Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Henry

Yeah, but this charlatan has a doctorate in Philosophy.

And you ?

Have you also a Phd ? Or even a Ma or a Ba ?

Is very easy to insult other hiding under a pseudonym.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I think a drill with a magnet on a dowel could do it, too. One the water meter values are tricked out, any purported kWh could be faked.

ha ha ha ha !

Come on !

This is completely absurd.

The effect of a (very strong !) magnet eventually would be to slow down the metallic moving parts so making the flow meter to count a lower flow so less energy. Same for the dowel.

But modern certified meters are shielded (moving parts not in metal) against this tempering.

Quote from LDM

Reversing a clamp, for example on I1 inverts the polarity of I1

This is usual absurdity that have been heard many times.

AC current have no defined polarity ( is in AC !) so if you reverse a clamp the instrument will detect a 180 phase shift of the current but the power calculation will remain the same !

All your formulas are wrong.

Start reading e.g. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…ase-electrical-d_888.html

Quote from THHuxleynew

I thought we had explained Doral? I posted on this a while back. Lots of different error modes any of which can deliver this Rossi-COP

@THH: Sorry I only red FUD so far.

Give you a new try and answer the question of the original post. How can you heat 1500l of water with 6kWh electricity by 34 degrees...

But we will not estimate answers like water-flow only 150l or delta T only 3 degrees.

But you are allowed to use other old answers like DN40 or 20kWh ohmsch heater or no steam...

May be AR used a hidden heat-pump or solar panels..?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

What's in a Big Frankie? A bunch of fatcats, with fins? Could they superheat? How are the pipes connected? Is there a return flow from the bypass pump to the steam riser? What's the slope on the condensate return line? ..... etc etc

A big Frankie is a combination of 16 reactors to exploit the AR cat-mouse effect.

Their design is military grade but photos have disapperared. There was once one availble. It looked like a power-module of a submarine - absolutely highend and professional.

Joshg #7156

Yes it's true that Rossi took water readings. But ultimately Penon was able to cross-check the figures that Rossi was supplying against the total flow of the meter reading when he personally took possession of the meter at the end of the test. Plus, he made two site visits during the test (May and October) and checked the meter personally then in order to cross-check the data Rossi was feeding him. So, no, the overall COP calculation did not hinge on Rossi's measurements. Say what else you will about the test, and people have imagined all kinds of ways Rossi might have cheated the tests -- we don't need this canard. Can we please dispose of it?

And while I'm disposing of UD canards here, I might as well slay another one: everybody keeps saying that the Doral operation was not a test; that it was set up according to the term sheet and not according to the contract; the term sheet is not a contract. And so Darden et al. had no reason whatsoever to think it was some kind of test. And while I agree with the fact that the term sheet is not the contract, this line of reasoning completely ignores Penon's involvement. The term sheet says nothing whatsoever about anybody testing the heat production of the 1MW plant. But the contract does. So the very fact that IH agreed to Penon's test and even paid for half his salary indicates they did consider this to be the "the test" according to the contract, not the term sheet. On top of that, according to the e-mails in the court documents that I've seen, IH representatives referred to Penon as "the ERV." The e-mails between Rossi and Darden about Penon also indicate that they agreed to let him to be the ERV. Again, you will find no "ERV" in the term sheet. And do you honestly think it was "just a coincidence" that Penon's test lasted for the same amount of time that was specified in the contract (not the term sheet).

So if we once again try to cut through the fog, the issue here is very simple: Yes, IH did consider the Doral plant to be the test as outlined in the contract. I don't see how they can plausibly deny that. Of course they have to try to deny it, but their denials ring false, and I think the jury will see through them. The court case will really hinge around IH's argument that the test was bad and unreliable. And from what I've seen, I'd say they have the upper hand on that count.

But the question I keep coming back to that I simply cannot fathom is this: it's clear from Darden's deposition that they knew the test was garbage before it even started, so why did they allow it to go forward? Why did they continue to pay Penon and Fabiani and West? Why did they bring investors around to see the plant multiple times? I know people have answers to this, but I have not found them satisfying in the least.

THH says it's because early on they didn't know the customer was bogus, and so they were holding out hope that the COP would be validated through the customer's word. But they did at least know by that point that the customer they were dealing with directly was a shell company whose president was Rossi's lawyer (even if they allegedly thought it was actually fronting Johnson Matthey). So here we really need to ask ourselves how plausible it is to that Darden, this by all accounts savvy investor with decades of experience, would believe that, let alone gamble $89 million on that basis. It sounds far-fetched, to say the least. On top of that, according to the depositions, they were allegedly told that Johnson Matthey would step forward after 90 days if the results were positive. Yet we know they had investors coming around to visit the plant long after those 90 days had passed. I have heard no plausible explanation for that.

