redesigned version in which
these problems are solved. The discard and redesign may be done in one
lump, or it may be done piece-by-piece. But all large-system experience
shows that it will be done. Where a new system concept or new technology is
used, one has to build a system to throw away, for even the best planning
is not so omniscient as to get it right the first time


The management question, therefore, is not whether to build a pilot system
and throw it away. You will do that. The only question is whether to plan
in advance to build a throwaway, or to promise to deliver the throwaway to
customers. Seen this way, the answer is much clearer. . . .


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Sat, 20 Feb 2016 10:17:21 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>I think this report is odd because --
>
>1. As I said before, it should not take a year to test the machine. Any
>HVAC engineer can confirm it is producing heat in a few hours. 


That may be true of normal commercial equipment that has already had the
teething problems removed, and where one may expect consistent action. However
that is not likely to be the case with Rossi's reactor.

He was baby-sitting it for the year, and fixing things whenever it broke down.
The output would have been erratic, so a test lasting just a few hours would not
have been representative. The customer needed to know that it would pay off in
the long term. Hence the year long test. 

>Perhaps it
>takes a year to determine reliability, but as I said before, reliability is
>not an issue with a first-generation prototype machine. It is bound to be
>unreliable.

Indeed, but this was sold as a working device, not a prototype (even though it
proved to actually be a prototype).
Presumably, Rossi learned from the breakdowns, and improved the product as he
went along.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Axil Axil]

What I remember, the power consumed by the E-Cat was to be compared to the
power consumed by the customers past boiler. The bill came from the
electric company.

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:20 AM, H LV  wrote:

> BTW, last December Rossi said on his blog that he was selling heat to the
> customer. For some reason this statement didn't seem to raise any eyebrows.
> It must mean the customer was not spending any money on energy to run the
> reactor and that Rossi could potentially sell the heat at a loss to keep
> the customer satisfied.
>
> Harry
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:52 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
>> This report probably involves an audit as well.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this report is odd because --
>>>
>>> 1. As I said before, it should not take a year to test the machine. Any
>>> HVAC engineer can confirm it is producing heat in a few hours. Perhaps it
>>> takes a year to determine reliability, but as I said before, reliability is
>>> not an issue with a first-generation prototype machine. It is bound to be
>>> unreliable.
>>>
>>> 2. If someone was testing a machine for a whole year, they would be
>>> writing the report during that time and it would be ready as soon as the
>>> test ends. I do not see why it would take a month. Perhaps I am missing
>>> something. Perhaps I am thinking of how long it takes to prepare a manual
>>> for a new commercial product. (The manual better be ready when production
>>> begins, or you should fire your tech writer.)
>>>
>>> The Lugano report took a long time to write. As I recall they did not
>>> finish writing it until long after the test ended. That was symptomatic of
>>> their problems. I mean that the test was poorly done, and the report was
>>> poorly written, and both took far too long.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[H LV]

BTW, last December Rossi said on his blog that he was selling heat to the
customer. For some reason this statement didn't seem to raise any eyebrows.
It must mean the customer was not spending any money on energy to run the
reactor and that Rossi could potentially sell the heat at a loss to keep
the customer satisfied.

Harry

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:52 AM, H LV  wrote:

> This report probably involves an audit as well.
>
> Harry
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> I think this report is odd because --
>>
>> 1. As I said before, it should not take a year to test the machine. Any
>> HVAC engineer can confirm it is producing heat in a few hours. Perhaps it
>> takes a year to determine reliability, but as I said before, reliability is
>> not an issue with a first-generation prototype machine. It is bound to be
>> unreliable.
>>
>> 2. If someone was testing a machine for a whole year, they would be
>> writing the report during that time and it would be ready as soon as the
>> test ends. I do not see why it would take a month. Perhaps I am missing
>> something. Perhaps I am thinking of how long it takes to prepare a manual
>> for a new commercial product. (The manual better be ready when production
>> begins, or you should fire your tech writer.)
>>
>> The Lugano report took a long time to write. As I recall they did not
>> finish writing it until long after the test ended. That was symptomatic of
>> their problems. I mean that the test was poorly done, and the report was
>> poorly written, and both took far too long.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Axil Axil]

The year long test...

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> The report is the sole responsibility of the nuclear engineering expert.
>>
>
> Which report do you mean? Lugano? The authors are not all nuclear
> engineers. I do not know who caused it to take so long.
>
> I do know that professors tend to be late writing papers. Way late. As in,
> months or years late. I wish I had known that when I was in college.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:


> The report is the sole responsibility of the nuclear engineering expert.
>

Which report do you mean? Lugano? The authors are not all nuclear
engineers. I do not know who caused it to take so long.

I do know that professors tend to be late writing papers. Way late. As in,
months or years late. I wish I had known that when I was in college.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Axil Axil]

The report is the sole responsibility of the nuclear engineering expert.
There is nothing in the nuclear business that is done quickly and it is
always hugely overpriced and way behind schedule.  That is the nuclear
culture, the prima donnas of engineering.

