Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • IHFB, I do not see that at all. I see Question 5 on page 3 for exhibit 5 where Murray asks Penion "According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on average 33,558 kg/day (1398 kg/h) and the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively. The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40.The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40.


    It is in his questions and he is saying that it was reported by Penon to be those values and he was asking for clarification.

  • @oldguy


    Based on basic rules of grammar, the words "was reported" do not modify the phrase "and the piping is DN40" even if you underline those two sections in an attempt to tie them together. It makes no grammatical sense.


    The words "was reported" only modifies the bit about steam pressure. If the author intended for the the words "was reported" to modify the bit about the piping, it would have been stated differently. Here are a couple of ways it could have been stated to have the meaning you want it to have:


    The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping was reported to be DN40.


    The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping to be DN40.


    But the author didn't state it in any such manner. The author specifically chose to separate the latter phrase with an "and" and then state in the present tense "the piping is DN40." There is no other interpretation that makes sense. And like I said, Abd agreed in his blog.



  • Rossi Explains His Lack of Knowledge of Steam Measurement
    Rossi Interview Part 2 (10:20)

    Krivit : And this instrument that Galantini used to measure the humidity? It looks at the steam that's coming out, and it measures --

    Rossi : It measures -- I do not know how it works, honestly. It is a probe made exactly to measure the steam, the water residual in the steam. There have been some polemics about the fact that for somebody the probe was not fit for the temperatures, but the probe is fit for the steam.

    ...................

    Rossi Denies That Levi Is Part of His Team
    Rossi Interview Part 3 (10:30)

    Krivit: How did Professor Levi become part of the team?

    Rossi: He is not part of the team. Professor Levi is not on our team. Professor Levi is a professor at the University of Bologna.


    [Comment by Krivit: Levi was a member of Rossi's
    "board," organized Rossi's Jan. 14, 2011, demonstration and press
    conference, wrote the press release, wrote a technical report for Rossi,
    conducted a sub-boiling experiment on Rossi's device, reported those
    results to Ny Teknik on behalf of Rossi, was present at five public demonstrations of Rossi's device and drew the schematic for Rossi.


    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Transcript-Excerpts.shtml

  • IHFB It makes not sense for Murray to be telling Penon what the system was at the end of a sentence referring to his reporting. and in a paragraph speaking of Penon's reporting and in the context of asking questions. It seems clear to me that his intent is to ask Penon about his reporting of the information and to clarify.


    You can talk about grammar but the first rule of grammar is to read a passage in content and try to understand the intention of the author.


    Even if you think of it as a statement of fact (which I do not agree to), often people will make a statement in the context of questions to see if they understood the item correctly hoping for either agreement or correction.


    It seem clear to me that Murray is asking about Penon's reporting and that is all.


    I do no understand your appeal to Abd at some other blog as though people read every blog on the net. That is not justifiable.

  • It is utterly astonishing to watch people argue for months over the question of whether a piece of apparatus produced a megawatt of power for an entire year and think the answer depends on arcane quibbles about pipe diameters and tiny temperature differences.

    Yes, it is astonishing. These people have no clue. They have obviously never seen a large boiler in operation, or measured a temperature with industrial equipment. As I and others pointed out countless times, if it really were producing 1 MW of heat, everyone in the building would be dead. Anyone who has seen a factory, a bakery, or a large commercial kitchen will know that it takes large ventilation equipment to keep these places reasonably cool. Even with giant fans, they are still quite hot.


    These are not just "tiny temperature differences." They are nonexistent. No machine of this size with this much fluid and this many heaters will produce a uniform temperature, unless the fluid is vigorously stirred. There is no indication it was. People here who argue that the difference between 101 deg C and 103 deg C show that Rossi has astounding pin-point control over the reaction have no clue. Those differences are meaningless.


    If the question was whether the machine is producing 5% or 10% excess heat, 10 kW in, 11 kW out, then you would need to pay close attention to things like pipe diameters and small temperature differences. However, the instruments used in this test could not measure such small differences. I doubt they could get within 30%. The flow meter was deliberately set up to give the wrong answer, and the pressure gauge was either broken or they lied about the numbers it showed.

