Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from AlainCo

Why discuss...

each of the point discussed, JMP fake, vent fake, pressure fake, water fake,steam fake, plumbing fake, ....

Any sense of ridicule ?

Why does so many people prefer to believe in fairy than simply cry, break the wall with one's fists, and turn to serious questions.

Dear Alain,

Festina lente

JMP fake- Rossi MUST explainto the Judge what has happened at the consumer part of the Test otherwise he loses He cold not afford to work with an unpredictable consumer, the ssytem need constancy and production consume equilibrium harmony

vent fake- part of the item above

pressure fake 0.0 over atmospheric presure simply means no obstacle, the steam is condensed at the consumer,

steam and plumbing fake- can you define them?

Focus on the ERV core report and try to kill it as Jed tries.

Have you lead a research project of such dimensions and novelty? If yes then you can develop more empathy for Rossi.

Do you think he was faking for 352 long nights?

peter

Quote from joshg

But you know, they can both be true -- Rossi can be a fraud and IH could have defrauded its investors. Those are not mutually opposed possibilities.

I don't disagree. They are not mutually exclusive. But IF IH did defraud investors, there is a Court. And since Rossi brought suit against IH, there is now a vast amount of evidence available to the public. That evidence was 'extracted' from IH by Rossi's probing discovery requests. Some of that evidence we now know IH asked the Court to have sealed, but the Court denied that request.

Those investors (like Woodford) could easily sue IH for being defrauded IF there was evidence of that - I mean, see how much work IH has put into hanging itself by organizing and producing all this 'self-incriminating evidence' (if there is any)?

Time will tell, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It's not like all the money they invested has disappeared like 'second floor heat exchangers in the night', to coin a phrase.

To Jed Rothwell,

I predicted and amired the royal elegance with which you have avoided to answer this fragment of my message from yesterday:

"Your 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"

On the contrary you cannot get rid of that infamous Exhibit 5, despite the fact that the flowmeter was in correct position and full with water all the time you wrote today about a pipe nearly empty all the time.

As regarding the stem apipe- you have no digram to show it.

I will tell now you how great must be that pipe

for the steam produced (you will learn it was no water and you will abandon predicting dreadful things from steam at atmosheric pressure as te amnometer shows it.

Surface of pipe (sq.m) x steam speed (m/s)X steam density (kg/cu,m)x 3600 = 1500kg/hr

(Pi/4 dxd) x 40x0,5x 3600= 1500

(dxd) 67824 = 1500

(dxd) = 1500/67824= 0.0022116 sq.m

and d=0.1487 m

If the steam pipe is smaller than this value, I will give a great prize to Joe Murray.

Till then- do you know what is the difference between genius and the Murrayisms?

peter

Quote from LENR Calender

Rossi ran the show, and this makes for yet another non-independent validation.

No

From Penon deposition is evident that he was checking with his own instruments the numbers that Rossi was sending.

So Penon was indipendent from Rossi.

Is quite clear that IH supporters want to affirm the contrary for their own convenience.

Quote from AlainCo

Any sense of ridicule ?

Yes is ridicouls to have to discuss with people that have an agenda and must say that any data from Rossi is fake.

That is not serious and also damage all the LENR community.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Do you think he was faking for 352 long nights?

Probably they know that Rossi is not faking but their contract with IH impose them to say so !

Quote from Alan Fletcher

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

Come to think of it, this makes no sense. This is also fake data. Because --

To reduce the total daily volume from 36,000 to 18,000, you would have to turn off half the reactors and half of the flow (down to 750 L/h) at exactly the time you write down the daily total. Then you would have to turn it on again 24 hours later. Penon says Rossi wrote down the data in the evening. Say it was at 7:30 p.m. He would have to write down "36,000" turn off half the reactors, tweak the flow rate to make it exactly half of what it was (18,000), and then turn on the next day at 7:30 p.m.

Note that the next day it is back to 36,000. You would have turn the reactors and pumps back on at 7:30 p.m. and get the flow right back up to 1,500 L/h.

In real life, suppose they turned off at 10:00 a.m., did some repairs or cleaning, and then restarted at 4:00 p.m. That would be 6 hours at half the flow. The daily total would be 31,500 which would show up as 31,000.

