Posts by Peter Gluck

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.

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.

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

peter

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

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

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

Jed,

You wrote:

"People could see the pipe was not full because the reservoir is translucent and open to air."

You have a fixation with that reservoir and a mania of the half full pipes. It is a pipe, then a small ascendent pipe (that is the rule) that keeps the flowmeter full and then a pipe to the reservoir. Who the heck can see what? About the portion of pipe leading to the instrument?

Re what Murray says at pp 11 etc. no facts, no hlaf full pipes.

I am sure tha you will regret he many untruths you are saying

because they are beyond limits of decency.

However YOU MUST keep the flowmeter half full at any price..

I must write a LENR blog (today an interesting contribution to PdD hot) have no time to educate you- imposssible task.

peter

Jed,

You wrote:

"People could see the pipe was not full because the reservoir is translucent and open to air."

You have a fixation with that reservoir and a mania of the half full pipes. It is a pipe, then a small ascendent pipe (that is the rule) that keeps the flowmeter full and then a pipe to the reservoir. Who the heck can see what? About the portion of pipe leading to the instrument?

Re what Murray says at pp 11 etc. no facts, no hlaf full pipes.

I am sure tha you will regret he many untruths you are saying

because they are beyond limits of decency.

However YOU MUST keep the flowmeter half full at any price..

I must write a LENR blog (today an interesting contribution to PdD hot) have no time to educate you- imposssible task.

peter

Jed,

You wrote:

"People could see the pipe was not full because the reservoir is translucent and open to air."

You have a fixation with that reservoir and a mania of the half full pipes. It is a pipe, then a small ascendent pipe (that is the rule) that keeps the flowmeter full and then a pipe to the reservoir. Who the heck can see what? About the portion of pipe leading to the instrument?

Re what Murray says at pp 11 etc. no facts, no hlaf full pipes.

I am sure tha you will regret he many untruths you are saying

because they are beyond limits of decency.

However YOU MUST keep the flowmeter half full at any price..

I must write a LENR blog (today an interesting contribution to PdD hot) have no time to educate you- imposssible task.

peter

Quote from JedRothwell

No. On the contrary, Murray's deposition revealed many more problems with the flow meter than we have discussed here. Not only was the pipe half full, but the meter was installed incorrectly in various other ways, without the required hardware, and the flow rate was far below the minimum. The corrosion in the meter confirmed that the pipe was half full and tests showed that the meter was wildly wrong in that condition.

Also, as Penon's schematic shows, the meter was in the return line, where you insisted again and again it could not be. Do you still say that? Do you not believe Penon and Rossi?

Jed

It is not possible to build even small islands of rationality and

logic here you are programmed to calumniate the plant first of all the instruments.

Can you enumerate what faults have fpound now Murray with theFlowmeter, really?

Why do you need to find MORE faults? This is typical-

Dewey told the flowmeter is incorrect in 5 respects but Dewey was debunked by Vaughn as unable to confront a mastermaind of manipulation as Rossi. You, despite you omni-science was een not mentioned.

The flowmeter is installed NOT in a free-falling gravity pipe but it is fed by a pump, you know the sine qua non condition

of minimum 0.3 bars more at inlet than at outlet; and it is in a horizontal pipe with a small ascendent pipe after he outletthat is it was full and measuring the real flow. HOW is Murray contradicting this?

He has abandoned his story withe rust traces, you have not abandoned you own story with people visiting the plant and telling you the flowmeter shows flow 4 times more fow than the reall one. (oocult phenomenon, clairvoyance)

The flowmeter is innocent and was full with water, finita la storia.

peter

Para,

I like the idea, it is destructively creative. But real...?

peter

Questions:

- was thw pretty standar Flowmeter exonerated by all nasty accusation? (see what tells Penon about it);

- is considered now possible that the manpmeter indicated well atmospheric pressure. 'cause the condensation of steam

at the JMPlant?

- was the steam pipe 40mm or 6" (152 mm)? i.e. section 14.44 times grateer as natural for 2500 cu.m steam per hour?

- are you sure the thermcopules were misplaced and not at a decent distance from the generators?

I think that better focus on Vaughn deposition he clearly explains how confused and uncertain actually IH leaders are

and what are their proofs

techno-calumniating is not so easy if it wants to be taken in consideration. Please refer to the Plant not to Rossi.

peter

Jed,

you have no idea about what was in the plant at the JMP side.

Sooner you had no idea what was on the Leonardo side.

And -see pumps and E-Cats you do not know

You had no diagram and do not have now.

Now what you say here is both insulting and baseless:

"You are describing impossible fantasies that violate many elementary laws of science"

This is your most recent slogan with no real content I have not violated any laws of the science here , you violate lawas of decency and of common sense. You are trying to confuse by combining different things and mixing incompatible things.

Answer to what I wrote.

You act as a myrmidon here, sorry once you was a Cold Fusion supporter and not quite so abrasive as now.

To jed, message above

please answer to what I described

what you say two things both false:

a- the effect starts as soon some steam is condensed;

b) absolutely false, pushing or sucking do the same job, create a driving pressure difference.

peter

Quote from JedRothwell

No, that is impossible. As Smith pointed out, nothing would flow if that were true. The reservoir had to be at 1 atm because it was open to air, as anyone can tell by looking at it. Again, you make a grade-school level mistake.

The evidence is visible, as I just said. The reservoir is open to the air etc..

