Posts by JedRothwell

Quote from IH Fanboy

They didn't respond. Their actions prove that the letter is right.
It means nothing of the such. At most, it means that they are good at sniffing out lawyer-speak.

It meant they were in violation of their contractual agreement to cooperate, and it meant they would not be paid $89 million unless they could come up with good answers. I am sure they realized that.

$89 million is important to Rossi. If he had answers, he would have given them.

Also, this not lawyer speak. This is what any engineer would ask. Or anyone with technical knowledge. As I said, I thought of most of these questions when I reviewed the sample data.

Quote from Rigel

Jed you put your self out there with the NDA stuff.

I never, ever reveal anything under an NDA. I have hundreds of unpublished papers and papers that I am now editing. I have never said one word about them, and I never will. I am in the computer business, after all.

If I revealed something, you can be darn sure I had permission.

Quote from Shane D.

Well, maybe you should do some reading Jed? Very little there at BE's site, and what it took for you to compose your post, you could have informed yourself.

I attended their lectures, read their poster, and had a couple of pizza meals with them. I am not impressed by their claims. I don't say they are wrong, but I am not impressed. So I don't feel like going to the trouble to read the web site.

When I last looked at the web site, it had some numbers that did not seem to add up. I told them but they did not respond. It also had a photo of a conventional gas-fired furnace which they purloined from another web site, with the face plate changed to "Brillouin." I located the original image with a Google image search. I was not impressed by that.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Exhibit 5 is literally the sketchiest exhibit of them all. Who wrote it?

Murray.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Rossi knew IH wasn't going to pay long before these questions were ever asked, and answering them would have likely made no difference.

They knew this by ESP? Clairvoyance? They knew that a company that had given them $11 million already, and that had bent over backwards to replicate and cooperate would suddenly and inexplicably not pay, even though the product -- if real -- is worth hundreds of billions of dollars?

Only on Planet Rossi!

Quote from IH Fanboy

But I'd be willing to bet a bottom dollar that after he received such questions, there was no doubt in his mind that IH had turned on him, and that providing answers outside of a legal proceeding was probably not in his best interests.

Those questions are perfectly reasonable. I and many other people immediately came up with most of them after examining Rossi's data. Not answering them was a violation of contract. Anyone could see that without good answers, no sane people would pay the $89 million. The choice was to answer them with viable, believable reasons to clear up the problems, or to get nothing. Since Rossi had no answers, he decided to sue instead. That was a mistake. Big mistake. He sued the wrong people this time.

Quote from axil

What you are implying is that the ERV and NI engineers intentionally defeated the flow meters and become co-conspirators in a fraud.

The ERV has to do with Rossi, not Defkalion. The NI engineers bailed out and went home before the fraud and the ICCF demo described by Gamberale. They had nothing to do with the fraud, and nothing to do with Defkalion after the place began to stink.

Quote from axil

All the "FACTS" that you expect people to believe come from unnamed sources.

No, I told you where most of them come from: Rossi himself. You don't believe that, but they do. You can confirm that now with Exhibit 5. As I said, if the claims made in that letter were false, Rossi and Penon would have said so, and they would have collected $89 million. They didn't respond. Their actions prove that the letter is right. It tells you the same things I told you, and Rossi told you in his interview with Lewan. I tell you; I.H. tells you in their court filing; Rossi tells you -- but you still don't believe it. And you accuse me of using "unnamed sources" when I gave you my source again and again! You are in deep denial. Hiding from reality. Living in a dream world of your own making, impervious to facts, evidence and logic. You are mesmerized by Rossi and his never-ending stream of lies.

Quote from IH Fanboy

But history is full of heroes whose families abandoned them.

History is also full of criminals and frauds whose families abandoned them. That probably happens more often than heroes being abandoned. So, being abandoned by one's family is no indication that Rossi is right, or that he is a hero. If that's what you are thinking.

Quote from axil

How can I ask them if I don't know who they are?

You are a know-it-all who knows all kinds of unknowable things. I am sure you will have no difficulty finding those people. I have their business cards. You often feel you can read people's minds, so go ahead and read my mind, or remote view my desk. It should be a mere bagatelle for a man with your abilities!

Plan B is even easier. You often just make up shit and then claim it is real because you just said it. Okay, so make up some names, call them on the phone, and ask them why they bailed on Defkalion. That should work. That's the "Harold and the Purple Crayon" approach.

Quote from IH Fanboy

So, can we take your interpretation of these facts to be as good as gold? Just like the temperature data?

