There might even be steam return, I'm unconvinced so far that anyone checked for this.
The return fluid temperature was 60 deg C according to Rossi. That's what he told Lewan. That's true as far as I know. So I don't think it was steam.
JM Chemical Products is the Key Witness in the Rossi vs. Industrial Heat Case
-
-
Jed
I do not know how sensitive the tests were, but in any case, other tests confirmed there was no excess heat, according to I.H. I do not know the details. The only details I know are from Rossi.
So Jed, who will the courts believe, Rossi or IH. You of course know the details from Rossi, do you believe him?
Best regards
Frank -
I am sure there was some heat from the customer site, especially in winter, from the ordinary HVAC equipment in the building.
Jed: Let me guess about it:
On the customer site there was a large oil heating delivering one MW or just 100kWh to the E-cat (60 C ??) which, with the help of Dewey's ventilator, dissipated it to the outside...
I would look for Hawking Radiation - (happening) in the E-cat which also could help to get rid of excess energy...
May be Axil is right: And the E-cat is a large wormhole.., which sucks the brain of everybody who is trying to touch it...
-
Jed
May be Axil is right: And the E-cat is a large wormhole.., which sucks the brain of everybody who is trying to touch it...
Is there a dowsing rod that someone could use to detect a wormhole, perhaps that would be expensive, maybe it would be cheaper just to look for worms; or snakes. Abd thinks there are snakes involved.
No Jed, Mary, Abd, don't touch it Oooooooh, too late.
Best regards
Frank -
So Jed, who will the courts believe, Rossi or IH.
It is not the courts who believe, it is jury. (Although there are trials with no jury in which the judge decides. I think Rossi requested a jury. I don't know how it works.)You of course know the details from Rossi, do you believe him?
Absolutely not! In my opinion, the data from Rossi proves beyond question that his claim is wrong.I do not know all the details, by the way.
-
Jed
So nothing you can say is of any use then. You don't believe him so how can you believe his data proves him wrong. For a start his 0.0bar is a farce so everything else could be. Are you cherry picking his data to suit your own fanciful ideas?
Best regards
Frank -
So nothing you can say is of any use then. You don't believe him so how can you believe his data proves him wrong.
What you say makes no sense to me. Of course his data is of use! It proves he is wrong. I don't believe him because his data proves he is wrong.If I did not have the data, I could not judge whether he is right or wrong. I would have no opinion. (Except insofar as I trust I.H. more than I trust Rossi, so I would be inclined to doubt his claims.)
You don't believe him so how can you believe his data proves him wrong. For a start his 0.0 bar is a farce so everything else could be.
I suppose the other data could be a farce. I can't rule that out. That would also prove he is wrong, wouldn't it? However, even if the other data is right, I still think it points to a null result, with no excess heat. Rossi and Penon disagree. They look at the data and reach one conclusion, and I reach another. -
Jed
The data may be believed by the Jury or it may not. This applies to any data that Rossi, Penon or IH et al may put before the Jury. I suspect they will be like a rabbit in the headlights of a fast approaching car, like the rest of us.
I see your data and logic like a saying we have across the pond, it depicts a searcher for the truth entering a dark tunnel saying "I can see the light at the end of the tunnel" only to find out it is the train coming towards him in the opposite direction.
Don't lose heart, at the very least you Abd and Mary are providing some light relief.
Best regards
Frank -
The data may be believed by the Jury or it may not. This applies to any data that Rossi, Penon or IH et al may put before the Jury. I suspect they will be like a rabbit in the headlights of a fast approaching car, like the rest of us.
Based on my experience serving on a jury, the only "data" put before the jury will be a few statements by licensed experts testifying that Rossi's configuration and instruments are not up to code and they cannot work. That is all the jury needs to hear. There is no need for any technical debate, which most people would not understand in any case. All they need to hear is "licensed experts in Florida say this does not work." No one is going to dispute expert knowledge.As I said, I do not think you will not find a sane expert willing to testify that it worked.
If Rossi were foolish enough to dispute the technical details, the experts from I.H. will tear him to shreds. The test is so bad, in so many ways, he will end up facing charges for fraud.
