Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Guenter Wildgruber]

Well folks, Rossi has a big Ego, to be sure,but he proves it on a lowly 
'conference' like the Zurich one, where esoterics gather.

As I said a couple of times before, to the dismay of Jed, that Rossi is some 
sort of a (tragic) Karl May character, who is a believer in his own fictions.
Now this is only a metaphor, ofcourse, not an exact recurrence of psychological 
types.
Rossi is a believer in his own world, and has every right to do so, until eg 
his money runs out, or he runs out of followers.


His attendance at the Zurich conference somehow demonstrated that Rossi sought 
company with the esoterics, and not the Korea hard core, who baked little 
bread, and demonstrated small, but significant evidence.

That Rossi , as DGTG, does a disservice to the field, and significant 
investments therefore are NOT made, because of their big mouth, seems more 
probable by the day.
Just compare Rossis statements on the significance of  transmutations in 
Zurich, or DGTGs statement about a three-stage Process as reported by Peter 
Gluck, and you see that we are stuck in the middle of nowhere concerning a 
proper theory as to the cause/theory of the effect.

Now substantial science-- which would be badly needed, is blocked out.
It seems clear now, that the commercializers can not fill this gap.

A potentially self-blocking situation.


I feel very sorry.

Guenter



 Von: Jed Rothwell 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 22:22 Montag, 10.September 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input 
power measurements dodgy?
 

Harry Veeder  wrote:
 
The greatest obstacle Rossi faces is himself.
>

I couldn't agree more!

It is tragic. It is easy to make fun of Rossi because he is so flamboyant and 
he loves the limelight, but I think the full story is tragic.

I do not think there is any indication of fraud in Rossi's tests.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Jed Rothwell]

Harry Veeder  wrote:


> The greatest obstacle Rossi faces is himself.
>

I couldn't agree more!

It is tragic. It is easy to make fun of Rossi because he is so flamboyant
and he loves the limelight, but I think the full story is tragic.

I do not think there is any indication of fraud in Rossi's tests. I have
not caught one. Many of the tests are useless or they failed, yet Rossi
insisted they worked. That's not fraud; it is stupidity.

As for his business arrangements . . . I know nothing about them.
Absolutely nothing. Without reading the contracts I would not want to
hazard a guess. Just knowing his personality and watching him career from
one plan to another, I would not want to cut a deal with him. As I said, he
looks like a drunk driver who took a wrong turn into a Demolition Derby.
(People unfamiliar with such things should see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO25UrCF3hA)

You never know though . . . Sometimes crazy business plans work out well.
It is not an exact science.

Even assuming Rossi's devices are real, that is no guarantee his business
plans are legitimate. People have used a genuine innovation worth a lot of
money to defraud investors or manipulate the stock market. See: Edison, T.
and Dot-com Boom.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Take Home Lesson: Do not dismiss or underestimate a fanatical creative
> genius who works 14 hours a day. Strange and disagreeable people such as
> Edison, Steve Jobs or Rossi may have "reality distortion fields" but they
> often accomplish things that everyone else thinks are impossible.

The greatest obstacle Rossi faces is himself.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Andre Blum]

 *
   Andrea Rossi
   September 10th, 2012 at 1:15 PM
   

   Dear Andre Blum:
   I do not make electric measures, I let them made by specialists who
   are in the team of validators and certificators of the Hot Cat: for
   example, today they made a new measurement with new instrumentation
   which, substantially, again, confirmed the data of our preliminar
   report. As I said, and I repeat, these measurements will go ahead
   for at least other 2-3months, then the results will be published in
   a scientific magazine, after the due peer reviewing. It has been not
   very serious that a technician invited from us for a measure, by the
   way under NDA, has published very dibious results, after few hours
   of measurement, while the professors that are making the validation
   need months before saying anything. Please wait the end of the
   validation, and we will also read in the report the characteristic
   of all the instrumentation used. Right now a Prof. of electric
   measures is taking care of this issue, and he already has discovered
   the errors of the guy brought here from Hydrofusion, which we,
   obviously, respect: errors are normal in our job. Only they who do
   not work do not commit errors.It takes toime to be sure that there
   are no errors, and the reactor at high temperature is under test
   only since few months.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

 *
   Andre Blum
   September 10th, 2012 at 11:07 AM
   

   Dear Mr Rossi,

   Did you (sometimes / usually) use True RMS ammeters for your own
   input power measurements?

   Thank you,
   Andre



On 09/10/2012 02:08 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
Basically the error was probably to use a good  RMS ampmeter (half 
job), instead of either a bad ampmeter (Rossi) or a good powermeter 
(What I was assuming because anything else is not professional).


probably if there is a Triac variator, it is normal to have huge RMS 
of interference, yet the impedance of the e-cat might dephase it 
totally, making effective power of those HF, null.


maybe we have found more loose than Rossi.

Anyway Rossi was loose, because if it was my reactor at leas I would 
use a powermetter, and even maybe a wave synthetizer/reformer...


I was using some in the 80s to protect TV.

2012/9/10 Andre Blum >


And, unless I understand wrong, (and depending on the algorithm
used to give your every half-second-or-so display update), there
may have been an accidental correlation between the PWM duty cycle
of the resistive heater and the measurement cycle of the true RMS
meter. This is more likely when the PWM signal is somehow synced
with the AC cycle, (which would not be such a bad idea).

Especially now we are talking a factor 2-3 in measurements, we
could well be seeing effects like these.

Rossi confirms to me over mail that they have completed the test
without PWM and using a variac, and that they stand by their own
measurements.

Andre


On 09/10/2012 12:24 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


*From:*Andre Blum

Can anyone on this forum comment on the True RMS meter that was
used? The link Frank supplied seems to suggest that one of its
applications is to find unexpected high currents.

A true RMS meter of any kind is NOT sufficient in this situation.

A dedicated power analyzer must be used, if we are dealing with a
duty-cycle correction or spiky input, as appears to be the case.
We saw this problem clearly back years ago with Naudin’s MAHG,
which is actually a very similar device to e-cat, except in the
use of tungsten instead of nickel.

