Posts by oldguy

Sig - yes controlled experiments are the way to go. A good test should have a control running in parallel if possible. There should be calibration runs before and after the experiments. First to check the instruments and later to show that nothing has changed with them during the testing.

For good IP transfer there should be several steps. One - have the " inventor" run the experiment while watched, two - have the experiment run by someone else under the direction of the "inventor" (without the "inventor" actually turning knobs) with the inventor's device, three - have the replicator make the system from "scratch" (nothing supplied or altered directly by the "inventor") and run it.

If you can't get to #3 then the tech was not transferred. Try again.

Quote from Zeus46

Followed the emissivity recommendations in the camera's manual would have got them 90% of the way there.

Levi went well off-piste.

You let me use all the sensors and meters out of their spec ranges (temps limits, flow ranges, EMF noise,...) and I will give you whatever COP you want.

Quote from Roger

Rossi's devices, built by IH/Cherokee

"They appeared to operate.... though we do not want to report specific multiples until we have reviewed the data thoroughly and conducted tests using at least two thermal cameras..."

Quote from ZenoOfElea

sigmoidal

Apologies if everyone already knows this.

You suggest that Woodford had a tour of Doral that was the basis of his investment but Woodford was already involved with the "Invesco test" in September 2013 as he was then head of investment at Invesco Perpetual.

He then left Invesco Perpetual and set up his own funds so that he could have more freedom.

Woodford say they did 2.5 years due diligence before investing.

So I think Woodford was aware and interested in LENR as a high risk/high reward investment back in 2013.

Display More

Paul and Henry (from Woodford) were touring several of IH's supported researchers. By what reason would you think that they could refuse a visit to Rossi while they were here in the states?

Quote from Roger

Rigorous science coming from IH, who said "we have significant excess heat" until the trial appeared, then pretended they had not done rigorous testing, and who fed JedRothwell plain greasy FUD?

If lying and character assassination were harnessable sources of energy, some posters on this here forum could light whole cities

Are you sure that the "significant excess heat" was with Rossi's device or could it have been some of their other supported researcher.? Can you give a reference that would be interesting?

I am out of here. Abd was right.

Quote from Wyttenbach

oldguy : This is Trump-logic: Levi is a prof, what can a "business mafiosi" propose him?? A job in heaven?

If any body else -- not a jew -- would have asked Levi, then he would have kicked they guy in the ass!

Sorry, it was easy to misread your comment as racist. I put it back. Eric

You should first read the transcripts. You are totally trying to stir up trouble by injecting politics (Trump smearing),. and race., and religion (heaven comment).

If you read 228-02 Exh. B you will find where Uzi stated (#4) that he offered Levi work "that he was willing and wanted to perform".

You are entirely off base and hostile.

I am insulted by your attack.

Quote from Wyttenbach

oldguy : This is Trump-logic: Levi is a prof, what can a "business mafiosi" propose him?? A job in heaven?

If any body else -- not a jew -- would have asked Levi, then he would have kicked they guy in the ass!

Sorry, it was easy to misread your comment as racist. I put it back. Eric

Why in the world do you want to inject religion into this? I made no comment about a race or religion. I think that calling my comment racist is totally against the rules here.

Notice it was not I that called the statements threats. Read the transcripts.

How many professors in Sweden where given offers? You are totally out of line with your comments and I hope you are banned.

I don't understand- Rossi is afraid of Murry so he brakes the contract and throws him out,

Afraid of law suits so the emails get destroyed in violation of the contract and you flee the country.

Afraid of an Israeli business man who asks if Levi wants a job, and it is called a threat and witness tampering.

Sounds like they are all running scared.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Oldguy - we'll see that the Judge ends up saying about the destruction of evidence by Rossi and his cohorts. Generally, it is a terminally fatal action to one's case if you allow / enable wanton destruction of evidence.

Yes, and it sounds like Rossi has admitted to the act in his depositions.

Dewey,

if there has be destruction of emails, removal of pipes, (I am assuming even the pressure sensor outside the container, etc.) , doesn't that mean that according to the legal concept of 'adverse interpretation' Rossi will not be able to use any of the claimed ERV report regardless of its technical competence (or lack thereof).

Quote from axil

Rossi had 400 days to show that the reaction worked. If IH did not see any valid gainful reaction in 50 days then their was no way that Rossi could have produced the 350 gainful reaction requirement. After 50 days of a non functional reaction IH would be insane to run the test for any longer. IH could have stopped the test after 50 days. This is why I doubt that what you say is valid; these statements do not make sense.