This raises another question, and perhaps somebody has an answer: at what point did Darden et al. realize that JM was not connected to Johnson Matthey in any way? That it was just Rossi and his lawyer? Did they realize after 90 days had passed that Johnson Matthey was not involved? If not, when did this "aha" moment allegedly come?

I agree with much of what Josh says here, but not all. Legally, IH will argue that the test was not the GPT. Whether this is deemed so will be tested first by MSJ and second if needed by Trial. Josh raises the question of: Did IH think the test was the GPT?. The answer is a bit more complex than yes or no. Rossi clearly thought the test was the GPT*, and said so loudly (on his blog and elsewhere). We don't know exactly what the IH guys thought but my guess is:

"It could be the GPT, if Rossi's stuff works. Rossi is desperate to do this so let us keep him happy and anyway if the independent customer is real that is solif validation. If Rossi's stuff does not work then we will not pay him (as is fair) and use the acknowledged legal out-of-time fact to avoid any question of litigation."

The subtext to this, which Josh needs to acknowledge at least as a possibility, is the IH situation at the start of the test. They had spent $10,500,000 for full IP to allow them to manufacture and understand Rossi's e-cats. Till then they had the clearly unreliable Rossi, backed by credible academics, with many tests not entirely independent but all glowingly positive. They had some confidence these devices worked, but also some real caution. Early testing, using Rossi's methodology gave high COP, as did the independent academic tests. But Rossi had a known history and the independent reports on the independent tests were positive but not bomb-proof. Their own in-house technical expertise was Dameron - not up to the job of doing science. They would therefore initially reckon the academic results more likely correct than theirs if there was any disagreement. They were not expecting to need much technical expertise yet because their job was to replicate Rossi's device, already tested and supposed working, and they reckoned it must be easy to distinguish between working (COP=9) and not working (COP=1). Ironically this is the exact argument used by Rossi supporters here to argue that Rossi's tests must be positive, so i don't understand why IH are criticised on this one point. Their plan would be, once they had truly independent replication, to get in much more money and technical resource for further development and manufacture.

During the pseudo-GPT test they discovered without doubt that the reassuring Rossi/Levi COP=9 methodology gave COP=9 also on dummies. This would have been transformative of their views. Both Rossi, and much more significantly Levi, would have backed this flawed methodology. If they cannot trust Levi that is a big deal given his past involvement. This turned "we are very positive but not certain and know Rossi is unreliable" into "Rossi has been fooling us - we can't believe how stupid we have been". I'm uncertain here what was the strength of Darden's caution before this, so I'm not sure how surprised they were. But once they realised that Lugano-style tests could be so badly wrong that blew up both their earlier in-house results and the Lugano test and their confidence in Levi and therefore also (perhaps unfairly, given likely different error mechanisms, but they were done by Levi alone with Rossi) the Ferrara tests.

They did not have the technical sophistication to work out for sure what was wrong with the Rossi/Levi/Swedish mice methodology, and still hoped that Rossi's stuff could be made to work. There were also all those Penon tests. I suspect at this point Darden reckoned the chances of Rossi's stuff working at all were low (< 10%) but even a 10% shot at the breakthrough of the century is worth taking. It makes sense that they continue trying to see whether anything can be gotten from Rossi's reactors and their replications thereof. Obviously, at that point they needed much higher power technical expertise in-house (not just reviews from external academics).

So given this reading of the entrails in this unhappy but fascinating affair, can we answer Josh's questions?

Flowmeter readings - yes, I'm inclined to agree on the narrow point. But not on the major. Rossi's heavy involvement makes them unreliable. For example he could run the Grundfoss pump at night or whatever. We have no clarity about the detailed figures or instrumentation. Decoding this is impossible - and it is only in bizarro-land that a test which cannot be understood conducted by the inventor is viewed as positive evidence for an extraordinary and incredibly valuable new invention not otherwise validated.

Was contract the GPT? You can see that I'm in the middle here. I can't tell exactly what IH private thoughts were but am sure their view would be different from Rossi's view. I think they might have taken Rossi's repeated terminology for elements of the test and used it. incautious. But, after all, Penon was the ERV and who better to use to oversee this new non-GPT test than him? Rossi would suggest it, IH would reckon to keep him sweet they should agree. Or, maybe Josh is right and they viewed this as the GPT with the mistaken idea it could give them no trouble because it would be obvious from the customer if it was not working, and they were happy to pay, overlooking the legal get-outs, if it did work.

Is the issue simple? No, I think not. I think Josh would be right about the Jury except for the fact that Rossi lied about the customer so obviously and badly. That potentially invalidates the legal case, because of a prior fraud. But in any case it would sway a Jury. Same as it sways nearly all people here.

