Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]


  • Right: so is the system described in that article open or closed? Three guesses...


    Our GCH radiator system is closed. So are many steam systems. But not Rossi's.

    Well I think it would be little more like a seesaw balancing trick to get a flow with 1 atmospere at the point of measurement. It would not only require a drop in pressure at the 'customers' end, but also a slight positive pressure in the reactors. But hey, that's possible with a feedback system to maintain that perfect balance and no doubt an important clue as to the 'Rossi Effect'.... or not


    I just get bored with mentioning all this stuff: there are so many things that don't work in this Rossi system. One is this. To keep a temperature of boiling point (as is observed) you need both liquid and gas phases in equilibrium. That then shows Rossi's magnificent assumption of phase change is busted. You can have anything from 0.1% to 99.9% phase change and still buffer teh temperature. But 100% phase change, as Rossi and IHFB claim this 103C temperature implies, would mean no stabilisation and the temperature would be very highly variable. The phase change power (2250kJ/kg) is much higher than the gas spec heat capacity 2kJ/kgK


    Thus a 0.1% change in power output, or flow rate, would result in a 1C change in temperature if not buffered.


    We have here a magnificent (impossible) control system doing something that in any case is quite unnecessary. Also, Rossi has just happened to make the controlled temperature very close to boiling point, instead of at 150C that would clearly at the given pressure be gas phase. Why would that be? Does he not want the 89M?


    the whole thing is absurd and I guess I keep on posting here because the engineering lack of common sense of IHFB and a few others annoys me...

  • Well I think it would be little more like a seesaw balancing trick to get a flow with 1 atmospere at the point of measurement. It would not only require a drop in pressure at the 'customers' end, but also a slight positive pressure in the reactors. But hey, that's possible with a feedback system to maintain that perfect balance and no doubt an important clue as to the 'Rossi Effect'.... or not

    Remember that Penon did not claim that the pressure was 1 atmosphere but 0 bars of pressure - that is a "perfect vacuum" that never changed.

  • @TTH


    "But not Rossi's."


    Can you please share the site layout diagrams and photographs that you must have given that you seem to make hard claims about it? Oh, that's what I thought. You are going off of Jed-says.

    • Official Post

    This charming fantasy (1MW heat exchanger with no back-pressure) does not work in this case because the condensate return pipe (in this case) is run at atmospheric pressure. Anything less than one atmosphere would cause reverse flow of condensate and/or air to equalise pressures. This system is open and can be topped up from the external tank.


    I believe that there are such things as non-return valves. Just sayin'.

  • IHFB


    So were you given candies when young for being annoyingly obtuse?


    I'm sure you realise that it is not conceivable Rossi has a vaccum pump in his system (not described by the ERV = see below) purely with the purpose of making it look like his system does not work.


    Is it?


  • @THH


    That quote is about as obtuse as it gets, and you provided no attribution or source, nor who inserted the sics. What is clear, however, is that it says nothing about what is on the "customer" side, whether there are pumps, or not. But if you have a large industrial condenser, you most certainly will have a pump.

  • look at Penon's final report again.


    We don't have Penon's final report, at least not in its entirety. But what we do have of the ERV data says nothing of absolute vacuum. Contrast that with what Penon allegedly told the author of Exhibit 5 that the steam provided to JMP was at atmospheric pressure.


    "You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia)."

  • @THH


    I believe that there are such things as pumps. Just sayin'.

    Are you saying that there are pumps, pressure regulation and other control features on the customer's side and that Rossi would not allow access to parts of the machine and never gave IH full disclosure and examination rights that were required by the contract?

  • I'm old enough to have worked in a steam-powered factory. We had a boiler, an engine (very nice twin-cylinder compound marine engine) and a condenser. Condensate was pumped out of the latter, and back to the boiler. Very simple.

    but then the energy for the pumping was added to the fluid but not accounted for in the energy balance.

  • Sorry if anyone took my comments as anything serious, just light hearted musings on this crazy idea of 1MW wafting down a small pipe giving a reading of a perfect vacuum or maybe 1 atmosphere :)

    Now we have an extra pump, supersonic heat extraction through Rossi's toilet flue and carefully temperature adjusted water waste to dispose of the heat :)

  • We don't have Penon's final report, at least not in its entirety. But what we do have of the ERV data says nothing of absolute vacuum. Contrast that with what Penon allegedly told the author of Exhibit 5 that the steam provided to JMP was at atmospheric pressure.


    "You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia)."

    What, That is what Murray said not what Penon wrote after in the report. I thought you didn't believe Murray's views.

  • your example actually bolsters the feasibility of the ERV data.

    But what your are saying is the same as :

    "Make the pipe DN150 and say that the reports of the pressure is wrong and it was really 2 bar" and that REALLY makes the ERV sound good! People can say whatever they dream, but it does not make it correct or even likely.


    Why do you not ever say "IH reported the pipe size DN40 and the report data is 0. If that is true, then the
    ERV report is absolutely worthless and something is necessarily very wrong!" There is more reason to believe that statement ... Murray asked the questions and Penon nor Rossi ever responded. Then people start pulling "possibilities" out of the air just because they want the eCat to be real so badly!


    Again, you state you are neutral, but again, you only paint one side nefarious. With every new release of court documents, the hole is getting deeper for Rossi. Nothing has been building his case unless someone paints "but wait..... if one only does this and that.... and possibly measures here or there..." If all this is the case, Rossi could easily post data to put and end to the counter suit, but he does not.

    IH has asked for the actual test data 3 times and the court is now threatening to sanction Rossi. Why do you think Rossi is not turning over the data? Could it be that it proves the pipe DN40, the flow never changed, ..... that is is all fraud?


    hmmmm.... digging a little deeper....:/

  • What, That is what Murray said not what Penon wrote after in the report. I thought you didn't believe Murray's views.


    There is nothing about absolute vacuum--anywhere. You likely picked up on that canard from Jed. I think the author of Exhibit 5 was told certain things (e.g., the atmospheric temperature bit), and expressly claimed other things (e.g., the piping is DN40). It is not a matter of whether I believe the author of Exhibit 5--whatever was written in that exhibit was written. The DN40 piping is probably outright false.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.