but as you can see from JT Vaughn's deposition (207-21 p7), he got hired only in June 2015 - too late.
As I said, they had talent on board before they hired him.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
IH's Principles must be strictly respected, IH's axioms included overall.
For example
Does (did, will) the E-cat produce excess energy
the Answer is:
"Not, not a watt, nothing, never, for absolutely sure."
Those are not I.H.'s principles. That is a false dichotomy, and a straw man argument. You are putting words in their mouth to make them look bad. The correct formulation should be:
Q: Did the one-year test produce significant excess heat?
A: No, and even if it had the instrumentation was so poor it would be impossible to confirm that.
Q: Did any of I.H. in-house tests of any Rossi device produce significant excess heat?
A: No.
Q: Did the Lugano test produce excess heat?
A: Probably not, but the instrumentation and methods were so poor that cannot be confirmed.
Q: Did any of Rossi's previous tests produce excess heat?
A: Possibly not, but the instrumentation and methods were so poor it is impossible to be sure.
That is more nuanced, isn't it? You people on Planet Rossi don't do nuance. It is all or nothing with you. Actually, it is nothing.
I might add that after bleating, kvetching, carrying on and demanding, demanding, demanding that I give you the data, you finally got all the data directly from Rossi, in Penon's ERV report, Exhibit 197-03.
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf
You have not said a word about it. There is the schematic you wanted to see. There is the data -- exactly as I described it. You did not believe me. Now that you see it, you pretend it does not exist. You are not fooling anyone.
-
You misunderstand. They did not begin to replicate excess heat. They made mistakes. They thought they were seeing excess heat, but they were not. Many people have done this, on many occasions, including me:
It's a nice mantra, but it's definitely not coherent with what happened:
September 2013, IH/Cherokee state that they've begun to witness significant excess energy with the reactors they built themselves.
Then, according to your interpretation, over the course of two years, they can't replicate anymore what they had begun to replicate.
Then, in 2015, they let Rossi run a one-year test. Rossi, who gave them the know-how to build the reactors that showed significant excess energy, but somehow, according to you, that know-how went nowhere.
One one hand, we've got talk on this forum saying there never was excess heat, on the other, IH/Cherokee stating that they most probably witnessed excess energy in 2013, and not cutting ties with Rossi over the course of three years, if they supposedly understood that there never was excess heat.
-
The e-Cat does not work, as you see from Penon's data.
How can I see this from Penon's data?
A short version will do, thank you in advance.
-
I also find it ironic how IH is trying to make a case for a criminal conspiracy by Rossi, Penon and Fabiani, which seems to be supported or accepted by about 80% of the posters here. But at the same time those same posters get their panties in a bunch at the slightest suggestion that Darden et al. might be conspiring in some manner. "A conspiracy? Oh, I doooo declare, that is the silliest thing I have ever heard! Heavens to Betsy! What a crazy conspiracy theorist." Give me a break. It's hypocritical in the extreme.
Well, there are conspiracies and then there are conspiracies. If you equate Rossi's 'conspiracy' with 'deep state' conspiracies, well, 'Give me a break' as you say.
We now know from deposition, that Rossi's wife has known Fabiani since they were kids. We know less about Penon, except that he's been working for Rossi for at least 9 years.
That's about it. Three Italian guys who have known each other for a long time.
We know from the deposition that Rossi engaged Johnson as his lawyer. You can add him to the 'conspiracy', but he has testified that he didn't really know anything about what was going on. I find his statements regarding the 'Johnson Mathey' issue questionable, but if you take his testimony as true, he had no knowledge about anything technical, or about whether there were real contacts from Johnson Mathey.
So that leaves Bass. According to his testimony he was hired by Rossi to be the 'Director of Engineering' (of JMP, a company with no regular employees). He asked Rossi about what he should say to people he knew were potential investors. As a new hire, those were reasonable questions for him to ask. And he had no reason to believe that Rossi was saying anything untrue or illegal. And to put things in context, we know that Bass himself was not a salaried employee.
