Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote

Does anyone want to wager that the "customer side" has been completely "scrubbed clean"?

You already won 42 quatloos, you're going to break the bank!

And how about E-Cat spoliation?

I wouldn't doubt that the items outside the container were also removed. Like the tank and pipes.

Of course that would be clearly spoliation of the evidence.

However, you must wonder if there are any data recording devices inside the container.

I wonder if that court site visit would be "open court" and someone in Miami could attend.

Well I'd go one further and wager that the the container has been broken open and completely gutted.

It is utterly astonishing to watch people argue for months over the question of whether a piece of apparatus produced a megawatt of power for an entire year and think the answer depends on arcane quibbles about pipe diameters and tiny temperature differences. This can only happen when people with no technical background are enamored with a "cause" as opposed to a "technology". As for the few who don't have the excuse of ignorance, I can only shake my head.

I think some of the participants here are interested in nailing down the details as much as possible in order to put the case definitively to rest, sort of like pursuing an investigative story even when the general conclusions are not in much doubt.

The site was visited in June 2016 for measurements and photos. Any serious changes between February and June, or changes since June will be obvious from photos.

@Bob ,

The whole warehouse suite is the Customer area. JMP rents the whole space. The special behind-the-wall Customer area could be off-limits, I suppose.

I doubt that a 20 m by 3 m thing in the Customer speccial area could be removed without first removing the Plant and computer containers from the bay door area and knocking down the wall, so That is probably there still. Smaller contents of the special area... well possibly cleaned up.

The Plant, however, should be as it was when padlocked by both parties.

I am uncertain whether the computer container is considered to be part of the Plant that IH has paid for. If it is required to run the Plant, it could be IH's as well.

Quote from interested observer

It is utterly astonishing to watch people argue for months over the question of whether a piece of apparatus produced a megawatt of power for an entire year and think the answer depends on arcane quibbles about pipe diameters and tiny temperature differences. This can only happen when people with no technical background are enamored with a "cause" as opposed to a "technology". As for the few who don't have the excuse of ignorance, I can only shake my head.

The questions about the pipe diameters, temperatures, flowmeters, pressures, etc. are at the heart of the matter of whether the plant operated as claimed. It ALL depends on questions presented in these quibbles, which is why you see the quibbles. And there are many here who do have a technical background, and are investigating to try and understand the test configuration and its implications. Unfortunately, we don't have a test layout diagram. Jed says he has one and that the flowmeter is installed incorrectly and in the wrong place. IH claims the pipe diameter is DN40. If either of those is true, then the test probably can be marked up as inconclusive at best.

I would take it one step further: if IH is correct that the exit pipe from the plant is of type DN40, then there is simply no way that 1 MW of steam flowed through the pipe, if the pipe was of any considerable length. Rossi and his team would have to be completely incompetent to have used a single exit pipe of type DN40.

By the way, I don't think they did. As I and others here proved out before, the exit pipe on the previous plant was most likely DN80. And I think the chances that Rossi switched to a DN40 pipe for the present plant is next to nil.

IHFB you keep saying things like "IH is correct that the exit pipe from the plant is of type DN40"

You seem to be trying to twist things. IH did not claim the pipe was DN40. Murray asked Penon if it was and said "“the pipe is reported to be DN40“. We have no idea who reported that to Murray.

You seem to be trying to set up a "straw man" argument so if it is not DN40 you can falsely claim that IH lied.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

You may find these interesting, then.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…1/37/3717appendixc1.shtml
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…1/37/3718appendixc0.shtml
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…1/37/3719appendixc3.shtml

They are interesting, of course, but they contain only part of the answers, and not the most important one.

The second of your links contains the declaration, released by the maker itself, that the Delta Ohm instrument cited in the calorimetric report of the January 14, 2011 demo was not suitable for determining the dryness of the steam.

The third one is a confirmation of this unsuitability provided by an engineer. He says "The error is so enormous and obvious that it is inexcusable!" and concludes "All this does not show that the E-Cat does not work, but it shows that, in the preliminary tests, there were such gross errors that representatives of the university should revise their opinions, admit possible errors, and proceed with more secure and rigorous experimental protocols."

For sure, whichever physicist, especially those who teach physics in a prestigious university, did well know the same things said by this engineer. It is base physics. But, despite the echo provoked by their test in the media and even in the Italian Parliament, no representative of the Bologna university publicly admitted any possible error on the heat measurements or revised their many confirmations that a huge excess heat was produced.

Anyway this is not the biggest problem. The real big one is related with the first document you linked, because the Delta Ohm probe HP474AC cited in the mail that Galantini sent to Celani, doesn't appear in anyone of the many images of the January test, so its use seems to be completely invented.

Hence, the real question are: who decided that the dryness of the steam should have been checked with the unsuitable, and very probably unused, Delta Ohm instrument? How many persons, among the tester and the other people in touch with them, were conscious of these big inconsistencies in the measured data and in the report, and hence were well aware that the claimed excess heat was unfounded?

I don't know exactly, but I guess most of them. Anyway what is known is that JR has been the first to publicly mention that:

(1) on Jan 15, 18:19:49 -0800 - "They measured the relative humidity of the steam to confirm it is dry."

(2) on Jan 17, 06:21:42 -0800 - "An HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor (Delta Ohm) to measure the relative humidity of the steam. This is to confirm that it is “dry steam”; that is, steam only, with no water droplets."

(3) on Jan 20, 07:09:41 -0800 - "It looks like the HP474ARC would be a better choice."

All these statements did anticipate the mail that Galantini sent to Celani on 20 Jan, 18:56:41 +0100.

