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

    Thomas Clarke, care to elaborate on that? :


    "Andreas Moraitis


    The reported 36 m^3 of water per day (according to Mats’ article the
    flowmeter was positioned correctly...) matches quite well the reported
    COP of 50 (20 kW electric input assumed). And even if the water had not
    been vaporized but only heated from 60C to 100C, the COP would come to
    about 3.5. The contract required a minimum of > 2.6, as far as I
    remember.


    My first calculation included the energy for heating up the water (1.674 MWh). Vaporizing requires 22.57 MWh. So together we get (22.57+1.674)MWh/(24h*20kW) = 50.5, without the 1.674 MWh the result is 47. A COP of 50 would then indicate 18.8 kW of input power. (But as always, there is no guarantee for my numbers…)"

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Sifferkoll - you just took yet another boomerang to the head and never felt a thing.


    Maybe you could elaborate a bit on this hallucination of yours ... What does it REALLY mean when thoughts like this enter your head ... :D

    Quote from "Clarke"

    (2) You are saying that 'cos Rossi's tests have proven technically deficient in the past, no-one should check them for technical sanity now? It is "boring"?


    I suppose you're really really passionate about it, so if it makes you happy - please go ahead ...

    Quote


    The reported 36 m^3 of water per day (according to Mats’ article the flowmeter was positioned correctly...) matches quite well the reported COP of 50 (20 kW electric input assumed). And even if the water had not been vaporized but only heated from 60C to 100C, the COP would come to about 3.5. The contract required a minimum of > 2.6, as far as I remember.


    I don't have an opinion about this so far, except that 20kW input and an assumption of dry steam would give roughly COP=50. My point is orthogonal to this, based on Mats "Rossisays":


    Rossisays: The 60->100C temp rise is discounted
    Rossisays: The output is roughly 1MW


    Tech fact: you cannot accurately know how dry is the steam without more complex measurement


    Fact: the license contract specifies water flow calorimetry hence 100% wet steam (for that purpose) must be assumed.


    Tech Fact: If you believe Dewey's 100.1C we have 100% wet steam almost certainly.


    This does not make sense. If, instead, the output is roughly 70kW yes that does make sense, although not with 20kW input. But Rossi has not said that the measured input temperature is 60C. And has said he has a much higher COP than 3.6. And assuming dry steam output is always unsafe witout much more information that would have to contradict Dewey's 100.1C.


    There are too many gaps in this story to make precise sense of it. We do not know how COP is calculated, whether steam is assumed 100% wet. Dewey's comments about inconsistencies don't make sense without context - they could be nothing or a big deal.


    So all I can do is point out that this 1MW plant appears to have been producing between 70kW max and a few kW - depending on the input temperature. That is if we believe the electrical and flowrate measurements of course.


    Mats takes what Rossi says about this test as somehow validating it. I can't for the life work out how that is. Equally, with such partial information we can't yet say much about it.

    • Official Post

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=95#comment-1172432


    --------------------------------
    Andrea Rossi April 13, 2016 at 5:30 PM
    Patrick Ellul: The Report will be published after it will have been disclosed in the Court.Everything you are reading now is just toilet paper, diffused by professionals of the same and the ones they have paid for.I can only repeat what my Attorney wrote in our press release, it is that we are pleased by the results. The results are coherent with what I have repeatedly written on this blog during the 352 days of test: the plant has worked mostly in SSM mode. As all the visitors have seen.Warm Regards,A.R."
    --------------------------------


    Andrea Rossi's statement "during the 352 days of test: the plant has worked mostly in SSM mode" indicates that there is no power input during self sustain mode periods and that changes all calculations.

    • Official Post

    Simple answer:


    The contract between Rossi and IH prescribed that IH had to let Rossi carry out the test and in case of a positive result they would have had to pay the 89 Million $.


    IH however realized during the test that Rossi had become crazy and was (still is) deceiving himself thinking his device works, while it does not.


    They wanted to ransom themselves out of the contract and avoid an exhausting legal fight (the one that is now going on) , thinking that If they offer Rossi a certain amount he would accept.

    Well, given that Mats reports accurately what Rossi said (whether or not what was said was true) it would be intriguing indeed if Rossi HAD offered to give back the initial payment and IH refused


    Because if indeed that happened, AND if Rossi's megaWidget didn't work, acceptance would have got IH some money back AND freedom from a lawsuit.


    In other words, they could be deemed to have failed in their fiscal duty to their investors of making the best of what they say is a bad situation, and recouping some money.


