Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Dr. Wong’s testimony will assist the jury by showing the inherent flaws of the Defendants’
expert reports, including, but not limited to, the failure to eliminate all possibilities for the
dissipation of heat.

https://thenewfire.files.wordp…l_exhibits_a_to_e_ocr.pdf

Jed,

Was Mizuno's P/D excess heat experiment from last September replicated by other team members at Mitsubishi?

Was the energy used to prep the experiment and heat the vacuum chamber subtracted from the excess heat gained?

Was there any noticed transmutation?

If so, what was it?

Mizuno isn't Rossi.

Quote from Eric Walker

I think that's a question, IHSupporter -- was there a computerized data collection system, e.g., in use by Penon? I've heard that there might be one, and it would only make sense to put one in place. It makes the story that much more surreal if there was no such system. But I guess that's a possibility, too.

From Penon "Plant Start Up" report (214-33 page 36):

Quote

3. Data recording
The measuring system collect the following data every ten seconds: power supply (Kw) [sic], water temperature in the inner tank (°C) steam temperature (°C) and steam pressure (bar) in the pipe going to the customer plant.
All data are recorded in a data logger.
Only the mass of water (m3) [sic], flowed through the plant, is recorded manually once in a day.

At the same page he writes that the Digital manometer (which was the "certified" one he provided) is a KELLER model LEO1, with a certificate issued on 03/16/2015.
(WTF, the "plant start up" was in Feb. 2015)

No idea how he managed to automatically record the data from this instrument...
http://www.keller-druck.com/home_e/paprod_e/leo1_e.asp
... which doesn't have any such interface.

I think in the depositions there are some statements that for the automatic recording the signals from other instruments (provided/installed by Rossi/Fabiani) where used.

What a farce.

I really would like to know how much did Penon get payed from IH for his efforts.

Quote from JedRothwell

Come to think of it, this makes no sense. This is also fake data. Because --

To reduce the total daily volume from 36,000 to 18,000, you would have to turn off half the reactors and half of the flow (down to 750 L/h) at exactly the time you write down the daily total. Then you would have to turn it on again 24 hours later. Penon says Rossi wrote down the data in the evening. Say it was at 7:30 p.m. He would have to write down "36,000" turn off half the reactors, tweak the flow rate to make it exactly half of what it was (18,000), and then turn on the next day at 7:30 p.m.

Note that the next day it is back to 36,000. You would have turn the reactors and pumps back on at 7:30 p.m. and get the flow right back up to 1,500 L/h.

In real life, suppose they turned off at 10:00 a.m., did some repairs or cleaning, and then restarted at 4:00 p.m. That would be 6 hours at half the flow. The daily total would be 31,500 which would show up as 31,000.

It is extremely unlikely he could shut down in the evening, tweak the flow to exactly half, and then wait until the same hour and minute the next day before turning on and tweaking the flow back up, again to an exact amount. Why would anyone bother to make the flow exactly 750 L/h anyway? Why not 810 or 680? Making it exactly 750 for no particular reason makes no sense.

Display More

What I would have done in the past with a production facility with lots of pumps and other equipment if needed to control very carefully time and flow, was to use timers. It takes just a few seconds to reconfigure one timer. The equipment are divided into segments controlled by one timer each, the timer controls the power sockets which then connects to the subsets of equipment. Setting up automation that way just comes so natural that it has never occurred to me anyone would do things any other way.

Downtime are often scheduled in industrial settings, now I would not say this was an industrial scale setting, however because it was all considered a test it's probable they were simulating an industrial situation.

However, if the reason for the subset downtime was other than scheduled maintenance and repair, it might be harder to explain the flow-rates.

Quote from Shane D.

In the first paragraph there is something of interest, as Rossi's lawyer seems to imply Bass "has already testified as to that fact", which is that there was a such a heat dissipation system installed by Rossi. Still very vague, and a bit misleading in the context of the next paragraph where it is clear Wong goes only on Rossisays

Does anyone remember if Bass backed up Rossi on this system in his deposition?

It seemed to me that Bass was talking about a "serpentine" inside the black insulated JMP container in the piece of his deposition that we can see.

