Judge Orders Jury Trial in Rossi et al v. Darden et al Starting June 26, 2017

Quote from axil

First, Rossi has to prove people like you wrong though massive production. Once the LENR concept is proven to the common man, then it will be accepted as science, no nobel prize until then and no big money either. It is you mary, Rossi must discredit you. It's you and him like a mongoose and a cobra in deadly combat. But in the end when the battle is over, you will look back on a wasted life. So Sad.

Such utter nonsense. The vast majority of technologies are proven WELL before massive production, and this one is no exception. As mentioned a million times, (disclaimer for FrankWTF) all Rossi needs to do is perform an independent demonstration among trusted peers with Rossi's hands OFF the demo. Even the skeptics would accept this...and please do not mention the faulty Lugano test. There is one reason and one reason only that Rossi refuses to do an independent demo...because the "Rossi Effect" is not real. Plain and simple.

Quote from stephenrenzz

Such utter nonsense. The vast majority of technologies are proven WELL before massive production, and this one is no exception. As mentioned a million times, (disclaimer for FrankWTF) all Rossi needs to do is perform an independent demonstration among trusted peers with Rossi's hands OFF the demo. Even the skeptics would accept this...and please do not mention the faulty Lugano test. There is one reason and one reason only that Rossi refuses to do an independent demo...because the "Rossi Effect" is not real. Plain and simple.

Rossi is not the only one who needs to do an independent demo. IH and their backers must also setup up a system where a flow meter can be setup to reduce a COP of 50 to a COP under 1. What is the critical factor, the lack of a back flow valve? Well, set up the test. An electric water heater might be used and a flowmeter without back flow check valve should produce a COP of less than 2%.

I will await that demo on YouTube. Put your data where your mouths are.

Quote from axil

Rossi is not the only one who needs to do an independent demo. IH and their backers must also setup up a system where a flow meter can be setup to reduce a COP of 50 to a COP under 1. What is the critical factor, the lack of a back flow valve? Well, set up the test. An electric water heater might be used and a flowmeter without back flow check valve should produce a COP of less than 2%.

I will await that demo on YouTube. Put your data where your mouths are.

Wow...at least you have FINALLY admitted Rossi needs to do an independent demo! I am blown away right now. As for IH proving how Rossi faked his results...I am quite sure we will see more than just information on how the flow meter was tricked, I am sure Rossi had other tricks up his sleeve. I am interested in serial numbers as well. This really is going to be so interesting when Rossi has to face REAL experts over this. If you don't think it is extremely easy to trick just about any metering device numerous ways with the right circumstances, I have some land in Florida to sell you...oh wait...so does Rossi. (if you don't get the Florida land sale reference - Google is your friend)

Quote from stephenrenzz

Wow...at least you have FINALLY admitted Rossi needs to do an independent demo! I am blown away right now. As for IH proving how Rossi faked his results...I am quite sure we will see more than just information on how the flow meter was tricked, I am sure Rossi had other tricks up his sleeve. I am interested in serial numbers as well. This really is going to be so interesting when Rossi has to face REAL experts over this. If you don't think it is extremely easy to trick just about any metering device numerous ways with the right circumstances, I have some land in Florida to sell you...oh wait...so does Rossi. (if you don't get the Florida land sale reference - Google is your friend)

Your credibility would be better served if you diverted some of the energy used in posting endlessly, to producing data. Have at it and quickly.

Quote from axil

Your credibility would be better served if you diverted some of the energy used in posting endlessly, to producing data. Have at it and quickly.

What on earth are you talking about? Produce what data? I have no connection with IH or Rossi, so I await data the same way you do. I am sure it will all come out in proper time...spoiler alert Axil...the trial hasn't started yet. You are just reaching for anything at this point.

Quote from stephenrenzz

What on earth are you talking about? Produce what data? I have no connection with IH or Rossi, so I await data the same way you do. I am sure it will all come out in proper time...spoiler alert Axil...the trial hasn't started yet. You are just reaching for anything at this point.

Rossi has produce the 1 year test. He released the results namly COP = 50. Ypi all have said that the data was caused by a lack of a check valve in the flow meter.

