Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • So my question to Dewey now is

    Fair enough IHFB,

    But my question to you now is....

    Where is your answer to the "satisfied customer" Rossi so promoted?

    Where is your answer to the (3) plants sold that Rossi so promoted?

    Where is your answer to the Director of Engineering (Bass) that Rossi so promoted?

    Where is your answer to the "customer making actual production" that Rossi so promoted? (Keep in mind the energy usage for the building left 5KW for ALL other production operations! That JMP could not pay a $800 bill and they had only one part time employee)

    Where is your answer to "the customer was owned by a UK entity" that Rossi so promoted?

    Where is your answer to "the ERV took many thousands of measurements" that Rossi so promoted?

    Where is your answer to "the pressure drop over 3 meters of stated pipe would require a pressure higher than 0"

    Where is your answer to "Rossi providing fake invoices to cover JMP's bill"

    and on and on and on.

    The problem here is :

    "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the huge board in your own eye?"

    Why do people ignore that mountains of evidence against this being a legitimate test and come up with quite fanciful "possibilities" to support it is true?

    I can state that "theoretically I can time travel if I go fast enough", but it will never happen. (And probably not theoretical either)

    Look at the total amount of evidence. Look at everything and add it all up. On one hand, you have logical conclusions about the test being invalid. To make it have a chance of being valid, you have to dream up extremely unlikely scenarios. Think platinum sponge!

    I was excited and believed the Rossi story for quite a while. I finally had to wake up and smell the roses. They smelled terrible!

    Clicking our heals together 3 times is not going to take us to eCat paradise, not matter how much we want it too.:(

  • RIgel - this entire episode is painful to watch and experience. Rossi has tripped up, used and abused many people in his 40 year career - it is time for that to end. I do look forward to more truths being revealed in the coming weeks and months.

    Sunset on Planet Rossi cannot come soon enough.

  • @Bob

    We have very little evidence to prove or disprove your concerns. We have a few out-of-context emails that IH put onto the docket. I'll admit, they paint Rossi in a bad light. But I think our thresholds for proof of fraud are probably quite different. I'm more of a fence sitter, although I still lean Rossi (although ever so slightly). I sense subterfuge by both parties, and have from the start. Greed is playing a role.

  • That is initially what Jed said as well. But when he checked his computer, he said it was 103. Are you sure the 100.1 C value wasn't a made up number by you?

    The difference between 100.1 and 103 deg C is immaterial. Either neither number would indicate liquid water, because there has to be some back pressure.

    I do not recall where 100.1 deg C came from, but I did see it somewhere, and no doubt Dewey saw it there as wall. Perhaps it was in the document imaged above?

    You are focusing on what is probably a trivial mistake made by Dewey. You accuse him of making up a number which is so close to the actual number, it makes no difference to the analysis! That's nuts. Why would anyone make up a number for no reason? What would be the point?

  • OG - I don't know if Penon signed the cover report when he submitted the Annex docs but rest assured, when you see it, you're not going to be impressed in the least.

    To say that it was shabby work is an insult to shabbist the world over. It is a total joke...

    No surprise - his test plan wasn't impressive neither.…nt-test-plan-fabio-penon/
    Did somebody approve that plan? Who?

    Btw: From where did Penon take the pressure and temperature values?

    The OMEGA PX 309-100A5V doesn't have any integral display.
    So, no chance to check the pressure directly at the instrument.
    It is a simple pressure transmitter, which converts a pressure of 0 psi_a to a 0V output signal, and 100 psi_a pressure to 5V output signal.

    This instrument needs to be hooked up to a control system, and the 0..5V signal from the instrument needs to be scaled (always) to the appropriate range of 0..100 psi_a by the control system.
    So, if you read the pressure values from the display of the control system, you have to trust that system - and the guy who programmed it.

    Likewise for the temperature probes and temperature measurements.

  • But I think our thresholds for proof of fraud are probably quite different.

