Posts by sigmoidal

    Of course it is.... Maybe not in the sense that these statements are credible - of course they are - but in the sense that it enables you to both eat the cookie and keep it for later - since you can continue to accuse Rossi of lying in a lot of other cases when it is exactly as illegal as in the case mentioned. As I said the most logical and reasonable explanation is of course that Rossi is telling the truth in his deposition. All of it. No exceptions. Since everything else is criminal.

    Well there you go. You are now on record as saying "of course it is" duplicitous to assign high credibility to self inculpatory testimony vs. self exculpatory testimony.

    This provides sufficient evidence to me that you are either purposefully being foolish or trollish, or both. Which is a waste of my time and in my opinion, any other person who is interested in intelligent debate. So I'm done with you - to the blue you go.

    1) Leonardo and IH had a licensor/licensee relationship. Licensees don't (usually) go behind the back of licensors and have a device that contains trade secrets tested by a third party without first consulting and agreeing to such tests with the licensor. This was deceptive on IH's part, whether you like it or not.

    2) Darden admitted under oath that he provided the incorrect fuel to Boeing. Not speculation, and apparently not contrary to IH's interests.

    3) Yes, the poor engineer, who proceeded to waste a bunch of his own time testing a device that had the incorrect fuel mix, as later admitted by Darden.


    1) You just made that up out of thin air: "Licensees don't usually have a device that contains trade secrets tested..." That may be your opinion, but you have not basis for supporting it. We have the contract and know that IH had no responsibility to inform Rossi, but rather Rossi had to have permission from IH to disclose. Beyond that, IH almost certainly signed an NDA with Boeing (to not do so would be blatant malpractice).

    I know you've read that document because we've discussed it before. The problem with IH is not that they hired Boeing to independently verify when they did. The problem is that they waited as long as they did, or didn't hire them or some other competent organization as part of the original contract. Based on the docket, Darden would probably argue that he didn't want to risk the opportunity to work with "temperamental" Rossi since he thought he might really have the goods. In retrospect, that was a really bad idea.

    2) I read but don't remember this. I'm not saying your wrong, but if you have the reference link to Abd's site, that would be clarifying. Thanks

    3) ibid

    BTW, this "discussion" has nothing to do with the Prominent pump. So moderators may want to direct us back to another thread, such as Rossi Blog, or Rossi vs Darden (but I think that might be closed)

    I'm pretty sure Alan Fletcher would appreciate that, at least, and probably IHFB would agree.

    Ok. So you simply take the convenient position (as the Jed) that allows you to choose when Rossi is telling the truth or not according the the narrative that suits you the best? Or do you mean it is somehow more criminal to lie about something that goes against your interests than something that is to your advantage?

    You again failed to answer my question: what do you consider deposition evidence submitted to a federal court under penalty of perjury when the evidence provided is adverse to the party but provided by that same party?

    In answer to your seemingly obtuse and diversionary question: It's not "convenient" to place higher credibility to self-admitted inculpatory evidence. Rather, it's blatantly obvious that any thinking person would do so. Yet you seem to be arguing that doing so is duplicitous. If so, that is absurd, and provides evidence that you have no interest in intelligent debate, just trolling.

    Ahh. Excellent. So you are saying that EVERYTHING Rossi said in the court documents should be considered facts?

    No, I didn't say that, did I? However I implied that "deposition evidence submitted to a federal court under penalty of perjury when the evidence provided is adverse to the party but provided by that same party" can reasonably considered factual.

    You didn't answer what you consider such evidence to be though. What would you call that type of evidence, since you seem to object to categorizing that as factual?

    :D :D Wow! That is sooo transparent Jed!!!! What you really mean is that you like to reserve for yourself to decide what is facts and what is not? Why am I not surprised...

    This statement is just so utterly ignorant. A person (in this case, Rossi) is involved in a lawsuit in federal court, and has legal representation. In the U.S., lying while under deposition is a felony crime, with time in jail as punishment. That person testifies to things they did (for example, Rossi testifies that he was the sole decision maker for JM products, a company he claimed was an "independent" customer, and he provided emails showing that he told IH that he deceived Hydrofusion), that HARM his case. And he does this with legal representation, in consultation with his lawyer who is hired to defend him.

    So steppenwolf, are you saying that 1) Rossi's testimony that he was the sole decision maker for JM products and 2) the email Rossi provided (which was also identical to the email that IH provided), are not facts?

    BTW, the court specifically uses the word "facts" to describe these. In fact the purpose of the deposition is to establish facts, while the purpose of the jury trial is to decide aspects that involve interpretation of the facts.

