Yes, they are right not to be confident using an IR camera on alumina to measure temperature... Even though Rossi and 6 profs all tell them it is OK.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
Long before Rossi filed suit they said the machines did not work. You can see that in the lawsuit documents.
The only reports on IH's own tests of the e-Cat that I see in the emails are positive ones. Darden expresses some reservations, but was confident enough to round up tens of millions from others. There are no extant contemporaneous test reports from IH that show failed replications.
QuoteThat is also what they told me and others.
And you didn't believe them? You were on the roster to speak at Matt's new energy symposium right up to the last moment before it was canceled!
QuoteThey never publicly claimed the machines worked. In the early stages, some of their memos were optimistic but they always said results need to be confirmed.
But they sure did privately! The evidence is chock full of positive statements. And Darden was very positive publicly about Rossi clear into late 2015.
-
You mean that Rossi (JMP) was spot checking Rossi (Leonardo) measurements?
No, I mean that Rossi (JMP) was spot checking the ERV measurements.
-
No, I mean that Rossi (JMP) was spot checking the ERV measurements.
Ok: Rossi (JMP) was spot checking the measurements taken by Rossi (Leonardo), on a system reworked by Rossi (Leonardo), and sent to the ERV.
Good enough?
-
Yes, they are right not to be confident using an IR camera on alumina to measure temperature... Even though Rossi and 6 profs all tell them it is OK.
And can you explain how to fool an expensive IR camera into showing a COP of 9? Para says not the emissivity parameter. So how did they do it?
-
JMP reported over a month's worth of 0.25 MWdays higher than the ERV reports that the Plant made on the same day. Sometimes over a week's worth of these wrong extra heat days on one invoice request. That is an error of about 6 MWh for each day that they messed up.
As for the COP of 9, simply under measure power in by 1/3 then over measure power by the Lugano emissivity method and voila, a COP of 9. I could probably make a pure Lugano emissivity error type COP of 9 error, but with difficulty.
-
And can you explain how to fool an expensive IR camera into showing a COP of 9? Para says not the emissivity parameter. So how did they do it?
Where is the document in which IH claims that they (and not Rossi) have measured with an IR camera a COP of 9?
-
Another very good example what can be found inside the court papers is the the question if Darden is acting on behalf of Cherokee Investment Partners
... at the Beginning 2012, ok one could say IH does not exist, so they used their company accounts, but later 2013...
https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…rokee-september-2012-pdf/
...even Dewey Weaver's DRV has the case under Cherokee_LENR...
https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…-cherokee-april-2013-pdf/
... and the climate is 2016 Thomas Darden as Cherokee representive delivering contact data to Israel, for unknow reasons ...
https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…herokee-februar-2016-pdf/
... apropos Dewey Weaver, Vaughn reported him that "he has super heated steam [...] 130 degrees C, rising"
-
Where is the document in which IH claims that they (and not Rossi) have measured with an IR camera a COP of 9?
https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/1799-0214-22-pdf/
Page 2
-
He has a proof, the ERV Report, that is not accepted by Darden et.al.
The ERV report is proof that Rossi had no excess heat, and that his test was fraudulent. It was not accepted by any expert I know. They agree with Smith. He said the report violates basic thermodynamics and that the data is so regular it has to be fake. I don't see how anyone could argue with that. There are many other indications it is fake, such as the sequence I pointed out: 36,000 L, 18,000 L, 36,000.
The moment I saw that data I knew it was fake. I do not think you or IHFB have any technical knowledge or experience with instruments, and you do not understand grade school level science, so perhaps you don't see why it is fake. That is forgivable, although after you make mistake after mistake you should realize you are in over your head and you should stop make bold assertions about things you know nothing about. What I find astounding and appalling is that experienced people such as Peter Gluck do not instantly see that the ERV report is fake. I cannot imagine how it fools them. I guess it is wishful thinking.
-
@Jed,
Have you ever been, or are you now, an advisor to IH? You are quick to throw around accusations about our supposed grade school level science education, but you seem to be less than candid with this community about your potential conflicts of interest.
-
The moment I saw that data I knew it was fake.
you should stop make bold assertions about things you know nothing about.
You don't get it.. it is completely irrelevant what I think, or what you think, it is about what the court and later the jury thinks and as you can see, if you use the court papers then you could rise a lot of questions in every direction, and one can do that in favor of Rossi/Leonardo or in favor of Darden/IH. -
@Jed,
Have you ever been, or are you now, an advisor to IH?
Easy to answer... -
From the depositions that I read, there was at least a temperature probe and a water flow meter on the JMP side. Bass even refers to them in his testimony. They were used to spot check what was being received from Leonardo.
