Analyzing E-Cat Plant Pump Photos Indicate COP>1 (Engineer48)

In light of recent (and expected) developments, I'm starting to really enjoy Jed's posts. Their crossing into the realm of absurd is slowly unfolding a huge comic potential.

Quote from Alan Smith

However, there is reason to suppose that rust particles could form in any part of the system and they can certainly be carried in steam - one only has to look at the dribbled rust-stains on pictures the hot parts of old steam locomotives to see that. The phenomenon is called 'carry-over' and is something boiler designers strive to avoid, since the iron oxide particles are extremely abrasive and in a 'fast steam' environment like a locomotive intake/exhaust system (NOT one we see in Doral) the oxide particles have been known to abrade copper steam pipes into holes.

On reflection, I think Alan is correct. I'll keep the discussion in place rather than go back and edit my statement, but rust particles would be like dust and if the flow is rapid enough from each reactor to pick that dust up, it could be carried. I had in mind a quieter, slower evolution of steam.

Quote from JedRothwell

frankwtu wrote:

I find it ironic that those who argue routinely from the thinnest of evidence or with no evidence at all demand not just evidence, but "incontrovertible evidence."

Quote

See Exhibit 5 and the photos of the warehouse. There is only a broken fan hanging from the vent. That is all anyone ever saw there, yet the room was not hot. It is not possible any device produced 1 MW of heat there. Even 100 kW is ruled out. Even Rossi admits this now. In response, he said there is an endothermic machine that swallows up the 1 MW of heat. That is impossible, and even if there were, it would not work 24/7 as claimed.

What Jed is asserting here is evidence, but he has always had a tendency to call evidence "proof" and contrary views "impossible." Rossi is an erratic and often laconic commenter, and what he has actually claimed, when pressed (and led by supporters) is a mixture of endothermy, ventilation, and maybe some hot water down the drain, I forget about that. However, Jed is correct in that Rossi did at first ascribe the heat dissipation issue to an endothermic process, which was pretty much preposterous. It is still a serious problem, requiring the endothermic process run 24/7, like the Plant allegedly did. Rossi waves it all away as lies by his enemies. If the plant runs 24/7, then JM Products would need a way to dissipate the full power, and there is no sign of it. Endothermy is not impossible, but has the problem Jed noted, and could not account for more than a little of the heat.

And this whole line of defense for Rossi will collapse if there is no customer, if no products being made and transported out, etc. Remember the letter in which Rossi proposed the move to Doral. The customer was eager to get started, it was very important to them. But at the end of the 1-year term, supposedly a spectacular success, to hear Rossi's version of it, not a peep from the customer about the plant being shut down and padlocked.

Quote

Note also that Rossi's data shows the reactor was working and producing a full 1 MW on days when Rossi himself said it was half turned off, or fully turned off. Eyewitnesses confirmed it was off. That is impossible. If you do not see that is fraud, nothing will convince you. Evidence does not get any more incontrovertible than this!

It is highly suspicious, if that's accurate. We don't have public reports on that level of detail. What we do have is in Exhibit 5, which is referring to a draft report from Penon:

Quote

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?
[...]
As discussed on February 16, 2016 while at the location, 21 of the 64 units in the 4 large reactors had clearly been disabled, leaving only 43 of those 64 units that may have been operational. Also, all 51 of the smaller units were disabled. See Exhibit C (examples).
Similarly, at the time you completed the “MW1-USA electrical measurement” chart on October 13, 2015, out of operation were all 51 of the smaller units, one of the large reactors (containing 16 units), and 17 of the 48 units in the remaining 3 large reactors. That means only 31 units were operational. In contrast, according to your February 2015 report, 111 units were operational at the beginning of the “test.”
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.

I will point out that there might have been answers for these questions. The point IH is making is not that the questions were exposing errors, necessarily -- though they could be doing that -- but that Penon did not answer at all, abandoning his consulting contract. This would be all the more serious if Penon were an "ERV" for an $89 million payment, while IH is claiming that this was never agreed to. (And that is consistent with all the evidence we have so far, this is one rabbit that Rossi might pull out of a hat, an actual agreement by Darden, say, to a GPT. I find it quite unlikely: under the Doral conditions, it would have been spectacularly dumb. In North Carolina, under their control, it would not have been dumb. Apparently, though, Rossi refused to agree, a very different story than what he told in the Complaint.