    So if you don't think this should be considered factual, what exactly do you consider deposition evidence submitted to a federal court under penalty of perjury when the evidence provided is adverse to the party but provided by that same party? Do you call this "opinion"? Or maybe you call this "blah, blah, blah"?

    1) No it isn't. You have a condensate return path with a pump that could easily create a slight vacuum on the outlet side.

    2) No it isn't. I can easily see Rossi just setting them to max settings and letting them run.

    3) The flow rate varies. Look at the tapestry of data. And they are clearly rounding. And in some cases, they are probably mindlessly copying the same value from one day to the next.

    4) The return pipe doesn't need to be full. Jed makes this same mistake. How do you know whether it is purely a gravity return? That's not what the record indicates.

    5) Murray had a setup of his own that didn't match the Doral setup. He even admitted this in his depo. The flow meter spec states the error bars in partially filled pipes. Rossi's attorney hit Murray over the head with it.

    OK, this is all feeling very familiar. It has been fun rehashing, and we both know where we stand. So for new readers I'll give it one more shot and then I've got to move on for now to do real work.

    1) It cannot easily create a slight vacuum on the outlet side and simultaneously be a "working fluid circuit". You don't know what your talking about. If you took sophomore level engineering thermodynamics, you would understand why.

    2) Using precision dosimetric pumps all set to 100% makes no sense.

    3) The flow rate is unrealistic in that it varies very little. Thanks for admitting that "mindlessly copying" is a reasonable and likely alternate explanation.

    4) We know that it was a gravity return because of the open to the air tank return tank (see photos).

    5) If the return pipe is not full, it WILL measure incorrectly - the manufacturer states this explicitly in their specs.

    And we haven't re-litigated the imaginary heat exchanger, the pipe strips, the fake engineer, insulation on significant portions of the serpentine pipe in the JM-side container (??), the Grundfos pump, etc.

    But alas, I'm out of time, so new readers will have to jump back to those discussions if interested.

    Ha ha, yes. For the record, I stood corrected. Nevertheless, my point remains, that Alan's measured values essentially match the ~27k l/d and ~36k l/d log values. Whether the 4th BF was taken offline for two days or months is up for question. We have witnesses stating it was offline for at least one day. There are always alternative explanations for just about everything. For example, whoever was writing down the flow rates might have just mind-numbingly copied 36,000 for the next few months, when it was actually 27,000.

    Ask yourself this: what are the chances that Alan's measured numbers would NEAR EXACTLY match the 27k l/d and 36k l/d values. Don't you find that extremely interesting?

    No, not in context. Because: 1) it's absurd to have zero back pressure in a working fluid circuit, 2) it's absurd to have all dosimetric pumps at 100%, and 3) it's absurd to think that the flow rate of 36000 would be as steady as reported given all the testimony of leaks, breakdowns, shutdowns, etc. 4) its absurd to think that the return pipe was full in a known gravity return, and 5) it has been demonstrated and is repeatable that flow rates of 5X to 10x will occur in partially filled pipes. There are more reasons than this, but that's a start.

    I stand correct Sig. BUT, looking at Alan's measured values, you see ~62 l/h at 0 bar. Let's take that value without the scaling factor. You still end up with ~27k l/d for 3BFs and ~36k l/d for 4 BFs.

    Just for the record, you meant to write "I stand corrected Sig", right?

    Freudian slip? ;-)

    EDIT: I see now that you corrected yourself upthread. Thanks!

    Thanks Alan for confirming that the red data points are estimates, as I said, and not actual empirically obtained results. And also, thanks for all the time and effort that you put into this.

    I agree that a linear scaling was not an unreasonable way to estimate performance as a first order approximation.

    That said, I can think of lots of reasons why linear scaling would not apply to performance at these extreme conditions of zero outlet pressure which are outside the manufacturers rated specifications. We just don't know, and certainly making linear assumptions under these extreme conditions would not meet any engineering standards. (And I'm not at all insinuating that you are asserting that, I'm just stating it for the record).

    I stand correct Sig. BUT, looking at Alan's measured values, you see ~62 l/h at 0 bar. Let's take that value without the scaling factor. You still end up with ~27k l/d for 3BFs and ~36k l/d for 4 BFs.

    62*24*24 = 35712

    35712 < 36000

    That's why you don't have any Quatloos. You lost the bet.

