Rossi vs IH: (Update: Sep. 9 20– James A. Bass now a Third Party in IH’s Counter Complaint)

@Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax,
It is the general pattern of Rossi-related sloppiness that is demonstrated with the requests for invoicing. Note the company name change(s), telecopier alignment moving around, sometimes the dollar amount due is there and sometimes it is not, totally inconsistent format of requests, Rossi's signature parenthesis ( OK that is weak, but nevertheless), the wonderful kWh/h and MWh/h you love so much, perfect 250 kWh increments recieved, etc. And these are just the ones we get to see, out of a years worth.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Who is the "IH camp," and who is "sooooo concerned"? I have no problem with Hydro Fusion supporting Rossi.

Primarily Dewey expressed some visceral reactions to HF's support of Rossi. Why would that be? Because he is concerned for HF's welfare?

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

There is some possibility that Rossi actually has an effect, but the evidence has become strong that he is concealing his "secret," if there is one...

Quite a change of heart there Abd. Have you come across some new information? Or just some ordinary CYA / fallback positioning?

Quote from THHuxley

Quote from Rigel: “Adb I would recommend that you read todays ego out. He is engaging Simon Derricutt (from R-G website). It would seem Simon has been reading the LENR-forum and surely E-Cat-land) I would imagine you know of him also. He (to me) is a…

Humble and kind, for Peter, I agree, and they are not incompatible with confused. In this case I'm not sure confused (which implies some lack of cognition) is quite correct. It is nearer to obsessed, where a specific idea takes hold and slants all of his thinking on this issue thus making it seem confused. And just to be complete, such near-obsessive ideas, even in a humble man, can have the appearance of arrogance. Peter's thinking here is not uncommon. You'll find a lot of internet commentators on issues whose views are way of normal and depend on some implicit or explicit assumption they make that is bizaare. Once in a blue moon they are right... (I looked, it's yellow tonight).

WRT Simon Dericutt - if he is arguing the Rossi reactor works he must be very weird, if a polymath and able to understand all the different issues. No-one except Rossi and maybe Penon is claiming that the Rossi reactor generated dry steam. The one thing we can be sure is that the steam was wet - at least if we believe Rossi's temperature readings and note the pressure differential needed to drive even a modest amount of dry steam through that pipe...

-------------------------------------------------------
THHuxley...... You did not read the comment on Ego out before your comment about Simon Derricutt. I would recommend that you do.
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…6-lenr-bit-about-its.html

@Abd

Just click on Dewey's handle and take a quick look at his post history.

And as for the rest, since the IH/Rossi dispute emerged, it seems that your overriding efforts have been to discredit Rossi. Yours is far from a balanced view. Nearly everything you say tilts in IH's favor, while the majority and weight of the evidence is yet to be revealed. You jump to conclusions. You say I don't know you, but I know you well enough by your writings.

Quote

Without referring to Dericutt's comment, dry steam is not impossible, it would depend on the internal design of the reactor system (possibly two-stage boiler, the second stage dries steam). The pressure might be low if there is little back-pressure. As an example, suppose the outlet pipe simply loops back to the inlet. If the system is closed, the pressure at the inlet pipe might be lower than atmospheric. Etc. I don't think that at this point we have enough information to make definitive and categorical statements like that.

I was putting together:

(1) The tube out from the reactor is small enough, and long enough, to require a relatively high pressure differential to get Rossi's claimed flowrate from pure steam (much larger in volume than liquid of course, hence more difficult to push the same mass through a tube).

(2) Rossi claims temperature out is around 100C (even +3C).

These things together are a logical impossibility if the steam is dry. In that case high pressure is needed to push the claimed volume through the tube. But at close to 100C, and that pressure, the steam cannot be dry.

I'm not saying the steam was not dry, merely that if so some of Rossi's other claims (flow-rate, or temperature) , must be different.

This is a relatively weak statement: which however has the merit of a high level of confidence if Rossi's other claims are correct. Of course, I personally would not vouch for that!

I tend to be quite careful in making statements about physics. Of course I might be wrong on this one - it can happen!

Quote

THHuxley...... You did not read the comment on Ego out before your comment about Simon Derricutt. I would recommend that you do.

