Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Dear Sigmoidal,

I regret mking you ngry, but tell me what do YOU think about ths story with visitors in the Plant and finding that terrible thing about the flowmeter. Finding out- can you explain

how? In my very first working day Ju;ly 31 1959 at the artificial fibres factotry I ahave worked with two flowmeter one for air and the other for nitrogen and the iar f exploded just whe i was at the other. I had worked many times with f-meters and I am not able to see how can it e spoofed this way and if it is in a half full pipe how gives it regular constant readings.

What is too much is too much.

However I thought i would be healthy to not contribute to this thread more

peter

Water meter over-measuring example:

https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…ositioning-an-instrument/

If we consider the lumps with valleys mostly on Sundays in the FPL data to be loads that can be turned on and off, the resulting line (which includes the ~ 15 kWh per day empty warehouse amount) should be the amount of constant load as measured by FPL (New blue line).

Quote

In my very first working day Ju;ly 31 1959 at the artificial fibres factory I ahave worked with two flowmeter one for air and the other for nitrogen and the iar f exploded just whe i was at the other. I had worked many times with f-meters and I am not able to see how can it e spoofed this way and if it is in a half full pipe how gives it regular constant readings.

What is too much is too much.

Peter,

I don't think anyone is getting angry at your claim that Jed is lying. It is just we strongly don't agree with you. And we strongly feel that calling people liars without clear evidence is inflammatory and unhelpful.

In this case my reading is that Jed claims he has clear evidence that the Flowmeter was in the wrong place, and (less clear how definite the evidence) that it was over-reading by approx 4 which neatly fits the data. I have no reason to think Jed is untruthful. WRT the placement he might have made a mistake, though that is unlikely so I'm inclined to think it was misplaced. With a misplaced FM of impellor type in an open system as here it will over-read, as others have stated they know (and it is general knowledge, and obvious). Over-reading by 4 is certainly very possible. I'm not quite sure how strong was Jed's claim about this, nor exactly what evidence he based it on (sorry, I can't remember).

But whether right or wrong about these matters, there is no way he is likely to be lying. Calling him a liar is both unevidenced and very impolite.

Perhaps it would help if I also say that Jed may not be right. He has made quite a number of statements, many of which I judge to be correct. A few I think are likely wrong. But I don't know! So it is my (uncertain) judgement against his. Jed honestly gives his views here - in my judgement. In fact he is one of the more transparently honest posters here, which is why IHFB goes after him because he does not try to be political in what he says, or give the careful answer that will best convince people. I know, out of him and IHFB on this matter, which I prefer.

Quote from Peter Gluck

I regret mking you ngry, but tell me what do YOU think about ths story with visitors in the Plant and finding that terrible thing about the flowmeter. Finding out- can you explain

how? In my very first working day Ju;ly 31 1959 at the artificial fibres factotry I ahave worked with two flowmeter one for air and the other for nitrogen and the iar f exploded just whe i was at the other. I had worked many times with f-meters and I am not able to see how can it e spoofed this way and if it is in a half full pipe how gives it regular constant readings.

What is too much is too much.

However I thought i would be healthy to not contribute to this thread more

peter

No apology to me is necessary, as you do not make me angry. Sad, perhaps, as I know what it feels like (to me) when I step over the line.

I do not use flow meters in my work, so I really have no personal knowledge or opinion about them.

I hope that you might consider posting whenever you feel you have something to contribute to the discussions. I would certainly appreciate that.

Best regards,

sigmoidal

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Water meter over-measuring example:

https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…ositioning-an-instrument/

This is an excellent post!

Peter Gluck, if you are able, please take the time to visit the link above posted by Paradigmnoia. I would welcome your opinion as to whether the measurement error observed may have relevance to Rossi's setup.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The Bass, JMP, and Johnson Answer is now in the Docket.

As well as doc. 142, a new order.

Quote from THHuxleynew

In fact he is one of the more transparently honest posters here, which is why IHFB goes after him because he does not try to be political in what he says, or give the careful answer that will best convince people. I know, out of him and IHFB on this matter, which I prefer.

With all due respect, that is not why IHFB "goes after" Jed. IHFB is here to get to the truth. If that means calling people out on their inconsistent statements, then so be it. I try to do so without insults, and expect the same from others. Dewey has called me any number of things for exposing and highlighting such inconsistencies. But I try not to reciprocate, aside from suggesting he comes across as freaky at times (which he does).

Quote from maryyugo

Jed wrote:

Jed Rothwell wrote:

I do not know about it. Was it described in this paper, which is in Portuguese for some reason?

This answer is one of the most incredible (and one of the more revealing) statement I ever read. Rothwell was answering to this question posed by MrSelfSustain: "What do you think about the 18 hour test that Dr. Levi conducted back in 2011."

