IH preventing Rossi from publishing ERV, according to Dewey Weaver

    Quote from frankwtu

    Guys, stop winding each other up!!


    Frank, I am not wound up at all...I'm not going there anymore...I honestly am just trying to understand where he is going with this...


    EDIT: and BTW...it is quite hypocritical to say this when you had your spoon in the pot too...the blatant hypocrisy on this board blows my mind sometimes.


    Frankwtu: "Logic was a big deal to TC but he cherry picked where he applied it."

    Quote

    And your point is?


    If you didn't get it - I can't help you. It is really complicated you know... And BTW Frankwtu did explain; selected logic is not logic, but subjectivism ... Different thing actually, but I guess you dont learn that in high school. ;)

    Jed may have seen information from this report. However, as to what is public, the confirmation is only for him -- and possibly others who have seen it. However, the report Jed links to is, I find, radically unsatisfying. It's as if he doesn't understand the issues. He determines energy production by a method known to be fraught with many possible artifacts, simply determining the temperature of an object, by a method which itself can be very flawed, and then using that and theory to calculate power. There are, in this process, multiple opportunities for error. When I've seen true experts report on work, if there are possible error sources, they state them. "We were unable to confirm, blah, blah. A possible source of error here is blah, blah, but there was no opportunity to test this." Etc. Expert opinion does not just state conclusions, it also states any possible weaknesses that are known or possible to the expert. We expect experts to know what they don't know, at least usually. They can still make mistakes, overlook something, but the more skeptical they are of their own work, the more we will trust them as to what they do report. We trust them to, where possible, anticipate criticism.


    And then to respond to criticism when it arises, not take it as an insult to their expertise.


    The most blatant lack in that report is a control. I.e., if the same input power is dumped into the device, what do the instruments show?


    The discrepancy between the panel meter and the handheld devices is worrisome. I'd want to know both readings, and would want to see, then, a third confirmation showing which set of readings was likely more accurate. Anomalies like this can be clues to some artifact. Or fraud.


    Now, a Rossi apologist expressed amazement ("what????") at Jed's mention of possible prosecution. Yet this is completely obvious, and has been for a long time. That possibility depends on the possibility that a prosecutor could look at various evidences and conclude that Penon deliberately issued positive reports on the Rossi devices, due to some corrupt influence. If the prosecutor found sufficient evidence of this, prosecution is indeed possible.


    In real life, it can be difficult to prove fraud. However, there is another unfortunate aspect to real life. Fraud might be concluded based on appearances. Jed pointed to Penon "agreeing to keep people out of the pretend customer site." We don't know, to my knowledge, the extent of Penon involvement in that, we only know Rossi's statement about it, that Penon agreed it wasn't necessary, or something like that. I will agree with Jed that this raises suspicion of Penon, but certainly isn't proof of fraud. It could, for example, be simple incompetence, or it may not have actually happened, or if it did happen, there may be no proof that it happened. Etc.


    But the possibility is real, and for someone very much interested in this case to not realize it shows an inability to grasp elements that may contradict the person's beliefs. If Penon is a hero, bravely risking his professional reputation for the Truth, then how could such a noble person possibly be risking a fraud prosecution?


    Easily. On Planet Rossi, the Good People stand for the truth and are certain this is enough. There is a problem. We don't know the truth. And we get sloppy.


    Parkhomov had a problem with his data. He was missing the temperature record for a period. So, since he knew the temperature for that period was probably the same as it had been, which was noisy, but the average was probably stable, he copied and pasted data from another period into his plot. Harmless, he may have thought. Besides, who would know? It looked fine.


    In this field, every report is going to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb, if it ends up in the public arena. That's been obvious since 1990 or so. As to Rossi demonstrations, it was obvious by 2012. Why would Penon risk his reputation like that?


    Well, by issuing a positive report, he was in place to be engaged as the "independent expert" paid by Rossi and IH for the Validation Test and the Guaranteed Performance Test. If he had issued a more skeptical report, would Rossi ever have spoken to him again?