Thanks Rigel. I've finally located it.

Quote

Peter - your third quote is apt. You are still ignoring the evidence of the missing ~1MW in the Doral test. If it was produced, then where did it go? Is there any evidence that there was a process being performed that would use that amount of heat, or that there was any attempt to dissipate the waste heat from the process? Rossi won't tell you how that heat was removed. It's not his problem, after all, it's up to JM Products to tell you how it was removed, and it's unlikely that they will tell you. Rossi has no control over them - they are a customer after all, and the fact that Rossi's lawyer is running it and that there seem to be no other employees is not a material fact. Unless you can think of a physical process that would totally remove around 980kW of heat at around 100°C for around 350 days and leave no trace behind it, the only explanation for the missing heat is that it wasn't produced. This single bit of evidence enabled me to change my opinion of Rossi from "not sure" to "it's certain it didn't work". That is why your quote is apt. I don't see how you can maintain your position that Rossi produced 1MW and it worked as he stated. Rossi will not be able to explain away the lack of the audit trail for 1MW or so of heat energy from that building. He won't even try, since any such explanation will be obviously false to anyone with some high-school physics.

Quote from PeterG

Because you do not insist with total absurdities as half full pipes and bewitched flowmeters I will answer you with empathy.I do not ask you to change your opinion but I ask mutuality.First question is what do you wish from this affair? It seeems you wish Rossi should lose the Trial and IH should win because they are right.Ok, if what you say- consume of the heat from 1500 kg steam of 102-104 C is an INSOLUBLE PROBLEM inthe given circumstances than your wish wuill become a reality- then why do you insist so much? Wait a while and then be happy.What do you actually know for sure about the JM building, warehouse? Can you please repeat me length, widh , height, position of the building? Connection to utilities, ventillation, everything else.Then for a year Rossi's men but IH's too have seen what it is in the ERV report water going to the ECats becoming steam going to JM's building nd coming back as 60C water. Has somebody said it was something suspicius?Then there will be anaalyses of samples if the plant has woirked there will be isotopic shifts.It is difficult but put yourself in Rossi's position, he has worked hard an entire year, had a valid contract and IH has not paid, Rossi started the trial, supposing he swindled and there was no energy produced no energy consumed, what are his chances? The Trial is not cheap.You are lacking information, you consider consume of heat impossible, OK...this is your opinion. My opinion is different and I wil change it when I consider it is the case. Or not.Be happy with yours, OK?

Peter seems to be ignoring inconvenient facts: and would like others not to draw conclusions from them.

Quote from SimonD

Peter - what I wish is to be told the truth. Where that heat went without leaving a large amount of evidence is an insoluble problem given centuries of experience in dealing with steam engines etc.. That amount of heat released to the environment would not even need instrumentation to notice, and would be obvious to anyone passing close by. The absence of such remarks should be noted.Other corroborative evidence also doesn't match. The returned condensed water at ~67°C should be nice clean distilled water. It will not get dirtier over time as shown in the photos on other sites, but will become cleaner. The available building data has been discussed elsewhere. No point in repeating that here.Though specific data as to what was done in the locked room is not available, we can treat it as a black box. What goes into it must come out again, since we do have photos of what was there after the test was concluded. The most important flow is of course the heat. We know of no way of destroying that heat, and such a discovery (that we can destroy or create mass/energy) would be very important if true. Is this therefore your contention, that Conservation of Energy can be broken? The reason I'm insisting that you consider where the heat went is that you are insisting that Rossi succeeded in showing that it was produced, and you are insulting people like Jed and Abd who disagree with you. It is obvious that what Rossi claims is simply wrong, when you consider what effect 1MW would have on the environment around that Doral warehouse. The fine points of how bad data was produced, and whether it was a flowmeter problem or a combination of other things, is largely irrelevant. If you know you'll have to deal with such a large amount of heat, you will need to have systems in place to dissipate it, and it will leave a rather large trail of evidence as to where that heat went. That is inescapable. I hope that Bob Godes will prove his system. The signs are good that he's telling the truth about his data. I also hope that Alan Smith and Sam will succeed in their Parkhomov replication and developments, and I've even given them a small donation. I have no doubt they'll tell the truth.With Rossi, the scientific question is whether the heat was actually produced. The evidence says that it wasn't and that Rossi didn't expect to need to deal with it either. Unless it impacts on IH's backing of other LENR projects, I'm not concerned about the legal results of the trial. The trial won't test the science, after all, but instead what the precise wording of the contracts was.Maybe another allegory on measurements is in order. The wall-thermometer in a room tells you it's 25°C, but you see people in there in thick padded jackets and you can see the plumes of their breath. Do you believe what the thermometer tells you and wear summer clothes to go in there? Or do you suspect that the thermometer is wrong? If you then see a half-empty coffee cup with frozen coffee inside, how sure would you be that the thermometer is wrong? It's much the same with Rossi - what we see doesn't agree with what he's telling us.