Why did Darden et al allow the test to go forward? I think two reasons. Rossi was desperate (we know from his deposition) to do the test. If Rossi's stuff worked they wanted to keep him sweet. At that point they still had high but cautious hopes. Independently, they were focussed in getting absolute bomb-proof validation. If the customer was really Johnson Matthey they would provide that validation. So whatever doubts they had the possibility would be an inducement. In hindsight it looks the wrong decision. we all are wiser with hindsight. Darden knew this was a shell company set up by Rossi's lawyer with the near-eponymous name. (How weird is that - perhaps it was how Rossi came up with Johnson Matthey...). Rossi had a reason for that which sort of makes sense: JM would want plausible deniability if all went wrong. I think darden may have been surprised by the brazenness of Rossi's deception here. Josh's argument that Darden could not have acted this way again has the wisdom of hindsight. it looks stupid now.

Why did investors visit the plant? I don't know this JM would step forward after 90 days canard - RossiSays or real? - but it could easily be real. I do know that till the tests were crushed any investor would have to visit Rossi's plant. Rossi was IH's only (at that time) investment. How could they not. Woodford had been following LENR and Rossi for a long time. He knew the score. IH did not need to misrepresent things to him, and would have been unwise so to do. When I say he knew the score, I am speaking relatively. Neither IH nor Woodford knew the score. That is the mistake we make again and again, thinking they must have better information than they did. Just as we conflate - Rossi is a habitual deceiver with Rossi's devices do not work. IH knew from the start that Rossi was deceptive and unreliable. Like many here they allowed the sequence of positive tests and apparent independent validations to override that obvious fact. IH are guilty of the same misjudgement here that the few remaining supporters of Rossi still make. It is ironic. But at least IH have now realised their mistake!

Did IH represent an unduly rosy picture of the known uncertain Rossi situation to Woodford? I've no idea, it is a question that cannot exactly be answered because about judgement and shades of opinion. I doubt very much that they withheld material facts. I note also that Woodford required their own independent test (Lugano) before they invested. That would be because they had the same real doubts that IH had.

Regards, THH

PS - Eric's complete timeline, which no-one has had the willpower to wade through documents and generate, would help make this post more accurate. It works with variation in when the various confidence boosting or reducing events happen, but might need slight modification. As far as I know I've got it right, but this is from imperfect memory.

* I wonder when Rossi startind saying this was the GPT. At the start? Or only after he knew he would be disagreeing with IH about this matter? Another timeline issue.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@THH: Sorry I only red FUD so far.

Give you a new try and answer the question of the original post. How can you heat 1500l of water with 6kWh electricity by 34 degrees...

But we will not estimate answers like water-flow only 150l or delta T only 3 degrees.

But you are allowed to use other old answers like DN40 or 20kWh ohmsch heater or no steam...

May be AR used a hidden heat-pump or solar panels..?

Display More

It annoys me having to scroll back through pages and pages to find my summary post on this. It answers your question fully - perhaps more fully than you either deserve or want!

As stated in document 254-04, also IH considers Rossi an unstable and difficult person, and with this excuse they made him believe that the Doral test was the GPT despite not considering it as such. For IH it was more important to get to the end of the test than tell Rossi that they did not want to pay for it. Perhaps for many people this is a normal attitude, typical of business people. In my opinion, it is the behavior of sharks.

Perhaps it is what normal people do when working with known volatile and duplicitous guys like Ross? Anyway they could not tell him they would not pay, since if his stuff worked for them (IP transfer) I guess they would have paid. Peanuts given the plus-side, and avoids legal issues.

Quote from ele

This is usual absurdity that have been heard many times.

AC current have no defined polarity ( is in AC !) so if you reverse a clamp the instrument will detect a 180 phase shift of the current but the power calculation will remain the same !

All your formulas are wrong.

Start reading e.g. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…ase-electrical-d_888.html

Listen here everyone (thankyou Henry for the catch, first time I've ever given you a like!).

Should Ele be somone close to the testing (such as Levi, or Rossi, or Fabiani) we have here positive evidence that really stupid things that no person with half a brain would do (IHFB said this, not me) would be done by such a tester and hence be part of the pantheon of Rossi COP-enhancing tricks.

Of course, if Ele is just an anonymous troll with no connection to this matter we have no such proof. Even so, I get the impression that Ele's posts are informed by those close to Rossi, whatever Ele's identity, and the mistake remains (for blog purposes) evidential, unless Ele would like to deny any relationship to or information from Rossi or anyone testing with him.

I do hope Ele does not vanish and tries to argue this one...

Ele: AC current has a phase relative to the corresponding voltage. It is from this phase that you get positive or negative real power (as well as reactive power component). Reversing the clamp reverses the instantaneous sign of the AC current and therefore varies phase by 180 degrees (because cos(wt) = - cos(wt+180) angle units degrees). This has the effect of negating the complex power, and hence also the real power.

