Sunday, June 12, 2016

JUNE 12, 2016 NO SYNTHESIS PARALYSIS IN LENR- THE SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE.

MOTTO

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.(Walt Whitman)

Image result for "really counts" quotesImage result for "really counts" quotes

DAILY NOTES


EDITORIAL

It is time to look to what really counts for the future of LENR

Everybody has a idea of what "analysis paralysis" is- see e.g.:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis. More than two month of unproductive, uninformed, ultra-hot confrontations of opposing certainties re the Rossi-IH dispute is something unprecedented even in the tragic history of LENR. It is actually a variant of analysis paralysis- but more harming is that it causes synthesis paralysis- we are not more able to develop a global, holistic view of the field- malign details kill the Whole.
As you could see, these days my opponent in the great dispute is Jed Rothwell who has strong arguments but is handicapped by his offensively/offending wording- regrettable for the level of discussions. Jed is accusing me- that I have "lost my perspective" however this means the I am listening to what Rossi says who is evil and deludes me and not what he (Jed) and IH says. I have to confess that I dislike much more what and how IH says and HOW it says than I like what Rossi says. Rossi's story has logic, consistency and continuity - a plausible R& D story of extremely difficult problem solving at multiple levels. About IH's story see a bit below- coming.

However Jed has eventually told something important that improves his story (not necessarily IH's):
"It was only when I.H. published their press release on March 10 that I knew the test had failed. That press release is here:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741 "

I am just a bit amazed how this Statement document had such an influence on Jed, when I read it my my first thought was that writing official statements is NOT a competitive advantage of Industrial Heat. It can be considered ththis part alludes to- what later become the total failure- zero excess heat story for the E-Cat and the 1MW plant:
"Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from both. Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of premature proclamations in the LENR sector."
In some contrast with:
"Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited about the potential we see." 
They knew then that the Rossi technology is a non-value - what could (and can) they add to it, with what can they replace it in order to have such a rich LENR processes portfolio?

They also say: "We have developed a group of LENR thought leaders, and we have built a world-class engineering team" OK, where was this group and this team while Rossi has performed his nonexistent and impossible, failed experiment for 352 days, why he was not stopped? How was this fine group and great team able to accept an incompetent ERV making flawed measurements with unsuitable instruments?
However I think now that this fiery activity to dwarf, annihilate the Rossi technology has as ataeget NOT Rossi (the divorce is irreversible) or the LAW (that can be slowed down with great expenses) but the Investors who see that IH has lost the licence to Rossi 's IP. What do you think, the 150 millions  came to IH due to the other wonderful part of IH's LENR portfolio
or to Rossi's technology now lost   Investors are fast, unfortunately, especially when angry..

Intermezzo- an appeal to LENR patriotism.

On the LENR Forum, in "my" thread- I am shown there to be Rossi's advocate Dewey Weaver and one follower of him played the sentimental string of their guitar and made appeal to my/our love of LENR- as if Rossi is outside it, an alien hostile force doing harm to the genuine good  LENR.

    Dewey Weaver wrote:
    Peter and supporters of Rossi - I'd like to ask that you think about the impact of the following regarding LENR research funding. Every single legal dollar that IH has to spend the Rossi litigation is one dollar removed from the LENR research cause. Rossi is on his 5th 1MW ruse since 2011 and has $11.5M in his bank account from IH while attempting to move to his next act. Knowing that, would you rather see the $5 to $7M in estimated legal expenses for a full-blown trial go to experts and lawyers or would that money be better utilized by LENR researchers?

    Real dollars - in your opinion, what is the best way to spend them?

    Dewey's follower, Stephenrenzz who considers me very biased- has added: 

    So very well said Dewey!!! I would also ask Peter (who I find deeply biased) and supporters of Rossi to consider how much collective brainpower and attention Rossi has stolen from the community that could have been redirected without this circus. While some good may have come from all the discussions regarding the circus, I believe the return versus what has been spent is definitely not warranted. When you go to a site like E-Scat World, you see an amazing amount of very intelligent people clinging on to a hope and a dream often with a charged anger at this point. You get the same sense of fear and anger that you do when talking to someone who has gone over the deep end speaking of things such as chemtrails and flat earth. While I believe this court case will most likely continue on for years. I do hope this circus will end one way or another sooner than later so we can at least get back to talking about reality than fantasy.