Naudin, who is quite experienced with prototypes and actually
worked for EDF (French grid utility) at the time – nevertheless
measured input power with a systemic 20:1 error. (gives one
confidence in your power bill, if you are French, n’est pas?).

How did it happen? George or Terry may have a better recollection
but IIRC Naudin was pulsing the input power at low duty. He
measured voltage and current, but the current was across a shunt
and the voltage was seen on the PS meter. The duty cycle was 5%,
so to make the duty cycle correction, Naudin then multiplied
voltage x current x 20, when he should have corrected only the
voltage – as the current was actual. Thus, he saw a most
remarkable COP of 20, when it was actually a COP of one; with a
systemic error of twenty.

Actually it is not that simple – but had Naudin used a dedicated
power analyzer, there would have been no doubt in the results,
which would have been far less remarkable. AFAIK – despite years
of pleading that error still appears on Naudin’s site.

Is Rossi (or his “expert” colonel) doing something similar? Probably.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Alain Sepeda]

Basically the error was probably to use a good  RMS ampmeter (half job),
instead of either a bad ampmeter (Rossi) or a good powermeter (What I was
assuming because anything else is not professional).

probably if there is a Triac variator, it is normal to have huge RMS of
interference, yet the impedance of the e-cat might dephase it totally,
making effective power of those HF, null.

maybe we have found more loose than Rossi.

Anyway Rossi was loose, because if it was my reactor at leas I would use a
powermetter, and even maybe a wave synthetizer/reformer...

I was using some in the 80s to protect TV.

2012/9/10 Andre Blum 

>  And, unless I understand wrong, (and depending on the algorithm used to
> give your every half-second-or-so display update), there may have been an
> accidental correlation between the PWM duty cycle of the resistive heater
> and the measurement cycle of the true RMS meter. This is more likely when
> the PWM signal is somehow synced with the AC cycle, (which would not be
> such a bad idea).
>
> Especially now we are talking a factor 2-3 in measurements, we could well
> be seeing effects like these.
>
> Rossi confirms to me over mail that they have completed the test without
> PWM and using a variac, and that they stand by their own measurements.
>
> Andre
>
>
> On 09/10/2012 12:24 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>  ** **
>
> *From:* Andre Blum 
>
> ** **
>
> Can anyone on this forum comment on the True RMS meter that was used? The
> link Frank supplied seems to suggest that one of its applications is to
> find unexpected high currents.
>
> ** **
>
> A true RMS meter of any kind is NOT sufficient in this situation. 
>
> ** **
>
> A dedicated power analyzer must be used, if we are dealing with a
> duty-cycle correction or spiky input, as appears to be the case. We saw
> this problem clearly back years ago with Naudin’s MAHG, which is actually a
> very similar device to e-cat, except in the use of tungsten instead of
> nickel.
>
> ** **
>
> Naudin, who is quite experienced with prototypes and actually worked for
> EDF (French grid utility) at the time – nevertheless measured input power
> with a systemic 20:1 error. (gives one confidence in your power bill, if
> you are French, n’est pas?). 
>
> ** **
>
> How did it happen? George or Terry may have a better recollection but IIRC
> Naudin was pulsing the input power at low duty. He measured voltage and
> current, but the current was across a shunt and the voltage was seen on the
> PS meter. The duty cycle was 5%, so to make the duty cycle correction,
> Naudin then multiplied voltage x current x 20, when he should have
> corrected only the voltage – as the current was actual. Thus, he saw a most
> remarkable COP of 20, when it was actually a COP of one; with a systemic
> error of twenty. 
>
> ** **
>
> Actually it is not that simple – but had Naudin used a dedicated power
> analyzer, there would have been no doubt in the results, which would have
> been far less remarkable. AFAIK – despite years of pleading that error
> still appears on Naudin’s site. 
>
> ** **
>
> Is Rossi (or his “expert” colonel) doing something similar? Probably.
>
> ** **
>
> Jones
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Andre Blum]

This was his reply:

Dear Sir: we resolved the èroblem with a variac, which confirmed, 
substantially, that our measurements were right,but I repeat that meny 
more measurements will be made by the validators. A final report will be 
published only after the end of the validation. At that point we will 
have no more aprototype, but a certified product and the measurements 
will be made directly in operation by the Customers.

Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi


On 09/10/2012 12:33 PM, Andre Blum wrote:
And, unless I understand wrong, (and depending on the algorithm used 
to give your every half-second-or-so display update), there may have 
been an accidental correlation between the PWM duty cycle of the 
resistive heater and the measurement cycle of the true RMS meter. This 
is more likely when the PWM signal is somehow synced with the AC 
cycle, (which would not be such a bad idea).


Especially now we are talking a factor 2-3 in measurements, we could 
well be seeing effects like these.


Rossi confirms to me over mail that they have completed the test 
without PWM and using a variac, and that they stand by their own 
measurements.


Andre

On 09/10/2012 12:24 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


*From:*Andre Blum

Can anyone on this forum comment on the True RMS meter that was used? 
The link Frank supplied seems to suggest that one of its applications 
is to find unexpected high currents.


A true RMS meter of any kind is NOT sufficient in this situation.

A dedicated power analyzer must be used, if we are dealing with a 
duty-cycle correction or spiky input, as appears to be the case. We 
saw this problem clearly back years ago with Naudin's MAHG, which is 
actually a very similar device to e-cat, except in the use of 
tungsten instead of nickel.


Naudin, who is quite experienced with prototypes and actually worked 
for EDF (French grid utility) at the time -- nevertheless measured 
input power with a systemic 20:1 error. (gives one confidence in your 
power bill, if you are French, n'est pas?).


