Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

It is without doubt that Rossi and his co-workers have some very important questions to answer; most particularly in the matter of how exactly they got the data on which they rely (type of instrument and sensor, placing of instrument and sensors, nature and dimensions of pipework, capacity of pumps, calibration data, validation data....) and the destination, application, and dissipation of all that excess heat.

If it's all on the up-and-up, then these questions should be easily answered.

Sadly Rossi is neither a good engineer nor a good scientist. There appear to be no calibration/validation data for any instrumentation; and his habit of running tests without parallel unfuelled controls is simply appalling, and cannot but cast doubt on his claimed results.

As one who would really like to see LENR working and in commercial use, I am very far from convinced by the e-cat (or indeed, the Quark-x). I see no massive conspiracy on the part of IH, just some ineptitude in drawing up contracts and agreements, and insufficient due diligence in the early stages.

The evidence of Rossi's shadiness is mounting, however.

Quote from Peter Gluck

If you have no real proofs you have to use surreal (word 0f 2016) tricks as demonization of Rossi see below

The data published by Rossi is proof that he is a liar and a fraud. It is obviously fake. If you do not see that, you are hopelessly biased. You are blinded by wishful thinking.

Now that Rossi published his data, this discussion is over.

Rather odd that power into the reactor sometimes exceeds what the utility company FPL reported. The graph shows reactor power subtracted from the warehouse supply. Could it be that some of the red box power was supplied from another source hence the mismatch in temperature, supply, and COP.

Dewey, is a backup or secondary supply possible in that industial unit??

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Rather odd that power into the reactor sometimes exceeds what the utility company reported.

I don't find that odd. I think it is hilarious.

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Could it be that half of the red box was supplied from another source hence the mismatch in temperature, supply, and COP.

Rossi would have mentioned that, I think.

This is just more proof that his data is garbage and he is a fraud. We don't need any more proof -- his numbers speak for themselves -- but this is more proof, along with the fact that his pumps could never circulate as much water as he claims.

Ha ha, yes perhaps I should ask him on his blog

Jed,

OBVIOUS? OK, but then it was already obvious when the first set of these data was given to the beneficiary and accepted/paid.

The data are fake not now only, they were fake from the start.

OMG, why has IH not consulted you in time?

peter

I feel a bit sad. Yesterday it seemed to me there was good dialogue between different opinions that produced some interesting analysis but now it's changed back again it seems but I guess that's the way it goes.

JedRothwell. Just a quick question I appreciate you think it doesn't work but do you think or even better know maybe if it is a steam condensor circuit with a 300kWh/day supply or a water circuit with the same power supply or something else?

Edit: I don't see how a steam condensor circuit with this power supply and no excess heat could produce enough condensate to even move the flow meter even if wrongly placed let alone give such a high reading. But I freely admit I'm a novice with this so if you can explain how then I will be happy to be corrected.

Do you know how much condensate would be produced per second from this input power? My calculation came up with a very low figure but it could be that it's wrong somehow so I'm interested what you calculate.

On the other hand if you think it's a water circuit I guess my above questions are less relevant. And with out data I could only take someone's word for much of this one way or other or wait for more information to come up later.

Quote from rb0

On my opinion you are clearly trying to diffuse false information in order to influence the trial.

I presume that this is against law.

Because this forum is moderated I presume that eventually also the moderators of the forum could be responsible.

Paradigmnoia is not the first person I would guess would be here in order to diffuse false information. He is one of the last. Others, by contrast, do make me wonder as to their motivations. Thankfully logical argument wins, when people are able to engage in it, and motivations do not matter so much.

Alainco:

The "Biggest Question"?

As much as I enjoy your very intelligent comments on many blogs, I think you, (like many, many others on many blogs), are clearly losing focus.

None of this crap matters, not the pipe diameter, the exhaust fans, the emmisivity charts, the metallic sponge process, etc

The only thing that matters, the "Biggest Question" is:

Does Ecat produce Energy Out > Energy In?