My answer:
Surely it is wonderful that IH wants to fund LENR research and in the Statement discussed above we have seen they have the group and team which can select the best LENR researchers who deserve this funding. 
Surely it is a stupid waste of money to pay legal expenses for a a difficult Trial instead of promoting LENR- awfully regrettable.
However the money comes very probably from the investments made due the Rossi Technology- we have no proof it is something other comparably with it in the strong portfolio. IH has arrived to LENR only via its relationship with Rossi, not meeting Rossi no funding then!
However the clue and the essence is this: this Trial could be avoided, if IH had been proceeded correctly in the frame of the story they are promoting now; as the Test has started in 2015 and they have seen in anger that there is NO EXCESS HEAT- break the contract and cease any relationship with Andrea Rossi, show to the world that the technology is not valid- finita la commedia! 

Obviously it is crystal clear in the very frame of the IH story, variant, of the facts that
IH has made a major strategic error by NOT taking the necessary decision, DIVORCE in time.
This is the cause of the sad situation with the reduced LENR funding. 

Apart to Stepphenrenzz do you remember the status and situation of LENR say on January 13, 2011? How could Rossi interrupt the triumphal march of the Rossiless 
LENR? He brought attention and funding (s this from IH) in the field.

THE FINALE

Short- please let's think what really counts for the future of LENR and what is actually at the stake?
Let's overcome the synthesis paralysis.

DAILY NEWS

1) From Lewis Larsen
“Powering the world to a green LENR future”
https://twitter.com/lewisglarsen/status/741092434889703424?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&refsrc=email


2) International Free Energy Congress- Munchen
http://freemensland.com/internationaler-freie-energie-kongress/
http://freemensland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/KongressFreieEnergie10.-11.09.16.pdf

3) From Rich Murray- full text 28 Holmlid references 2015

http://rmforall.blogspot.ro/2016/06/leif-holmlid-2015-free-full-text-28.html

4) Cold Fusion Now- Upcoming Events
http://coldfusionnow.org/

5) An other discussion thread:"Why wsas the 1-year test performed?
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3337-Why-was-the-one-year-test-performed/?postID=24237#post24237

6) And an other thread started by Hank Mills:
Fight for Replication -- Not Each Other


7) In Spanish: LENR un Salto Quantico en el are energetica por Nelson Hernandez

8) Is Today the DAY? (Tom Conover)
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/12/is-today-the-day-tom-conover/
AXIL'S COMMENTS

1- What does Rothwells phrase "caused more harm" mean? It means that since 2011, Rossi has acquired a large about of power and attention in the LENR community that is corrosive to the other major egos at work in the field of LENR. Rossi is unwilling to share his tech to allow others in the field to share in the current and forthcoming adulation that they believe that they rightly deserve. 

The feedback that Rossi gets from his friends is tainted by this animus to Rossi and being a trusting and loyal personality, Rothwell becomes a megaphone and focal point for the negative opinions that abound about Rossi throughout the LENR old guard.

I am concerned that Rothwell's good nature is being subverted by the FUD machine contracted by IH in the legal battle afoot between IH and Rossi. In this case, the fault must be placed on IH and their agents who are shamelessly taking advantage of the good nature and innocent weakness of a noble and fine man. 


2- In the legal battle between IH and Rossi, truth has taken a holiday. This court battle started 3 years ago when the two parties took the measure of each other. They were destined for a contentious divorce from the very start of their relationship.

Rossi's setup of this 1 year test was designed principally by Rossi to protect Rossi's interest's as informed by his previous misadventures with Defkalion and was never intended to be a fair demo of his reactor. 


AN IMPORTANT COMMENT BY ALAN FLETCHER SHOWING THE 1 MW PLANT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE.


Re: [Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation would be fatal

Alan Fletcher Sat, 21 May 2016 11:51:50 -0700

Back-of-the-envelope calculation 

I'm going to look at a column of air of volume V -- with area A ... and a 
height H sufficient to hold 
1-second's worth of 1MW of heat. This has to be vented in 1 second. 


