Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • The temperature reported is one of the few numbers that look like they were actually measured by something.


    Why would the PCE-830 only report daily Plant electrical consumption in 1000 Wh increments? (except inexplicably in seven instances, four consecutive times in November, and three in bunched together in May, when the ERV data shows 100 Wh increments).


    The water meter that only reports in 1000 kg increments is also sloppy. It could poor selection of instruments, but the meter generally comes with 100 L (kg) electric pulse configuration, and can be ordered with as low as 5 L increments. Ordering a meter that only reports 1000 kg increments on purpose seems very odd.

  • Jed this is the copy of the answer I gave you on Vortex:


    An excellent paper kind of old friend- I remember when it was first discussed on the blog of my friend Daniele Passerini years before the Trial and then once again in the Flowmeter scandal days when you, Jed. have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X)

    The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution- scending pipe is simple and fine.
    The main differences to the Doral plant case:
    a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that ascending pipe
    b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and effective flow.
    You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous in a way.
    However the Gioanola instructions are fine and have to be respected strictly being the same as those for the flowmeter used in the Plant.



    Now there are two cases possible in principle:
    A. Normal professional setup:
    RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors possible




    B. Setup according to Jed
    FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system.
    Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.
    BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper.
    Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?



    Peter

  • Someone reported seeing 1 or more condenser/radiator assemblies on the customer side. Could it be that these were utilized on the weekends, when the customer was not working, so that the ECat could continue uninterrupted? That's really no more conjecture than most of the ideas being thrown around.

  • Quote

    B. Setup according to Jed
    FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system.
    Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.
    BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper.
    Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?


    Peter: I have disagreed with all your other arguments : and I notice you have not answered. However, this is an argument from you that no-one here has yet addressed. In the case that the flowmeter is wrongly positioned, and therefore in a pipe half-full of water, you might expect readings to be erratic. That would make achieving the apparently constant flow shown in the data difficult.


    This argument has merit, in that it is not obviously wrong.


    But nor is it obviously right.

    • The given flowmeter readings are in 1000kg units! So there is no "jumping about" possible. And to achieve the miraculous constant flow noted all that is needed is to get within 500kg of the desired answer, once per day.
    • Rossi seems to have spent most of his time in the box, with the system controls, for reasons that remain obscure. So he could quite easily have been adjusting flowrate manually as needed to get the once per day checkpoint come out OK. (Someone will correct me if we have data on resolution better than one sample per day - I don't think so). And such correction does not even require Rossi to be deliberately spoofing the test. He can claim he is just keeping it running correctly.
    • The complex control system Rossi boasts about could easily be modified to keep flowrates constant. Trivial bang/bang negative feedback. In fact that would be a reasonable thing to do for anyone not thinking had about error mechanisms and such issues.

    Suppose however that the flowmeter was accurate. In that case there is still the possibility that either the inlet or out;let claimed temperatures are wrong. We know nothing of the outlet TC siting, and if flow there is unmixed with water + gas it could easily be totally wrong. We know nothing of inlet TC siting except that it is claimed to be in a tank. That is fine if the tank water is well mixed with the inlet water stream, and useless if not.


    You are arguing that this data leaves no room for the results to be, as Jed claims, null. So that this proposition is absurd. You have not achieved that. In fact there is lots of room, as well as a whole non-existent customer worth of circumstantial evidence and lies from Rossi.


    This is a slightly artificial conversation. Jed claims (and it seems pretty likely) to have additional information he is not allowed to disclose that would help elucidate these matters. We get bits of this from Jed's comments, but we cannot weigh them properly because of what he cannot disclose. it is a shame but entirely understandable. Jed must be sorely tempted to release more than he is allowed to, but I am confident he will not do that, nor should anyone ask him to do so. IHFB seems to think that Jed should behave with superhuman resolve and give no information in absence of complete disclosure. That is silly. It would no doubt be the politic thing to do. But Jed is no politician.


    Regards, THH

  • Paradigmnoia I think if we had intermittent flow from the customer side it could explain a lot of things. If thecondensate is collected there in a tank and released in the return pipe in bursts of let's say 100's or 1000's of liters. It's only speculation of course but would make sense If the meter is in fact well placed bellow the water line in a full section of the return pipe. This could explain the readings, the intermittent flow rate would in this case would be a good match for the flow meter too. The flow rates and flow velocity for a DN80 pipe would also then be consistent with each other too.


