Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

oh yeah now it's all much clearer .

Seriously though it's always good to try and understand another's point of view even when it's not always easy or your attached to upright thinking or something.

Quote from maryyugo

Why do a moronic one year test? Why would Darden even consider this? He deserves what he got.

I have heard he did not particularly want the 1-year test. Rossi insisted on it. Darden allowed it because it did not cost him anything. I.H. had already tested the machine by that time.

I do not think he deserves what he got, but I agree he should have been more careful.

Careful Monty I want Dewey to read my post , you are burying it. Summary I was unable to find Rossi convicted in his gold allegations. This is interesting since it looks like 1000's lbs. or more were part of that case. Trust me in the US that much gold would not escape the internet.

Rigel - the front half of that posting from Rossi's attempted redemption website is from a Corriere Della Sera article that Rossi somehow felt the need to respond to. The 2nd half of the posting appears to be his words.

He spins a fantastical tale of so much gold output from his industrial precious metal reclamation business that he was able to start a booming girls ring business. He was apparently was so successful in gold reclamation that he ended up with tons of extra gold that somehow couldn't be processed through legal channels. His partner in the gold smuggling / money laundering business did some prison time as well then got arrested in Miami in 2003 on a Swiss warrant. Sadly, he died in Italy of malaria after serving the additional prison time. Its a herring alright - a full rotten barrel of them.

Quote from DNI

If you have a profit in one of the companies and a loss in the other you could end up paying less tax in a total if you were allowed to send "fake" invoices from one company to another.

You have to actually pay the invoices, transfer the money, and show the payments in your tax records. If you send invoices and do not transfer the money the government will think you are up to something -- and so would I.

Transferring money back and forth would also be suspicious. People would assume you are kiting funds, which is sort of like marching the same group of soldiers through a gap between the hills, visible to the enemy. The enemy thinks you have many more soldiers than you do. That technique was used thousands of years ago in Europe and China, and in modern times, quite effectively.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

He's the one who chose US Federal Court, for reasons we may never understand, as his battleground in this matter.

And it's a darn good thing. Getting information from IH is like extracting blood from a turnip. The sweeping blanket of secrecy that IH brought over its activities and the activities of other LENR researchers was not healthy. It also forces Rossi's hand to open up, which is also good.

Quote from StephenC

IH are arguing that they didn't pay because they believe from the data they got from Murray that it didn't work,

The data they got from Penon shows that it did not work. That data is impossible, and some of it is obviously fake, such as the same numbers repeated for days. Plus the ventilation system and other physical evidence from the installation prove that it did not work.

They are not only relying on the data from Murray.

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Excellent work on the graphs, have you managed to reverse engineer the data from the published graphs or is this photoshop??

Hi Malcom Lear,

Thank you for your work on the ERV annex data. I'm surprised that there has been so little comment about it, Paradigmnoia exempted. More interest in trolling and posturing here I think. I'm somewhat surprised as I think there is some interesting relations in the data.

I managed to digitize the FPL daily data provided in one of the exhibits. After trying a few sites, I found WebPlotDigitizer (http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer/) to work best. It's online, free, and easy to use and the tracing mode will produce usage data on the day boundaries using X Step w/Interpolation automatic tracing.

Based on this work the data in the graph does not appear to be exactly daily data. That is the peaks of the graphs are not at day intervals but vary across the graph. There are a number of possible reasons for this one of them being that the data was not reported at the same time each day or possibly accumulated. The data is probably also out of sync with the data in the ERV annex. Still the data is useful and I was able to get the data from the daily graph when aggregated to be a few percentages from the monthly FPL data from another exhibit so I consider the data good enough.

If there is interest I will post my working spreadsheet with this data.

Quote from PeterMetz

I managed to digitize the FPL daily data provided in one of the exhibits. After trying a few sites, I found WebPlotDigitizer (http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer/) to work best. It's online, free, and easy to use and the tracing mode will produce usage data on the day boundaries using X Step w/Interpolation automatic tracing.

Very useful website.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Jed has supossedly seen it he said the flowmeter is in the condensate retour pipe.( Just 'entre nous' it cannot be there but this has to be discusssed.

Where else could it be? The flow meter only works in liquid, not steam. Assuming the fluid coming out of the reactor is steam, you have to put the flow meter below the heat exchanger.

