Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • I find myself sort of in the middle over this matter. Although I'm clear about Rossi, the matter of how to evaluate all this evidence is logically separate from that.


    You are correct, all of the "data" has been compromised, so the last 6+ years boil down to this:

    Do you believe that Andrea Rossi has developed a product, (Ecat), that produces Energy Out > Energy In.

    So first: I agree, Rossi has been noted many times to mislead and a few times (known) to overtly lie. Therefore data (as this) where there is no clear independence in its generation is compromised. In this case neither the setup, nor the nominal report writer, nor the authentication of the report we now have by the nominal report writer, is independent of Rossi. So: compromised data.

    But, nevertheless, it is interesting to chase down lacunae in the data and to try to determine the truth. Just because the data is compromised does not mean it is overtly incorrect: though obviously it does not preclude that. Perhaps as pro-IH PR all this interest in the data is bad news. But I'm not very PR oriented, and myself much more interested in the truth.


    What do you think why the IH supporters here do not want the diagram shown as they do not wanted the ERV report shown? Why they like info-chaos?

    I have no idea whether IH supporters here want the piping diagram shown. I'd imagine, if you mean Jed who I expect is the only one who might possibly have access to it, that he is morally and/or legally obliged to treat any such information as confidential. Reason enough for an honourable person. Perhaps you ask: why does IH not allow all data it has relating to the test to be disclosed now? Well, my guess is that they are doing what their lawyers tell them is the best thing to win their case. They are so duty bound. And no sensible person is going to blurt out in public all the details of their case against another before they have to do so. From the outside, their case seems pretty strong. But law courts are funny things, and a lot of money is being demanded by Rossi. Therefore you do absolutely everything to make sure that your case is as strong as possible. Don't you?

    There are a few points here:

    • IH may well not mind too much if this piping diagram gets published, I don't know.
    • How do we know that the actual position of the flowmeter on a piping diagram corresponds to where it now is? You'd need the real diagram derived from the equipment which I hope is in a locked container and available as evidence. Does anyone know whether that is the case?
    • Whether IH have this piping diagram or not, Rossi presumably knows the pipe layout. If it proves him one of the angels (or helps to do that) why does he not publish it? There would in that case be less of a legal imperative to "keep powder dry".
    • If the real pump position is good, and the flowmeter good (contrary to what Jed says - and he might be mistaken but in my judgement not in a million ears would he deceive) my other two points remain in play. The compromised data taken at face value does not prove Rossi's contention.


    Who will put a flowmeter above te reservoir, its place is down under after the pump.

    This sort of argument based on psychology is not strong. you notice that above I'm simply pointing out that IH could reasonably do a given thing - I'm not saying that psychological insight tells me they could not have done anything else!

    But, to speculate as you encourage:

    • Someone who is incompetent in the relevant area. Rossi has provable track record in this regard, where Mats caught him mismeasuring his demo by a factor of 2 or 3 on input to give an artificial X2 or X3 uplift in the resulting COP which actually measured 1 when proper (true RMS) meters were used. So in this documented case - an impossible invention - Rossi is either technically out of his depth, not knowing this, or deliberately faking a positive test.
    • Someone who just does not care about technical accuracy, and reckons anything that gives a good result is fair game. That is not quite the same as overt dishonesty, and fits what we know of Rossi's character where he is more concerned with appearances than reality. (The letter to IH about why this test would be better than a test on IH premisses).
    • Somone who deliberately, badly, wanted this test to give a positive result, thinking they would be $89M richer as consequence, and was unscrupulous about how the positive result was achieved.

    Since the ERV seems to be out of it now we have no evidence from him that Rossi did not control this layout.

    Of course the test result would be positive regardless of this X4 issue. The incorrect (based on current information) assumption of phase change is enough to give a strongly positive result. But Rossi has not shown himself to be entiely rational in this whole matter, and I'm reluctant therefore to try to limit what he might do from arguments about what a rational person would do.


    I do not want/wait the smallest reward from Rossi but I do not like when engineering is humiliated by people who discoveed bad things about Rossi and the plant only when Rossi asked for his money on the basis of a valid contract.

    I agree, but don't think it applies in this case.

    • We know that IH were concerned about the test long before Rossi asked for his money
    • We know that at the start of the test, Rossi was not claiming to IH that it was the GPT, to which money attaches. he had another reason for arguing it would be good to run. So IH's chnage in stance could be related to Rossi's suddenly chnaging the rules of the game
    • We can imagine that maybe IH full well knew Rossi might claim this was the GPT, but reckoned either it would work, in which case they'd gladly pay up, or it would fail, in which case Rossi would be an idiot to sue them. The fact that Rossi has been an idiot is no argument he has a strong case.
    • We can surely see that IH would have no wish to air doubts in the open on blogs etc unless they actually had to. It is just bad for everyone, and not what business partners do unless they have to. IH has its reputation (as a sound business partner) to protect.
  • PeterMetz ,

    I had to add an additional day to the very beginning of the ERV data file (a day 0) in order to get the ERV kWh trace to match the one on the IH Exhibit 129-01, which bumped my low kWh days to Saturday.

