Display MoreOne of the fascinations for me about this story is the way people process a set of facts.
We have essentially matters here:
- Is Rossi honest - can we trust the measurements he - via Penon - provides?
- If the measurements in the Penon Report are assumed correct - can we show the heat dissipation impossible?
- 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
As you said, we can have the answer to 1 & 2 and still end up with COP =3.
Unfortunately, people who have an emotional response to Rossi lieing end up thinking everything is a gotcha against Rossi. The temperature becomes 100.1C, the piping has a 40mm diameter, etc.
We will probably never get to the bottom of question 3 with the info in the "pacemaker", but at least it would be good to get the data and science accurately based on what we have. People like IHFB and me have at some points called out obviously wrong info. Therefore I think it is good to be able to have those discussions going in a respectful manner.