Do you, Alainco, believe it does?

Just a simple Yes or no please, yes or no.

Here we go again.

Take note of the fluffifier fillerites.

Oh yeah - the FPL data thing.

DOOOoooooHHHHHHhhhhh........

Peter G "The data are fake not now only, they were fake from the start."

I am glad you are finally agreeing with the obvious.

Jed, Oldguy,

If it was obvious...why has nobody seen it in 2015?

And take care to the nasty thing called elemenatry logic

FAKE DATA has to be explained for all the paraameters.

Say flow was fake, but was then a real flow? Not 1500kg/h

but say 10kg/, or not flow at all? The pipes according to Jed were half full, what was the non-fake flow then?

Temperature was not 103 c but how much? ) and all the other ptemperatures fake on paper but measurable in the plant. pressure means not over atmospheric presure that is pattial vacuum due to condensation of steam at JMP. You do not agree, but was it some pressure at all? Parameters have values, that is why they are measurable.

It is no problem this FAKE theory incorrect, data can be erroneous but they ARE. Please tell how the parameters were faake and how this demonstrates zero excess heta as Jed says.

Wasthe plant actually working or was this simulated.

Excuse me but please put a limit on your negative anti-technical mis-creativity. WTF is fake data in this case?

peter

Lets take off our Planet Rossi shades and look at it through a different lens. What is the only pretty darn close to real data in this picture?

rb0 ,

Prove me wrong.

We already discussed how higher emissivity means colder, not hotter.

Yes, the rods and reactor are conflated. Just the way you like it.

ele - what strange questions you ask - do you have anger issues? Any problems dealing with reality of late?

Oh and one more thing - what a strange and familiar punctuation pattern you have!

Its the oddest coincidence and you're not going to believe it but your little idiosyncrasies almost Identically match the habits of someone else we've been tracking lately.

Quote from rb0

Paradigmoia, this phrase is completely FALSE.

At equal temperature if an object on the image (e.g. the dot ) appears brighter then another ( e.g. the rod ) is because has higher emissivity .

So if the dot appear brighter is because his emisivity is higher !

Also in your statement there is quite a confusion among words "reactor" and "rod" .

On my opinion you are clearly trying to diffuse false information in order to influence the trial.

I presume that this is against law.

Because this forum is moderated I presume that eventually also the moderators of the forum could be responsible.

Display More

I agree it does not sound right at all. rb0 it is not necessary to make silly threats, You perhaps see P and me in your own image (as documented on here), unable to accept correction. I'll await what P says because he may have meant this in some weird way I'm not understanding.

Careful Dewey, I can see smoke coming out of someones ears, may prove fatal. Even worst, the capslock may get stuck again.

THHuxleynew ,

It does sound counter-intuitive, and it does make a difference whether a 0.95 ε sticker (or whatever) is within or outside a user-selected measurement area (which causes the camera to re-calculate the temperature for that area if the emissivity is adjusted, and modify the display area accordingly).

The important thing is that the camera image default is ε=1.0 for every pixel until told otherwise (by selecting a specific measurement area)

Quote from Peter Gluck

OBVIOUS? OK, but then it was already obvious when the first set of these data was given to the beneficiary and accepted/paid.

That was different data, from a different test, using different methods. That was the Lugano test. You have seen that data. You can compare it to the data from the 1-year test. They are not at all alike. For example, the Lugano test does not show 0.0 bar pressure and the exact same flow rate for weeks -- a rate far too high for the pumps.

The Lugano test was flawed, but it was not an outrageous fraud the way the 1-year test was.

Quote from Peter Gluck

OMG, why has IH not consulted you in time?

They did consult with me in time. As I reported, they showed me a sample of the data. They showed it to many people during the 1-year test. All of us said it was fake. The pressure, flow rates and temperatures are impossible. It is astounding to me that you or anyone else thinks they might be real.