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> 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 >
