Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • 245-27: e-mails where Rossi mentions his conversations with the director of JM, aka Rossi.

    Disgusting yet somehow hilarious.


    "The director of JM had told me they measure the COP reading their wattmeter for what concerns the electricity consumed, while the thermal energy is measure intrinsecally by the fact that they get their production in full, but they also have thermometers and flowmeter. I do not know know the particulars and I want not to ask about them."


    He is talking about HIMSELF.


    By the way, there was no production, in full, in part, or in anything. It is just a big useless box radiating 20 kW. There were no pipes to the mezzanine and nothing up there. He just makes stuff up -- a steady stream of utter bullshit.

  • 245-27: e-mails where Rossi mentions his conversations with the director of JM, aka Rossi.

    If someone makes statements to themselves, do you think some posters here will take that as hearsay or fact!😅

  • This is the ECW thread discussing the Smith report


    No contribution from me since I was banned. I don't like multiple aliasses to get round such things and anyway I guess I'd be banned again soon enough. Also my posts would vanish for 12 hours or so (because disliked - they have such a system) till some moderator OKed them.


    It is a little frustrating. We now have a lot of tech evidence, and for me, even though from the non-tech evidence we know Rossi is behaving fraudulently, I like to work out the numbers. I guess many here (Jed?) will reckon this is drawing the eye on a snake since we know Rossi is fraudulent anyway, and doing flaky tech analysis just gives him a quite unwarranted lifeline. I don't agree that. The lack of control of this test means it can never properly indicate a positive result. Still we have enough info that we can try and work it out, best guess. Mostly Rossi's tricks have been pretty obvious once realised. I'm interested partly because what can be proven still matters.


    ECW has few effective people posting the Rossi test does not work side. Bound to, from censorship.

    Here we have almost no-one posting tech stuff, I think because the non-tech stuff has convinced anyone capable of tech analysis (sorry IHFB) that Rossi is a charlatan, so they just don't bother with the tech stuff.


    I find that although I enjoy details, I need to process stuff at two levels - detail and overall. The overall analysis guides you to which details matter, and which don't. I also think it important to keep track of uncertainty. Not every question here can be answered yes or no, and requiring this to happen distorts things.


    From the ECW thread a few memes:


    (1) Physical evidence that the Tigers generated superheated steam. I'm inclined to rate this. Very possibly they did generate steam - in the sense that they were not fully submerged. However, that no way means the steam was superheated. A consistent temperature so close to 100C tells me that the steam is in equilibrium with water at we cannot tell what percentage of the steam was vapor.


    (2) No discussion of the upstairs heat exchanger except about pipes in a photo. Some claim these indicate it (or something using hot water) existed upstairs. Others say these pipes are a new thing not present for most of the test. I am most disappointed at the lack of discussion of Wong's report. No-one other than me seems prepared to examine his estimate. there is some idea over there that lack of convincing power dissipation remains an issue. some whacko ideas - super-heat the JMP box (it can't be more than 100C obviously). Better idea: dissipate heat into the ground from that box. Can't work for 1MW I think because the heat would conduct to floor around the box which would get very hot and heat up the factory. Heat loss from the ground would be minimal because we reach an equilibrium where the ground is hot and heat flowing through out of the edges has a lot of ground to insulate it. My gut feeling is that does not work because normal house heat loss through floor is comparable to roof and walls - but I'd like a more careful and quantitative analysis to be sure*. Overall ECW sort of ignores the dissipation issue as a detail because they can't worked out how it happened - they don't seem to like the Rossi 2nd floor heat exchanger but don't want to talk about it because it requires saying maybe Rossi lied in sworn testimony. Since the heat exchanger tech calculation for pipes to air dissipation at the possible air flow rate (not misusing the silly 200W/m^2 approx figure) is easy it annoys me a lot the people there don't do it. I guess if they did they would be censored?