Three days later, the official calorimetric report of UoB, the so called Levi's report, reported:

"The main origin of possible errors in [Test1] measure was that the steam was not checked to be completely dry. During [Test2 ] this measure was done by Dr. Galantini a senior chemist who has used an “air quality monitor” instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe ."

The above underlined string is the only one written in a different font in the pdf issued by 22Passi (4), probably the first one of the various versions in which this report is available on line.

(1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg41364.html
(2) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg41442.html
(3) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg41659.html
(4) http://www.22passi.it/downloads/TEST_BO_REL_LEVI22p.pdf

The director of the Hot Cat test, a retired colonel and friend of

Rossi's, leaked the test results on the Web a week after Rossi sent them
to me. The enthusiastic colonel "could not help to talk about this
event and the remarkable results," Rossi said on his blog. Rossi used
the occasion to make another big announcement: The University of Bologna
would conduct a new independent test of the Hot Cat and publish the
results in October. When I contacted Dario Braga, vice rector for
research at the University of Bologna, he unequivocally denied any
official relationship between the university and Rossi. "I'm not aware
of any work being done by our scientists with Mr. Rossi in a formally
correct way," Braga said. "I don't know how Mr. Rossi can say this."

http://www.popsci.com/science/…0/andrea-rossis-black-box

Quote from oldguy

IHFB you keep saying things like "IH is correct that the exit pipe from the plant is of type DN40"

You seem to be trying to twist things. IH did not claim the pipe was DN40. Murray asked Penon if it was and said "“the pipe is reported to be DN40“. We have no idea who reported that to Murray.

You seem to be trying to set up a "straw man" argument so if it is not DN40 you can falsely claim that IH lied.

The real significance of Murray's letter is not that the issues he raised were necessarily problematic, but that they all required a proper answer - which he never got from Penon, nor was he allowed access to investigate properly himself.

The difference in parties here relates to this uncertainty. With no information, some reckon RossiSays with unsubstantiated backing from Penon must therefore be taken as 50% likely, to be fair (to Rossi - and therefore unfair to IH). Others reckon that Rossi has proved himself false and technically incompetent enough times, the available information shows Penon technically incompetent, and therefore there is no reason to think IH is lying and every reason to think Rossi is doing this.

Of course, there may be enough information to settle this. I'd hope so. And the circumstantial information looks bad for Rossi. From my POV:

• DN40 pipe - no clarity - not that bad, but worrying
• Pressure anomalous - near certain, if there is significant heat transfer to customer side then the radiator etc will cause pressure loss, even with DN80 piping in the circuit. In any case temperature stable near 100C means significant liquid phase (to stabilise it) contradicting the Rossi/Penon assumption.
• Temperature measurements inconclusive - certain, given the lack of clarity about the piping and Rossi/Penon problems in previous tests (I'll quote if you like, I'm thinking of that old and incompetent Penon report published by Rossi).
• 1MW dissipation problem - near certain. That does not preclude a device that works enough to validate the contract, if this were deemed the GPT. Also it is theoretically possible to vent 1MW from a high power ceiling fan, though it seems highly unlikely there was such. But that is not the point. If the Penon report numbers are wildly wrong then they cannot be trusted to indicate any excess heat.
• Non-existent customer - effectively certain. Though this does not prevent the device from working it does give yet another example of Rossi lying. Once this is understood there is then effectively no positive evidence for Rossi's devices ever working.
• Lack of info from Fabiani and Penon. Damning. But I guess Rossi fans can hope for a sparkling performance from Penon in DR?
• IH say they cannot replicate. They would have to be lying in a highly risky way, to the Court, contrary to all we know and suspect of their character, and unusual for any serious company, for this not to be true. Trying to twist this to be weaker than it is does not convince. Questioning why it is not stronger equally does not convince. They would never say Rossi's stuff never worked, because they cannot know that. Just that they have never been able to get it to work.

You have to be highly biassed to explain this stuff away.

Penon- the fact that he avoided supena for a time and not "relocated" says a lot. If he had "undying " trust in Rossi and the numbers, I would think that he would have answered Murray's questions and would not worry about coming forward with all the data. So far all we have is a "Rossi says" that the report was from the "ERV".

My bet is that Penon just took what numbers Rossi gave him and never even examined to verify during his alleged 4 visits that the equipment he listed in the proposal were used and still in place for the duration.

It sure is getting interesting. Not a lot to go on. It is like a soap opera.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The director of the Hot Cat test, a retired colonel and friend of

Rossi's, leaked the test results on the Web a week after Rossi sent them
to me. The enthusiastic colonel "could not help to talk about this
event and the remarkable results," Rossi said on his blog. Rossi used
the occasion to make another big announcement: The University of Bologna
would conduct a new independent test of the Hot Cat and publish the
results in October. When I contacted Dario Braga, vice rector for
research at the University of Bologna, he unequivocally denied any
official relationship between the university and Rossi. "I'm not aware
of any work being done by our scientists with Mr. Rossi in a formally
correct way," Braga said. "I don't know how Mr. Rossi can say this."

Display More

Just in case your answer is related to my previous comment, could you please explain the relationship between them?

Are you implying that the declaration of the UoB vice rector, which was referring to something happened in the mid 2012, is equivalent to an admission of possible errors made by members of his University during and after the demo held at the beginning of 2011?

It would seem that the various rogue professors still hadn't come to terms with the university within a year of extracurricular activities.

Quote from oldguy

You seem to be trying to twist things. IH did not claim the pipe was DN40. Murray asked Penon if it was and said "“the pipe is reported to be DN40“. We have no idea who reported that to Murray.

That is simply not correct. IH's exhibit 5 plainly states: "the piping is DN40."

https://drive.google.com/drive…Ktdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

Even Abd agreed with that.