(this is what Dewey told us well before the Answer was filed, and Exhibit 16 supports this with Rossi's email.)

Jed continued:

Quote

frankwtu wrote:

This does not take a nuclear expert. This is simple HVAC calorimetry. [...]

Frank is following standard Planet Rossi cant. "nuclear expert." While a nuclear engineer might be expert with steam, many or most might not be. It depends on what they have worked with. However, any steam engineer would have the relevant expertise. (And Jed refers to a field, HVAC, which would contain such.) "Professors" often would not. The measurement of steam and power conveyed by steam is, quite simply, not a "nuclear" problem, at all. Further, where steam is being used in nuclear plants, they are then generating electrical power with it, which can be separately measured as a proof that power calculations are at least roughly correct. The Rossi plant generates low-temperature steam, totally outside the experience and expertise of a "nuclear engineer."

Let's look at the underlying substance here: a standard was set up for payment, in 2012, and by the Validation Test in 2013, IH and Rossi agreed on Penon as ERV. At that time, however, it was quite clear that this was an "agree or the agreement is over" situation. IH claims that they attempted to allow, at least, a major independent consulting firm to observe, and Rossi said it would make "big problems" for him. He was probably right about that!

So, then, what about the Doral test? Was it independent? Independent of what? The Plant was operated by Rossi. IH experts were excluded. IH allowed Penon to measure power, but never agreed to this as a PGT with Penon as ERV. Yes, the agreement of a mutually chosen expert would be a standard that could be used; however, under what conditions? It looks like the only result of power delivery would be payment to IH of up to $1000 per day. By early 2015, the Plant was, for IH, a very expensive collection of door stops, and when offered $1000 per day, essentially by Rossi, why not? They then paid out a good chunk of that for consulting fees and Barry West. Their goal, however, was always to gain experience and information, even if the devices did not work.

The decision of a single engineer for a major consequence would be a bad idea. Yes, mutually chosen expert, and then process in case the parties don't agree on the result. It's not difficult to do that, but if IH had put those clauses in the original Agreement, my guess Rossi would have walked. He did not want an independent assessment. He wanted his friend to hold and deal all the cards. It's obvious, and nothing new for Rossi. Except the extent to which he went to set up a probably fraudulent customer, so he could then have his fully-controlled "test." That's what is likely to nail him to the wall.

Many on Planet Rossi do not understand that it doesn't matter, for the resolution of Rossi v. Darden, how much power was generated. Sure, we are all interested in it, but ... once we know that fraud might be involved, assuming anything of the reported results is real is hazardous.

Quote

Anyone who so much as glances a the ceiling in that room can see there was no 1 MW reaction. Anyone who looks at Rossi's data can see it is fake.

Jed is talking about the data he saw, which may have been a piece of an early Penon report, that Rossi sent to some people. Let's put it this way. Anyone who looks at that plant, as we have seen in the photos and has it has been described by people who were there, would strongly suspect that a megawatt was not being generated. It's kind of like the Lugano report, which confidently calculated from the interpretation of an IR camera that the external temperature was 1400 C, when the blatant evidence of ordinary eyesight was that it was much lower. This was not some minor error, to be dismissed by Levi saying that even if the emissivity were 1, there results were sound. Their results were junk, and it's obvious, and Mats Lewan has never confronted them. Why not?

My suspicion is that friendship militates against it. It would be rude. And Rossi might never talk to him again. Surely he knows how Rossi treats those who challenge him.

Quote

IH have an interest in Rossi continuing with his inventions and new investments, after all, they own the licences (and the IP) to everything he invents (if they win).

Watching closely what Rossi has said and done for going on six years, it should be very evident that the only thing Rossi has ever invented during his entire life is ways to separate gullible and hasty investors from their money. There is no credible evidence that Ni-H fusion works for anyone and especially not for Rossi. There is nothing to suggest that Rossi has accomplished anything ever in 20+ years of claims in areas of technology.

Quote

Eric Walker wrote:It is not easy to let go of the possibility of a huge breakthrough, and since Rossi has been the main source of news for optimism that there has been such a breakthrough, people are attached to the notion that Rossi has been treated unfairly by IH.

