Posts by JedRothwell

Hank Mills wrote: "I could accept that the steam may not have been 100% dry, but where is the evidence that it was 100% wet?"

From the data he gave, you can compute the temperature was ~100.1 deg C. Just over boiling. Dan21 and others noted this. If the pressure is a little above 1 atm, that would be hot water. It seems likely the pressure is higher than 1 atm. It does not take much pressure to raise the boiling point:

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

Or if the temperature measurement is a little high, that would mean it is hot water.

There are other indications in the data pointing to hot water which were not revealed by Rossi in the interview, so I cannot discuss them.

Keieueue wrote: "About calorimetry: there are a lot of posters who don't agree with your conclusion, and they're not rossi fanboys either."

Name one. Who are these posters you talk of? What have they said? How have they demonstrated that Rossi's own data does not prove Rossi is wrong?

Where are the analyses?

Perhaps you are saying there are many people such as yourself who apparently know nothing about calorimetry, who have not looked at the numbers, who have not made a single technical assertion about anything, and who do not even understand why it is necessary to examine the ventilation equipment in the customer site. Yes, there are such people, and yes, they disagree with me. But they have no reason to disagree with me. They have no scientific basis for what they say. They are merely spouting nonsense they heard from Rossi. So they don't count.

Also, the absurd excuses why Rossi blocked the door to the customer offered by you and others are not persuasive. To say the least. If you actually believe that stuff, you are extremely gullible.

Monty wrote, addressed to someone: "But why is this trial you are talking about important to you?
Is there any involvement you have in this trial?"

If that message is to me, the answers are:

1. The trial is not important to me. I hope I.H. files overwhelming proof that Rossi is a fraud, and they call the trial off. I don't need a trial to determine Rossi is lying. His own data and his statements are proof of that.

2. I have no involvement whatever.

Keieueue wrote: "A lot of hearsay facts don't make"

I don't need any trail. I have all the proof I need. I was sure there was no equipment in the room. Rossi's information told me that already.

As I said, you can confirm there is no heat from the numbers Rossi gave in his interview. You don't need any verification from me.

I wouldn't call that hearsay. I don't understand why you do not believe Rossi himself in this case. Okay, the data he quoted might be fake. But I doubt it, because why would he hand out numbers that prove he is wrong? I suppose he did that inadvertently.

You won't take information from me. You won't take data from Rossi. You will not accept my analysis and you refuse to do your own analysis. In short, you refuse to look at any facts, or think for yourself. The only thing you seem capable of is regurgitating Rossi's absurd nonsense and his lies. Rossi's own words and data prove this is nonsense and lies, but you don't see that, because you don't think. Or because you do not know how to do junior high school level calorimetry.

Monty asks: "But IH agreed to all of this."

Did they? Where did you hear this? I wouldn't know anything about what they agreed to. The only thing I know is they disagreed with Rossi and Penon's calorimetry.

"Why?"

You tell me! You know more about the agreements than I do. Either that, or you are making up stuff.

"And how did you become the advocate of IH lately?"

I told you. I made that quite clear. I have a sample of Rossi's calorimetry. The same sample he quoted in the Lewan interview, only I have somewhat more detail. I analyzed the data. I am not an expert by any means, but I am capable of doing this. I agree with I.H.'s analysis that there could not be 1 MW and there is probably no heat at all. It is a difficult for me to evaluate this because the data and methods are terrible, the mistakes enormous, and error margin is huge.

I gather I.H. has better data than I do, so I expect they are right there is no heat.

In short, I am not an advocate of I.H. so much as I am quite sure Rossi is wrong, based on his data, his words, and his analysis. However, based on this alone, I cannot tell whether he is stupid or a fraud. To judge that, I looked at the other thing he said during the interview, which was that the I.H. expert insisted on seeing the customer facility, but Rossi did not let him. The only conceivable reason he did that was to cover up a fraud.

I know that any sane expert would demand access to the facility. In a conventional boiler efficiency test, you must test the ventilation system, and measure its performance. An HVAC engineer who fails to do that would lose his license. If there were an accident, he would be criminally negligent. Rossi and Penon's assertion that this is "not necessary" is a lie. A ridiculous lie anyone with knowledge of HVAC can see through.

