Flow meter used in 1-MW test

  • 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.


    Certainly when doing plant seedling fertilisation experiments (long ago) at Sutton Bonington (The Agricultural part of Nottingham Uni) we just stuck to using GMT all the way through the program - and each sequence of experiments lasted 84 days so they did tend to cut across DST quite often. This is particularly important with plants, of course, since they react to daylight - but such an approach has also been used in other long running experiments I have assisted with. Lab-time was always GMT.

  • My point with the Daylight Savings is that is an independent test of the data coherence.
    Was DS compensated for? Did they use UTC time stamps? Did they autofill a column lazily?


    The damn gauge is for a heat meter. It pulses every 100 L by default. At that point it should trigger a temperature reading, so that the heat content between two 100 L pulses can be determined.


    So WTF is with 1000 L increments? And are they are measuring the return to calculate what was sent? What if the Customer spills 10% down the drain, or as steam out the roof?
    Not to mention that the gauge operation below its certified spec means that 1000 L a day could be totally unaccounted for, and the thing still clicks along, at 36 rolls of 1000 L increment of the dial a day.

  • Paradigmnoia wrote:

    My point with the Daylight Savings is that is an independent test of the data coherence.


    That is a good point, and highlights why recording approximate results because you know there are errors in the sensors anyway is bad practice. Accurate raw data recording can be used post hoc to test and prove/disprove possible artifacts or measurement errors or just plain mistakes.


    I don't see this sort of care from Rossi/Penon - one reason why even with no question of deliberate tampering I would not trust such results. They had a chance with this test to turn over a new leaf but it seems from information so far that they did not.

  • They had a chance with this test to turn over a new leaf but it seems from information so far that they did not.


    If one is to believe the Answer, they foisted this whole business as a "test" upon IH, and IH had a situation to manage. I keep coming back to the thought that Rossi wanted out of the license agreement, and this was part of his strategy to apply pressure.

  • @Eric,


    I can see that Rossi would maybe want out of a situation where his stuff was rigorously tested by unfriendly people. IH became that some time between 2014 and 2016. Maybe the threat of legal action would be part of that. But the reality of legal action just makes his position worse, so if so it is not a great strategy.


    A simpler motivation would be Rossi wanting the $89M and misjudging IH. From Rossi's POV what matters is the "dramatic effectiveness" of the test. He might have thought IH had the same motivation, and felt betrayed when they did not value his "magnificence".

  • A simpler motivation would be Rossi wanting the $89M and misjudging IH. From Rossi's POV what matters is the "dramatic effectiveness" of the test. He might have thought IH had the same motivation, and felt betrayed when they did not value his "magnificence".


    This line of reasoning makes Rossi out to be too detached from reality, to the point of either being dumb or kamikaze. He may be mercurial and difficult, but his using the test as an implicit coercive measure to get IH to back out without requiring his paying back the 11.5 million is easier to square with what we know of the details of the GPT.


    Consider that what we know about the "test" is so far from what one would want a test to be, that Rossi must surely have known this all along. There appears to have been zero effort to persuade IH of anything about the results Rossi was getting, aside from leaving open a vague question about the outcome, obscured by all of the silliness in measurement. But perhaps Rossi followed protocol enough to convince himself that IH would not assume that the outcome of a lawsuit would be cut and dry. And they didn't respond to his coercive measures, so he went gonzo and started the suit, perhaps hoping they would settle out of court.

  • Well we are both on shaky ground here - attempting to guess Rossi's psyche.


    I find the idea that he sees "dramatic effect" as important, and validation unnecessary, rather appealing. If he believes dramatic effect to trump real validation it would explain his past behaviour , and it has worked for him pretty well until now.


    There are other strands here. He might, knowing the system did not pass the test for real, reckon an appearance of passing, with a positive report, was enough to get the $89M, or at least enough to make IH give him a generous out of court settlement.

  • 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."


    I suppose he will. The next questions might be:


    Why was this value shown on days when your log shows the reactor was turned off and there was no flow at all?


    Why was there always 1 MW of heat shown on days when the reactor was turned off, or half turned off?


    They would not be so easy for Rossi to evade. Some of these questions have already been raised in Exhibit 5. Rossi and Penon did not respond. I take that to mean they have no valid response. Remember, this was before Rossi filed suit. If they had a valid response they would have been paid $89 million. That is a strong motivation to come up with good reasons for the apparent discrepancies. Examples:


    "At different points in time during the assumed 350 operational days of the “test” you were measuring, a number of the reactors were turned off (apparently for repair). At even more points in time, different units within the reactors were either turned off or simply disabled. Yet there does not appear to be any impact on the mass flow rate in the system. How is that a credible outcome?"


    "Your reports do not account for these substantial variations. There is no explanation as to how the energy output at times increased or stayed constant during periods when a substantial number of the units were inoperable and/or the average power supply into the system was decreased. There is also no explanation as to how other variables, such as the flow rate, were not impacted in an expected manner by changes in the number of operating units."


    There is lots more to come! Many, many more unanswered and unanswerable questions.

  • Joseph Murray wrote:

    There is also no explanation as to how other variables, such as the flow rate, were not impacted in an expected manner by changes in the number of operating units.


    That may well be true, but such an explanation can be manufactured easily enough. For example a control system whose one purpose it to keep overall flow rate constant. That explains the fixed flow rates perhaps, but not the fixed delivered heat.


    There is a general point here. Given limited data and many unknowns it is often possible fit data to a hypothesis ("the system works") by varying the unknowns. I've noticed that effect in these arguments in many areas.

