Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You are mistaken. These reactors did not produce any excess heat. If they had, there would not have been a 1-year test. They would have paid Rossi, and they would be developing the gadget into a commercial device. They had a brilliant staff and tons of money lined up to do that.


    I think it makes more sense to first make a long-term endurance test and then after that pay the 100 millions and develop the commercial device.
    That's probably why the 3rd payment was the largest chuck, it's not enough to have a working technology, it also needs to be safe and commercially viable. The IP might not have been worth 100 millions if the technology was not commercially viable, but by testing +50 reactors for a whole year they would derive 50 years worth of operating data. It's just due diligence.

    Quote from LFH Sam

    I think it makes more sense to first make a long-term endurance test and then after that pay the 100 millions and develop the commercial device.

    I do not agree with you, and neither did I.H. Rossi was the only one who wanted to do a long-term endurance test. I.H. let him do that after they exhausted their own efforts to confirm the heat with their own tests. I think by that time they had little hope it would work -- they talked about a "1% chance."


    As you see from Penon's data, Rossi did not actually want to do a 1-year test. The data shows this was no test: it was a fraud and a farce. Rossi did it to string out I.H. and delay the collapse of his fraud. That is obvious.


    If the gadget really worked, you would need many long-term endurance tests, and also safety tests, and so on, in order to develop a commercial reactor. You would need hundreds of people working on the project in the first phases, and billions of dollars. I.H. was prepared to arrange these things. What you do not need is Rossi himself doing the endurance test. Or any other test. This would be like having the Wright brothers be the only people to flight-test every single airplane prototype in 1911. Note that in 1911 the Scientific American reported there were approximately 500,000 people working on aviation. The Wright brothers alone could no longer do every test, or approve every design. Rossi's e-cat would also require the efforts of hundreds of thousands of skilled people before it can be commercialized.


    Putting the original inventor in charge of commercial R&D is a bad idea. Especially when the inventor is someone like Rossi.

    I hadn't read the Wong Report (197-01, report Exhibit A-1) before and I've only skimmed it at this point. (There is just so much information there that it's taking me a while to work through it).


    I did question Murray's statement that he finds that the COP goes up when the input power goes down to be problematic. I find Wong's explanation more convincing however based on the inverse relationship of Input Power to COP.


    When I was looking at Penon's data via Malcom Lear's spreadsheet I did find an interesting relationship between Energy Input and Energy Output. I'm not sure if it means anything. I was looking for statistical oddities.


    What I looked at was the correlation between Energy Input versus Energy Output. My hypothesis was because of the high COP, whenever we see an increase in energy input from the previous day we should see likewise a increase in energy output over the previous day and vice versa. Remember the COP is 80 and the effiiciency of the plant shouldn't vary too much from one day to the next. This is what I found:


    ........................I vs O................................ I vs O..................




    U= Up, D= Down, E =Equal (the same). For example, UU of 57 means whenever Energy Input went up Energy Output went up (as expected) a total of 57 times. [There are two columns of data, ordered slightly different based on U/D/E but the numbers should be the same.]


    Note that there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation. For example, UD when the input went up, the Output went down almost as much as they were correlated (UU) . I'm not going to hang my hat on this but I thought it was interesting and may have relevance to Wong's statement that the "output of the plant is approximately constant" given the high multiple of Input to Output. Maybe someone smarter than I can comment.


    Sorry about the poor presentation. I hope it's understandable.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    There is no way you can get 1MW heat transfer from air blown over 100C pipes. It needs to be a honeycomb as in a radiator with very fine fins and large surface area.


    Rossi is way in Lala land.

    Agreed, no way you loose this kind of heat that way. If the air was taken in on the ground floor and you were not in warm florida you could make the ground floor acceptable for humans. Radiation from pipes is minor and warm and cold air doesn't mix well so in inled on the same floor and calling it an heat exchanger is in my opinion bullocks. Then again it goes both ways, 1MW isn't easy to transfer from pipes to air so the boiling storie inside the building is also not sound. Its "easy" to get rid of this kind of heat, but you need a peace of the puzzel that is be big and would seen.