Again you betray your ignorance of grade school science. You CANNOT POSSIBLY spot check energy with a temperature probe and a water flow meter when the fluid is supposedly steam. That is not enough to determine steam quality. The answer can wrong by a gigantic factor, for the reasons described by Smith.
Also, you are factually wrong. There were no such instruments in the JMP site.
Also, it makes no sense to suggest that JMP was asking to be billed for energy when the method was so crude it hugely disagreed with Penon's data. Penon's data was so crude it was meaningless. He had no way to determine how much enthalpy there was. So this would be even more crude than a hopelessly crude fantasy-based measurement. No sane person would ask to be billed tens of thousands of dollars based on metering that anyone can see is wrong by a factor of 50. Nobody pays 50 times more for energy than they need to. The only reason Rossi asked I.H. to bill his fake company was to establish evidence that I.H. thought the company was real. They weren't fooled, and they did not issue the invoices.
-
E48 on JONP:
"Murray, Smith and IH are not going to like this. Smoking gun stuff:
Interesting photo from Dr. Wong:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/…0f3ffd3d44f80a741a558.png
Inquisitive minds would ask why is the floor on the left clean and not walked on?
Maybe because there was a steam pipe there, that connected the bypass in the JM container to the upper story heat exchanger?
Also note a telltale lighter mark from the centre of that clean patch toward the outer edge of the landing.
Sure looks like, to this Black Swan, that a steam pipe could have been there for the duration of the 350 day test.
Best regards,
Engineer48" -
if you use the court papers then you could rise a lot of questions in every direction,
Only if you do not understand grade school level science. I will grant, many people do not, including some of the people commenting here.
-
Easy to answer...Well, to be fair, it does say "sector investments may include." So the question remains whether Jed actually was a paid advisor or even an unpaid advisor of IH. He has said in the past that it is none of our damn business whether IH has ever paid him any kind of compensation. I don't agree with that. I think if you are going to advocate as zealously as he does for IH, he should disclose any potential conflict of interest to the community.
-
You are quick to throw around accusations about our supposed grade school level science education, but you seem to be less than candid with this community about your potential conflicts of interest.
The two subjects seem unrelated to me. Your ignorance has no bearing on any conflict of interest I might have.
But, in any case, I am not making accusations. Your own statements repeatedly prove that you know nothing about grade school science. You just told us that it is possible to "probe" steam energy use (enthalpy) with a thermometer and a water flow meter. That is grotesque ignorance. After all these months of reading messages here, and reading things like the Smith report, or reading a 6th grade science textbook, I simply cannot imagine how you could make such a stupid mistake. This is even more stupid than your previous claim that steam coming out of a pipe proves there is steam inside the pipe. Or your weird claim that an open window without a gigantic orifice can be used to magically pull in air and force it out (simultaneously!) enough to remove 1 MW of heat.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Also, you are factually wrong. There were no such instruments in the JMP site.
256-04, pp. 119-121
Q. What projects -- what were you involved
Page 120
in with J.M. Products or Andrea Rossi for measuring -- other than the BeagleBone project were you involved with measuring temperatures for anything?
A. Occasional checking to see what was going on on our side, looking at the flow meter and looking at the temperature of the steam.
Q. So there were temperature gauges on the J.M. Products side?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were those located?
A. They were outside of the chamber sitting on a table.
Q. And where would -- where were the sensors, the temperature sensors attached?
A. Obviously went through the wall and they were tapped into the serpentine.
Q. So if we can -- I know I keep sending you back here. If you can go back to Exhibit 2, the temperature sensors are in this piping somewhere?
A. Yeah, I think they are -- I think you can't see them because I think they go up the other end. I didn't install the sensors in there. I only had access to the meters outside that measured
Page 121
that.
Q. Did you keep track of that information?
A. No, just -- it was just an observation to look at it from time to time.
Q. So if you can do me a favor and look at Exhibit 4. I don't know if you can see it from here either, but I'm just going to see if that helps just because it's a different angle.
A. See what?
Q. Where the temperature sensors go into the piping.
A. They are buried inside of the insulation obviously to know what the temperature was.
-
The two subjects seem unrelated to me. Your ignorance has no bearing on any conflict of interest I might have.
But, in any case, I am not making accusations. Your own statements repeatedly prove that you know nothing about grade school science. You just told us that it is possible to "probe" steam energy use (enthalpy) with a thermometer and a water flow meter. That is grotesque ignorance. After all these months of reading messages here, and reading things like the Smith report, or reading a 6th grade science textbook, I simply cannot imagine how you could make such a stupid mistake. This is even more stupid than your previous claim that steam coming out of a pipe proves there is steam inside the pipe. Or your weird claim that an open window without a gigantic orifice can be used to magically pull in air and force it out (simultaneously!) enough to remove 1 MW of heat.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
So in other words, you refuse to clarify whether you have been, or are, an advisor to IH?