It is actually quite easy for outside observers. IH would have to be insanely suicidal to treat Rossi "unfairly" -- to try to steal his IP. Not only would Rossi win his lawsuit if that had been the case but also IH would lose billions in potential business. Darden and Vaughn may have been foolish to trust Rossi to start with but they are not about to murder a multi-billion dollar business (Cherokee) with that sort of manipulation. The hypothesis that they would makes absolutely no sense. Of course, sense is not necessary, it's actually a hinderance, to believe that Rossi "has something."

Jed, this is typical of what you consider credible-- Themacore from 1993. Hilarious. Niedra is from 1996 and the last paper says indeed that they got nothing to confirm:

Quote

In conclusion, we have observed all the effects discovered by Focardi et al., but our results imply that there is no production of power associated with the absorption of hydrogen by nickel...

That is not, as you say, failure to replicate. It is, as per the authors, evidence that the reaction tested for does not exist.

Wow! That is certainly reason to believe that Rossi and Defkalion, Focardi, Piantelli and Celani get large power gains when they cook nickel and hydrogen. Not even considering all the results of incidentally related work with nickel used with hydrogen as an industrial catalyst for decades with no heat unaccounted for.

Do you see how silly this sort of reasoning is? Of course you don't. Fortunately, those who control funding do. What a waste!

Quote from frankwtu

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

If there was no GPT why was IH ready to let Rossi continue with it and why did they participate, making amendments

$30,000 per month, and the opportunity to let Rossi show heat or have enough rope for he and Penon to hang themselves. If Penon's work shows collusion with Rossi, they could later, then, get their $11.5 million back. The "amendments" comes from Rossi's Complaint:

Quote

65. Accordingly, on January 28,2015, the ERV prepared and submitted to the parties a proposed test protocol for the Guaranteed Performance Test. After suggesting minor changes to the test protocol, and clarifying other points, DARDEN on behalf of IH andl or IPH agreed to the test protocol prior to the commencement of the Guaranteed Performance Test.

IH answers this with:

Quote

65. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 65.

This might be fairly straightforward. Did the January 28, 2015 document propose a "test protocol for the Guaranteed Performance Test"? Or did it merely propose a measurement protocol, to be used for monitoring an installation for sale of power? What I find extremely unlikely is that Darden would consent to the start of the GPT in Doral, under full Rossi control, besides the fact that the Second Amendment, if valid, required the written signature of all parties on the start of the GPT. I would not think that a test on which $89 million was hanging would be vague, sort-of.

We have not seen that Penon document nor Darden's response. IH entirely denies Rossi's claim about that without giving details. Planet Rossi, however, operates on the principle that Rossi Says is true authority unless absolutely proven wrong. No neutral observer here, with the evidence we have, would believe that the Rossi account was necessarily factual and accurate, that it was necessarily anything more than conclusory about "GPT." The documents were not quoted nor shown as exhibits.

Quote

... and using the interim results allegedly for fund raising.

This is conclusory rumor through Rossi. None of the public documents indicate that Woodford was induced to invest by seeing "interim results." Rather, normal practice for limited partners soliciting investment would be full disclosure, not some rosy sales prospectus, which, if material facts known to the partners are withheld, can lead to a lawsuit from a deceived investor. Many have pointed out that if IH did not disclose to Woodford their failure to confirm Rossi IP and the problems with the Doral plant, Woodford might already have initiated suit. Yes, IH was allowed by Rossi to show Woodford the Plant. However, they would also explain what was happening to Woodford. If Rossi and Penon had already started to call this a "GPT" they would have informed Woodford that this was probable fraud. Woodford, I conclude, invested with their eyes open, and their investment was designed to be in other LENR approaches, not Rossi's. That IH held a hedge, the license, guaranteed the security of their investment against an "October surprise<" as it is being called on Planet Rossi, that Rossi hits the market with working devices. Woodford invested in IHHI, a holding company in the U.K. which appears to entirely own IH, and if Rossi technology works, IH, or, more strictly, IPH, wholly-owned by IH, will be fabulously wealthy. Win. But more likely, there is no technology, or if there is, Rossi has never been willing to actually disclose it, which means, among other things, that the patents are worthless except, again, as placeholders, some of which might still be amended.