It was very clear which test MMS was referring to. If you ask Google about "18 hour test" + "Levi" + "2011", you get dozens of links to the Ecat test held on February 10-11, 2011.

But, very surprisingly, the LENR librarian, who takes care of thousands of carefully catalogued documents, found instead a Portuguese translation of the report by Kullander and Essen, referred to a different test held on March 29, 2011. Isn't it funny?

Quote

Best guess as to why it was not valid is that Rossi knowingly and calculatedly placed the output temperature thermocouple close to the huge electrical heaters the device had.

No, sorry, the best guess is the simplest:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=25977#post25977

Quote

As to how long Rossi fooled people, he didn't fool me at all.

If you think the he was the one who fooled so many people, you also have been fooled! Just in a different way.

Quote from Eric Walker

New documents on the Docket.

As well as doc. 142, a new order.

Document 141 - Answers to IH's Fourth Amendment by Third Parties Johnson and Bass (note that Fabiani has separate legal representation, and we'll get to this in Document 142).

This document is mostly full of denials or 'do not knows'. There are a lot of 'do not knows' because many of IH's allegations are directed to Rossi, so these are not relevant to the Third Parties. So there isn't much to learn from this section. The Answer concludes with their Affirmative Defenses, which I have summarized below:

THIRD PARTY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (with my brief summary following in Italics)

No. 1: Voluntary Payment - IH voluntarily and knowingly paid Third Parties, so they can't expect to get their money back.

No. 2: Waiver and Laches - IH knew what was going on all the time in FL and did nothing to object or stop the GPT.

No. 3: Unclean Hands - IH devised a scheme to not pay, which involved shipping E-Cat to FL, among other things.

No. 4: Estoppel - The Term Sheet was agreed to by IH, so they can't recoup damages.

No. 5: Acquiescence and Ratification - IH planned to challenge the payment before they signed the Term Sheet

No. 6: Assumption of Risk - IH knew when they signed the Term Sheet that there were risks of failure, so they can't sue for damages.

No. 7: Setoff - IH does not allege any scheme by Third Parties prior to Term Sheet, so they can't recoup damages prior to the E-Cat Doral delivery.

The first three answers mirror Rossi's first three answers. 2 - 5 will require evidence that the Term Sheet was understood by IH to be a GPT. 6 and 7 are more defensive, put forth to limit damages should IH prevail.

Document 142 - Court order

The Court finds that Fabiani did not answer to IH's fourth amendment, and has granted an extension of 6 days to respond (by 2017-02-21). The Court states that failure to file an answer by then may result in sanctions and loss of rights.

Fabiani was supposed to respond by yesterday. It's possible that Fabiani has stopped paying his lawyer, since IH has put him 'back on the hook' with the Fourth Amendeded Answer, and Fabiani is currently in Russia, and he cannot be extradited to the US (unless Trump and Putin work something out) Fabiani may have decided this is his least expensive option.

Time will tell...

Alainco,

Unfortunately, your answer is exactly what I expected you, (like most), to say.

I asked you for a simple 1 syllable answer, yes or no, and you gave me the same "flee, avoid, evade, duck, dodge and hide response everyone at ECW gives.

Andrea Rossi's Ecat does not produce more energy out than energy in, it never has,

Just say it, it's quite liberating, you'll feel better, you really will.

I just read Abd's latest chapter, and was reminded that both Fabiani and Penon agree with the input supply, in apparent local opposition to the FPL supply.

(Fabiani's data trace is 'under' the FPL trace, we are to assume, when we cannot see it.)

Quote from Dewey Weaver

StephenC - what convinced you to go with DN80 in today's ponderance?

I think I said it was DN80 (80 mm), based on the specifications for the flow meter. The meter is model MWN130-80-NC, where "80" is the diameter. I guess you could have a 40 mm pipe leading up to the meter, a collar expanding the pipe, and then another one narrowing it.

Quote from Ascoli65

But, very surprisingly, the LENR librarian, who takes care of thousands of carefully catalogued documents, found instead a Portuguese translation of the report by Kullander and Essen, referred to a different test held on March 29, 2011. Isn't it funny?

No, it a trivial matter. It is momentary confusion, like when you owe $15, you accidentally hand the cashier a $10 bill instead of a $20, and you ask for change. If you find that "funny" you are easily amused.

You people make mountains out of molehills, like making a huge fuss about the difference between 100.1 degrees and 103 degrees. In reality, any machine of this size will have fluid over a broader range of temperatures than this. Two or 3 degrees are meaningless.

Peter G - "have worked with two flowmeter one for air and the other for nitrogen"

The problem with that, is gas flow meters do not have the half filled failure mode. If you were truly knowledgeable you would not try to compare the failure mode of a water/air mix in a water flow meter with that of air or nitrogen.