How did it happen? George or Terry may have a better recollection but 
IIRC Naudin was pulsing the input power at low duty. He measured 
voltage and current, but the current was across a shunt and the 
voltage was seen on the PS meter. The duty cycle was 5%, so to make 
the duty cycle correction, Naudin then multiplied voltage x current x 
20, when he should have corrected only the voltage -- as the current 
was actual. Thus, he saw a most remarkable COP of 20, when it was 
actually a COP of one; with a systemic error of twenty.


Actually it is not that simple -- but had Naudin used a dedicated 
power analyzer, there would have been no doubt in the results, which 
would have been far less remarkable. AFAIK -- despite years of 
pleading that error still appears on Naudin's site.


Is Rossi (or his "expert" colonel) doing something similar? Probably.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Alain Sepeda]

on cobraf Cures calims the swedish made mistake.
As you say here if when they say RMS they say RMS voltmeter or RMS
ampmeter... I agree this is not enough.
I've been using wattmeters from the time if was implemented with 2 circuits
on a galvanometer... now it is DSP that make the
multiplication/integration, not coils and inertia...

here are the reaction of Cures translated:

 Re: Swedish investment in E-cat halted after
test

just a comment from
"Cures"who
claim that the swedish might have been badly using their meters:

I've downloaded NyTeknik a publication of the caudal fin, but I cannot find
the type of instruments used. I can only make assumptions.

If they used tools broadband without a load in parallel with the capacitor
of the engine type for washing machines have made a serious mistake.

The power supply that uses Red check the tension of the lines of supply to
the load by switching triac. When the triac zero switches voltage led with
a single step, generates a rather extended harmonic spectrum

The load consists of a major resistance locked between the two cylinders
that you see in the report. A provision of this kind is modeled using RLC
circuit. In view of the size of the resistance and the fact that is
enclosed between two cylinders and is electrically isolated from each
other, C is large enough. In addition, the internal resistance of wire is
wrapped Tan while that the connection cable is a braided steel, allowing
the l should be noticeable. Basically, you get a low-pass filter with a
profile of resonant.
When you have a circuit like this, all frequencies above a certain value,
very low frequency are dismissed to the sender or for food and, if you
measure the voltage at least a capacitor, you end up with twice also value
actually absorbed by the load voltage. You are in the presence of reactive
power is calculated as if it is active.
On the other hand, instruments, voltmeter and ammeter, clamp, used by Rossi
is a low frequency limited around the fundamental (50 Hz) and are unable to
read the reactive power at frequencies above which then is also one that is
not absorbed by the load
I'm looking for more information


and this 
one

X Nevanlinna

I read the manual

I know they have a problem. The Reds got me just screamed (became deaf)
that when he objected to the measure before it went to take a 60 W light
bulb from and attached to the power supply. Its marked 59 W while their
double. Have controcontestato saying that the power was too little. Then,
(telepathy exists) has bought a stove from a few kW and the results were
the same. His was a value close to the nominal and their double

Mah ...

For clamp Fluke should do a search. However, that fatigue is chasing people
...







2012/9/10 Jones Beene 

>  ** **
>
> *From:* Andre Blum 
>
> ** **
>
> Can anyone on this forum comment on the True RMS meter that was used? The
> link Frank supplied seems to suggest that one of its applications is to
> find unexpected high currents.
>
> ** **
>
> A true RMS meter of any kind is NOT sufficient in this situation. 
>
> ** **
>
> A dedicated power analyzer must be used, if we are dealing with a
> duty-cycle correction or spiky input, as appears to be the case. We saw
> this problem clearly back years ago with Naudin’s MAHG, which is actually a
> very similar device to e-cat, except in the use of tungsten instead of
> nickel.
>
> ** **
>
> Naudin, who is quite experienced with prototypes and actually worked for
> EDF (French grid utility) at the time – nevertheless measured input power
> with a systemic 20:1 error. (gives one confidence in your power bill, if
> you are French, n’est pas?). 
>
> ** **
>
> How did it happen? George or Terry may have a better recollection but IIRC
> Naudin was pulsing the input power at low duty. He measured voltage and
> current, but the current was across a shunt and the voltage was seen on the
> PS meter. The duty cycle was 5%, so to make the duty cycle correction,
> Naudin then multiplied voltage x current x 20, when he should have
> corrected only the voltage – as the current was actual. Thus, he saw a most
> remarkable COP of 20, when it was actually a COP of one; with a systemic
> error of twenty. 
>
> ** **
>
> Actually it is not that simple – but had Naudin used a dedicated power
> analyzer, there would have been no doubt in the results, which would have
> been far less remarkable. AFAIK – despite years of pleading that error
> still appears on Naudin’s site. 
>
> ** **
>
> Is Rossi (or his “expert” colonel) doing something similar? Probably.
>
> ** **
>
> Jones
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Andre Blum]

And, unless I understand wrong, (and depending on the algorithm used to 
give your every half-second-or-so display update), there may have been 
an accidental correlation between the PWM duty cycle of the resistive 
heater and the measurement cycle of the true RMS meter. This is more 
likely when the PWM signal is somehow synced with the AC cycle, (which 
would not be such a bad idea).


Especially now we are talking a factor 2-3 in measurements, we could 
well be seeing effects like these.


Rossi confirms to me over mail that they have completed the test without 
PWM and using a variac, and that they stand by their own measurements.


Andre

On 09/10/2012 12:24 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


*From:*Andre Blum

Can anyone on this forum comment on the True RMS meter that was used? 
The link Frank supplied seems to suggest that one of its applications 
is to find unexpected high currents.


A true RMS meter of any kind is NOT sufficient in this situation.

A dedicated power analyzer must be used, if we are dealing with a 
duty-cycle correction or spiky input, as appears to be the case. We 
saw this problem clearly back years ago with Naudin's MAHG, which is 
actually a very similar device to e-cat, except in the use of tungsten 
instead of nickel.


Naudin, who is quite experienced with prototypes and actually worked 
for EDF (French grid utility) at the time -- nevertheless measured 
input power with a systemic 20:1 error. (gives one confidence in your 
power bill, if you are French, n'est pas?).