Penon is now hiding in the Dominican Republic (or is he now in Italy again?), and Fabiani is in non-extraditable Russia.
So, there it is, the conspiracy. That IS a conspiracy, even if it's a 'two-bit con conspiracy'. Not exactly what anyone would consider unreasonable. Or that isn't going on right now in probably 1,000 or more instances around the world (i.e., three guys getting together to try to scam someone).
Try equating that with, say, Bob Greenyer or sifferkoll's conspiracy theories, involving things like IH and Obama, or 9/11, or whatever.
Given the evidence that is now on the docket, characterizing IH's allegations that these few players conspiracy is 'hypocrisy in the extreme' seems, well, pretty extreme (as you say).
-
Darden's word is the absolute truth while Rossi is right only if he can demonstrate something in writing? What kind of reasoning is this?
The "word" of neither of them suffices for anything. No one pays $89 million on the strength of someone's "word." You have to have a signed document clearly spelling out that the money will be paid when specified conditions are met. No such document exists. Furthermore, no one who understands calorimetry would claim the 1-year test met any standard of proof.
If Rossi were the most honest person in the world, and Darden the devil incarnate, Rossi's "word" would still be worth nothing. Words do not count in business. He-says, she-says, doesn't count. Rossi must show a signed contract or he does not get paid. He would also have to show that he accomplished what the contract calls for. There is no contract, but if there were one, I am sure it would not be satisfied with the kind of blatant, in-your-face fraud you see in the Penon report. Only a lunatic would pay for that. It ain't worth $8, never mind $80 million.
-
Jed,
It is late here, just fast response:
- instrumentation error- bad instruments
or fake?
do you know anything about raw data on which te ERV report is based; I am asking know not guess or invent?
that I did not wrote about the report is not true..I did a lot and the report is not self-annihilating as you try to suggest,
which instruments, measuring what (Temp. press. flow, power /) were so tragicalluy flawed and how could they be used for so many days?
But essence please ell about raw data.
our hero Murray has abndoned the fairy tales about he position of the flowmeter and the 40mm
steam pipe- but you do not react in the proper way making mea culpa. You have tormented the people here with these Murayisms.
Good night
peter
-
How can I see this from Penon's data?
A short version, please.If you cannot tell, you don't know enough to judge this situation.
Anyone who has seen data from actual instruments would know that they don't produce such numbers. The pressure is never 0.0 bar (or barG). The temperature is never exactly the same from day after day, to the nearest tenth degree. The flow rate is never exactly the same from day after day. On days when Rossi's own log shows the machine was turned off, there can be no flow and excess heat. On days when half the reactors were turned off, the flow rate could not be the same as when they are all turned on, as Murray explained.
There is much else to be said, but those are some of the main reasons we can be sure this is fake data.
Rossi made up those numbers and stuffed them into the spreadsheet. He is so cynical and manipulative he did not even care that they are blatantly fake. He did not even make the effort to gin up plausible looking fake data. He figured he could get the money somehow, even with garbage data. The only people he fooled are the folks on Planet Rossi who will believe any damn thing he says, even when his own data proves he is lying! I am appalled that he managed to fool anyone. I now see these people resemble true believers in something like an end of the world prophecy, rather than scientists. There is nothing Rossi could say, and no data he could show, that would dissuade Peter Gluck and others.
-
It is late here, just fast response:
- instrumentation error- bad instrumentsor fake?
All three. Instruments installed incorrectly, bad, broken instruments such as the pressure gauge used at a high temperature that must have destroyed it. Fake data copied from day to day. Excess heat shown on days when Rossi said the reactor was turned off. The wrong kind of flow meter installed incorrectly. The steam trap and other essential instruments removed. It was an appalling mess. All of this is clear from Penon's report.
do you know anything about raw data on which te ERV report is based; I am asking know not guess or invent?
It is right there in the lawsuit documents. They wrote down the numbers in a notebook once a day. The notebook pages are among the documents uploaded. There was no computer, as far as we can tell from the ERV report and the notebooks.