    Have you ever heard that some guys - when they don't want to accept the obvious - they rather hang on to self delusions.
    Watch this:

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


  • What difference does it make? The industrial dial thermometers typically used with this kind of equipment are only good to within a few degrees. Whether it is 101 and 103 deg C, it is still going to be liquid water at any realistic pressure. See:…ressure-boiling-point.pdf

    The numbers in the report are obvious bogus in any case. It lists 104.5 deg C for nine days in a row in May. Nine days! How likely is that? If you think that could happen you have never measured temperatures.

    yes, output stable even while the tank temp is ranging from 69.1 to 71.4. I find little correlation between the required input power and the tank water temperature. Of course we only have these daily numbers and not the minute or hourly numbers. Another "trick" that could be played is to slow water flow just prior to the measurements then increase the flow during the measurement. It is worth noting that the time stamp given are late night (10-10:30). Isn't that the time that Rossi was in there alone?

  • I don't see the 100.1 C value anywhere there either. What you provide appears to be a test plan, with no measured data

    IH Fanboy ,

    The part below the piece of the Test Plan I posted earlier, is imaged below. Since the energy used to heat the steam is not being counted, there may be a calculation that uses 100.1°C as a cap/limit.

    Perhaps the 101.1°C exists in the real ERV report, or one of the quarterly reports as part of the calculations? I have no idea.

    That's just my guess...


  • We have very little evidence

    All of the points I made above were from :

    Court documents supplied by Rossi ...

    Posts made by Rossi on JONP...

    One post on this forum about pipe length using the data submitted to the court by Rossi.

    None of my list came from IH!

  • "This instrument needs to be hooked up to a control system, and the 0..5V signal from the instrument needs to"

    So if you get 0 bars of pressure read by the computer, it could just be an open circuit or a failure of the 5V supply to the meter. All this with its max temp range of 80C while the temps of the steam were claimed to be over 100C.

    I guess that is what you get when you don't use control runs and redundant measurements.

    I would like to examine their thermocouples. That includes the extension wires. Using a wrong wire or even connectors can throw them for a loop. Again, how did they check the thermocouples when placed in the device? How was the water mixed and on and on. Boy it would be nice to cross examine Penon. He has a lot of "splaning" to do.

  • Parad. Perhaps it is in the raw data. I assume that IH has gotten the Tbytes of raw data and the data was taken at more times than just at night by Rossi.

    I wonder if Penon has finer data. I also wonder if pursuant to the agreement that IH has been able to discuss the results with Penon or if he just ran to hide after the suit.

  • Why would anyone make up a number for no reason? What would be the point?

    I don't know if the 100.1 C number was made up by Dewey. But it is a very specific number. And it hasn't appeared in any data that has been released so far. And it was pushed by Dewey at a time when there was much uncertainty about whether the 1 MW plant had performed within the requirements of the agreement. As Dewey suggested at the time, he was getting much mileage out of it. It was damaging to Rossi because it made Rossi appear as a liar.

    The public at large is not attuned to the nuance of these things, and many websites and blogs around the world picked up some of the misdirection, which damaged Rossi even more. So, there was plenty of reason to sow doubt at the time. You and Dewey attempt to brush it off now as irrelevant. But it was relevant to the discussion then, and still is.

    The difference between 100.1 and 103+ is significant because it goes to whether the steam was dry or not. You claim it makes no difference, but that is incorrect: the temperature is a crucial measurement to understanding the performance of the plant. To say otherwise is disingenuous. I'm sure you will come back at me with your usual vitriol, but it doesn't change the fact that the temperature of the steam matters.

  • parad, thanks,

    perhaps you or someone here can help clarify something.

    Who submitted Exhibit 1 (the data sheet)?

    People seem to assume it was from Penon, but I cannot verify the source.

    Why do people assume it is Penon's report and not just a spreed sheet from Rossi, or Ih or some

    other source?

    I was about to try to analysis it but I don't want to spend the time and effort if it isn't even Penon's report.

    It says final report, but by who?

  • temperature of the steam matters- it also matters what the temperature of the water and the wetness of the steam.

    Again, yes in free steam it is likely to be dry at 103, however we do not know if the temperature was taken at the top or the bottom of the pipe. There could be water flow in the lower part of the pipe that was below that temperature. There was not a single cat but many. Some could have pumped water while the others were used to generate steam. If there was no mixing of all the outputs, then there could be a mixture of water and steam. I can easily have cold water on the bottom of a pot and hot and steam on the top. Just flow cold water in and out of the bottom. \

    Again we need to have a measure not assumption of the steam/water quality that flowed out of the device.

    If they were smart they would have used a steam separator and measured both flows.