Posts by IH Fanboy

    Guess you've never had high quality US lawyers telling you what to do!


    Anyway, the same argument would apply to Rossi, if real. It is a strange question for you to ask because the answer is so obvious -


    That is fair enough, but then why would the unofficial IH folks goad Rossi into trying to release the ERV report, saying that the reason he is not releasing it is because he is deathly afraid of its contents? Were they being just as disingenuous?

    Dear R Fanboy(z) - your fabricate, swarm and slander strategy to clog and bury legit comments from legit posters appears to be working for the moment - congrats on that. It is also evident that your fear of the unknown and curiosity around timing…


    Dear Dewey, why don't you answer the reasonable questions that are posed by me and others? Radio silence isn't much of a strategy. Yes, admittedly, we are all waiting for some reliable information, because what has been put out so far has been shown to be quite unreliable, as the narrative evolves from what initially appears to be a legitimate disclosure, to surprise surprise, something that was spun from the get-go. Why doesn't IH just release the ERV report already so that they can put all of the "fabrications" to bed? And by the way, the only fear peddling is coming from your end. I understand. If a person has reasons ($s) to peddle fear, then they will likely be quite liberal with the FUD--it is human nature. FUD is quite effective in controlling people. But it doesn't work with me, and it doesn't work with most other enlightened folks on this forum and elsewhere among the LENR+ community, if you haven't noticed. This is more a social movement than a business venture. When you comprehend that, then you will understand better the energy that underpins the efforts to get to the bottom of the spin.

    Your troll tactics do not work here because everyone can read what I had written.


    My troll tactics honest to goodness well-thought-out logic (FTFY) does work here because everyone can read, and for the most part, comprehend what I write. One man's trolling is another man's "pointing out the flaws in your logic and insinuations." The overall impression conveyed by your words and the context in which your words are organized, matter. Similar to how Dewey throws up a smoke screen by insinuating that the 101.1 C value was a measured value (even without explicitly stating as much), and then boasts about how much mileage he is getting from it later on.

    It's truly amazing that some Rossi cult members fans can not even accept the facts that have been proclaimed confirmed by their master AR and rather fall into the wildest speculations.


    It's truly amazing that some Rossi cult members fans IH Fanboys (FTFY) are so adept at slaying the wild speculations and misinterpretations expounded on this thread. You have adopted your own definition for "ignored" and seem to suggest that this means "didn't measure." I'm pretty certain even the most rabid IH Fanboys wouldn't buy into this misconstruction. I certainly don't.

    So: you may be right that it would be OK measuring temperature of water and steam


    I appreciate your backing off from fluid and liquid "equivalence," which scientifically speaking, is not accurate. Remind me if I'm being unreasonable on a point, and I might back off as well in the future.


    , but you are definitely wrong that it is Ok counting the latent heat of vaporisation if you do this.


    I'm not so sure about that. How can you make such a definitive statement given, as you openly admit, our lack of information and insight into the data and the ERV report?

    The license contract calls for COP to be measured via liquid phase flow calorimetry - that is temp in & out, flowrate. If done with properly sited thermocouples and properly used flowmeter this is bulletproof.


    Any gas is a fluid and any liquid is a fluid. The contract does not specifically call for liquid phase flow calorimetry. You ought not to make that claim when we can all read the express language of the agreement.

    In a proper test all relevant parameters are measured and continuously recorded.
    On this basis of the real measured values, the calculations are made.


    You seem certain that this wasn't done. I'm not so sure of that. Do you really believe that relevant parameters were not measured during the entire one-year test? If they were measured, then the calculations can be made from those measured values. You can also calculate conservative values. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Most experimental scientists have to account for losses, and will therefore favor conservative calculations. This is not a suspicious activity. To the contrary, it reveals a careful consideration of the realities and difficulties of capturing accurate information. It builds in wide safety margins to rule out the predictable attacks that would be leveled. It takes the wind out of your attacks. Similarly, engineers account for worse-case measurements and design systems with worse-case in mind. This is also not suspicious in any way, and is quite a standard practice.

    No, I'm suggesting very little for sure, since we know very little.


    Fair enough, and I can agree with that.


    For you to reach your conclusion you need to assume rather more than me!


    Well, we have what we have, and I would venture to guess that all of us are conjecturing to some degree.