    (3) Lots of discussion about the discrepancy between flow through the tigers and flowmeter flow. The consensus after outliers are removed is:


    (a) Yes the pump rated flow is << the flowmeter flow. There must be 4 tigers used because when one is out of commission output (as claimed) anf flowmeter rate drops by 25%.

    (b) Perhaps pump back-pressure increases flowrate to >> rated value? This did not get much traction even on ECW

    (c) Perhaps the unused tigers (or other modules) have pumps on and contribute to overall flow. This is possible, but (very) weird. And surely leads to liquid out of the system.

    (d) Could there be a bypass path so that water is recirculated without going through the ecats? These serve to inject a little steam and/or heat but because the bypass fluid never changes phase nor is known to be colder than 100C so we cannot say anything about the energy output from the system.


    (4) Sort of agreement there was no production. The embarrassing consequences of this are mostly ignored.


    ECW seems to go for (d) but ignore the energy output implications. For reasons I can't understand reading their stuff but maybe others will be able to represent properly here.


    My summary:

    1. Heat dissipation: we still have no way 1MW can be dissipated, especially given the information from Rossi about the upstairs heat exchanger. So 1MW or anything like looks impossible.
    2. Even if we assume the data is basically correct, there is still no way the system shows any excess heat. Lack of proper instrumentation, conflicting data, and weird changed by Rossi system precludes that. Equally the same lack of information means we cannot be sure there is no excess heat. Bad test is the same as no test, from that POV.


    * heat loss through ground. Sorry, it is obviously absurd. U values are quite low even with no insulation. At 1W/m^2K (much higher then typical) we have say 30m^2 and 100C vs 20C ground - would give 3kW!

  • Smith's second report (Document 235-10) confirms what I said about the reservoir tank. It is open to the atmosphere. Therefore, it must have a gravity return pipe from the pretend customer site. No other kind would work. It cannot be full because even if we believe the flow meter, the flow is much smaller than the capacity of this pipe in a gravity (unpressurized) flow.


    Smith's report reckons that the pipes are full of water, so I'm not sure it does confirm what you have said?


    Also, assuming Smith is wrong, and the condensate pipe is a gravity return pipe, what happens if the flow meter is placed beneath the water level inside the reservoir?


    And finally, Smith's second report says (in the first few pages) that the condensate return pipe connects directly to the reservoir, but by the end of the report he's claiming there are two circuits because of a connection from the condensate pipe to the output pipe via a mysterious "riser", as he puts it. Pretty weird, right?


    ------------------


    Bonus fact: 197-00 is amusing, as an IH lawyer claims that a jury does not need to read Wong's report, as Murray's opinion that 'COP does not have an inverse relationship to Input Power' is so inherently ridiculous that the jury would just be able to figure that out for themselves...

    Edited once, last by Zeus46 ().

  • THHuxley said ECW said "this and that"


    Generalising about a forum is unproductive where technical details matter


    Engineer 48 individual statement


    "However the images can not show us the COP.

    For that we need the flow meter data, the steam pressure data, the steam temperature data and the electrical kWh consumption.

    Now that we know the flow meter placement and that it should always be filled with water,

    we should be able to move past the claims it produced a higher than reality results from being partly filled."


    Without that data all else is speculation.


    BTW. A figure for heatlosses from the Miami building can be estimated from


    http://www.dimplex.com/en/cust…port/heat_loss_calculator


    providing we know the dimensions /construction

    7861 46th Street, Doral

    they are not much, if we input 30 degrees internal and 25degrees external. 50m x50m

    .

  • Smith's report reckons that the pipes are full of water, so I'm not sure it does confirm what you have said?

    No, that is impossible. You must be reading his descriptions of the other pipes, under pressure, before the return.

    Also, assuming Smith is wrong, and the condensate pipe is a gravity return pipe, what happens if the flow meter is placed beneath the water level inside the reservoir?

    That would be a U pipe. That would work fine, as I have often pointed out. However, that is not how the flow meter was installed.