Quote

My take on this is that while there appear to be technical errors and inconsistences in the wording to the contract, IH took 'ownership' of it and that will be how the court will interpret it IMHO.

This is a claim of estoppel. My sense is that estoppel may be valid as to the Second Amendment. There are unknowns here that make it unclear to me if the IH claim that the Second Amendment was never properly executed is valid, that estoppel as to that might function to make the signature defects moot. However, there is then the requirement of the Second Amendment, for a written consent to the start of the GPT, by all parties, and there is no claim by Rossi that this was ever executed by any party. Rather, it appears that Rossi tried to set up conditions to make it appear that IH had consented. It seems to have worked with Frank! The judge, ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, decided to take Rossi's representations as a claim of estoppel, so did not allow dismissal on that based. Planet Rossi seems to believe that the Judge's ruling on that was a conclusion as to the fact. No. It was a conclusion that there remained fact to be determined and that the defect that estoppel had not been formally claimed was minor.

In order for the lawsuit to survive, Rossi will have to allege fact behind the claim of estoppel, much more specific than merely waving the words "Guaranteed Performance Test" around, after the fact. The Rossi email soliciting the move to Florida does not mention testing as a purpose. The Test Sheet signed by Rossi, Vaughn, I think it was, and Johnson did not mention "test." So GPT was introduced after the move was accomplished and Rossi had control of the reactor. If it was done that early, i.e., before the "test" began, it could be with the correspondence with Penon, which becomes crucial. If Rossi can show that Darden consented to a "GPT," rather than simply measurement, then the case could move into the next issue, the actual test results. Otherwise those results are legally moot.

This is extremely simple, easy to show to a jury, if it comes to that. From what we have seen as evidence so far, the whole thing stank.

Quote

I disagree with you when you propose "It seems unlikely that it exists".

The disagreement establishes an inability to assess evidence, but only to continue to invent rationalizations. Rossi is in trouble. Planet Rossi is not asking him the real questions, but if it does, he will answer "My attorney will not let me answer." And that would be sane advice. Rossi has already caused himself a great deal of trouble with "loose lips." IH is pointing out violations of the confidentiality provisions of the Agreement. Rossi might defend against them by estoppel, i.e,. if they are only complaining now and did not complain before. However, that's a minor part of the IH claims. The second core, after failure to set up a proper GPT, is fraud.

Quote

Let me give you an example: If you use a bus service, pay for a ticket at point 'A' but the bus breaks down and you do not arrive at your destination 'B'. You ask for your money back and it appears the conductor gave you the wrong ticket (for his laundry the previous day as he fraudulently pocketed the money) this will not invalidate the fact that you had a contract (since he agreed to transport you, you accepted, you paid and you did travel part of the journey - that is a contract - you are entitled to your money back). The difficulty of course will be proving it.

This is not a decent analogy, but looking at it, the idea that "proof" is necessary is a common misunderstanding about civil law. Rather, "testimony is presumed true unless controverted." If the conductor denies the testimony, the "evidence," the conductor is risking a perjury charge, far more serious than pocketing a petty amount of money. Can it be shown that the passenger was on the bus? If so, then there would be a presumption that the passenger paid. That laundry ticket was for that conductor, in the situation described. That could be established, easily. This would not arise in a lawsuit filed by the passenger, because nobody would file such a suit over such a petty amount, it is far too much trouble. However, this might come up in a criminal action against the conductor, if there was a pattern of embezzlement. Further, how is it that the claim of the passenger is denied? Most transportation companies would accept the passenger claim -- and story about the laundry receipt -- and refund.

I will agree with one thing: IH did agree to the Second Amendment, as did Rossi, personally. He merely failed to sign for Leonardo and to get an Ampenergo signature, and he also failed to allege that those signatures existed, perhaps on some other copy. Because IH signed, it is only a technical failure, on the face of it. That would be the point Frank is making, I think. However, there is then the explicit requirement in the Second Amendment to written consent from all parties, again, to the starting of the GPT. As that appears to have never existed, Rossi has a far more difficult problem there, which he tried to avoid by the likely deceptive way he presented fact in the Complaint.