There are now reports that I.H. and others have seen the facility, and found no equipment or ventilation capable of removing 1 MW. This is additional proof, but it was already obvious there could not be. This, you might say, is mere icing on the cake, or the final nail in the coffin (to mix metaphors), but I am sure it will be helpful in a trial.

Keieueue wrote: "Still waiting on that source about IH people seeing the facility which had no equipment"

Okay, I guess you do not speak language after all. I said, "I expect you will have to wait for the trial. Or you can look at the calorimetry numbers Rossi gave in the Lewan interview, and figure it out for yourself." You even quoted me, but apparently you do not understand what a trial is, or how to compute the answers for yourself.

Maybe it is English you don't understand. Let me repeat that in Japanese:

裁判まで待たなければわからないでしょうね、坊や。でもインタビューの数字とデーターを分析したら、自分で分かると思いますよ。人に頼らず、少し自分で考えたらどうでしょうか？

Monty wrote: "Please tell me where Rossi buys his imprecise and inacurate instruments. I wonder who is producing and marketing these"

I suppose he got them the same places he got the instruments in all of his previous tests, especially the public demonstration described by Lewan and others. In those tests he had the wrong kinds of instruments, installed incorrectly, without calibration or testing. Most of those instruments did not even record data, and with one that did, he refused to install an SD card. In the test he did for the people from NASA, the outlet was plugged up and the reactor nearly exploded. His instruments were so bad he could not even see that was happening! Jim Dunn had to point out to him that there was steam coming out of the welded seams. He did not even have an emergency pressure relief valve in that reactor. This is not just unprofessional and irresponsible. It is suicidal.

Given that track record, it is no surprise he screwed up this test. His previous tests were garbage on the kilowatt scale. This was too, only the mistakes were so bad, he overestimated the heat by a factor of 50, mainly by confusing hot water for steam, as you yourself can see from his numbers.

The instruments themselves are not to blame. They are industrial grade. But -- as you saw in all of his previous tests -- when you install the wrong instruments in the wrong configuration and you do no calibration or testing, you get the wrong answer. I was hoping that for once he would do things right, but alas he did not.

Monty wrote: "I have the feeling this thread is just for throwing dirt. No useful infomation is presented here. What about sticking more to the facts and not insulting each other so much?"

I have better idea. Why don't you look at what Rossi said, take the numbers he gave, and do the math yourself? You will see that he couldn't possibly have 1 MW, and he probably has no excess heat at all. You don't need to debate or ask questions of us. Rossi himself has given you proof that he is wrong.

He has also given you proof that he is a fraud. There is no other plausible reason why he would refuse to let I.H. see the customer facility. If the claim were real, he would want to show the facility. His calorimetry showed no excess heat, as I am sure the I.H. expert told him. The only way to convince the expert would be to show him the 1 MW equipment and ventilation.

Keieueue wrote: "Way to contradict yourself and obfuscate stuff"

What do you mean? My statements were quite clear.

"Has IH personnel seen the customer's fan, or not?"

Do you speak language? I said, "I.H. people and others have now seen the customer facility."

"And still waiting for the source of info stating that the customer had no equipment there"

I expect you will have to wait for the trial. Or you can look at the calorimetry numbers Rossi gave in the Lewan interview, and figure it out for yourself. You will see that if there is equipment it cannot be using more than ~10 kW.

oystla wrote: "Please, your statement above is, excuse my expression, but pure BS. Any chemical processing plants needs better accuracy of measurements than your figures above, and including MW reactors."

Chemical plants may need better accuracy. I wouldn't know about that. If they need better accuracy, they must pay a lot more for the instruments than an HVAC engineer does, or than Rossi did. I was talking about boiler efficiency measured with conventional instruments during inspections and during operation. Ask any HVAC engineer, or see:

http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/…ler-efficiency-guide.aspx

Rossi's instruments and methods are extremely imprecise and inaccurate. He did not measure most of the parameters you listed, as far as I can tell, and the ones he did measure are wrong.

Thomas Clarke wrote: "I've read your comments on the major USNCL players conspiring here but think you neglect the evidence of SPECT activity. The world cannot be safe when major moneyed interests are in bed with REAPOL, WONC, and SPERNIK. Why do you think all those engaged in SNAPPERNOT activity have hidden identities?"