They transferred the numbers to spreadsheet. Penon visited 4 times during the test. He (or Rossi) often copied numbers from one day to the next. I guess they forgot to write down the numbers, or they decided not to bother.
that I did not wrote about the report is not true..I did a lot and the report is not self-annihilating as you try to suggest,
If you do not see it is self-annihilating you are blind!
You yourself insisted time after time that the flowmeter could not be installed in the return pipe. There it is in the diagram! Right where you said it should not be, and it could not be. Have you nothing to say now? Rossi himself showed you are wrong, but now you say this is not a problem? (Actually, it wouldn't be a problem if there were a U pipe, but there wasn't.)
You can see from the photo of the reservoir tank that it has to be gravity return. That kind of plastic tank cannot be made airtight.
which instruments, measuring what (Temp. press. flow, power /) were so tragicalluy flawed and how could they be used for so many days?
I listed some of them above. Not only were these instruments wrong, broken, or installed incorrectly, but several other instruments that should have been included were either pulled out or never installed. Also, there was no valve that would allow a steam test, as far as I can see from the diagrams and descriptions. Without that, the whole test was a complete waste of time. They had no way to check the output fluid to see whether it was water, steam, or a mixture. There must have been some back pressure so I am sure it was water.
-
Has "Rossi's own log" been published, or are you referring to Penon?
The flow rate is never exactly the same from day after day. On days when Rossi's own log shows the machine was turned off, there can be no flow and excess heat. On days when half the reactors were turned off, the flow rate could not be the same as when they are all turned on, as Murray explained.
On 6/9 (214-33 Draft Penon report -- the copy of the final report is missing this page) page 36 it seems that half the reactors were turned off.
But the flow rate DROPS from its usual 36,000 to half the value, 18,000
Can you give me the dates when the whole system was turned off?I couldn't find a specific reference to "half the reactors" in the full Murray deposition 215-03
There's a section where he talks about what would happen if you turned off all the reactors in a "Big Frankie", but nothing qualitative. -
On 6/9 (214-33 Draft Penon report -- the copy of the final report is missing this page) page 36 it seems that half the reactors were turned off.
But the flow rate DROPS from its usual 36,000 to half the value, 18,000
You are right. That is shown in document 197-03 as well. I did not notice this.
Those flow rate numbers are much less uniform than the ones from February, for example. That whole month says "36,000" every day. That is what I had in mind when I said the data is unrealistic. I did not look closely at every month.
Perhaps they stuffed in fake numbers in February, and they read the actual totals in June? I don't know. I am sure the flow meter was reading incorrectly, for the reasons described by Murray in his deposition.
Can you give me the dates when the whole system was turned off?
Sorry, but I have lost my notes on this. I do not recall the exact dates. That's kinda irresponsible of me . . . The people on Planet Rossi will only believe him, so to make this point stick, I guess you should scour his toxic blog.
-
If you equate Rossi's 'conspiracy' with 'deep state' conspiracies, well, 'Give me a break' as you say.
Yes, you're absolutely right, two-bit conspiracies happen all the time but "deep state" conspiracies don't exist. How silly of me!
-
Anyone who has seen data from actual instruments would know that they don't produce such numbers. The pressure is never 0.0 bar (or barG). The temperature is never exactly the same from day after day, to the nearest tenth degree. The flow rate is never exactly the same from day after day. On days when Rossi's own log shows the machine was turned off, there can be no flow and excess heat. On days when half the reactors were turned off, the flow rate could not be the same as when they are all turned on, as Murray explained.
Thanks.
I had glanced at those "flowed water" numbers and didn't find them strange considering the method of reading the m3 values and assuming that the process is stable. There is some variation in them, also such amounts which could be explained by some of the reactors being turned off. But of course that changes if it's shown that the reported numbers are same on days when the machine was turned off. Or if there's that 36000 on days when it's known that half the reactors were turned off.
Pressure: don't know about that.