  • As someone already mentioned:
    Season 5 of the "Rossi Saga" was really boring, but season 6 is promising excitement and drama.
    They already made up a plan for season 7, coming in September 2017.
    The plot?
    Maybe I will reveal that in due time at the Playground, Weaver might help me and Sifferkoll is invited!


    They make up a between time episode, which will be a hearing at the senate/congress in autumn 2016.
    Stay tuned!

  • There appears to have been zero effort to persuade IH of anything about the results Rossi was getting, aside from leaving open a vague question about the outcome, obscured by all of the silliness in measurement.


    Yes, I get that impression. That is what hit me when I examined the sample data. (Which you have now all seen, more or less. It is just the 36,000 kg flow rate, 0.0 bar pressure, and temperatures around 102°C varying by a few degrees.)


    As I said here, my first response was, "is this supposed to be a joke?!?" I could not believe he was trying to put something over I.H. with such a crude fake. It did not seem like it would fool anyone. Many of problems described in Exhibit 5 were apparent from his own data! It is as if he were trying to sell a house made of papier-mâché.


    Maybe he is hoping he can fool a jury? That is the only hypothesis I can come up with.


    Rossi's psychology is a mystery to me. He has collected a great deal of money so I guess he knows how to con people. It is even possible at times he knew how to make excess heat. I cannot rule that out.

  • There is a general point here. Given limited data and many unknowns it is often possible fit data to a hypothesis ("the system works") by varying the unknowns. I've noticed that effect in these arguments in many areas.


    True enough. And conversely, given the same limited data and many unknowns it is often possible fit data to a different hypothesis ("the system does not work") by varying the unknowns.


    Hence, the endless speculation that we all relish in on this forum, lacking any substantive data like the ERV report. And IH and Rossi continue to refuse to release the report, even after multiple opportunities to do so now in the context of the litigation. Jed says that we all now know everything that he knew. So no use trying to eek any more information from him. I'm really beginning to wonder whether we will ever see the ERV report. Too bad, really, if that is the case. It is a topic of utmost interest to the LENR community, and indirectly, to the world.

  • A few more numbers to calculate with.


    The earth to Planet Rossi comms got squashed by Mats just before some really good information was about to be transmitted. Which reminds me - how would you feel if you learned that volume flow on the 1MW cold side system flow was exactly 32000 kg/d for the month of July. Every day, dead nuts on the rounded number. How does that make you feel about your hero Frank?


    (maybe that was supposed to be 36000...)


    And don't be confused when you see 103.9C for every single steam temp measurement for March and April 2015 when the ERV finally publishes. I'm telling you, even with all the variable power input on the same graph, this was one hell of a steady state system. Absolutely spot on, dead nuts perfect temp performance for 60 straight 24/7 days. The world has never seen such an amazing device.

  • You are missing the point. The pump would have produce EXACTLY 36,000 kg per 24 hours



    Please can You stop this bullshit???


    1: Provide us a proof that the flow-meter You mention was in fact used.
    2: That it only had the basic functionality.
    3: According to Penons report used for the proposed bills, everbody at IH new, that the flow was between 27 and 36 m3/day! Only You don't check it...
    4: Penon collected thousands of measurement points/day. How many hours do You think did he spend for writing them down...


    I urge YOU to make either a statement that everything is fraud or
    and stop Your FUD.

  • IHFB wrote:

    True enough. And conversely, given the same limited data and many unknowns it is often possible fit data to a different hypothesis ("the system does not work") by varying the unknowns.


    Hence, the endless speculation that we all relish in on this forum, lacking any substantive data like the ERV report. And IH and Rossi continue to refuse to release the report, even after multiple opportunities to do so now in the context of the litigation. Jed says that we all now know everything that he knew. So no use trying to eek any more information from him. I'm really beginning to wonder whether we will ever see the ERV report. Too bad, really, if that is the case. It is a topic of utmost interest to the LENR community, and indirectly, to the world.


    Well I can agree with much of that. The difference in viewpoint here is how we should evaluate a demo from Rossi which proves nothing due to unusually bad practice in the experimental setup and methodology.

  • Wyttenbach wrote:

    I urge YOU to make either a statement that everything is fraud orand stop Your FUD.


    I don't understand that position. Fraud is complex. If you mean civil fraud, then Rossi has accused IH of it, IH has accused Rossi of it, the Court will decide. What do you mean "everything"?


    It does not help to to attatch too much significance to speculation about motives. We all enjoy doing it, but it is not hard fact. Whereas the flakiness of Rossi's Test is hard fact.


    Nor does it help your case to label Jed as spreading FUD. That is not anyone's position, it is your subjective judgement of what certain arguments induce.

  • The "messenger" is Rossi himself.


    JED: The only relevant person is Penon the ERV! What ever AR claims to measure may be OK for his personal psychological stabilty. I personally would expect that he lied at You...


    The water meter reads 1K increments.


    That's wrong! Because nobody can read a fact sheet. For the subtype -130 = type for hot water - the increment is 1 Tick for 100l = 10 ticks for 1m3!


    Yes, I get that impression. That is what hit me when I examined the sample data. (Which you have now all seen, more or less. It is just the 36,000 kg flow rate, 0.0 bar pressure, and temperatures around 102°C varying by a few degrees.)


    How much more time will You need to understand this figures?? At least You now admit that T was 102.x not 100 as in Your earlier FUD posts...


    Pressure "0" is pressure above atmospheric pressure and is completely correct. If You ever learn how a condensation steam machine worked 200 years ago You can grasp it! Make a try!