Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • If Rossi doesn't use standard calorimetry with the Quark X demo, does he get a 'pass' because he answered on April Fool's Day? :)

  • It probably was correct. It just meant there could not be as much steam as Penon claimed, but that is obvious for many other reasons. Penon and Rossi never responded to Exhibit 5, so I assume everything in it is correct. If they had answers, they would have given them.

    Exhibit 5 was addressed to Penon, not Penon and Rossi. Penon claims that he has answered those questions orally when Murray was in Doral.

  • A reason I can't give, but why is every pacer document a scan of a paper and why does every patent look like it's typed on an old typewriter?

    I guess some profesions didn't enter the digital age yet.

    Regarding rs-232. If you look at the picture from the 1MW shelter you see at the left and right a lot of ethernet kabel connected to 2 switches.

    The details is not good enough but there are at least 40-70 utp cables. Best quess is they go the the flowpumps.

    And if you look at the specs of the flow pumps you notice they can't be controlled via utp, they are just for getting data from it.

    So there must be a lot of raw data because you don't just trow data away you use it. The controles are plc from what i could see and you use an maistro (computer) to control your plc instruments with the feedback of the audience (flow pumps). That data is also saved.

    So there must be lots of raw data, even if I'm wrong about the conection to the flowmeter. There is still a network of connected devices, all spitting even more data because other devices are connected behind it.

    For me, if Rossi can't show that data I don't believe it anymore. JMC was a polical setup from the beginning and as far as I can see from looking through the internet screen IH went along with it just to see how far it went.

    It's all a disgrace from all sides. Hell I could even top Siffekoll by saying Rossi and IH worked together to damage LENR.

    Time to enjoy the weekend......

    Edit: In a funny way i must thank Rossi. From getting really annoyed to petroldragon it went to pendragon the song Masters of illusion. Its almost black humor and I'm still from planet Rossi as Dewey calls it but opening this drawer in my partial closed mind is worth 7 years reading. I'm off ling again good memories. ;)

  • Yes but remember that Rossi did not use the plumbing set up by Murray and even threw out the tank. There is no reason to believe what size pipe was used in Florida. That is why the spoliation issue is important. If Rossi threw away the pipes than there is no way to prove what size was actually used and the burden of proof is on Rossi to come up with something that shows the pipe size or the court will have to accept the adverse view.

    If the steam-pipes were all shipped to Miami along with the other (at some later point despoiled) piping they should have been the correct size for the job. Some-one in NC (Murray?) would have done the sums and ordered them.

    I do not have the link at the moment, but read West's deposition. He clearly states there was a plan in place for the piping. When Rossi stated that he was in charge in Doral he scrapped the plans. I do not remember which, but either in West's deposition or in Dameron's, Dameron was asked about what Rossi put up and he complained that the exit pipe was too small.

    So yes Alan, there was a plan and Dameron drew it up. I have not seen it submitted as evidence in the docket though. But surely it was recorded on paper somehow. West made it quite clear that it was no small incident with Dameron that Rossi scrapped the IH/Dameron piping plan. It has been submitted as evidence under oath that Dameron stated the exit pipe was too small, thus Rossi used a smaller pipe than the IH plan. Unfortunately the deposition did not state an actual size, either planned by IH or used by Rossi. Darn, the lack of detail sometimes! ?(

    Again, I apologize that I do not have the exact link, but it was in either West's deposition or Dameron's. If you need, I can look it up tomorrow.

  • Gerald,

    Thanks for the response. For me it does matter what happened to the raw data.... that it could have been destroyed. This would worry me quite a bit. I am surprised that this is not an issue, on both Rossi and IH sides. That data could be decisive. This may be addressed by one of the spoliation claims, but I have not seen the raw data addressed so far.

    Here is an imaginary scenario from both sides in court:

    Rossi side: Your honor, Penon did not make mistakes as the selected ERV with regards to transcribing the data. As you see here is the raw data. ( hands over hard drive)

    Can I haz $89 million dollars please?