  • The questions about the pipe diameters, temperatures, flowmeters, pressures, etc. are at the heart of the matter of whether the plant operated as claimed.

    No, they are not at the heart of anything. This is a delusion. It is physically impossible for the machine to produce 1 MW of heat. The people would be cooked, and the machine itself would explode. The "data" in Penon's spreadsheets is a pile of garbage. It is all lies and nonsense. Penon came in every few months and filled it his spreadsheets with made-up numbers that magically added up to 1 MW of steady heat, even on days when the machine was turned off. It is not possible the pressure was 0.0 bar, or that the flow rate and temperature were the same day after day.


    If you do not recognize this data is bullshit, you have no idea how industrial equipment works or what constitutes a scientific test.

  • Rossi Explains His Lack of Knowledge of Steam Measurement


    But we Italians don't pay Rossi, we pay the UoB professors. Let speak their spokeman:



    Video 1/5 - "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml-NElJ-Cf0"


    7:26 – Levi: There was a check of the steam make by a qualified chemist and so [K: His name? – L: Galantini - K: OK] and ... I presume that every ... When you do this kind of measurement, if there is someone that is expert in one field, in one type of measurement, I will let to do that measurement to him, so that I am sure of the result.


    ...
    9:28 – Krivit: Why you wanted to go in Janua ... December


    Levi: So, it's very simple. It is one of my duties. I'm researcher. I'm paid by public money. So I was knowing that this is something very important was going on, something very important was going on with also the name of the University of Bologna on it.



    Video 2/5 - "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld7Z1FHupZc"


    1:38 - Krivit: Before the January 14th test [???] you did the calculation of calorimetry [???]?


    Levi: Actually the work was done in group. We have written different reports, but the work was ... There was a cross check in our group on what we were writing.


    ...
    5:50 - Krivit: So, now has gone half an year since those tests. Since December, January and February tests have you found any major error for any major corrections?


    Levi: None, I have not, and not my colleagues, because we are now organizing our work as a team, and I think that it is quite important. We are continuously reviewing our work together, checking each other. And also there were these two professors from Sweden. In that time I was just a spectator, I mean I was there, but I have not done a measure.



    Video 5/5 - "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbDgeAz91VM"


    4:03 – Krivit: A final question. Is there anything else that you would like to say, that I haven't asked?


    Levi: Very simple. That I will not be alone that there will be two teams in the Bologna University. One will be the official team: me, prof. Villa, prof. Bonetti, prof. Loris Ferrari, prof. Campari and other scientists. And also we are organizing an internal peer review team. So the internal peer review team will not take part to the measures but will continuously review our work. OK?


    Krivit: Very good. Thank you so much.

    -------------------------------------


    Anyway the main question still remains: how many people in Italy, as well as in USA, were aware since the firsts days that the data of the January 2011 demo were deeply manipulated?


    Why they have continued to support the validity of the Ecat for years and years?

  • this more deeply that we have thought.

    I encourage some restraint on this! I have worked with profs before and believe me, they often are not expert at anything but applying for grants!

    That does not make them bad people nor complicit. Many in academia live in the world of theory and have only experience in testing for a very specific artifact, with very specific equipment. When it comes to cross disciplines, much of which would be needed in nailing down a questionable demonstrator such as Rossi, it could be very difficult and therefore, not surprising, that people get it wrong. Even IH seemed to initially at least, be open to the fact that Rossi had something and it sounds like it took significant testing to finalize the realization that the eCat did not work.


    I look at MFMP as an example. They have been open, had input from many, many people and still made some "announcements " that were either way premature or simply wrong. (I do not mean to include all MFMP members here, just using the umbrella acronym) And I really appreciate them and trust that they are above board! So I would not jump too quickly in possibly insinuating nefarious actions on some peripheral players!


    I appreciate your insights to the case and believe you have important sources. So, I encourage you to reconsider this thought as it may dampen the bigger and more important message some!


  • Fanboy,


    I disagree, the inane pipe dia, exhaust fan, bimetal sponges, breaker size etc, discussions are not at the heart of the matter.

