215-03, page 170 (Murray again)
". . . The temperature sensors, I think
6·they were fine.· I believe they were K type
7·thermocouples, and they logged those to some type of a
8·device."
IH Fanboy
Member
- Member since May 23rd 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by IH Fanboy
-
-
@Dewey,
You keep claiming that all the data was destroyed. But as I read the record, I see discussion of data everywhere.
For example:
215-03, page 147 (Murray)
"2· Q.· · What about the input power?· Is that logged
3·digitally?
4· A.· · That was logged to the power analyzer.· So --
5· Q.· · So that was logged?
6· A.· · Yeah.· It was not clear who logged it because
7·the data between Mr. Penon and Mr. Fabiani are virtually
8·identical.·"
215-03, page 244 (Again Murray)
"·3· Q.· · Are there --
·4· A.· · I did a comparison of the Florida Power and
·5·Light company data to the data provided by Mr. Fabiani
·6·and Mr. Penon." (emphasis added.)
215-03, pages 193-194 (Again Murray)
"8· Q.· · Do you feel Mr. Fabiani has hidden any
9·information from you?
10· A.· · Yes, I do.
11· Q.· · What information?
12· A.· · Well, he committed to providing us data that
13·he said he had encrypted and stored on a server in
14·Russia, and he committed to providing us with a final
15·report.· And so I feel that he was not being transparent
16·with us in providing us the information in a timely way.
17· Q.· · Has he provided those now?
18· A.· · I don't know.· I, I'm, really I'm not -- I
19·saw --
20· MR. LOMAX:· Objection to --
21· A.· · I'm not sure what they provided.
22· MR. LOMAX:· -- to the extent it gets in to
23·communications with counsel.
24· Q.· · You have never seen them?
25· A.· · I have seen -- I have not reviewed the
423
1·detailed data.· I have seen a couple of files. I
2·haven't reviewed them, but I have never seen a final
3·report by Mr. Fabiani."
Whoa, that was interesting exchange. Clearly something sensitive going on there.
Logged temperature and pressure discussion with Murray at 215-03, pages 146-148.
Looks like flow meter was logged manually. The data isn't destroyed because it appears in Penon's report. You might argue that it isn't correct, but it certainly wasn't "destroyed."
-
I find your comment about Rossi's health issue distasteful. Nevertheless, here is the expected state of a post-hernia patient for days 1-4:
Patients should not plan any significant personal or work related
activities during this time period. Only basic daily functions should be
performed: walking around the house, visiting the store, and eating at
home. Patients should expect to be off from work or school for this
time period and should expect to feel moderate pain, which often
requires oral prescribed pain pills (Percocet, Codeine).http://californiaherniaspecialists.com/hernia-recovery/
I can imagine that if Rossi could walk and eat, he would be at the Doral location.
-
@Dewey,
It sounds like you have some concern that your non-IP related emails might be used at trial. You might be right about winning the trial. I think the JMP situation will not look good before a jury, at all.
Now to the important matter: where was the flow meter located on the return pipe? Was it above or below the pipe inlet?
-
I'm not paid by a friend or investor of Rossi. I have no financial stake whatsoever in LENR activities. I am self made: I don't have a boss. My views here are my own.
-
As far as I know, Jed has not answered the question. Nor has he attempted to clarify in any way his relationship (if any) with IH.
-
Frustrating knucklehead, sometimes/maybe, but not a troll.
I've been called far worse, so thanks for that.
-
These are relatively smart people that have believed in the Rossi Ecat story.
For them, it is just unthinkable that they, as relatively smart people, could possibly be hoodwinked by a scam artist and not see the scam, after all, they're smart people.
To that end, they will continue to come up with ridiculous, inane, incomprehensible arguments to delay the inevitable, that they were wrong, because that would be impossible.
@RL67,
You've made this point a few times, so permit me to address it, as I consider you to be a relatively smart person as well. Many here (I estimate about 80%) had made up their mind long ago that IH and team were the good guys and Rossi and team were the bad guys. I struggle to see the world in such stark black and white terms. There are many shades of grey here, well more than 50. This situation is so complex that it requires a nuanced and flexible approach to understanding it.
When the evidence reveals that the JMP was not independent of Rossi, I don't excuse that behavior. To the contrary, I call it what it is: a ruse, and take Rossi to task for it. In contrast, when evidence reveals that IH have been untruthful, you, Jed, and team dismiss it, and come up with ridiculous, inane, and incomprehensible excuses for IH's behavior. So, it might make sense to do some self reflection.
-
You must believe Mr. Weaver is paid by IH to post here!
Yes, I think Mr. Weaver is paid by IH. And I don't think Mr. Weaver would dispute that.