LENR Forum moderators: keep those IP logs safe till you get a Court order...

Quote from Rends

- no person with half a brain would do -

Comments like this are offensive and I would appreciate it if this is left out in the discussion.

Sure, IHFB was the one who claimed this, and was not stopped. I'm well aware that many people with presumably full brains, like Ele, would do this. 20% of 1st year physics/engineering undergraduates would do it.

Henry - your nice picture needs to be higher resolution - it can't be read. You do insert full image or something.

Quote from andrea.s

LDM

You are right on the absolute powers in the spreadsheet. At some point I reduced the step from 1 to 0.5 degrees to have a better resolution and forgot to correct the average formula (for twice the no. of samples). Thanks for spotting that.

This however changes nothing about the key point the spreadsheet wants to make, which is: when inverting a clamp (I1 in my spreadsheet) the power reading is wrong and the apparent COP varies with the conduction interval.

For low regimes it may go down to 1 or less, and when increasing the conduction time (thus average power) it increases arbitrarily. If the current weren't chopped at all, apparent power would be zero, i.e. infinite COP.

I will upload the corrected spreadsheet shortly.

[ETA: uploaded the corrected spreadsheet in .zip format as well hoping formulas are readable that way]

(.ods) https://drive.google.com/open?…ubncFIhCFaNF83OUgzUDcwenM

tpr1_opensource_rev2.zip

Display More

Found some time to make comments on the new spreadsheet as promised.

Don't know what went wrong the first time, but the .ods file was readable. Thanks
First of all, the numbers seem all right now, albeit with a different timing as compared to your first file.
You simulated two situations, one with both clamps in the correct direction and one with the clamp on I1 reversed. In addition to this I calulated also the situation in which I2 was reversed. The results are :

Both clamps correct 132.0 Watt
Clamp I1 reversed 168.4 Watt
Clamp I2 reversed -168.4 Watt

The last situation with a negative power would have resulted in the PCE 820 having displayed an error which would have been noted by the testers. Thus we can discard this situation.
In case of Clamp I1 reversed the testers would have calculated their COP value with a higher input power (164 instead of 132 watt) which would have resulted in a lower calculated COP value.
Thus measuring with a reversed clamp under estimates the COP ! This in contradiction to statements that the COP value would have been over estimated with a reversed clamp.
Was the clamp reversed ? I agree with your analyses that the clamp was probably reversed based on the figures of the currents of I1 and I2 displaying the same polarity signals. Since the PCE 830 was used upstream, Phase 1 was always present and not chopped so that the PCE 830 could trigger in the standard way. In that situation both currents should have shown opposite polarity (Good find !).

My preliminary conclusion is therefore that current clamp I1 was reversed and that this leaded to a too low COP calulated.

Quote from joshg

But ultimately Penon was able to cross-check the figures that Rossi was supplying against the total flow of the meter reading when he personally took possession of the meter at the end of the test. Plus, he made two site visits during the test (May and October) and checked the meter personally then in order to cross-check the data Rossi was feeding him.

Where did you read this? That is not true as far as I know. He did not check the performance of the flow meter and he did not take possession of it.

Quote from maryyugo

By a famous test lab or major university **department** (not a few unknown scientists)?

The University of Bologna is a major university. Elforsk is one the world's top energy research organizations, like EPRI. The scientists from Sweden are world class experts. Unfortunately, they made mistakes. Many world class experts have made terrible mistakes in cold fusion. In nearly every case I know of, they made mistakes in the other direction, producing a negative result by methods that I described as akin to "trying to tune a piano with a sledgehammer."

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

Quote from maryyugo

Why did they not check how the heat allegedly being used was in fact disposed of and measured, using their own experts?

They did. They also asked non-experts to check the results, including me. Experts and non-experts alike agreed there were problems. Murray listed these problems in Exhibit 5.

Just to clarify, I am not certain that this particular water meter can be tricked with a magnet.

If it can, it will not be an arbitrary waving around of a magnet, but will involve intentionally coupling the external magnet with the magnetic clutch to the counter mechanism.

In order for the dry side counter mechanism to be permanently water-sealed from the internal, wet rotating parts, a magnetic clutch is used.

(Keeping the wet part free of water will keep the turbine from having extra drag, assisting the external magnetic stimulation of the counter, I presume.)

As an aside, Apator makes/sells pulse counter and thermocouple input heat measuring calculators that are designed to work with the type of water meter used in Doral. The water meter used is specifically a heat meter type of measuring unit designed to work with an electronic heat calculator.

See the LQM-III and LEC-5 heat calculators for examples, in the Apator Catalogue .