Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • I think the Grundfos was only used as a bypass to filter the water. The normal condensate return path is the insulated pipe above it.

    I think that's probably true. Filters usually introduce quite a high resistance in flow rates, and if the "condensate" was in any way dirty an extra "push" would have been needed.

  • The plot thickens (or would serpentines be a better word)?


    I have no idea whether the Grundfoss was used to filter water or not. And I have no idea how Rossi modified the setup.


    I realise this gunk is further evidence (if you needed it) that the fluid going out from the BF's was liquid (or untrapped steam). It is weak because with air in the circulant you could get gunk build-up from all Rossi's steel pipes (e.g. the JMP serpentine). That however does not change the picture since Rossi's removing a large properly instrumented steam trap and replacing with his own rubber hose and plastic bottle version which magically was always dry is evidence enough of that.


    But, we know:


    (1) If there is no return pump then the Rossi fantasy can't work due to pressure issues, and flowmeter possible over-reading.

    (2) if there is a return pump and no bypass then the Rossi fantasy can't provide evidence of excess heat due to flow meter possible over-reading.

    (3) If there is a return pump with bypass then the Rossi fantasy can't provide any evidence of excess heat due to the double-counting of unheated bypass water.


    To imagine a working setup in which the Penon results imply excess heat you have to suppose that the Penon instrumentation does not work, one way or another, which then invalidates the results...

  • looks like they renumbered and left out #16 now in Eric's list, but you can find it on the docket at 238-17 lines 19-25

    "the ERV asked me to send to him every day at approximately the same time....... I don't remember"



    Wait, I need to repeat that in my words:

    You get an contract-kind-like duty, which You have to fullfill over the period of ONE F...G year, each day at the SAME F...G time, and AR cannot remember this ultra-periodic-daily-repeating duty ?

    WOW. Guys like him better should not play with anything near to the world "nuclear".

  • I can't see IH's case against the 3rd party defendents going anywhere much unless there is data we do not yet have. Maybe they have enough to get the case to Court, but certainly not Summary Judgement.


    Basically, all those around Rossi plead ignorance of any bad things Rossi might be doing. And it is plausible because Rossi is plausible, and good at getting people to do what he wants. The many people like Mats who aid Rossi in his schemes truly believe Rossi to be for real, even when as in Mats case he knows Rossi to be at least technically duplicitous. There is no a priori reason to think these are different. The strongest points IMHO are:


    Johnson saying JMP was owned by a UK entity. The defence here being that it was going to be so owned, but then due to costs that was decided against.

    Bass representing himself with the fake business card. I think it would take a trial to decide whether he knew this was part of a fraud.


    What I find fascinating about the legal process here is that while if you look at the big picture Rossi is clearly dishonest, his dishonesty does not much involve direct lies. A good example of this is the customer.


    Rossi gave the impression that the customer was a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey, and urged the test to happen quickly because the customer would not wait, and said that this would be great PR because of the customer validation.


    In reality JMP was Rossi himself. And no doubt Rossi played around with the steam and platinum sponge. We may think this was artifice (and it probably was) but it could equally have been Rossi doing weird Rossi experiments for real. It could have been both - Rossi well aware that such play helped his fiction and also wanting to play. There were (legally) sales of product to Leonardo Rossi from JMP Rossi. In this situation we have a formal setup which matches the words used by Rossi, even though it completely mismatches the import of those words as heard by IH - because JMP is no way independent validation of the energy production.


    One reason I'm interested in the second floor heat exchange is that if Rossi has lied about this (as the window evidence seems to indicate) it would be one of the very few direct lies from Rossi. That could be, because he might well have been caught off-guard by the evidence that 1MW power could not otherwise have been dissipated. But, equally, he could well have had a heat exchanger there for when the output was not used by JMP. Even with the 20kW we know about things were getting pretty hot. Rossi might well see the need for the heat to be dissipated elsewhere. He could have arranged a heat exchanger of the type he suggested with heat simply dissipated in the large upstairs workshop. Or, Rossi could have used his 20kW hot water there for some other reason (like heating on cold winter nights, if Florida has any such thing).


    Rossi tends to bend truth, not manufacture it. The result of this is so far from reality it is completely false but when examined individual bits appear to be just small changes in emphasis.


    So I would not bet on the non-existence of something like the claimed heat exchanger on the second floor, although this could equally be an unusual (for Rossi) complete fabrication with no set of validating pseudo-truths.


    Of further interest is that this characteristic of Rossi can't directly be why he keeps his cult of followers. It stinks to high heaven. It can indirectly be that, because it allows Rossi to be absolutely convincing, with extraordinary supporting detail, in all of his fantasies. Mats has always had as one reason for steadfast belief in Rossi that Rossi's character, even though clearly imperfect, does not fit a fraud. In addition, Rossi has always chosen areas of endeavor that key in to his target audience's ardent desires.