How did it happen? George or Terry may have a better recollection but 
IIRC Naudin was pulsing the input power at low duty. He measured 
voltage and current, but the current was across a shunt and the 
voltage was seen on the PS meter. The duty cycle was 5%, so to make 
the duty cycle correction, Naudin then multiplied voltage x current x 
20, when he should have corrected only the voltage -- as the current 
was actual. Thus, he saw a most remarkable COP of 20, when it was 
actually a COP of one; with a systemic error of twenty.


Actually it is not that simple -- but had Naudin used a dedicated 
power analyzer, there would have been no doubt in the results, which 
would have been far less remarkable. AFAIK -- despite years of 
pleading that error still appears on Naudin's site.


Is Rossi (or his "expert" colonel) doing something similar? Probably.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Andre Blum 

 

Can anyone on this forum comment on the True RMS meter that was used? The
link Frank supplied seems to suggest that one of its applications is to find
unexpected high currents.

 

A true RMS meter of any kind is NOT sufficient in this situation. 

 

A dedicated power analyzer must be used, if we are dealing with a duty-cycle
correction or spiky input, as appears to be the case. We saw this problem
clearly back years ago with Naudin's MAHG, which is actually a very similar
device to e-cat, except in the use of tungsten instead of nickel.

 

Naudin, who is quite experienced with prototypes and actually worked for EDF
(French grid utility) at the time - nevertheless measured input power with a
systemic 20:1 error. (gives one confidence in your power bill, if you are
French, n'est pas?). 

 

How did it happen? George or Terry may have a better recollection but IIRC
Naudin was pulsing the input power at low duty. He measured voltage and
current, but the current was across a shunt and the voltage was seen on the
PS meter. The duty cycle was 5%, so to make the duty cycle correction,
Naudin then multiplied voltage x current x 20, when he should have corrected
only the voltage - as the current was actual. Thus, he saw a most remarkable
COP of 20, when it was actually a COP of one; with a systemic error of
twenty. 

 

Actually it is not that simple - but had Naudin used a dedicated power
analyzer, there would have been no doubt in the results, which would have
been far less remarkable. AFAIK - despite years of pleading that error still
appears on Naudin's site. 

 

Is Rossi (or his "expert" colonel) doing something similar? Probably.

 

Jones

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Alain Sepeda]

By the way, since the accusation of manipulation the instruments is serious,
is the NYTeknik confirmed ?

Does Hydrofusion at least confirm a COP of 2 (like his tests during the
conference).

I'm devastated, not because I bet a cent on Rossi (It won't be a crazy bet
anyway, but speculative), but because it will be used to ridicule LENR...

Hyperskeptics are good in noticing the blacksheep and generalizing.

2012/9/10 Jed Rothwell 

> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
> Jed, you are optimistic beyond reasonable levels. Edison could be crazy,
>> but he was reasonable.
>
>
> No, he wasn't reasonable. See: magnetic separation, for example.
>
>  Reasonable people seldom make profoundly original discoveries of
> earthshaking importance.
>
> Granted, Edison was more reasonable than Rossi. That's not saying much.
> That's like saying someone has better taste than movie director John Waters.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Andre Blum]

Copying from my post on e-catworld:

Can anyone on this forum comment on the True RMS meter that was used? 
The link Frank supplied seems to suggest that one of its applications is 
to find unexpected high currents.


So a typical scenario may be this: you have fuses that repeatedly blow 
and your normal ampmeter does not find any justification for that fact. 
This True RMS meter would show you the real --- higher --- current.


Now, we know such ampmeters and multimeters have digital displays that 
only update once every second, or half second at most. Somewhere in that 
meter, there must be an algorithm that determines what value to display 
next. Usually that would be an average value of the last period. But 
knowing that this device is often used to find unexpected high currents, 
could it be that it displays the max value? (or the max average of all 
the intervals of a typical duration that would be enough for a fuse to 
blow)?


Depending on the duty cycle of the (presumably PWM driven) resistive 
heater, this may give too high values at swithing on. This is why he now 
suggests using a variable AC transformer, to stop using PWM.



Keep in mind that I am just a software engineer, so take it easy on me. 
Just trying to hold on to my hope just a little bit longer.


Andre

On 09/10/2012 11:32 AM, Robert Lynn wrote:
I would say most of last years steam-based demos.  Claiming COPs that 
were far higher than what was realistic, but specifically 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8SeOteFPtM 3:00-4:00 doesn't exactly 
inspire confidence, looks to be tweaking the power to increase steam 
output when Lewan is out of the room and he is not being watched (far 
more steam as Lewan replaces the tube than when he first pulled it out).


I no longer think it was ignorance on Rossi's part that lead to such 
consistently bad calorimetry and ambiguous results, he was trying to 
create uncertainty and wiggle room for himself to be able to 
exaggerate his results.  It is notable that the few independent groups 
of testers that really had proper access to check results (NASA linked 
group, Defkalion now Swedes) have all had tests that were either 
didn't work or under-delivered on promises, would love to hear from 
insiders who were there.  And we know that Rossi has lied on many 
other occasions too (eg shipment of 1MW unit).


Totally massively untrustworthy.

On 10 September 2012 15:58, James Bowery > wrote:


To what faked results are you referring exactly?

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Robert Lynn
mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:

What I would run screaming from is someone who faked results
with a straight face (as we saw in one of the demos last year)...

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[ChemE Stewart]

Francis,

I agree with your comments.

I think the only way to prevent self destruction may be some type of
magnetic and inertial confinement.  Although I believe the confinement
within voids may aid in the initial collapse so that may be tricky...
What works one day for a period of time might destroy itself quickly the
next.

I agree that the effect probably occurs all of the time in nature.  Think
of how destructive some type of initial collapse (most likely of the
hydrogen) releasing intense local radiation & heat within a void, followed
by secondary fusion, fission and chemical events would be to any piece of
equipment or matter in the nearby vicinity.