-
Based on my experience serving on a jury, the only "data" put before the jury will be a few statements by licensed experts testifying that Rossi's configuration and instruments are not up to code and they cannot work. That is all the jury needs to hear.
Yeah right!
If that were true, and it is not, then why did Rossi ask for a jury trial?Keep in mind that the jury will most likely hear from "experts" defending Rossi. Not saying they will be right, but only asking what they, the jury, will "hear"?
LOLs, if justice were only so simple as you think, Hillary...well never mind. Remember you brought Trump up.
-
Why, thanks, Wytty. I speak up frequently and I look back, from the future and see how I did.
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Pretty straightforward. This could only be relevant if IH claims that LENR is impossible. They are not going to do that.QuoteABD the great judge of IH vs., Rossi has spoken.
Thanks. I'm even right sometimes.QuoteHow many hits do You expect that time...
Not enough. However, maybe you can toss some clink in the clank: Quora.com: What is the latest information on Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat?QuoteAfter the rubish You posted above I predict one out of 4 - at most...
One out of four what?QuoteJust believe me: A law system cannot be FUDerated... Due time in the US is mostly 3 months ask Apple... in Europe it's better: 2 years for sold item.
For contracts basic law applies... I would look it up in the state Florida civil law bible...
Except you didn't. Written contracts, five years. Fraud, four years. That is Florida. -
Yeah right! If that were true, and it is not, then why did Rossi ask for a jury trial?
I have no idea why Rossi does this sort of thing. I think he is bound to lose. He should have kept the $11 million and gone to Sweden to fleece a new batch of suckers.Keep in mind that the jury will most likely hear from "experts" defending Rossi.
As I said, I doubt there are such experts. In a trial, you cannot bring in some non-credentialed person off the street (such as me, or Penon) and have him testify as an expert witness. If the profession is licensed and regulated, he or she must have a license. His testimony must agree with most other experts in the field. Even if Rossi manages to find a crackpot engineer or scientist who says Rossi's calorimetry is valid, I.H. can have this testimony thrown out by bringing in some number of conventional experts who testify that the crackpot is wrong. See:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702
Quote. . . when an expert purports to apply principles and methods in accordance with professional standards, and yet reaches a conclusion that other experts in the field would not reach, the trial court may fairly suspect that the principles and methods have not been faithfully applied.
". . . any step that renders the analysis unreliable . . . renders the expert's testimony inadmissible. This is true whether the step completely changes a reliable methodology or merely misapplies that methodology.
-
Jed,
Rossi asked for a jury trial, because it plays in his favor. You know that. I agree with you however, that whatever so called "experts" he calls on his behalf, will be highly suspect. IH's, in contrast, will weigh heavily with me. I side with IH in this, as do you, and see them the way forward.
That said, the jurisprudence system is what it is, and truth is only one of the factors that determine the outcome.
-
Rossi asked for a jury trial, because it plays in his favor. You know that.
No, I did not know that. I know practically nothing about the law. Anyway, I don't suppose Rossi's legal strategies are sound.What is it with people here insisting that I know X or Y, or Abd knows Z, when we know nothing of the sort? Do you people fancy yourselves mind readers? You are not.
-
Jed is a bit ... hyperbolic. I doubt very much that the jury will hear anything about "up to code." That's Jed's own bug about boiler regulation in Florida. There are a series of claims made by Rossi in the Complaint. Rossi will attempt to establish those as fact. They are not claims that require expert testimony, but ordinary testimony. Yes, IH will then make counter-claims, but I don't think they will be quite as Jed writes above. "code" won't have anything to do with it.QuoteYeah right! If that were true, and it is not, then why did Rossi ask for a jury trial?
Keep in mind that the jury will most likely hear from "experts" defending Rossi. Not saying they will be right, but only asking what they, the jury, will "hear"?
Again, this is a strange idea of what will happen. The image is of one set of experts claiming that the test satisfied the conditions of the Agreement and another set of experts claiming that it did not. What is this idea about "jury trial"? There is an idea on Planet Rossi that a jury will fall all over itself to award this hard-working inventor $89 million, whereas a judge would be more sober. Maybe. But ... Jones Day are highly experienced. Part of that experience is knowing how to convince juries. I have no idea why Rossi would think a jury would favor him. Maybe he thinks he can bat his eyes at them and they will rush to do whatever he wants. After all, it worked before.
