Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Deleo

I definitely think there is a calculation going on with AR here. Perhaps he believed that IH must be embarrassed by all of this and just wanted it all to go away. Add to that Woodford Funds investment, which was backed by UK pension money. When it was discovered that Woodford had invested in IH, and through extension AR, you could see comments on their site from some of their investors who were not too pleased. Maybe AR thought if he could get a quiet settlement of another $10MM or so, the other side would just write the check and he would have that much more cash to enjoy life. But Darden seems ready to fight this to the end.

There is a post on ECW about what will a jury think. 90% of what is posted here would sail right over a typical jury. But one thing won't. JMP is AR. He represented many times that JMP was an independent customer/entity that was using the heat for its business. It's in writing. Just look at JONP for several times where he said it. So this is a lie and can be proven so. What I have learned from all of this is you can make a lot of things fuzzy to distort the truth - pipe sizes, steam flows, heat exchangers, missing windows. It could go on forever. But you can't make a 3rd party customer fuzzy. It either exists or it doesn't. And in this case it doesn't. AR misrepresented this to orchestrate a huge payday for himself. I think the odds are that a jury will see the fake customer as fraud, and Tom Darden knows it.

Yes, I can see it now. Ii your read the depositions, AR's lawyers keep calling him Dr. Rossi. Wait until he gets on the stand and his lawyers try to do that or introduce a deposition using Dr. ----

Now Mr. Rossi, why does your lawyer call you Dr.? Do you actually have a degree? What is that in and from where. OH then you don't have a doctorate? ..... then through the trial it is .... Dr. oh yes I mean Mr. Rossi. To drive home to the jury that he is just masquerading as a Dr. .... faking it as a director for big UK company, and with Bass using business cards with pictures of a Japanese glass plant, ....... I think that those things really get to a jury.

Quote from Rionrlty

God it must be hard to be humble when you're the smartest guy in the world, like Jed.

You accuse me of pretending to be smart when all I am doing is quoting elementary science textbooks! Do you think it takes a genius to know this stuff?

You, IHFB and Bass made simple mistakes. Obvious mistakes. I do not have to be smart or well educated to point that out. I just have to know that you cannot measure the enthalpy of steam by measuring only temperature and flow. You have to know the pressure as well, and the pressure cannot be 1 atm where the outlet is also 1 atm, or nothing will flow.

Quote from Peter Gluck

What actually happened is the following: the e-Cats have generated steam (with the parameters from the Report) this was condensed and cooled at the JMP Plant (we still have to know exactly how, but it is not an imossible task)

It is quite impossible. If there were 1 MW of steam as claimed, you would need a tower the size of an automobile to condense it, and if you condensed it inside the building, the heat would kill everyone in there.

It is also impossible because you cannot push fluid into a condenser without some backpressure, and any measurable backpressure would be enough to keep the water from boiling at 103 deg C.

To jed, message above

please answer to what I described

what you say two things both false:

a- the effect starts as soon some steam is condensed;

b) absolutely false, pushing or sucking do the same job, create a driving pressure difference.

peter

Quote from Charlietapp

Have any of you guys read your comments kind of more entertaining than following Rossi trial

Charlie tap is correct.

It appears that some people on this thread (and elsewhere), are actually defending the possibility that Andrea Rossi has made a device that produces Energy Out > Energy In.

The stretching of this defense is endless, from re glazed windows, roof ducts, pipe sizes, pump curves, steam temp, element transmutation, infrared cameras, radiation sensors, platinum sponge mfg. dusty floors,

And myriad other alternative possibilities.

After all of the subterfuge, cloak and dagger, duck, dodge, hide, flee, avoid and evade tactics by Rossi, how anyone, anywhere can still believe that the Ecat is what Rossi says it is just monumental foolishness.

Quote from Peter Gluck

a- the effect starts as soon some steam is condensed;

b) absolutely false, pushing or sucking do the same job, create a driving pressure difference.

It is not possible that much steam was produced or condensed. Everyone would be dead if that were true. Rossi claimed it is possible only because there was a condenser in the second floor mezzanine. That is what he now claims. Since you believe everything Rossi says, you must now believe that. That has to be your story from now on. There would have to be a great deal more backpressure to get the steam and some condensed water up to the second floor.

In any case, that is a lie. No one saw a condenser there, or saw the pipes going to it. There were no sufficient electrical outlets there, no trace of the equipment or holes or marks left by it, and the windows were intact.

It is not possible the pressure was 0.0 bar or 0.0 barg. It takes more pressure than that to move steam or water into a condenser on the first floor and even more to get it upstairs. At these temperatures, even a small level of pressure will prevent boiling, so there was only water, not steam.