Simon's view here is pretty standard common sense and what most observers looking at the matter a little would think. The greater depth on threads here, while interesting for its own sake, does not (for me) change that common sense view. WRT Simon's extra comments It is obvious that dry steam would be distilled but I do not see that helps. Anywhere the steam condenses could in principle result in a rust trap, and I'm not sure we know exactly where the rust is from? Anyway this is a lacuna of little import.

In talking about this we all tend to get drawn into these little details, and through lack of information or carelessness make mistakes, and that is taken by the Rossi fan club as an indication that Rossi must be correct. A supreme lack of balance and common sense.

TH, Tom I will say no more on this.Your original comment with out reading the source was dismissive. After you could not reference it I realized my mistake in that I did not provide the reference /url. WRT Doral he (Simon) was agreeing with you and pointing out one (just one) of several issues. The nature of dry steam being distilled was just part them as you and many others have said many many times... where did the heat go.? I was about to say something arrogant here so will retire. I would just ask in the future if I miss a reference please call me directly on it. Thanks.

Dear Abd,

I would ask you to stop speaking about my paranoia;
I don't know exactly what is your profession and workplace but I am sure you are not a psychiatrist
or even psychologist.
Better focus on constructive things as showing how valuable IH 's proofs Exhibits are or answering to my request for your scenario of the 1MW1year Test as I asked in my editorial of yesterday.
And, nota bene, telling that the Test was not the GPT now is more than dishonest, is desperate nd infamous.
Can you answer me to this question- what has IH not done on July 17, 2015? And why?
An other question: have you- in person- seen the ERV Report? If YES, what is your judgment about it?
If NO, why it wa niot shown to you? Does IH not trust you, do they believe the old false story about your role in the LENR community?
And a friendly advice - do not waste your time writing about me- I am not paranoic, not obsssed, even not senile just thinking logically and correctly
and more educated & crerative in insulting than you, who structurally are a good man serving a bad cause, who knows why? OK? I also will not write about you more interesting things to come- in LENR, globally

Peter

Quote from Peter Gluck

I would ask you to stop speaking about my paranoia;

I am not Abd, and I do not think you are paranoid. I think you are arrogant, irresponsible, and evasive. You refuse to address fundamental technical issues, such as the FACTS that:

• The warehouse space had no ventilation or other means of removing heat, so there could not have been 1 MW of heat. You need only glance at the photos to see that is impossible. Rossi and his lawyers have not denied those are photos of the warehouse.
• There is no such thing as a 100% endothermic industrial process, except perhaps melting ice.
• The reservoir tank is not air tight. This was not pressurized closed loop. The condensed water return was gravity fed. So YES, THAT PIPE WAS HALF FULL. Any drainage pipe is, unless it is backed up in a flood, with water pouring out upstream. I know these things for facts. You have no business contradicting me. The rust stains also prove that the pipe and meter were half full.

Because you refuse to address these issues, you have no credibility, and you disgrace your profession as an engineer.

Furthermore, ever since I helped you years ago, you have attacked, belittled and demonized me at every opportunity. Apparently this is how you repay help from your friends. Now you claim that I have turned against cold fusion. You think that kowtowing to Rossi and his ridiculous lies are the sine qua non of cold fusion, and anyone who doubts that he has a magic ability to make 1 MW of vanish is a traitor. I am no psychiatrist, but anyone can see that you not humble, and your blog is not "without ego." On the contrary it is overwhelmed by your own egomania, your willful ignorance, and your refusal to look at evidence that Rossi himself has given. You think that you & Rossi can ignore the conservation of energy!

