Posts by JedRothwell

    There has been some discussion here about the position of the flow meter in Rossi's configuration. I have information from Rossi showing it was located in the gravity return between the customer site and the reservoir. I do not think there was a U pipe but I cannot rule that out 100%. Nothing like that is shown and no one who was there told me there is one -- and I did ask. Anyway, Abd pointed out that Penon described the configuration in one of the lawsuit documents. It is a little hard to understand Penon's English, so Abd added the comments in square brackets:


    * Note from Jed: "Cools up to its condensation" means it cools down until it condenses.


    This contradicts assertions by Peter Gluck.

    Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was zero and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose.

    Abd thought I made error here, and the flow rate was never zero. Gamberale stated it was zero at times. Quote:


    “One can get an erroneous measurement of flow as large as 1 lt/min (close to the flow rate measurement obtained by SA during demonstrations of the reaction) while having the upstream valve completely closed (thus corresponding to a null real flow) and this has been actually observed by us.”


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

    His initial fame among thousands of his believers have been mainly boosted by a worldwide massive propagandistic campaign, which started immediately after the January 2011 demo, and was totally based on the credibility of the professors involved in the test. You can realize it looking at what JR wrote on Vortex the day after (1): "This tells us that various professors at the university have been involved for some time, and they designed and implemented the calorimetry. I do not think there is any way Rossi could "fool" these people.

    Evidently I was wrong about that. It is possible some of the early tests were positive, but in light of what happened later, I doubt it.

    Sorry, sir, it's impossible to me.

    You have a limited imagination. Say, are you a HAL 9000 computer? You must be perfect. You never make a mistake!


    This is ridiculous. I make a minor error. I find the wrong document -- one of thousands. I forget some minor detail about Rossi, who is one researcher out of thousands. Because I made this inconsequential error you come out of the woodwork and accuse me being a leading member of a nefarious conspiracy. Earlier I reported one of the temperatures Rossi gave me: 101 deg C. Later, I replaced with another temperature he gave me: 103 deg C. The difference between them is inconsequential in this context. You could not measure that difference with confidence, and at either temperature the water would be liquid, not vapor. Based on that trivial correction, people leaped to accuse me of being in league with a Nefarious International Conspiracy to Suppress Cold Fusion. You people are a bunch of tinfoil-hat conspiracy mongers who have no idea how thermometers work, and -- in you case -- no idea how many papers and authors I deal with. Thousands!

    The "18 hours" is an immediately recognizable trademark of a test

    It isn't "immediately recognizable." "18 hours" does work as a search term, but I did not think to use it as one.

    It's impossible to believe that the LENR librarian, the world's most informed man about the Ecat story, can accidentally confuse the famous "18 hour test" performed by Levi, with the subsequent test documented by the two Swedish professors.

    Impossible to believe I made a momentary mistake? I have thousands of documents on my disk! When I do a search all kinds of stuff pops up. You never made a mistake in your life?

    But a few months after that test, in August 2011, answering to the same objections, you wrote (4):

    "This data is similar to what you find on a boiler test form,

    And blah, blah, blah. Evidently I was wrong. The effect was never independently replicated, and it turned out Rossi was deceptive in ways I did not anticipate. I don't know what to make of the earlier results. Again: are you Mr. Perfect who never makes a mistake? You probably never admit you were wrong . . . whereas I just did.


    On another subject:

    Half full is not a scientific assessment. I'm not sure what Jed means when he says this other than "not empty and not 100% full". For a 15% full pipe you get a speed of (approx) 25cm/s, and so on.

    I think it depends partly on the angle of pipe. I found this handy table:


    http://www.slideshare.net/raju175/water-flow-pipe-sizes


    A DN80 pipe is 3", so the gravity capacity (in the first column -- in green) is 140 gpm. I am guessing that is with some sort of standard configuration. Maybe fully vertical? Anyway, Rossi reported 6 gpm, so it was nowhere near at full capacity, so the water level in the pipe must have been low.