The use of logic is one way that fake news can be detected. Another is the use of recrimination in the face of a logical argument.

but remember IH did not consider it to be the GPT. Rossi did not use the GPT term till Aug very late in the "test" - actually the middle of the two year heat sell to the fake customer

The days were to start from the time the GPT was agreed to and signed by both parties. That did not happen so there was never any 50 days into the test.

Personally I think that the pipes from individual units were DN40 but going to a somewhat larger pipe (possibly 80 but doubtfully the required 120 that Peter mentioned). but.....

All this talk of pipe size will likely not be important. It seems that Rossi claimed to have removed the pipe evidence (spoliation of evidence) and under the principle of 'adverse interpretation' we in the "peanut jury" have to assume that the size to be that which is in the defendant's best interest.

It may not sit well with some but if we take the legal view, that is what may likely happen.

I don't believe the second story tale, however

If the heat was being discarded out the window

(and not the endothermic chemical reactions that Rossi previously claimed used by the "customer),

then the heat exchanger efficiency should be tied to the climatic conditions and vary with day/night cycles and not

the week day cycles (not previously claimed for the work in the manufacturing "plant").

Then that would likely be seen in pressure variations.

I always wondered if the work cycle was week day, then why weren't "customer's" employees seen in and out during the week. If it was just automated, then I doubt there would have been a weekly cycle of power use.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I think that is not so. You cannot reach conclusions in this matter without looking at both SJ's. Even then, as Dewey points out, there will be a lot of additional evidence (for example stuff contradicting points made in an SJ) that we do not yet have access to because it is not exhibited.

SJ's are meant to be standalone and clear-cut factual. They are supposed to present uncontested evidence that proves the case. I guess if Rossi's one is upheld I'd have to eat all my words. I doubt that will happen. Otherwise, to judge, you need to see both sides of the evidence, not just selected snippets.

Rossi's did not follow the judge's order on page limits even after they asked for added length and it was denied. I would think it might get thrown out on that alone. Not a way to win the favor of a judge.

Quote from THEDEBATEISUSELESS

Murray thinks the output pipe likely had an internal diameter of DN80. Thus, one huge problem at least partially mitigated.

He also did testing with identical flow meters at identical slopes/reaches to those at Doral and didn't find obviously huge errors using Penon's reported water flow. Thus another problem at least partially mitigated. Of course, it sure would help if the photograph of the meter would be provided to see if it was positioned higher or lower than the input to the plant.

Another issue he brought up was the pressure gauge on the output only being rated for 50C and not 103-104C over a year. I wonder if he performed a test to see if such a pressure gauge would fail at such temperatures? Of course a year long test just to determine that would be expensive and complicated. I wonder if the manufacturer of the pressure gauge has any torture test data from subjecting their gauges to high temperatures for long periods?

Penon had promised to have all the instruments rechecked by the manufacture after the "testing". However, I have not seen if that happened and what the results of the instrument testing was. I have often wondered if the instruments were actually IH's (paid for??) and what has happened to them.

Surely any instruments and pipes paid for by IH and anything in the container (owned by IH- I think) would be returned to IH and not have been stolen and not returned as required by contract. If owned by IH and not returned then that is another (criminal theft?) legal question.

Quote from anotherTroll

What are you talking about? Evidence of what? $50M? Woodford stating Rossi asset was a "core element"? What is it that you do not understand?

Oh, no. I'm having second thoughts, please don't write me an essay about that last one - it would take forever to read

No, at least by my understanding. Woodward had and "initial investment" that relied on Rossi but the $50 M was later and based on additional items.

Quote from anotherTroll

214-36 screenshot above

That was only their initial investment. I don't think that was true for their added investments nor their current support.

Quote from anotherTroll

At least we know that Woodford based it's view of IH/Darden mainly on the core Rossi asset. They said so. No doubt Darden sold that view to them.

Please give me a reference for that claim. The information I was give was just the opposite, that when Paul and Harry visited the US Paul was more taken by the other researchers and was "put off" by Rossi and his secretive nature.

It is only in Rossi's mind that his work was the best.

People seemed to be judging Darden's judgment solely on views of Rossi. Don't forget that IH was working with a number of other researchers. We do no know if some of the success by other researchers raised his hopes that Rossi might actually have something.

Would it not have been foolish for Darden to deny Rossi a 2 year sale of heat (not officially claimed as a GPT) if some of the other researchers were seeing some modest success with other systems. -- especially if that success was with materials containing Nickel?