    If every single one of these issues are answered positively, so they can no longer be argued, then the zealots will find something else that must be reviewed, anything to keep the hope alive that the Ecat does in fact work as stated, Rossi is not a con man, delusional quack, and above all the zealots were not wrong.


    The only thing that matters is still the only thing that ever mattered, does the Ecat produce Energy Out > Energy In.


    Do you believe it does?

  • @oldguy


    The author of Exhibit 5 had impeccable grammar. Whether that was by Murray's hand, or IH's lawyers, there is no other context that changes the meaning. They knew exactly how to express what they wanted to express, whether in question or statement form. And exhibit 5 states in unequivocal terms, that the piping is DN40.


    Remember, it wasn't me who initially made a big deal of this. Jed has been trumpeting exhibit 5 from the very day of its deposit onto the court docket. And if anyone even dare cross Jed and his advocacy of exhibit 5, you were now the enemy. Because exhibit 5 was an immaculate construction of all that was wrong with the plant. And the steam--forget it, if it even existed, 1MW of it would never flow through such a narrow pipe. You would be an utter imbecile to think otherwise.


    And you know what? On the pipe diameter issue, Jed is right! That is, if the piping is DN40, you would have to be an utter imbecile to think that it would be a properly fitted pipe for a 1MW plant. It would render the whole operation incompetent at best, and fraudulent at worst.


    And you can be as sure as shooting, that if we come to find out that the piping was not DN40 (which you are apparently petrified of), then yes, you will hear from me. Because, at least for me, it will point to yet another inconsistency from IH and their team.

  • As I and others pointed out countless times, if it really were producing 1 MW of heat, everyone in the building would be dead.

    Yes, if all the heat was dumped into the open air, everyone in the building would die. But nobody would setup such a test like that. IH is smarter than to allow their plant to be used to kill people. That is just stupid. You either dump excess heat down the drain or vent it through a chimney. Why this is so hard to fathom is beyond me.

    Quote

    Anyone who has seen a factory, a bakery, or a large commercial
    kitchen will know that it takes large ventilation equipment to keep
    these places reasonably cool. Even with giant fans, they are still quite
    hot.

    Yes, because the heat is being released into open air, because the cooks have to stand in place and cook the food. Factories with high heat processes use chimneys. You say there is no chimney. We have no proof of that. In fact, the pictures we have in fact show a chimney as has been pointed out several times by Alan and others.

    Quote

    These are not just "tiny temperature differences." They are nonexistent. No machine of this size with this much fluid and this many heaters will produce a uniform temperature, unless the fluid is vigorously stirred. There is no indication it was. People here who argue that the difference between 101 deg C and 103 deg C show that Rossi has astounding pin-point control over the reaction have no clue. Those differences are meaningless.

    In LENR circles, 100.1 is essentially equivalent with wet steam, and 103+ (as 103 was a minimum measured temperature) is evidence of dry steam. I suspect you and Dewey initially went with the 100.1 in an attempt to get a first bad impression out because first impressions matter. And it turns out, the value 100.1 doesn't even appear in the ERV data! You say Rossi told you that value. Whatever, it had NOTHING to do with the ERV data, the topic of the thread where the temperature discrepancy was being discussed!


    Quote

    If the question was whether the machine is producing 5% or 10% excess heat, 10 kW in, 11 kW out, then you would need to pay close attention to things like pipe diameters and small temperature differences. However, the instruments used in this test could not measure such small differences. I doubt they could get within 30%. The flow meter was deliberately set up to give the wrong answer, and the pressure gauge was either broken or they lied about the numbers it showed.

    You say the flowmeter was deliberately set up incorrectly. Maybe you are right on that. But so far we have no evidence other than Jed says.

  • Ascoli65 - you ask a darn good remaining question - I am working on how far back the USA "co-travelers" go. Who is doing the same in Italy?

    Perhaps some of the Bologna Profs are into this more deeply that we have thought.

    Yes, the conspiracy must be huge. A masterpiece of unbelievable proportions. The secret elite running the world are pulling all the strings. You folks are ridiculous.