Stewart
http://wp.me/p26aeb-4




On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

>  I think all these devices are all  inherently self destructive or we
> would have an exception to COE that identifies the energy source and how to
> enhance it. I think Mills, Moller and Rossi all need to concentrate more on
> how to prevent immediate self destruction of the geometry and much less on
> how to enhance the property… preventing the natural ruin will do far more
> than trying to optimize the crumbling remains. I suspect stiction in an
> inert environment could be milled far beyond the point of pyrophoricity and
> if heat sunk before mixing limited amounts of hydrogen into 
>
> The inert gas. Preventing oxidation of the geometry milled in an inert
> environment might be an important factor reflected in all the cleaning and
> preparation that seems to be required but won’t be enough if the geometry
> is allowed to heat up and melt closed. I would posit the effect occurs all
> the time in nature but immediately melts closed before it ever has the
> opportunity to reach detectable levels.
>
> Fran
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bertoldo arpagoni [mailto:beroldo.arpag...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 10, 2012 10:38 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors
> withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?
>
> ** **
>
> I wonder what's going to be next ecat model to fool the crowd. I bet a
> ColdCat in in liquid nitrogen operating at 80°K.
>
> Cheers
> Bert
>
> 2012/9/10 Daniel Rocha 
>
> In Matts review, look how crazy Rossi is:
>
> ** **
>
> "Investors measurement was done on a new model with a higher operating
> temperature and hydrogen supply other than those previously demonstrated
> Rossi. "
>
> ** **
>
> Why didn't Rossi used the older reactor that he need it worked better?
>
> ** **
>
> 2012/9/10 Jed Rothwell 
>
> Robert Lynn  wrote:
>
>  
>
>  And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
> destroyed.
>
>  ** **
>
> No one in his right mind would ever trust Rossi. However, some of his
> measurements have been inherently trustworthy despite the poor quality of
> the tests and instruments. Some of his results were clearly in error,
> especially during the NASA visit when the outlet hose was plugged up.
> However, there have many other Ni-H results lately, and that fact plus the
> fact that some of Rossi's results are credible makes me think he does have
> something.
>
> ** **
>
> I suppose his results are intermittent and unreliable. That's what you
> expect with cold fusion. That is what you have to expect with any
> technology at this stage of development. It is nothing to worry about. It
> should not affect anyone's decision to fund the research.
>
> ** **
>
> - Jed
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> 
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Robert Lynn]

I would say most of last years steam-based demos.  Claiming COPs that were
far higher than what was realistic, but specifically
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8SeOteFPtM 3:00-4:00 doesn't exactly
inspire confidence, looks to be tweaking the power to increase steam output
when Lewan is out of the room and he is not being watched (far more steam
as Lewan replaces the tube than when he first pulled it out).

I no longer think it was ignorance on Rossi's part that lead to such
consistently bad calorimetry and ambiguous results, he was trying to create
uncertainty and wiggle room for himself to be able to exaggerate his
results.  It is notable that the few independent groups of testers that
really had proper access to check results (NASA linked group, Defkalion now
Swedes) have all had tests that were either didn't work or under-delivered
on promises, would love to hear from insiders who were there.  And we know
that Rossi has lied on many other occasions too (eg shipment of 1MW unit).

Totally massively untrustworthy.

On 10 September 2012 15:58, James Bowery  wrote:

> To what faked results are you referring exactly?
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Robert Lynn <
> robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What I would run screaming from is someone who faked results with a
>> straight face (as we saw in one of the demos last year)...
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:


> But art is subjective and B/shock movies have lots of fans. But, being
> unreasonable with technology require more objective limits. Rossi is a bit
> too wild for that and this is bad.


Not just bad. Awful! Tragic.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

To what faked results are you referring exactly?
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Robert Lynn <
> robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What I would run screaming from is someone who faked results with a
>> straight face (as we saw in one of the demos last year)...
>>
>
As Bowery says, there is no evidence any of those results were fake. The
NASA results were a fiasco but it was obvious the outlet tube was blocked.
That isn't fake. It is incompetent. Rossi's reaction -- going around the
bend when they pointed out the problem -- was nuts, but not fake. You don't
conduct a scam by that method. Anyone can see where there is no steam
emerging from the hose!

You definitely should run screaming from the room when some guy has a
hand-made reactor, and he is so sloppy he does not notice the outlet is
plugged up. That's a good way to blow yourself up.

I do not know of *any* cold fusion results which look fake. I know of
dozens that were mistaken or so poorly done there is no way to know what to
make of them.

Anyone who would invest a plugged nickel with Rossi, given his refusal to
allow testing and his sloppy work, would have to be crazy. I and many
others have told him we can get him hundreds of millions personally, and
billions to develop the technology, if he will only act the way any
businessman will demand. He absolutely refuses to give one inch. He will
not depart from his own self-imagine -- from the heroic, defiant role that
he envisions he must play in life. Exactly like Coriolanus! The parallels
are uncanny. See the movie. See the first part, where he cannot bring
himself to go through the ritual of a candidate for office. He cannot
praise the public even for a moment, because he has such contempt for other
people, and because he is so caught up in his own martial ethic. Like
Richard Nixon, he can't stand to hear others praise him. He refuses to go
through with the ancient ritual in which he shows his wounds to the public
and says his victories were out of patriotism (even though they actually
were patriotic, and he is basically a selfless person). A fantastic
portrayal of a great man destroyed by his own fantasies, his own
self-image, and his alienation from other people.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Daniel Rocha]

But art is subjective and B/shock movies have lots of fans. But, being
unreasonable with technology require more objective limits. Rossi is a bit
too wild for that and this is bad.