    IH side: Your honor, we are basing our case on the fact that the ERV Mr. Penon cannot see well; as the selected ERV he is confused almost every day. Just look at these spreadsheets that he has given us! We are only interested in these transcripts which are "unreal as all get out." Our experts say blah blah blah.... (no reference to hard drive.) We repeat- just look at this speadsheet; it is swiss cheese.

    I am baffled at why both sides with this kind of money on the line agreed on just a transcribed paper report when data is collected digitally and it is possible to go back to the source and verify it "beyond a shadow of a doubt". I assume by now IH has done a more in depth job looking for the raw data. This information could be in the PACER records but REDACTED (or I missed it completely) so I now think that the raw data collection was not in the contract. I am really at a loss here--- Rossi says is good enough for $89 million? I just do not get this one.

    Surely they both recognize that any gaps in the data would be fatal. If I were on either side I would want to ensure that all that data was backed up and secure. Evidently this is not being addressed.

  • BTW - no one seems to talk about the millions of data anymore , not even AR. What happened to his automated daily data collection (no other way of doing that as using computers and intelligent sensors)? Shouldn't he provide this as important evidence in fighting for his 89 million Dollars on the court?

  • BTW - no one seems to talk about the millions of data anymore , not even AR

    The latest experiment performed by Bob Higgins produced in a few days 150,000 rows of data. Multiplied by at least 20 columns of data that's effectively "millions of data".

    That wasn't a very impressive statement by Rossi.

  • I've been off the internet for a few days walking up and down hills.

    Coming back to this thread there are some things that strike me anew.

    IH apparent inconsistency in evaluation of Rossi technology

    • Joshg says that IH now has a scattergun approach towards the errors and issues. That is true. And probably most of the points IH makes do not matter (are not valid) in any scientific sense. But that misses the point. When defending a legal case you will argue anything you can that might stick. It is IH's duty to do this, and for Josh to see this as something that smells is IMHO wrong.
    • Josh does not like IH's own documented statements about Rossi technology. Initially enthusiastic and later turning dark. This is I think a better candidate for something that smells. But, unless you are a conspiracy theorist, the smell is an innocent one. Initially, starting to believe a miracle that would bring the LENR is commercial promised land close 10 years earlier than expected, IH were incautious. They did not, at this time, have Murray and the type of ultra-cautious skeptical technical expertise that is needed when dealing with Rossi. They, like (and because of) the Lugano Profs, were fooled by calorimetry setups from Rossi that seemed to show excess heat but were in fact fatally flawed. I don't much blame them for this - at least they have learnt from a mistake. And I don't blame them now for making the best of a bad job. They had to play the flawed contract with Rossi both ways because when they realised his tests (that they were repeating in-house) could not be trusted they still had no proof his devices did not work. Just as now many are suggesting that they still work a bit. If Rossi's devoices work a bit, say +30% excess power in kW quantities stable over weeks, that is something that can be worked with and turned commercial. IH have paid for it and want it. On the other hand they also know that Rossi's tests are rubbish and that Rossi lies. They must protect themselves from having to pay $89M for something that does not work but gives a spurious positive test result.
    • IH does not come out of the matter smelling of roses. They were incautious with Rossi. But to be fair others (US army, Petrodragon investors) had gone before them and done even worse. Rossi is good at persuading people to back him. Having made an initial mistake the recovery from IH is two-faced. That must be, because they have paid for Rossi IP and however much their tests show no excess heat they cannot be sure there is nothing there. The nature of LENR is something that is elusive, and looks like experimental error. So how can IH know that they have nothing? This dilemma is where IH are most often criticised - and it is the dilemma forced by the nature of LENR. If it could easily be distinguished from experimental error it would already have been settled scientifically as existing, or not existing, and IH would have no quest.
    • Alain makes the point here that without Lugano and IH validation Rossi was in any case looking very flaky. Now IH no longer validate (and in fact state that after extensive testing they cannot get Rossi's stuff to work) and Lugano is shown to be 100% wrong after both theoretical and experimental checks you'd think people would revert to their previous skeptical stance.

