Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
Rends. The key phrase in the letter you quote is subject to the measurement caveat above. You will see that this qualifies all these results and the whole claim that rossi's stuff works.
But you seem to have left the actual caveat out of your quote. Why would that be? And, can you guess which measurements were giving these positive results? HINT - Paradigmnoia here has done then obtaining COP=5 from an empty reactor...
-
THHuxleynew
What I am doing is commenting statements with court papers. -
They don't get to claim they worked and then decide they didn't after all, as soon as Rossi files suit.
You made that up. Long before Rossi filed suit they said the machines did not work. You can see that in the lawsuit documents. That is also what they told me and others. They never publicly claimed the machines worked. In the early stages, some of their memos were optimistic but they always said results need to be confirmed.
-
That's good to know because all of the contemporaneous written evidence we have of tests performed by IH show successful replications upwards of COP 9.
No, we do not. You made that up. There were, at best, a few indications there was excess heat, but they discovered the blank tests were producing as much apparent heat as the tests with nickel, so obviously the results were wrong.
-
Heck, you don't even understand that water boils at different temperatures depending on pressure.
And you draw this conclusion from what may I ask? It seems you might be embarrassed about the pipe dimension FUD, upon which your pressure FUD was built.
I draw this conclusion from the fact that you think steam leaking out of a pipe proves there is steam inside the pipe. You do not understand that when pressurized hot water leaks, it turns into steam. You do not understand that pressurized hot water has far less enthalpy than steam.
You claim you have met other technical issues "head on" but you have not. You have either evaded them or come up with absurdities such as saying that you asked a child whether there was glass in the window and he said no. If Rossi's claim were true, there would not just be missing glass. There would be a blower in the window larger than a person.
-
THHuxleynew
What I am doing is commenting statements with court papers.Right. But you can see that what they left out is crucial to determining the sense of those paragraphs. You only get IH has admitted having working reactors if the measurements they did then were good - when even they point out that at that time they had some question marks over the measurement. Not surprising since this was Lugano-type IR measurements now discredited.
How can that be morphed into IH had working reactors?
Rossi's whole legal case is strewn with speculative interpretations of that sort and only works if you ignore the totality of evidence.
-
I found this tidbit interesting and mildly entertaining in one of the last documents posted.
Doc. 259I need to clarify this post.
I was not making fun of Rossi's surgery and agree 100% that no one should wish ill health onto anyone.
I stated in post #5882 that I thought surgery was a valid reason for delay and that I hoped the surgery was not serious.
My post about "interesting and mildly entertaining" was meant to be about Rossi posting on his blog and how it might come back to haunt him. I did not meant to belittle the health issue, but Rossi posting on his blog and by implication posting under socks often as well. I also stated in the same post that I was glad that the surgery was not serious.
However, my words were not very clear and I recognize that and I would like to clarify my stance and apologize if any took it incorrectly.
No health matter is a laughing matter and I was careless in how I worded that post. It did not convey my intended meaning. I do not agree with Rossi's actions as I think they are grossly fraudulent. However, I do NOT wish him any ill health or harm in any form.
I will try to improve my wording on such posts. Again my apologies.
-
But you seem to have left the actual caveat out of your quote. Why would that be?
How can that be morphed into IH had working reactors?
I posted a screenshot without any comment, it is you alone who draws these conclusions, but maybe you can show me a court paper, where those measurements above are proved as faulty, I can't.
-
Quote
I posted a screenshot without any comment, it is you alone who draws these conclusions, but maybe you can show me a court paper, where those measurements above are proved as faulty, I can't.
Sigh. You posted the screenshot in reply to another post.
No-one needs to prove anything about working reactors, except Rossi. Rossi has to show that IH got the IP, hence got the ability to manufacture working reactors. IH say they cannot make working reactors. Rossi would have to show, from this letter, that they had them. Which this incomplete fragment clearly cannot do because of the caveat.
Common sense would say that if IH could make working reactors we would be in a very different position now...
-
That would be difficult for me since this Easter my wife and I are both away from home in different countries, and indeed home has been a building site nightmare for a month!
Sounds like fun, in a way. But I was actually referring to Ele playing tennis with the wife.... It's an obscure reference, probably best left unexplained.
-
Sounds like fun. But I was actually referring to Ele playing tennis with the wife.... It's an obscure reference, probably best left unexplained.
