Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from IH Fanboy

@THH

I can completely appreciate your shift to the heat exchanger as the center of your criticism now that most remaining questions about pipe sizes, pumps, site glass, and flow have been driven to ground.

It is amusing how one IH canard after the next has to be shot down, and the critics must then move to the next best one. I think you are correct in that the questions about the heat exchanger will give you the most mileage. In fact, I tried to nudge you in that direction before. It seems you are just now taking that advice.

Display More

@IHFB

Your post quoted above raises some excellent points which I'd like to answer in full here. Actually, I've already done so, but this gives me a chance to drive the point home.

Personally, I am skeptical of all this stuff. I reckon people (even experts, as Wong) can make mistakes, or be technically correct but practically wrong. I include the IH experts in this.

I have posted here about two technical issues at length:

(1) The heat exchanger. I pointed out Wong's error (in the sense that it was a bad approximation) immediately his report was drawn to my attention. The latest post just clears up the few hand waving bits in the original, and provides a very certain derivation which anyone can check for themselves.

(2) The flow difference between flowmeter readings, and maximum flow through pumps driving active e-cats

Maybe you refer to (2) as flow and say it has been driven to the ground. But I've noticed you have never provided specific and detailed replies to my posts on this. For me, the only plausible ways you can make the flow issue work are either an e-cat bypass (invalidating the Penon report) or a badly erroneous flowmeter (invalidating the Penon report).

I'm happy for you to try, now, to drive this to the ground.

More generally. You post as though, of the many possible errors in Rossi's setup, IH are wrong unless all are true. Rossi has given us so little information due to perhaps legally admissable spoliation (which maybe the Magistrate will support) that we are all guessing what is his real setup. You seem to think that if IH propose 10 different ways it could be wrong, and only 1 ends up correct, that makes Rossi vindicated. 90% correct!

You can maybe understand that in this situation we have many possibilities, and only some will be true.

So - I rest my critique on two issues I highlighted strongly when they first appeared, and repeat from time to time. Perhaps you'd like to tell me some issue I strongly supported that has now been discredited?

• Flowrate inconsistency
• Heat dissipation problem (made worse because Rossi appears to believe it and has sworn on oath that he had a vanishing heat exchanger).

I was not sure that proof for the heat dissipation problem existed, before Rossi introduced the heat exchanger, even though it is obviously an issue. Now that Rossi has said he used the heat exchanger, it has more legs.

There are many other issues here which smell to high heaven, and which people of good will and no bias note. And with no clear invalidation, Rossi's duplicitous acts so far, and his large control over the test, would render it worthless. But these are the two technical issues, for me, that in spite of Rossi's attempts to remove all evidence of this test, seem very strong. Even one of these being real invalidates Rossi's claims.

Quote from JedRothwell

I am sure that it makes absolutely no difference whether that pipe is DN40 or DN80 or 1 foot in diameter. I am sure it would not make the slightest difference whether the temperature was 101 deg C or 104 deg C.

I am sure you live in La La land if you think these don't matter. Your entire false edifice about pressure was based on false claimed pipe sizes.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Wong was there and took photos on Feb 10 2017.

The Plant was shut down Feb 17, 2016.

The suposed mezzanine heat exchanger was dissasembled immediately after Plant shut down, and certainly before April 2016. Or so the story goes.

We are led to believe that the middle window that was used for venting, etc., was missing for nearly two years. It was being replaced when Wong was there, Feb 10, 2017, even though it was in place in many photos in 2015.

A classic example of Rossi misdirection. And transparent, like the window.

@THH,

There is no flow rate inconsistency. If you still think there is, you do not understand E48's analysis.

Focus on the heat exchanger. I have huge doubts about this as well. IH will win this case at any rate due to the JMP ruse. But if the heat exchanger existed and was adequate, then IH will not win in convincing half of the LENR community that the e-Cat doesn't work.

@Shane,

To dispel all doubt from my end, I believe the JMP situation was a complete ruse. Rossi had me personally believing that there was a legit customer.

Now, as THH has pointed out before, there are bits of truth here and there that Rossi can hang his hat on say: see, I was technically telling the truth all along. But I don't think the jury will buy it. And I don't think the LENR community is either, whether pro e-Cat or against.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@THH,

There is no flow rate inconsistency. If you still think there is, you do not understand E48's analysis.

Focus on the heat exchanger. I have huge doubts about this as well. IH will win this case at any rate due to the JMP ruse. But if the heat exchanger existed and was adequate, then IH will not win in convincing half of the LENR community that the e-Cat doesn't work.

Your doubts about the heat exchanger would reassure me if you provided evidence to back them up, like calculations etc. But, I'm now very confident anyway for the reasons I've shown above.

You are probably right I don't understand E48 analysis. I find it inconsistent and difficult to follow. That may be my fault, so I'm very welcome to being educated and will change my view here if you can explain to me, based on your detailed understanding, why his work invalidates the simple and obvious flow issue. You probably need also to explain Alan Flecther's critique of E48 here.