    The IH MSJ paints a consistent picture specifically of why IH allowed the test to go ahead. I recommend strongly the IH MSJ Statement of Material Fact as nicely arranged and indexed by Abd. It has over 100 points and anyone interested in this matter should read all of them. Just a very incomplete skeleton of the argument as I see it relates to IH agreeing to the test:

    • They knew it could not be the GPT (no Ampergno signature on 2nd Amendment, wrong unit tested).
    • They were enticed by Rossi's claims of a hidden but real customer.
    • They had a signed agreement stating that this was a sale of power to the customer.
    • Stupid? Perhaps, but Rossi is good at convincing people, and from IH's point of view at that time they might have felt the test could do no harm, and if 1% likely to be real is worth running. IH had paid $10M for Rossi IP and if there is any chance it can be shown to work they want to know that.
    • IH had told Rossi this was not the GPT, but had said informally to him that if they could get his stuff to work they would pay him anyway. They had payment lined up for working technology, which would be disruptive and worth more than $89M. Would they have paid Rossi $89M in the hypothetical case that their in-house testing showed working devices? Very likely, given the stakes and the fact that Rossi could make very bad PR for them if they do not do so. But we will never know.
    • Rossi ran the test, under his control and using the existence of this secretive customer as an excuse to prevent IH checks, in a way that made validation a joke. Whatever the results from it, IH could have no confidence in them unless the customer were real.
    • It became clear that the customer was not real. (Johnson acting for the customer is not the problem, if the customer is real. It was the fact later discovered that Johnson was acting for a shell company controlled by Rossi that prevents the customer validating).
    • Rossi behaved as though it was the GPT (twisting facts towards what he wishes is one of Rossi's known characteristics).

    Those wishing to test the above statements could look at the Statement of Material Fact and see the factual basis for this version of events.

    What does the information we now have about the one year test tell us?

    Obviously, the evidence can directly prove nothing. The fact that it was highly dependent on Rossi alone, copying data by hand and sending it to Penon, makes it worthless. Argument here has been plain weird. Jed and others (e.g. Murray for IH) note a whole load of suspicious and unexplained facts. Jed incautiously (but honestly) states his belief that because of these facts the data presented cannot be real. Others then argue on the point of can Jed prove the data is not real?. I think this is still an open matter but given the fact that we don't know what the setup was, and it has now been dismantled, any proof will be hard to find. Anyone of good will looking at a whole collection of suspicious circumstances will think that the data are probably not real (but not know in what way not real). And Rossi's history gives us no expectation that the data are real. That still cannot prove that they are unreal. Where many make a mistake is to think that because that proof is missing Rossi should somehow be given the benefit of the doubt. If someone claims a miracle but refuses to provide any proof you don't believe them unless desperate to beatify.

    Indirectly, the evidence is more interesting. Rossi has (documented) done a number of things that erase information about the test. IH have a genuine case for Spoliation (destroying evidence). As Sigmoidal has pointed out this is legally a key matter. If IH can win it their version of the spoliated facts will be taken as legally proven. In that case elements of their MSJ may succeed that otherwise would fail. The IH spoliation motion before the Judge was rejected on procedural grounds - it must be considered by the Magistrate handling discovery. I just hope that this case does not fail for legal reasons (like the fact that Discovery has now finished). I eagerly await its progress.

    Even more interesting, for us, is the curious case of the upstairs heat exchanger venting 1MW from a second floor window. This comes to light only from Rossi's sworn testimony where he explains the otherwise seemingly impossible disappearance of 1MW. It is strange, and technically seems almost impossible (see below). Rossi has no evidence for this except (sworn) RossiSays. This plot has a way to run, including Rossi's tame and it seems innocent expert, and Rossi may yet be caught out not in the original lie but in a hasty coverup operation. I'm not always interested in paradigmnoia's admirable and detailed work on the test: this matter interests me more than usual.