Well it does explain why I'm stuck with a PC and no family this Easter! Otherwise there are people here who will no doubt think my posts here as due to some inducement from IH, who are desperate to influence (what? I've never been able to work that one out. Neither judge nor jury could feasibly be influenced by this forum).
-
No-one needs to prove anything about working reactors, except Rossi.
He has a proof, the ERV Report, that is not accepted by Darden et.al. .Jed Rothwell claimed that before the long term test in the IH facility in Raleigh they found nothing, the paper I have posted speaks a different language. -
He has a proof, the ERV Report, that is not accepted by Darden et.al. .Jed Rothwell claimed that before the long term test in the IH facility in Raleigh they found nothing, the paper I have posted speaks a different language.This is getting tedious, but the details matter and being unclear about them confuses.
There are two distinct matters in the dispute:
(1) Was the IP transferred?
(2) Did the test satisfy its contractual conditions for excess heat?
The matter of IH Lugano-style measurements of Lugano-style reactors is about IP transfer, not the test result. IH's position, which you can acknowledge is very understandable, is that for some time after Lugano they believed that measurement technique and thought they had a number of similar reactors all working - but with the caveat that they had some reservations about the measurement.
IH would have to be perjuring themselves in their statements now about not being able to get reactors to work to be false. The letter Rossi quotes would contradict IH statements without the caveat. Though even in that case they might still discover they were just wrong, and overconfident, so it is not a direct contradiction. With the caveat the Rossi quote is no help.
As for the test fulfilling its contractual conditions IH's strongest argument against this is that 1MW heat cannot have been dissipated and therefore the Penon report cannot be correct. They have experts saying this and Rossi's reply (Wong) is pretty weak. But all that is irrelevant to the legal case if the IP transfer was not done. The test performance only becomes relevant legally if none of the other this was not the GPT arguments apply. However what also matters is if Rossi and co fraudulently misrepresented the test results - a separate issue relevant for the IH counter-claim.
You lose all of this context when you focus only on do Rossi's reactors work. You may be sure however that the IH and Rossi lawyers will be aware of the context.
Regards, THH
-
How about tackling why Rossi as JMP dictated and sent IH invoice requests with energy amounts that hugely vary from the ERV energy for the same month?
The invitations to send an invoice were (very) rough-rounded to chunks such as .75 and 1MW, as I recall. Do you really think anybody (anybody!) would assume that these were anything but rough values? I mean, who would? Do you really think Rossi was attempting to pull one over on someone by using such rough values?
QuoteOr how JMP could measure the energy recieved at all? Bass said they had no way to measure the energy sent from the plant, while Rossi claimed JMP had their own meters and temperature probes.
From the depositions that I read, there was at least a temperature probe and a water flow meter on the JMP side. Bass even refers to them in his testimony. They were used to spot check what was being received from Leonardo.
-
From the depositions that I read, there was at least a temperature probe and a water flow meter on the JMP side. Bass even refers to them in his testimony. They were used to spot check what was being received from Leonardo.
You mean that Rossi (JMP) was spot checking Rossi (Leonardo) measurements?
-
Paradigmnoia here has done then obtaining COP=5 from an empty reactor...
I don't remember seeing such conjecture from Para. Can you provide a link?
What I do remember is Para showing a COP of at least 5 even without a phase change of the water to steam.
-
I don't remember seeing such conjecture from Para. Can you provide a link?
What I do remember is Para showing a COP of at least 5 even without a phase change of the water to steam.
I'll let P answer.
It is not surprising P said that since in almost the very first post on the long-term test initial data (months ago) I said something similar - if you beleive the flowrate and temperature readings for flowing water. As you know, IH experts dispute those on multiple grounds any one of which would invalidate the data. If 1MW cannot be dissipated the Penon report is wrong and it does not then matter what it predicts.
-
Rends. The key phrase in the letter you quote is subject to the measurement caveat above. You will see that this qualifies all these results and the whole claim that rossi's stuff works.
You mean this caveat?
The one were JT mentions that they are using an expensive thermal camera? And how do you suppose that they obtained a COP of 9 with an incorrect emissivity parameter? Para said that is probably not likely.
-
What I want to demonstrate by going back to court papers is, that nothing is yet proofed. Both sides strongly tend to make it appear that the case has already been solved and either one or the other side has lost, but the court files simply do not allow this conclusion. If you want, you can interpret everything in the files and that is exactly what will happen, because in a jury procedure there is simply no time to ask every detail, but a plausible overall pictures must be drawn and this will be with the available material for both sides very difficult.
I would think Rossi's team is getting very small now.
