Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

@THHuxleynew

Have an upvote. While I don't agree with your entire comment, I think it was very well thought out, and I too am fascinated by the psychology, except in a slightly different way: the never-can-work despite the evidence mentality strikes me as close-minded. I think it is better to keep an open mind and let the evidence guide us. I'm not saying you don't do this for sure, but sometimes it is hard to tell.

Quote from LENR Calender

Murray is human after all and makes mistakes like we all do. For example, he picked the wrong period of time to show 30 consecutive days @ 36m3/d flow. Happens.

A mistake by Murray is certainly possible. But if it was a mistake, why hasn't it been corrected on the record? It has been nearly a year since the litigation was put into motion, and about a year since Murray did his investigation. Dewey has every opportunity to correct the mistake with this community as well. The more time that passes, the worse it will be. If I were Jed, I'd be pretty pissed at IH for such sloppiness (assuming that's what it was), and then going on the junk yard dog attack against everyone who even dared to question Exhibit 5.

Dear dewey,

To start at the last sentence- you ask me the chemist? The name of the company says nothing to me. I have worked with the manufacturers, iners of gold here, have raslated a book about Gold-illo tempore. Will look on the Web and if yiou need help..

Re tne diagram - I have not asked it for me, sincerely I have no problems with this issue, not with the unprofessional Exhibit 5, but I reckon I would not be able to say correct things about a similar IT problem. Plants- i have worked with, in a lot.

What I asked is for the colleagues here, they deserve to have the good information

BTW what is with the supersonic steanm and sound? Who has

measured the speed, where?

Jed please excuse me I forgot you are here and that Exhibit 5 is your treasure! So the steam pipe was as Murray says it exactly? On your word of honor?

Shane D

I well remember when you was a nice LENR colleague.

The historical truth is that immediately after the start of the trial a campaign of charcater assassination of Rossi started

very aggresive- see what i wrote in my blog yesterday about painting with dirt.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Wouldn't it be a sign of normality to continue this discussion about the ERV results only when we have the scheme and piping diagram of the 1MW Plant?

Just to avoid really desperate speculations e.g. re piping.

Dewey could tell us how large was the much disputed steam pipe. It was very probably insulated so Murray could not

evaluate it and not being familiar with such plants thought that if water enters the generators by a 40mm pipr steam will go out by a pipe of the same size. This is in concordance with his creative idea of hlf full pipes in such circuits; we will see this to with the much necessary piping diagraam.

I wonder why IH has not published earlier the ERV results

as Exhibit 30 and the diagram as Exhibit 31?

If IH thinks they are 100% right then anything real must

work in their favor Both in the court and on this Forum.

Peter

Display More

"I wonder why IH has not published earlier the ERV results"

perhaps they don't have what they would call an "ERV" results. Notice Ross did not summit it either. All we have is a document supplied by Rossi listed as Final Report. We don't even have any evidence that it came from Penon. Rossi submitted it without even the cover sheet. We will likely have to wait until Penon comes out from hiding to find out what his report was (if it even existed) and not just data supplied from Rossi.

Yes, I want to see Rossi's pictures of the site.

Quote from DAK2

Do you have a reference to the "massive over-reading of input power...." comment (i.e. URL link)?

It was at the failed hydrofusion test. Rossi turned up to this with average V & A meters, and proceeded to measure the input power as 3X smaller (or so) than it really was due to the spikiness of the waveform and the average vs rms issue.

You'd need an impossible invention, or abd's summary of the issue here

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, Murray and anyone else looking at the machine could see the pipe was half-empty and the water was splashing into an open tank.

When and to whom did Murray state this?

@Bob

It is IH's duty to correct the record if they deposited information to the court docket that was mistaken or inaccurate, not Rossi's.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

No confusion on pipe size either - all of that information is documented, photographed and in hand.

So you are confirming it was a single DN40 steam exit pipe? And if not, wouldn't you want to have the record corrected, both here and with the court?

[ The new software has a different quoting method .... I'm too lazy to edit the HTML ]

Jed said : You can confirm it from the photos of the reservoir. The reservoir is a large, heavy plastic container reinforced with metal.

I don't believe I have seen a photo of the reservoir in Doral ... only from the 1MW in Bologna. (Customer test, and photos with Darden).

Jed said : Yes, Murray and anyone else looking at the machine could see the pipe was half-empty and the water was splashing into an open tank.

Murray didn't say he saw the plant running. I think your sentence should read :

Yes, Murray and anyone else looking at the machine COULD HAVE SEEN WHETHER the pipe was half-empty and WHETHER the water was splashing into an open tank.

But many other IH people and customers have been at the site while it was in operation. None of them seemed to notice that. (Stellar!). And what about "Barry West" ... has he been deposed as a witness? Did he participate in taking the daily readings?

Also, back to Murray Exhibit 5 : https://drive.google.com/drive…ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8 (IH filed the letter, but not the attachments).

Quote

3. The number of reactor units in operation varied substantially over time.

As discussed on February 16, 2016 while at the location, 21 of the 64 units in the 4 large reactors had clearly been disabled, leaving only 43 of those 64 units that may have been operational. Also, all 51 of the smaller units were disabled. See Exhibit C (examples).