    What does a half full return pipe mean by the way? Continuous half full pipe along its length under continous flow? Or the top half of the downward sloping gravity return pipe being empty?

  • Puh. Dewey...

    The manipulated in history... history is repeating itself... the truth is hunting you down and moderation is on the way... They cannot be helped and may not even know it when the full truth opens up before their very eyes.

    If i wouldn't know better I would say you are trying to evangelize. You have a new messiah maybe we can look up to that brings us the (heat and) light? Only industrial heat and light of course

    Don't kid yourself Monty .... the evangelizer does not bring salvation to anyone! The only things that he constantly makes are:

    1) to launch anathemas against Rossi and say that his end is near;

    2) accuse anyone who thinks otherwise to him to be part of a mysterious planet;

    3) do not answer any questions. You can find him on these pages at any time by now.... yet accuses others of being paid because they spend few minutes of their lives here. One of its many paradoxes ......

  • 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.

    That's right, Peter. Why IH did not protest when the first report of Penon was received, if it was so obvious that the data were absurd?

    Why they complain to the judge that they lost so much money in Doral if they really had suspected a bluff from the start?

    It would have been enough to stop everything at the first suspicion, and would have saved a lot.

    I have already asked this questions several times, but the answer has been always the same: "You and all your alien friends from Planet Rossi will be sweep away by the violence of IH's revenge!!!! Ahahaha!!!!" ...... Obviously someone can't do better than this......

  • Dear THH,


    Let's use a professional, systematic approach- it helps me too.

    Make take the list of technical issues you disagree with me so we can discuss methodically.

    Possibly step by step, problem by problem.

    I am just in the middle of my news, papers hunting activity for my blog.

    Thanks,

    Peter

  • That's right, Peter. Why IH did not protest when the first report of Penon was received, if it was so obvious that the data were absurd?

    Why they complain to the judge that they lost so much money in Doral if they really had suspected a bluff from the start?

    It would have been enough to stop everything at the first suspicion, and would have saved a lot.

    I have already asked this questions several times, but the answer has been always the same: "You and all your alien friends from Planet Rossi will be sweep away by the violence of IH's revenge!!!! Ahahaha!!!!" ...... Obviously someone can't do better than this......

    Dear SSC,


    Courage amigo! I am a four time winner of black belt 8th Dan

    in verbal karate and will protect you.

    Just I will ot fight against genuine proofs if/when they will come.


    Peter

  • Peter:




    (1) 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. See post #1945 for my answer

    (2) you argue that the Rossi test setup (even as disclosed in the Penon diagram and test methodology, or the "report" now disclosed) is adequately instrumented to demonstrate excess heat

    (3) you argue that Rossi and/or Penon is technically trustworthy. I put as evidence against that Rossi's known severe errors, and the released (by Rossi) Penon report from 2013 (I think) in which he did not provide any information about the meters used to measure input voltage and current. That fails Testing 101. (We could follow these things up if you disagree. the technical details are fascinating).


    I'm happy to deal with (1) first.

  • With regard to the picture of the Doral plant which seems to show the lagged "Steam" pipe going over the wall and a possibly lagged "gravity return" pipe passing through the wall with a slight downward slope as we would expect into the container.


    The return pipe seems to be quite close to floor level of the container. I understand the water tank it feeds in to is in the container. Is this tank considered to be very shallow or below floor level? Otherwise how does it feed in to the water tank and remain "half empty"? I suppose it must either feed below the water line of the tank or go into a rising pipe and feed the tank from above the water line. In either case the floor level part of the water pipe and most the rising pipe if lower than the original source would be full of water. If the meter is on the return pipe this would be the right place for it.

  • Dear Peter,


    I'm afraid private discussion would be difficult because I value my anonymity, and therefore would disclose private details only to those I could trust to preserve it.

    No problem I will answer you tomorrow, now I compose my blog. Alternatively we could speak on Skype my address is

    <peteregoout> fixing in a diplomatic way when..

    peter

  • Peter G "However I thought i would be healthy to not contribute to this thread more"


    It does not seem that you do what you say.