Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]


    So this is OK, the iffy bit is:

    The Penon data went through daily manual reading (at a time Rossi can't remember) and transcription by Rossi.

    If you reckon the sensors and data are good, then the readings are not indicative of dry steam, as Rossi claims. And the temperature and pressure and flowrate readings together don't make sense.


    You need with this test to look at the whole, with some sense of engineering integrity, and it does not make sense. But which way it does not make sense - is underdetermined.


    IHFB will never get it by looking at each bit in isolation, ignoring the stuff that is uncomfortable, and thinking that separate local explanations for the rest prove the whole thing is OK.

    Saying that the sensors were fine does not mean that the recorded readings that Rossi listed were fine.

    IH repeated requests for the raw data and to my knowledge never got them. All that they got was

    the daily items that were forwarded from Rossi's "hand" records.

    Fabiani has not released the logged data that I am aware of.

    @42,


    IH's experts are too good for LENR. They are going to take a condescending view of the whole field, and it spills into their opinions. They cannot be objective because of this. And naturally, they resort to jokes. Perhaps if they paused for a moment and considered that tens of millions of children located 'round the world go hungry every day, due to lack of energy and resources, they would wipe any smiles off their face.

    Quote from IHSupporter

    Saying that the sensors were fine does not mean that the recorded readings that Rossi listed were fine.

    IH repeated requests for the raw data and to my knowledge never got them. All that they got was

    the daily items that were forwarded from Rossi's "hand" records.

    Fabiani has not released the logged data that I am aware of.


    There are oodles of references to data all throughout Murray's deposition. Here are a few:


    215-3, pages 352-353

    25· · · · A.· · Right, no, no, no.· Yeah, I think the raw

    ·1· ·data, he indicated that there was raw data stored on a

    ·2· ·server in Russia that was encrypted and he had to, he

    ·3· ·put it there for safekeeping, and I believe that that

    ·4· ·data has been released only maybe in the last few days.

    ·5· ·I, I have not looked at it.· I haven't seen it. I

    ·6· ·haven't inspected it, but I believe that it has been

    ·7· ·released in the last few days.· But I have not seen a

    ·8· ·final report, and I don't know anything about, you know,

    ·9· ·if a final report was actually produced.



    215-3, page 250

    15· · · · A.· · I'm sorry.· Fulvio Fabiani provided us files.

    16· ·And so we, we looked at that, that data.· Fulvio

    17· ·Fabiani's data actually had two measurements for each

    18· ·day.· He had a measurement at, I believe the numbers

    19· ·were 10:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m.· Mr. Penon's data -- I

    20· ·have to be careful, make sure these names are right --

    21· ·Mr. Penon's data was actually only once per day.· It was

    22· ·at I believe 10:30 p.m. each day.· And the data from

    23· ·Florida Power and Light was each day at midnight.


    215-3, page 283

    13· · · · A.· · I took the, the data from the final report.

    14· ·I took the data that Fulvio Fabiani had provided us, and

    15· ·then I took the data from the, the Florida Power and

    16· ·Light subpoena.· That data were the only sources that I

    17· ·was aware of for power absorption data.

    18· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Who provided you that data?

    19· · · · A.· · These three sources of data?· Well, I

    20· ·received a copy of the final report from I, I believe I

    21· ·may have even been on the distribution from Mr. Penon.

    22· ·The data from Fulvio Fabiani was what he provided when

    23· ·he met with us in Jones Day office.· And the Florida

    24· ·Power and Light data was provided to me by counsel.


    215-3, pages 301 and 302

    24· · · · Q.· · Is there a theory or methodology or --
    25· · · · A.· · The methodology was to review the data
    ·1· ·provided, analyze it, and to look at the, the time
    ·2· ·history of the energy absorption provided by Mr. Penon
    ·3· ·and Mr. Fabiani

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    IH's experts are too good for LENR. They are going to take a condescending view of the whole field, and it spills into their opinions. They cannot be objective because of this. And naturally, they resort to jokes. Perhaps if they paused for a moment and considered that tens of millions of children located 'round the world go hungry every day, due to lack of energy and resources, they would wipe any smiles off their face.

    That sounds hypocritical now.


    When you really believe that Rossi found the holy grail, which could "save tens of millions of children located 'round the world go hungry every day, due to lack of energy and resources", then you really need to blame Rossi, not IH's experts.


    How selfish, he could have solved the world energy problems already 2011 (get the nobel, become the man of the year/century, become rich), but instead he talks to himself on JONP.

    If Penon actually did as he said in the test plan (use T type thermocouple) but Fabiani used K thermocouple software ID -

    then a T thermocouple at 99C (giving 4.232mV) would show up looking like a K thermocouple at 103C (4.220 MV).


    Do you believe Penon told the truth in his test plan?


    Anyway you look at it, Fabiani only having two thermal data points for an entire day is sloppy.