Similarly, at the time you completed the MW1-USA electrical measurement chart on October 13, 2015, out of operation were all 51 of the smaller units, one of the large reactors (containing 16 units), and 17 of the 48 units in the remaining 3 large reactors. That means only 31 units were operational. In contrast, according to your February 2015 report, 111 units were operational at the beginning of the test.

Your reports do not account for these substantial variations. There is no explanation as to how the energy output at times increased or stayed constant during periods when a substantial number of the units were inoperable and/or the average power supply into the system was decreased. There is also no explanation as to how other variables, such as the flow rate, were not impacted in an expected manner by changes in the number of operating units.

Actually, looking at Oct 13 we can see that the input power almost doubled from Oct 1 when one Tiger was turned back on (clearly out of operation in September -- reduced flow and input power, higher COP). Did Murray mean September?

Murray may have been there while the plant was running :

Quote

As reflected in the images shown in the last two exhibits, the system was altered after you and we left the location on February 16. The water level in the reservoir tank is clearly different as between (a) late in the afternoon of February 16, after you had instructed that the system be shut down, and (b) on the morning of February 17, when you continued to conduct your measurements and you collected your measurement equipment. See Exhibit D.

but didn't comment on the pipe splashing.

Since Jed has seen photos of the reservoir I presume he's seen the entire report and its Exhibit D.

Alan, where did that quote come from? Was it directed at Penon or Rossi. I understood that Penon sent measurement devices to the manufactures to be examined. Did he really get the devices or was he given devices by Rossior who ever that quote was directed to? I am thinking chain of evidence or was the quote to Rossi and he remove them to spoil the evidence chain.

Quote from LENR Calender

Murray is human after all and makes mistakes like we all do. For example, he picked the wrong period of time to show 30 consecutive days @ 36m3/d flow. Happens.

Oh for crying out loud! Okay, so it was 29 days with one exception. WHAT POSSIBLE difference can that make? Three consecutive days are impossible.

You are looking at inconsequential mistakes and using them as an excuse to dismiss reality. I accidentally quoted one of Rossi's temperatures, 100.1 deg C, and then I looked it up and changed it to 103 deg C. You and others made a big deal about this, as if I had committed a federal crime and everything I said was a lie because of that. That's the worst kind of nonsense. With a large machine like this, temperatures are never uniform or stable. They fluctuate. Most industrial thermocouples or bimetallic thermometers rugged enough to survive immersion in a pipe are accurate, if they are installed and calibrated properly. Accurate, yes, but not so precise that a 3 degree difference is meaningful. If the instrument was not calibrated properly, or it has been sitting in the pipe for a year, it could register 103 deg C but it might actually be below 100 deg C.

Here is one for $180 (which is a lot!) with 1% accuracy, which is a plus/minus 1.4 deg C error. I doubt it is actually only 1%.

https://www.grainger.com/produ…F4?functionCode=P2IDP2PCP

Industrial grade equipment is extremely reliable and accurate but not precise. That's the trade-off. Look at the worksheets used in factories to evaluate machine performance and safety by state inspectors. The tables show temperatures in 10 or 20 deg F increments. No one expects better precision than that. There is no need for it.

The answers themselves are not precise. The entire machine is never at a uniform temperature, or uniform over time.

Quote from oldguy

Alan, where did that quote come from? Was it directed at Penon or Rossi. I understood that Penon sent measurement devices to the manufactures to be examined. Did he really get the devices or was he given devices by Rossior who ever that quote was directed to? I am thinking chain of evidence or was the quote to Rossi and he remove them to spoil the evidence chain.

My quotes were from Exhibit 5, Murray to Penon

Quote from JedRothwell

Three consecutive days are impossible.

If the system had only the 24 metered pumps each of 2% "repeatability" and set to 36,500 kg/day then the array gives 0.4% variation or 36,500 +- 146 and is likely not to cross the 1,000 mark very often (if at all) in 365 days.

(The actual variation for a running pump is probably much smaller than the repeatability).

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, Murray and anyone else looking at the machine could see the pipe was half-empty and the water was splashing into an open tank. What else could it be but half empty with this arrangement?

Quote from IH Fanboy

When and to whom did Murray state this?

I'm guessing there's going to be another '100.1C moment' in Jed's future...

@zeus46

It might be that Jed is being misled by IH.

Quote from JedRothwell

You are looking at inconsequential mistakes and using them as an excuse to dismiss reality.

No, I'm just showing that people make mistakes; some are inconsequential (15 or 30 days in a row @ the same flow is equivalent). If he made another easy mistake such as misunderstanding Rossi telling him sch40 pipe as DN40, and I'm not saying he did, then it would be more consequential.

I did see that you claim that "the pipe was exactly as described by Murray". The only way you can be so confident about this is if you have a secondary source or if you talked to Murray/IH about how he got the info. Saying that Rossi didn't deny it isn't sufficient.

You did say "Murray had no trouble measuring the pipe", so you must have some kind of insider info. Do you?

Hard to evaluate where your info comes from when the link below served as your confirmation that Rossi's steam temperature was 100.1C

http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…eskimo.com/msg109919.html

If you keep saying that 100.1 and 104 is the same, I'll start arguing that 104C is a minimum so the temperature could have been 120C most of the time. That'll make for a few pages of debate.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@zeus46

It might be that Jed is being misled by IH.

Hence my description of it as another '100.1C moment'