I was wrong about Rossi, but what I fear most is that I might be partly right

  • Quote from Argon: “He [Penon] has a degree and is qualified HVAC (afaik)”
    Do you have a non-speculative source for this detail?


    Eric, I don't want to hang on this old question, but just put up one more source of information about Penon, since I didn't first remember where I had read it before.


    It was in Mats blog and article also lists Penon as certification expert worked on highly respected certification companies so quite strongly speaks against what Jed is claiming.


  • Penon as certification expert worked on highly respected certification companies so quite strongly speaks against what Jed is claiming.


    You cannot judge what I am claiming unless have seen Rossi's data. If Penon really is the author of that data, and if he went along with the decision to lock the IH experts out of the pretend customer site, then "highly respected" or not, he is a blithering idiot and he is Rossi's patsy. Probably his designated fall guy as well. If he does not skedaddle he may end up in jail.

  • Jed


    You cannot judge what I am claiming unless have seen Rossi's data. If Penon really is the author of that data, and if he went along with the decision to lock the IH experts out of the pretend customer site, then "highly respected" or not, he is a blithering idiot and he is Rossi's patsy. Probably his designated fall guy as well. If he does not skedaddle he may end up in jail.


    Penon was employed by both Rossi and IH, made three intermediate reports before the final; would your observations apply to IH as well as Rossi then?


    Probably his designated fall guy as well.


    This is a specific allegation, do you have any evidence to support this allegation or should we judge it to be just another lie?


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Jed I am easy to give you on this much: "Penon at least has been working in respected certification companies". And then all standard disclaimers: " If we can trust what Mats has written and his sources on Penons history are to be trusted". So that does not yet exclude the possibility Penon transformed from highly educated and respected certification expert to "paid Rossis lap dog and certified idiot".


    Please allow me, while so many things are so contradicted in this whole mess, I tend now to lean bit more on Mats statement on this at this very moment.


    I honestly hate to do this comparison, but I see lot in common in Penon and your history. Both respected experts with long careers, and now according to many claims seen in this forum, both of you seem to have switched sides from original.
    There is bad contradiction here: Only one of you can have done it. I really hope that there will be some natural explanation like 'misinformed', 'played' or something similar and both of you could come out from this with dry feet.


    Being wrong is excusable in my values, but knowingly defrauding people is not.

  • Quote

    Fabio Penon has a degree in Nuclear Engineering, from Bologna University, with rating 100 of 100 and honors.He worked for several years in the nuclear industry with thermo mechanics.When the nuclear industry was put on hold in Italy, he turned to work as expert on product certification, collaborating with entities such as Bureau Veritas, Vertiquality and Det Norske Veritas.


    Just to clarify the facts in the matter relevant to Penon and an HVAC certification, then, they would appear to be something like this:

    • We have no information about Penon having an HVAC certification (and one in Florida). (My assumption is that he does not have one.)
    • Mats Lewan reports that Penon worked with "thermo mechanics" in the nuclear industry.
    • Mats Lewan reports that Penon worked as an expert on product certification, collaborating in an unspecified way with Bureau Veritas (a certification company), Vertiquality (unknown) and Det Norske Veritas (a certification body).

    We now have the following questions that remain to be answered, apart from whatever can be gleaned from Penon's actual demonstration of ability in the reports he's signed off on that are publicly available:

    • Is Lewan's reporting accurate in this instance?
    • How much experience does Penon have with thermo mechanics? Is this experience relevant to measuring the heat balance of a large water boiler?
    • What was the nature of Penon's collaboration with Bureau Veritas and Det Norke Veritas? Is it relevant?
  • Eric, questions you raised I agree. We don't know exctly and that can mean evrything between something like he has very little (experience on calorimetry, collaboration with Veritas etc) in practise or he might have done a lot, since he is no more young guy (AFICR).


    So lets keep our minds open and jump in strong conclusions when we have more information. Engineer48 have promised few more leaks in E-catworld. The first one had meaningful numbers, but they are just numbers so far, that can have come where ever.