I was busy with translating a PdD high temperature material

especially interesting so I am surprised that Smith's fatal errors were not eradicated till now here - and this is very simple.

He invokes sacro-saint thermodynamics in vain.

As I have shown in an editorial, Smith's leading idea is to drown the ERV report and to drown it in a small quantity of water.

What actually happened is the following: the e-Cats have generated steam (with the parameters from the Report) this was condensed and cooled at the JMP Plant (we still have to know exactly how, but it is not an imossible task) and recirculated to the reservoir about which Jed speaks here. Underway water goes through the Flowmeter- which clearly definitely is full with water and works well.

It is atmospheric pressure steam going to JMP due to condensation there in the pipe the pressure is smaller than atmospheric then it is recirculated and its pressure at the entrance in the flowmeter must be greater than 1,3 times the atmospheric - see the lnstructios from the manufacturer.

It is NO connection between the pressure of the steam and the pressure in the pressure in the reservoir.

More than probably there was a recirculation pump the flowmeter needs a 3m plus column of water to work..

So Smith's first wise thesis is absolutely false.

Second thesis- if at 103-104 C and atmospheric pressure it was steam than we will deny. deny shamelessly that it was atmospheric pressure, simple tactic-- just fraudulent.

In the pipe at JMP it is suction- negative pressure due to condensation steam of 0.6 kg/cu.m converted in water at 1000 kg/cu.m.

Third Smith thesis insufficient pump flow- actually at 9.2 bars used the flow of the pumps was 80liters per hour. Just a dirty trick as the other two

The Italian language has a very expressive word for "it was quite enough"- BASTA! I hope the honest people here will acceept this- Smith has launched some misinformations

and calumnies however these three so called thermodynamics teachings are bsolutely baseless.

Birds of one feather flock together- se what impossibility claims the author of the Smithoniad:

"I happen to know the actual flow rate was much lower than the flow meter indicated:

How could this been stated during a visit in a plant?

Should we believe in clairvoyance? An unbelievable fairy tale.

Assez! sounds also well- please throw Smith to the grabage bin where he belongs and show respect for your colleagues

pro-Rossi or against him they are not sooo... stupid.

PREDICTION

The Document 260 has a magic word in it: VERDICT.

This will change a lot.

Just now, the inhabitants of the two planets: ANTI-ROSSI

and respective, PRO-ROSSI TECHNOLOGY are separated

by a broad, infinitely deep precipice.

Only after the verdict they will start to go, with small steps

toward the other party- but no bridge will be built because the moral historical responsibility is too great and irrevesible

no peace possible between the "mentally deficient supporters of a scammer" and the "corrupt killers in spe of a great energy technology"

^{History of technology will give the final VERDICT.}

Peter

Dear THH,

Thanks, I understand your point of view.

Re the legal aspects we will get an indication of what

the Court thinks on April 20. Anyway, I do not see that IH

is very much based on or confident in the "it was NOT the GPT" variant, the litigation is in its 13t month and if this is the case perhaps it would had been over without extending it to technical aspects.

Re the technical aspects if the ERV report is valid then this goes outside/beyond/over the trial, it exists a working LENR technology and this is of paramount importance.

However thank you for the sincere answer.

Best,

peter

Quote from Alan Smith

Peter Gluck

Your views on this are well-known and noted Peter. However, I'm not sure they are helpful in this instance, we seek to put oil on troubled waters.

PLEASE GET THIS THREAD BACK CLOSER TO THE TOPIC 'Rossi vs Darden.'

Dear Alan,

What i am writing are simply answers to views also well known

plus to insults addressed to IHFB and me directly. Otherwise

I do not care or rowdies. Please do not be angry with me, i answered a nasty provocation.

peter

To IHH

Dear THH,

you wrote

IH here have all the aces when it comes to the technical arguments, and the legal arguments. There are a few here who have a strange and biased slant on this issue (to me, at least) who still seem to be supporting Rossi or at least determined to paint IH as bad, and who use convoluted arguments to support this. No doubt they view me as biased.

If this is so I have a humble request and a raher angry question to you:

a) The request

- can you make a very short summary of the aces (5 or 5?)

of IH- legal and technical that make their situation so fine? Based on the Court documents, obviously not on what we discuss here. Thanks.

b) The question

Again if IH is a potential easy winner (i.a. the ERV report is

already destroyed) then why is necessary to organize the present Rossi character assassination ritual in the frame of a thread dedicated to the Trial?

It looks as a compensation, replacement for something

more efficient that is missing. Thanks again.

peter

Dewey who will permitted to return soon at least had a kind of charm and very peculiar sense of humor plus sincerity, Abd has a prodigious memory- but Rothwell is simply double distilated illwill and rudeness.

It was very disturbing watching him on the short, abrupt way from commiting character assassination to making character suicide. His character, trustworthiness, credibility and moral image are all dead for now.

He has old so many dreadfully untrue things (inspired by Murray and Smith) about instruments and measurements

of the Doral Plant that it is elementary decency to apologize

but he has not the slightest intention to do this he respects

the decalog of the oppressors.

He is not able to fake intelligence and/or competence so has to throw with horseshit in those who disagree with him.

If I think about past- he always was a manipulator- by division fiercely attacking the skeptics and by association he obviously was convinced that by comparing cold fusion with aviation

historically thinking, cold fusion will start a fast triumphal march. It did not happened.

I am also asking the moderators to tell Jed to abstain from insults. BTW- what i wrote here are actually compliments.

peter