    Given so little proof, here are the things we do know:

    • Rossi changed the setup given him and altered many things, including removal of the steam trap and its replacement by a Rossi special using a rubber hose and plastic bottle. The Rossi special trap showed no water in the steam. Ever. But we can have no confidence that it worked as a steam trap.
    • The water flowmeter was positioned in a place (the return line) where it could easily over-read by a large factor. We cannot know that it did so over-read since we no longer have the setup.
    • These two issues (over-reading flowmeter and no steam trap) would very plausibly explain the claimed measurements in the case that there was (almost) no phase change. Murray's evidence on the flowmeter testing is interesting and extensive.

    Obviously, the measurements we have are flaky in other ways. Probably, hand-written by Rossi, some have been copied from a previous day or replaced by by assumed data. But that does not prevent them from been broadly what was actually measured from the three relevant instruments, thermometer, pressure meter, and flowmeter.

    Educated guesses, giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt and supposing that these measurements are broadly what come from the instruments:

    • The pressure meter appears to be measuring atmospheric pressure. It seems not to be properly measuring the pressure in the pipes. It could well be broken, or badly connected.
    • The temperature is exactly what you'd expect in a system that heats water to boiling with a small amount of phase change around a loop that has its water reservoir at atmospheric temperature. The information we have makes this (an open system) almost certain.
    • The flowrate (derated as expect from the meter positioning) is correct to use most of the provided heat and high enough that pressure through any sort of heat exchanger would push up the boiling point of water.
    • The constant temperature (if real) means either a very sophisticated control system or a system where water is at boiling point and hence temperature stabilised. Any excess power beyond that needed to raise the water temperature in liquid phase can cause a small amount of phase change, and will not affect this temperature.

    This for me is the most plausible reading of the data we have. It is not certain, there are other plausible scenarios. I doubt we will ever know.

    One meme I'd like to address here is the vacuum meme. The idea that steam is pushed through the system due to a partial vacuum created by the condensation of the steam in the heat exchanger. This is entirely possible in steam systems. It would solve the (otherwise) difficult problem of why the pressure gauge reads so low, though not a satisfactory solution - the coincidence that it always reads so near to atmospheric pressure remains unexplained.

    The vacuum meme cannot work without an additional unreported vacuum pump. A non-return valve would preserve a vacuum from condensation - but provide no way to drive the large flow of fluid round the system. So we need a second water pump not on the original schematic capable of working with a significant pressure difference in and out. Possible, but extraordinary. Why on earth would Rossi add such a device in order to make his data look less plausible, and then cover up all trace of it? and why does the steam pressure just happen coincidentally to be exactly atmospheric, so there is no proof there ever was any steam?

    The mystery of the vanishing upstairs heat exchanger

    Rossi says this was made out of roughly 100m of piping (now removed) and fans. He said the fans were still in the building. A pity we cannot know the rating of the fans. Still, even if enough air volume could be evacuated to carry 1MW there is just no way that 100m of piping is going to give the required heat exchanger surface area for 1MW heat transfer. Several OOMs out. I hope we end up with more evidence of this.

  • Q. Where did the rejected heat go?

    A1. Air cooling – no.
    A2. Cooling tower – no.
    A3. City water – no.

    There are now but two alternatives left.
    The heat just vanished. – no. The first law of thermodynamics prohibits this.
    It never existed.

    "The E-Cat never produced the energy which was claimed for it. This energy had to be rejected somewhere, and this analysis has shown, by the process of elimination, that the claimed energy never existed."

    Oh yeah :D :D :D

  • Quote from THHuxley

    Still, even if enough air volume could be evacuated to carry 1MW there is just no way that 100m of piping is going to give the required heat exchanger surface area for 1MW heat transfer. Several OOMs out.