    • Official Post

    Probably for Siffer's own good to be banned for awhile. Had he not been, I can tell you from experience, he would have taken us further and further down the conspiracy rabbit-hole. Very bright person, but somehow that is where his mind defaults to, and he will not let it go. Makes you wonder about HF?


    Seems a number of other conspiracy buffs piling onto LF -fine by me BTW, and I was wondering if you newbies would agree, that destruction (spoilation), or altering in any way the 1MW, without IH's consent; to include it's plumbing, attachments, heat exchanger system, or whatever *invalidates* the test results as provided by Penon? And that such destruction, or tampering of the evidence would, should reflect negatively on Rossi? And that if proven (it is), the court should grant JDs soon to be re-submitted Judgement Summary (have the case tossed)?


    FTR, we now have testimony that Rossi reconfigured the 1MW in Doral after it's arrival from NC. Rossi himself, also admits, quite unashamedly, under oath :) in his deposition , of taking the plumbing down the day after the test finished, and got rid of it somehow. He also admits junking the components of this heat exchanger system to the 2nd floor, which he claims to have built with the help of some day laborers.


    By his actions, Rossi has ensured that we, the court, nor a jury will ever know the whole truth. And by that I mean that we will never know if it produced a little overunity, or none at all, as I think the chance it produced what Penonsays, is about nil.


    Alright conspiracists, what say you?

    That is a lot of pipe to re-purpose. 100 m or so.

    (Doc 194-08, PDF page 12, Transcript pages 143-145)

    (A.R. in bold, as Witness)


    5 Q. The heat exchanger on the J.M. Products


    6 side, that was one that you designed?


    7 A. Can you kindly repeat?


    8 Q. Yes. The heat exchanger that you have


    9 been drawing in these diagrams there on Exhibit 10,


    10 and it doesn't show all the heat exchanger --


    11 A. Here I design nothing.


    12 Q. That's what I was going to ask you. The


    13 heat exchanger has pipes that carry -- that carry the


    14 heated fluid from let's just say in the case of when


    15 you are using bypass number 2, out of the J.M.


    16 Products container --


    17 A. Yes.


    18 Q. -- up to the second story --


    19 A. Yes.


    20 Q. -- of the Doral warehouse --


    21 A. Yes.


    22 Q. -- and then the cooled fluid --


    23 A. Yes.


    24 Q. -- relatively speaking comes back?


    25 A. Yes.


    1 Q. Who created that design?


    2 A. I did.


    3 Q. Okay. And for that design you needed a


    4 lot of pipe, correct?


    5 MR. CHAIKEN: Object to form.


    6 THE WITNESS: I don't know what you mean


    7 by a lot. I needed about 100 and something


    8 meters of pipe.


    9 BY MR. PACE:


    10 Q. Fair enough. I was going to say over 100


    11 meter of pipe?


    12 A. Over 100 meters of pipe. A lot --


    13 Q. Relative concept, it depends on who you


    14 are, right?


    15 A. 100 meters is very small respect, you


    16 know.


    17 Q. If you're building a skyscraper a hundred


    18 meters is not very much.


    19 A. Correct. Exactly.


    20 Q. So the heat exchanger that you designed


    21 and built involved over a hundred meters worth of


    22 pipe.


    23 From where did you buy that hundred


    24 meters worth of pipe?


    25 A. From Home Depot and from -- because there


    (Page 145)


    1 were two different kinds of pipes. I bought them


    2 from Home Depot and from a supplier I don't remember


    3 the name of. A supplier of steel pipes. I don't


    4 remember the name of him.

    300 feet of pipe is actually not that much piping. The exchanger is reported to be on the second floor. Just the vertical change is 20 feet. Just for product, steam, and condensate you need 80 feet minimum. Add in horizontal changes, control loops, and bypasses can easily reach three hundred linear feet of piping. This tells me that a very simple system is being described.