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> I think this report is odd because --
>
> 1. As I said before, it should not take a year to test the machine. Any
> HVAC engineer can confirm it is producing heat in a few hours. Perhaps it
> takes a year to determine reliability, but as I said before, reliability is
> not an issue with a first-generation prototype machine. It is bound to be
> unreliable.
>
> 2. If someone was testing a machine for a whole year, they would be
> writing the report during that time and it would be ready as soon as the
> test ends. I do not see why it would take a month. Perhaps I am missing
> something. Perhaps I am thinking of how long it takes to prepare a manual
> for a new commercial product. (The manual better be ready when production
> begins, or you should fire your tech writer.)
>
> The Lugano report took a long time to write. As I recall they did not
> finish writing it until long after the test ended. That was symptomatic of
> their problems. I mean that the test was poorly done, and the report was
> poorly written, and both took far too long.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[H LV]

This report probably involves an audit as well.

Harry

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> I think this report is odd because --
>
> 1. As I said before, it should not take a year to test the machine. Any
> HVAC engineer can confirm it is producing heat in a few hours. Perhaps it
> takes a year to determine reliability, but as I said before, reliability is
> not an issue with a first-generation prototype machine. It is bound to be
> unreliable.
>
> 2. If someone was testing a machine for a whole year, they would be
> writing the report during that time and it would be ready as soon as the
> test ends. I do not see why it would take a month. Perhaps I am missing
> something. Perhaps I am thinking of how long it takes to prepare a manual
> for a new commercial product. (The manual better be ready when production
> begins, or you should fire your tech writer.)
>
> The Lugano report took a long time to write. As I recall they did not
> finish writing it until long after the test ended. That was symptomatic of
> their problems. I mean that the test was poorly done, and the report was
> poorly written, and both took far too long.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Peter Gluck]

dear Jed,

I am asking for permission to quote your message as  it is - in my blog now.
Thanks
Peter

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I think this report is odd because --
>
> 1. As I said before, it should not take a year to test the machine. Any
> HVAC engineer can confirm it is producing heat in a few hours. Perhaps it
> takes a year to determine reliability, but as I said before, reliability is
> not an issue with a first-generation prototype machine. It is bound to be
> unreliable.
>
> 2. If someone was testing a machine for a whole year, they would be
> writing the report during that time and it would be ready as soon as the
> test ends. I do not see why it would take a month. Perhaps I am missing
> something. Perhaps I am thinking of how long it takes to prepare a manual
> for a new commercial product. (The manual better be ready when production
> begins, or you should fire your tech writer.)
>
> The Lugano report took a long time to write. As I recall they did not
> finish writing it until long after the test ended. That was symptomatic of
> their problems. I mean that the test was poorly done, and the report was
> poorly written, and both took far too long.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Jed Rothwell]

I think this report is odd because --

1. As I said before, it should not take a year to test the machine. Any
HVAC engineer can confirm it is producing heat in a few hours. Perhaps it
takes a year to determine reliability, but as I said before, reliability is
not an issue with a first-generation prototype machine. It is bound to be
unreliable.

2. If someone was testing a machine for a whole year, they would be writing
the report during that time and it would be ready as soon as the test ends.
I do not see why it would take a month. Perhaps I am missing something.
Perhaps I am thinking of how long it takes to prepare a manual for a new
commercial product. (The manual better be ready when production begins, or
you should fire your tech writer.)

The Lugano report took a long time to write. As I recall they did not
finish writing it until long after the test ended. That was symptomatic of
their problems. I mean that the test was poorly done, and the report was
poorly written, and both took far too long.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Daniel Rocha]

I don't think he is anything. It is just that it seems a wast of time
following him.

2016-02-18 15:46 GMT-02:00 a.ashfield :

> [image: Boxbe]  This message is eligible
> for Automatic Cleanup! (a.ashfi...@verizon.net) Add cleanup rule
> 
> | More info
> 
>
> Daniel Rocha,
> That's pathetic.  Who cares if you view Rossi guilty before being proved
> innocent?
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Axil Axil]

Cold fusion have been discovered by many people since the time of Tesla,
but all these inventions have gone down the tubes because the inventors
were not able and/or willing to commercialize their invention.

Papp had a great product but he used it as a means to extort money out of
investors to support his confortable florida based lifestyle.

Will Rossi follow this timeworn path?

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:46 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Daniel Rocha,
> That's pathetic.  Who cares if you view Rossi guilty before being proved
> innocent?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[a.ashfield]

Daniel Rocha,
That's pathetic.  Who cares if you view Rossi guilty before being proved 
innocent?

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Daniel Rocha]

I think it is practical to assume that Rossi will never come up with
anything. I mean practical because:

1.We won't waste time reading his stuff, unless he releases anything, and
think for ourselves
2.He may not be able to release anything, due a large number of reasons,
even excluding completely that he is luring people and investors. Or even
that he is self deception.
3.Not filling his ego may help him come up with something anyway.

Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[a.ashfield]

Rossi says the report will take about a month and there will be no 
furthers news given until the independent report is published (available?)


He seems to be concentrating on the E-Cat X now and says he hopes there 
will be an industrial version in operation at a customer this year.  He 
says they have already started construction.