Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Sorry Rigel - those traps don't work in a live fire exercise.

Planet Rossi still thinks that his "brilliant" pressure revelation is a survivable flesh wound even minus the arms and legs.

The visuals are getting more fun.

Quote from oldguy

You attack IH for not correcting others but why didn't Rossi correct the 100.1 number?

Quote

Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 1:00 PM

Sebastian:

No, the value of 100.1 has been invented by the usual clowns.

I repeat that I cannot disclose the data of the Report of the ERV before it is disclosed in Court.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

Quote

1. Bert Wesley May 17, 2016 at 1:18 PM

   Dear Dr Rossi:

   The Clown says you pasted the data of the report and confused them. He says you put 100.1 °C also when the plant was shut down.

   
   Do you think is worth to answer ?

   
   Cheers,

   
   Bert

2. Andrea Rossi May 17, 2016 at 6:50 PM

   Bert Wesley:

   
   The Clown, as you call it, forgot that I didn’t make any data of the report. The data for the report have been collected only by the ERV.

   
   We are talking of 12 millions of raw data, that, if printed, would make 66 000 pages. The exclusive holder of the raw data is the ERV.

   
   The temperature indicated by what you call The Clown is wrong, never cited that temperature in the report .

   
   Who wrote these stupidities obviously knows nothing of the test.

   
   Warm Regards,

   
   A.R

Display More

Quote

1. Frank Acland May 17, 2016 at 5:38 PM

   Dear Andrea,

   Regarding the ERV report:

   1. I have read rumors of the ERV report stating that steam output was constantly 100.1 C throughout the test, even when the plant was shut down — is this accurate? If not, can you say what the average temperature of the steam was?

   
   2. Was there any difference between the measurements by your own instruments and the ERV’s instruments of steam output?

   Thank you if you can answer,

   Frank Acland

2. Andrea Rossi May 17, 2016 at 6:26 PM

   Frank Acland:

   
   1- The ERV is a nuclear engineer, who worked in nuclear power plants and has a long career as an expert for validations and certifications. The imbecile that wrote such stupidities probably has introjected himself and his own culture in the brain of the ERV. Obviously what you report as a “rumor” is a nonsense. Also the number is wrong. I cannot disclose the data of the report until the report is disclosed in Court.

   
   2- As you know, I made my own measurements with my instrumentation and also I had access to the displays of the ERV’s instrumentation installed in the plant, so I was able to make a comparision. The data were coherent, within the normal margin of error of the instruments.

   
   Warm Regards,

   
   A.R.

Display More

@sigmoidal

You can condescend all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Dewey was pushing the 100.1 C value at a time when the ERV report was being discussed in reference to the 1 MW one year test. Rossi was publicly disputing Dewey at the time. It was this controversy that brought me into active participation in this forum. Had Dewey not attempted the smoke screen, he likely never would have had to deal with my presence here.

Go back and look at the actual exchanges. The context of what was happening is quite clear.

Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

Quote from Bob

LHF Sam,

I understand wanting to be fact based and unbiased!

Please show me where you have called out Rossi or those who continually make supportive claims based upon only "Rossi Says" or even non-existent

data / facts! Where they are also defamatory about others who do not bow to the gospel of Rossi!

Bob, I want to help researchers, not attack them.

It is not my job to - "call out those who continually make supportive claims based upon only Rossi says".

What do I have to gain from attacking individual teams and mocking the people who actually believe in them? It is destructive, and it affect a lot of people. All that energy can be directed towards something that is constructive.

Look at Jed, regardless of how the situation unfolds, he has lost his credibility.

I do not care about the court-case so much, I find it to be a very boring distraction, instead I am more interested in research. Even if Rossi wins the court case on every count, which I find unlikely, I still would like to test the technology and get positive results, several times, before I allow myself to believe beyond a doubt that his technology works. And if other setups come across my paths, that shows potential, I would gladly test them.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@sigmoidal

You can condescend all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Dewey was pushing the 100.1 C value at a time when the ERV report was being discussed in reference to the 1 MW one year test. Rossi was publicly disputing Dewey at the time. It was this controversy that brought me into active participation in this forum. Had Dewey not attempted the smoke screen, he likely never would have had to deal with my presence here.

Go back and look at the actual exchanges. The context of what was happening is quite clear.

Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

Display More

I admit that I have no prior knowledge of this dispute. But in looking back at it, it all seems like a 'tempest in a teapot'.

100.1C vs 103C are both superheated steam at steady state at 1 Bar (atmosphere). Which is very different in terms of both energy AND design requirements than 100C liquid water.

But since in either case we're talking about superheated steam, and Rossi himself choses to 'conservatively' use 100.1C in his COP calculations, from a physics/thermodynamics standpoint, I just don't see why this was such a big deal.

In looking at your links I do see that Rossi seemed to make a big deal about it. So I acknowledge that.

I do not understand why that was a big deal to him. Was the issue that the 100.1C was characterized (by Rossi critics) as being constant and therefore unrealistic?

Quote from LFH Sam

Look at Jed, regardless of how the situation unfolds, he has lost his credibility.

What are you talking about specifically?

The Excel version of the Final Report is now complete with all data. Whilst 'COP' is computed, 'produced energy' is static data, I'll leave it up to someone else figure out how that was calculated. The odd thing I noticed was that to get the correct COP, the 'produced energy' had to be quite precise. However this precision seemed at odds to the very few variations in value making 'cut and 'paste' a most effective way to complete this particular column.

Oldguy, So it is clear you are right on what you said and I withdraw my assertions. Does this work?