    56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions


    56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions

    Seventy-six trombones led the big parade

    With a hundred and ten cornets close at hand.
    They were followed by rows and rows of the finest virtuo-
    Sos, the cream of ev'ry famous band. . . .

    Jed this is the copy of the answer I gave you on Vortex:


    An excellent paper kind of old friend- I remember when it was first discussed on the blog of my friend Daniele Passerini years before the Trial and then once again in the Flowmeter scandal days when you,

    And here is my response to this damn nonsense:


    Peter Gluck wrote:

    Quote

    Jed. have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X)


    Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was zero and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose.


    Quote

    The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution- scending pipe is simple and fine.



    No, it is not "perfectly plausible" that the pressure was 0.0 bar, the flow rate was exactly the same every day, even on days when the machine was turned off. It is no possible these pumps provided as much water as shown. It is not possible the machine consumed more electric power than the power company supplied. That is not "perfectly plausible"; it is outrageous nonsense.

    Quote

    The main differences to the Doral plant case: a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that ascending pipe


    That is incorrect. The flow meter is located in the gravity return pipe, according to Rossi's schematic. I suggest you ask him for a copy of that schematic, since you do not believe me.


    Quote

    b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and effective flow.


    That is incorrect. You would see the same result no matter how long the water runs.

    Quote

    You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous in a way.



    Completely wrong.



    Quote

    Now there are two cases possible in principle: A. Normal professional setup: RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors possible



    No, the flow meter was installed in a half-empty pipe. Everyone who looked at it saw that immediately.

    Quote

    B. Setup according to Jed


    The setup is according to Rossi, not me.

    Quote

    FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system.


    There is no doubt whatever the flow meter was wrong because:


    1. The pipe was half empty.
    2. It was the wrong kind of meter.
    3. The pumps could not possibly supply that much water.


    Various other reasons such as --


    4. Everyone in the building would be dead if there were a 1 MW heat source.

    Quote

    Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.


    This was the most inept and obvious scam I have ever seen.


    Quote

    BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper. Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?


    You should ask instead: where is Defkalion? Why did they never answer the issues raised by Gamberale?

    Rossi scribbled the 100.1 value on a whiteboard in a video with Focardi from years prior. Are you saying that he gave you that number at the time the measured value was being publicly disputed between Dewey and Rossi?

    He gave it to me another time. There is no "public dispute." You are ginning up an imaginary dispute to make trouble.


    Dewey and I had some notes with one temperature, and other notes with a slightly different temperature. We both quoted the lower temperature first, and the higher temperature later on -- giving Rossi every benefit of the doubt. Actually, the two are so close together the difference is insignificant, and I am sure the actual temperatures in the pipe varied over a wider range than this.

    I think you might be misunderstanding something. The reason that the 101.1 degree versus 103 degree discrepancy became the issue that it did, was that you and Dewey were stating one thing (101.1), while Rossi was publicly disputing the both of you.

    No, Rossi himself gave me that number. He gave out lots of numbers, including the pressure of 0.0 bar.

    That controversy was protracted over a number of days. Neither you nor Dewey retracted it until significant questions and pressure were brought to bear by LENR Calender, me, and others. It is in fact what brought me into active participation here.

    No, it wasn't protracted. I looked at the sample of data (which you have now seen) and saw that Rossi claimed 103 more often than 101. So I reported that. But the difference is meaningless. 2 deg C is within the margin of error for instruments of this type. More to the point, the actual variation in fluid temperature will probably be this big or bigger, depending on mixing, the different temperatures of different reactors, and various other factors.


    Reporting the temperature to a tenth of a degree is preposterous. That's like reporting your body temperature to the nearest 0.001 deg C. On that scale, every part of your body is at a different temperature, and every time you breathe or move the temperature will fluctuate. Trying to pin it down is like trying to measure the exact length of the coast of England. (That could be a billion kilometers -- see Mandelbrot's famous paper on fractals.)