    Oh well - at least we know the source of Mats' information.


    I wonder where Dewey Weaver gets HIS information.

    Nigel - I've just confirmed that Rossi made no such buy-back offer to IH. It's a yet another lie.


    If anybody knows Mats - ask him to request the 1MW flowmeter make and model number information from Rossi. You folks can then match-up those specs against the newly disclosed information from Rossi. Penon supplied that information to IH during the interim reporting cycle then somehow forgot to include that minor detail in the final "ERV" report. After you find that out, then we can get around to the serial number and calibration matters.

    Quote from "theWeaver"

    I've just confirmed that Rossi made no such buy-back offer to IH. It's a yet another lie.


    Sure. You're track record is brilliant ...


    BTW. Are you saying that you would have sold it ... ? Or are you saying you are willing to even give it back to get rid of this mess you put yourself in. Who knows, that might actually save you tons of money.

    Quote from barty

    Very interesting that IH wanted to cancel the test just 3-4 months after the beginning (after first ERV's interim report?), and offered to pay "a significant sum of money" for this cancelation.


    Maybe @Dewey Weaver can say more about that?


    I wonder if Rossi was prescient enough to get the IH buy out offer in writing so that we may see it in the court evidence.

    Edited once, last by axil ().

    Quote

    Nigel - I've just confirmed that Rossi made no such buy-back offer to IH. It's a yet another lie.If anybody knows Mats - ask him to request the 1MW flowmeter make and model number information from Rossi. You folks can then match-up those specs against the newly disclosed information from Rossi. Penon supplied that information to IH during the interim reporting cycle then somehow forgot to include that minor detail in the final "ERV" report. After you find that out, then we can get around to the serial number and calibration matters.


    "Confirmed"?


    With whom?


    Are you sure your source is truthful?

    Sifferkoll - Personally speaking - I would not sell back the paid-up $11.5M paid up license including derivative rights to Rossi. I'd enforce the license agreement and make Rossi prove whether it works or not. If he fails to respond or cannot satisfactorily meet the contract terms, then he would have legal issues that the courts would likely have to sort out. I hope you can process that in your most interesting headspace.


    Sounds like some nice assets will be available in Sweden soon.

    Following up on Thomas Clarke and Dewey Weaver:


    Is there water input temperature measurements; and is the pressure constant? If I follow Clarke's calculation, what if the secret customer's plant returns 99.9 degree water, or even 101 degree water under pressure? Is there something missing from my understanding of the test setup?

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Sifferkoll - Personally speaking - I would not sell back the paid-up $11.5M paid up license including derivative rights to Rossi. I'd enforce the license agreement and make Rossi prove whether it works or not. If he fails to respond or cannot…


    Oh! That is an interesting comment. If you are as sure as you've been spinning that it does not work, even though Rossi supposedly tried to prove it works since 2013 in a number of tests (some of them resulting in IH paying $11M), why would you want him to prove it again?


    Are you trying to prove you are that stupid? Failing to see if it works or not for three years ... Of course you know it works.


    As I said numerous times, which you confirm again, it is all about the issue of IP transfer.


    You trying the screw Rossi has seriously backfired when he realized you handed his IP to competitors and did not plan to pay him for the MW test.


    Now you deny the test showing positive results. That should be proof enough for there being no new IP, except those you paid for and validated 3 years ago. Or ... ???

    Quote from stephenrenzz

    Sifferkol, please explain to me how this revelation of the buy back deal is anything beyond yet ANOTHER "Rossi says"?



    Ehh!!! Of course it is "Rossi says" ... Rossi also tells Mats that it is backed up by documents/evidence, which completely differs from the spinning going on from the IH side represented by Weaver. IH is only spinning, taking absolutely no responsibility for the FUD. Darden will deny everything in court. For sure.


    Dont you understand this difference? Is that even possible?

    The buy back exercise would have informed Rossi that IH had developed nefarious motives that Rossi would be wise to protect himself against. This may have caused Rossi to begin his accumulation of evidence in anticipation to a legal fight at the end of the test. I would anticipate in such an hostile environment, Rossi was under the guidance of his lawyer from very early on in the test. The Rossi lawyer must have advised Rossi to record all conversations and transaction in preparation for the trial. This may be where the 18 books came from. This also may be why the IH personnel worked at arms length without Rossi's help during the test. This is why Rossi made sure that IH workers did not see any new IP development that Rossi produced at the end of the year.

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.