@THH,

I'm not even sure you have reviewed E48's analysis. But if you have, please point out where you feel it is inconsistent, and I will attempt to address. It seems consistent to me, both in terms of matching to extant photographs, and in all other respects. I'm not saying there aren't flaws, as he is going on best-available evidence at this point, and probably making some assumptions. But in my opinion, it is the best we've got, and I don't see any glaring inconsistencies.

The pronoun "we" is commonly used in an expository style in English. Such usage includes the readers in the discussion and invites them to follow along in the exposition. This kind of language is often used in mathematics, for example, as seen in this discussion in a paper written by a single author, found in a 30 second Google search:

Quote from Introduction to mathematical arguments

In §1 we introduce the basic vocabulary for mathematical statements. In §2 and §3 we introduce the basic principles for proving statements. We provide a handy chart which summarizes the meaning and basic ways to prove any type of statement. This chart does not include uniqueness proofs and proof by induction, which are explained in §3.3 and §4. Apendix A reviews some terminology from set theory which we will use and gives some more (not terribly interesting) examples of proofs.

Is it really "we" who are introducing the basic vocabulary or the basic principles for proving statements? Is the author using the royal we? No in both cases. The inclusive style is so common that it can seem weird if it is not used in a long exposition.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@THH,

I'm not even sure you have reviewed E48's analysis. But if you have, please point out where you feel it is inconsistent, and I will attempt to address. It seems consistent to me, both in terms of matching to extant photographs, and in all other respects. I'm not saying there aren't flaws, as he is going on best-available evidence at this point, and probably making some assumptions. But in my opinion, it is the best we've got, and I don't see any glaring inconsistencies.

Now that is naughty. It is work to do this stuff properly. You are the one saying this analysis is so convincing that I must be wrong. So please outline which bit of it (there are many posts scattered all over the place) relates to the flow issue and summarise the argument for us?

I am genuinely interested since I can't say any way out of the flow discrepancy myself.

Quote from Shane D.

Rossi was JMP, JMP was Rossi, so there was no customer, there was no product, so it is settled. Or it should be.

Some old Rossi statements about the "customer":

Quote

Andrea Rossi

October 5th, 2015 at 7:01 PM

Gunnar Lindberg:

The Customer was not previously using electricity: he switched to electricity when we proposed him the E-Cat explaining that with the E-Cat his thermal energy was going to cost less, increasing his profits. Your question was clear and well formulated, probably my answer was incomplete.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

Quote

Andrea Rossi

June 29th, 2015 at 7:18 AM

Frank Acland:

The measurements of the efficiency of the 1 MW E-Cat installed in the factory of the Customer of Industrial Heat, obviously, is made with calorimetry, because the plant has to produce steam necessary to the manufacturing process of the Customer. Therefore both the third party that has to certify the performance and the Customer that is using the E-Cat are just measuring the amount of the thermal energy actually delivered from the plant, not the pure heat radiated from the reactors. The measurement of the pure heat radiated from the reactor makes sense in laboratory tests, because, being a direct measurement, not mediated by a heat exchanger, gives more rigorous results.

For what concerns the Hot Cat we are making tests with inside the computers container, we are making both calorimetric and IR measurements, obtaining similar results, even if calorimetric measurements are lower due to the fact that the heat exchanger makes a loss of energy depending on its efficiency factor.

I cannot add other information regarding this issue, because all the publishable data will be published when the tests on course will have been completed.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

Quote

Andrea Rossi

May 19th, 2015 at 6:44 AM

Alexvs:

Yes, the Customer is measuring independently the energy that arrives to his plant, both with gauges and ( more important) with the operation of his manufacturing system, which needs our energy to work.

The measurements give similar results, within the margin of error of the instrumentation, but, as I said, what counts more than all is the FACT that the energy we supply him makes his plant work as expected. Calorimetic measurements now are coupled with manufacturing efficiency measurements, which put in evidence the very result that really counts: is our Customer making money with our plant or not ? This is the most important issue. If the Customer does not make money with our plant, he will not get solace if we will present him good calorimetric results, however obtained…

Data regarding the COP will be given after the completion of the tests and the final results can be either positive or negative.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

Quote

Andrea Rossi

April 3rd, 2015 at 7:44 PM

Desmondet:

The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions

1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plus

the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider

56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions

All the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.

Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay. They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

Quote

Andrea Rossi

March 13th, 2015 at 6:17 PM

Steven N. Karels:

The ssm of the 1MW E-Cat is very long. It has been a terrific surprise, due to evolution of the charge and to the control system. I am not permitted to publish numbers before the end of the test, but I must say that the final results can be positive, but also could be negative, so we retain the data until the test is finished. One thing is for sure: I do not stay here 16-18 hours per day to sharpen the points to the pencils. We also have a new kind of gauge, which is the bill of the electric provider to our Customer, wherein are written the MWh he consumes per month ( the electricity source that feeds the plant has been insulated from other loads): the Customer makes a ratio between the thermal MWh we deliver and the MWh he pays for to the electricity provider and has the real COP. This is a measuring system not very sophysticated, but brutally true: the Customer is positively surprised from the results, so far, after a troublesome initial period. We hope the situation goes on likewise.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

Quote

Andrea Rossi

March 5th, 2015 at 6:12 PM

JC Renoir:

Here is a strong private police security 24 hours per day. The factory is filled by cameras and many signs which say ” Smile: you are on camera”.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

@THH,

Well, not quite as naughty as you, since I'm pretty sure you haven't even spent a little amount of time reviewing his analysis, because you seemed surprised when I mentioned that the Grundfos was the prime mover, and that the site glass indicates there was no flooding as alleged by Smith.

Quote from IH Fanboy

the Grundfos was the prime mover

In case that the Grundfos pump was the "prime mover", how would you ensure that

- the pump doesn't run dry

- doesn't overfill the "condesate header"?

Quote from IH Fanboy

@THH,

Well, not quite as naughty as you, since I'm pretty sure you haven't even spent a little amount of time reviewing his analysis, because you seemed surprised when I mentioned that the Grundfos was the prime mover, and that the site glass indicates there was no flooding as alleged by Smith.

I spent about one hour reading his stuff and other poisonous posts on ECW. When I do this, I want to correct, which I cannot on ECW since am banned. So I don't go there often. And no, I was only surprised that you were making an argument that proved my case. I guess I should not have been

Anyway I'm very happy to review any of E48's posts here that you think are relevant to the flow issue.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Wong was there and took photos on Feb 10 2017.

I see. Did he take photos inside the mezzanine? Have these photos (or any others he took) been published?

Andrea Rossi

March 13th, 2015 at 6:17 PM

Steven N. Karels:

[...] "Calorimetic measurements now are coupled with manufacturing efficiency

measurements, which put in evidence the very result that really counts:
is our Customer making money with our plant or not ?

This is the most important issue." [...]

And? Did the customer made money?

That's so hilarious, after knowing from the deposition, that Rossi is in fact JM Products.

BTW: Did somebody already made a chart, where one can see which companies are all Rossi or founded by Rossi, Rossi involved and so on? There was a lot of stuff in the discovery: AEG, Platinum Trust, USQL, Florida Energy Trust, old Leonardo and new Leonardo ...

I've now read Smith's reports and full deposition (before report 2), and Murray's full deposition.

Smith has a totally closed mind ... despite admitting that he's never seen the insides of a big frankie he's absolutely convinced that it's impossible for it to contain a super-heater of any kind. He also refuses to consider COP > 1 as a possibility. I agree with his CFM calculation, but found a less-intimidating 50 CFM fan. I disagree with his feedwater conclusions. And curious that he doesn't consider the flowmeter.

Murray is a good engineer, and was trying to get to the bottom of things.

They both wanted a direct steam flow measurement, which I endorse.

Wong: 233-3 http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/0233.3_Exhibit_C.pdf has photos, presumably taken on his site visit (date? Not in his report, nor his partial deposition? H mentions "that Friday" and "the 13th" .. 2nd and 13th February are referred to later ) E48's 4-pipes ... the only possible connection to the mezzanine do not apparently enter the space. The "Glass Company" truck is visible .. potential witnesses?

Considering Wong and Smith's photos, I don't believe there was a mezzanine radiator. On JONP ISTR Rossi kept changing his explanation. Asked about the dissipation, he implied natural convection through the roof. (But no fan, and vents closed)

E48: I agree with most of his pipe diagrams, but not necessarily his analysis. But I don't think the Grunfold (sp) was in action all the time (there's deposition stuff that said it was just for start-up, and then bypassed), so there goes his "2-stream" input into the big frankies. Missing a pump?

Sanity check on dissipation. The customer box was 3x3x20 meters ... ignoring the base, that's surface area 198 m^2. Needs 5KW per m^2 to dissipate 1MW. Using the Siemens calculator https://www.thermal-wizard.com/tmwiz/default.htm for a horizontal top plate with 1x1 meter square, surface at 103C and ambient 20C I only get 567W convective and 610W radiative, 1.2KW total.

(I set the surface temperature of the big black box to 103C, the same temp as the steam outlet. Even hypothetically it couldn't get hotter than that.)

@Alan F.,

Bass says the Grunfold was sometimes bypassed, and we see in the photos that it was designed to be bypassed. We also know that the flow varied considerably at different times throughout the year long test. The flow rate of the Grunfold is also adjustable. The fluctuations we see in the data indicate that at times the Grunfold was either dialed down or bypassed completely, and that would be consistent with what we see. Whether it was only used on startup or as the prime mover for much of the test is in question. Bass seems to think the former, but Bass also seems pretty uninformed of what was actually going on.

As for the heat exchanger, I agree, doesn't look good for Rossi.