In that context, can we believe the one part about an offer?
It would sure make Rossi look like an incredible liar, wouldn't it? So why aren't IH's lawyers all over this like white on rice?
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
Kev - produce the document with the offer or stop just repeating you beliefs over and over. The article mentions an offer but notice it also says any unused heat was vented out of the roof. I don't think that article is reliable at appears to be all hearsay based on Rossi says and nothing else.
Again, what was the offer and were is a copy of it. If the document of the offer itself is not in the evidence, it likely does not exist in reality.
-
From the report, " MFMP obtained a (false) reading of 1524°C versus a 874°C thermocouple reading".
It is mind boggling that scientists could be off by more than 500degreesC in a measurement of heat. And the odd thing is that this "reality distortion field" seems to apply to when Rossi is involved. No one thought to bring a simple thermometer?
Exactly, Kev.
Actually they did (a thermocouple) but didn't trust the (low) reading because of the rigged surface, and resorted to uncalibrated optical thermography alone.
MFMP simply tied the thermocouples with iron wire, it was easy and the reading was very well in line with a pyrometer. My computation using this temperature reading confirmed a COP of 0.9 to 1.0 for MFMP's dummy (close enough to the theoretical 1) using the same method as Lugano (except the wrong camera setting of course!).
Mind boggling yes, and the only explanation is confirmation bias if you don't invoke outright fraud.
-
Kev - produce the document with the offer or stop just repeating you beliefs over and over. The article mentions an offer but notice it also says any unused heat was vented out of the roof. I don't think that article is reliable at appears to be all hearsay based on Rossi says and nothing else.
Again, what was the offer and were is a copy of it. If the document of the offer itself is not in the evidence, it likely does not exist in reality.
It has already been accepted upthread that Rossi claimed to offer IH a refund. So I'm not going to play fetch.
Other things on Rossi's JONP blog have been entered as evidence.
-
It would sure make Rossi look like an incredible liar, wouldn't it? So why aren't IH's lawyers all over this like white on rice?
There are so many lies Kev, the better question would be why "IH's lawyers" would concentrate on this relatively minor one? At this point, probably one of IH's biggest challenges is to prove enough of the Rossi/Fabiani/Penon lies to win the case, without appearing to pile on and trigger the sympathies of the jury.
I kind of feel sorry for JD's head lawyer Pace. The evidence is so in his favor, this is his to lose. Only thing between him and success, is a fickle jury, or a poor performance. Annesser on the other hand, can walk away after a loss with a pile of money, and bragging rights that he took this further than it should have gone.
-
In regards to what Rossi wrote on JONP and if IH lawyers may use this stuff in court, I would be interested to see what Rossi, Johnson, Di Giovanni (independly from each other) would have to say to this:
QuoteDisplay MoreAndrea Rossi
April 8, 2016 at 9:54 AM
Teemu:
I knew the Customer in the office of my Attorney Henry Johnson. They were enthusiast to test our 1 MW plant, to see if it really worked, because they were ( and are ) interested to buy more plants for their facilities in Europe. They wanted not to be exposed, though, therefore incorporated JM Products and made a plant for their production to make the test and appointed President their Attorney, who was also, as I said, my Attorney. IH knew all this and agreed, obviously, on this, making a rental agreement with JM Products to make the test in their factory. When IH met with the President of JM in Raleigh, I was present and I explained that he was also my Attorney. No problem has been raised by IH.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
How did the "Customer" and Rossi learn from each other? In Johnson's office? (Isn't Di Giovanni and long time buddy of Rossi?)
Which facilities does the "Customer" have in Europe?
Who is "they"?
When was the "Platinum American Trust" established?
...
I guess Rossi's would have a hard time to explain all this issues in front of the jury - without conflicting with Johnson or Di Giovanni version about the "Customer" situation.
I have copied the above JONP/Rossi statement from here...
http://e-catworld.com/2016/04/…about-1mw-plant-customer/
... where - btw - there is also an interesting (and in hinsight funny) Quotes from Mats Lewan:
QuoteOk, so this is what I heard from sources having visited the plant and talked to the customer (who could of course be an actor, playing his part in a scam…) – that JMC set up a production unit of the same kind that they already have in UK, although smaller. Given the experience from their units in the UK they knew perfectly well how much energy should be consumed and how much energy was needed to run the unit. At least one engineer was sceptical in the beginning, but soon found out that the consumed electric energy was much less than expected, using the E-Cat plant as energy source for the hot steam. And the customer was happy as a lark with this.
I don’t know which the UK based company is, but I understood it’s not Johnson Matthey (which would have been a nice coincidence, since Johnson Matthey apparently once provided the working palladium samples to F&P), and as far as I know it has absolutely nothing to do with Hydrofusion.
And:
QuoteIn this case it was not Rossi who said. And the actor thing was just to give a hint on what a fraud hypothesis implies. Personally, I find it extremely hard to believe.
-
Dewey went on record saying IH denied the offer? That's different from what he says here that there was no offer.
He said there was no offer. He never said I.H. denied or turned down an offer.
-
My claim is that Rlossi posted on his blog that he made the offer. That is a verified fact.
No one disputes that. However, Dewey says he was lying, and he never actually made that offer. You should not believe Rossi. He has often lied about things like robotic production and the invisible mezzanine heat exchanger. The Penon report is one long outrageous lie.
