Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from zeus46

Alan, are you sure?

The electricity bill suggests an average of 293 kWh/day were supplied, and on the slackest day in December, Penton reports 198kWh/day going into the shipping container.

The green line (FPL) dips below the red line (Penon) between the interval marked "Nov 2015" and "Dec 2015" ... so I guess I should have said "second half of Nov 2105". Penon's power for that period varies between 266 and 274, where FLP drops to 200.

But going back to July 2015, even if I set the input power to 400 kWh .. above FPL's maximum daily for the month, I still get a COP of over 50.

Quote from LENR Calender

Assuming that exhibit 5 is wrong on the pipe diameter and it is much larger, can someone remind me why the steam couldn't be at 1 atm?

I didn't see larger pipes in the photos.

But remember that they claimed it to be a closed loop which pushed water (they say full pipe) through the flow meter and into the tank. You could have 1atm steam in a system open to the air but not if it has to push water through a pipe and through a restrictive meter. If you claim an open system or that JMP was pumping things (pressure or vacuum), then you have introduced a new energy source into the system.

Again, the agreement required measuring the flow out of the device and not the flow into it. If you claimed it was not closed then you have absolutely no argument to even start saying that what flowed in must flow out. One easy way to fool the system would be for Rossi to occasionally dump some water (day unobserved during one of his all nighters) from the shipping container area (similar to what he did on some demos in Italy) and then have JMP to add back some in an area hidden by the wall. That is likely why the agreement specified that the flow OUT of the device was to be measured. It sure looks like they never measured the flow out of the device as required. Remember court cases are all about what is written in the agreements

.

Quote from LENR Calender

Look again, your eyes are tricking you. There is one day in that 30 day period where the rate is not 36000.

Oh for crying out loud. Don't spit hairs. Impossible is impossible.

EDIT: However, I see what you mean. There was one day in the series with a lower flow rate. A typo, perhaps?

Quote from LENR Calender

On the day starting 07/12 22:30, the rate is 32000.

So Murray was imprecise in his claim. It's ok if instead he asks why there is a period of two weeks with 36000.

He said it was a month, not two weeks:

"In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is that plausible?"

Quote from Alan Fletcher

fwiw, here's my steam calculator for 7/31/15 (page 13), using the reduced water flow:

http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc…p0=1&et1=69.7&ep2=1&er2=2

Note that this calculation is normalized to 1 hour, so the daily electric input of 151kWh gives 6.291kW input.

This gives a COP of 143.5 vs Penon's 134.6 -- ISTR Penon reduced the water flow AND didn't take into account the tank temperature.

Setting the inlet to boiling (99.6) gives a COP of 136, essentially the same as Penon.

I'm not saying it's true, just that his numbers are consistent with his calculation.

Display More

Alan, it is always good to do calculations. Also good to recognise GIGO.

The only evidence of excess heat is the assumption of phase change. There is zero evidence here for phase change, even if you believe these figures.

Believe the figures?

• We have flow meters, pressure meters, operated outside their spec (very minor issue, compared with rest, but shows at minimum lack of competence)
• We have a confirmed liar backing the figures with Penon, the ERV in charge, not there to vouch for them. Why not?

But, even if we believe this flow rate and pressure it offers no indication there is a phase change, and no excess energy without one.

Where is the ERV analysis of the piping and instrumentation proving that there is no liquid flow? Rossi has history on this one.

If we knew for sure the exit pipe diameter and length (Jed?) we could work out the pressure drop needed to force dry steam though. The idea that Rossi has a vacuum pump on the customer side just to allow pressure readings that appear to invalidate his system is weird even by Planet Rossi standards.

It seems absurd to me that anyone can see these figures as positive for Rossi.

Regards, THH

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Dear Peter and your fellow Planet Rossi brethren - as you will be learning soon enough (but should have already known by now), all data in the ERV annex is completely manufactured by Rossi.

None of it is real. The hold that this man still has on you is shameful and stunning.

data by Rossi. Yes, and remember per the agreement the "ERV" was to measure. I don't think he ever did If Penon did not take the measurements, then he could not be an "ERV" for the test.

Dewey, did IH ever get back the equipment that Penon said he had the manufacturer check? I can see it now- a flow meter exhibit Z and its spec sheet showing that it was not valid at the temperature, pressure and ranges that Penon claimed it was used on. - pass it around to the jury

Quote from Alan Fletcher

The green line (FPL) dips below the red line (Penon) between the interval marked "Nov 2015" and "Dec 2015" ... so I guess I should have said "second half of Nov 2105". Penon's power for that period varies between 266 and 274, where FLP drops to 200

Not sure how you are able to determine half-month data from 128-02/FPL's bill?

