Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from JedRothwell

Impossible. The flow meter was half out of the water.

Uh uh. Based on the marks that someone saw inside the piping, right? And isn't it curious that the only way such markings form is from standing water. We can go 'round and 'round on this again Jed, but you can't simply will facts into existence.

Quote

The manual says it does not work in a half-empty pipe, and anyone looking at this pipe could see it was half empty. It was a gravity return going to an open tank, for crying out loud.

This is the first time I remember you claiming that the return pipe was observed to have flowing water at the half empty level while the plant was in operation. Is that what you are claiming? Because before your argument was based solely on the internal markings within the pipe. So, did you see half-flowing water during the plant operation? Did Murray? Who did?

Henry seems to have found an alternative to the downvote button

I think we all agree that if the pipe is DN40, then the e-cat cannot work as claimed. That's nice to know.

I personally think it is possible that Murray got the diameter wrong, possibly mixing it up with another pipe or?

Murray is human after all and makes mistakes like we all do. For example, he picked the wrong period of time to show 30 consecutive days @ 36m3/d flow. Happens.

The pipes do look potentially bigger in the photo, but it is really hard to gauge. Also, I would have assumed that Rossi would have picked a more adapted pipe size, whether he is for real or not.

So we now wait for better evidence.

Quote from LENR Calender

I think we all agree that if the pipe is DN40, then the e-cat cannot work as claimed. That's nice to know.

I personally think it is possible that Murray got the diameter wrong, possibly mixing it up with another pipe or?

Murray is human after all and makes mistakes like we all do. For example, he picked the wrong period of time to show 30 consecutive days @ 36m3/d flow. Happens.

The pipes do look potentially bigger in the photo, but it is really hard to gauge. Also, I would have assumed that Rossi would have picked a more adapted pipe size, whether he is for real or not.

So we now wait for better evidence.

Display More

I agree with you. A mistake is definitely possible. But I have a hard time understand people who think IH should have paid $89.000.000 without getting answers to the questions in exhibit 5. But maybe I should ask that question on E-cat world instead. I'm not sure we have anyone here that don't agree about this.

The point of my post is to provide the links to the tools and tables so anyone can make their own calculations with out relying on what "anyone says". It's about data not opinion or seeing other people's results. But also interesting to see what other people find.

Note I'm also working on the principle here that no-one on either side is deliberately lying in court. If that proves to be wrong then let's let the court decide.

But I really think with exhibit 5 we need to see the responses and data the enquiries are based on and all the surrounding schematics and information to have the proper picture of the steam flow. I could not fix my opinion as fact based on the contents of on a request for information based on someone's understanding like this with out seeing the responses and data it's based on.

Given his background in engineering and industry and especially given the relative complexity of the E-Cat device it self I do think Andrea Rossi would be very unlikely to make a mistake with the pipe diameter. This is obviously very simple and very basic boiler mechanics and engineering every engineer understands.

I agree with what LENR Calendar says above though. The velocity in a single DN40 pipe at this flow rate would be very very unlikely and unless we miss something about the system looks impossible with our suspected parameter values especially if we also consider friction in the pipe. This very very high a flow velocity would also be hard to manage at the at other end I suppose too.

Note we are talking about super heated steam which has an optimum velocity between 35 m/s and 100m/s rather than ordinary steam which has lower optimum velocities between 30 m/s and 40 m/s. But these speeds are still too low for DN40.

Unless I'm missing something we would need at least a combination of several DN40 or slightly larger pipes or a single DN100 pipe for the steam and I think everyone agrees with that.

Did any one use the tool I linked to look at the requirements for the condensate pipe?

Quote from DNI

I agree with you. A mistake is definitely possible. But I have a hard time understand people who think IH should have paid $89.000.000 without getting answers to the questions in exhibit 5. But maybe I should ask that question on E-cat world instead. I'm not sure we have anyone here that don't agree about this.

Murray wrote his e-mail around Feb 16-17, 2016.

According to documents 108-2 to 108-4 (exhibits B C D), Rossi was already forwarding his e-mails to his lawyer as of November 15., 2015

The reason Rossi/Penon didn't answer Murray is that the litigation was already in the works for at least 3 months. By February, Rossi must have known IH wasn't going to pay and that he would sue.

StephenC

I didn't play around with the calculators this time around, but I posted one in the past and had concluded that it was likely that DN40 was a mistake by Murray, because no one would ever choose such a small pipe for that amount of steam.