There was supposed to be a bypass (butterfly [that Rossi made]) there to allow steam into or around the JMP container, and possibly the steam could be diverted to partial/mixed flow. It is hard to tell if this means it was possible to vent steam to an upstairs exchanger, or just back into the Plant. Strangely, the downstairs JMP "serpentine" itself was insulated.

Thanks Alan,

Yes, this is it- the worst is if the glass is chronically empty.

It is also a terrible illness "hemirheolcerebroarteritis (HRCA) syndrome"- the brain arterias are permanetly half empty

a disaster for the intellect.

It happens that tomorrow the Atlanta Weekly World will publish a great paper about HRCA- interesting but depressing to read it.

peter

We all know the cup is mostly empty. Those nuclei and electrons don't take up much space.

It seems that Murrays calculations of the conditions in the Doral facility was based on the assumption there was no heat exchanger. His simulation might not either have taken in consideration the possibility to dissipate heat by opening a door, and air conditioned working areas.

Anyone who has been discussing the Penon report data should take a look at this exhibit

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0194.16_Exhibit_16.pdf

We don't really know the origin of this data, but it appears to be output temperature, output pressure, and input temperature taken every 30 minutes for the whole of April 1, and parts of April 2 and April 3. So around 80+ data points in total for each column.

First, looking at pressure:

Pressure varies between only two distinct values: 0.9810 and 1.0028.

First, this seems to confirm that the "0" pressure in the Penon report was indeed relative pressure, but also that the transducer was giving absolute pressure.

It seems that Penon looked at the set of values for the day and summarized it as "0".

I think this answers the question of why we just have a column of zeros in the final report. Pressure did vary in the data , but it was close enough to 1 abs that Penon aggregated it to 0 rel. (assuming April 1 represents the rest of the data set).

Also, we have evidence that the pressure transducer wasn't totally kaput (as in reporting a value of 0V the entire time). It was actually reporting different values.

The whole exhibit 5 story about the pipes being too thin for a pressure of 1 atm to exists seems to not have been confirmed, and with larger pipes we can't exclude 1 atm to be a reasonable value.

Finally, why do we have a set of two discrete pressure values for the entire day? I have my idea but maybe someone who has actually used such a device can explain.

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

About the pressure transducer:

From the test plan: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…nt-test-plan-fabio-penon/ :

Probe for steam pressure measurement PX 309—100A5V

We can find some info about the pressure transducer here: http://www.omega.com/pressure/pdf/PX309.pdf

We can confirm that this specific model gives absolute pressure.

The device gives a 0 to 5V output, for a range of 0 to 100 psi.

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

Looking at output temperature

From the Penon report, minimum output temperature is 103.9 for the 3 days represented in exhibit 194.16 (April 1-3)

Same as with pressure, we have a set of discrete possible values in this dataset: 104.5046, 103.9364, and 105.0723. So a jump of around 0.568 between the 3 possible values.

I don't know why it is that way, maybe someone has an idea.

What it tells me, however, is why we don't see the minimum daily temperature vary between 103.9 and 103.8 and 104.0 etc. Going from 103.9 to the next lower value is a bigger jump, therefore it is less likely to happen.

As seen in the Penon report, the min output temperature does go to 104.5, 103.4 etcsome of the days. So the same discrete values separated by 0.5-0.6 (weirdly, we also have 103.6 at the beginning of the test period and values do vary on smaller increments later in the test)

I think looking at the detailed April 1 data lowers credence to the "Rossi made up the daily min temperature data" hypothesis. It might answer the question as to why the value stays at 103.9 for 15-30 days in a row near the beginning of the test.

--------

Still some digging to do, but we need more data. I find it unfortunate that apparently IH didn't get the whole dataset with each quarterly report. Would have saved them and us a lot of hassle trying to figure things out.

As an aside: it looks to me that so far IH has been flinging a lot of poo at the wall trying to see if something sticks. I think that rather than engaging consultants that enable them in those ideas (remember 100.1C, the DN40 pipes, etc), and instead of denigrating "planet Rossi", they should have instead hired someone from planet Rossi to try and debunk the IH arguments.