And are we talking about the 8502 kWh metered in Nov/Dec? Divided by 29 days gives 293 KWh/day... Whilst the highest daily reading by Penon is 273kWh/day?

Quote from oldguy

data by Rossi. Yes, and remember per the agreement the "ERV" was to measure. I don't think he ever did If Penon did not take the measurements, then he could not be an "ERV" for the test.

Dewey, did IH ever get back the equipment that Penon said he had the manufacturer check? I can see it now- a flow meter exhibit Z and its spec sheet showing that it was not valid at the temperature, pressure and ranges that Penon claimed it was used on. - pass it around to the jury

Flowmeter invalid.

Pressure meter invalid (specced only up to 80C).

And the supposedly independent ERV has vanished. I feel in PR terms the fact that there are so many hard facts that cast suspicion on this setup is actually a problem. We talk about them, and Planet Rossi say - ah - well - if Rossi had a vacuum pump that could all be possible. Or whatever. We have an underdetermined problem here. Making reasonable assumptions it becomes determined in the negative for Rossi. In that case you cannot tell the device worked even if you trust the experimenters. No reasonable person could trust Rossi/Penon even 1% without a thorough and detailed defence by Penon.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Alan, it is always good to do calculations. Also good to recognise GIGO.

The only evidence of excess heat is the assumption of phase change. There is zero evidence here for phase change, even if you believe these figures.

IF the water flow is 36K kg/day AND the pressure is 1 atm (0 gauge) AND the steam temperature is 103 THEN there IS a 100% phase change AND some super-heating.

Very interesting developments its certainly going to take me more than 5 minutes to digest and understand. But then again I fully admit I would only make a mediocre scientist.

As a pure inexpert in this I'm curious about the pressure issues that keep being raised. I certainly thought H2O at 103 deg C at atmospheric pressure was above the triple point of water and therefore very unlikely to me to be solid or liquid.

I would also naively think atmospheric pressure would be good for safety reasons and simplify the equipment.

The only issue that I can really understand stands out is if steam at this pressure can flow at the rate necessary and how this flow would be achieved at atmospheric pressure. It seems to me that this would not need to be supply pressure pump but could work with draw pressure.

There are far better experts here than me here that maybe could answer a question I've been wondering about.

Would an aspitator using the Venturi effect be sufficient to draw this flow of steam through the pipe?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirator_(pump)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect

I'm not knowledgeable about what kind of draw or flowrate that could bring perhaps better experts than me can say if it's viable or orders o magnitude insignificant.

What happens if the fluid in the condensor of raidiator on JMP side condenses from gas to liquid in combination with this technique.

Or would it require a pump removing the condensate in a closed system ti account for the required flow.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

IF the water flow is 36K kg/day AND the pressure is 1 atm (0 gauge) AND the steam temperature is 103 THEN there IS a 100% phase change AND some super-heating.

But you can't push this 1500kg/h steam through a 6m long DN40 pipe, even not if you have perfect vacuum (0 bar abs) at the end of the 6m pipe.
This was already explained several times! Check yourself with this calculator:
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/c…-loss-through-piping.html
Enter 3m instead of 6m, and you will see that you get for 3m pipe length already a pressure drop of 1 bar.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The only evidence of excess heat is the assumption of phase change. There is zero evidence here for phase change, even if you believe these figures.

But, even if we believe this flow rate and pressure it offers no indication there is a phase change, and no excess energy without one.

Only on Planet Thomas! The "ERV" data shows a COP above 6, even with no phase change. A 35C temperature rise of 36000kg water/day gives this. Fairly basic stuff here.

Quote from THHuxleynew

If we knew for sure the exit pipe diameter and length (Jed?) we could work out the pressure drop needed to force dry steam though.

And shortly afterwards you would realise the pressure drop along the length of the the pipe would be negligible... (assuming no condensation and the pipe is properly sized - to clarify: DN40 is never ever transporting 1MW of steam).

Indeed 42 - the "circulator" that Rossi was trying to locate in Jan 2015 will eventually shed further light on this and accelerate sunset on Planet Rossi.

The pressure sender specified by Penon reports in Absolute pressure. I posted images from the manufacturer spec sheet only a couple pages back.

The Pressure sender is made by Omega, so anyone can easily verify the the A in the part number means Absolute. G is for gauge pressure.

Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

Quote from Eric Walker

Defendants' reply in support of motion for leave to file on the docket:

At the risk of redundancy, thanks Eric! You keep us all entertained!

129 is IH's reply to Rossi, Johnson, Fabiani and Bass.

