Flow meter used in 1-MW test

    Quote from sifferkoll

    One part of it is quite clear though. IH included these emails because they are worried about the HF/Swedish connection. They need to bring Rossi out of business. Darden even travelled to Stockholm and told a lot of people a lot of lies to discredit Rossi. The impression he gave was that of a used car salesman; great first impression facade, but slippery and empty inside. Scary guy.


    Btw, when visiting Sweden Darden refused to talk to Mats Lewan, wonder why?


    The irony of you using terms like "used car salesman", slippery, "empty inside" in the very same response to mention of proof that Rossi used disgusting deception to get rid of HF by rigging the test to fail is just priceless. Evidently Rossi gets a pass and can lie, cheat and steal all he wants when it comes to a business deal that suits his needs, but otherwise he is an innocent angel that is being attacked by snakes in the grass. Ohh those evil evil liars at IH haha!! So gullible Sufferkoll..so very gullible you are.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Well of course they are unbelievable!! Do you think this meter happened to collect exactly 36,000 kg of water, plus minus not even 1 kg, every day, for months? That's preposterous.


    JED: Do You still believe that IH (or their messenger..) told You the truth?
    All, just a bit smaller water meters are (per default) able to count flows as small as 1dm3. The 130 hot water meter count per default is 100l (= 1 Tick) according specs!


    But read in the specs:


    12.2 Other pulse values than in the basic design (factory) may be ordered as well for the reed switch
    transmitter, according to specification sh.


    Of course You could have ordered a different transmission wheel just to count 1l...

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    That is ridiculous. Pumps are rated (or set) for a particular flow rate and are not going to vary by 1000 kg and "come close to this [36,000] a few times"--as if the pump rate is going to be wildly variable over time.


    You are missing the point. The pump would have produce EXACTLY 36,000 kg per 24 hours, to the nearest second, in order for the data to show 36,000 kg every day for months. Otherwise it would sometimes be 35,000 kg (when the pumps were slow by a minute that day) or 37,000 (when the pumps were a little faster and crowded an extra click into that day). There would be different numbers when daylight savings turned on and off.


    Furthermore, the data was read manually, and entered into a log book. Penon would have to read it at exactly the same moment every day for months, including weekends and holidays. If he were a little early one day it would be 35,000, and a little late the next day it would be 37,000.


    All of the serious problems raised in Exhibit 5 are real. If Rossi or Penon had legitimate answers to the issues raised in that document, they would have answered them. They had a contractual obligation to answer, and it would have been in their interests to do so. They did not respond at all. That tells us they have no legitimate answers. I have other proof of that. Independent observers told me these assertions are correct. If Penon had said "the 36,000 kg entered every day are approximate values" in response to Exhibit 5, that would be reasonable. Sloppy, but reasonable. For him not to respond at all is tantamount to admitting it is fake data.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Furthermore, the data was read manually, and entered into a log book.


    This detail alone tells me that either Penon was not the man for the job or that Rossi was getting in the way of a sound technical decision. There's no reason in 2016 that the data collection should not have been entirely automated, with 1 second interval resolution or less, especially for what is nominally a test on which 89 million would change hands.


    I'm gradually becoming persuaded that Rossi was trying to scare away IH and get them to back out of their license.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    JED: Do You still believe that IH (or their messenger..) told You the truth?


    The "messenger" is Rossi himself. Yes, I am quite sure this data is from Rossi. His own words to Lewan confirmed it, as did the letter in Exhibit 5. Also I am sure that all of the problems in Exhibit 5 are real, because Rossi and Penon did not respond to them. If they had good answers, they would have made them. They were contractually obligated to respond. They must have known this letter would surface as evidence against them in a trial. It was in their interests to correct any mistakes in this Exhibit, but they said nothing.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Furthermore, the data was read manually, and entered into a log book.


    This detail alone tells me that either Penon was not the man for the job or that Rossi was getting in the way of a sound technical decision.


    Let me back up my assertion that the data was manually entered:


    1. I was told by witnesses that was the case.


    2. Rossi's data tables sure looks that way to me. I recognize the 1-decimal digit precision you see with manual, handwritten data logging.


    3. Looking at the brochure and specifications for that flowmeter, I do not think it has electronic logging. I do not know as much about the other instruments.


    4. I know that Rossi is allergic to computers. He prefers manual logging. Even to the point that he did not bother to insert an SD card into an expensive 4-unit thermocouple.


    In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with an old-fashioned laboratory logbook and handwritten data. However, it is a good idea to back it up with computer data.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    They were contractually obligated to respond


    According to which contractual clause?


    Also was Deweys comment about Rossi changing the meter a lie? That seems to have just vanished recently...

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I know that Rossi is allergic to computers. He prefers manual logging. Even to the point that he did not bother to insert an SD card into an expensive 4-unit thermocouple.


    Perhaps he prefers manual logging. But why? Not on technical grounds I suppose.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with an old-fashioned laboratory logbook and handwritten data. However, it is a good idea to back it up with computer data.


    I agree that much can be determined through very simple means, if someone comes in and needs to quickly make an order of magnitude assessment. But if you're designing a test that will release 89 million dollars, might as well get as much accuracy as you can. One suspects, then, that Rossi's intentions were not transparent in this connection.

    • Official Post

    Siffer,


    HydroFusion is still the legitimate Ecat distributor for Europe. HF is also the "official website" for Leonardo Corp., as Leonardo does not have their own. I see nothing in this legal battle that would prevent their (HF) producing and selling the Ecat right now. Today. In fact, Rossi has recently commented that he will shortly, with HF, build a production facility in Sweden (what is is with you Swedes! :) ) to start prouction and sales.