  • You either dump excess heat down the drain or vent it through a chimney.

    It is not possible to dump it down the drain. The water supply to a commercial building is not large enough. The water has to be cooled to below 80 deg C or it will destroy the plumbing and the sewer. See the FL codes on this.


    There is no chimney in the building.

    Yes, because the heat is being released into open air, because the cooks have to stand in place and cook the food.

    No, the heat it is not released in the open air in a commercial kitchen. There are hoods over the stoves and ovens. The fans on the roofs above the hoods are roughly the size of a person. Each one can remove about 250 kW, so you would need 4 in this facility. There is not one.


    For a factory, you would need a 1 MW capacity outdoor cooling tower, roughly the size of two pickup trucks. There is no tower.


    Again, without the hoods and fans or the cooling tower, the heat would kill the occupants. That is not debatable.

    And it turns out, the value 100.1 doesn't even appear in the ERV data! You say Rossi told you that value.

    Yes, he did.

    You say the flowmeter was deliberately set up incorrectly. Maybe you are right on that. But so far we have no evidence other than Jed says.

    You have the evidence from Penon! Look at the numbers. They are impossible. You have the make and model of the meter. It is obviously the wrong kind. The specifications are clear about that. You have Exhibit 5 describing how the meter was operated in a half-empty pipe. You did not get any of this information from me. None of this is "Jed says." It is Rossi says.

  • Because we have next to no actual evidence from either party at this point.

    The data uploaded by Rossi means nothing to you? Or do you actually believe the pressure was 0.0 bar and the flow rate was exactly the same for days, even when Rossi said the machine was turned off? Do you seriously believe that nonsense?!?


    Also, the laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. You cannot heat a small space with 1 MW of heat with no ventilation and survive. That is a fact. You can deny, deny, deny it, but facts are facts and this is indisputable, irrefutable proof that Rossi is lying and that you are deluded. You are ignorant of the fundamentals of physics and common sense.


    And no, there was no invisible chimney.

  • The data uploaded by Rossi means nothing to you?

    The ERV data deposited in the court docket does mean something. Aside from the weirdness the latter half of November, the data has a certain interesting realness to it, as if there were a real, varying load, and with spikes in input power generally corresponding to FLP data. It doesn't immediately come across, to me, as fake data.

    Quote

    Or do you actually believe the pressure was 0.0 bar and the flow rate
    was exactly the same for days, even when Rossi said the machine was
    turned off? Do you seriously believe that nonsense?!?


    The thing is Jed, you immediately jump to conclusions without considering alternative possibilities. I had never observed that kind of behavior from you until you became intimately involved with IH. It is a shame. 0.0 bar.. what? We need more information. 1 atmosphere? With DN80 piping and a slight vacuum created by the heat exchanger, you all of the sudden plausibly have the pressure instrument showing 0.0 bar. Are you sticking with DN40 as your final answer?


    The flow rate was exactly the same for days probably because the granularity of measurement apparently was 1000 kg/h for this flow meter, and once you dial in the pumps, the variance is quite small, as has been pointed out numerous times here by different people. You refuse to consider these as explanations, but that doesn't mean that alternate possibilities don't exist.


    As to the even when "machine was turned off." What machine? Which one was turned off? The plant was composed of multiple conglomerations of e-cat reactors grouped into "tigers," with backups to spare. We have no idea what was actually going on!


    Quote

    Also, the laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. You cannot heat a small space with 1 MW of heat with no ventilation and survive. That is a fact. You can deny, deny, deny it, but facts are facts and this is indisputable, irrefutable proof that Rossi is lying and that you are deluded. You are ignorant of the fundamentals of physics and common sense.


    And no, there was no invisible chimney.

    But there was ventilation. And there was a chimney! This has been pointed out by Alan with photographic proof. The chimney is not sized to vacate ALL of the 1MW heat. But it could a large portion of it, and the rest could be used to heat vats of water, then mixed with cold water on its way down the drain, keeping it under the regulated heat levels. This too has been shown by others to be possible, including your friend Abd! You can deny, deny, deny, but there are plausible alternate explanations for nearly every puzzle.