    • Official Post

    There is this Prof. Dr. Wong who has this impressive curriculum vitae
    https://thenewfire.files.wordp…43_to_71_ocr.pdf#page=161

    ... and is, beside many others publications, the author of these publications

    Thermodynamics for Engineers, CRC Press, 2000, 370 pp, TJ265.W56; 2nd Ed. 2012.
    Intermediate Heat Transfer, Marcel Dekker, N.Y., 2003, 411 pp.
    Thermodynamics for Engineers II, 1st Ed,Xanedu, N.Y.,2003,316 pp.
    Thermodynamics for Engineers II, 2nd Ed,Xanedu, N.Y.,2004,314 pp. Thermo. for Engineers II, 3rd Ed,Linus Pub.,N.Y.,2007,346 pp.
    Thermo. for Engineers II, 4th Ed, U.M., 2009, 297 pp.
    Thermo. For Engineers II, 9th Ed, U.M., 2014.


    The conclusions of this undisputed expert are:


    He is calculating the amount of heat energy which can be dissipated trough the described heat exchanger (conductivity).
    Result: The latent heat of steam at standard temperature and pressure ("STP") is 2257 kJ!kg. See Engineer's Toolbox. The amoum of heat two be rejected by the steam and water is 0.94 MW

    He is calcuating Ari Flow using Newton's Law of Cooling
    Result Heat transfer from steel pipes to air = 1.4 MW
     
    His opinion about Murrays report:


    Quote

    This expert has concluded that, assuming Lhe existence of the heat exchanger with the specifications above, the heat exchanger and the fans are capable of removing at least 1MW of heat energy from the Doral Facility. Additionally, the energy generated by the ECat plant was dissipated around the E-Cat plant itself, the transmission pipelines to the heat exchanger, and in the heat exchanger itself which was cooled by two motorized fans. "That the room would have been heated to a temperature unsuited for a human working environment" concluded by Mr. Murray, is simply fallacious.

    https://thenewfire.files.wordp…43_to_71_ocr.pdf#page=152


    So to the experts here, what is wrong with Dr.Wong and why are you still selling the reports of those as the only truth, who are paid by IH and are acting on behalf of IH with their calculations and conclusions partly based on mere assumptions?


  • That is a proper question.


    Did you see my initial post on Wong's report that detailed his errors? There were a few other contributions and because his conclusion was blatently wrong for known reasons it was accepted, except by those who refused to look at the details. I'm summarising the result of the debate at that time from me and others - maybe those who contributed then will want to add/correct something .


    Summary:

    The errors were in estimating heat transfer from the steel cylinders heated by Rossi's water to the air blown by the two fans.

    Wong himself notes that this is an estimate - but does not clarify that it is wrong by a factor of 10 or more. Technically, Wong is correct just very very inaccurate in his estimate, leading to a totally misleading conclusion.

    Errors, all quantified in my post. You can check these for yourself, you will need a web calculator. Siemens have a good one

    https://www.thermal-wizard.com/tmwiz/default.htm

    • He assumes the air in the heat exchanger is not heated by the heat exchanger. ( approx X1.5 error for assumed 500kW dissipated - error goes up as dissipation increases)
    • He underestimates average Florida temperatures - let alone maximum ones due to weather variation ( X1.1) error using correct average max data)
    • He uses an approximate heat transfer coefficient figure for moderate air flow when the heat exchanger design delivers a low velocity (large error - about X3 given other errors and using web calculator)
    • He uses (we think - the reference is Spanish) a heat transfer coefficient figure for heat transfer per area of pipe transverse to flow, and applies this to the entire pipe surface (X3.14)


    Altogether this changes the estimate from 1.4MW to < 100kW.


    PS - don't be confused by the 250,000m3/hour fan flow stated by an attorney in wong's deposition. The correct value from Wong's report, used in his calculations, is 25,000m^3/hour per fan. There are claimed to be two such fans. The larger fans would certainly show up on the FPL data. In fact arguable even the smaller ones would do that...


    EDIT: perhaps someone not censored on ECW could link this post there and ask Engineer48 (or others from there) to argue these figures. It is a definitive engineering problem that is often solved hence has web calculators such as the Siemens one. The details of my original calculation can be found a few pages back.

    In the original calculation I ignore the X3.14 error which does not affect the real result since I use a web calculator which clearly derives average heat transfer coefficient over the cylinder surface and uses this to get the final result - thus avoiding any ambiguity.