    Surely, with your connections to them, you would be privy to their business activities. Could you give some summary of customer interest, pending or actual sales, production plan dates, product, or products to be sold, etc.?


    Serious question. Not trying to bait you.

    Quote from THHuxley

    and while maybe politics goes best with a "make the best case you can ignoring inconvenient facts" style, tech stuff does not.


    Precisely. And while I'm still a fence-sitter, I actually began to lean IH's way in the aftermath of the filing of their answer. That is, until the holes started appearing, particularly on the tech issues (but also on the overall misdirection permeating Jones Day writing style).

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If Penon had said "the 36,000 kg entered every day are approximate values" in response to Exhibit 5, that would be reasonable. Sloppy, but reasonable. For him not to respond at all is tantamount to admitting it is fake data.


    You know as well as I that he will be asked this question. And how will he respond? Well?


    He will respond by saying something along the lines of: "the 36,000 kg entered every day are approximate values."


    And as you say, that would be reasonable.

    • Official Post
    Quote from IH Fanboy

    He will respond by saying something along the lines of: "the 36,000 kg entered every day are approximate values."


    And go on to say- 'I was never entirely happy about the accuracy of the flowmeter we employed, but we had properly calibrated pumps so to a large extent I depended on the run-time of those to give me a figure which I felt was more accurate than the flowmeter figures. "

    I haven't read this entire thread so I don't know if this has been discussed or not. If it has, just ignore it.


    The water meter reads 1K increments.
    On day one 36,212 L passes thru the meter, meter reads 36K.
    Log the data as 36K.
    Twenty Four hours later 36,105 L passes thru the meter, meter reads 72K.
    Log the data as 36K (72-36).
    Twenty four hours later 35,892 L passes thru the meter, meter reads 108K.
    Log the data as 36K (108-72).
    Continue to read the meter every twenty four hours, whether daylight savings time or not.
    I am not familiar with that particular water meter, but the ones that I work with do not have a reset to zero feature. Some electronic mag meters do have that ability.
    Repeat for one year. Slight variability in actual water use would average out so that conceivably every day 36K would be accurately recorded. Its very possible that the metering pumps could keep within that range, no?

    Quote from "Stephan Renz"

    The irony of you using terms like "used car salesman", slippery, "empty inside" in the very same response to mention of proof that Rossi used disgusting deception to get rid of HF by rigging the test to fail is just priceless.


    Well, These are of course impressions from people who met Dareden. That is all. Handing out psychiatric diagnosis left and right seems to be the modus operandi among FUDers like Abd et al. so in that case I guess Darden is probably what we all know as the common business psychopath ...


    And as Rossi pointed out recently all these issues are resolved since long. I can guarantee that you do not have a clue on what happened in the 2012 test ... The most interesting part in the story is that IH felt it was important to use these mail in the counterFUD (they are clearly not relevant in any other way than to discredit Rossi infront of HF), since it shows clearly that they are worried about HF and the swedish connection. They should be...

    Quote from "Shane D"

    HydroFusion is still the legitimate Ecat distributor for Europe. HF is also the "official website" for Leonardo Corp., as Leonardo does not have their own. I see nothing in this legal battle that would prevent their (HF) producing and selling the Ecat right now. Today. In fact, Rossi has recently commented that he will shortly, with HF, build a production facility in Sweden (what is is with you Swedes! ) to start prouction and sales.Surely, with your connections to them, you would be privy to their business activities. Could you give some summary of customer interest, pending or actual sales, production plan dates, product, or products to be sold, etc.?Serious question. Not trying to bait you.


    Yes, I am in contact with them of course, but cannot tell details. As stated in their site, HF is the commercial licensee for Scandinavia, UK and a number of other countries covering approximately 15% of world GDP. And I can also confirm that what Rossi and Lewan says about orders, pre-orders, etc. and the cooperation between HF and Leonardo is valid. Interesting times it is...


    If you want to know more you can make inquiries on the hydrofusion.com website.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Yes, the whole daylight savings shtick is yet another canard


    It's not a canard. If the flow is indeed recorded at 36,000 L per day, even during the transition to daylight savings (this is not something I've seen demonstrated, but assume for the moment it's true), then we can conclude that the measuring of the flow was done in a cavalier manner, as it should have been 35,000 L on one day and 37,000 L on the other during the transition, even allowing for a (very hard to imagine) resolution of only 1,000 liters. Or am I missing something?

    Quote from Eric Walker

    It's not a canard. If the flow is indeed recorded at 36,000 L per day, even during the transition to daylight savings (this is not something I've seen demonstrated, but assume for the moment it's true), then we can conclude that the measuring of the flow was done in a cavalier manner, as it should have been 35,000 L on one day and 37,000 L on the other during the transition, even allowing for a (very hard to imagine) resolution of only 1,000 liters. Or am I missing something?


    Without access to the ERV, they are only assumptions. 24 hour periods of time--that is probably the period of time of importance. To try and adjust for daylight savings time in a long-term test/experiment would be silly. If it were me, I would pick a period of time (i.e., 24 hours) as a period of measurement, call that one day, and stick to that metric throughout the test. My guess is that is how it was conducted and recorded.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    To try and adjust for daylight savings time in a long-term test/experiment would be silly.


    Yes, you make a good point. If the timestamps were recorded in UTC, as they would properly have been done, there would be no daylight savings. But that's assuming timestamps, and computers. It sounds like we're talking about log books and pencils. Another thing that is very hard to imagine.

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.