2012/9/10 Jed Rothwell 
>
> Granted, Edison was more reasonable than Rossi. That's not saying much.
> That's like saying someone has better taste than movie director John Waters.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Roarty, Francis X]

I think all these devices are all  inherently self destructive or we would have 
an exception to COE that identifies the energy source and how to enhance it. I 
think Mills, Moller and Rossi all need to concentrate more on how to prevent 
immediate self destruction of the geometry and much less on how to enhance the 
property... preventing the natural ruin will do far more than trying to 
optimize the crumbling remains. I suspect stiction in an inert environment 
could be milled far beyond the point of pyrophoricity and if heat sunk before 
mixing limited amounts of hydrogen into
The inert gas. Preventing oxidation of the geometry milled in an inert 
environment might be an important factor reflected in all the cleaning and 
preparation that seems to be required but won't be enough if the geometry is 
allowed to heat up and melt closed. I would posit the effect occurs all the 
time in nature but immediately melts closed before it ever has the opportunity 
to reach detectable levels.
Fran

From: bertoldo arpagoni [mailto:beroldo.arpag...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 10:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, 
Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

I wonder what's going to be next ecat model to fool the crowd. I bet a ColdCat 
in in liquid nitrogen operating at 80°K.

Cheers
Bert
2012/9/10 Daniel Rocha mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>>
In Matts review, look how crazy Rossi is:

"Investors measurement was done on a new model with a higher operating 
temperature and hydrogen supply other than those previously demonstrated Rossi. 
"

Why didn't Rossi used the older reactor that he need it worked better?

2012/9/10 Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>>
Robert Lynn 
mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:

And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally 
destroyed.

No one in his right mind would ever trust Rossi. However, some of his 
measurements have been inherently trustworthy despite the poor quality of the 
tests and instruments. Some of his results were clearly in error, especially 
during the NASA visit when the outlet hose was plugged up. However, there have 
many other Ni-H results lately, and that fact plus the fact that some of 
Rossi's results are credible makes me think he does have something.

I suppose his results are intermittent and unreliable. That's what you expect 
with cold fusion. That is what you have to expect with any technology at this 
stage of development. It is nothing to worry about. It should not affect 
anyone's decision to fund the research.

- Jed




--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com<mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Jed, you are optimistic beyond reasonable levels. Edison could be crazy,
> but he was reasonable.


No, he wasn't reasonable. See: magnetic separation, for example.

Reasonable people seldom make profoundly original discoveries of
earthshaking importance.

Granted, Edison was more reasonable than Rossi. That's not saying much.
That's like saying someone has better taste than movie director John Waters.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:

 I have been waiting since last October for such a INDEPENDENT test. This
> is the result of the first INDEPENDENT test.


It is the first independent test you have seen. I have seen others that
worked fine. Rossi wants to keep them secret for reasons I cannot begin to
imagine.

I do not think there is any point to trying to make sense of his business
strategy. To me, it looks like a drunk driver in a Demolition Derby.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

> Indeed, it seems that case is finally closed for Rossi.
>
Never. You can never stop that man. He is an irresistible force of nature.
Besides, if Piantelli and Celani are confirmed, everyone will have to admit
that Rossi is right and deserves a large share of the credit.

Rossi has been dead wrong on many occasions in the last several years. He
has launched fiasco after fiasco, such as the NASA tests, and tests he did
in the U.S. that did not begin to work. Failure never stops him. It never
slows him down! You have to hand it to him. I have never seen such grim
determination. Such chutzpah. Such willingness to say anything or try
anything.

If only Rossi would alloy that with some common sense, and if only he would
give other people a chance to help him, he would have billions of dollars
by now.

The only person in history I know of like that was Edison. He spent *year
after year* doing stuff that only he thought would work. Most of the time
he was wrong. Most of his ideas were as hare-brained as they looked. He
threw away millions of dollars. Once he grabbed an idea, he would *never* let
go. He also lied through his teeth to investors, and put on demonstrations
that ended in fiascoes.

Take Home Lesson: Do not dismiss or underestimate a fanatical creative
genius who works 14 hours a day. Strange and disagreeable people such as
Edison, Steve Jobs or Rossi may have "reality distortion fields" but
they often accomplish things that everyone else thinks are impossible.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[James Bowery]

To what faked results are you referring exactly?

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Robert Lynn  wrote:

> What I would run screaming from is someone who faked results with a
> straight face (as we saw in one of the demos last year)...
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Alain Sepeda]

I remind the interview of Defkalion CTO saying that they initially tested
many possibilities, and first Heat only,  pressure and shocks, but that it
was unreliable, so they abandon it to their polarized plasma method...

Reading that and Rossi claims I got to imagine that Rossi might have found
a secret trick, and was also controlling the reactor more slowly... But
with Rossi, who knows.
He have no credibility capital to keep.

The comment of Hydrofusion about tools, is terrible... that is clear
accusation of fraud, with evidence.

And yes, it is not a problem, research should be funded especially if it
does not work well...

Research is not there to find what is easy. It seems our science
administrator and funders have forgotten that principle.


2012/9/10 Jed Rothwell 

> Robert Lynn  wrote:
>
>
>> And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
>> destroyed.
>>
>
> No one in his right mind would ever trust Rossi. However, some of his
> measurements have been inherently trustworthy despite the poor quality of
> the tests and instruments. Some of his results were clearly in error,
> especially during the NASA visit when the outlet hose was plugged up.
> However, there have many other Ni-H results lately, and that fact plus the
> fact that some of Rossi's results are credible makes me think he does have
> something.
>
> I suppose his results are intermittent and unreliable. That's what you
> expect with cold fusion. That is what you have to expect with any
> technology at this stage of development. It is nothing to worry about. It
> should not affect anyone's decision to fund the research.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Daniel Rocha]

Jed, you are optimistic beyond reasonable levels. Edison could be crazy,
but he was reasonable. For example, Rossi gave to the Swedish investors the
latest version of Hot Cat, hotter than the one of the Zurich presentation.
Proably, it was the 1200C version whereas the one from Zurich achieved
~900C at most. Besides, he was not careful with the measurements, even with
the outpu, since that camera is not rated for temperatures above 950C or so.