Right now, what seems to be shaping up is that IH will acknowledge that the ERV signed off on the test, but that this was an impossible result, because of lack of heat emission from the building. So the experts they will be presenting will be in building thermography and power dissipation, and those people exist because of prosecutions of marijuana growers who were discovered by IR thermography with quite a bit less power involved. Like 10 KW.
So the jury will see a report on the one hand, and they will see some conflicting evidence about it, and they they will see the heat problem on the other. The heat problem will be much easier to understand!
They will also hear about the history of the ERV, his relationship with Rossi, how he was chosen, and the difficulties IH had working with him.
There could be more, much more. There will be the issue of IP transfer, and testimony around that. I can imagine some of Rossi's intemperate commentary might be brought in. I don't know, it could be a difficult issue, but he's definitely given them some ammunition.
-
I doubt very much that the jury will hear anything about "up to code." That's Jed's own bug about boiler regulation in Florida.
Those are different regs. I don't mean the safety regs. I mean the ones specifying how to measure boiler efficiency. Unfortunately the link to them is broken. You can find ones from other states. Anyway, they say you have to have a thermometer at a certain distance from the boiler, you have to measure steam quality by certain procedures, you have to check various parameters . . . none of which Rossi did, as far as I can tell.In other words, the expert would be asked something like: "Was the equipment attached to this boiler suitable for measuring the heat? No. Did the equipment and procedures meet the Florida code regulation XYZ for measuring boiler performance? No." With a few details from the first expert explaining why not. Not much technical depth. The following experts would mostly concur. That is how the trials I have read about worked. Granted, these were short trials.
As I said, if a crackpot expert shows up saying Rossi's methods work, two or three others would say "no" and the document about Rule 702 says his testimony would be thrown out.
-
Jed
If the profession is licensed and regulated
We don't know that for sure, its just your opinion. The equipment was 'experimental' involving unproven theoretical principles. But in any case, if a case is to be brought against Rossi for contravention of the Florida Boiler Laws, this will be a completely separate issue and absolutely nothing to do with the claimed 'breach of contract'.
Lets take your point on face value. If it is proven Rossi's experimental E-cat is a boiler and contravened Florida Boiler Laws, he would be fined a few hundred dollars. But that would not in any way determine whether the contract was or was not breached.
Best regards
Frank -
Based on my experience serving on a jury, the only "data" put before the jury will be a few statements by licensed experts testifying that Rossi's configuration and instruments are not up to code and they cannot work.
How often will You repeat Your false interpretation? Do You have to retell it day after day ???
AS per contract the measurements were a duty of the ERV as were the instruments...
But I have to understand that somebody is driving You to discredit Rossi, who's sole responsibility was to superview the 1 MW or 10KWh (JW-version) heating...
To say it again: Since 2013 IH manufactured the E-cat cores. If they didn't work as IH claimed, they knew it since latest 2014.
It's grand time that You and ABD stop the paid FUD-eration of this forum:
Or even more severe: Must we assume that You (two) are driven by hidden law enforcement of the patriot act?
This would explain everything!!
-
Except you didn't. Written contracts, five years. Fraud, four years. That is Florida.
May be You mix up two things: Five year period to sue and deadline after detection. There is a juridical term called connivance, that you silently accept the misbehavior if You let it go for a longer period... That's exactly what IH did...
Besides that IH must have known about the performance of the E-cat core, they made themselves... Thus Your arguing is ridiculus anyway...
To make it clear: We are not talking about the 89 millions! Just about the argument that the 1MW (core) built by IH was (self-) fraud.
-
But in any case, if a case is to be brought against Rossi for contravention of the Florida Boiler Laws,
This has nothing to do with contravening boiler laws. I am saying that Rossi did not follow the procedures spelled out by the ASME and the Florida regulations for measuring boiler efficiency, and that his methods and instruments cannot give the right answer. Any expert will testify to that. Since this is only a 20 kW electric heater, I do not think there are any safety regulations saying you must measure boiler efficiency.It is an open and shut case. There is no way his calorimetry could be right.
