Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from THHuxleynew

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

It's simply filibuster, based upon a false or uncertain premise:

"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."

Roger, perhaps you'll be willing to critique THH's conclusion about the upper bound on the power that can possibly be dissipated from the Doral warehouse by detailing the assumptions that go into the conclusion and then showing where they're wrong?

Quote from THHuxleynew

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

Right. Plus the error margin is so large we cannot rule out the possibility there was some excess heat, but given all these problems it seems unlikely. Certainly, it would be absurd to demand payment of $89 million based on this mess.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The water coming back to the generator is close to 100C
The water leaving the generator is close to 70C

You have that backward. It comes back to the generator and 70 and leaves at 100 deg C.

For 1 year and 3 partial ERV reports it was no "MESS" except in complains, untraceable, ones sent to special privileged persons.

peter

Quote from Peter Gluck

For 1 year and 3 partial ERV reports it was no "MESS" except in complains, untraceable, ones sent to special privileged persons.

In my opinion, all of the data in the ERV report is absurd. No one should pay $89 million for such a travesty. I wouldn't pay ten dollars for this garbage. Problems include by are not limited to:

1. The instruments listed in the report and shown in the schematic cannot measure the enthalpy of steam. There is no way you can confirm excess heat without measuring steam quality, and no way to measure it with these instruments.

2. The data is obviously fake, with impossibly round number. The pressure gauge numbers are impossible.

3. The schematic shows the instruments were in the wrong places. It does not list several critical instruments such as the mezzanine heat exchanger Rossi claims existed, or the hidden pump.

4. The ERV report says you do not need to know what is in the pretend customer site to evaluate the reactor performance. That's an outrageous lie.

5. The pressure gauge does not work at these temperatures.

6. The flow meter is the wrong kind, installed in the wrong place. Penon did not mention that it was installed in a half-empty pipe.

7. The results are impossible because the heat would have killed observers, even with the invisible mezzanine heat exchanger.

8. There is no questions the study was full of errors and deliberate fraud. The report is badly written, unorganized and does not have enough details to know which errors were made.

Gluck will not address any of the issues in this message, so it it is a waste of time telling him this, but others may profit from it, or add some more major problems to my list.

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

Given what we presently have access to, I think it is unlikely. Please refer to this and this.

Jed

please do not predict what will I make or not make.

Anyway before going to dinner, I will ask you again to retract

A6. The flow meter is the wrong kind, installed in the wrong place. Penon did not mention that it was installed in a half-empty pipe.

this being totally false, as Murray has also accepted.

I hope POWOGAZ will discuss this with you, it is a calumny of low quality. You can see the flowmeter was OK from all points of view..

coming back,

peter

ps if you give your word of honor you believe the flowmeter story, I will conclude that it is not worth discussing with you.
i still hope you are lying--- better for you.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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....

I've felt for some time that this is your strongest contention. We'll have to wait and see what turns up at trial. All it takes is one photo of the innards of the heat exchanger showing several finned radiators at the end of the piping (consistent with methods used by Rossi in the past), and your foundational premise comes crumbling down. I have no idea whether such a photo exists.

But what I do know: we have more evidence that the heat exchanger was in the mezzanine than we have for a dual-circuit flow (Smith's word).

Quote from Eric Walker

Roger, perhaps you'll be willing to critique THH's conclusion about the upper bound on the power that can possibly be dissipated from the Doral warehouse by detailing the assumptions that go into the conclusion and then showing where they're wrong?

Doesn't it have to do with a window or set of windows that might or might not have been opened/removed/obscurated? More unknowns we don't know whether we know them or not

Seems a lot of people like to conjure up conjectures and make them factual instead of debating known facts, found in the court docs, and then build hypothesis upon them

Quote from Roger

Doesn't it have to do with a window or set of windows that might or might not have been opened/removed/obscurated? More unknowns we don't know whether we know them or not

Seems a lot of people like to discuss conjectures and make them factual instead of debating known facts, found in the court docs, and then build hypothesis upon them

THH's conclusion is based upon analyses which are in this thread for you to go back and read and comment upon. The conclusion is either solid, or there's some holes in it. Perhaps you'll be willing to raise your own comments above the level of conjecture by going back and identifying what is conjecture in THH's conclusion about the upper bound on power dissipation?