2012/9/10 Jed Rothwell 

> Robert Lynn  wrote:
>
> As an investor I would be quite OK with it being unreliable, as long as he
>> was open and honest about it, allowed proper instrumentation and
>> calorimetry, and it worked sometimes, R&D by competent scientists and
>> engineers would soon get to the bottom of the unreliability.
>
>
> Exactly. That is just what I had in mind.
>
>
>
>> I wish Rossi would just disappear, he is currently little more than a
>> LENR saboteur.
>>
>
> Despite his quirks, he has done a great service to the field, but focusing
> people's attention on Ni-H.
>
> He is a pain in the butt. As I said before, he is also like the guy in the
> beer ad: The most interesting man in the world.
>
> I think he is a genius. I think he is his own worst enemy. He reminds me
> of Edison. His stubborn refusal to compromise or let up on his own heroic
> self image reminds me a little of Shakespeare's Coriolanus -- another
> distressing Italian guy. Last night I saw the superb film version of that
> play by Ralph Fiennes. It blew me away! I sat and watched the whole thing
> straight through, twice in a row. What a brilliant idea it is to set that
> play so firmly in the 21st Century, with cell phones, Skype and modern
> urban warfare. Totally convincing.
>
> It reminds me a little of Ian McKellen's "Richard III" set in the Fascist
> 1930s. Another fantastic rendition.
>
> Shakespeare never gets old, and never gets irrelevant. His plays might as
> well be "torn from the headlines" today, like the "Law and Order" tagline.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[fznidarsic]

 I have been waiting since last October for such a INDEPENDENT test. This is 
the result of the first INDEPENDENT test. 


It reminded me of my flying saucer.  It was a device with many coils and 
electronics hanging on a string.  It produced transnational thrust when 
energized.


I took it to a local universality for a test.  It did not work there.  Why?
I later found that it was attracted to bed springs near the wall in an adjacent 
room.  No saucer, just an electromagnet going for some metal.


Measuring input power without correction for power factor or RMS wave shape it 
this same thing.  I suggest he use DC heater power or a watt meter.


I had hoped for more from Rossi.  I was dissipointed but I learned fast from my 
mistake.


Frank Z




-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 10:33 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input 
power measurements dodgy?


Daniel Rocha  wrote:


So, why doesn't Rossi adopt the strategy of microchip makers? That is, mass 
produce chips in mass, but discarding the ones that doesn't work.


You would have to ask Rossi.


That strategy might work. I think there are many ways to solve this problem, 
but I see no sign that Rossi intends to do any of them.


I think it would be better to throw a large sum of money at the problem to 
improve reliability. I mean $100 million or so. As I have said here, I think it 
will take far more money than that, but even billions of dollars are a trivial 
sum compared to the profits that will be made, and the money consumers will 
save, so the cost is unimportant. The important thing is:


1. Do it quickly, or the competition will beat you to the market.


2. Ensure reliability and safety. Cold fusion resembles aviation in that 
respect. In aviation, they never stint on the money it takes to ensure an 
extremely high level of safety and reliability. Much higher than other 
industries. Aviation would be destroyed if a dozen large airplanes crashed 
because of mechanical problems or design errors.


- Jed



 

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn  wrote:

As an investor I would be quite OK with it being unreliable, as long as he
> was open and honest about it, allowed proper instrumentation and
> calorimetry, and it worked sometimes, R&D by competent scientists and
> engineers would soon get to the bottom of the unreliability.


Exactly. That is just what I had in mind.



> I wish Rossi would just disappear, he is currently little more than a LENR
> saboteur.
>

Despite his quirks, he has done a great service to the field, but focusing
people's attention on Ni-H.

He is a pain in the butt. As I said before, he is also like the guy in the
beer ad: The most interesting man in the world.

I think he is a genius. I think he is his own worst enemy. He reminds me of
Edison. His stubborn refusal to compromise or let up on his own heroic self
image reminds me a little of Shakespeare's Coriolanus -- another
distressing Italian guy. Last night I saw the superb film version of that
play by Ralph Fiennes. It blew me away! I sat and watched the whole thing
straight through, twice in a row. What a brilliant idea it is to set that
play so firmly in the 21st Century, with cell phones, Skype and modern
urban warfare. Totally convincing.

It reminds me a little of Ian McKellen's "Richard III" set in the Fascist
1930s. Another fantastic rendition.

Shakespeare never gets old, and never gets irrelevant. His plays might as
well be "torn from the headlines" today, like the "Law and Order" tagline.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Jouni Valkonen]

Indeed, it seems that case is finally closed for Rossi.

—Jouni
On Sep 10, 2012 5:06 PM, "Robert Lynn" 
wrote:

> http://ecatnews.com/?p=2417#comments
>
> quoting from article:
>
> http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fnyheter%2Fenergi_miljo%2Fenergi%2Farticle3535258.ece
>
>
> "Investor Group had instructed the SP Technical Research Institute of
> Sweden, to monitor the measurement, and the researchers who attended
> measuring an input electrical power that was two to three times higher than
> Rossi himself measured. Despite this, Rossi presented a measurement report
> September 9 based on earlier tests where a lower input power and an energy
> surplus reported."
>
> And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
> destroyed.
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[bertoldo arpagoni]

I wonder what's going to be next ecat model to fool the crowd. I bet a
ColdCat in in liquid nitrogen operating at 80°K.

Cheers
Bert

2012/9/10 Daniel Rocha 

> In Matts review, look how crazy Rossi is:
>
> "Investors measurement was done on a new model with a higher operating
> temperature and hydrogen supply other than those previously demonstrated
> Rossi. "
>
> Why didn't Rossi used the older reactor that he need it worked better?
>
>
> 2012/9/10 Jed Rothwell 
>
>> Robert Lynn  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
>>> destroyed.
>>>
>>
>> No one in his right mind would ever trust Rossi. However, some of his
>> measurements have been inherently trustworthy despite the poor quality of
>> the tests and instruments. Some of his results were clearly in error,
>> especially during the NASA visit when the outlet hose was plugged up.
>> However, there have many other Ni-H results lately, and that fact plus the
>> fact that some of Rossi's results are credible makes me think he does have
>> something.
>>
>> I suppose his results are intermittent and unreliable. That's what you
>> expect with cold fusion. That is what you have to expect with any
>> technology at this stage of development. It is nothing to worry about. It
>> should not affect anyone's decision to fund the research.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

So, why doesn't Rossi adopt the strategy of microchip makers? That is, mass
> produce chips in mass, but discarding the ones that doesn't work.