    It would be so easy to have non reprehensive thermal readings if you only took one data point a day.

    example:

    I often wondered why Rossi said he stayed late. Perhaps to be there when the data was taken.

    You know you could fake excess heat by just stopping the flow for a few moments before a single heat reading and then letting the heated water flow just as the temperature was read at the single time during the day. The flow is only recorded as the total for the day so it would not even show up in that. Close a valve then open just before the reading. Wouldn't take much to fool a one or two data point a day system.

    @42,


    You should know my view by now.


    Rossi is partly to blame for this blunder for incorporating the JMP ruse into this mess.


    Darden is also to blame for what appears to be his panic reaction and the hiring of the wrong experts, at which point he had no choice but to believe the experts (due to likely pressures from Woodford).


    As to the Grundfos pump, it is the prime mover. That is its function. And it matches the flow meter measurements. And the system was not flooded. Smith entirely missed (or didn't understand) the boiler gauge glass.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Anyone who would suggest that 0.0 bar indicated a perfect vacuum (and not gauge pressure or barg) and trumpeted that around the forums, is probably attempting to obfuscate the situation, since we all know the e-Cat was not installed in outer space (at least yet).


    And yet, only a few posts ago, I pointed out to you, that a pressure of 0.0 barg (atmospheric) proves that there was either

    no pressure leak (which you latched onto a while ago to prove there was steam),

    or the pressure readings provided by Rossi are fake,

    or the temperature readings provided by Rossi are fake.

    OR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM VOLUME IS VARIABLE !!!!!!!!


    PV=T


    Which one do you accept ?


    I have a suggestion for you, and it doesn't take a science lab.

    In your kitchen, fill an inverted gallon plastic milk jug with steam from your kettle, screw the cap on, wait.

    What happens and why ?

    Ignoring this post will say a lot.


    The penny will drop soon.


    Pete

    @Pete,


    Fake, fake, fake. Jed: "Fake, fake, fake!" Pete: "fake!!!!"


    I really don't care how many times you endlessly repeat this word, you folks are single-minded and refuse to consider alternative explanations. There was a slight vacuum to move the steam, okay? The slight vacuum likely fluctuated some (in fact we see that in the set of raw pressure data, as pointed out by Para I believe). We know the state inspector saw steam: he testified to that, and he is a disinterested witness. We know Murray did not have an issue with the temperature probes or placement. Your narrowly constructed view of the situation is just that: close-minded.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    @42,


    You should know my view by now.

    Oh yeah, I think I do know ;)

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    And the system was not flooded. Smith entirely missed (or didn't understand) the boiler gauge glass.

    The level in the sight glass at the "boilers" can be easily faked. There are manual valves at both end of every sight glass. Just close the top one, and the trapped air in the sight glass will indicate a "level", even when the e-cat is flooded.



    BTW: One day you need to explain me how you can edit/add text to a posting, without automatically getting the posting marked as edited.

    Quote

    As to the Grundfos pump, it is the prime mover. That is its function. And it matches the flow meter measurements. And the system was not flooded. Smith entirely missed (or didn't understand) the boiler gauge glass.

    OK - so in that case why does the water flow through the 4 tigers not match the flow round the central heating loop as determined by both Grundfoss and flowmeter?

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    @Pete,


    Fake, fake, fake. Jed: "Fake, fake, fake!" Pete: "fake!!!!"


    I really don't care how many times you endlessly repeat this word, you folks are single-minded and refuse to consider alternative explanations. There was a slight vacuum to move the steam, okay? The slight vacuum likely fluctuated some (in fact we see that in the set of raw pressure data, as pointed out by Para I believe). We know the state inspector saw steam: he testified to that, and he is a disinterested witness. We know Murray did not have an issue with the temperature probes or placement. Your narrowly constructed view of the situation is just that: close-minded.


    And yet, spending 5 minutes in your kitchen will prove, that no "steam" leak can occur with a slight vacuum.

    This is basic stuff, easily proven by my group of boy scouts.

    Proven in schools daily. My 12 year old now knows this (as of our last den meeting).


    So are you OK with the fact that there was either no "steam" leak

    or that the pressure is wrong.


    Pete

    @42,


    Then Barry West must have been part of the ploy, because he was the one checking and cleaning the gauge glass.


    As for editing: you have a short window of time to make edits before the forum marks the comment as edited. It is kind of like a grace period because we all (at least I) tend to notice something we should have said, or should have corrected, after the fact. I've always wished there was a grace-period feature like this for email.

    All these talks of 0.0 bar readings reminds me of an exotic wax plant were I worked as a maintenance pipefitter. The plant required pressure of less than 10 microns to operate. It is an unholy pain to get pressure that low. We had three pumps working in a series in the system. At startup we would typically get 400 microns. We would then spend the next 12-48 hours going around spraying helium at each possible leak point while a technician would read a spectrometer downstream to look for a leak. One time a half turn on a drain valve plug dropped us from 200 microns to 6 microns.

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.