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.
QuoteYou 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.
QuoteWhat 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.
QuoteWho 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.
QuoteI 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.
