Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • IH Fanboy has observed the scarry Rothwellism here

    JedRothwell wrote:

    Observers told me the flow meter was off by about a factor of 4, because it was the wrong kind of flow meter and it was sitting in a half-empty pipe. (They probably measured the flow themselves, but I did not hear the details.)


    I nderstand that Jed MUST kill the ERV data and he must show certainty of NO EXCESS HEAT; for this he transforms steam in warm water, puts the flowmeter where it cannot work, and uses reverse and perverse logic and calculation for this ignoring that he is uninformed re. the Diagram of the plant. This is is self-assumed role, OK.

    But confirming the calculated flow with the testimony of imaginary observers is an unpardonable offense to the intelligence of the readers of LF- with a few exceptions. It illustrates the Romanian proverb Prostul nu-i prost destul daca nu-i si fudul" meaning that without arrogance you cannot be genuinely indeed deeply stupid. It is a provocation, mutilation of elementary logic and common sense.


    Jed, do you want us to believe that your friends Rhett Butler,

    Ashley Wilkes, and Charles Hamilton hve visited the Plant

    looked at the closed circuits and astutely observed the half-full pipes and also even more clair-voyantly that if/when the flwmeters show 1600kg/hr actually only 402.36 kg/hr are flowing?


    Should we envy you for having such genius informers?

    A bit of respect for the forumists, please- or alternatively show the e-mail from Rhett Butler, June 24, 2015 where he tells you about the real data as opposed to the fake ones

    Peter


    P.S. You have repeatedly told that you are not lying so I am really worried for you.

  • Perhaps they would. I would take it seriously and listen to what J.M. has to say in that situation. But there is overwhelming physical proof that there was no heat, so before they pay anything, they would have to conduct a real, independent test from scratch, and it would have to show irrefutable proof of excess heat. It would be insane for I.H. to pay $89 million just because someone from J.M. says something that might be construed as evidence in favor of the claim. Not when they have a mountain of experimental proof that the claim is fraud. Physical evidence outweighs testimony.


    Anyway, your scenario is so far-fetched I don't take it seriously. It is an interesting hypothetical, but it has no relevance to the real world. There is not the slightest chance J.M. or any other company produced anything in the factory. We know for a fact that the pretend company was a shell owned by Rossi and his lawyer, that had no income, no capital, and conducted no business. Rossi himself provided proof of that in the court papers. By accident, I suppose.

    I don't believe Rossi does anything by accident.

  • One thing you have to admire about Planet Rossi is that they never give up (que flesh wound, fight like a man, etc..) There is another great thing about that as well - it is the gift that keeps on giving, almost without exception.


    On a separate note, Peter may want to think a little harder about getting any deeper into this story. While I have no idea what he's talking about, he's clearly posting at the direction of Rossi and pointing to what may be confidential discovery. Makes you wonder about the "please make it stop" Planet Rossi post of Peter's as well.


    Rossi better have turned over ALL video by now or he has yet another torpedo heading his way.


    Oh and Peter - you're going to love the flowmeter surprise.

  • Dewey said:

    One thing you have to admire about Planet Rossi is that they never give up (que flesh wound, fight like a man, etc..) There is another great thing about that as well - it is the gift that keeps on giving, almost without exception


    On a separate note, Peter may want to think a little harder about getting any deeper into this story. While I have no idea what he's talking about, he's clearly posting at the direction of Rossi and pointing to what may be confidential discovery. Makes you wonder about the "please make it stop" Planet Rossi post of Peter's as well.


    Rossi better have turned over ALL video by now or he has yet another torpedo heading his way.


    Oh and Peter - you're going to love the flowmeter surprise


    Dear Dewey,


    First, te DEJAvu Enclave- you being its Duce, is also very stubborn, for example insisting heroically about half full pipes, 40mm steam pipe. Unfortunatelly what Jed has told about his informer friends is much worse.


    The main paragraph is in preachers style and writing/telling good preachers is not easy, my good friend Gigi Cosman is one of the best here and we have discussed a lot about good preaching.

    I still say Rossi Planet is a weak metaphor and unsmart. But you are free to tell about Rossi what you imagine you have to tell. And you still lack info about Andrea's kindergarten years.


    I waiting the flowmeter surprise- late surprise anyway- my guess it was a squirrel or a surikata driving it- but I am waiting Are there thermometer surprises as well?


    peter

  • Peter - We're getting to the bottom of a pretty substantial fraud case and the terms you use do not quite seem to fit. You are providing a very nice service to Planet Rossi though - just as others have been used in the past. Think about how well that has worked out for Mats if you need a recent example.

    Speaking of early years, did you know that Rossi broke an 80 year record by more than 20km in a 1970 twenty four hour foot race? Absolutely heroic and stunning - he must have been exhausted.


    But then again, we don't seem to know much about the early years of Jesus Christ either.


    There might just happen to be a thermometer surprise as well. See you in the funny pages.

  • Dear Dewey,


    I am focused on technology not on biographies. Except 6 letter bios c.v.'s in contests.. BTW Rossi has never asked me anything.

    Why you have not said anything during the test that you say now is fruadulent. If you do not suffer of recurrent amnesia perhaps you will remember who has sued whom.

    The arrogant assassination of the ERV core report smells of fraud, too. Invoking friends who measured the flow with something alternative to a flowmeter (spoons probably) is not smart and honest. As it was not measuring the diameter of a pipe with a screwdriver as your exiled from here- other apprentice- said

    Where are the surprises and how deadly they are- to whom?