    Not according to Professor Wong, who in his expert disclosure claims that it is highly possible to transfer 1MW of heat by forced convection from 200m of piping. (Doc 233-03)

    What's more, Wong actually showed his calculations - you know, like proper engineers are supposed to - instead of just waving his hands furiously and spouting whatever nonsense he thinks he can get away with.

    No doubt Wong encourages his engineering students at the University of Miami to show all their calculations, and not just make daft proclaimations based on their opinions; so it's only fair that he should be expected to do the same - Avoiding both the charge of being a massive hypocrite, and the mockery of other engineers who struggle to take his spoutings seriously.

  • @zeuss46

    There is no need to get worked up over this. Firstly, I apologise for an off the cuff remark and you are quite right to question my comment - given with no justification. To tell you the truth I had not done the relevant calculations. However, thanks to your useful reference, and the information given by Rossi to Wong, I've now done this. The results are most interesting.

    I've read Wong's report. For someone with an excellent academic and practical background in heat transfer calculations it is sadly lacking real-world engineering nonce. Let me first say what I agree with, and then why it does not in this case work. Paradigmnoia - I know you like to check things - and quite rightly don't trust anything I say without confirmation - will you please check all the working below?

    I take as reference Wong's Statement. (EDIT - I've got a better permalink to this from Abd's useful site).

    • I agree with Wong's calculation of the heat transfer to the pipe surface, it is effectively perfect (as good as) and so the pipes can be assumed 100C.
    • I agree with Wong's theoretical calculation for heat transfer from rods with transverse air-flow. Indeed the value for moderate air-flow is stated as 200W/m^2K as Wong notes, in a number of references. However this does not state what moderate airflow is and also does not take into account the flow of air over the cyclinder. More precise calculations, taking into account the air velocity achievable from this heat exchanger, give a very different answer. I use a forced convection web calculator for cylinders with air-flow of given speed (see below).

    I disagree that this theoretical equation applies in this case.

    [EDIT - I've made some changes below to get more accurate figures, since no-one else wants to check and correct this I guess I should. No significant change in results].

    Let us drill down and get some more accurate data. Here is a web calculator for transverse air-flow onto iso-thermal pipes (the case here):…orced/cr-isot/cr-isot.htm

    The default fluid values relate to air. We can use this to calculate much more precisely the actual power transfer for a given length of pipe diameter 0.15m (as stated by Wong from data given by Rossi). The pipe length is unclear. In his deposition Rossi says between 100 and 200m. Wong says, more precisely, 22 pipes each 10m in length. We will use this.

    Wong supposes air at 30C ambient but of course that would only be true for a single pipe. Subsequent pipes will have heated air from previous ones. The air exit temperature must be large enough to carry the required power.

    Let us do these calculations for for a dissipated power of 500kW. That is not enough - we are left with 500kW of heating in the factory - but it will do for a first pass check.

    We could use Wong's assumption of ambient in Florida = 30C. But during July and August the average maximum daytime temperature is 33C. That will obviously often be significantly higher. Let us use 33C.

    air specific heat capacity: (Cp - Cv is smaller and also does not apply) 1kj/kgC

    Power carried by stated flow of 50,000kg/h = 14kg/s = 14kw/C.

    Temperature at outlet = 35C above ambient of 33C = 68C.

    The temperature difference between air and pipes in the heat exchanger is therefore between 67C (at input) and 32C (at output). The power transfer will be linear with temperature difference so we can reasonably suppose a temperature difference of 49C (less than Wong's ideal and clearly wrong 70C).

    Using this temperature and 200m length and 0.15m diameter we need an airflow velocity of slightly above 30m/s. That is 70mph which is a hell of a high velocity and not something that we would expect in a heat exchanger made of wood driven by normal fans.