Not my interpretation. This is straight from the horse's mouth: from Rossi himself. From his data, past and present.

You can be sure that is true because this is what Exhibit 5 says (if you read between the lines a little). Rossi never answered that. He would have earned $89 million for answering it. You can be damn sure that if he had any reasonable, believable answers, he would have produced them rather than filing a lawsuit a few months later. He never answered, and Penon skedaddled back to Italy. Their actions speak louder than words. Their actions prove that every word of Exhibit 5 is true.

If you could disprove that document and get paid $89 million for doing it, would you or would you not disprove it?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

exactly 32000 kg/d for the month of July. Every day, dead nuts on the rounded number. How does that make you feel about your hero Frank?

(maybe that was supposed to be 36000...)

There is confusion because, as Rossi explained to Lewan, he arbitrarily reduced the flow rate by 10%, down to 32,400 kg. I have no idea what justification he had for doing that, but he did. The interview says: "He also insisted that an arbitrary chosen 10 percent should be subtracted in the power calculation, with no other reason than to be conservative." (That's not actually conservative. It's just nutty.)

So, anyway, the data tables show both numbers. I think most of his COP calculations use 32,400 kg.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

And don't be confused when you see 103.9C for every single steam temp measurement for March and April 2015

I believe that part is right. Temperatures were mysteriously similar in places. You almost get a sense that someone got tired of adding data and just started pressing ctrl-V. But they wouldn't do that, would they? I mean, if someone was going to pay you $89 million for a project, would you stuff the report with fake data? Of course not.

(Answer: If you were Rossi, you would!)

Quote from frankwtu

Jed

I quoted directly from Brillouin's website. I have no idea how true the claims are.

Do you mean their website claims that McKubre endorsed them? Would you mind pointing me to the exact page?

I know little about Brillouin or their claims, and I have not read their website, so I cannot comment. I did discuss this with McKubre. He did not endorse their claims. He did say the claims are interesting.

If the Brillouin's website says he endorsed them, I will tell him. I expect Brillouin will have some 'splaining to do.

Quote from Wyttenbach

JED: The only relevant person is Penon the ERV!

Nope. After they prove that it was fraud, there was no machine and no heat in the pretend customer site, the only role Penon will play will be in an orange suit in jail with the others. His fake report will never see the light of day. You cannot use a fake report to try to defraud people and then present that report as evidence.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Pressure "0" is pressure above atmospheric pressure and is completely correct.

No, that is not what it said. It said 0.0 bar, meaning a vacuum. But that was a later version. The earlier versions of the data had the actual pressure, which was high enough to ensure that was water, not steam. That's why they erased the figures and stuffed in "0.0" instead. Oh so clever!

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

but if Dameron added any ideas to that Lugano design, that was legitimate (and this was all specifically allowed in the Agreement).

If Dameron added any ideas, his name must be included in the application, or the application will be voided. You are not allowed to leave out any names, even for trivial contributions. My name is included in a (failed) patent application because I made a small suggestion adding to it. I had to sign an intimidating form.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Please can You stop this bullshit???

1: Provide us a proof that the flow-meter You mention was in fact used.

It is right there in Exhibit 5! That has to be the flow meter. If it were not, Rossi and Penon would have responded to I.H. telling them the real flow meter, and explaining the confusion. They would have been paid $89 million for doing that, so I am sure they would have.

This was before the lawsuit, don't forget. There was still time for them to convince I.H. All they had to do was answer the questions in Exhibit 5 in a convincing way to end the misunderstandings.

They did not respond at all. If I told you: you get $89 million for answering some questions and clearing up some confusion, would you respond? I think so! Why didn't they respond? Because everything in the letter is true, the problems are real, and they had no valid response. So they filed suit instead. I guess they are hoping to bamboozle a jury.

Quote from axil

Who gave you this information about the NI engineers...let's name names.

Let's not. You can take or leave it. Or ask them yourself.

Quote from axil

However, if you are going to question the design of the instrumentation setup as fraudulent, then you should know who setup the meters.

Defkalion set up the meters. But the fraud was not in the meters. It was in the configuration of the flow, and the induced backflow. The meters had nothing to do with it, although they did reveal the problem to McKubre and other sharp observers.

If you think the meters had anything to do with it, you do not understand what happened. You should read Gamberale.

Quote from axil

Would NI test designers allow a bad flow meter setup to get through to contaminate your experiments?

When the NI test designers saw this setup, they said it was full of problems, and they refused to work with Defkalion any more. They cut off the relationship. The bad flow meter problem was not their problem, because they pulled out long before the ICCF demonstration.

