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

    Quote from Kei


    I thought you had crawled back under the rock from whence you came?


    Were you ordered back here to keep on astroturfing?


    Kei, if you and others here are upset by what I say being contrary to your agreed credo, then I'll go. That offer remains on the table.


    You don't sound upset. You sound like a bully. And unlike Dewey who makes a substantive contribution, you sound like a bully who has thus far on this thread made no contribution.


    We'd be better off without the noise your posts add - and I'm not saying that because we disagree - read up your posts and check for content!

    Quote from Tom Paulsen

    In a proper test all relevant parameters are measured and continuously recorded.
    On this basis of the real measured values, the calculations are made.


    You seem certain that this wasn't done. I'm not so sure of that. Do you really believe that relevant parameters were not measured during the entire one-year test? If they were measured, then the calculations can be made from those measured values. You can also calculate conservative values. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Most experimental scientists have to account for losses, and will therefore favor conservative calculations. This is not a suspicious activity. To the contrary, it reveals a careful consideration of the realities and difficulties of capturing accurate information. It builds in wide safety margins to rule out the predictable attacks that would be leveled. It takes the wind out of your attacks. Similarly, engineers account for worse-case measurements and design systems with worse-case in mind. This is also not suspicious in any way, and is quite a standard practice.

    Quote from LENR Calender

    If it varies, it shouldn't be an issue as long as the data has been recorded. Unless returning water was close to boiling most of the time, I don't see how this would be a problem.


    We will have to wait and see. All I'm saying is:
    (1) we don't know it will be recorded (by the ERV) since Rossi has asked for this not to be used.
    (2) if it is recorded we don't know what it will be, but I'd suggest near boiling is very likely.


    You have to ask why Rossi told the ERV (quite why he is interfering I don't know) to ignore this data.

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Your problem is in jumping to conclusions based on figures that could mean anything. Of course, that does not prove there are no problems, but it certainly it is not evidence that the professionals who have analysed the situation so far and seen nothing yet to be worried about are part of some global conspiracy.



    So, please name for the rest of us: Who are the professionals (position degree in US army) You mentioned, which did not notice the problem?
    Your problem is that you are paid for such spins and I'm not! Thus we will never get any names...


    The solders had to breath this Fukushima air for 1 ½ day. They got an over dosis of Jodine. Thus many of them have thyros cancer. Others got: testicular cancer, brain tumor, blindness. For further details You better ask their american layer Mr. Paul C, Garner.


    Just to complete the picture. The US-Reagen got no allowance for embarking for more than 2 months. The sick people had to stay on board.

    Quote from LENR Calender

    First, you make the assumption that Penon ignored his measurements.


    I think our conversation is going to be circular, espacially if you are trying to declare Rossi's own statements as my assumptions.



    It is not/no longer an assumption, that the ERV ignored something, but has to be regarded as a fact confirmed by Rossi himself.


    I think discussing what else might be possible doesn't make sense.


    Rossi's statement shows clearly that the test is/was not what I would expect from a reliable test. I already explained my point of view in detail.

    Quote from IHFB

    You seem certain that this wasn't done. I'm not so sure of that. Do you really believe that relevant parameters were not measured during the entire one-year test? If they were measured, then the calculations can be made from those measured values. You can also calculate conservative values. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Most experimental scientists have to account for losses, and will therefore favor conservative calculations. This is not a suspicious activity.


    The license contract calls for COP to be measured via liquid phase flow calorimetry - that is temp in & out, flowrate. If done with properly sited thermocouples and properly used flowmeter this is bulletproof.

    Quote from license section 4 - validation of the plant

    To make this determination the ERV shall measure the flow of the heated fluid and the deltaT between the temperature of the fluid before and after the E-CAT reaction.


    It is therefore suspicious that a bulletproof measurement technique mandated by the license agreement is abandoned for a technique known to be flakey and dependent on assumptions. Since license agreement specifies liquid phase calorimetry (as any sensible person would) I don't think Rossi can win this one unless the agreement has been amended or he uses liquid temperature in and out figures which he has said he will not use!


    With the temperature in and out data counted a COP >> 1 could be proven independent of the flakey part of the package. Rossi is asking for that definite data to be ignored, even though it is mandated by the license agreement.