    But it is worse than that. The heat exchanger is made up of 22 pipes each 10m in length. To get transverse airflow we must blow the air crossways over these rods. We have a volumetric flow of 14m^3/s so for a speed of 30m/s we need a flow area of 0.47m^2 or approx 23mm gap on each side between the 10m long rods and the casing. The air will speed up by a factor of 150mm/23mm due to this gap and therefore have a transverse speed of only 3m/s. The equations for transverse forced conduction thus overestimate the heat flow because we have slower air over most of the pipe surface. Let us ignore this error, because the 90mph airflow caused by squeezing the air through 17mm gaps on either side of the pipes is contrary to the heat exchanger dimensions we are given by Rossi.

    Wong takes the interior dimensions of the heat exchanger as 10X6.5X1m. There is no possibility this "squeezed speedup" of air can happen in such a box. In fact the expected airflow in the box is:

    14m^3/s / 10X1m = 1.4m/s.

    This is a pretty definite number, and it is difficult to see how such a heat exchanger can have higher transverse airflow. (It could be higher in parts next to the fans, but then would be lower elsewhere). Plugging a generous overestimate of 2m/s airflow back into the calculator we get 64kW heat transfer.

    With small power output the air heats up much less, so we can actually do better. Supposing the air is at 36C on output we have average temperature of 34.5C and the power (for a 2m/s flow) gies up to 89kW.

    So I was (slightly) wrong. It is 1 OOM discrepancy here, not OOMs. Sorry. But this calculation is pretty definite given the detailed information that Rossi has kindly given us. and the end result is the same. This heat exchnager won't work as Rossi claims. It will however nicely dispose of the 20kW or so heat that he did have...

    Where did Wong go wrong? In assuming a heat transfer of 200W/m^2K from moderate airflow. The airflow here is necessarily low because of the design of the heat exchanger.

    Regards, THH

    Summary: Wong got it wrong.

    * Wong is not quite consistent. The actual pipe length is 220m from his spec (though in Rossi's deposition I believe he made it a bit less) . However this makes no difference in practice to the result.

  • So I've just said: 50kW but for this the external air temperature is much lower, and the heat transfer greater by a factor of less than 70/45. We therefore get 78kW.

    That is taking the airflow to be a higher than is possible 2m/s, so it is an upper limit. It should probably scale down. A more accurate 1.4m/s calculation with 220m of pipes gibes 70kW. The real innacuracy is in the flow rate. It would require great care to get a uniform transverse flow from a box like this.


    PS - this is high school physics + a decent web heat transfer calculator. I feel Wong could have done better.

  • Just in case you missed the Logic. the Judge is also reading this today:

    LENR Calender

    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.

    Some essentials still missing but many Exhibits nad data and depositions and hearing already known by the Court documents and it can be seen who has a lot of data and who is submerged in half-full pipes and similar abracadabras.

    But the Motto also goes for the list from the paper 2)

    Let's take only the consultants. With one exception they are the best choice our most knowledgeable and wise colleagues. With one - the same exception- they are nice, friendly civilized humans. Not insulting systematically and mercilessly those who disagree with the Funder. And they will do good things for the money. What is still missing- consultants with a technological "green finger" able to compete successfully with the Rossi technology?

  • THHuxleynew ,

    Before you work out the heat exchanger abilities, consider a couple of points:

    The available air inlet size is 1/2 of the window area, since the air both goes in and comes out of the middle window. Subtract a reasonable amount for heated air drawn back in, due to exiting right at the inlet. (No contraption was noted at the window that created separation of intake and exhaust air).

    The steam pipe that supplies the (posited upstairs) heat exchanger will be about 30 m long. It should be roughly DN200 to prevent pressure buildup delivering the steam upstairs. That delivery pipe itself is a heat exchanger of sorts. Only a few degrees C prevent that steam from condensing en route to the posited upstairs heat exchanger.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that the upstairs heat exchanger existed, so as far as I can tell, calculating the ability of said exchanger is a waste of time. Rossi could have put his endothermic sponge in the exchanger, making it highly efficient, needing less airflow, for example.