    When you say that two or three degrees are meaningless, it entirely misses the point that there was a public dispute as to what the measured value was

    This is not a "public dispute." It is an idiotic assertion made by people who have no idea how thermometers work, or what a temperature is. Different streamlines in the fluid were probably at many different temperatures, probably ranging from 98 to 104 or so, depending on the back pressure from the radiator. If you move the thermocouple around you will get different temperatures. There is no exact answer. The temperature is not "one thing" that you can pin down to 1 or 2 deg C.

    Yes, this is exactly what I have been describing. Notice how the problem can be fixed with the raised pipe at the end. You can also make a U with the flow meter positioned at the bottom of the U. As far as I know, Rossi did not have this kind of plumbing.


    I added a comment to this article in June.


    ADD: The instructions for the meter are here:


    https://gsvit.files.wordpress.…tori-unico-e-multiplo.pdf


    Concluding sentence:


    N.B. Per mantenere il buon funzionamento dei componenti del contatore, si raccomanda di assicurarsi che il contatore sia sempre pieno d'acqua (ad eccezione di brevi periodi dovuti a manutenzione).


    Google translate:


    N.B. To maintain the proper functioning of the meter components, it is recommended make sure that the counter is always full of water (except for short periods due to maintenance).


    Again, that is what I have talked about. Peter Gluck is convinced there is no such thing as a half-empty pipe. What does he think happens when water flows slowly in one section of a pipe, and swiftly in another section?

    But, very surprisingly, the LENR librarian, who takes care of thousands of carefully catalogued documents, found instead a Portuguese translation of the report by Kullander and Essen, referred to a different test held on March 29, 2011. Isn't it funny?

    No, it a trivial matter. It is momentary confusion, like when you owe $15, you accidentally hand the cashier a $10 bill instead of a $20, and you ask for change. If you find that "funny" you are easily amused.


    You people make mountains out of molehills, like making a huge fuss about the difference between 100.1 degrees and 103 degrees. In reality, any machine of this size will have fluid over a broader range of temperatures than this. Two or 3 degrees are meaningless.

    StephenC - what convinced you to go with DN80 in today's ponderance?

    I think I said it was DN80 (80 mm), based on the specifications for the flow meter. The meter is model MWN130-80-NC, where "80" is the diameter. I guess you could have a 40 mm pipe leading up to the meter, a collar expanding the pipe, and then another one narrowing it.

    Yes, I know that, but others have argued that FPL's figures are for the whole building

    It would be for this tenant's section of the building. Each suite has to be separately metered.


    I doubt that bill covers heating and cooling (HVAC). Heating is probably with natural gas, and air conditioning is probably a single large unit that the landlord pays for. That is the arrangement in the office space I have rented. I don't think the suites have individual air conditioners. That would be inefficient. See the Google photo of the roof:


    https:[email protected],204m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

    I wonder why a lawyer is involved in this request, and more so, why then only up to 50 bucks?
    I hope there is no NDA attached to it.

    Answers:


    That's what lawyers are for.


    $50 is a typical handling fee for any kind of document search. It is quite reasonable. They are not making a profit.


    If there were an NDA they wouldn't give it to you in the first place. Many documents are secret and off-limits to the FOI act. Mostly for legit reasons such as the privacy of people who can be identified in medical studies, or detailed recent Census data.

    The reason the NANOR does not work for this purpose is that it is very difficult to do reliable calorimetry on such small qtys of power.

    It is very difficult with the methods used by Swartz. But with a microcalorimeter it should be easy. Microcalorimeters take some expertise to use, and they are expensive, but they can easily measure much smaller power levels. Bob Duncan made one to measure the effect of a single cosmic ray whacking into a space based detector. These people are making one too:


    https://flightopportunities.nasa.gov/technologies/124/


    In another example, microcalorimeters have also been used to measure the heat from a chirping cricket.