1MW is 1000 kJ /second. 
Q = 1000 kJ in one second 

Specific heat of air at 100C is 1 kJ / (kg K) 
Density of air at 100C is r = 1kg/m^3 

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html 

Ambient air is 20C, heated air is 100C dK = 80 

Q = S * dK * M 


Mass = 1kg * r * V = r * V 

Q = S * dK * r * V 

Solve for V : 

V = Q / ( S * dK * r ) = 1000 / ( 1. * 80 * 1.) 
= 12.5 m^3 per SECOND 
= 750 m^3 per MINUTE 

= 26,486 CFM (Cubic Feet per Minute) 


Re: [Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation would be fatal

Alan Fletcher Sat, 21 May 2016 13:40:48 -0700

The roof has one circular roof fan at the left, and a rectangular box at the 
other. 

Presuming that the manufacturing area was was adjacent to JM's offices (on the 
left) the left-most circular fan vents the manufacturing area. 

Heres the fan : http://lenr.qumbu.com/steampics/160521_fans_01.jpg ( 7 pixels) 
And a small car (6 feet wide). 
http://lenr.qumbu.com/steampics/160521_fans_02.jpg (10 pixels) 

That gives the diameter of the fan as about 50 inches. 

Here's a 32,000 CFM roof fan that fits (49 inch outside diameter) : 
http://www.industrialfansdirect.com/IND-FA-R-B/LFI-RD42T3750CM.html 

Conclusion : allowing for heat loss through the ceiling, 1MW can be safely dissipated by a fan of this size. 


LENR IN CONTEXT-1


Light is information's new friend: 100x increase in amount of information 'packed into light'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160610094431.htm



Ask Ethan: Is There Really Evidence For A New, Fifth Force? (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/1554486da196ac55

How creating defective nanodiamonds could revolutionize nanotechnology and quantum computing


LENR IN CONTEXT-2

How to Adopt the Innovative Mindset

34 comments:

  1. Update the post with this:

    https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg109917.html

    The circulating water amounted to 36m^3/day, which gives ~0.41l/s, that's 410g/s. 1g of water needs 4.1J/g to increase 1C, so that quantity of water absorbed ~1700W for every C. Water entered at 60C, so, we have that the liquid part absorbed ~70kW. The latetent heat of water, assuming, 1 atm, is ~2.3MJ/kg. So, 410g/s of water can absorb ~930kW by completely vaporizing.

    So, we have that an amazing coincidence 1MW (~70kW + ~930) is nearly *exactly* what is needed to vaporize the flux in the circuit. Water has 18g/mol and 1 mol of steam gives 22.5l. We have 512l/s of steam out of the heater. The machine has the dimensions of 20x3x3m^3=180m^3 or 180,000l. There can be probably space for cooling. I'd use water street to cool it down (and heat the building, for example) and fans to cool the room. Otherwise, probably the water is high pressurized and bubbling.

    What I had in mind that, since this is a close loop, nearly at 100C, it might become a self regulating mechanism, pressure rises, less steam is formed, pressure decreases, more steam is formed, pressure rises, and so on.

    It kind of eases explosion issues if some reactors have run away reactions.

    And it keeps the transfered energy mroe ore less constant. Water has a lower speed in tubes, so more heat exchanging surfce.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Andrea Rossi
    June 12, 2016 at 9:34 AM
    Julian Becker:
    Will be interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    Frank Acland
    June 12, 2016 at 8:17 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    Does the conclusion of the current test signal the end of the preliminary R&D phase for the QuarkX?
    Many thanks,
    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    June 12, 2016 at 9:34 AM
    Frank Acland:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    julian_becker
    June 12, 2016 at 9:11 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    Can we expect a very important announcement from you today?
    Has the test been a success?

    Best regards from sunny Mauritius
    Julian Becker

    Nicolas
    June 12, 2016 at 3:13 AM
    Dear Andrea:
    About theoretical issues: are there for the QuarkX clear ideas about the theoretical roots of its operation ?
    Regards,
    Nick

    Andrea Rossi
    June 12, 2016 at 7:55 AM
    Nicolas:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    K,S.
    June 11, 2016 at 10:17 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Will we have news about the QuarkX test tomorrow, as you promised ?

    Andrea Rossi
    June 12, 2016 at 7:55 AM
    K.S.:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You wrote: "I am just a bit amazed how this Statement document had such an influence on Jed . . ."

    This statement had no influence on me. I knew many months beforehand that there were problems with Rossi's test. I was hoping the problems would be fixed, but when this statement was issued, I saw they had not been. I did not suddenly decide the test was invalid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, ut please re-read what you have told.
      WHEN had you got the certainty that the test is invalid?
      peter

      Delete
    2. Peter Gluck asked: "WHEN had you got the certainty that the test is invalid?"