IH, in their Answer, has not alleged the lack of a signed agreement to the GPT. However, they note that the Second Amendment speaks for itself. It requires that signing, and this is not merely some technical defect, that required consent was fundamental to IH's willingness to sign the Second Amendment, because it gave them safety. If they had unreasonably withheld consent, Rossi could have sued for it. But it never came to that; rather, Rossi tried to bypass the requirement.

I will be writing a suggestion for those who want to independently investigate this case, as to how to read the arguments and documents. We tend to examine evidence from some already-existing position; this is very normal, but also can be highly misleading, where our original assessments were based on incomplete information -- and they commonly are.

Quote from JedRothwell

Mary Yugo wrote:

I disagree. See, for example:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

I consider this credible. Not definitive, but pretty good. Here is an independent test of that which the authors acknowledge is not "compelling" but I would say it is credible:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf

Piantelli's work is credible, although I have some doubts about it, and another group was unable to replicate. See:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf

Display More

Mary Yugo's comment is classical pseudoskepticism. A more genuinely skeptical comment might be "there is no conclusive evidence ...."

But the common pseudoskeptical claim -- which is also a common claim among atheists about the existence of God or debunkers about parapsychology, etc., -- is "there is no evidence." At least here, Mary has qualified it with "credible," but this is highly subjective. I will look at an example, the SPAWAR neutron claims.

What SPAWAR actually claims is the existence of triple-tracks, which are very clear, distinctive phenomena, produced by fast neutron collision with a C-12 nucleus. They also show associated apparent proton knock-on tracks which could be caused by the elastic collision of fast neutrons with hydrogen nuclei in the detector material. The triple-tracks occur primarily on the back side of the detector chips, where the material is inaccessible to chemical damage from the active environment on the surface of the cathode. Triple tracks are very clear to observe. It is possible to imagine some single coincidence of individual tracks, though generally the overall track density is too low for that. Triple track incidence on controls is

The work is credible. Is it "conclusive"? It has not been confirmed by independent investigators, in spite of it not being a difficult experiment. A customer of mine ran the kit I designed, but a development accident apparently ruined most of the detector material. Because we were looking for neutrons, which are highly penetrating, this was a "dry" experiment, the detector films were on the outside of the cell and the cathode was against the inside wall, so there was a substantial layer of acrylic (1/16 inch) between the cathode and the films.

The original report is credible, but not conclusive, evidence that nuclear reactions are taking place in the PdD codeposition environment of those cells.

There is credible evidence for NiH reactions, but not conclusive (in my opinion). there has been inadequate independent confirmation.

By the way, "NiH fusion" would be a misnomer, perhaps. What does it mean? Nickel fusing with hydrogen? Or some other reaction catalyzed by nickel? What? And then pseudoskeptics will use the very high Coulomb barrier between nickel and hydrogen nuclei as part of a debunking, as they did when Rossi first announced.

Nobody is calling cold fusion, the original FP Heat Effect, "PdD fusion." While there are proposals of some rare transmutation reactions, the evidence for that is relatively weak, compared to the evidence for some sort of deuterium fusion (not necessarily "d-d") in the PdD environment.

I was re-reading the E-Catworld post referenced by this thread, and noticed that the photo of the pumps is of a Plant with the reactors arranged in a single row down the center of the container. Other photos, that I thought were of the Doral plant, show the reactors in two rows on either side of the container.

So there are two major problems with Engineer48's claim:

1. Wrong plant. Irrelevant to any consideration of the Doral plant performance.
2. Showing the operating setting of "top-up" pumps, as Rossi apparently acknowledged that these were, with no other information about the Planet operation at the time, provides no information at all about COP. For example, suppose the Plant is just being started up, and the devices are being filled by the pumps. All the pumps might be on at a point when there is no power being generated at all.

That whole discussion is face-palm.

What Engineer48 is claiming is that the Doral plant is a long container (possibly two put together), with E-cats arranged in two ruws at one end and then a single middle row at the other end. Basically, it is a 2 MW Plant, but with only 1 MW used at a time, and the other MW as backup. Maybe. I'm still looking at what he is showing. The dual plant configuration has been mentioned many times. However, there is still the problem that pump settings at one time shows almost nothing. This would have to be time-correlated with overall flow rate, steam temperature (and, in fact, more, but that's a major overall problem, no actual measurement of output flow and analysis of it, just an assumption, perhaps, from temperature. Or what else?)