  • Jed, Thank you for the link. Sorry but I have no time just now to go through the whole doc.
    Maybe tomorrow, but it would help if you could repeat once again most important pages (I know you have done that million times already, but I have lost track on which doc is which). Or maybe you could point link to some old post where you have explained flaws on this doc.


    Anyway I'm probably not very qualified to judge correctness of the this calorimetry, so my judgment on it doesn't weight much. I'm more looking Penon thing in more non technical level as discussed with Eric Walker above.

  • Jed, Thank you for the link. Sorry but I have no time just now to go through the whole doc.
    Maybe tomorrow, but it would help if you could repeat once again most important pages (I know you have done that million times already, but I have lost track on…


    I just read that report. There are several aspects of this test that have large potential errors. First, the wattmeter did not agree with the voltmeter and ammeter, so they chose to ignore the wattmeter. There was no investigation into *why* the instruments disagreed, or by how much. There is also no report on whether the instruments could have been fooled by high frequency noise, such as from a chopper-type controller. I've had personal experience with a high quality DC-AC inverter that correctly claimed it put out very little high frequency noise. But what the manufacturer didn't say because most people don't care, was that it put a lot of crap back into the batteries powering it. Second, there was no calibration run to measure actual IR intensity vs Joule heating. That would have been both simple and far more robust than the practice of calculating heat radiated by measuring temperature. Call that no pre calibration and no post calibration. Third, they allowed the IR sensor to move before and during the test. Even if they had calibrated the sensor, their primary heat-indicating instrument, this would have introduced unknowable errors. Fourth, they did not quantitatively include heat lost by convection. At that size and temperature, convection could account for a few hundred Watts.


    But it's the heat measuring *concept* that is the biggest problem. Only someone without real-world experience could believe you can measure heat loss to better than a factor of two using this methodology. Maybe if the object were a perfect sphere made of high conductivity material (certainly not 316 stainless steel), that methodology might stand a chance, but still would not include large uncertainties from convection. Trying to determine heat lost by calculating the theoretical radiation from an irregular body in a convecting ambient is just .... wrong.

  • There are several aspects of this test that have large potential errors. First, the wattmeter did not agree with the voltmeter and ammeter


    That's a good analysis. Better than I could do. Thank you for going to the trouble to write it. Let me add one thing to the list of problems: The tables at the end show values for a first and second hypotheses, such as:


    First hypothesis 9.033 kW
    Second hypothesis 13.39 kW


    With such a large difference, the authors should have taken steps to determine which hypothesis is correct, rather than listing both. A calibration would have shown which is correct. (You pointed out other reasons to do a calibration.)

  • Quote

    Yesterday, 6:15pm−2


    POST REMOVED FOR REASONS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. Alan


    Of course, owners of private forums have the right to delete anything they chose. But, in this case, Alan, it's a cowardly act worthy of a bully that you choose to edit a post out of existence rather than reply to it. That type of moderation makes this board a puppet [to use Rossi's hilarious take on this word] of believers such as the ones who continually brownnose Rossi.

  • Dan21:

    Quote

    Second, there was no calibration run to measure actual IR intensity vs Joule heating. That would have been both simple and far more robust than the practice of calculating heat radiated by measuring temperature. Call that no pre calibration and no post calibration.

    Thank you. This description characterized ALL of Rossi's tests (the one calibration which took place failed to cover the relevant temperature range). I have been pointing this out since late 2011. It was unconscionable and either extremely negligent or extremely incompetent (or both) for Levi not to do this, for the Swedish scientists not to require it and for IH not to notice it when they supposedly did their due diligence. I am disappointed that LENR scientists and proponents, for example Storms, McKubre and Rothwell, never really held Rossi's feet to the fire about this. If they had, they might saved IH $10M and a lot of idiotic litigation costs. Or rather they would have saved IH's share holders that. I doubt very much that IH and Darden and Vaughn will lose much if any. I don't expect the fanpeople among the readers of LENR Forum to even notice or acknowledge this glaring failing of Rossi's terribly bad testing.