    But again, the whole premise is absurd that there is zero outlet pressure and maxed out precise measuring pumps, and you ignore the evidence that one BF was offline for months (at least), that the imaginary steam could some how precipitate, that the enormous heat given off by this precipitation (1MW) could be handled in shipping container, and you still don't quite meet the mark even after all that.

    The evidence that Rossi created an elaborate electrically heated 20KW teapot doing a rather pathetic charade of a 1MW plant is staring you in the face, even by evidence that you helped obtain.

    Whoa, I think you have a major misunderstanding here. Alan measured the Prominent pump to 0 bar. Alan can clarify if needed.

    What do you think "Red: Fletcher scaled to Prominent at .5 bar" refers to? I think you are the confused one here. Please check with Alan F.

    The red dots are NOT empirically tested data points - they are the estimated performance ASSUMING manufacturer's rated performance and EXTRAPOLATING outside the manufacturer's provided specs. Alan F. explained this already. So again, please check in with him on this.

    Sorry, I won and have all your Quatloos.

    The reason is that the orange/red dots are not from an actual pump. You don't know that those points are accurate. They are mathematical extrapolations assuming linear up-rating based on manufacturer specs in the region that they show performance, and then extrapolating that uprated performance to the absurdly low outlet pressure not provided by the manufacturers. You realize that, right?

    Or are you now asserting that you empirically tested a new pump? If so, you better check with Alan on that - I highly doubt he'll back you up on that.

    But if you need to negotiate a Quatloo loan, I'm willing to help you out. The bet was that your empirical tests would show inadequate flow. Alan's test confirmed empirically that there was inadequate flow.

    I can guarantee you that running racks of dosimetric pumps all at max is not a "common setup". As to this vague reference to a "professional steam guy" I'm extremely skeptical. It would help if you can find that reference.

    I've explained over and over why setting dosimetric pumps all to max makes no sense if you need precise control. What happens, for example if conditions change slightly (temperature, pressure, etc.) such that you need 101% of max. And if your reply is that it was designed so that this would never happen, how can you argue that precise dosimetric pumps were needed at all. Methinks you've never designed a controlled circuit.

    IHFB: "Alan measured what the pumps actually pump. IH's experts misread the manual on rated pump flow rates. That is a rich history in and of itself."

    You didn't respond to my point on that. Alan F. plots two curves (actually a set of data points): one from the actual measured output of the pump you bought him, and one curve above that which is a linear extrapolation of the actual measured output, which is Alan's estimate of performance of a new pump. The actual measured output of the old pump, multiplied by the number of pumps, still does not meet the stated flow rate.

    (That's why the Internal Quatloo Revenue Service [IQRS] confiscated all your Quatloos and gave them to me.) ;-)

    And finally, it was Rossi who misinterpreted the manual regarding rated pump flow rates and the use of "minimum" and "maximum" regarding performance. I had to hammer that issue over and over to you. I'm can't remember if you ever conceded that, but it became moot, as Alan F. performed the empirical tests which demonstrated that Rossi's asserted statements were an incorrect interpretation.

    You and Bruce keep hanging your hat on this one. Seems kind of tenuous to me. The flow rates measured by Alan are consistent with 3 BF @ 27k l/d, and 4 BF @ 36k l/d. And that is mostly what we see in the logs. Yeah, you guys pin-pointed a time period in the log that doesn't match up. Okay, well done. But most of the data comports.

    I think that's pretty compelling evidence given the testimony that the system leaked all over the place and specifically that one of the BF's was shut down completely, consistent with photographic evidence.

    But dismissing that compelling argument for a moment, since I've no need to "hang my hat" on merely that, what about:

    - absurd assumption of near zero or negative outlet pressure in a working fluid circuit?

    - absurd assumption that dosimetric pumps were all set to max (though there is no evidence showing what they were actually set to)?

    - actual empirical results from Alan F. operating under absurd conditions still don't meet the stated flow rate unless up-rated to presumed performance of a new pump using a linear assumption applied to performance outside the manufacturer's specifications to extrapolate the estimated performance of a new pump?

    The far more credible explanation is that Rossi built his shoddy stagecraft with cool looking racks of pumps with digital readouts to bamboozle IH and other non-technical witnesses into thinking he had a real product, when all he really had was an elaborate scam.