I want to see how a flow meter can be made to produce a 5000% error rate. This level of error is hard to beleive.

Quote from axil

Rossi has produce the 1 year test. He released the results namly COP = 50. Ypi all have said that the data was caused by a lack of a check valve in the flow meter.

I want to see how a flow meter can be made to produce a 5000% error rate. This level of error is hard to beleive.

Well hang tight, I am sure you are going to see that and much much more when this goes to trial. I don't know how I and others here can say this any other way so that you can comprehend it, the trial has NOT started yet, therefore we wait until release of findings and the anticipated grilling of Rossi by experts. Jed says he has seen data, I believe him, but I have not see it yet personally just like you. This is all speculation on both sides....I could ask you the same thing...show me the data that proves the "Rossi Effect"...oh wait Rossi has NEVER produced data for the E-Cat or anything related. (Sorry FrankWTF I really tried my best not to reiterate this for you the forum police officer..but poor Axil is having trouble with comprehension)

Quote from stephenrenzz

Well hang tight, I am sure you are going to see that and much much more when this goes to trial. I don't know how I and others here can say this any other way so that you can comprehend it, the trial has NOT started yet, therefore we wait until release of findings and the anticipated grilling of Rossi by experts. Jed says he has seen data, I believe him, but I have not see it yet personally just like you. This is all speculation on both sides....I could ask you the same thing...show me the data that proves the "Rossi Effect"...oh wait Rossi has NEVER produced data for the E-Cat or anything related. (Sorry FrankWTF I really tried my best not to reiterate this for you the forum police officer..but poor Axil is having trouble with comprehension)

Science is not built on hearsay, it is built on first hand data. I want to see a flow meter with a 5000% error rate. When I see that, I will question what Rossi and the ERV have presented. MFMP has it right, you see the experiment first hand so it can be done, so do it.

Quote from axil

IH and their backers must also setup up a system where a flow meter can be setup to reduce a COP of 50 to a COP under 1.

I have done this inadvertently. Not by a factor of 50, but I got it wrong. The city of Atlanta reduced my water bill from $200 to $40 with a bad flowmeter for several years.

The flowmeter is not the only probable source of inaccuracy in this data, so it may not need to explain the entire bogus COP of 50. I think tracking down exactly how the instruments came up with this COP would be a complicated and time-consuming job. I suppose I.H. experts are doing this, but I am only speculating.

As I said, you can find ways to do this by reading the cautions and warnings in a flowmeter manual. It does not take a lot of imagination. This is kind of like asking "how can I destroy an automobile engine?" Okay, you can drain the oil and run it. Or you can submerge the air inlet in water. Or put metal shavings into the oil. Use leaded gasoline in an unleaded car. . . . A mechanic will know many other methods. Here is list of common problems with flowmeter instability:

http://www.seametrics.com/site…t/files/LT-65650293-A.pdf

Quote from Mary Yugo

Yet, I and people like me, by writing on the internet in forums like this one and ecatnews.com are completely preventing Rossi from convincing any powerful people in science and industry that the ecat is real, right?

You are not doing a very good job, if so. You did not prevent him from getting a patent, $11 million, or the promise of $89 million. The only thing that prevented that was Rossi's own failure to demonstrate anomalous heat.

Quote from JedRothwell

I have done this inadvertently. Not by a factor of 50, but I got it wrong. The city of Atlanta reduced my water bill from $200 to $40 with a bad flowmeter for several years.

The flowmeter is not the only probable source of inaccuracy in this data, so it may not need to explain the entire bogus COP of 50. I think tracking down exactly how the instruments came up with this COP would be a complicated and time-consuming job. I suppose I.H. experts are doing this, but I am only speculating.