    Or maybe he was just an idiot.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    However, as to what is public, the confirmation is only for him -- and possibly others who have seen it. However, the report Jed links to is, I find, radically unsatisfying. It's as if he doesn't understand the issues. He determines energy production by a method known to be fraught with many possible artifacts, simply determining the temperature of an object, by a method which itself can be very flawed, and then using that and theory to calculate power.


    Yup. That bothered me. This is what floored me:


    MAXIMUM POWER IRRADIATED BY THE E-CAT MODULE AT 5:49:00 PM.
    First hypothesis 9.033 kW
    Second hypothesis 13.39 kW


    If you have two hypothesis so far apart, you have to do a test to find out which is right. To be fair to Penon, I recall he revised this report with a more narrow estimate of the two hypotheses.


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    The most blatant lack in that report is a control. I.e., if the same input power is dumped into the device, what do the instruments show?


    Yup again. That's bad technique.


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Jed pointed to Penon "agreeing to keep people out of the pretend customer site." We don't know, to my knowledge, the extent of Penon involvement in that, we only know Rossi's statement about it, that Penon agreed it wasn't necessary, or something like that.


    The quote, from the Lewan interview: "IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and where it was used. The ERV [Penon] explained that this had no importance." Rossi has saddled Penon with the decision to keep people out of the pretend customer site, but I am sure Rossi himself decided to do this. The thing is, Penon has gone along with it. So far, anyway. If I were him I would distance myself from this.


    I suspect there is nothing more than a small radiator in the customer site, not a machine using 1 MW of process heat. If there is only a radiator, and the truth is discovered, I suppose that would be clear evidence of fraud. I do not know much about the law, but that seems likely to me. If Penon knows there is only a radiator, that makes him party to a fraud. It is hard to believe he has never been in the customer site, and he does not know what is in there. I think investigators would assume he knows, even if he is innocent.

    Rossi says that there is a written agreement signed by him (for Leonardo), the customer and IH that neither party would have access to the other's area. Surely DW can confirm/deny the existence of this?


    Since the interface to the customer's equipment is via a heat exchanger, calorimetry on the primary should suffice.


    Rossi says there is a technical specification for the ERV's tests, proposed by Rossi and modified to satisfy IH. Does this rely on the primary circuit only? Penon seems (per Rossi/Lewan) to think this applies.


    The contract just says that the ERV will sign off on guaranteed performance. Yes: pay. No: don't pay. There is no appeal/review process. I sure as heck wouldn't sign a $100M-ish contract with that clause.


    The contract just specifies "steam at 100C or greater" without mentioning pressure or steam quality. I sure as heck wouldn't sign a $100M-ish contract with that clause.


    If IH was scammed they seem to deserve it.

    Jed says there was a single circuit. (The full-blog download from rossilivecat.com isn't available).


    65. Accordingly, on January 28,2015, the ERV prepared and submitted to the parties a proposed test protocol for the Guaranteed Performance Test. After suggesting minor changes to the test protocol, and clarifying other points, DARDEN on behalf of IH andlor IPH agreed to the test protocol prior to the commencement of the Guaranteed Performance Test

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    Since the interface to the customer's equipment is via a heat exchanger, calorimetry on the primary should suffice.


    No, it is not via a heat exchanger. I do not know where you got that information, but that is wrong. There is only a pipe that exits the room.


    If there were a heat exchanger, that might lend itself to better calorimetry.


    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    The contract just says that the ERV will sign off on guaranteed performance. Yes: pay. No: don't pay. There is no appeal/review process. I sure as heck wouldn't sign a $100M-ish contract with that clause.


    Yes, I imagine I.H. regrets signing that. I know nothing about it. Perhaps there is more to the story.


    However, I do know that a contract of this nature cannot be enforced if there are egregious problems with the work. I am sure of that. To take an extreme example from Atlanta's periodic real-estate booms, people sign contracts to have houses built. The contracts are somewhat one-sided in favor of builders. There are instances in which new houses begin to fall down soon after they are built. The builders may point to technicalities in the contract to try to escape from responsibilities, but there are laws that overrule these contracts. You can't just point to a contract when the work is so bad it amounts to fraud or professional incompetence.