    And this highly probable explanation of it being a scam approaches virtual certainty when viewed in the context of Rossi's long history of promoting elaborate scams:

    • Petroldragon elaborate scam: tens of millions of dollars of cleanup and persistent toxic waste site to this day in Italy
    • Thermoelectric device elaborate scam: DoD contract with millions of dollars squandered by the US government with no working product
    • Fake engineering degree scam: Purchased a fraudulent engineering masters degree from now non-existent fraudulent Kensington University in California
    • 10K E-Cat elaborate scam: wet steam dribbling out of a rubber hose in the wall as Rossi manually fiddles with relay switches to "demo" his "reactor" with lead shielding
    • 10K E-Cat elaborate scam: pure nickel 62 salted "ash", followed by salted copper "ash" to intrigue and bamboozle unassuming Swedish scientists, Cook, and others
    • 1MW E-Cat elaborate scam: dummy reactors performing the same as active reactors, fake customer, electric heating strips, imaginary silent heat exchanger with large imaginary fans venting out the mezzanine fixed glass side window "disappears" the day after the 350 day "test" completes, etc., etc., etc.
    • Plasma QX elaborate scam: plastic sprinkler parts presented in Stockholm with tricky plan to manually switch on the unit caught on video.
    • Plasma SK elaborate scam: 7 "camera angles" complete with "ballerina" and satisfying conclusion via musical puppet show conducted from Rossi's home condo "headquarters" (as verified by Frank Acland) where he purportedly will remotely control over the internet "reactors" that he says caused him illness due to radiation exposure in testing, but will provide heat to industrial "satisfied customers".

    None of the above have resulted in anything useful, most have resulted in sizable financial loss to others, except the last two, which to date have at least resulted in a sizable waste of time.

    The reason the whole pump issue is such an obvious fail is because the only way to "get" a pump rate that is remotely close to being plausible is under the condition of near-zero (or even more absurdly negative) outlet pressure. Which makes no practical sense in any functioning fluid circuit. If you have no outlet pressure (or negative pressure as IHFB has posited), then you don't need a pump, it just gets in the way of the flow that would happen anyway. That's why there is no data provided by the manufacturer for low to zero pressure (or negative as plotted by Alan F.): there is no plausible use case for such low outlet pressure. And it gets worse: these are expensive pumps because they are designed to precisely meter the flow rate. But again, the only way to "get" a flow rate remotely close to the stated flow is to have all the pumps at maximum flow rate. (As Bruce__H shows and Alan F. confirms, 18 pumps fall short of the capacity needed for 36Kl flow, even under the absurd near zero or negative outlet pressure assumption). Any reasonable system requiring precisely metered flow would have the pumps operating well below the max so that they could effectively regulate the flow to spec. And any system that had negative or zero outlet pressure would eliminate the pumps entirely and replace them with a metering flow valve or restricter. And finally, Alan F.s result from the actual pump tested do not support adequate flow, even with all the absurd assumptions that can "get" an answer close to the flow rate: the only way to do that is to assume that a new pump would have higher flow than the old pump actually tested, based on the data showing that the old pump was not meeting the performance level provided by the manufacturer, and then applying a linear assumption in extrapolating what the performance of new pumps would be.

    I appreciate the effort and empirical research and analysis that IHFB sponsored and Alan F. performed on an identical model of one of these dosimetric pumps.

    What those results show is that is that there is no reasonable scenario where these pumps could have met the reported flow rate with 18 pumps.

    The far more credible explanation is that Rossi built his shoddy stagecraft with cool looking racks of pumps with digital readouts to bamboozle IH and other non-technical witnesses into thinking he had a real product, when all he really had was an elaborate scam.

    This is why I'm glad you're back IHFB. You never cease to amaze me with the creative interpretations of common sense context. And because I can be sarcastic at times (a failing I'm trying to work on), I'll repeat that I mean that sincerely.

    Obviously, I come from a different perspective and I look at the evidence from Doral and see an obvious scam with crude stagecraft and layers and layers of "strategically confusing" incompetence.

    And then you remind me of how this specific DN40 issue was all litigated back and forth here on LENR-Form with "verb tense-gate".

    Those were some fun times.

    Anyway, I agree with you that we seem to be in the end stages of this story, with either one of the greatest inventions of all time changing the world in incredibly disruptive ways, or an aging con man, who has painted himself into a corner, running out of ways to cover his chronic deception.

    Pass the popcorn?

    I thought Wytten captured the situation pretty well in that comment. You can go read the Murray deposition. It's all there. It is one of the only depositions that was made available in its entirety.

    Well it's not surprising that you agree with his opinion, but that doesn't support your assertion that court evidence shows that Murray is the initiator of the "DN40 Pipe Story" vs. the alternative explanation that Murray was merely quoting Penon. At best, citing the evidence you provided, one can conclude that the record is ambiguous.