As I said, you can find ways to do this by reading the cautions and warnings in a flowmeter manual. It does not take a lot of imagination. This is kind of like asking "how can I destroy an automobile engine?" Okay, you can drain the oil and run it. Or you can submerge the air inlet in water. Or put metal shavings into the oil. Use leaded gasoline in an unleaded car. . . . A mechanic will know many other methods. Here is list of common problems with flowmeter instability:

http://www.seametrics.com/site…t/files/LT-65650293-A.pdf

Display More

Your entire argument will fall apart when the "customer" is revealed during the trial and he testifies that his manufacturing process requires a lot of heat and he got that heat from the E-Cat. Then what? How will you look? How will your reputation suffer? It is better to prove the fraud now before the trial. IH should help. Dewey will fund it.

Quote from axil

I want to see how a flow meter can be made to produce a 5000% error rate. This level of error is hard to beleive.

If you truly "want" to see this I suggest you start by reading the manuals for various flowmeters. Or you can read about how Defkalion managed to produce a fake reading with a flowmeter in a kilowatt-scale test.

I do not think you want to see anything of the sort. I also think you have no experience using flowmeters. Do your homework and learn about these instruments before commenting on them.

It does not have to be a 5000% error, as I said. Look at some of Rossi's previous tests. All of the parameters were wrong. Not just the flow rate, but also the inlet and outlet temperatures, the location of the thermocouples, the calibration methods (or lack thereof), steam quality measurements, etc. There are many ways to do calorimetry wrong. When you make several mistakes simultaneously, you multiply errors. (I mean the wrong flow rate is multiplied by the wrong Delta T temperature.) When you do this deliberately you get any answer you like, as Defkalion demonstrated. As Gamberale demonstrated, it wasn't hard to find the error and prove Defkalion was doing it wrong.

Quote from JedRothwell

If you truly "want" to see this I suggest you start by reading the manuals for various flowmeters. Or you can read about how Defkalion managed to produce a fake reading with a flowmeter in a kilowatt-scale test.

I do not think you want to see anything of the sort. I also think you have no experience using flowmeters. Do your homework and learn about these instruments before commenting on them.

It does not have to a 5000% error, as I said. Look at some of Rossi's previous tests. All of the parameters were wrong. Not just the flow rate, but also the inlet and outlet temperatures, the location of the thermocouples, the calibration methods (or lack thereof), steam quality measurements, etc. There are many ways to do calorimetry wrong. When you make several mistakes simultaneously, you multiply errors. (I mean the wrong flow rate is multiplied by the wrong Delta T temperature.) When you do this deliberately you get any answer you like, as Defkalion demonstrated. As Gamberale demonstrated, it wasn't hard to find the error and prove Defkalion was doing it wrong.

Seeing is believing.

Quote from axil

Your entire argument will fall apart when the "customer" is revealed during the trial and he testifies that his manufacturing process requires a lot of heat and he got that heat from the E-Cat. Then what?

What happens then is the "customer," who is Rossi's lawyer, will go to jail for perjury.

They will ask him what the process is, and he will reveal that he knows nothing about industrial machinery. They will ask for photos of the equipment and he will have nothing. They will ask for safety certificates for megawatt-scale heavy-duty industrial equipment, and he will have nothing.

I doubt Rossi's lawyer will be willing to go through that charade, or go to jail, so I do not think this will happen.

Quote from axil

Seeing is believing.

Okay then. Shut up and look. Stop nattering on about a subject you know nothing about. Read some manuals about flowmeters, or admit you have no clue. Read about Defkalion. See for yourself.

Heck, try using a flowmeter and report back. I promise you will discover many ways to get the wrong answer.

Quote from JedRothwell

Okay then. Shut up and look. Stop nattering on about a subject you know nothing about. Read some manuals about flowmeters, or admit you have no clue.

Heck, try using a flowmeter and report back. I promise you will discover many ways to get the wrong answer.

That is why the non expert needs a simple demo to cut through the complexity.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Yet, I and people like me, by writing on the internet in forums like this one and ecatnews.com are completely preventing Rossi from convincing any powerful people in science and industry that the ecat is real, right?

No. But it doesn't stop you, Gary Wright, and others from trying.

Quote from JedRothwell

I think tracking down exactly how the instruments came up with this COP would be a complicated and time-consuming job.

But yet you have already taken a firm position that the COP is 1, but in any case, no more than 3 or 4?