  • Rends


    On youtube you will find a video of Colbert where he explains the expression "truthiness". It is not about the truth, it is all about the truthiness felt by the reader. Here in this thread it is all about "IH is totally right" or "Rossi is totally right". The truth is somewhere in between. My guess so far is, that Rossi needed money for his further research and gave IH just the absolute necessary information about the ecat and kept the secret "high cop sauce". IH on the other hand wanted to extract all important informations with 10.5e6$ and never wanted to pay 89e6$. We will never know the whole truth. I think Rossi is losing his lawsuit and IH is going to lose the counter suit.



  • Epimetheus,


    Don't you think that when there is a specific engineering question that can easily be calculated, such as what Rends asks, we should do or check the calculation, rather than resort to speculation?


    I agree there are logically many issues that cannot be resolved - but this is not one of them!

  • Of further interest is that this characteristic of Rossi can't directly be why he keeps his cult of followers. It stinks to high heaven. It can indirectly be that, because it allows Rossi to be absolutely convincing, with extraordinary supporting detail, in all of his fantasies. Mats has always had as one reason for steadfast belief in Rossi that Rossi's character, even though clearly imperfect, does not fit a fraud. In addition, Rossi has always chosen areas of endeavor that key in to his target audience's ardent desires.


    I think Rossi does show many of the features of a fraudster.


    He has history that supports this including jailtime. Fraudsters often have a history of such behaviour. Rossi supporters would say this conviction was a setup.

    He offers something that is just a bit too good to be true, but that many people have a strong desire to believe in. See Orbo. Rossi supporters might reference the Wright Brothers.

    He is secretive about his product which is understandable, but also controlling to the extent of refusing to let IH staff on site and removing any measuring device he does not supply. That is odd.

    He is big on promises and short on delivery.

    He makes a big story about one invention but then just when that invention should be on sale he drops it and moves to his next invention, classic strategy for fraudsters to keep the story running and the excitement building. E-Cat no, don't want to talk about that anymore, have you heard about the QuarkX?

    Critics are branded as skeptopaths or somehow part of a plot to undermine the great inventor. It's funny how Rossi makes a big thing of how he does not trust others and uses a small clique of associates and yet when he removes IH equipment and puts his own in he is surprised when IH say they do not trust him.

    He has been caught being devious, duplicitous, and lying.

    And the big number two on the list LARGE SUMS OF MONEY ARE INVOLVED.

    And the big number one on the list; he WILL NOT/CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE WHAT HE HAS IN A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS MANNER.



    Now none of these PROVE that Rossi is a fraudster. They are merely indicative.

    Rossi lives in that area between what we know as fact and what we cannot prove. As such he is very good at getting experts and scientists to provide him with enough support so that there is always doubt.

  • It is a great pity that ECW posters capable of scientific debate don't come here and argue figures. We cannot reciprocate since those most interested in figures (e.g. me) are banned from ECW. I understand that ECW posters might find the centre of gravity of comment here different from ECW - for obvious reason given lack of censorship here - but no-one posting numbers and willing to support these would ever be banned (unlike ECW - where if the numbers you post and support are consistently have an anti-Rossi conclusion you are banned!).


    I'd also reiterate what barty told ECW - the moderation here is pretty even-handed with for example both Dewey and Abd banned (both tendentious decisions I would not personally support but both justifiable in the sense that these posters said things that could be viewed as impolite to others).


    The pro-Rossi banned posters have mostly had zero content in posts, and not many such have been banned - the mods maybe will be able to count?


  • And you really 'believe' that such an expert is in his own domain of science not able to calculate correctly, making mistakes factor 10, and that in a court testimony, that is not just about $ 89 million, but also, so to speak, about the holy grail of sciences?


    Rends - I have no such belief. I'm stating facts based on a calculation that I and others have made. The fact that others have also done this makes me more confident that there is no mistake. Anyone can make a mistake but it is worth nothing that Wong does not (in his sworn testimony) anywhere say how accurate is his estimate. So his statement is valid, just misleading.


    Even without the calculation redone, more accurately, it is easy to see that Wong's calculation is a very rough estimate, because for example the choice of moderate speed for the airflow in this heat exchanger does not fit the known airflow and dimensions.


    Interestingly, if the number used by the Attorney (250,000m^3/hour per fan) were correct then Wong's estimate would look much more reasonable, since the speed (14m^3/s airflow) would be moderate. In that case the Siemens calculator gives 50W/m^2C heat transfer coefficient (average) as compared with wong's 200W/m^2K. As I say I think the 200 (you'd need Spanish to check) is taking the area as the rod cross-section to the wind, rather than the total rod surface. That would deliver 200 at a wind speed of about 20m/s which also could reasonably be viewed as moderate. Which is why I believe the 200W/m^2C figure all over the web comes from looking at the rod cross-sectional are, not the rod total surface area. Given this, you might argue that Wong has made a technical mistake - but he will probably argue not and since these figures in reference books don't always precisely specify the conditions we may never know. If anyone could find the OPPO spanish databook and translate we might know more.