    Quote from PeterMetz

    I did question Murray's statement that he finds that the COP goes up when the input power goes down to be problematic.

    If this is the cold fusion effect, what Rossi claimed is impossible. I saw that immediately when I read this exchange. It reminded me of the graph in Mizuno's book showing heat after death (Plate 19). Let me explain --


    Output heat is input power plus anomalous heat. When you reduce input power, total output has to fall. Cold fusion does not instantly ramp up to compensate for the loss of power.


    On the other hand, as Stan Pons pointed out, like many other physical effects such as fire, it does have a "memory" meaning that it "wants" to go back to the same temperature. So, by degrees, over many hours, it might gradually increase to some level close to where it was before you subtracted some input power. You see this happen in Mizuno, Plate 19 as well, although in that case it does not go back the highest temperature recorded before. In this case there is no input at all, but the temperature gradually recovers in two or three discrete steps over about 100 hours. It falls a little between each step. This is how real cold fusion heat looks. It is not stable, and it does not instantly turn on, turn off, or respond to control parameters.


    For Rossi's claim to be true in this instance, he would have to have pinpoint control over the reaction such that the moment he reduced input electricity, he instantly increased anomalous heat enough to compensate. You couldn't do that with combustion, let alone cold fusion. There would have to be some fluctuation as the second source of heat turns on and ramps up.


    I am sure that Murray understood this, but the lawyer who was questioning him did not let him explain. That lawyer is a nitwit who does not understand the difference between power and energy, and who admits he slept through science courses. His questions are idiotic and he does not understand the answers. On the other hand, he is an apt representative for Rossi.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Doc. 231, an order, now on the docket.


    231 - Judge Altonaga denies Rossi's appeal regarding attorney-client privilege of one email from Darden to Zali Jaffe.


    Analysis: As mentioned in the analysis of 236, it was expected that this appeal would be denied. From the court transcript in 5, it also seems that this may conclude any appeal regarding alleged 'witness tampering' of Giuseppe Levi (although that was not explicit in the Judge's denial order).


    I'm interested to see if there has been any consideration by the Magistrate of the charges of Spoliation. So far, I haven't seen any indication of that.

    JedRothwell


    Sorry, there's no evidence I have seen that LENR in Ni-H systems is a linear thermal gain process. Quite the contrary, I would expect the system to be non-linear due to the complex temperature-dependent reactions (whether neochemical or nuclear) that must be occurring in a working LENR system.


    I have seen instances in my own experiments where increasing input power reduced or eliminated apparent excess heat. I suspect what I observed was endothermic phase change inside the cell and/or instrumentation nonlinearity, but my point is that these systems are complicated, messy and unpredictable, at least so far!

    Quote from magicsound

    Sorry, there's no evidence I have seen that LENR in Ni-H systems is a linear thermal gain process. Quite the contrary, I would expect the system to be non-linear due to the complex temperature-dependent reactions

    I do not think you have replicated the cold fusion effect, so your observations have no bearing on this.


    However, you misunderstood what I said. I did not say that cold fusion is a linear gain process. On the contrary, as shown in Mizuno's Plate 19 and other heat after death events, it is not. Input power has no direct relationship to output power. Indeed, you do not even need input power; you can have output alone. That is why calling the ratio a "COP" (coefficient) is technically wrong.


    However, my point was that you cannot have the same net energy over a day if you cut electric input power. Overall heat output must fall and the temperature must fall, at least initially, reflecting the loss of electric power. Net output includes both input power and anomalous power. The cold fusion effect is slow to respond to changes in environment. It is also erratic. It might eventually fall in response to the lower input power, in a somewhat linear response. Or as Pons described, it might gradually climb back up to the previous temperature. But, that takes hours or days. The net energy output for that day will not be the same as it was for the previous day, when input power was higher. The day after that it is plausible that even though input electric energy is down, output energy is mostly recovered. It would be a miracle if output energy exactly equaled what it was before.


