Maybe I could sell rb0 and colleagues and electric heater guaranteed to have COP > 3? No nasty chemicals, just an alumina heating element with embedded wire heater. The heat output could be measured by rb0 himself with ease using an IR camera and the well known equations for radiation which would dominate over convection here.
It's not a bad idea. Rossi got 10 milllion selling it to IH. 😀
The pipe going from the Rossi reactor to the heat exchanger in the customer site is full. The heat exchanger produces back pressure, which keeps the pipe full, and also prevents the water from boiling. The water leaving the heat exchange at a lower temperature is in a gravity return pipe. That pipe is half empty. It goes into a large plastic tank, which was shown in a photo posted here. As you see in the photo, the tank is not airtight and not pressurized. Therefore, the pipe going into it has to be gravity return.
Jed are you sure the plastic tank was used in Doral. I havn't found any pictures from Doral with the tank. Only in pictures from Italy like the one you posted in october.
Here is the photo of a tank that I referred to, at Ecat World. This could be in Italy, but I gather they brought everything to Florida:
Even given your ifs, it is absolutely not in IH's favour, which is why no other VC would touch it. Rossi has obligations to hand over IP with no continuing incentive to do so, nor incentive to continue developing the product. With, as here, a revolutionary but unproven product where there is no set of skilled practitioners who even understand the theory - let alone practice - to lose the inventor who presumably has all the expertise needed to get stuff working and develop it further is not just careless, it is catastrophic.
You might think it was in IH's favour if you had a simple view that "Rossi LENR is simple, anyone can do it, and modify it for different uses, when given the magic formula". Do you think that likley? More to the point, do you think any VC including IH would believe that?
Nor is there risk to Rossi. He has the license for Europe, half the world. If the device works the fact that he therefore becomes (as somone said here) a single trillionaire instead of a multi-trillionaie surely is no risk?
I still think IH got a lot for their money if it works. As long as Rossi follows his part of the contract of course. If Rossi refuse to hand over the IP I don't know what contract could solve this. Rossis incentive to continue developing is that he still owns the rights to half the world.
Even If Rossi developed something that work. I am 100 % convinced he is not the right person to industrialize it. His performance so far has convinced me about this. As long as Rossi really hand over all of his IP I think IH is better of without him.
The risk for Rossi is that if he fails GPT he would only get $10 millions for the license to half the world. Sure he could be a trillionaire anyway. But why agree to those terms if he knew it worked. Surly he could have made a contract giving him the $89 millions in a safer way for both him and IH.
But I do agree with you that I don't think this was IH's choice of contract. I think IH would prefer a smaller up front payment and a royalty. I think Rossi made the agreement this way because it was the only way for him to capitalize on something that does not work. And that it was "take it or leave it" for IH. But there is no evidence for this. But to me it seems like the only plausible explanation to this lousy agreement.
Agreed. But the reason for this is rumoured to be that Rossi wanted this big cash bribe to release IP. The conditions of the long-term test are clearly not what IH would have chosen given choice. They are not idiots.
(Rossi was apparently hawking this round other VCs, none of whom were prepared to take the bait)
Who is favored by the agreement depends entirely on whether the E-Cat is a scam or not.
If the E-Cat works the contract is in IH's favor. They get a lot of rights for a relatively small amount of money. Rights to all further development and also a license without royalty. If the E-Cat functions according to Rossi's statements also a relatively low royalty would quickly becom more than $ 89 million. The agreement is further written so that IH can get all rights and licenses without paying $ 89 million if Rossi for some reason fail GPT. Which of course is a clear risk for Rossi even if the E-cat works.
If the E-Car on the other hand is a sham. The agreement is quite clear to Rossi's favor. A large sum of money in the hand is worth more than royalty on something that is not going to sell. And the formulation of the agreement that it is enough with a raport from a single ERV for authentication instead of an independent test institutes or similar is what enables the bluff.
To sum up I think one can say that if the contract had been more normal and fair, with royalty and independent verification before payment of large sums, a scam had not been possible.
I do not know who made the agreement but it was a good agreement for IH if they where sure it works. The only time it was a good agreement for Rossi was if he knew that it didn't work.
For crying out loud Jed, if the flow rate is constant through a same-sized pipe, it doesn't matter if the pipe is pointing up or down. I suggest you go outside, plug a hose into your spigot, turn it on at a high flow rate, and point the hose downward. Then take a peak and see whether it is half full or not.
The velocity kan be different. Let's say the velocity of the water is twice as high when it leaves the heat exchanger then the pipe will only be half full. Assuming same flow rate and dimension.