    Suspicious? Yes.

    Quote

    So, please name for the rest of us: Who are the professionals (position degree in US army) You mentioned, which did not notice the problem?Your problem is that you are paid for such spins and I'm not! Thus we will never get any names...



    I mentioned no specific professionals. If you had read my post you would realise I was considering the possibility raised by the OP that professionals had evaluated and checked the report. I have no idea whether it has happened - Dewey says it has. And it is irrelevant to my point.


    Have you noticed that every time you get specially indignant over one of my posts you are 100% wrong - misunderstanding what I've said completely through not reading it, or the context? You might learn something from this...

    Moderators please note:


    Wyttenbach is a persistant liar on this thread. As far as I know lying is not actually against site rules, but he does lie while insulting me. My statement of this here is a necessary correction - not an insult. Given the frequency with which Wyttenbach abandons truth I doubt he'd see it as that anyway.

    @Tom Paulsen


    Ignoring the energy and ignoring the measurements are very different things! Your misinterpretation of Rossi is at the base of our circular discussion.


    What Rossi means is that the energy used to heat water below and above boiling points was discounted. It doesn't mean that measurements were not known.


    All Rossi means is that the ERV did not include that energy.


    Of course if you are reading everything assuming Rossi is a scammer and Penon is an idiot then we won't get very far.



    If you can't understand that we should probably stop this

    Dear all,


    I notice some here:


    monty, Wyttenbach, Keieueue, Sifferkoll - not sure if anyone else - seem to have a visceral dislike of my posts.


    Mats in an e-mail to me explained that his accusing me of mental instability was for the greater good. If I was right the damage from shutting me up would be small. If I was wrong the damage from shutting down Rossi would be immense.


    I can see this is an "end justifies means" argument that justifies dirty tricks because they are for the greater good. Mats further justifies his behaviour by saying that he knows Rossi's device works, for reasons however that he is not able to divulge.


    My judgement of these various matters differs greatly from Mats, I don't hold with such "end justifies means" and I in any case feel the weight of "goodness" is the other way round. As Abd has said Rossi is doing real harm to LENR research. I don't think there is much harm in that, but it is undesirable and if I had Abd's views on LENR I'd be furious.


    Anyway, I continue to find some of the technical details interesting from time to time, and will post, but not if the consensus here is that I'm a disruptive influence saying unwelcome things, or that I'm a hired hand putting somone else's views.


    So: please like this post if you don't want me to leave this discussion, dislike it if you do want me to leave the discussion.


    Thanks, Tom

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    Moderators please note:


    The art of spinning is to proliferate lies out of the false claims others postulate!


    I'm just retelling facts that were published, are parts of legal documents ...


    If You, Thomas respond by citing your spin-fellows instead to stay with my facts, than this is professional team lying... or spinning...


    If You feel pissed off, because Your master is dissatisfied with you work, then this is Your personal problem.


    I think You are a brilliant, professional spin-doctor, but just not brilliant enough.

    Gee whiz - another veritable R Fanboy storm. You can always tell when you're being effective (Thomas).
    They come out like a zombie swarm and hurl collective insults / insinuation while saying nothing. I pity the poor fools. They have lost the fight and now get to watch their hero sink below the waves - but not on their schedule.


    Oh the humanity.....

    Quote from LENR Calendar

    What Rossi means is that the energy used to heat water below and above boiling points was discounted. It doesn't mean that measurements were not known.


    I agree. But it may well mean they are left out of the report, which could have the same effect. We just don't know.

    Quote

    Thomas - don't let these P.R. bullyfest ruin your day.


    You may have noticed that the matters worth commenting on now are more nuanced (and so more interesting) and my posts have been less strident. I'm therefore thinking I should take a firm line with the various bullies here trying to shut me up and using any dirty trick in the book to do this. You can't even say my posts have been one-sided...

    Quote from Thomas Clarke

    The license contract calls for COP to be measured via liquid phase flow calorimetry - that is temp in & out, flowrate. If done with properly sited thermocouples and properly used flowmeter this is bulletproof.


    Any gas is a fluid and any liquid is a fluid. The contract does not specifically call for liquid phase flow calorimetry. You ought not to make that claim when we can all read the express language of the agreement.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

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