Of course a forum is not a legal notification. I will not be able to prove that Rossi stated it was the GPT because he used Rossi language on saying he was in a container 7/24 on his 350 day test. My point to Dewey was just to understand, I would kinda expect to see an email come out by IH to Rossi saying "what in heck are you trying to say in all these blogs that you are doing a 350 day test (knowing that we have a contract with you to perform a 350 day test) This test that you are referring is not our contractual GPT by any chance is it? If so knock it off, is this clear? -signed IH" So I would expect to see (in the coming days) a communication just like that. I further wonder what IH thought he as doing in Doral for almost a year when they (being IH) knew he was under a time bound contract to have the GPT done by this time.

I was not baiting Dewey, he understands my position on Rossi, and he is an advocate for his side, just as others are for theirs. So does this work for you?

P.S. Thanks for calling me on this, I was sloppy.

Quote from sigmoidal

I do not understand why that was a big deal to him. Was the issue that the 100.1C was characterized (by Rossi critics) as being constant and therefore unrealistic?

This hearkens back to an even earlier time when the primary controversy was about whether the steam in Rossi's plants was dry or wet. That one erupted across the LENR community and was especially hammered upon by Krivit. By the time the 1 MW test and apparently positive ERV report had come about, steam temperature was on everyone's mind. A temperature of 100.1 C was code for: it didn't work. Dewey was probably attuned to the sensitivity surrounding the dry/wet steam controversy, and it appears that he capitalized on it by inserting the same FUD into the 1 MW test results discussion thread.

Looks like this absurd 100.1°C vs 103°C dispute is just a lot of arguing for the sake of argument.

I know where the 100.1 comes from. It is directly relevant to the reported COP.

Quote from IH Fanboy

A temperature of 100.1 C was code for: it didn't work.

Well, that's the point of my confusion. Because under atmospheric pressure, and with the claims of the cooled water at various temperatures below 70C, 100.1C could mean that it DOES work, depending on flow. .

If the E-Cat could do that with high volume (flow), then you can certainly argue that 1MW is possible.

But in that case the huge 'could' word depends on the pressure and flow conditions. So I still don't understand why the temperature became the line upon which a battle was fought.

But thanks for the clarification.

In light of all the other deficiencies in the instrumentation, (0 pressure??) I'm certainly ready to move on.

Quote from Rigel

IH statement was " do not believe anything unless we state it". Then IH said nothing while Rossi was giving daily GPT reports. This has always made me wonder, why was this not stopped. People do things for reasons.

Are you insinuating that Dewey Weaver is a human-handled spambot whose task is decredibilizing Rossi, gaslighting him and his supporters, for the benefit of IH, while maintaining IH's plausible deniability as he's merely a moniker on a forum, of which the civil person Dewey Weaver can hardly be held accountable for? Careful Rigel, those are serious accusations, which an impartial judge might consider very disturbing.

The ERV documents are another page of shame in Rossi's Great Book of Scams which will go down in the history of Science as the go-to operation manual to try and turn wholesome, greater good-oriented investors into empty pocket fools. Alas for Rossi and his sockpuppetted Rossi-ites, swift Justice will soon be delivered and IH will be able to keep on researching new pathways into modern and safe energy generation systems.

The cows are coming home faster than you can write "negative COP". Message to Planet Rossi: It's not too late to forsake your guru.

The difference between 100.1 and 103.9 mattered back then because it implies a different margin of safety above the boiling point.

100.1C implied "LOL Rossi is just pretending the water is boiling when it's really on only 0.1C above 100C and a small change of pressure could mean a change of phase"

It still matter today, but without knowing who took those daily values (Rossi being more likely than Penon) and wth is going on with pressure (0.0 everyday just looks like a non-working transducer)... All it takes is a pressure of 18psi for water to be liquid at 105C

I say dump the whole year test and start a week long test with a new independent ERV. Waive the GPT and give the man his $89 million if it works.

Quote from Roger

Alas for Rossi and his sockpuppetted Rossi-ites

Are you sure this isn't a story about glass houses? With all the accusations of sockpuppet accounts employed by Rossi, this new one here seems to fit the bill, except on behalf of Rossi's nemesis.

Quote from sigmoidal

In light of all the other deficiencies in the instrumentation, (0 pressure??) I'm certainly ready to move on...

The pressure value is certainly curious. Jed has hung his hat on this issue. I mentioned awhile back that a slight vacuum on the exit-end of the pipe could explain it. Some here mocked me for the suggestion. But I think it must not be dismissed. The folks over on e-cateworld are now exploring that possibility in greater depth:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2017…ming-cop-63-139/#comments

Quote from Malcolm Lear

The Excel version of the Final Report is now complete with all data. .....

Thanks for your work on this.

Minor request : the blank rows in the spreadsheet makes the charts look as if there were gaps in the eCat operation. I wonder if you could take them out and add a chart for COP.

(Yeah, yeah, garbage in garbage out but still interesting).

Quote from LENR Calender

The difference between 100.1 and 103.9 mattered back then because it implies a different margin of safety above the boiling point.

OK, thanks for that info.

If I were trying to dishonestly report a 'plausible but inaccurate' temperature to discredit Rossi, I would choose 99.9C over 100.1C every time! (I mean, it's only different by .2C, right?)

Malcolm Lear ,

Thanks for your work.

The produced energy is the "conservative" water value *627.5. The energy to boil water.

As in:

42 - Classic!!

We need a bell moniker for the Planet Rossi arguebots.