    Finally, the web calculator from Siemens actually also calculates when the numbers you ask it to calculate are too large or small for the convective equations it uses to hold. It also has a help page noting what these are and you can see that the Reynolds and Prandtl numbers are within limits.

  • aThere is no doubt he did. If he had not, Woodward would have pulled out their money by now, or sued them -- as I pointed out before.


    IIRC, in one of the depositions (maybe Murray's), it was implied or stated that Woodford did take some of their money back and that was one of the reasons they had to shut down Murray's engineering operation.


    Also, I'm not sure about the lawsuit. I remember when this case broke one of the people commenting on one of the boards who had a lot of experience in private equity said that lawsuits are often embarrassing to the investor so Woodford would likely not sue IH. I cannot find that statement but did not spend too much time looking. I remember it well though since I found it so surprising. Money to these people has a different meaning. Anyway Woodford would probably have a tough case since I'm sure the IH hedged their claims, so it might be hard to make a legal case that they mislead Woodford. However I am quite certain that they were not fully candid with Woodford. I simply cannot believe Woodford would have invested if Darden had been completely transparent about all his now well-documented concerns and doubts about the 1 MW test.

  • Rends - I have no such belief. I'm stating facts based on a calculation that I and others have made. The fact that others have also done this makes me more confident that there is no mistake. Anyone can make a mistake but it is worth nothing that Wong does not (in his sworn testimony) anywhere say how accurate is his estimate. So his statement is valid, just misleading.


    Some related philosophical thoughts:


    "Truth is sought for itself", but "the truths," he warns, "are immersed in uncertainties" and the scientific authorities (such as Ptolemy, whom he greatly respected) are "not immune from error...."


    "Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency.


    Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."


    — Ibn al-Haytham (aka Alhazen), Aporias against Ptolemy, c.1020


    http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/ibn-al-haytham-html
    http://islam.wikia.com/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham

  • Quote

    However I am quite certain that they were not fully candid with Woodford. I simply cannot believe Woodford would have invested if Darden had been completely transparent about all his now well-documented concerns and doubts about the 1 MW test.


    joshg: Given this absolute certainty, I'd like to know on what you base it. It is good to have somone who has done the necessary work:


    • When was the Woodford investment made (the cutoff at which due diligence was completed, or perhaps when was the funding contract signed)? Darden would not be expected to update Woodward continuously. For example given stated unconfimed positive internal tests, the fact that tests stayed unconfirmed from new internal tests that were also negative would not be newsworthy until the negative tests had been fully checked. That takes quite a while?
    • Precisely which are documented comments from Darden before the Woodward investment on which you base your certainty? IH have travelled a road from cautious but strong optimism to strong pessimism so date matters?


    I'd find it difficult to be so certain. Partly because things look different without hindsight. Partly because how people judge new speculative technology must be very variable. I at the time was surprised that Woodward invested in LENR full stop. I think the two independent reports from the Swedes would have weighed heavily, and perhaps even Mats' journalism, and that evidence of Rossi perfidy would not prevent investment based on those things.

  • But, equally, he could well have had a heat exchanger there for when the output was not used by JMP.

    Not a chance. First, JMP never did any work. Second, There were no pipes going up from the pretend customer site, so if there was an exchanger, it was invisible. Also, as Smith wrote:


    ". . . When Mr. Murray and the author inspected the Doral site on 02 Mar 2017, we found absolutely no physical evidence that there had been a heat exchanger in the mezzanine.


    There was no lighting, other than the windows, no electrical power (save two small junction boxes and some small conduit), no holes or patches where conduit and power boxes would have been mounted, no holes or patches where piping would have been supported, no hole patches in the floor or the drywall wall – in short, nothing. The only access to the mezzanine is a rickety wooden stairs, which the attorneys made this author climb first (load test) before they would use it.


    The door to the mezzanine is about 22-1/2” wide by about 79” high. It would be extremely difficult to get equipment, piping, conduit, duct work, and the other items for such an installation up the narrow, rickety stairs and through that narrow door into the mezzanine. The other alternative would have been to remove one of the window assemblies and rig the equipment from the west parking lot up into the mezzanine. The building owner may have records of this being done, or the rigging company surely would have purchase orders and invoices for that work. . . ."


    Plus he points to the photos showing glass in the window.

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.