Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Do you seriously believe that an opening the size of two panes would suffice to remove 1 MW of heat from the mezzanine? A fan large enough and powerful enough to do this would blow the other panes out, but that still would not be a large enough opening. If the inlet were at the same window, it would suck in hot air. You would need large, prominent ducts to prevent that. Does your mystical child see such ducts?


    The whole story is preposterous.

    Jed,


    This would require "make up air" also, so whatever amount of CFM being moved out of the window has to be made up with outside air from another source.

    Also, to affect this amount of heat transfer, (1MW), their must be a GIANT delta T between the outside air and the inside air, (it varies greatly in Miami from day and night).

    Quote from Forty-Two

    ... they know that there is no business which promises tremendous chances but no risk.


    In this case, there actually was. All they had to do was insist on one proper test of the simple original ecat, done completely independent of Rossi by a test lab with utmost secrecy. Test labs do that sort of thing all the time. Or for a bit more trouble and money, they could have thoroughly tested ONE reactor subunit of the fifty or so which made up that absurd kludge Rossi called the megawatt plant. Either way, a few weeks and vastly less than the $10M they squandered on Rossi would have given them the negative answer they ended up with anyway. And they would have known for sure. No risk at all. It's called SCIENCE and ENGINEERING and PROPER TESTING. It's done all the time. Or it was before the Trump/Bannon/Alex Jones/ Kellyanne Conway era of " alternative facts" began. I guess in that sense, Darden and Vaughn were a bit ahead of the times, LOL.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    They actually did better than that. IH built and tested their own and got a COP of 9.


    A choice fairy tale. Had they done that, they would have paid Rossi and become trillionaires. Where do you get this sort of BS? From mushrooms?

    • Official Post
    Quote from IH Fanboy

    From IH's emails reporting on internal tests. They also got a COP of 11 running/testing for themselves using a Rossi-built reactor.

    The question is: Did they also use a "Rossi-built" measurement method?

    If so, then it's obvious they measured the same COP.


    As far as I understood the negative COP developments at IH, they first measured high COPs with measurements instructed by Rossi (false configure IR cam), but later they failed to get COP > 1 with more conventional methods (well known fluid calorimeters).

    That's why they changed their minds.

    Quote from WMartin

    I don't have time right now to make up a story like I did with Darden but in my opinion Rossi is a paranoid who is also lying to himself. He got these early test results that looked good making him think he is the greatest inventor ever who is going to get rich and save humanity at the same time. I think he actually believes he has this awesome invention. This is why he can get others to support him because he is sincere in his belief. Then when people object to something in his experiments, the paranoia kicks in and they are now the enemy. Every action he takes must be interpreted in light of his us verses them mentality. Now his entire self worth is vested in proving himself and his invention right. Because every person who disagrees with him is the enemy, anything is justifiable in the good cause. Also, every person that confronts him makes him more of a martyr because he is being persecuted. This is why people can not work with him because their is no way to bring him back into reality. A lot of great inventors in the past have worked this way. Some succeeded in spite of it, more got destroyed because of it.

    You may be partly right on this, but only partly because suspicion of ones business partners need not be based on total craziness. If you had been through what Rossi has you might be a bit paranoid too.

    Sure smells like brand new astroturf here.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    They also got a COP of 11 running/testing for themselves using a Rossi-built reactor.

    If you mean by "running/testing for themselves" that the "chief scientist of IH" (=Rossi) performed the test where "they" have seen a COP of 11, then you are probably right.


    But we all know that Rossi claims for the "Doral test" also an incredible COP, and we all know it is all deception and complete bullshit.

    dear42,


    we all is not real...However, can you explain your understanding of the "mechanism"? Which data of the ERV Report do you deny, and why? What are you certainties?

    If the Report is false it was an alternative SCENARIO-

    can you describe it? TEchnically not in other modes\


    thank you for a logical variant based on facts

    peter

    Peter Gluck


    This is my kettle of fish so I'll answer:




    What are the certainties?

