Game-over for IH case as Exhibit 5 leaks ERV data?

Amazing how Rossi acolytes disregard decades of Rossi's lies and scams, total lack of any accomplishments, and sleight of hand in ecat tests and consider only the report of a friend and accomplice of his as valid data for a $100+ Million lawsuit! You really think anyone in court will believe Penon and you really think a decision of that magnitude will rely on his report alone? Wow. What naivete.

So is yours. What's new about any of this anyway? The question was, do you really think Penon will convince a court? Want to try answering it with reasons? Why on earth would this undistinguished obvious pawn of Rossi's convince anyone about anything?

Quote from Walker

(Allegedly quoting an E-Catworld post, but it seems to have been altered. The original may have been http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…eer48/#comment-2846244957)
IH exhibit item 5 states: [Addressing Penon, the alleged ERV]

According to the data you have reported (averaged data for 10 months or for 3 ERV reports),

1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on average 33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h).

2) the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively.

3) the steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG

Surprise, Surprise Jed's claimed 36,000kg/day is not correct. I mean does that really surprise anybody?

As for the 0.0 barG steam pressure, the superheater steam can be drawn through the piping and into the heat exchanger by a slightly lower pressure, maybe -0.2 barG on the outlet of the primary side of the heat exchanger.

So what we have here are 10 months of averaged input water temp, flow rate, output superheated steam temperature and pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed's flow statement

"It was 36,000kg/day every day".

Well Jed that statement is now "BUSTED"....

Display More

Actually, no. What Engineer48 did was to cherry-pick Exhibit 5. The above is in the query to Penon, Exhibit 5, but so is this:

Quote

In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is that plausible? It should be virtually impossible to have that level of consistency even over just a one-week period, let alone a one-month period.

Jed explicitly said that he did not have the whole report, but some of the data from a source that got it from Rossi. The figure of 36,000 kg/d is also found from Rossi, on Lewan's blog. The claim is made in typical conspiracy-theory fashion that IH fed cherry-picked data to Jed. However, It is entirely consistent with what the IH engineer wrote to Penon and what Jed claimed, that Rossi leaked an early report, and it was only for a period, and for every day in that period, the flow rate was stated, as both Jed and Rossi stated, as well as the IH engineer; only the IH engineer then adds a brief analysis of the fuller data, apparently, from a draft report as of May 25, 2016.

The claim here that this means "Game over" is insane. The "Game" would be the lawsuit, I'd assume. Remember that Rossi sued IH.

IH has multiple layers of defense, and specific challenges to the alleged ERV report is a small part of one of them, and the point is not that the report was wrong, but that it and Penon were not reliable, most specifically because Penon did not respond to IH questions, originally asked, allegedly, at least some of them, in February.

Anyone who spends much time with calorimetry and then with the history of Rossi demonstrations will be aware that there are many ways to err, both accidentally and deliberately. The flow rate could have been set to exactly 36,000 liters per day, rain or shine, regardless of reactor health. And the COP could still be 1.0, because there are numerous other possible issues. The real core of the IH objection is that the test was not neutral and was not conducted as a GPT was contemplated, in the IH facility. Instead, a "customer" was set up, apparently to give Rossi total control of the facility, which Rossi then used to exclude IH from inspecting their own reactor.

The behavior was blatant, and even if the megawatt were real, Rossi's behavior trashed it. But it almost certainly was not real, the problems of dissipating a megawatt do not disappear because of some vague and nonspecific blog comments.

What I would ask, rhetorically, is that if Rossi could really run a megawatt reactor, why did he refuse to do so in North Carolina? And it appears that he did, see Exhibit 16.

What does not escape those who have been following Rossi since 2011 is that he *always* avoided independent testing. We often excused him, due to possibly legitimate fears that there would be theft of IP.

But Rossi had sold the IP to IH, so why did he, once again, arrange a controlled demonstration instead of an independent test, controlled by IH, not Rossi?

There is an obvious answer. People may wish to make up other possible answers. Maybe Rossi will like one of them and use it.