    (I had to correct my x axis to include the added new first day).

    Did you test that with your data? (Just so we are all on the same page with our data files).

    There is something screwy there anyways, since Fabiani's data is a day off, also.

  • You have no personal knowledge. You didn't actually see the half empty gravity-fed pipe in which the wrong kind of flow meter was installed, did you? You have seen no photographic evidence of this, have you?

    How do you know all of this? Who told you what I know, and what I have seen?

    I have made it quite clear on many occasions that I have some information which I have agreed not to reveal unless Rossi or I.H. first reveals it.

  • Well I did use Malcom Lear's tabulated data because it was a better fit than mine (see FinalReportV14.xls) for the FPL data. I did NOT adjust days. Day 1 for the ERV data was 2/24/15 (2/23/15 10:30PM - 2/24/15 10:30PM) from the ERV data tables for me from Malcom Lear's tables. Day 0 in the graph for FPL data got mapped to Day 1 in the spreadsheet I believe.

    I'll look into shifting the FPL data but I need to understand this a little better. The ERV data unequivocally starts with Day 1 as 2/24/15. Which day do you think Malcom Lear's FPL data starts?


  • IHFB - that's right out of page one in the Planet Rossi Moon Scouts book.

    I've got it right here - Always believe the overlord, who never has to provide evidence, calibrated or otherwise, and always doubt everyone else.

    This is followed by: If you can't doubt 'em, trash 'em.

    And for the record - ain't no bluffing going on around here Willis.

  • @Jed,

    You have waffled over time between "I have a secret" and "you now know everything I know." So, not sure how to reconcile that. I will tell you this: I think you generally strive to be honest, according to your perceived understanding of the situation. I think I've said that to you before. At the same time, I think there is a possibility that you are being misled. The "small radiator, fan, and nothing else in the customer space" episode is one such example. The exhibit 5 is likely to prove out another episode. You best be a little more skeptical and let's see where the evidence leads us. As I've said before, if there was a single DN40 steam exit pipe from the reactor, then I will mark up Rossi and his team as entirely incompetent. But let's see the evidence for it first.

  • Peter Metz ,

    I did my own FPL conversion, and haven't opened Malcolm's V14 to look at it yet.

    The ERV start day, I think, is undisputed, and is probably the only good metric for deciding the days of the week relative to all of the data.

    The IH FPL data starts even before the "extra day" indicated on the IH 129-01 Exhibit, based on the angle of the line entering from the LH margin.

    It is possible that IH could have accidentally shifted something by a day, also. They have the original data for FPL and Fabiani's data, so I can only guess that they have plotted it correctly.

    Fabiani's kWh input log "falls behind" enough at the first not-recorded day to get into sync (mostly) with the ERV data (or maybe the ERV data speeds up to catch up with Fabiani's data).

  • Malcom Lear's data I believe was reverse engineered from the FPL data graph.

    The first four values for FPL KWh/d are:

    2/24/15 373
    2/25/15 405
    2/26/15 430
    2/27/15 528

    What are your values for these dates? There's enough variability here that I can sync up your dates with Malcom's.


  • Peter, feel free to use and/or adjust anything in that speadsheet and post with your own filename. I think Paradigmnoia is correct and Fabiani's measurement lags for a while and maybe slightly different values as well, suggesting the shifts were not whole days.

  • Peter Metz ,

    I just had a look, and Malcolm's data looks pretty good, and has skipped the extra first day, so it should map correctly to the ERV data.

    My first 4 ERV days of FPL kWh values are:


    with a 483 occurring on the additional first day (that Malcolm did not add).

    So I will look closer and see why my weekdays don't seem to behave vs kWh dips. The weekdays do match up to the dates, so I will double-check my X axis for any funny business.

  • Peter, feel free to use and/or adjust anything in that speadsheet and post with your own filename. I think Paradigmnoia is correct and Fabiani's measurement lags for a while and maybe slightly different values as well, suggesting the shifts were not whole days.

    I'll have to look at it later. When I was doing it I only looked at the FPL data and assumed that Day 0 on the graph <-> Day 1 on the ERV tables. I'll cross check this tonight.

  • What are the dates for those values? It sounds like they are the same (2/24-2/27).