You would have to ask Rossi.

That strategy might work. I think there are many ways to solve this
problem, but I see no sign that Rossi intends to do any of them.

I think it would be better to throw a large sum of money at the problem to
improve reliability. I mean $100 million or so. As I have said here, I
think it will take far more money than that, but even billions of dollars
are a trivial sum compared to the profits that will be made, and the money
consumers will save, so the cost is unimportant. The important thing is:

1. Do it quickly, or the competition will beat you to the market.

2. Ensure reliability and safety. Cold fusion resembles aviation in that
respect. In aviation, they *never* stint on the money it takes to ensure an
extremely high level of safety and reliability. Much higher than other
industries. Aviation would be destroyed if a dozen large airplanes crashed
because of mechanical problems or design errors.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Robert Lynn]

As an investor I would be quite OK with it being unreliable, as long as he
was open and honest about it, allowed proper instrumentation and
calorimetry, and it worked sometimes, R&D by competent scientists and
engineers would soon get to the bottom of the unreliability.

What I would run screaming from is someone who faked results with a
straight face (as we saw in one of the demos last year), you couldn't trust
a word that comes out of their mouths, and without a very careful
full-access test you could never be sure that there wasn't some hidden
power source.

I wish Rossi would just disappear, he is currently little more than a LENR
saboteur.

On 10 September 2012 15:14, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Robert Lynn  wrote:
>
>
>> And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
>> destroyed.
>>
>
> No one in his right mind would ever trust Rossi. However, some of his
> measurements have been inherently trustworthy despite the poor quality of
> the tests and instruments. Some of his results were clearly in error,
> especially during the NASA visit when the outlet hose was plugged up.
> However, there have many other Ni-H results lately, and that fact plus the
> fact that some of Rossi's results are credible makes me think he does have
> something.
>
> I suppose his results are intermittent and unreliable. That's what you
> expect with cold fusion. That is what you have to expect with any
> technology at this stage of development. It is nothing to worry about. It
> should not affect anyone's decision to fund the research.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Daniel Rocha]

In Matts review, look how crazy Rossi is:

"Investors measurement was done on a new model with a higher operating
temperature and hydrogen supply other than those previously demonstrated
Rossi. "

Why didn't Rossi used the older reactor that he need it worked better?

2012/9/10 Jed Rothwell 

> Robert Lynn  wrote:
>
>
>> And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
>> destroyed.
>>
>
> No one in his right mind would ever trust Rossi. However, some of his
> measurements have been inherently trustworthy despite the poor quality of
> the tests and instruments. Some of his results were clearly in error,
> especially during the NASA visit when the outlet hose was plugged up.
> However, there have many other Ni-H results lately, and that fact plus the
> fact that some of Rossi's results are credible makes me think he does have
> something.
>
> I suppose his results are intermittent and unreliable. That's what you
> expect with cold fusion. That is what you have to expect with any
> technology at this stage of development. It is nothing to worry about. It
> should not affect anyone's decision to fund the research.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Daniel Rocha]

So, why doesn't Rossi adopt the strategy of microchip makers? That is, mass
produce chips in mass, but discarding the ones that doesn't work. This
happens very frequently when a new process is released and chip failures
are common.

2012/9/10 Jed Rothwell 

> Robert Lynn  wrote:
>
>
>> And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
>> destroyed.
>>
>
> No one in his right mind would ever trust Rossi. However, some of his
> measurements have been inherently trustworthy despite the poor quality of
> the tests and instruments. Some of his results were clearly in error,
> especially during the NASA visit when the outlet hose was plugged up.
> However, there have many other Ni-H results lately, and that fact plus the
> fact that some of Rossi's results are credible makes me think he does have
> something.
>
> I suppose his results are intermittent and unreliable. That's what you
> expect with cold fusion. That is what you have to expect with any
> technology at this stage of development. It is nothing to worry about. It
> should not affect anyone's decision to fund the research.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn  wrote:


> And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
> destroyed.
>

No one in his right mind would ever trust Rossi. However, some of his
measurements have been inherently trustworthy despite the poor quality of
the tests and instruments. Some of his results were clearly in error,
especially during the NASA visit when the outlet hose was plugged up.
However, there have many other Ni-H results lately, and that fact plus the
fact that some of Rossi's results are credible makes me think he does have
something.

I suppose his results are intermittent and unreliable. That's what you
expect with cold fusion. That is what you have to expect with any
technology at this stage of development. It is nothing to worry about. It
should not affect anyone's decision to fund the research.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Daniel Rocha]

It's interesting to note that this Swedish group hurried to put their press
release. At the same time Rossi presented his results in Zurich.

2012/9/10 Robert Lynn 

> http://ecatnews.com/?p=2417#comments
>
> quoting from article:
>
> http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fnyheter%2Fenergi_miljo%2Fenergi%2Farticle3535258.ece
>
>
> "Investor Group had instructed the SP Technical Research Institute of
> Sweden, to monitor the measurement, and the researchers who attended
> measuring an input electrical power that was two to three times higher than
> Rossi himself measured. Despite this, Rossi presented a measurement report
> September 9 based on earlier tests where a lower input power and an energy
> surplus reported."
>
> And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
> destroyed.
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

[Robert Lynn]

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2417#comments

quoting from article:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fnyheter%2Fenergi_miljo%2Fenergi%2Farticle3535258.ece


"Investor Group had instructed the SP Technical Research Institute of
Sweden, to monitor the measurement, and the researchers who attended
measuring an input electrical power that was two to three times higher than
Rossi himself measured. Despite this, Rossi presented a measurement report
September 9 based on earlier tests where a lower input power and an energy
surplus reported."

And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally
destroyed.