@DNI
I personally think the agreement was poorly drafted. It was destined to end up in a lawsuit. The interests of Rossi and IH were not properly aligned.
I defintly agree to that. And I have my theory to why it looks like it does. For instance a large sum up front instead of royalties don't give me the impression that Rossi belived it would be a big hit. But this of course is just me speculating 😀
@DNI
I don't know if there is any source of Rossi not answering prior to the lawsuit. As for filing the lawsuit being a strange move, I beg to differ. Rossi knew IH wasn't going to pay. He had sleuthed that out already. And were it not for this lawsuit, none of us would have the insight that we have now. And there is more insight to be gained, which is good for both those who might think it is real, and for those who think it might be a sham. For the wider LENR community, the lawsuit is a win-win, no matter who wins in court.
I think IH had informed Rossi that they had their doubts about the performance and that they would not pay unless they got some good answers. But this only me guessing. Do you have any source for your statement that Rossi knew it?
But it still seems very strange behavior to not answer the questions from IH, assuming that Rossi had some good answers. I think it will look quite bad for Rossi if it can be proved in court that Rossi sued instead of answering the questions. If nothing else he gave IH a perfect excuse for not paying.
Display MoreDear DNI
I doubt I could take seriously a plant-illiterate who after
a half hour visit in my plant (I had many( would accuse me that the pipes are only half full.
As I have here a diagram accepted by those who wnt to annihilate those results by fantastic arguments-- I will show you why the pipes and the flowmeter could NOT be half empty.
Peter
If you where manager of IH and the engineer you send to investigate the test site returns with some things he find strange and want's answer to. And if you then don't get any answer to those questions from Penon or Rossi. Would you still think - What the heck, I pay $89,000,000 anyway. Maybe my engineer is a fool.
If Rossi needs IH to believe everything works don't you think it would be better to answer the questions even if Rossi thought them to be stupid.
@DNI
Bull shit? Can you not see that he answered by denial? Do you really believe there was a single DN40 pipe going from the 1 MW plant to the "customer" side? I'll promise you this: if it turns out that there was a single DN40 steam exit pipe from the 1 MW plant, then I will write Rossi and team up as entirely incompetent and the whole thing a sham. But given that the old plant very likely was using DN80 piping, as I demonstrated with hard evidence further up this thread, the chances of the exit pipe in the new plant being DN40 is next to nil.
To answer your question. I have no idea what was the diameter of the pipe. But I think IH was entitled to answers to the questions in exhibit 5 before paying $89,000,000. And I think to sue insted of answering the questions is a very strange way to behave. Assuming he had good answers.
My original question was if there is any source that say that Rossi didn't answer the questions in exhibit 5. And I meant before he sued but I missed to say that.
@DNI
Bull shit? Can you not see that he answered by denial? Do you really believe there was a single DN40 pipe going from the 1 MW plant to the "customer" side? I'll promise you this: if it turns out that there was a single DN40 steam exit pipe from the 1 MW plant, then I will write Rossi and team up as entirely incompetent and the whole thing a sham. But given that the old plant very likely was using DN80 piping, as I demonstrated with hard evidence further up this thread, the chances of the exit pipe in the new plant being DN40 is next to nil.
I don't think we get any further. I think you might have misunderstood my original question since your answers make no sense to me.
It answers them. He denies the allegations and asks for strict proof. Murry will in all likelihood be deposed. He'll have to state under oath that the pipe was DN40 as he unequivocally stated in Exhibit 5, or he'll have to retract.
No, paragraph 82 in Rossis answer do not answer the questions in exhibit 5. Stop writing bull shit.
@Bob
1) While I agree it is not IH's duty to answer my questions on this forum, their avoidance of my questions speaks for itself. And it might just come back around.
This is really absurd. IH haven't answered any questions at all on this forum. And you claim that their negligence to answer you would say something.
He has answered (by denial). Look at Rossi's answer to IH's countercomplaint. Particularly paragraph 82.
I can't find where Rossi answered the queastions in exhibit 5. Paragraph 82 referensed by you don't answer them.
So Penon left in February, Murray provided in writing the questions in March and Penon has refused to discuss since February. Clearly he did not answer!
Thanks for wanting to look at the facts. Way too often, some people take Rossi at his word or gossip is posted on ECW and soon becomes "fact". Unfortunately, even when links / facts are given, they will be twisted around to defend Rossi. After all "the alternative is unthinkable" !
Thanks for taking the time. I also found the source for Pennon not answering. But still no source that Rossi haven't answered. It might have been one of those things that has become a "fact".
However, Penon nor Rossi answered him!
Hi Bob. Do you have any source that Rossi haven't answered? I made the same statement att E-catworld and got challanged. And I couldn't find any source.