On the other hand, a larger DN100 pipe would have very little pressure difference with a length of 6m.

It is interesting that you mention SCH 40 pipe! That's a potential explanation if Murray got it wrong. It's possible to mix them if you're being rushed through a visit trying to take notes.

I just can't believe Rossi would use a DN40 pipe whether he is a genius inventor or a seasoned con artist.

The Rossi/IH PR game

Looking at the speculation here, on minimal evidence available, what I find fascinating is how this plays out psychologically.

We have partisans looking at this limited evidence trying to find stuff to support our views. IHFB tries to fit everything to a "Rossi's device works" view. Dewey, Jed, me, and many others try to find stuff to prove the device does not work.

Thus. If the pipe is DN40 the case against Rossi is proven. If it is DN80 not so. Important to note that "case against not proven on one point" does not mean "device working is likely true" or even "case against cannot be proven".

In this case we don't know what is the pipe diameter. I'd expect it to be DN80 or above, if Rossi has had any contact with a steam engineer, of if he is using an IH original design (IH would I'd expect use a steam engineer). I can't see Rossi has any reason to change this from DN80 - though I'm willing to think that he might get the pipe sizing completely wrong. I know Rossi is very selective in which technical details he pays attention to - and capable of making enormous errors in things he does not consider. That makes his capacity for generating bad tests pretty well limitless, since he does not in a normal way learn from mistakes. The Exhibit 5 DN40 is interesting. Maybe it is a red herring, and as P suggests part of a manifold. Or maybe Rossi deliberately undersizes this pipe for some reason that we could work out given time and the complete piping diagram - which we have never had. IH, on this matter, would be wise to keep its powder as dry as it can whilst forcing Fabiani et al to participate. IHFB has good evidence the old pipe was correctly sized.

As Dewey says, we will have to wait and see.

Personally, I'm infinitely patient, and like Paradigmnoia I enjoy chewing over these minutiae. I feel a bit guilty doing it. Anyone following the details might get the idea that it was plausible that Rossi had a working system, simply because we have so little information it is difficult to prove he does not. All the attempts to prove this that do not 100% succeed actually provide a PR weapon for Rossi, because people see such a failed attempt as evidence that Rossi's stuff works - which it is not. For me, the lack of information is a challenge and I go on shaking the little scraps we have. I'd like to know how Rossi got those readings. Not because it is particularly difficult to see how it might be done, but because there are many ways, and I'd like to know which one.

Regards, THH

Good post THH. All of this data is Rossi generated, Penon was on the other side of the world and had nothing to do with it. Rossi's smart but he wasn't smart enough to cover all of his flanks.

Planet Rossi has once again worked itself up into a giddy state and it might be their last one so we'll let them enjoy it.

In the interim, the "Rossi Effect" chapter continues to write itself.

Wouldn't it be a sign of normality to continue this discussion about the ERV results only when we have the scheme and piping diagram of the 1MW Plant?

Just to avoid really desperate speculations e.g. re piping.

Dewey could tell us how large was the much disputed steam pipe. It was very probably insulated so Murray could not

evaluate it and not being familiar with such plants thought that if water enters the generators by a 40mm pipr steam will go out by a pipe of the same size. This is in concordance with his creative idea of hlf full pipes in such circuits; we will see this to with the much necessary piping diagraam.

I wonder why IH has not published earlier the ERV results

as Exhibit 30 and the diagram as Exhibit 31?

If IH thinks they are 100% right then anything real must

work in their favor Both in the court and on this Forum.

Peter

Quote from THHuxleynew

GIGO

P - it would be nice to think there is enough info in this data to get a handle on what was going on but it must be a long shot. Until the ERV antes up with precisely where these measurements are taken and what is the piping we are lost. Especially because (presumably) if each e-cat is monitored individually these figures may be averages. Do we have anything anywhere that states what the numbers represent with reference to precise measurements and piping?

@IHFB

You do indeed have a different approach to this problem than me, or others. As I understand it you reckon:

(1) either this stuff works or Rossi is blatently and deliberately fraudulent

(2) You would not want to view him as fraudulent, and on general principle think others looking at evidence will be biassed against him

It might help to take a more nuanced approach. Whether Rossi is legally fraudulent here will be decided by the Court. What we do know for sure is that his statements and actions cannot be trusted:

"Customer" - nope

"Hydrofusion test" - Rossi claims results were faked negative, so either he is lying in this claim, or lying to a previous potential backer.