Temperature: IMO those "steam T min" values look more suspicious than "flowed water". If it was about measuring the temperature of boiling water I'd expect little/no variation in readings with 0.1 deg C accuracy. Not sure about steam. And with a quick look, when there's variation in readings the distribution of digits looks strange. But it was a decades ago when I did something related to any of this.
-
I had glanced at those "flowed water" numbers and didn't find them strange considering the method of reading the m3 values and assuming that the process is stable.
It cannot be that stable! Nothing is. Take February, where it shows 36,000 every day for weeks. Suppose for the sake of argument the flow was incredibly stable, at almost exactly 1,500 l/hour (36,000 L/day). Problems:
1. If you did not read it at exactly the same hour and minute, it would be 35,000 some days, and 36,000 or 37,000 other days. (This meter only registers to the nearest 1,000, so the other digits would be "000.") Maybe with a computer you could record it at the same hour and minute, but I doubt you would see that kind of precision with handwritten notebooks.
2. Okay, even if you read it at the exact same time, the first day it might show up as 36,000, but if the flow was just a little below 1,500 for a few hours, the next day it would be 35,000. The day after that it might be back to 36,000. Or, if it was slightly higher than 1,500, you would see it go over 36,000 from time to time.
3. On days when the time changes to daylight savings (or back) it would be different. Someone said "maybe they are running GMT." Again, I don't see that kind of precision with handwritten notebooks. Not going to happen.
4. Why on earth would anyone go to the trouble to make it EXACTLY 1,500 l/h? What would be the point? Why bother?
5. If it was so exact in the first place, why did they arbitrarily subtract 10% from the flow rate?
-
We still haven't seen an accurate 'as built' diagram of the 'plant'.
As far as I can tell, the only pumps are the array of metered pumps, which are preset manually to a given flow, and then turned on or off.
With 24 in parallel the output will be very stable. --- 36,000 +- 147 by my reckoning.Edit : if you set them to 36,000 then you'd see jitter between 35,000 and 36,000.
But if you set them to 36,500 it would likely stay at 36,000 for many days. -
Yes, you're absolutely right, two-bit conspiracies happen all the time but "deep state" conspiracies don't exist. How silly of me!
Look, I'm not even saying that deep state conspiracies don't exist. But I do not see any compelling evidence that the 'deep state' or Big Oil, or Obama are working together with IH to 'deep six' Rossi's "effect", when the evidence (from Rossi himself, let alone from IH, or regarding his thermo-electric scam, or his robotic factories, or Petrol-Dragon, or...[I could go on but won't repeat myself]) is screaming FRAUD.
And I think if you can't see the difference between this alleged two-bit, three man con and theories of vast conspiracies (even if they might possibly exist in some manner unrelated to Rossi) that shows 'extreme' lack of discernment.
And if you want to point out that this represents 'extreme hypocrisy' on the part of those here who are persuaded that Rossi conned IH with his two buddies and also think that vast conspiracy explanations involving IH are unreasonable, so be it.
Free country and all.
-
Note : I'm not saying the numbers are real. I'm just saying you can't use them to prove they are fake.
-
Point 3 indeed should be seen. Good point.
3. On days when the time changes to daylight savings (or back) it would be different. Someone said "maybe they are running GMT." Again, I don't see that kind of precision with handwritten notebooks. Not going to happen.
A steady water flow by it self could be normal. Depends on how effeicient the plant must be and how much control you have. 1 constant is could be usefull, but indeed if you have an hour more or less with the daylight saving it sould be seen.
-
Note : I'm not saying the numbers are real. I'm just saying you can't use them to prove they are fake.
It depends on what you mean by prove. But accountants and law enforcement look at fake financial data all the time and reasonably conclude that it is fake. See also Benford's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law
No doubt Rossi had a lot of time to think about the numbers. He also had his hand on the controls (in fact the entire system) and probably could force whatever numbers he wanted. And Rossi and Penon could just sabotage or randomize some numbers and claim instrument error etc.
-