    We at least have this little revelation from Mats:


    Mats: "The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant. The ERV accepted. (This was conservative, decreasing the calculated thermal power. The main part of the calculated thermal power, however, derives from the water being evaporated when boiling)."


    And so, does Dewey or Jed dispute the "about 60˚C" temperature of the inflowing cooled water?


    Can't seem to get much out of either one of them since joining the forum. That isn't much of a warm welcome now is it? And here I thought that I'd received such an inviting reception from the IH Fanboys. After all, I'm one of 'em.

    I haven't decided when to send out another nugget. 100.1C has been very effective and appeasr to have kilometers of legs left in the approach.


    The impression that you have made is that this is a measured value. Is that your position?


    The energy of the IH Fanboys is to get to the bottom of the story, and to perhaps solve a few of the worlds most pressing problems. Being driven by altruism can be just as energizing as being driven by a financial stake. Neither is bad, necessarily. But both can energize people to action.

    What IS significant is whether Rossi's assumption that the output is all dry steam is correct.


    With that, I can agree.


    The COP could be anything between 50 and 1.


    I don't think this hurts Rossi. I think it might make IH uncomfortable, which makes me uncomfortable, given that I am an IH Fanboy. As many have pointed out, even if you take the phase change completely out of the picture, the COP is likely between 3-4. It is likely that at least some steam was generated, and I don't think anybody is disputing that. What is being disputed now is the quality of the steam. But given that at least some steam was generated, even if wet, the COP is likely higher than 3-4, based on what we know given the leaks so far. Could IH just release the ERV report already? If they think it is so damaging to Rossi's positions, then why hold back?

    What you explain is irrelevant, because Rossi clearly stated, that all that was ignored.


    Well, to be precise, he didn't state that *all* was ignored, and rightly so, because that would be nonsensical. My read on what Rossi said seems to suggest that the energy needed to vaporize the water was not ignored. And so if you "ignore" the rest of the energy generated by the Rossi plant, then well, that would be quite conservative. "Ignoring" as used in this context is not an indication of cheating, but indeed, is nearly the opposite--i.e., it is an indication of a good faith effort for reducing as much as possible any kind of measurement error.

    Quote: “Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point”


    That can only be considered as "conservative" by someone who is a cult member, others would see a clear indication for cheating.


    How offensive. As an IH Fanboy, I can assure you that our IH cult is alive and well, and much more tightly organized than any stupid Rossi cult. Get real.


    In any case, not sure how *not counting* energy expended on heating the steam in the COP calculation is anything but being conservative, even for cult members. I think Rossi cult members and IH cult members could probably come together in a circle, mumble a few repetitive chants, and agree at least on that point.

    IH has said nary a peep on the matter of the 100.1 C temperature. Perhaps you're referring to Dewey Weaver, who does not speak on behalf of IH.


    Well, yes, it would be nice to get IH's direct position on these matters, of course. Dewey and Jed are the closest we have to IH's position, given that they appear to have been given inside information. Dewey on more than one occasion has claimed to have gone back to "check" with IH on this or that, so it does seem like he has access.

    The statement of AR explains clearly that for Rossi and the ERV it doesn't matter what was measured really, because the real temperature measurement was ignored in the COP calculation.


    So, nobody needs to have "a position what was measured" to recognize the indication for cheating.


    But the temperature measurement was "ignored" for the purposes of being conservative, allegedly. And so I think it is important to distinguish between which values were measured, and which values were used in the COP calculation. If the values that were used in the COP calculation are being held out as the measured values by Jed and Dewey, then that would be important to know. My impression from Jed and Dewey is that the 101.1 C value was a measured value. I just want them to confirm or refute that impression, one way or the other.

    Well, to me it looks team Rossi xplaining that the report used conservative values in stead of real measurments and team IH interpreted them as real. Would be interesting to hear what the IH side counter with. This is like tennis indeed for an outsider with no inside information. Could IH have been fooled to focus on the wrong matter?


    I agree that we need IH's side of this. Let's hope that IH was not using the 101.1 C value to try and fool us into thinking this was a measured value. As an IH Fanboy, that would be disappointing.


    Rossi (JONP): "Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative."


    I haven't yet seen a response on this from Jed or Dewey... Would it be possible to get IH's response? It wouldn't be good to go silent on such a direct observation made by LENR Calender.