it even produced 1MW power when the reactors were down for maintenance one of those days.
Another example of rubbish and FUD.
Rossi answered to all that in his deposition but anyone who has seen even a photograph of the 1MW reactor knows that is modular. It was possible to service some of the modules while the others were working.
Reporting just the opinion of IH and not the answer of the counterpart is disinformation.
In the eyes of the law, they are. And IH did refer to their various entities in the third person, just as most business people do.
Oh get real. The law has nothing do to with it. Only crazy people call themselves "he." Or frauds who pretend they are talking to a person who does not exist.
Well, it would be fascinating to discuss metaphysics with you, but I think I'd rather do laundry. I would say that this reality of mine is one that I share with somewhere over 7.5 billion people on the planet whereas yours is the home of a few hundred kindred souls who worship at the feet of Il Douche. But tribal loyalty is fierce...
Insults because you have no arguments.
BTW I presume that 7.5 billion people do not follow what you say and do not share what you think about Rossi.
As of course they do not follow me.
If you think that really so much people think as you probably your case is really serious.
And of course I was not talking about metaphysics, but psychology .
Regarding the laundry...... please do it.
Dear random,
Of course nobody follows me. I have not said anything that many others - pretty much anyone with a lick of sense - have not said many times before on this site and elsewhere. In fact, dismissing the "work" of Rossi is embarassing in the sense of belaboring the obvious. But it is your mission in life to attack anyone who blasphemes Rossi, so knock yourself out calling me names.
Please continue on with your angry and content-less defense of your Italian hero. There is no doubt that it is highly effective and will make a real difference in the world. Bravo.
Rossi answered to all that in his deposition but anyone who has seen even a photograph of the 1MW reactor knows that is modular. It was possible to service some of the modules while the others were working.
You have a reference where he answered that? He had the one 1MW unit with the 4 Big Frankies (BFs), and the back-up with the 108 older units. The backup was used only 1 time at start up, and never again.
We have a lot of engineers here. Since you seem so informed, maybe you could tell us how Rossi worked on the 1MW, while maintaining 1MW 24/7, for 350 days?
You have a reference where he answered that? He had the one 1MW unit with the 4 Big Frankies (BFs), and the back-up with the 108 older units. The backup was used only 1 time at start up, and never again.
We have a lot of engineers here. Since you seem so informed, maybe you could tell us how Rossi worked on the 1MW, while maintaining 1MW 24/7, for 350 days?
Shane,
Rossi didn't maintain 1MW 24/7 for 350 days, nor did the agreement require that. The requirement was for a threshold COP level for 350 days (and they didn't need to be consecutive).
IHFB,
Document 326 (Fulvio Fabiani depo), pgs98-110:
-3/3/2015: at least 30 minute power outage.
-4/7/2015: power outage for 4 hours.
Pg 110: "Q: Do you remember anytime when the 1MW plant was shut down completely for any reason?"
"A: I remember several episodes, but I don't remember when, or how many"
@Shane,
Right, there were down times. And that was okay in terms of meeting with the agreement, as long as it was up and above the required COP for at least 350 of the days of the test.
Right, there were down times. And that was okay in terms of meeting with the agreement, as long as it was up and above the required COP for at least 350 of the days of the test.
You are missing the point. The log showed 100% full power production on days when Rossi reported the machine was turned off and disassembled.
You are missing the point. The log showed 100% full power production on days when Rossi reported the machine was turned off and disassembled.
Rossi had back up units. Show me the log that shows 100% full power when Rossi reported the machine "was turned off and disassembled." You're blowing smoke.
Show me the log that shows 100% full power when Rossi reported the machine "was turned off and disassembled." You're blowing smoke.
Evidently you have not read the court docket files.
IHFB,
Yes. I agree with what you say about the contractual terms. This started with RBO questioning my comment that: "the 1MW worked even it was not working". I supplied the references where the 1MW did not function/work at all, due input power failures.
JD, in the Rossi/Fabiani depositions were zeroing in on the discrepancies between the "Penon Final Report", reported maintenance down-times, and building power input failures uncovered in the discovery process. Unfortunately, due the settlement, that is as far as I can take this. Although, it would not take much for someone like Para, to do a search to compare the power failures, and maintenance dates with the Penon Report.
He, or someone else, may have already done so? Been a lot on that.
maybe you could tell us how Rossi worked on the 1MW, while maintaining 1MW 24/7, for 350 days?
Firstly, the Plant may have had a nameplate 1MW capacity of 1 MW, but even if we ignore the idea that it never worked, it seems to almost never had delivered 1MWd to the Customer via steam. A portion of that 1MWd was used (claimed) to heat the water up to boiling. A minor technicality, true.
But then, for at least two months in total, it only made 750 kWd. Now, the Customer, using some (absent) metering system, somehow received 1 MWd (ignoring the missing part used to bring the water to boiling) some days, and 750 kWd some other days, but often not on the same days that the Plant did. In one case, the Customer reports receiving 1MWd for two weeks straight, but the Plant was only reportedly making nominal 750 kWdays. That's a COP of 1.3 made just from the delivery pipe between the Plant to Customer side, on top of the Plant COP of 80-130.
QuoteThere are people clearly biased by IH and people who simply hate hate hate LENR like Mary.
I certainly would not hate LENR if it made lots of power cheaply and safely. I'd love it. But it doesn't. Actually, I don't even hate Rossi (I don't know him enough to have a personal feeling about him) though I do hate, despise and disrespect, his conning, cheating and lying and the damage he does to legitimate researchers in LENR who have a hard enough time as it is, caught as they are between an uncooperative Mother Nature and a lot of skeptical scientists..
As for randombit0, that person writes a lot like [snip ...]
Let's stay far away from attempted doxxing. Eric
Thank you Para. I knew you would come through for me. 
Evidently you have not read the court docket files.
You're the one making the claim. Why don't you give me some pin cites? I do that all the time for you to back up my claims.
Thank you Para. I knew you would come through for me.
I'm not totally sure about that.
FPL doesn't report any noticeable fully down days, even when the plant was supposedly shut off.
Considering that the Plant could use more electricity than was delivered by FPL for two weeks, I suppose the Plant using electricity when it is turned off should be no surprise...
@Para,
Right, the "customer" essentially said send me a bill for an obviously rounded finger-in-the-wind quantum of heat (e.g., 1MW or 750kW) received in any given month. And as you cleverly and diligently found, it didn't always match up with the actual measured energy. But as I pointed out way back when, JMP was actually under charging! So it would have been no harm to IH, at least in that sense.
And just to turn the knife a little on Shane, your findings never supported this notion that the plant was fully operational when reported not to be.
But as I pointed out way back when, JMP was actually under charging! So it would have been no harm to IH, at least in that sense.
JMP was not capable of measuring heat on the Customer side. They did not have a flow meter at all on that side.
Rossi managed JMP. Rossi measured the heat on the Leonardo side. Rossi authored the JMP "invoices" that did not reflect the measurements Rossi took on the Leonardo side of the wall regarding the Plant output for the same month.
Therefore, the data from Rossi is unreliable. He does not agree with himself by enormous amounts of energy. Up to 90 MWh worth of mistakes, in just one month! And there are more of them.
That is not undercharging! That is just plain wrong. A +33% error, for each "undercharged" day.
From the guy who measured the amount of water processed every day. Upon which all COP is based. And all the "invoicing" is based.
@Para,
Yes it was undercharging. Imagine if it were a -33% difference, I'm pretty sure you would be claiming that JMP/Rossi overcharged IH, and oh, how egregious and horrendous such a thing would be! You know as well as me that you wouldn't give Rossi a pass on that one, had it been so.
