"AR implicitly confirmed the 100.1°C (that the COP calculation is based on the boiling point of water and NOT on measured values)."
It's clear that AR claims that, to be conservative, only the heat of vaporization of water was included in the ERV's calculation of the COP. However, I would not deduce from this that the calculation was not based on "measured values" or measurements.
Abd,
I really don't need you to interpret things for me. I'm quite capable of doing that myself. If you have some facts to present - and I’m afraid that so far I haven't seen any - I would be glad to see them. Regarding my previous question, I was simply trying to understand what your point was, since it seemed quite clear to me that you were suggesting that Rossi had convinced the ERV not to measure the input and output temperature so that the produced heat could be overestimated by assuming incorrectly that all of the incoming water was liquid while all of the outgoing water was dry steam. If you don't want to reply to my questions, that's fine.
P.S. Getting back to Ni-H versus Pd-D. You may be right that some funding for Pd-D has dried out as a result of Rossi. I'm certainly not an expert on this. However, I also know that IH has given funding to some PdD researchers. Furthermore, the excitement of Ni-H has brought new young researchers into the field. You also questioned Piantelli's work. To use your Socratic (or is it rhetorical) method, do you believe that Piantelli's work, much of which he has published, patented, and distributed in conferences, is not scientifically correct? What about Brillouin, whose work on Ni-H has been tested by the Stanford Research Institute (McKubre is currently on the board of directors of Brillouin)? I personally have questions about all of these works (although I must admit to thinking that Piantelli has something based on what I"ve read elsewhere). However, I'm not ready to declare that I know for sure that Rossi is a fraud, although that is certainly a possibility.
Abd, This sounds like total B.S. You're saying that the ERV did not measure the input and output temperatures continuously during the test?
Abd,
A few questions/comments:
1) Where did Dewey write this?
2) If IH had all of this information from Penon's draft reports, then why didn't they stop the test earlier?
3) If Penon's draft reports indicate fraud, then why is Jed calling Penon an idiot?
4) If Rossi is a fraud (and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence as well as tests to indicate that this is not the case) then I still don't
believe that he has hurt LENR research at all. In fact, I think that he has greatly increased the interest in LENR and especially for Ni-H LENR. I would even argue that IH would not have invested in LENR without Rossi. Similarly, Piantelli was "drawn out of retirement" to restart his research (with machines creating 100 W not 1 W) as a result of Rossi. So, the only harm, if Rossi is a fraud, is to IH and to the time of those who have following this. On the other hand, it has been entertaining!
Jed,
I have no idea where you are getting your estimates of the heat produced during the 1 MW test. What Rossi interview are you referring to, and what are the relevant numbers? Perhaps you are assuming that the incoming water in the 1 MW was heated to 100.1 C but not converted to steam? Is this correct? On what basis do you assume this? I see no public evidence for this. To the contrary, the report in Mats Lewan's blog (see https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/) indicates that this is clearly not the case. See the quote below
"I should also add that I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH)."
I might add that an error by a factor of 50 (!) in the ERV's calorimetry seems hard to believe.
This brings up an important (to me) question.
Jed, in your analysis of the data provided to you by IH did you see any evidence of self-sustained mode (SSM), i.e. long periods during which there was no input power but significant output power?
This seems to be a very important aspect of Rossi's invention.
Jed, Dewey, Thomas, etc. Here's a quote from Mats Lewan's blog:( https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/)
"I should also add that I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH)."
Apparently, all of you, based on the same inside information from IH, or perhaps no information in the case of Thomas, do not believe the sentence above. I for one will wait until I see the actual ERV report along with IH's official response. If IH is accusing the ERV (and possibly also Rossi) of fraud, then I would be very interested to learn about this.
"It's time me356 either shares a little knowledge with us or goes his way never to return.If he can't share a single five paragraph essay, then I hope he never posts here again."
This is one of the most stupid statements that I have seen on this forum. As far as I can tell, me356 has already shared quite a bit of knowledge, is willing to meet with a member of MFMP to help with their effort, AND has promised to share his knowledge in the future. In addition, he has responded to Hank Mills directly at least twice with additional information. Recently, he has given an interview with Frank Acland in which he states, "Yes, I would like to share details that will allow successfull replication, at least of the E-Cat technology. The main concern is safety. When I will be certain, that what will be revealed is safe, I will publish these details."
In addition, Bob Greenyer has indicated that he will be able to meet with me356 in late May or early June, and that me356 has in principle agreed to this.
In my opinion, Hank Mills' nagging, unwillingness to be patient, and "all-or-nothing" strategy is infantile and entirely counter-productive.