You are describing impossible fantasies that violate many elementary laws of science. Smith described this. You say he was wrong, but you have not given any reasons. Anyone who is familiar with HVAC equipment, engineering and thermodynamics knows that he is right.

Jed,

you have no idea about what was in the plant at the JMP side.

Sooner you had no idea what was on the Leonardo side.

And -see pumps and E-Cats you do not know

You had no diagram and do not have now.

Now what you say here is both insulting and baseless:

"You are describing impossible fantasies that violate many elementary laws of science"

This is your most recent slogan with no real content I have not violated any laws of the science here , you violate lawas of decency and of common sense. You are trying to confuse by combining different things and mixing incompatible things.

Answer to what I wrote.

You act as a myrmidon here, sorry once you was a Cold Fusion supporter and not quite so abrasive as now.

It seems Jed does not understand the concept of a vacuum. Happy Easter to all!

Edit: got pressure wrong initially

http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/c…-loss-through-piping.html

^ I used this calculator to get steam pressure loss according to the data provided by Murray and Penon

Pipe ID: 78mm

Pressure: 1 bar abs

Temp: 103

Flow rate 1500 kg/h

Pipe length 6m

Pressure loss is 0.09 bar

Explain how this precludes the supposed steam from having an output pressure of ~1bar where measured by Penon.

Quote from LENR Calender

Edit: got pressure wrong initially

http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/c…-loss-through-piping.html

^ I used this calculator to get steam pressure loss according to the data provided by Murray and Penon

Pipe ID: 78mm

Pressure: 1 bar abs

Temp: 103

Flow rate 1500 kg/h

Pipe length 6m

Pressure loss is 0.09 bar

Explain how this precludes the supposed steam from having an output pressure of ~1bar where measured by Penon.

Display More

The pressure was not measured by Penon. He only listed what Rossi gave him. He was required to measure the pressure by the agreement but he did not do so.

Quote from Peter Gluck

you have no idea about what was in the plant at the JMP side.

Everyone knows what was in the JMP side. Photos of the equipment were uploaded. It was described by Rossi, Bass and the others in their testimony. Don't you believe Rossi?

Rossi also said there was a heat exchanger in the mezzanine, but Rossi did not upload any photos of it, and it does not show up in other photos, so obviously it did not exist. The equipment in the JMP side definitely did exist. It is only capable of removing ~20 kW of heat. It will definitely produce back pressure.

Quote from Peter Gluck

You had no diagram and do not have now.

The diagram is right there in Penon's report! Everyone has seen it. It came from Rossi himself. Since you believe everything Rossi claims, you must believe this diagram is correct. It shows the flow meter in a place where you swore it cannot be. You should admit you were wrong about this.

Don't you believe Rossi? Haven't you read Penon's report?

Quote from Peter Gluck

This is your most recent slogan with no real content I have not violated any laws of the science here , you violate laws of decency and of common sense.

Yes, you have violated elementary laws. It is not indecent of me to point this out. Smith spelled out the reasons. You deny it, but anyone who reads his report will see that he is right, and you and Rossi are wrong. Since you refused to discuss the Smith report, I will not repeat the claims in it in detail, except this one, which is key, and which you refuse to address:

"The point is that the E-Cat “system” could just as easily have been flowing water as
steam. With the installed instrumentation, there is absolutely no way of knowing. Determining and establishing the whether the system was flowing steam would have been easy to do, if the person establishing the test plan was interested in knowing that data. If the E-Cat was in fact flowing water, and the output was not measured, but rather was only calculated, based on the assumption that the flow was steam, the calculated (not the actual) E-Cat thermal output would be exaggerated by at least a factor of five.

On page 4 of the ERV’s report, is the equation:
Ep = 0.9x λ x Mw
Ep is the total energy produced in the steam as shown on page 3, section 2.1
λ is the heat of vaporization (the heat it takes to boil water at a constant temperature)
Mw is the mass of water vaporized during the whole test, coming from the tank

The huge and unverified assumption built into this equation is that the flow out of the ECat is 100% quality steam. This equation, while technically correct, is not valid if the system is flowing water not steam. Again, there is absolutely no way of knowing exactly what is exiting the E-Cat."

(Emphasis added by me.)

Smith points out several other violations of elementary laws, such as:

"Where did the rejected heat go?
Air cooling – no.
Cooling tower – no.
City water – no.
There are now but two alternatives left.
The heat just vanished. – no. The first law of thermodynamics prohibits this.
or
It never existed."

Again, you have never tried to explain this. Rossi invented his invisible, impossible mezzanine heat exchanger to explain it. You have not even tried to explain it.