    I knew I'd seen it somewhere : https://animpossibleinvention.…ilding-plus-more-updates/
    The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot air through the roof.The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant. The ERV accepted. (This was conservative, decreasing the calculated thermal power. The main part of the calculated thermal power, however, derives from the water being evaporated when boiling).https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/


    The location of the heat exchanger/s is not specified .... could be in the customer area.


    [ edited for duplicate paste ]


    Note : we have here a continuing disparity between "Rossi Said" and "Weaver Said".

    Alan - The only way for heat to get out of the 1MW test facility was thru a single vent in the roof that had a broken fan, complete with spider webs. Documented, photographed and entirely inadequate as a heat exhaust solution for the 1MW system. The IR images are sadly very telling. There was 20kW of heat in that facility at most.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Alan - The only way for heat to get out of the 1MW test facility was thru a single vent in the roof that had a broken fan, complete with spider webs. Documented, photographed and entirely inadequate as a heat exhaust solution for the 1MW system. The IR images are sadly very telling. There was 20kW of heat in that facility at most.

    IR images? The snakes! They are obviously spies! I knew they could not be trusted!


    One of the more fun ideas was that the energy was "incorporated" in JMC products. I wonder if any reader here still thinks that possible without a lot of waste heat. In other words, it doesn't solve the problem.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    One of the more fun ideas was that the energy was "incorporated" in JMC products. I wonder if any reader here still thinks that possible without a lot of waste heat.


    I have mentioned this before. Energy is often incorporated in products. That happens with an endothermic reaction. An example we are all familiar with is a loaf of bread. This is often cited in chemistry textbooks. The dough is heated and the chemical bonds are changed. If you burn a sample of bread in a calorimeter you get more energy out of it than you would from a similar mass of raw dough. *


    In all industrial endothermic reactions I have heard of, most of the heat comes out as waste heat. Only a little is incorporated in the product. I doubt you can measure the energy deficit in a bakery with ordinary instruments. So even if JMC has actual equipment in the mystery customer site, and that equipment is doing some sort of endothermic process, most of the heat still needs to be exhausted.


    This is not to be confused with something like smelting iron. That does not increase the energy content of the final product. The heat balance at the end is zero, not negative.



    * I guess you would have to bake the bread in the calorimeter too, to capture the water and so on. This would be complicated.

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    I knew I'd seen it somewhere : animpossibleinvention.com/2016…ilding-plus-more-updates/
    [Quote from Lewan interview:]
    "The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot air through the roof."


    Ah. Good find. Rossi did say that. Perhaps it is true, but in that case the heat exchangers appear to be in the customer site. That's according to the schematic I saw. Which may be abbreviated, or possibly inaccurate. As I said, I have very little information.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Alan - The only way for heat to get out of the 1MW test facility was thru a single vent in the roof that had a broken fan, complete with spider webs.


    That's hilarious! Or, it would be hilarious if $11 million were not involved, and this were not another terrible cold fusion fiasco.


    You have to laugh to keep from crying.

    Quote from Keieueue

    omg all eleven of 11 million dollar


    that's 7 tomahawk missiles how are we even gonna protect free market now


    Do you have $11 million burning a hole in your pocket? I doubt it, but if you do I know lots of researchers who could use some of it.


    If you had any idea how much good $11 million would do for cold fusion, and how little money there is, you would not find this a laughing matter.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If you had any idea how much good $11 million would do for cold fusion


    Do you really want to go into tinfoil territory


    You know perfectly well why money flows or not: lobbies
    Also since LENR might very well have been weaponized for a while, there are all the more good reasons to control its release


    I don't believe you're this naive
    Problem is not crazy random erratic inventors spending investing money in zany ways, it's investing money being held up in certain sectors because their emergence has to be controlled

    Jed is slipping : $1.5M was paid on signing, including the prototype 1M system. $10M was paid after the SUCCESSFUL 24-hour test of the 1M system. $84M was due on the ERV certifying that the Guaranteed Performance was met. (F8 -- Rossi joke -- on the sole written certification of the ERV, no appeals, no review).

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.