Any help would be appriciated 
Display MoreI think we all agree that if the pipe is DN40, then the e-cat cannot work as claimed. That's nice to know.
I personally think it is possible that Murray got the diameter wrong, possibly mixing it up with another pipe or?
Murray is human after all and makes mistakes like we all do. For example, he picked the wrong period of time to show 30 consecutive days @ 36m3/d flow. Happens.
The pipes do look potentially bigger in the photo, but it is really hard to gauge. Also, I would have assumed that Rossi would have picked a more adapted pipe size, whether he is for real or not.
So we now wait for better evidence.
I agree with you. A mistake is definitely possible. But I have a hard time understand people who think IH should have paid $89.000.000 without getting answers to the questions in exhibit 5. But maybe I should ask that question on E-cat world instead. I'm not sure we have anyone here that don't agree about this.
Display MoreDNI,
We have no evidence that the pressure reading is 0 barG. That is the assumption being thrown around. But we don't even know what instrument was used to measure the pressure. Some have pointed to a test plan. But test plans can be altered or not followed once the actual implementation is carried out. Not enough info to draw hard conclusions.
Edit: we do have this statement from Exhibit 5:
"You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia)."
What do you mean? The values in the report could be 0 bar absolute or 0 bar relative (barG). Zero bar absolute (vacuum) makes no sense at all so it's either 0 barG or the pressure meter is not working. The pressure meter specified in the test plan measure bar absolute so that must be wrong.
But I don't think you get my point. With a 6 m DN40 pipe you need at least 1.42 bar abs in one end of the pipe even if you have vacuum (0 bar abs) in the other end. And if we have 1.42 bar and 104 degrees Celsius then there is no steam then it's water. Something must be wrong, either the the pipe was wider than DN40, shorter than 6m, the flow lower than 36 000 kg/day, the temperature higher than 104 degrees or there was no steam.
Okay, let's unpack your conjecture a little. If the customer had a "diverter" tube that contained a car radiator, then whatever steam/hot water entering the car radiator will be at a considerably lower temperature when it exits. That is what a heat exchanger such as a radiator does--extracts heat energy from the fluid. So even if the "diverter" tube was somehow secretly jerry-rigged to skip the water tank reservoir, and go straight back into the e-cat reactors, there would still be a significant divergence in temperature between the fluid entering the e-cat reactors and the fluid exiting the e-cat reactors. And if you assume that the flow rate was probably measured correctly, as you did in fact assume, then the COP would still likely be sufficient to meet the requirements of the agreement. So the hypothetical diversion tube, water tank reservoir-skipping conjecture does not get you to where you want
You claim that water entering a radiator will exit at a considerably lower temperature. That depends on the radiator, the temperatures and flow of the water. A flow of 36 000 kg/day and input energy 250 kWh/day would give a temperature rise of about 6 degrees with COP 1. To me it sounds reasonable with a radiator that lower the temperature 6 degrees. Do you have any fact that contradict this?
As for the potential vacuum, I never stated that Rossi has a "vacuum pump" in the customer-side circuit. I stated that a slight vacuum on the exit side of the pipe going into the customer area could account for the measured pressure readings. Whatever form that slight vacuum takes, is not necessarily pertinent. It could be the heat exchange equipment itself that creates a slight vacuum, as others have pointed out is possible using standard heat exchange equipment. Jed states that heat exchange equipment can only cause back-pressure, but he hasn't provided any support for that statement.
Assuming 3 m long DN40 pipe and a preasure of 0 barG you get a preasure drop of 0,99 bar. Thats not a slight vacuum. And according to Exhibit 5 the pipe was at least 6 m long. And in that case absolute vacuum wouldn't be enough. With 6 m DN40 pipe and absolute vaccum at the customer side you need 1,43 bar abs on the other end and then you have a boiling point at 110 degrees C.
It would be hilarious if the pressure transducer was reporting 0V all the time because it was operated above its range of up to 85C (as others have pointed out already).
http://www.omega.com/pressure/pdf/PX309.pdf
model PX 309—100A5V
No matter if this is a big hoax or if Rossi has the real thing. It really amaze me how this test can be set up in such an amateurish way. Considering it was supposed to be the base for a transfer of $89,000,000.
I guess another question is: Is the contract to be fulfilled in sequential stages, or can the conditions be fulfilled out of order? If Rossi did not deliver sufficiently complete IP for IH to successful replicate, even with his help, then is not this second stage required to be satisfied before the GPT can contemplated?
This is an intresting question. What happens if Rossi violated the terms of the agreement before the alleged GPT started? What happens then with IHs license? I have no idea