Quote
Just like I believe YOU are paid by Rossi to post here!
Believe what you want, but I can assure you that I've never received any kind of compensation, monetary or otherwise, from Rossi or any of his affiliates. Have never met Rossi or any on his team. [Edit: try to get Jed to make this same statement re: IH. Go ahead, try!]
My motivations are pure. I'm here because I've followed LENR since 1989 and take great interest in it. And I sense that something is amiss with IH. I don't excuse Rossi's mess ups either, and call those out when appropriate.
-
Seems important context was omitted, and we don't hear what clarifications Vaughn might have provided, or whether they were able to replicate themselves (as P. has mentioned, above), or whether they continued to have confidence in the early measurements:
With that I agree. On closer inspection, it does look like this statement probably refers to the Ferrara test, although the Ferrara test was only 2 days, and the document states (apparently written by JT Vaughn) that "We tester our plant . . . for four days."
-
@Para,
I'm assuming you are referring to the alumina / Lugano type reactor using a thermal camera. I don't dispute your findings. But IH had built their own devices and were seeing 5, 9, and in some cases 11 COP. Can you fake out your camera to that degree? And if so, do you think IH would have been faking out the camera in the same way?
-
@Para
They don't seem like one-offs to me. It was a sustained effort over a long period of time. Woodford also stated that they did years of due diligence. Something not right. Murray's involvement was a key event. I'd like to understand that chapter better, and I think I'm on the trail, but I must admit, trying to marshal all of the facts of this case is very very challenging.
-
@Para,
Seems so. Over a course of years with many different configurations, testing methods, and COPs that are hard to outright dismiss. The "never able to substantiate" FUD came after the lawsuit was filed.
-
Remember Dameron's testimony where he hemmed and hawed about what COP they had seen, and finally admitted to 1.3. Everyone here pounced on that and said the reason he seemed so uncertain in his testimony was because IH was uncertain of the number, that it was probably less. After I closely read his testimony, I posted here that I thought he was being evasive, and that IH had probably seen COPs in excess of 1.3, thus the reason for his stumbling over his words. THH about wanted to start a fist fight with me over my hunch (well, maybe not a fist fight, but he wasn't happy). Now look, we are seeing evidence that IH had replicated the effect upwards of COPs in the range of 5, 9, and 11.
-
Explain away how steam travels 30 m to the upstairs to Rossi's conveniently missing heat exchanger. How big does that pipe need to be?
You tell me: how big were the pipes?
-
Jed already showed how the the other supposed excess can be explained away.
I don't recall Jed every showing such a thing. I think he has said something like Defkalian didn't have any flow. But I don't think anybody here is claiming that there was no flow. It is very difficult to get to unity based on the three sets of data. Try it--run the numbers.
-
Paradigmnoia described it. I think it was in the Murray deposition.
No, provide me with a cite. I've reviewed Murray's deposition carefully.
-
I thought that the water meter testing with clear pipe and changing angles and using calibrated flow rates was pretty nice. They managed to get 300 L/h to read 1500 L/h on the meter.
So much for impossible.
I don't have the documents with me, so I'll scrounge a document location later.
(Probably it is in 215-03)
Yeah, Murray was fiddling around with all different kinds of slopes and water flow rates trying to fool the flow meter in his "reconstructions" even though he testified that he didn't even know whether the flow meter was located above or below the pipe inlet. And if you take his worse case numbers for faking out the flow meter, there is still a many multiple COP left to explain away.
-
On April 7, 2016, IH said: "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success."
JT Vaughn Deposition, when placed under oath, concedes:
14 Q. Okay. The second paragraph below, where it
15 says Industrial Heat update July 2013, the document
16 states, in the middle of that paragraph: "We tested our
17 plant at the end of April and beginning of May for four
18 days. During the test we operate 37 different reactors
19 for periods ranging from 24 hours to a few hours and the
20 results were good. Our engineer and the independent
21 engineer operating the test reported the machines produced
22 far more energy than they required to operate. Nearly 11
23 times as much in some instances versus our test
24 requirement of six times during the 24-hour test."
25 A. Mm-hmm.
214-4, page 164
Some of you may wonder why I'm highlighting these. It's because I had a strong hunch back when IH first released their PR statement that they were being less than forthcoming. And now that hunch is being confirmed many times over. When they made that statement, they injected massive FUD into the prospects of commercially viable LENR. It upset me then. And it still sort of peeves me off. My apologies for that, if any are warranted.
-
Read the case files and you will see that I.H. has evidence that the return pipe and flow meter configuration were completely botched.
Can you provide a cite? I've read a lot, but not all. What does stand out to me so far is Murray's equivocation on where the flow meter was located.