    Nothing in the ERV report is certain, except that the headline power is wrong by some large factor. That is because it is impossible by a factor of more than 2.5 for 1MW to be dissipated from that factory - even adding in Rossi's invisible claimed heat exchanger.


    Now, you might say - OK - maybe there is an error, but COP=50 is so high even a factor of 10 error leaves us with a working e-cat....


    The problem is that the error is much larger than expected from the experiment, if assumptions made in the calculation are correct, and the data is not falsified. If those assumptions are not correct, or the data is falsified, then COP=1 is as possible as anything else. Specifically this data provides no evidence that Rossi's device does anything other than heat water from electricity.


    So: what is certain is that the total generated power in that warehouse was a lot less than 1MW (if you want a limit I'll be very conservative and say less than 400kW). It is therefore also certain that there is a major error in the Penon figures, and therefore in the assumptions that underlie them.


    If the Report is false it was an alternative SCENARIO-

    can you describe it? TEchnically not in other modes


    We have limited information so determining in which way the Penon data is wrong will be logically impossible. There are multiple ways. Therefore you are asking us to guess, and it is not a very helpful process - any guess is likely to be wrong. There is no inconsistency - since Rossi was in control of the system and taking the flowmeter measurements he could have faked any part of it, and therefore any part of it could be false data.


    Still it is fun guessing. Rossi's tests often have formally correct measurements with some technical error (for example input power mis-measurement using average V and A meters on a spiky waveform, as was discovered by Mats) that makes the result invalid. Can we do that here?


    A. The first logical necessity is that there is (almost) no water phase change from liquid to vapour, and therefore what circulates round the system must be (nearly all) water.

    B. The second logical necessity is that one of the following applies:

    1. The water leaving the generator is close to 100C
    2. The water coming back to the generator is close to 70C
    3. The flowrate (at which the claimed temperatures of 100C and 70C apply) is around 1/4 of that claimed


    For A, all we need is for the steam output to be nearly all water. The Rossi claimed temperature is very close to boiling at one atmosphere, so what we need is one of:

    1. Pressure 1.15 atmospheres (and pressure gauge is measuring something other than the steam pressure)
    2. Temperature 100C (and thermometer is measuring something other than steam temperature)
    3. Fluid + vapour out in one tube, with thermometer correctly measuring vapour temperature, but 99% of flow by mass being fluid
    4. Flow through the instrumented steam tube is much lower than flow round the system.


    We have so little information about the setup - partly because Rossi removed proper instruments and substituted his own, removing them at the experiment end - that all 3 of these remain possible. We do get strong circumstantial evidence that either 1 or 2 do happen, and 3, as well as Rossi's claimed dry steam, does not happen, from the fact that the temperature measurements are so constant. That is expected from wet steam - where additional heat in the system makes the steam drier without changing the temperature. The very nearly constant temperatures recorded make that look likely. Murray was not given time in his deposition (the attorneys want words but don't understand physics) to explain how the theoretical laws for boiling point only applied to equilibrium systems with fully mixed fluid, and therefore do not always apply practically. But let us suppose that in this system they do apply:

    Mechanism?

    A1. broken pressure gauge, or gauge connected direct to a blind tube (with blocked end)

    A2. thermometer measuring conducted heat from reactors via pipe which, because it is close to the reactors, is higher temperature than the fluid. The elevation required is only 4C. Or thermometer badly calibrated.

    A4. if the dual mode hypothesis is correct, and the steam riser (or whatever closes the dual flow circuit) bypasses the instruments on the steam pipe then the steam measurements could be 100% dry , but at low flowrate. This is unlikely because of the stability of the temperature measurements, which indicate wet steam. I add it for completeness.