"Bass" - fabricated business card

"Test" - refusal to allow on IH premisses with proper controls, refusal to allow IH inspection, Rossi present 24/7 and penon swans in a few times and now does not support his report which as has been pointed out is farcically unprofessional and not fit for purpose

"Massive over-reading of input power using average V and A" Remained adamant he was correct doing this when Mats spent a long time explaining his mistake.

It is absolutely not necessary to get into Rossi's mind more than this. My pet theory (speculation) is that he is a performer who sees adulation of his audience as much more real than any physical facts. You don't have to decide whether he is deliberately fraudulent, laughing at others, or in an act of cognitive dissonance believes his own words or just does not care about facts, seeing them as ephemeral and truth as infinitely alternative.

Display More

Do you have a reference to the "massive over-reading of input power...." comment (i.e. URL link)?

Peter - Rossi has chosen the US Federal Courts to make his stand and that is where the evidence battle will take place - it hasn't started yet with the exception of the doc exhibit skirmishes.

The rest of the "ERV" report is going to be useful when it is revealed and I predict, should it go into evidence that is available to the public, that Planet Rossi will not be able to recognize the unprofessional joke that it is.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Uh uh. Based on the marks that someone saw inside the piping, right? And isn't it curious that the only way such markings form is from standing water.

No, it was readily apparent to anyone. You can confirm it from the photos of the reservoir. The reservoir is a large, heavy plastic container reinforced with metal. That kind of container cannot be made airtight, and you cannot drill holes in the sides (they will leak). So the only way to return the condensed water is with a gravity return pipe. The flow meter only works with water, not steam (or alleged steam), so it had to be downstream from the customer site. That means it had to be in the return pipe.

This configuration is okay. There should be no problem. You can put the flow meter at the bottom of a U-shaped pipe to ensure that it remains in a full pipe. Rossi stated publicly that he did so. But people who saw the installation saw that he did not.

The marks left in the flow meter confirmed this, but anyone could see it by looking at the equipment.

Quote from IH Fanboy

This is the first time I remember you claiming that the return pipe was observed to have flowing water at the half empty level while the plant was in operation. Is that what you are claiming? Because before your argument was based solely on the internal markings within the pipe. So, did you see half-flowing water during the plant operation? Did Murray? Who did?

No, this is not the first time. No, my argument was never based solely on the internal markings on the meter (not the pipe). Yes, Murray and anyone else looking at the machine could see the pipe was half-empty and the water was splashing into an open tank. What else could it be but half empty with this arrangement? I explained all of the above several times. Perhaps you missed that. I hope you read this message because I will not repeat myself again.

Dear Dewey,

I definitely agree with your point of view nd NOT because it is identical with that of Andrea Rossi: the battle will take place in the Courts, that's all and clear.

QUESTION- if it is so, whta is the reason to be of this parallel battle with less or biased information? Couldn't we abandon

this thread and focus on the many scientific problems on LENR not more wasting time- we have already been informed about Rossi's maleficiency (not relevant) and the inexistence of his technology- The Court will know this too.

HOWEVER because his discussion has already started and the ERV dta caused a new turn of it, I have directly and straightly

asked you if you can/will/may offer us the piping diagram of the plant. Possibe honest answers

-Yes-please here it is!

I am not allowed to show it.

I have my reasons to keep it secret

Are we playing chess or poker?.

(From my blog yu could see that AI is from now smarter tan humans in chess, Go and poker.

Waiting for the piping diagram- and I dare to think that I am not alone.

peter

Quote from Peter Gluck

Dewey could tell us how large was the much disputed steam pipe. It was very probably insulated so Murray could not

evaluate it

It is not disputed! Except by people here. The pipe was exactly as Murray described it. Rossi never disputed this, or any of the other problems raised in Exhibit 5. They were raised by many people during the year-long test, but he never responded.

Murray had no trouble measuring the pipe.

Sorry Peter - you may have to wait on the court disclosures for any diagrams. No confusion on pipe size either - all of that information is documented, photographed and in hand. Have you been able to resolve Rossi's heat conundrum for the Doral site? How about the deafening noise from the supersonic "steam". Rossi has much larger basic problems though.

Speaking of, how much do you know much about the R'ster's "industrial gold / silver recovery" & St Andre's jewelry businesses?