    There are commercial units available:


    http://www.tainstruments.com/products/microcalorimetry/


    http://www.mt.com/us/en/home/p…TA_Family_Browse/DSC.html

    You have waffled over time between "I have a secret" and "you now know everything I know." So

    No, I have not waffled. That is bullshit. You are conflating two different things. You are doing this to confuse the issue and make me look bad. I have made myself clear, many times:


    1. I know some things which I agreed not to reveal until Rossi or I.H. first reveal them. For example, as I said dozens of times, I have the schematic. If you want see it, ask Rossi for a copy.


    2. I described the data in some detail. Now that you have seen the data yourself, you can confirm that my description was accurate and left out nothing of importance. After I described the data and after Exhibit 5 was published, I said "you now know everything I know." Everything about the data, that is. Not every aspect of Rossi's test.

    You have no personal knowledge. You didn't actually see the half empty gravity-fed pipe in which the wrong kind of flow meter was installed, did you? You have seen no photographic evidence of this, have you?

    How do you know all of this? Who told you what I know, and what I have seen?


    I have made it quite clear on many occasions that I have some information which I have agreed not to reveal unless Rossi or I.H. first reveals it.

    If a company with the credibility like Johnson Matthey (purely used as an example) contacted IH and said, we can vouch for the 1MW plant and are prepared to do so in court, I think IH would probably change their tune.

    Perhaps they would. I would take it seriously and listen to what J.M. has to say in that situation. But there is overwhelming physical proof that there was no heat, so before they pay anything, they would have to conduct a real, independent test from scratch, and it would have to show irrefutable proof of excess heat. It would be insane for I.H. to pay $89 million just because someone from J.M. says something that might be construed as evidence in favor of the claim. Not when they have a mountain of experimental proof that the claim is fraud. Physical evidence outweighs testimony.


    Anyway, your scenario is so far-fetched I don't take it seriously. It is an interesting hypothetical, but it has no relevance to the real world. There is not the slightest chance J.M. or any other company produced anything in the factory. We know for a fact that the pretend company was a shell owned by Rossi and his lawyer, that had no income, no capital, and conducted no business. Rossi himself provided proof of that in the court papers. By accident, I suppose.

    Now the "customer" could come out and state that they received 3600 Kg/d of steam and IH would have no choice but to pay $89M to Rossi IMO.

    Well, the customer "stating" this would not be enough. They would have to show a great deal of documented proof such as invoices, employee records and records of sales to their customers. They would have to explain why they needed small sums of money from Rossi to pay routine expenses. They would have to answer many technical questions from experts, such as how they managed to use all that heat, in what sort of industrial process, why they did not heat up the building, and how they operated without people in the production area, and without noise. They would have to explain how they managed to use 1 MW of process heat with only ~4 kW of machinery.


    The customer would need a 1-MW capacity cooling tower outside the building, like the one you see in the photo on p. 4 of this brochure, where it says "Ready to use in an instant."


    http://www.viflow.fi/uploads/coolingtowerseng.pdf


    I think they would need something the size of the OCT01 model shown on the next page. No one saw anything like that outside the facility. I do not see how they could magically hide it. You can't put it inside the building.


    All in all, I think it is out of the question.


    Rossi claims "the customer" does not want to describe their secret industrial process. It turns out the customer is Rossi and his lawyer. They are the owners and the only employees of the company. So if he wants the money, he -- the company, that is -- better change that policy and describe the process in enough detail to convince people it is real.


    Needless to say, that is all nonsense, as anyone who does not live on Planet Rossi can see.

    with yur imagined data

    Rossi's data! His data, not mine. He uploaded it to the court papers. Have you even looked at it?

    . . . have you demonstrated or can you COP<1 that is zero excess heat. Show me please the calculations, OK?

    I just did. The methods are dead simple. Here:


    Rossi's data shows the input power ~11 kW. However, he told Lewan and others it was 20 kW. So let's go with 20 kW.


    Rossi often said the temperature in the reservoir was 60°C. Sometimes he said it was 69°C. Let's go with 60°C.


    The temperature of the water coming out of the reactor was 103°C.