    And finally, Smith's second report says (in the first few pages) that the condensate return pipe connects directly to the reservoir, but by the end of the report he's claiming there are two circuits because of a connection from the condensate pipe to the output pipe via a mysterious "riser", as he puts it. Pretty weird, right?

    You are confused. The "condensate" return goes straight to the reservoir. (It is not actually condensate.)

  • For those few here who are interested in gaining an understanding, E48's analysis of the setup using extant photos puts to shame all others, and blows multiple holes wide open in Smith's analysis.


    See comments underneath this post:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2017…sted-in-exhibit/#comments


    For anyone here who still thinks the system was overrun with water, or that the pumps are insufficient to account for the total flow, I submit to you that you have not understood the system.


    I recommend that you start at the bottom of the comments, and move up.

  • We now have a lot of tech evidence, and for me, even though from the non-tech evidence we know Rossi is behaving fraudulently, I like to work out the numbers. I guess many here (Jed?) will reckon this is drawing the eye on a snake since we know Rossi is fraudulent anyway, and doing flaky tech analysis just gives him a quite unwarranted lifeline.

    On the contrary, I have long ignored Rossi's personality and concentrated only on the data. As you know, I saw some of it before Penon's report was published. All of my conclusion were based on it.


    The problem is, you cannot do a "tech analysis" because many of the numbers are obviously fake. They are made up. For example, as Smith pointed out, they claimed steady input power on a day when their log -- and the power company -- agree the power was off. Obviously that is fake! Smith wrote:


    "On 07 Apr 2015, there was a day long power interruption. Here are graphs of Mr. Fabiani’s power input, pressure output, and temperature output data for 07 Apr 2015. . . . . Since there was a power interruption that day, one would expect to see a graph of the power input as a flat line at zero. However, the power is slowly and steadily increasing all day in a very linear fashion. . . ."


    To take another example that I described, when they reported they turned off half of the reactors, the daily total flow went from 36,000 to 18,000 and right back to 36,000. As I showed, that would call for remarkable coordination and turning things off and on again exactly 24 hours apart.


    The most obvious example of impossible data is the pressure. As Smith pointed out, if we take the pressure at face value, the entire reactor was in a vacuum. If we assume it was supposed to be 0.0 barg (1 atm), then no steam could have flowed, because the reservoir is open to the air and therefore also at 1 atm.

    (1) Physical evidence that the Tigers generated superheated steam. I'm inclined to rate this. Very possibly they did generate steam - in the sense that they were not fully submerged. However, that no way means the steam was superheated.

    Smith describes in detail why the "steam" cannot be superheated. (He thinks it is hot water, but assuming for the sake of the discussion it is steam, it cannot be superheated.)

  • With the recent additions to the docket, there is some interesting information. AR's tax returns for one. Strangest thing is the last corrected return filed in 2016 for 2013. Looks like he reclassified a bunch of the income. Someone who knows more about taxes should take a look. I'm not seeing the full $10M.

  • With the recent additions to the docket, there is some interesting information. AR's tax returns for one. Strangest thing is the last corrected return filed in 2016 for 2013. Looks like he reclassified a bunch of the income. Someone who knows more about taxes should take a look. I'm not seeing the full $10M.


    Those tax returns are for Leonardo Corporation (Florida) which is 100% owned by Florida Energy Trust. (Not sure who the principals are here--I think it's in the depositions somewhere.) There have been quite a few substantive amendments last year and even last month to these tax returns. 247-02 - Exhibit 30, an itemization of IH's payments to Rossi, says that $10M was paid to law office Henry W Johnson. We may need tax returns from Florida Energy Trust and/or even Rossi's personal tax returns to determine whether things are according to tax law. What doesn't look good to me is all the last minute changes during the civil suit for the 2012 and 2013 tax returns. I'm not an accountant (and my wife does our taxes) so I cannot comment too much more than this.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.