USNCL? SPECT? REAPOL???? You had me going there until I found that WONC is a radio station at North Central College, in Naperville, IL. You just made that up!

Spernik was "a member of the Cult of the Dragon in Phlan during the Tyranny of Dragons." So, okay, that may be true. And relevant!

I get the part about SNAPPERNOT. I really do.

Hank Mills wrote: "Even if at some point only a radiator and fan were present, this doesn't mean that at other times the heat wasn't use to produce hot water to make metal sponges."

The radiator and fan are much too small to remove 1 MW of waste heat.

If I understand correctly, there is nothing else there. No equipment.

"My thinking is that the operation would be pretty simple. At any time a barrel of chopped up bars of nickel and aluminum along with water and chemicals could be sealed up . . ."

Equipment that consumes 1 MW of process heat is never "simple." It is large and dangerous. You have to put it in factory zoned building, and you have to have a staff of trained operators. You have to inform the state of Florida that is what you are doing, and the equipment has to be regularly tested and certified. This company is registered as a chemical distribution warehouse. If they are manufacturing chemicals with large machines, they are violating many laws.

Anyway, that is not happening. There is no equipment. The heat released is less then 20 kW, not 1 MW. There is hot water circulating, not steam. It is all a stupid, inept scam. Rossi's statement that I.H. was not allowed into the customer site proved that.

Dan21 wrote: "Forgive me if this information was already posted, but I do not see a system pressure number for the 350 day IH demo run. I have seen 100.1 C temp posted, but no pressure. If this temp is correct and the pressure 3 atm, then there was no steam and no heat of vaporization. . . ."

Correct! You do not see the pressure because Rossi does not want to talk about it. This is hot water, not steam. That eliminates most of the apparent excess heat. Some other errors in calorimetry eliminate the rest.

At least, I am pretty sure it is hot water, and it would be easy to check, but Rossi did not check as far as I can tell.

Keieueue asks: "What is the first occurrence of this info on the internet?"

How the hell would I know? Am I Google?

oystla wrote: "The method was not my point. You referred to 10% accuracy. No sane engineers would use that kind of accuracy of instrumentation when evaluating a claim of energy production . . ."

They all do. Industrial instrumentation and methods are about 5% to 10% accurate. See the lookup tables here, for example:

http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/…ler-efficiency-guide.aspx

Look at the divisions in Fig. and Table 1. See also ASME guidebooks and laws governing boilers in Florida.

"And If IH openly went into a contract with this kind of accuracy, then Shame on them."

That is the best accuracy you can achieve with a megawatt scale reactor, using conventional instruments and techniques. Probably NASA could do better with a billion dollar facility.

Jed: "I know what the ERV used. The instruments and methods were crap. "

Well, and this is what IH calls "due diligence", and what they Signed off on, haha ?

Whether I.H. performed due diligence or not has no bearing on the calorimetry. The calorimetry is very poorly done. That is what I am saying. I have not discussed due diligence. I know nothing about the contracts or business arrangements between I.H. and Rossi.

oystla wrote: "Please, seriously, in this case measurements where not done for "safety", but to certify a claim."

The methods are exactly the same. A safety inspection includes a measure of the performance (COP) of a boiler.

Various other things are also checked during a safety inspection, such as the emergency off switch, and the vent or chimney.

"Commercial Pressure and temperature transmitters can be accurate down to less than 0,1% of range If required. It all depends on what was specified and what ERV used."

I know what the ERV used. The instruments and methods were crap.

Keieueue wrote: ". . . since the customer did not gave access to his process-, do not take more heat than baking a cake- IH people have seen the customer facility which they don't have access to -or did not have-, and there is nothing there"

You have a positive genius for misunderstanding. I said that industrial endothermic processes all produce mostly waste heat. Food preparation is a widespread, typical endothermic process. Baking a cake is an example of that. If you have baked a cake, you will know that very little heat is absorbed by the process.

"IH people have seen the customer facility which they don't have access to -or did not have-, and there is nothing there"

I.H. people and others have now seen the customer facility. They now know there is nothing but a radiator and fan.

oystla wrote: "OK,There are two ways of proving the Roosi 1MW e-cat claim."