    Okay, so the temperature rose about 43°C.


    Observers told me the flow meter was off by about a factor of 4, because it was the wrong kind of flow meter and it was sitting in a half-empty pipe. (They probably measured the flow themselves, but I did not hear the details.)


    Okay, so assuming there was no excess heat, and working backwards, 20 kW is 4762 calories per second. The temperature rose 43°C, meaning the flow must have been 4762/43 = 111 g/s which is ~400 kg/hour. That's about 3.8 times less than the pretend flow rate numbers in the log. Those numbers could not possibly be right -- because they show a giant flow rate on days when the machine was turned off, and because the pumps could not produce that much flow. As I said, observers estimate the flow rate was wrong by roughly a factor of 4.


    That adds up nicely.

    Just a quick question I appreciate you think it doesn't work but do you think or even better know maybe if it is a steam condensor circuit with a 300kWh/day supply or a water circuit with the same power supply or something else?

    I do not understand this question.

    Edit: I don't see how a steam condensor circuit with this power supply and no excess heat could produce enough condensate to even move the flow meter even if wrongly placed let alone give such a high reading

    There was no steam. The radiator (heat exchanger) must have produced some back pressure. Even with a slight increase in pressure, at 103 deg C the fluid would be water, not steam. See:


    https://durathermfluids.com/pd…ressure-boiling-point.pdf

    Do you know how much condensate would be produced per second from this input power?

    I do not see how there could be any steam or condensate.

    If it was obvious [the data was fake]...why has nobody seen it in 2015?

    They did see it! Everyone who looked at it saw that it was fake, including me.

    FAKE DATA has to be explained for all the paraameters.

    Say flow was fake, but was then a real flow? Not 1500kg/h

    but say 10kg/, or not flow at all?

    I estimate the real flow was probably around 430 kg/h, based on the temperature rise, input power, and likely pressure. That is 3 or 4 times lower than the numbers recorded for the flow meter. These were fake numbers, since they were the same every day for weeks, which is impossible.


    On days when the machine was turned off, there was no flow at all, although it is recorded at 1500 kg/h. Obviously that too was fake. Even you will probably realize that when the machine is turned off, the flow rate is zero.

    The pipes according to Jed were half full, what was the non-fake flow then?

    The pipes under pressure from the heat exchanger with a slow flow were full. Pipes below the heat exchanger were open to the air, in the gravity return. They were partially empty. Look at any fountain and you will see how that works. The schematic from Rossi shows the flow meter was installed in the gravity return. You don't believe that, but that is what it shows.

    Temperature was not 103 c but how much?


    Probably around 103 deg C. It was under some pressure from the heat exchanger, so it was liquid water, not steam.


    Since there was no steam, and the flow rate was far lower than recorded, there was no excess heat.

    OBVIOUS? OK, but then it was already obvious when the first set of these data was given to the beneficiary and accepted/paid.

    That was different data, from a different test, using different methods. That was the Lugano test. You have seen that data. You can compare it to the data from the 1-year test. They are not at all alike. For example, the Lugano test does not show 0.0 bar pressure and the exact same flow rate for weeks -- a rate far too high for the pumps.


    The Lugano test was flawed, but it was not an outrageous fraud the way the 1-year test was.

    OMG, why has IH not consulted you in time?

    They did consult with me in time. As I reported, they showed me a sample of the data. They showed it to many people during the 1-year test. All of us said it was fake. The pressure, flow rates and temperatures are impossible. It is astounding to me that you or anyone else thinks they might be real.

    Rather odd that power into the reactor sometimes exceeds what the utility company reported.

    I don't find that odd. I think it is hilarious.

    Could it be that half of the red box was supplied from another source hence the mismatch in temperature, supply, and COP.

    Rossi would have mentioned that, I think.


    This is just more proof that his data is garbage and he is a fraud. We don't need any more proof -- his numbers speak for themselves -- but this is more proof, along with the fact that his pumps could never circulate as much water as he claims.