Mat Lewan Meets Rossi in Sweden, Rossi Bidding on Factory For QuarkX Production

Quote

But following your logic it was all Rossi who gave him the instructions right?

The first "independent" report we have access to from Penon was published by Rossi (you can find it on ECW). There were two versions, both problematic. However Rossi now says, in reply to criticism of its lamentable technical errors, that it was not actually done by Penon (perhaps I've got this wrong - I don't fully understand Rossi's argument - anyway he claims Penon is not responsible for it).

That does not help matters. If Penon can allow his name to be put against one report from Rossi which is essentially a fabrication, and certainly technically incompetent, he cannot be trusted to make a fair technical judgement over this one year test.

It is not necessary to get into the matter of how the Penon report inaccuracy happened in the past. The fact is enough.

Keieueue wrote: "A lot of hearsay facts don't make"

I don't need any trail. I have all the proof I need. I was sure there was no equipment in the room. Rossi's information told me that already.

As I said, you can confirm there is no heat from the numbers Rossi gave in his interview. You don't need any verification from me.

I wouldn't call that hearsay. I don't understand why you do not believe Rossi himself in this case. Okay, the data he quoted might be fake. But I doubt it, because why would he hand out numbers that prove he is wrong? I suppose he did that inadvertently.

You won't take information from me. You won't take data from Rossi. You will not accept my analysis and you refuse to do your own analysis. In short, you refuse to look at any facts, or think for yourself. The only thing you seem capable of is regurgitating Rossi's absurd nonsense and his lies. Rossi's own words and data prove this is nonsense and lies, but you don't see that, because you don't think. Or because you do not know how to do junior high school level calorimetry.

Monty - perhaps you should go first - why is this important to you? Jed is an advocate for LENR and for truth. He started his own company and was very successful using computers to automate utility billing. He has been providing money to LENR investors with no strings attached since the early 1990s. He has earned a front row seat for all matters LENR. In case you missed it, I'm an IH shareholder.

Monty wrote, addressed to someone: "But why is this trial you are talking about important to you?
Is there any involvement you have in this trial?"

If that message is to me, the answers are:

1. The trial is not important to me. I hope I.H. files overwhelming proof that Rossi is a fraud, and they call the trial off. I don't need a trial to determine Rossi is lying. His own data and his statements are proof of that.

2. I have no involvement whatever.

Monty - Sorry if that is old news but please share why is this important to you.

@JedRothwell

The only relevant number I see in the Rossi interview is the average flow rate of 36 cubic meters per day.

Other numbers are approx. 60C cool water temperature.

How do you deduce that there was no COP>1 heat production solely based on that interview? Or are you using additional data that you obtained separately?

Apologies if I missed your original post on that.

Keieueue wrote: "About calorimetry: there are a lot of posters who don't agree with your conclusion, and they're not rossi fanboys either."

Name one. Who are these posters you talk of? What have they said? How have they demonstrated that Rossi's own data does not prove Rossi is wrong?

Where are the analyses?

Perhaps you are saying there are many people such as yourself who apparently know nothing about calorimetry, who have not looked at the numbers, who have not made a single technical assertion about anything, and who do not even understand why it is necessary to examine the ventilation equipment in the customer site. Yes, there are such people, and yes, they disagree with me. But they have no reason to disagree with me. They have no scientific basis for what they say. They are merely spouting nonsense they heard from Rossi. So they don't count.

Also, the absurd excuses why Rossi blocked the door to the customer offered by you and others are not persuasive. To say the least. If you actually believe that stuff, you are extremely gullible.

Jed, Dewey, Thomas, etc. Here's a quote from Mats Lewan's blog:( https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/)
"I should also add that I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH)."

Apparently, all of you, based on the same inside information from IH, or perhaps no information in the case of Thomas, do not believe the sentence above. I for one will wait until I see the actual ERV report along with IH's official response. If IH is accusing the ERV (and possibly also Rossi) of fraud, then I would be very interested to learn about this.