Someone like IHFB is I admit a bit biased, but when IH comes up with an unconvincing argument, he sees right through it and asks that more digging be done.

IH has some good reasons to be concerned about the 1MW e-cat test results. However, I think they should have put forward the stuff that is obviously wrong rather than the stuff they don't understand. More digging should have been done on the latter. Maybe that's what Dewey was doing on the forum. In that case, he could have been more friendly to "planet Rossi", who are just people who are also trying to find the truth, but just have a different way of thinking.

Quote from Shane D.

Ultarsure,

LOLs. From 233 also:

"Defendants hinge their argument on the fact that Dr. Wong did not see the heat exchanger and, therefore, does not know whether or not it existed. (Id.) Notably, Dr. Wong is not opining to the heat exchanger’s existence. Non-expert witnesses, including Dr. Rossi and Mr. James Bass have already testified as to that fact. Dr. Wong, on the other hand, is opining that if the heat exchanger existed as described (and as testified to), it could have dissipated enough heat to make the working conditions at the Doral Facility suitable.

Wong inspected the Doral Facility (unlike Mr. Smith); observed the ventilation—including large loading bay doors, two large ventilation fans, and the second floor heat exchanger area with three bays of windows accessible for ventilation; took measurements; and considered the testimony and information provided by Dr.

Rossi."

In the first paragraph there is something of interest, as Rossi's lawyer seems to imply Bass "has already testified as to that fact", which is that there was a such a heat dissipation system installed by Rossi. Still very vague, and a bit misleading in the context of the next paragraph where it is clear Wong goes only on Rossisays

Does anyone remember if Bass backed up Rossi on this system in his deposition?

Display More

Mr wong was the first that i read off that had knowledge of thermodinamics. I don't like it making fun off him. He didn't say nothing in favour of Rossi or IH, he just gave his opinion. 1MW could easy be dispurged from this building. It has nothing to do with what was going on at the test. My point is, just repeating that it's impossible to has 1MW in the building is as stupid for me as generating 1MW and then get rid of it. ps this could mean Rossi was fake or many more things.

To compare mr Wong to mr Smith just read the pacer document 233-04 - Exibit D.pdf

Quote from Peter Gluck

Jed, Penon says full, you know better- half full.

Yes. Anyone knows better. You can see from the photo that the reservoir cannot be airtight. Therefore it must be gravity return. Given the pipe size, even if the flow were as high as Rossi claims, the pipe would be mostly empty.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Rossi told all the time about F-meter at the bottom of u ergo full.

He lied. He often lies.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Do you have the piping diagram and the photo of the f-meter in its position?

As I said, the diagram was in Penon's report (document 197-03). Apparently you are unwilling to look at it. Here it is:

(Click on the image to see the full diagram, such as it is. The pretend customer site is to the right. The pipe with the "probe for steam pressure measure" goes into the customer site, and the pipe with the "flowmeter" comes out, as explained in the text.)

I do not have the photo, but Murray described it in the deposition. Do you think he committed perjury? I do not think Rossi denied what Murray said.

Quote from LFH Sam

What I would have done in the past with a production facility with lots of pumps and other equipment if needed to control very carefully time and flow, was to use timers.

There was no need to control it very carefully. The data shows that they did not, in fact, control it very carefully. The data shows that at times it was considerably lower than 36,000 L/day, such as 29,000 on 5/17, and 26,000 on 6/2.

Please do not hand wave about a hypothetical reason to control it carefully, or a hypothetical method of doing this, when their data shows they did not control it carefully.

Those numbers are fake. They just made them up, most days. Perhaps they did read numbers off the meter at times, but those numbers are bogus. The meter was wrong by about factor of four, for the reasons described by Murray.

Quote from LFH Sam

It seems that Murrays calculations of the conditions in the Doral facility was based on the assumption there was no heat exchanger.

How could there be no heat exchanger?!? The temperature drops from 100 down to 60 or 80 deg C (depending on which version of Rossi's data you believe). How can that happen without a heat exchanger (or radiator -- which is a type of heat exchanger).

What do you mean?