Try to understand before you attack

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Water meter over-measuring example:

https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…ositioning-an-instrument/

Yes, this is exactly what I have been describing. Notice how the problem can be fixed with the raised pipe at the end. You can also make a U with the flow meter positioned at the bottom of the U. As far as I know, Rossi did not have this kind of plumbing.

I added a comment to this article in June.

ADD: The instructions for the meter are here:

https://gsvit.files.wordpress.…tori-unico-e-multiplo.pdf

Concluding sentence:

N.B. Per mantenere il buon funzionamento dei componenti del contatore, si raccomanda di assicurarsi che il contatore sia sempre pieno d'acqua (ad eccezione di brevi periodi dovuti a manutenzione).

Google translate:

N.B. To maintain the proper functioning of the meter components, it is recommended make sure that the counter is always full of water (except for short periods due to maintenance).

Again, that is what I have talked about. Peter Gluck is convinced there is no such thing as a half-empty pipe. What does he think happens when water flows slowly in one section of a pipe, and swiftly in another section?

Quote from JedRothwell

You people make mountains out of molehills, like making a huge fuss about the difference between 100.1 degrees and 103 degrees. In reality, any machine of this size will have fluid over a broader range of temperatures than this. Two or 3 degrees are meaningless.

I think you might be misunderstanding something. The reason that the 101.1 degree versus 103 degree discrepancy became the issue that it did, was that you and Dewey were stating one thing (101.1), while Rossi was publicly disputing the both of you. That controversy was protracted over a number of days. Neither you nor Dewey retracted it until significant questions and pressure were brought to bear by LENR Calender, me, and others. It is in fact what brought me into active participation here.

When you say that two or three degrees are meaningless, it entirely misses the point that there was a public dispute as to what the measured value was, and in the end, Rossi was right. And then, come to find out, the 103 degree value that you retreated to, turned out to be a minimum measured value.

Quote from IH Fanboy

I think you might be misunderstanding something. The reason that the 101.1 degree versus 103 degree discrepancy became the issue that it did, was that you and Dewey were stating one thing (101.1), while Rossi was publicly disputing the both of you.

No, Rossi himself gave me that number. He gave out lots of numbers, including the pressure of 0.0 bar.

Quote from IH Fanboy

That controversy was protracted over a number of days. Neither you nor Dewey retracted it until significant questions and pressure were brought to bear by LENR Calender, me, and others. It is in fact what brought me into active participation here.

No, it wasn't protracted. I looked at the sample of data (which you have now seen) and saw that Rossi claimed 103 more often than 101. So I reported that. But the difference is meaningless. 2 deg C is within the margin of error for instruments of this type. More to the point, the actual variation in fluid temperature will probably be this big or bigger, depending on mixing, the different temperatures of different reactors, and various other factors.

Reporting the temperature to a tenth of a degree is preposterous. That's like reporting your body temperature to the nearest 0.001 deg C. On that scale, every part of your body is at a different temperature, and every time you breathe or move the temperature will fluctuate. Trying to pin it down is like trying to measure the exact length of the coast of England. (That could be a billion kilometers -- see Mandelbrot's famous paper on fractals.)

Quote from IH Fanboy

When you say that two or three degrees are meaningless, it entirely misses the point that there was a public dispute as to what the measured value was

This is not a "public dispute." It is an idiotic assertion made by people who have no idea how thermometers work, or what a temperature is. Different streamlines in the fluid were probably at many different temperatures, probably ranging from 98 to 104 or so, depending on the back pressure from the radiator. If you move the thermocouple around you will get different temperatures. There is no exact answer. The temperature is not "one thing" that you can pin down to 1 or 2 deg C.

@Jed

Rossi scribbled the 100.1 value on a whiteboard in a video with Focardi from years prior. Are you saying that he gave you that number at the time the measured value was being publicly disputed between Dewey and Rossi? Because that would be preposterous. I don't think anybody here would believe that. The scribbled value had absolutely nothing to do with the very public dispute about what the measured temperature values were for the 1 MW plant.

You are attempting to revise history and minimize the fact that either Dewey, you, or both of you, appeared to lead others to think one thing about what the measured value was, when in reality, it was something different. And the value of 100.1 in the LENR space had long been associated with wet steam.

Now, you later said that you had forgotten, and that it was 103. But it sure felt like pulling teeth to get you to that point. After admiring your dedication and work for many years, it was the first time that my respect for you took a notch down. The misdirection on the "small radiator and fan only" in the customer space took it down a notch further. I'm withholding judgment on your voracious stance on Exhibit 5, but I have a funny feeling that it might eventually notch it down even more.

It really is too bad. It never had to be like this.