    As far as I know, Rossi collected only daily totals in a handwritten log. The totals magically came out the same for many days in a row. There was no computer, and no data by the hour or minute. So, it is not possible to prove that what I say is true, but on the other hand, is not possible to prove Rossi's claim either -- that the anomalous power magically and instantaneously leaped up to compensate for the loss of electric input power. Based on everything we know about cold fusion, that is impossible.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I do not think you have replicated the cold fusion effect, so your observations have no bearing on this.


    I agree that I have not demonstrated excess heat to the rigorous standard such a finding requires. However, I think your conclusion is incorrect. The experimental process yields useful insight into systems behavior, no matter what the data shows. A good null experiment is as important as bad positive one, because both characterize the system parameters and define the error bars.


    For example, my Glowstick experiments incorporated many features of the Lugano and Parkhomov systems, and my results have suggested (at least to me) that either those systems did not work as described, or the details of those systems have not been fully disclosed or sufficiently replicated. How does that not bear on the present issue?

    alexpassi • 6 hours ago on ecatWorld:


    Yes, it works as claimed.


    Why do I say this?


    I've been following this for six years. I've met the principal characters, seen the earlier model reactors operate in Bologna and Ferrara, and have kept generally up to date on what's going on. I have a marked antipathy to voicing my opinions on line, so you're not going to see me re-appearing on these premises (much as I appreciate the work done on ECW) again. But, yes, to the best of my knowledge, the e-cat works.



    JedRothwell


    Thanks for your reply. My view that COP could go up in conjunction with a reduced input was more in line with the efficiency of the reaction. If you look at Penon's data the COP varies from about 50 to 140 give or take. The system is composed of multiple disparate reactors and Rossi's control system is varying the stimulus (and energy) in such a way to maximize COP. Given this (and assuming the data is correct) I don't see an inherent conflict and indeed would expect that the COP could go up if the input energy went down given the inverse relationship between COP and input energy. I don't see an inherent problem here. I think MagicSound's comment about it being a non-linear system may also apply.


    That said there may be limits to how much of a change you can make to the COP given a change in input energy or other variables. I can change the MPG of my car depending on how I drive it but only up to a point. That however is a big unknown although your experience with LENR system behavior certainly holds sway. I think my analysis on day to day changes may be more interesting, but I guess not :)

    Quote from magicsound

    I agree that I have not demonstrated excess heat to the rigorous standard such a finding requires. However, I think your conclusion is incorrect. The experimental process yields useful insight into systems behavior, no matter what the data shows.

    Sure! You have important information on the calorimetry. But you cannot characterize the cold fusion effect itself, because you have not seen it. For example, your data cannot tell us whether cold fusion can instantly ramp up to hide a drop in input electric power. Your data can't, but other people's data can.

    Quote from magicsound

    For example, my Glowstick experiments incorporated many features of the Lugano and Parkhomov systems, and my results have suggested (at least to me) that either those systems did not work as described, or the details of those systems have not been fully disclosed or sufficiently replicated. How does that not bear on the present issue?

    It does bear on the present issue. It is important. I am sure you are right that these systems do not work as described. But your work does not bear on this particular discussion Murray had with the lawyer about how the heat energy did not decline even though input power was cut.


    Actually, I am sure Rossi lied about the whole thing, and made up the numbers. Heck, he showed the same power output on days when the whole machine was shut down. There is no point to looking for a cause or trying to explain fake data. Along the same lines, people here have invented all kinds of convoluted explanations for the pressure being 0.0 bar. Such as the notion that Rossi had a vacuum pump in the fake customer site. If you have a machine that produces a megawatt of power, why would you bother with a vacuum pump? Why not just raise the temperature of the steam a little so that steam pressure alone is enough to circulate it? It doesn't take much pressure. Any 19th century steam radiator did this, with perfect safety. The whole discussion is silly. Obviously "0.0 bar" is fake. Rossi threw that number into the spreadsheets either because the pressure gauge broke in the high temperatures it wasn't designed for, or because the real pressure data would prove there was no steam.

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.