    For B. I think 2. is much less likely, it would be too obvious, and also more difficult to make happen. I don't need to think much for 1 and 3, Smith and Murray have respectively got some decent suggestions:

    B1. (Smith) Dual flow - the water coming back to the generator recirculates directly to the steam output. The total flow through the ecats is then less than the flow round the system - dual flow. For this to be possible we need the e-cat flow to be adjustable downwards (easy - the pumps can be switched off and are controlled by Rossi) and an additional pump in the system to maintain circulation (this exists - the Grundfoss pump discovered by Smith). there is strong circumstantial evidence that dual flow must happen if the flowmeter readings are correct, because the total system flow is higher than that expected from the pumps even when taking into account a pump pressure of 0 (and therefore pushing up the pump output from rated 36 to 40 l/h as is indicated from linear extrapolation of the pump specified rates).

    B3. (Murray) Spoofed flowmeter - the flowmeter over-reads by a factor of 4. Rossi has chosen a flowmeter that will do this nicely if wrongly positioned.


    It says something for Rossi's choice of equipment and lack of transparency that all of these error modes remain possible, and we cannot tell which applies.


    One interesting possibility is that the system might be run in different modes at different times. Rossi would no doubt call this SSM (self-sustaining mode). Thus perhaps the system runs with a low flowrate single-flow some of the time, and with a high flowrate dual flow and the ecat flowrate essentially zero, but with ecats remaining hot (at low power cost) enough to keep thermometer readings up.


    I cannot resolve which of these combinations would be most likely - nor if some set of combinations, with the system running in different modes at different times, is more likely. One of the problems with this 6000 post thread is that people argue about one of these options not seeing the whole picture. Or they note that, for example, that if B2 applies the circumstantial evidence for B1 disappears. Also, people argue that one of these error modes (say B1) must happen. Mostly we have only circumstantial evidence due to Rossi's removal of real evidence and refusal to allow experts to inspect his modified system in operation, and Penon's refusal to answer questions.


    So if you listen to the chatter here you get a distorted and partial view of the overall picture, and the arguments here, mostly relating to whether one specific error mode is known to apply, are not helpful. We know that there is some error in this system from the heat dissipation considerations. Even if none of these guessed errors applies (possible though unlikely due to the strong circumstantial evidence for dual flow) Rossi could just have created fake measurements - he had complete control of the system and instruments. My guess would be that he did not, and there is an error, but it could be something other than the things considered here.


    EDIT - typo noticed by Jed corrected

    Quote from Roger

    So in the end what you're saying is, you don't know what you don't know? I only see speculations about half-known factoids which may or may not have roots in actual truth


    ;)


    Roger, you have not looked very carefully. I realise my posts are long and boring. So I made it easy for you with one short section what are the certainties. I can see you missed it, so I've bolded the relevant parts of that section.


    Regards, THH

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    They actually did better than that. IH built and tested their own and got a COP of 9.

    No, they initially thought there might be excess, but they soon found out they were wrong. They found that even the blank, empty cells were producing a huge, spurious COP.


    You have been told that many times. By now, when you repeat it, you are not just mistaken, you are lying. You can repeat this lie of yours as many times as you like -- it is still a lie.

    ANSWER TO THH..

    Dear Thomas,

    I really appreciate your effort & answer.

    It is creative, imaginative- OK. But what I very strongly dislike in your small essay is that you seem to be hesitant or uncertain regarding the basic Axiom of the IH ideology- ZERO EXCESS HEAT. NADAEH and if you admit even a slight excess heat everything is lost- there can be found means to increase it. Or is this just an impression?


    However I have asked for YOUR certainties not Penon's.


    The calculation is straightforward:

    Heat= Flow X [enthalpy difference] and you deny the corectness of both terms- based on what do you think.



    But you are missing the raw data of the measurement- the court has them and proceeds accordingly, IH also has them but hides them.- as natural. You also do not know the exct circuit in the generator part so you are free to speculate hat you wish combining many possible errors- but what else ould you do?

    I will ask you ONLY about one issue: the FLOWMETER, wht you really think about it? (I think you have not read my opinion story in: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…r-flowmeters-jaccuse.html


    It is an ugly story as Wyttenbach has also shown it: a good quality instrument of the proper size (to long term reliable work) was chosen, carefully calibrated for hot water, installed come il faut, working for 352 days continuously, re calibrated and found OK) Then comes Murray with the incredible story invention about the half full pipe. He MUST find some flaws, this is his mission! But who will be so naive and technically innocent to believe him?