You can see that the plastic reservoir has to have a gravity return.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Getting information from IH is like extracting blood from a turnip.

How much information have you gotten from Rossi?

I have told you more about his experiments and the 1-year test than he did!

Thank you Dewey- I did read the article and I am sure you checked the link on the 100 articles on Rossi's malfeasance. But again neither your link nor mine has a reference to his conviction related to this. I find that really strange. After reading Rossi's history I have to admit that old Rascal got game.

Which was at stake? A "working device" or a "working bluff"?

Hi, Rigel,

Quote from Rigel

But want to understand. Really those are real questions.

Really good questions! Let me give you a hint.

If we start from the hypotheses that all the story involving the Ecat (and other similar devices) is for providing a "working device", ie a device (or a method) capable to generate excess heat by whichever effect based on CF or LENR phenomenon, your questions are not very easy to be answered. But most of them, and many others arisen in these last months, could find a straightforward answer if you substitute "working device" with "working bluff", ie a device (or a method) capable to convince as many people as possible (up to the whole worldwide public opinion) of its ability to generate excess heat.

Consider this mental exercise. Rethink at the whole Ecat saga just substituting "working device" with "working bluff". Suppose only few people, but in key roles, were aware of this perspective. Consider, also, the sudden and disappointed metamorphosis of some important members of the CF/LENR community, which did completely reverse their opinion and engagement with respect to a device, that they stubbornly promoted and defended for years on each and every website.

Doesn't it sound less inexplicable?

Quote from monty

Yeah Jed. This is what you keep repeating like a mantra... And i bet the information you aquired says exactly this.

Yes, it does. It is Penon's data, recently uploaded by Rossi. Don't you believe Rossi?

Quote from monty

my point is: Are you sure you have a view of the whole picture or is it possible you see just a part of the story?

It is the whole story. Every day in every month in the test were uploaded in the spreadsheets: 128-01 Exhibit 1.pdf

What are you suggesting here? The data uploaded by Rossi himself proves that his experiment was garbage. That is obviously fake data. The pressure was not 0.0 bar. The same numbers could not have showed up every day. The temperature of the reservoir could not have remained the same with the power changing. The machine could not have produced heat on days when Rossi reported it was turned off.

Are you saying that Rossi uploaded data that make him look like a criminal scammer, but he actually has better data that he is hiding?!?

Dear Dewey,

You hve absolutely no reasons to thank for my posts.

I am amazed why ou discuss about soething that happened

in 1995 when 20 years later an experiment took place and for long time showing the LENR Enhanced process could be real

If it is not true and it was a scam Rossi would have tragic problems. BUT if it was real and you are denying it from whatever reason than the concept of capital sin will be valid for IH and you.

The diagram could be a proof in your favor.

The Rossi bashing is ever more hurdy-gurdy like and has nothing to do with the litigation- anyway cannot help IH to win.

peter

On ECW, Mike Lammert (Dr. Mike) posted a thread on the COP80+. ECW-Thread-link . I find it interesting I am sure others would and it relates to this thread. The thing I noticed is that his approach makes assumptions and proceeds on them to his conclusion. I hope he will post over here, I would ask him that he should Monte-Carlo his variables and he does not do this. If I were to make an back of the napkin engineering assumption without ranges my old boss would just pick it up and blow his nose with it. Pipe diameter matters, where meters were placed matters.But it is an effort and should be addressed.

To nJED

the flowmeter must be after the pump thet feeds water to the generators a low position ergo it is full with water. Take a fresh look to your diagrm, please.

Just from curiosity- do you not REALLY want to know where was that flowmeter and what is the diameter of the steam pipe

truth does not interest you?

peter

@Ascoli65 - Thanks. I start my assumption on that I have not been able to find a study of NiH that is above noise. I directly asked everyone here if they could provide a study. I even asked Jed about one after I searched on the lenr-canr.org. I did not believe the 2011 demo, but I must admit I deferred to Lugano and had some hope. But as soon as I found out Rossi touched (loaded/unloaded) the samples the test was mute. The TC paper needs to be refuted. I further think that this has good people like Titan (on the portal page) and MFMP doing a live test now, working on something that will not work. I did not start out this way. I arrived here after thousands of hours of research. It's bluff. Again can anyone post a working NiH study that is above noise? and not Rossi's.

20 minutes later edit: It looks like Rb0 is disputing the TC paper in the playground thread. So we shall see...