Bob,
My point of view too
On 8/9/2016 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I think that claiming Rossi is lying or scamming could be
extrapolating his behavior akin to "reductio ad absurdum". The truth
is seldom so black and white. Rossi is known to shrewdly lead people
on wild goose chases to obfuscate what he does know. He may well
exaggerate the performance of his technology. So far, evidence
suggests that Rossi does have some working LENR technology, but
perhaps not the COP>50 technology being presently claimed.
Look at the hotCat for example. Rossi taught IH how to build the
Lugano device. The Lugano researchers measured it as having excess
heat. We all know at this point that the Lugano measurements and
subsequent analysis were flawed; however, from my analysis I never
believed the device produced zero XH. In subsequent analysis by A.
Parkhomov, the fuel was deduced and tested. Parkhomov makes a good
case for this LENR fuel system having measurable XH. Other
researchers, including S. Jiang and Zhanghang have also reported XH
from this same system. So, where did this LENR fuel formulation come
from? Well, it came from Rossi. So, it is certainly an imaginative
extrapolation to imply that Rossi has no LENR technology.
The question really boils down to whether he has met the terms of his
license agreement with IH to receive his next round of funding. As
the technology license recipient, IH genuinely believes that the
technology has not been transferred, because they cannot use what they
have been given to produce high COP, high power heating promised by
Rossi. Taken with what IH knows about the 1 year testing, they do not
believe that he met _that_ contract milestone either. Rossi could
well have failed to meet the contractual milestones required to
receive the next round money under the contract, may have exaggerated
the results of the 1 year test, but that doesn't mean that he did not
produce any XH.
Jed is logically extending the possibility for large scale statistical
errors into the conclusion that there was no XH. While I don't have
the data, that is not necessarily the most probable conclusion from
those results. This is the same for the Lugano test - the data taken
and errors made in analysis provided no _proof_ of XH or COP>2, but
that doesn't mean that the most probable conclusion from the data was
that there was zero XH. Parkhomov believed there was enough
probability of XH from the Lugano experiment that he was motivated to
invest his time and try it for himself. In the end, his experiments
support existence of at least some XH in that system.
Analysis of the Lugano results benefited the greater LENR community
and opened the possibility for a new line of LENR research because
sufficient details were released about the experiment to permit some
level of back engineering. Community analysis made that possible.
That same benefit does not seem to be forthcoming in this case - we
are all just pundits in a private legal matter between IH and Rossi.
None of this Vortex dialog will not bring out details of the reaction
useful to extend the science. We are all wasting our time commenting
on the case (I have been sucked in just like everyone else).