Jed,
it hsppens I have some time before eading and answering to the new Siegel paper so I am telling you the followings:
a) read EGO OUT definition or the first posting on my blog, you err...the name was inpsired by Arthur C Clarke's EGOGRAMS,
b) I like that you aare attacking in packs, pairs,
c) What are facts for you are not facts at all,

First will you swear that the warehouse had no ventillation, are you sure that photo is authentice?
and whgy it has no ventilation, what is the reason?
The ventilation zone is ismply missing from the photo, old cheapo trick..

Secondjust because you do not know how was the energy consumed and you will not know till it will be revealed in the trial and you will be surprised, this does not mean that the energy was not consumed

Third- it is very difficult to answer to this without
ugly words (and I take them from more languages)
It is bsolutely norml that the reservoir is open to air
the level of water is varaibale in it and a headspece is necessary an elastic layer of air above the level.
HOWEVER the flowmeter is not there, it is after the pump were it is forced circulation and YOU KNOW THIS OR YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE DIAGRAM?
Do you believe murray has SEEN those rust stains, was the flowmeter open? Do not repeat the XXXy that it is esy to open it.

Regarding my professional career it is past- 40 years
in the chemicl industry, 10 in websearch other people have judged me and I have worked in many plants, pilot plants and labs. I was Scientific Researcher Ist degree then equivalent of professor in Romania, Not you will judge me, I ama not speaking about your profession but what you insist here on is lack of elementary intelligence and of common sense. I feel ashamed to link your name to this half full crazyness, sorry.

I will abstain telling you what to do with your facts.

I hope to live enough to see them discussed t the Court. And your reaction to the results.

Peter

I'm going to call Peter on what I consider very bad technical arguments. Both Jed and Abd seem to have strong personal issues in this one. I don't: so perhaps I can have a conversation with Peter which is impersonal.

Quote from PeterG

First will you swear that the warehouse had no ventillation, are you sure that photo is authentice? and whgy it has no ventilation, what is the reason?The ventilation zone is ismply missing from the photo, old cheapo trick..

All warehouses have ventilation. The issue is how much. 1MW is alot of heat. It is undoubtedly possible to have a warehouse vent with a high power extractor fan that can remove 1MW, using a temperature delta (ambient air to extracted air) of 10C. That is a big industrial strength fan working with a high airflow. Florida gets hot, so the warehouse would get +10C from hot. I can't prove (without the rumoured IH IR scans, or rumoured IH photos of vents without big industrial extractor fans) that this did not happen. But it seems highly unlikely because as many people point out such large heat extraction would be very obvious. (I did the calcs for this a while ago have now lost that - would need to redo, and compare with industrial vent fans as I did then. If you don't believe the unlikelihood of this given the numbers suppose you do the work and show me a fan that can do it? I will check).

Quote

Second - just because you do not know how was the energy consumed and you will not know till it will be revealed in the trial and you will be surprised, this does not mean that the energy was not consumed

Well it does pretty well. That quantity of energy cannot be consumed without physical material entering the factory, changing state somehow, and leaving. Again difficult to rule out. The only feasible option given lack of such activity around the factory (which would be obvious) is water in from a high flow main and water vapour out. Then an enormous heat exchanger to get the water to evaporate quickly enough at some feasible lowish temperature that could be driven by the steam. Again, difficult to prove it could not happen, but mightily implausible.

Quote

Third- it is very difficult to answer to this without
ugly words (and I take them from more languages)
It is bsolutely norml that the reservoir is open to air
the level of water is varaibale in it and a headspece is necessary an elastic layer of air above the level.
HOWEVER the flowmeter is not there, it is after the pump were it is forced circulation and YOU KNOW THIS OR YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE DIAGRAM?
Do you believe murray has SEEN those rust stains, was the flowmeter open? Do not repeat the XXXy that it is easy to open it.