    As you know he had luck.

    Very honestly, Thomas, what do you think? I am really curious.

    greetings,

    peter


    I've laid out my certainties above. Maybe you do not see that a certainty that Penon's data is not correct counts as certainty? If not I'm sorry - but it is all the certainty you are likely to get from this system that Rossi and friends possibly spoliated, and certainly destroyed evidence about. There is another certainty for you.


    The rest of your post is presenting your speculation, so does not help this question of certainty.


    WRT the flowmeter: I'm certain that that flowmeter will over-read as Murray stated (roughly) if run with an airlock in its pipe. I'm not certain that there was such an airlock, neither are you. You'd need to know the exact plumbing and the conditions in which it was run because as I guess you know airlocks are unpleasant things and a bit counter-intuitive. I'd expect that if the flowmeter is at the bottom of a section of tubing, with both sides going up significantly, it would be full of water. However I don't know and am not willing to guess. I've spent enough time with CH systems to know that they are not always intuitive. I think for other reasons I mildly prefer the dual flow error modes to the flowmeter over-reads error modes. The two are not exactly contradictory, but the strong circumstantial evidence for dual flow only applies if you are correct and the flowmeter is reading correctly. So I'm mildly with you on this one. Say 70%.


    WRT IH certainty of excess heat. All they can say is that they have no evidence of excess heat which I'm pretty sure is true. No-one can prove there was no excess heat. Just as if no test had been done no-one could prove no excess heat. For the moral and legal argument here, if the Test cannot show evidence of excess heat Rossi should lose. Maybe, both legally and morally, he should lose anyway because of the fake customer and the fact that IH clearly did not want this to be the GPT, for good reasons because they could not validate it.

    @THH:

    Thanks for writing down this - saves me a lot of typing.


    You could add to the list of possible ways how to fake the results:

    - just a very low flow of hot water or steam from the e-cat during day time, and the missing amount of water flow through the flow totalizer is made up during Rossi's night shifts using the Grundfoss pump (bypassing the e-cats)


    Peter:

    Strong evidence why to discard the "Doral performance test":

    - The heat dissipation of the claimed 1MW heat from this building is not feasible (closed windows, no cooling towers etc.)

    - The el. power consumed from the grid for the entire warehouse is sometimes lower than the reported el. consumption of the 1MW plant (That would only be possible when Rossi would have used an additional power source / generator - which wasn't the case)

    - The stable 0 bar(g) pressure reading is implausible, because at least during varying load of the plant (and varying steam flow / condensation rate) you would get varying pressure (Keep in mind there is no feedback control from the "JMP plant" to the e-cats.


    And I don't want to repeat all the other issues about the "Penon report" (would you call/accept this paper a "report" for a performance validation, disputing 89 mio$ ? - I would not!), and all the other flaws on deceptions of this "test", which have been brought up here before.

    You could add to the list of possible ways how to fake the results:

    - just a very low flow of hot water or steam from the e-cat during day time, and the missing amount of water flow through the flow totalizer is made up during Rossi's night shifts using the Grundfoss pump (bypassing the e-cats)


    Agreed Forty-two. I'm indebted to Bruce-H on ECW (or maybe you) for that idea. It is what I meant when I said different modes could be combined - but I did not spell out the details which in any case are speculative. I quite like the idea that Rossi's talk of SSM on his blog is actually referring to this!

    Dear Thomas,

    a) I am sure that if you scratch a phonograpoh plate (do you remember them? ) it iwill make an ugly noise. The flowmeter put in a bad pposition will misread, Ok, the problem is that the one at the plant was used well according to the instructions

    and this isssue can be excluded from the list of possible errors- IF we are fair.

    If you will se the raw dat you will exclude the idea of sub-feeding the E-cats and then the no phase change idea.

    You will get also the perfect data showing that 1MW was used.

    I bet.

    Peter

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.