Hank Mills wrote: "I could accept that the steam may not have been 100% dry, but where is the evidence that it was 100% wet?"

From the data he gave, you can compute the temperature was ~100.1 deg C. Just over boiling. Dan21 and others noted this. If the pressure is a little above 1 atm, that would be hot water. It seems likely the pressure is higher than 1 atm. It does not take much pressure to raise the boiling point:

https://durathermfluids.com/pd…ressure-boiling-point.pdf

Or if the temperature measurement is a little high, that would mean it is hot water.

There are other indications in the data pointing to hot water which were not revealed by Rossi in the interview, so I cannot discuss them.

Quote from LENR calendar

The only relevant number I see in the Rossi interview is the average flow rate of 36 cubic meters per day.Other numbers are approx. 60C cool water temperature.How do you deduce that there was no COP>1 heat production solely based on that interview? Or are you using additional data that you obtained separately?

I'm no longer involved in tech analysis of Rossi's stuff - it is not worth the hassle for me from Sifferkoll and Mats. But you might look at my first post right at the start of this thread. Then you might note that if as Jed claims Rossi has no way to measure pressure he cannot show the output is vapour phase. If the output is liquid the calculations show around 2kW added per degree of temperature rise. Nowhere near the 1MW claimed to be used by the industrial plant for any possible temperature of input.

You cannot rule out COP > 1 from those figures, or even COP > 6. But you sure can show Rossi to have lied about what this test shows if he claims a positive result. I'll leave any analysis now to Jed, who may or may not be able to get more from the figures.

PS - it is a logical impossibility to rule out COP > 1 from any experiment. The looser the calorimetry, the less easy it is to rule out high COP. In this case there is such loose calorimetry that COP = 50 cannot be ruled out, assuming without evidence that the water is vapour phase on entry to the "customer plant". Maybe Jed has definite data that disallows that, I don't know.

PPS - I note from the above that the measured output temperature as revealed by Rossi is 100.1C. Try asking an steam engineer what that means, or have a look at some steam tables!

quizzical quoted Lewan: "'the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report . . .'

"Apparently, all of you, based on the same inside information from IH, or perhaps no information in the case of Thomas, do not believe the sentence above."

Who said I don't believe that? If the report claims 1 MW at 50 times input then of course it is fake. Or incredibly stupid. Rossi's own data, quoted by Lewan himself, proves the report is wrong.

Is it fake, or is it stupid? How can you tell? That's easy! Rossi says the I.H. expert insisted he be allowed to see the customer site, but Rossi refused to show it to him. Bingo! That is proof it is fake.

Quote from JedRothwell

From the data he gave, you can compute the temperature was ~100.1 deg C. Just over boiling

How do you compute that temperature from the data Rossi gave in the Lewan interview?

My recollection is that this temperature value came from Dewey Weaver.

Since there is no temperature or pressure data in the Lewan interview, I don't understand how you can assert that we have COP<1 just based on Rossi's claims.

Quote

And for thomas i have no idea right now.

I'm glad to see the truth come out. It has always been my motivation.

Thomas Clarke wrote: "You cannot rule out COP > 1 from those figures, or even COP > 6. But you sure can show Rossi to have lied about what this test shows if he claims a positive result."

That is correct. A COP of > 6 may be high, but I cannot rule out ~2 or ~3. But the error margins are enormous.

"I'll leave any analysis now to Jed, who may or may not be able to get more from the figures."

I cannot get more out of the figures quoted in the Lewan interview, but I have few more figures and some info on the configuration and instruments. Not much, but some. Based on that, I see huge mistakes, enormous error margins, and -- I suppose -- the possibility of excess heat at a COP of ~2 (twice input). Or maybe 0.5? It is that bad.

My understanding is that experts at I.H. have better data which puts it below 1, for the heat in the fluid loop. I do not have any details, but I expect they are right.

Assuming the report by the third party and I.H. describing the customer facility is accurate, there is no chance of excess heat. That is physical proof. I expect it is accurate.