Peter, not sure if you have ever played with water CH systems. There are the open sort, and the pressured sort. Rossi claims very high flow rates of dry steam. You cannot get that from an open system, where pressures everywhere are close to atmospheric. Sure, with an open system you can get steam (wet or dry) circulating. you can get water circulating. But not as Rossi claims dry steam circulating at very high flow rate. Would you like to go through the physics with me and others interested on another thread? There is enough talent here to work it out. I would have thought that for anyone with experience of water/steam systems it is pretty obvious.

Quote

Regarding my professional career it is past- 40 years
in the chemicl industry, 10 in websearch other people have judged me and I have worked in many plants, pilot plants and labs. I was Scientific Researcher Ist degree then equivalent of professor in Romania, Not you will judge me, I ama not speaking about your profession but what you insist here on is lack of elementary intelligence and of common sense. I feel ashamed to link your name to this half full crazyness, sorry.

I'm just including this to say that for me (and quite a few others here) it matters not what your or anyone else's professional career is. You can talk technical stuff with us and we will see what can or cannot be proven. Or, you can admit that your strong disbelief of everything others say is based on some visceral reaction rather than a technical assessment. Or, I guess you can sidestep the issue, but I'm hoping you will not do that.

regards, THH

PS - to a not very passionate onlooker it is transparently clear that Jed is honest. Not necessarily right, of course. I'd trust his judgement more than that of many but not believe it.

Quote from JedRothwell

You think that you & Rossi can ignore the conservation of energy!

That makes no sense Jed. What does the conservation of energy have anything to do with Rossi's claims? Are you suggesting that cold fusion nuclear processes are incapable of releasing 1 MW of power under any scenario?

Quote from IH Fanboy

That makes no sense Jed. What does the conservation of energy have anything to do with Rossi's claims? Are you suggesting that cold fusion nuclear processes are incapable of releasing 1 MW of power under any scenario?

I said there is no way to make 1 MW of heat vanish. That would violate the conservation of energy. If the machine is producing this much heat, there has to be large ventilation equipment at work, or a plume of steam. (It is not possible to flush this much waste heat into cold water in the sewer.) There is no ventilation equipment capable of doing this, and no steam pipes, as you see from the photos. If there were 1 MW of heat, most of it could not escape from the building. The room would get hot and everyone in it would die from the heat.

I also said there are no endothermic processes that could remove the heat, other than melting ice. No one was seen bringing tons of ice into the building every day, so we can rule this out. A typical endothermic industrial process is baking bread. Most of the heat is lost as waste heat. Only a little is absorbed by the reaction.

I think I made it clear what I meant. It had nothing to do with nuclear processes. Rossi has never achieved any nuclear process. His devices are electric heaters that produce no excess heat.

Quote from JedRothwell

Rossi has never achieved any nuclear process.

You seem to vacillate on this one. But maybe just CYA aka ABD behavior.

Quote from Peter Gluck

First will you swear that the warehouse had no ventillation, are you sure that photo is authentice?

Yes, I am sure this is authentic. If it were not, Rossi's lawyers would say so. They would object strongly, and tell the court this photo is fake.

Quote from Peter Gluck

and whgy it has no ventilation, what is the reason?
The ventilation zone is ismply missing from the photo, old cheapo trick..

The ventilation is not missing. Again, Rossi's lawyers would cry out if it were missing. It is clearly shown. It is a broken fan. The ventilation is also shown in the Google view of the roof. It is not possible to remove 1 MW of heat with this ventilation.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Do you believe murray has SEEN those rust stains, was the flowmeter open? Do not repeat the XXXy that it is esy to open it.

I am certain he has seen the rust stains. It is very easy to remove the pipe from a flowmeter and look inside it. I have done this myself many times. You use a pipe wrench. It takes a few minutes. You do not need to disassemble the flow meter itself.

I have often taken apart plumbing to look inside meters, pumps and filters in experiments, and also in the large ornamental pond at my house. These things get clogged up. You unscrew the pipes, flush out and clean up the equipment (or replace it) and then put the plumbing back together with thread seal tape. That's what plumbing and pipe wrenches are for.