Quote from IH Fanboy

[They found that even the blank, empty cells were producing a huge, spurious COP.]

Given what we presently have access to, I think it is unlikely. Please refer to this and this.

1. The explicitly stated that they found a huge, spurious COP. This is not debatable. Whatever else happened, they found the experiments do not work. They told Rossi. He went bonkers and cut the cell apart.

2. The two documents you pointed to do not contract these facts.

Quote from JedRothwell

1. The explicitly stated that they found a huge, spurious COP. This is not debatable. Whatever else happened, they found the experiments do not work. They told Rossi. He went bonkers and cut the cell apart.

2. The two documents you pointed to do not contract these facts.

Yes Darden said it, but I doubt it is true (probably exaggerated), because they later brought on Woodford, and Woodford stated that Rossi was core to their investment.

As for 2, yes the document and reasoning that I point to do in fact contradict your "facts."

Darden and JT have certainly done a bang up job living up to the APCO PR statement of unable-to-substantiate-all-without-success mantra.

And lest we forget, the folks behind APCO are not nice.

Quote from Peter Gluck

A6. The flow meter is the wrong kind, installed in the wrong place. Penon did not mention that it was installed in a half-empty pipe.

this being totally false, as Murray has also accepted.

You can repeat that as many times as you like, but you are wrong. Murray did not accept that. I.H. has proof that the pipe was half-empty, and I am certain of that. You seem to forget that I have been to their labs twice and I know more than you do.

Quote from JedRothwell

You seem to forget that I have been to their labs twice and I know more than you do.

What did you see? Murray's simulations using his own pipes and configurations? (Even though he claimed that he didn't even know where the flow meter was located.)

Quote from IH Fanboy

Yes Darden said it, but I doubt it is true (probably exaggerated), because they later brought on Woodford, and Woodford stated that Rossi was core to their investment.

Whereas I know it is true. As I said to Peter Gluck, I know more than you do. It isn't hard to know more than you. Basically, you know nothing, and your assertions are wishful thinking and empty speculation based on your imagination. Your assertions are contradicted by statements from I.H., and from Rossi himself. It is surprising to me that you people don't even believe Rossi when he tells you something that you don't want to hear.

If - IF - there was a rust stain in the flowmeter indicating that it was not full of water, then (I hope!) it will have been photographed; and will need an explanation.

Jed, an other point:

3. The schematic shows the instruments were in the wrong places. It does not list several critical instruments such as the mezzanine heat exchanger Rossi claims existed, or the hidden pump.

this is a genaeral remark, which instruments are in the bad positions and why? do you knw for certain? The heat excahanger is not an instrument as far i know. See and reject Wong's calculations, you do not know the schematics, the Court knows it and has not accepet the IH theorem for JMP, o=including spoliation.

Quote from IH Fanboy

What did you see?

The only thing I can say is that you should read the depositions carefully. Murray and others refer to partial corrosion and other evidence that the return pipe was half empty. They describe various other problems. If you do not believe those depositions, you wouldn't believe me either. There is nothing I can tell you that would convince you of anything.

Quote from IH Fanboy

(Even though he claimed that he didn't even know where the flow meter was located.)

Everyone knows where it was located. It is right there in Penon's schematic. Again I must point out that you do not even believe Rossi & Penon when they tell you things you do not want to hear.

Quote from JedRothwell

Everyone knows where it was located. It is right there in Penon's schematic.

But Murray said he didn't know where it was specifically located, i.e., whether it was above or below the inlet. Don't you think that would be important to know when running his simulations?