Title: 'The IH/Rossi ERV Report'
Doug Marker (dsm). Sydney Australia.
This author has have held off commenting on the awaited IH/Rossi ‘ERV’ report as it has seemed to me there is a clear unreality in expectations as to what would be reported, what could be reported and just what level of success the report might disclose.
What we know is that the 12 month test was with a Rossi 1MW Ecat device claimed to produce anomalous heat where the source of that heat appears to defy known science and for which no adequate scientific theory exists. Is it nuclear ?, is it isotopic-shift ?, is there a combined chemical/nuclear process taking place ?.
No one really knows. The critics fall back on existing understandings of the energy required to break the Coulomb barrier and say this ‘LENR new energy’ is junk science. Most LENR supporters promote descriptions of processes that allow atoms and their nuclei (i.e. as in muon catalyzed fusion) to be forced so close together that the strong force recombines the nuclei particles releasing energy. Some see Neutron capture (Lundin&Ligren), Widom & Larson see a result from SPPs summarized as ‘neutron formation from electrons and protons/deuterons, followed by local neutron absorption and subsequent beta-decay processes ‘. There are other LENR theories.
By contrast, the Randall Mills' process is said to exploit an atomic state where the electron in an H atom can be made to drop to lower than ground state and in doing so release large bursts of light energy within a particular spectrum band. Mills states that unlike LENR, his process is non nuclear. The Mills process and theories are certainly interesting as too are the other various LENR ideas.
Many general observers of the stories seem to believe that both parties in the IH/Rossi test *owe* it to them for IH or Rossi to disclose the full results. That is IMHO (and from a business perspective) unrealistic, and something of a fantasy. If this author were IH, I would never disclose *any such detail* beyond the bare minimum information required to meet legal obligations to all parties involved. The disclosures only need to be such that other businesses could draw their own *business* conclusions and consider entering into secure discussions with IH on future ventures in the countries that they have secured rights for. It is no secret that ‘Energy’ is a multi trillion dollar business. IH did not enter into this venture to entertain the expectant the public.
So, IMHO, any other expectations (or demands) of IH and Rossi, are unrealistic and somewhat self serving. IH only owes disclosure of results to itself and in a broader sense, to its investors (they do not even need to disclose the blow-by-blow detail to them). Rossi would have a very strong desire to have his technology endorsed as that would elevate his position in the 'new energy' stakes and would give great credence to any other claims he makes (and he makes many). Any serious investors with significant existing energy portfolios would want a swift yes/no answer as to if ‘new energy’ is real and if yes, then *time* to re-organize their investments and positions.
As mentioned above, some of the IH & Woodford investors are very likely to have significant need to know as to if new energy has been discovered and would in no way want 'everyone' to know this ahead of their own ability to re position their enterprises and to adapt to an expected dramatic shift in global energy supply and the energy supply-chain processes.
A hypothetical illustration: (*not* tendered as a supporting fact), take the recent decision by the Saudis to sell off Aramco !. If anyone doesn’t see great significance in that announcement late last year, then it would be worth doing some homework. Add to that the heirs to the Rockefeller oil fortune have issued statements (repeated in today's international news) that they are diversifying out of fossil fuels (in 2 years down from 7% to 3.5% of their holdings, and going lower). Whatever conclusions one comes to, the moves are dramatic and interesting.
.
What if (and this bit *can* be assumed to have real substance) the Saudis are among the investors in IH/Woodford and let us speculate that they (various Saudi oil interests) have been investigating ‘new energy’ potential for some years. Accepting this scenario, how are they likely to react if IH via the ERV report, publicly broadcast resounding success of the IH/Rossi test. Think about it !.
Add to this that IH as part of their deal with Rossi obtained certain rights to the main parts of the Middle East including Saudi Arabia.
So if IH were to release too much unnecessary or sweeping details of their progress, some investors might decide IH is not really acting in their particular investment interests and IH is just grandstanding. Also, if the test were considered a failure, why would IH want to trumpet that ?. But, either way, they might be tempted to let the broader community think there was failure in order to gain greater time to position their own and their investors interests. It is naive in the extreme to think IH would broadcast resounding success of the IH/Rossi test and that Rossi would quickly open a working factory in a few months. This is in the author's opinion, very naive but what so many observers seem to expect. Yes Rossi has hinted at himself doing just this (he has mentioned an announcement in Sweden later this year) but Rossi hints at many similar things that later don’t take place. His history is littered with claims to open robot factories . Andrea Rossi is a grand Ringmaster and deserves credit for his shows. However, no matter what one thinks of this behavior, Rossi is still the Ringmaster in charge.
In the recent IH/Rossi 12 month test. It is (as commentators have so often said) unreal to accept that the testers and Rossi, did not have a pretty good appreciation of energy in - energy out, even in broad terms, during the test, perhaps even before.
It is also somewhat incredible for anyone (and plenty have) to claim that there was no ERV entity or sanctioned report being produced from the claimed test. It must be painfully obvious that IH and Tom Darden were seeking a convincing test that would produce very strong evidence that the reported anomalous heat was real, and that the device has a usable lifespan, and that there were no discernible dangers from radiation or other potential hazards. The energy theory can come later. It also seems that Rossi’s constant presence in the test device was a statement of safety that had meaning for the overall test 'he bet his life on the safety aspect'.
The IH 'test' initiative was a very valid and a very useful one even if it actually proved the Rossi process didn't deliver. Some critics of IH and Woodford clearly fail to grasp the significance of what IH undertook and what the answer means to many of the investors. They shared the risk as the answer good or bad has great value to them. One may even ask if this 12 month test and any more delays, bought another 12+ months for savvy investors with energy portfolios, to plan their futures and realign their portfolios accordingly. Is this what the Saudis and the Rockefellers are doing ?. Time will tell, but when it does, the party and re-positioning may already be over in the investment sense.
Statistics: Posted by parallel — Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:30 pm