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0194.01_Exhibit-1.pdf

jed - "

Again, there is absolutely no way of knowing exactly what is exiting the E-Cat.

Exactly! the agreement specified that the ERV measure the flow OUT of the system not the flow into the system. That was never done.

Penon did not use the instruments they promised in their test plan, he did not measure the pressure or flow, only took what he was given via Rossi. They discarded the steam trap. And in the end they destroyed the piping. Sure doesn't sound like the work of honest people.

Perhaps they had something but is sure doesn't look like they have evidence to attack IH with and very little legal ground to stand on.

Quote from IHSupporter

The pressure was not measured by Penon. He only listed what Rossi gave him. He was required to measure the pressure by the agreement but he did not do so.

Sure, Penon wasn't there most of the time. But we do have this type of automated pressure data available:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0194.16_Exhibit_16.pdf

I am asking why a pressure of ~ 1 bar abs has been deemed to be impossible when the pressure drop to the JMP side is only a fraction of a bar.

Is it just me or does it seem strange---- If Rossi really had and did what he claimed and if he was going to attack a multimillion dollar company, that he would do things like:

Present the raw minute by minute data

Present photos of the system

Present the instruments used and their manuals

Have had redundant measurement systems

Get Peon to produce the manufacture’s calibrations (remember he said he sent them off after the trial)

Produce written documents with signatures showing agreement.

Produce records to show he did claim it was a GPT before Aug late into the trial

Produce documented dates for mergers and incorporation

Go out and have those day laborers testify

Have the landlord testify as to the windows

Produced receipts from Home Depot as to the pipes and dates he bought them.

Produced tax records to show he paid on the 10M.

Show that he does have an extension on his work visa and is not breaking the immigration laws.

A diploma to show he really has a doctorate and is not just masquerading as a doctor.

And on and on........

But he has not produced a preponderance of evidence against IH as I see it. It is up to him to prove his case against IH.

Quote from LENR Calender

Sure, Penon wasn't there most of the time. But we do have this type of automated pressure data available:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0194.16_Exhibit_16.pdf

I am asking why a pressure of ~ 1 bar abs has been deemed to be impossible when the pressure drop to the JMP side is only a fraction of a bar.

but that is just one day and does not at all match the barometric pressure of Miami for that day:

https://www.wunderground.com/h…=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=

Notice that on April 1 2015 the pressure in Miami moved from 30.1 to 30.2 (1.019 bar to 1.022 bar)

The values in the exhibit were never over 1.0028.

All the data in that exhibit are SUB atmospheric for that day.

Why would the pressure out of the unit be below that of the atmosphere???????

unless there was a vacuum on the customer's side.

And if that was true, the boiling points and everything would be incorrectly read.

Quote from IH Fanboy

It seems Jed does not understand the concept of a vacuum. Happy Easter to all!

Are you suggesting Rossi's loop worked like a Newcomen engine? How could it? It was open to the atmosphere on the reservoir return side. There was no valve. It would draw in air from the reservoir side instead of drawing the steam through the heat exchanger.

You apparently think it is a perpetual motion machine or a steam engine with no valve in an open cylinder that magically draws from one side of the cylinder but not the other. You cannot generate a vacuum in a pipe that is open to air.

Quote from IHSupporter

Present photos of the system

Present the instruments used and their manuals

He would also preserve the equipment itself, instead of destroying it the day after the test, removing the electric wires, hiding all of the holes, and replacing the glass in the windows. He claims he needed the pipes for something else, yet he is a multimillionaire. He can afford to buy more pipes while leaving these in position for witnesses and photos.

And why didn't he show the mezzanine heat exchanger to the people from I.H? It would instantly prove he was right. It was worth $89 million to him. There would be nothing secret about it, unlike the pretend customer site. He knew they did not believe his claims, so if he had this kind of proof, why didn't he show it during the test? Anyone can measure the heat from an air heat exchanger with conventional tools, with enough accuracy to confirm approximately 1 MW. If you had a conventional heat exchanger equipment that would bring you $89 million just by showing it to a few people, why would you hide it?

How did he manage to keep it from showing up in photos?

Nope, none of this begins to pass the smell test. It cannot be anything other than crude, blatant fraud.

One of the fascinations for me about this story is the way people process a set of facts.

We have three matters here:

1. Is Rossi honest - can we trust the measurements he - via Penon - provides?
2. If the measurements in the Penon Report are assumed correct - can we show the heat dissipation impossible?
3. If the measurements in the Penon Report are assumed correct - can we prove an inconsistency based on what we know of the ecat system?

And then we have the logical links between these statements, and their significance.