No, there are several other methods, such as measuring the ventilation heat loss in the customer facility. All methods should be used. In fact, all methods MUST be used in a safety inspection, which has to be conducted on a regular basis by a licensed HVAC engineer. You have to test the boiler, the industrial equipment, and ventilation equipment. The methods and instruments in these tests are described in detail in the laws. Rossi's calorimetry violates these laws. It is ridiculous.

"Either Properly measure what goes in and out of the e-cat plant."

Which Rossi has not done.

"Flowrates, pressures, temperatures and steam quality will tell you excactly the power level."

No, this is not exact. It is within about 10% as you see in the worksheets and instrument specifications in the inspection laws. It is not exact, but it is precise enough to ensure safety.

"With the above you don't need to know what produced heat fluid is used for."

Yes, you do. No sane expert would fail to confirm what the heat is used for. No state inspector or licensed HVAC engineer would fail to confirm this. The state would revoke his license. It would be criminal negligence. You have to be sure the boiler, the equipment and ventilation is up to code and working correctly. An I.H. expert assigned to confirm the claim would also have to confirm the heat flow at every stage.

"Alternatively: Properly measure the use of the fluid from the e-cat plant."

Both steps must be taken.

"But The overall easiest way to prove the E-cat plant power level would be to just let the produced steam condense by heating a water stream."

Which Rossi did not do, as far as I can tell.

Monty asks: "To me it feels like there was a point after which no other opinion about Rossi but that he is a con artist is valid for you."

That is correct.

"When was this point?"

It came about in stages.

I have seen a sample of his calorimetry. It is garbage. It is either fraud or grotesque incompetence. You have to look at other factors to decide which it is.

The Lewan interview revealed other factors. The most important was Rossi's announcement that the I.H. expert insisted on seeing the customer facility, but Rossi did not allow this. As I said, there is no reason to do that except to hide the facts. I knew that the calorimetry is so bad, the only way an expert could confirm anything is to examine the equipment and ventilation in the customer facility, as I have explained above. Rossi's own data proves there cannot be 1 MW of excess heat, but his error margin is huge, and his methods and instruments are crude, so you cannot rule out some slight excess.

The interview also confirmed that my data is from Rossi. He quoted the same numbers I have. The data was not invented by I.H. If you carefully analyze the numbers he gave Lewan, you see he cannot have 1 MW.

Experts told me they did additional analyses that showed no excess heat. I have not seen details. Anyway, that is why I.H. announced they could not substantiate the results.

Finally, as Dewey noted, third-party experts have now gained access to the customer facility, and confirmed there is no equipment, no ventilation, and there cannot be a 1 MW heat release. The overall heat release in Rossi's facility and the fake customer facility is about the same as input energy, meaning there is no excess heat. Since Rossi was often in the fake customer facility, obviously he knew that all along.

I consider all of this evidence enough to prove that Rossi was engaged in fraud. Actually, in my opinion, his refusal to allow the I.H. expert into the customer facility is all the proof you need. His own numbers from the interview show he did not have 1 MW, and his own words are tantamount to admitting he is a fraud. Bragging that he is a fraud, not just admitting it!

Monty wrote: "You obviously have no idea about what was going on there but you have a very distinct opinion about it. why?"

First, I do know what goes on in a chemical distribution warehouse. It does not call for 1 MW of process heat. Not even 10 kW, which is how much a dry cleaning shop uses. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. 1 MW is enough for a factory, such as a carpet mill. If this is not actually a chemical distribution warehouse, as listed with the state of Florida, the operators are in violation of the law. You cannot inform the authorities you are distributing chemicals and then instead of doing that, set up large industrial equipment to do something else. If you operate equipment that consumes 1 MW of process heat, the state has to be informed, and they have inspect the equipment and ventilation for safety on a regular basis.

I doubt this building is zoned for a 1 MW industrial process in any case.

Second, I know there is actually no equipment and no ventilation equipment at all, as noted by Dewey.

Third, I have some sample data and information about Rossi's calorimetry. It is ridiculous. It could not possibly indicate 1 MW of heat. Every indication is that the machine produced no excess heat. You can figure this out from the numbers Rossi himself quoted in the interview with Lewan, which are the same numbers in the sample I have analyzed, only I have somewhat more detail.