    A cobra in the bathroom?


    As regarding the funny pages, I think this means you want see my necrolog/obituary- OK, be my guest I will take care to send it to you. But please think it over, after the verdict I acn convince Rossi that you was actually on his side, even if in your paradoxical, convoluted and subtlissimo way.

    Flowmeter surprise???

    peter

  • Peter - I only wish you the best Peter and have been trying to help you realize that you're helping attempt to bail water on a sinking ship.


    The only real data in the entire picture is from FPL. Rossi drained AND flushed the lines / tanks before the fluid mass in the system could be measured. Do you think there is video of that on the 24/7 security system? You don't do that if your intent is to prove that a system worked and you want collect an additional $89M dollars. What do you think he was thinking?


    By funny pages - I meant that lightheartedly as this is getting more comedic as it goes.


    There are 20 surprises coming in a truth tsunami.


  • I think Peter what you are saying here is 100% wrong. You seem to have lost the plot. If the data is Fake then nothing needs to be explained. Nor can any speculations be made because without (non-fake) data we do not have a clue what were temps etc.


    Perhaps you are asking, how could the claimed data be (sort of) real and Rossi's device not work?


    Very easily! you look at the headline COP=200 and reckon that this cannot be explained away. Let me lead you through why it can. I'm sure, in fact, that if you pay attention to what people have said here you already know this? but here goes:


    The key thing is the assumption of phase change for flow round the system. Specifically rossi's figures assume all water is vapourised, leave his reactor has 100% dry steam, returns as liquid. It is very easy indeed for such a system (without careful trapping etc) to have water flow so that 99% or more of all water circulates in liquid phase. There is absolutely no evidence there is significant phase change and significant evidence (103C for a high flow rate pumped system) that there is no phase change. Of course with 100% phase change, as Rossi and the ERV assume, the output temperature would never be near 100C even at atmospheric pressure. And the factory would get too hot. The evidence against Rossi's and the (clearly professionally incompetent and, it seems, in hiding) ERV assumption is cast iron. (Maybe Penon did not author or authorise the report - but in that case allowing it to be used without clear written refutation must surely at best be professional incompetence).


    If we (for one moment) accept Rossi's 1500kg/h that removes a total power of 1500*2257 kJ/h = 940kW from the calculations. We are down from 1MW to 60kW output. If 1% of the water is actually delivered as steam that goes up to 70kW. You get the idea.


    Next, let us examine the other component of the "heat delivered" equation. That comes from heating the water. It is (Tin-Tout)*1500*4kJ/hour/C = 1.7kW/C. So with no phase change, accepting 1500kg/h, we have an expected temperature rise from Rossi's 20kW input of about 13C.


    The figures we have (103C and and 60C) would superficially seem to indicate more than that. The problem is that neither figure represents mixed flow liquid temperature on the inlet vs outlet sides, which is what we would need. It is very easily for water to circulate going between 103C and 90C (stablised at 103C by small amts of phase change). it is also very easy for water to circulate between 60 and 73C with the outlet unmixed and the temperature measurement looking at a small amount of high temp steam.


    Or, the two temperature readings could both be correct, and the flowmeter could be spoofed as Jed suggests.


    Or, some combination of the three error mechanisms.


    Now, Peter, I have answered your question. Suppose you answer mine. What evidence do you have that Rossi's devices have ever generated any excess heat? I'm looking here for positive evidence from tests, not speculations and conspiracy theories.


    Regards, THH

  • It makes me wonder why he would flush the lines. Could there have been something like clear un-tinted antifreeze in the water to raise the boiling point or drop the specific heat? How do we know that it was actually water and that there was not "additions" or "fluid replacements" made on the customer's side? What was the total volume of the system?


    I hope that IH has sampled the system, perhaps there is still some residual fluid somewhere in the system (pumps).

  • It makes me wonder why he would flush the lines. Could there have been something like clear un-tinted antifreeze in the water to raise the boiling point or drop the specific heat? How do we know that it was actually water and that there was not "additions" or "fluid replacements" made on the customer's side? What was the total volume of the system?


    I hope that IH has sampled the system, perhaps there is still some residual fluid somewhere in the system (pumps).

    That is a good point. However I don't expect any such sophistication from Rossi. I expect the tricks with that system to be very very obvious, given any real data at all. Which is why Rossi would try to remove as much as possible.

  • OK, Dewey your proofs and surprises- if coming- will be welcome. Including the truth tsunami. Without proofs you can convince only those already convinced. Mass manipulation is not easy except with those scared.

    peter

  • I suppose that only applies if you use your real name.

    Really ? I think that nobody is really anonymous on Internet. There is always some traces.


    Prove me wrong.

    http://www.optris.com/thermal-…/Manual%20optris%20PI.pdf


    Read page 70 and look at the image. The bright dot is on a metal surface which have a lower emissivity.

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

    No. In that case no. Reference dot and metal surface are at same temperature.

    Your statement is false.


    What we agreed was that :

    In stationary condition (i.e. input power = output power, temperatures are fixed) and object with low emissivity must have a temperature higher than an object (with same shape) but with hi emissivity in order to emit the same power.


    rb0 it is not necessary to make silly threats

    No threats. Just plain observations.

  • If the metal and the dot are at the same temperature, but the high emissivity dot 'looks brighter' an IR camera correctly calibrated for the different emissivities of the twosurfaces will show the temperatures to be the same. It is a question of calibration,