-
There are so many lies Kev, the better question would be why "IH's lawyers" would concentrate on this relatively minor one?
Because this one can put $10M in your pocket.
-
It is mind boggling that scientists could be off by more than 500degreesC in a measurement of heat.
You mean temperature, not heat. They were not measuring temperature; they were measuring emissivity. It is not such a big error with that measurement, but it is mind-boggling that they did not check it during calibration. It is also mind-boggling that they did not confirm it with a thermocouple, the way they did in the first set of tests.
-
Display More
"I think....." Wow !
Without a complete calculus and a paper (or at least a web page written at that time ()) illustrating what they would done your affirmation is empty and without any value.
We don't know even if it has any true foundation or not.
I have followed the work of MFMP and never found such a positive COP without fuel !
A google search confirms my ideas:
https://www.google.nl/search?q=MFMP+COP+3
Also your big jump is in fact not so big.
First you have to write the temperatures in Kelvin so sum 273.16 to both
Then ignoring the Boltzman constant that is present in both cases we have a ratio of emitted energy density 0.45*(1797.16)^4 / (0.95*(1273.16)^4) = 1,8
So emitted energy is almost linear as function of emissivity. If following the ill based and invalid reasoning of the Lugano detractors divide the obtained 3.6 COP by 1.8 we obtain still a COP of 2.
This means that even following the most ill based and critics ( MFMP was not using pure Allumina ! and the "spectral emissivity" argument is simply out of any reality ) the Lugano reactor was working !
Actually they explained the method well. The part that computes radiated power works. The part where they resort to literature data to set the camera is wrong.
The temperature error that MFMP got when using 0.45 emissivity leads to a COP of 4.3 for their dummy. See my previous post.
-
No one disputes that. However, Dewey says he was lying, and he never actually made that offer. You should not believe Rossi. He has often lied about things like robotic production and the invisible mezzanine heat exchanger. The Penon report is one long outrageous lie.
It does not matter if Rossi was lying about the offer. Once you get it on the docket and the judge starts asking Rossi questions about it, the jig is up. If he lied about the offer then there is no reason for the jury to believe him on anything. If IH lied about the offer the same thing applies.
Juries don't understand calorimetry; hell, it looks like even 'experts' don't understand calorimetry. But they know when someone withdraws an offer disingenuinely that means they'll be sitting through 5 weeks of depositions. It's the whole case in a nutshell.
-
- During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.
Kev,
This is my reference. Do you have something different? I am not sure we are on the same page. Some links may help.
-
The Penon report is one long outrageous lie.
There are some contributors here and on Vortex who have read the Penon report and don't see it as an outrageous lie. I doubt the jury will see it that way. When things get technical their eyes glaze over. The lie to focus on is the one juries can understand and identify with. A slick con artist backing out of a refund is something they will understand.
-
This states rather that IH tried to settle. But it is a sockpuppet-says.
-
- During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.
Kev,
This is my reference. Do you have something different? I am not sure we are on the same page. Some links may help.
I stopped looking for links and references once someone acknowledged they had seen Rossi's claim. Even Jed said above, "No one disputes that." Except apparently Dewey.
-
Display More
"I think....." Wow !
Without a complete calculus and a paper (or at least a web page written at that time ()) illustrating what they would done your affirmation is empty and without any value.
We don't know even if it has any true foundation or not.
I have followed the work of MFMP and never found such a positive COP without fuel !
A google search confirms my ideas:
Since the dimensions of the MFMP device were the same as the Lugano device, applying the new low emissivity (higher) temperature to the main cylinder area (and with Optris software this is really easy), then work out the caps temperature, and calculate power at the emissivity of 0.45, (or whatever the Lugano chart says for the appropriate temperature since the caps will be a little different). Then compare to the actual input power.
Go ahead. Try it.
That's a dare. Test it!!!
How much power does that test device seem to make at a main tube temperature of 1524 C ? (even ignoring the caps)
How much power was going into it?
**The main cylinder can be treated as a 20 cm tube of 23 mm diameter, and the caps as a single cylinder of 4 cm diameter and 8 cm length for simplicity**
I tried the MFMP google docs page for the Thermal Validation last night, but it is no longer working.
Maybe someone from MFMP can make a download link for the Thermal Validation .RAVI files so we can all play change the emissitviy and COP game with the same data.
-
I stopped looking for links and references once someone acknowledged they had seen Rossi's claim. Even Jed said above, "No one disputes that." Except apparently Dewey.
I did find a reference to Rossi willing to give back the money. Wouldn't it have been so much nobler than giving it to lawyers?
-
There are some contributors here and on Vortex who have read the Penon report and don't see it as an outrageous lie.
And there are people who believe the world is flat. What is your point?
A slick con artist backing out of a refund is something they will understand.
He lied, and lied, and lied again about the fake company JM, about the heat exchanger and the photos and about many other things. I.H. has a mountain of lies on record to show the jury. In any case, he did not "back out" of the refund because he never made the offer. He only claimed he did, in his blog. That has no legal standing.
-
I stopped looking for links and references once someone acknowledged they had seen Rossi's claim.
So you put us through all this, because of that?
Who BTW has: "seen Rossi's claim"? And what may I ask was his claim? And who is this "someone"?