1. Can we trust Rossi/Penon measurements?

No-one capable of processing information thinks Rossi honest. Therefore we cannot trust what he says, and so we cannot trust the measurements that come, via him and a setup he controls, from Penon. Even so - there seems still to be an enormous amount of in this specific way maybe Rossi was not dishonest stuff. We know what Rossi does, he mostly does not directly lie, but twists the truth in ways that are unexpected to his audience. When he thinks he can get away with it, or it is necessary, he directly lies, and then twists what he has said afterwards to make it appear not a direct lie to anyone unable to check. No-one - not even Peter Gluck - can dispute this from the documents.

Given this known characteristic, the Penon Report data, no matter how otherwise convincing, cannot show that Rossi's device works. It was not independent of him, and he twists the truth. However, that does not, cannot prove his device does not work. If he had not done the one year test we would not be able to prove his device did not work, and after one year of testing we are no closer to the truth on this matter, because the test is unhelpful.

I'd like to know whether anyone (IHFB?) disagrees with this first conclusion. I think what happens is that some here argue that not being able to prove the device does not work, is somehow the same as proving it does work. And that annoys the hell out of everyone else.

2. Can we show the heat dissipation is impossible?

Yes. This is an unusually strong answer!

This does not mean we have proven Rossi's device does not work. It could work with say COP = 3. But it does mean that the Penon Report, and therefore any validation coming from this test, is wrong. If the energy generated is mis-estimated by a factor of even 2 in the Penon Report then we know there is some fundamental not understood methodological error. In that case it could as easily be mis-estimated by a factor for 50. How is this point different from 1? In the case of 1 we don't know that the Penon Report figures are correct, but we cannot be sure that they are not. Even given that Rossi twists the truth and lies, maybe you are inclined to think there is a significant chance that he breaks old habits here, and the Penon Report data is valid. But because of the heat dissipation issue that cannot be. We know the Penon Report data is false. We still cannot prove Rossi's device does not work, but we can prove it does not work anything like the way Rossi claims. 1MW cannot be more than say 200kW.

3. Can we prove the system does not work?

Here is where all the matters about pumps etc go. This is the most complex question, because there is much uncertainty about Rossi's plumbing. Is it single flow, or dual flow? What is the typical water rate through those pumps? What is the real water rate through the flowmeter? It is not surprising we cannot simply answer this question, because none of these questions have definite answers. Those trying to prove this, even though what we do know about this setup stinks to high heaven, have a tough time. At every turn there is just too much spoliation and uncertainty to remove slivers of doubt.

This complex and frustrating question is processed by different people in very different ways. For some (IHFB) every time we come up with some lack of information that prevents us from proving the system does not work, it feels as though Rossi has been exonerated and this lack of determinacy is positive evidence Rossi has what he claims. If you look at it in the context of 1. and 2. of course that is not true. But it seems like that reading some posts.

Integrating the facts

Personally, I find 3. fascinating but I'm much slower than Jed to make definite statements about it. There is just so little information. On the other hand 2. is ironclad. Those arguing 3. need to somehow dismiss 2., decide that somehow the arguments are not right, or are part of an IH-led PR campaign with those like me paid handsomely for peddling false pseudo-figures. Despite the fact that many different people have validated the key facts. Or, the Rossi magic window-pane removal heat-exchanger must be made even more magical. It must sprout thousands of fins in a vane (sorry) attempt to make it more efficient like some hydra-like behemoth.

I find the suspension of logic here unsupportable. You cannot reasonably argue Rossi's heat-exchanger fantasy works. Did he have 100-200m of 150mm piping up in that mezzazine? Possibly, Rossi's fictions are often twisted truth. Could it have operated as a 1MW heat exchanger? No. And therefore we know that Penon's figures are wildly wrong, and so something is wildly wrong about the assumptions on which they are based. 3. is proven, from 2.

It remains a matter of interest how to answer 3, in detail, but I accept we may possibly never have a single definite answer. What we do have, is several plausible possible (unproven) answers.

Regards, THH

Quote from JedRothwell

and the pressure cannot be 1 atm where the outlet is also 1 atm, or nothing will flow.

Bernoulli reckons otherwise (i.e. you are ignoring momentum).

Quote from IHSupporter

Now Mr. Rossi, why does your lawyer call you Dr.?

"Because it is also short for 'Dottore', you clown"

Quote from Deleo

When it was discovered that Woodford had invested in IH, and through extension AR, you could see comments on their site from some of their investors who were not too pleased.

Nah that was mostly virulent skeptics in the mould of Mary Yugo... The average Woodford investor does not care where <2% of their money is invested.

The same month Woodford invested in IH, they divested a similar amount from British Gas - but no financial journalist was interested in this apparent 'scandal', despite the inimitable pot-stirring of a certain Greek God wannabe....