It is extremely unlikely he could shut down in the evening, tweak the flow to exactly half, and then wait until the same hour and minute the next day before turning on and tweaking the flow back up, again to an exact amount. Why would anyone bother to make the flow exactly 750 L/h anyway? Why not 810 or 680? Making it exactly 750 for no particular reason makes no sense.

Quote from joshg

This is by far the most devastating and dispositive evidence against Rossi that I've seen so far. I don't see how he can weasel out of this. Assuming its admissible in court, he's toast. I am surprised that IH did not include this as evidence in its spoliation motion.

joshg

Yes, it's something that if the case went to trial would, I believe, have far more sway than any technical analysis about the ERV report, which would cause most juror's eyes to cloud over. The lack of vent fans completely invalidates Wong's analysis and would have to be thrown out as well. And on top of this we now have Rossi lying about his lies! It's pretty damming.

A shared understanding of the facts is a very valuable thing in a field like this, whose observers (and some practitioners) are temperamentally prone to prioritize hope over a realistic assessment of the facts. The more you can turn the gristmill of mind-numbingly specific detail and get out points that most people can agree on (was there the possibility of properly venting 1 MW of power? Were Penon's data realistic?), the fewer and fewer substantive issues there will be to argue about among observers a few months or years down the road. The people that risk making this field look like a snake pit and indeed make it one are the trolls that are permitted on discussion boards and those who are resentful and misconstrue and attack other's motives.

Once you have all the facts, the ground is now dry, and the points of disagreement that could provide the basis for prolonging a silly discussion become smaller and smaller. That helps everyone to calibrate their assessment of a story that has dragged on for years, and, without a good store of facts to draw upon, possibly for years more to come (think Papp). The more concrete details there are readily available and in people's heads, the less likely that misgivings over certain unrealistic possibilities will be allowed to be a point of contention in the future.

You will not convince everyone, obviously, because there are people who are so attached to hope as to be unable to set it aside no matter what facts are made available, and people who are so cynical or opinionated that they were never able to really consider matters on their merits. Neither of these people have much credibility in my opinion, and they will only succeed in influencing others of their frame of mind. There is nothing you can do about them. If their behavior is not completely obnoxious, they're free to continue indefinitely. They do not make the field into a snakepit, just a little quirky.

Quote from Peter Gluck

On the contrary you cannot get rid of that infamous Exhibit 5, despite the fact that the flowmeter was in correct position and full with water all the time you wrote today about a pipe nearly empty all the time.

What do you mean "correct position"? You said repeatedly that the flow meter cannot be in the return pipe! Figure 2 in Penon's report (document 197-3) shows that is where it is.

First you say it cannot be in the return pipe. Now you say that is the "correct position." Which is it?

There is no doubt the pipe was half full of water. There is physical proof of that, in photographs. Rossi has not denied it.

The idea that there is no real time flow data (even if the meter was right, mounted right and full) is worrying. It seems like there is only Rossi's handwritten record that Penon took as given him. Yes he might visit every few months and check the total but that is not very reassuring. It is VERY easy to run up the numbers by inserting air through the meter.

Sure not a secure independent test and data collection.

I think that's a question, IHSupporter -- was there a computerized data collection system, e.g., in use by Penon? I've heard that there might be one, and it would only make sense to put one in place. It makes the story that much more surreal if there was no such system. But I guess that's a possibility, too.

Quote from JedRothwell

There is no doubt the pipe was half full of water. There is physical proof of that, in photographs.

Can you please point to those photographs? Have you seen them?

You know full well those photos have not been released yet.

Although interesting to know if Jed has seen them.

Quote from JedRothwell

What do you mean "correct position"? You said repeatedly that the flow meter cannot be in the return pipe! Figure 2 in Penon's report (document 197-3) shows that is where it is.

First you say it cannot be in the return pipe. Now you say that is the "correct position." Which is it?

There is no doubt the pipe was half full of water. There is physical proof of that, in photographs. Rossi has not denied it.

Jed, Penon says full, you know better- half full.

Whih photographs show half full and how?

Rossi told all the time about F-meter at the bottom of u ergo full.

Do you have the piping diagram and the photo of the f-meter in its position?

peter

Anyhoo.... some data was recorded and looks real. 1 unit of pressure (probably BarA, but could be PSI) on average.