129-01 is IH's analysis showing a time where the electricity FLP supplied was less than what Rossi/JMP claim was consumed.

IH gives a succinct summary and responses to all the objections. They respond that the request for 4th Amendment is both timely and 'remedial' (meaning it fixes an important defect in the 3rd and prior Amendments. They argue that it is timely because it came in response to the Court's denial on January 17, 2017, and that it is not 'futile' because the new allegations and evidence show that the fraudulent information caused them to continue the Term Sheet agreement that they would have terminated if they had actual performance, and that would have saved IH time and money.

Looking at this issue (the motion to allow Amendment 4) my opinion is that the Court will allow IH to file Amendment 4 as IH's final response going into trial. It is also my opinion that the judge will rule that counts IV and V against Third Parties Johnson, Fabiani and Bass will be reinstated. However, I am a little less confident about her reinstating those counts. For example, it's not out of the question for the judge to find other defects to deny counts IV and V, especially regarding Bass (count IV). But generally, I think it more likely that Johnson, Fabiani and Bass are all back on the hook again. Especially Fabiani for count V. (But that's just my opinion, and I am not a lawyer.)

We'll find out soon, in any case.

Quote

There was a third part of the agreement, which involved a payment from IH to Rossi. This payment depended on Rossi completing a GPT for 350 days at certain power levels. Rossi claims he met that requirement and should be paid the $89 million. If Rossi is right and did in fact meet that requirement, IH was supposed to pay the 89 million dollars and they then would have completed all aspects of the contract. If that is the case (that Rossi successfully completed the GPT), since IH did not pay, they have violated the contract agreement.

Well, this is perfectly my stance too - where's the difference? If IH will not pay 89 million dollars, he would violate the contract agreement - so he cannot get the license.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Well, this is perfectly my stance too - where's the difference? If IH will not pay 89 million dollars, he would violate the contract agreement - so he cannot get the license.

If the Guaranteed Performance was achieved IH must pay. Otherwise they viloate the agreement and lose the license.

But if the Guaranteed Performance was not achieved. IH don't have to pay and still have the license.

It's at the end of §5 in the agreement "lf neither the foregoing standard nor the Guaranteed Performance is achieved, the Company shall not be required to pay any amount pursuant to section 3(c) above and the total purchase price set fort in section 3.1 shall be reduced accordingly".

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Well, this is perfectly my stance too - where's the difference? If IH will not pay 89 million dollars, he would violate the contract agreement - so he cannot get the license.

OK we agree on that generally, at least about the $89M (though please look at the correction I made due to DNI's analysis), IF there was a valid GPT.

The contract shows there has to be a signed ageement if there is any modification to the GPT, including an agreement for a new start date. Since everyone (including Rossi) agrees that the original GPT did not occur on schedule, can you please show me the evidence that there was a valid GPT that both parties agreed to? Are you taking the position that the Term Sheet is a valid GPT agreement? If so, my opinion is that you have an absurdly weak argument. But perhaps you are basing your belief on something else?

I'd be very interested to know what evidence leads you to believe that there was a valid GPT that met the requirements of the signed contract (2nd amendment).

Obviously, my opinion is that there is no evidence of a valid GPT agreement. Instead there is lot's of evidence that Rossi is a con man, and that Johnson, Penon and Fabiani all helped defraud IH. Likely Bass helped too, but perhaps unwittingly. That's why I think Rossi will most likely loose this case in court.

Can there be a successful GPT claimed if Penon has never come forward and authenticated that he took the measurements and verified the numbers? It seems like there test is/was never complete (if you even think FL was to be that) if Penon does not certifies the reports and now comes to court to verify a report. Was the test ever completed if Penon has not signed off on it? Where is that? You would think that Rossi would have given at least that as evidence.

I have seen nothing that would verified that the numbers in the Exhibit were anything but what Rossi supplied. Is there a Penon signature on anything?

I guess another question is: Is the contract to be fulfilled in sequential stages, or can the conditions be fulfilled out of order? If Rossi did not deliver sufficiently complete IP for IH to successful replicate*, even with his help, then is not this second stage required to be satisfied before the GPT can contemplated?

*By replicate I mean succesfully obtain COPs similar to previously reported E-Cat test COP's, not maybe 1.3, but at least 2.9 to 11.9

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I guess another question is: Is the contract to be fulfilled in sequential stages, or can the conditions be fulfilled out of order? If Rossi did not deliver sufficiently complete IP for IH to successful replicate, even with his help, then is not this second stage required to be satisfied before the GPT can contemplated?

This is an intresting question. What happens if Rossi violated the terms of the agreement before the alleged GPT started? What happens then with IHs license? I have no idea