Quote from axil

If you saw how the flow meter can be subjected to such misinformation, misinterpretation, and functional underestimation, would you not question how the same tactics might have been used to steal the IP of another inventor . . .

I understand how you can deliberately set up a flowmeter or some other instrument to produce fake data, and an exaggerated COP. I understand how you can accidentally set up instruments to give the wrong answer, because I have done that myself.

I cannot begin to imagine how you could use a bad flow meter to steal IP. How would that work? Does the flow meter reach out into someone's computer and abscond with the information? What you say makes no sense. Bad instruments give bad results. They do not magically "steal IP."

Quote from THHuxley

But, what you have said now of the methodology used, would not suffice to remove these objections.

I only gave a thumbnail description of one aspect of one paper. There is much more! You cannot expect me to give a complete presentation describing why this objection has been removed. That would take weeks of careful study. I am not exaggerating.

Quote from THHuxley

The methodology you suggest, with deliberate leaks showing large He, in no way precludes the possibility of a different leak mechanism leading to smaller leaks.

To make a long story short, Miles shows that such a small leak is physically impossible. Data produced from leaks of all sorts can be characterized and recognized. The slowest, smallest possible leak is helium coming through glass. This was measured, carefully, and accounted for. Plus he switched over to stainless steel flasks.

Along the same lines, it has been suggested that tritium in some cells was caused by tritium leaking in from the outside from reactors at Los Alamos, or by deliberately adding tritium to cells (sabotage, or fraud). To answer that, Ed Storms at LANL deliberately added tritium to cells. The profile this produced was completely different from production within the cell by cold fusion. It was easily recognizable. He also showed that tritium levels at Los Alamos would have to be extremely high for the tritium to enter the cell from the outside on its own. Tritium levels would be so high, in fact, they would trigger the radiation alarms and the building would have to be permanently abandoned.

I have only touched on the subject. To the point is the researchers thought about these things carefully and described them extensively. I mean in hundreds of pages of boring papers. You have to read these papers carefully before you begin to critique them. You cannot just wave your hand and say "maybe the helium leaked in." Nope. That did not happen. That was carefully ruled out.

Quote from Eric Walker

There appears to have been zero effort to persuade IH of anything about the results Rossi was getting, aside from leaving open a vague question about the outcome, obscured by all of the silliness in measurement.

Yes, I get that impression. That is what hit me when I examined the sample data. (Which you have now all seen, more or less. It is just the 36,000 kg flow rate, 0.0 bar pressure, and temperatures around 102°C varying by a few degrees.)

As I said here, my first response was, "is this supposed to be a joke?!?" I could not believe he was trying to put something over I.H. with such a crude fake. It did not seem like it would fool anyone. Many of problems described in Exhibit 5 were apparent from his own data! It is as if he were trying to sell a house made of papier-mâché.

Maybe he is hoping he can fool a jury? That is the only hypothesis I can come up with.

Rossi's psychology is a mystery to me. He has collected a great deal of money so I guess he knows how to con people. It is even possible at times he knew how to make excess heat. I cannot rule that out.

Quote from IH Fanboy

You know as well as I that he will be asked this question. And how will he respond? Well?

He will respond by saying something along the lines of: "the 36,000 kg entered every day are approximate values."

I suppose he will. The next questions might be:

Why was this value shown on days when your log shows the reactor was turned off and there was no flow at all?

Why was there always 1 MW of heat shown on days when the reactor was turned off, or half turned off?

They would not be so easy for Rossi to evade. Some of these questions have already been raised in Exhibit 5. Rossi and Penon did not respond. I take that to mean they have no valid response. Remember, this was before Rossi filed suit. If they had a valid response they would have been paid $89 million. That is a strong motivation to come up with good reasons for the apparent discrepancies. Examples:

"At different points in time during the assumed 350 operational days of the “test” you were measuring, a number of the reactors were turned off (apparently for repair). At even more points in time, different units within the reactors were either turned off or simply disabled. Yet there does not appear to be any impact on the mass flow rate in the system. How is that a credible outcome?"

"Your reports do not account for these substantial variations. There is no explanation as to how the energy output at times increased or stayed constant during periods when a substantial number of the units were inoperable and/or the average power supply into the system was decreased. There is also no explanation as to how other variables, such as the flow rate, were not impacted in an expected manner by changes in the number of operating units."

There is lots more to come! Many, many more unanswered and unanswerable questions.