      March 10, 2016, when they published this statement:

      http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741

      Many months before that I heard the test was not going well. I knew there were problems with it. I could see it was invalid then. But I sincerely hoped that Rossi would fix the problems. That is why I signed up for Mats Lewan's symposium.

      The last status report I heard was several months before the test ended. Rossi still had time to fix the problems then. But he never did.

      Delete
  4. If I.H. is/was so concerned with the direction and progress of LENR why didn't they help Rossi with his incorrect instrumentation and improper measurements. I read the contract and as far as I can determine both I.H. and Rossi were responsible for suggesting changes to improve the outcome of the 1 year test while it was in progress. It seems the only communication that was given to Rossi, at least during the first 6 months, was that everything was working wonderfully, while apparently communicating to everyone else that the test was a disaster. I know it's been asked many times before, why didn't they stop the test at least after the first month rather than let it continue? Why didn't they tell Rossi the instrument were improper? Why didn't the tell him his measurements and or calculations were incorrect? It has been said I.H. was letting the test run hoping Rossi would apparently find the problems on his own. Where was the communication? It's all just too unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert Dorr wrote: "It seems the only communication that was given to Rossi, at least during the first 6 months, was that everything was working wonderfully, while apparently communicating to everyone else that the test was a disaster."

      Where on earth did you get this information?!? That is completely wrong.

      Oh wait. Let me guess. Rossi said that. Right?

      Delete
    2. Jed,
      I don't understand this compulsion to insult and demean people whose opinion may be slightly different from yours. I also don't understand your compulsion to respond with sarcastic and ignorant comments, which completely IGNORE some of the legitimate questions people have regarding the relationship between Rossi and IH. I'm sure that IH can speak for itself, and so we don't really need your constant "spin" and repetition, especially since Robert Dorr's question regarding why IH didn't stop the test wasn't addressed to you. Instead of confirming in our minds that you have inside knowledge regarding the test it makes you sound desperate!

      Delete
    3. Robert Dorr did not ask a question. He stated as a fact that " "It seems the only communication that was given to Rossi, at least during the first 6 months, was that everything was working . . ."

      That is wrong. I.H. told Rossi many times that it was not working. Anyone would tell him that. The problems were obvious.

      Delete
    4. So IH knew about mistakes for a long time. They still kept paying the ERV and did not stop the whole thing, despite Rossi doing nothing to fix the situation. This is totally possible (people can be lazy), but it does put IH in a very bad light, especially considering that they showed this to investors in order to get money. Or is this not true? We only have Rossi's word for it. Maybe you can shine a light on this part.

      Delete
    5. kleines please note:

      At some point in the middle of the test - IH offered rossi to stop the test and pay him part of the 89 Million dollars the promised to give if test is successful (and in that case they will keep their license rights). Rossi refused and made a _counter offer_: he will pay back the 11.5 millions dollars he got, stop the test, and _cancel their licence. IH refused to Ross's counter offer.

      I believe that Rossi has documented these offers and will submit them to court if necessary. The argument "only Rossi says" will be rejected then (based on these documents). If this is what happened (and documented) the claim of Rothwell about "disaster in test" is not credible: why IH will refuse to cancel the test and the license which worth nothing because test failed ("disater"). IH behavior does not make any sense.

      About the offer of IH to "correct" the test methods, it seems to not credible. They have no serious experience in that area, they are laymen; Rossi and the ERV Penon do have the experience. Moreover: from the moment they agree that Penon will be ERV they have no right to "correct" him him or force him how to do his job. The authority of ERV is like the authority of a judge: his decisions are final (wether he is right or he is wrong).

      signed [hl]

      Delete
    6. Arnd's wrote: "So IH knew about mistakes for a long time . . ."

      Anyone would see the problems a few minutes after walking into the room.


      "They still kept paying the ERV and did not stop the whole thing, despite Rossi doing nothing to fix the situation. This is totally possible (people can be lazy), but it does put IH in a very bad light . . .

      I think it puts them in a good light. It shows they were willing to give Rossi every opportunity to fix the problems and do a proper test. They gave him many warnings over more than a year. While this was happening, they (and I) sincerely hoped that he would do a proper test following the specifications spelled out in the contract, but he never did.


      Anonymous wrote: "At some point in the middle of the test - IH offered rossi to stop the test and pay him part of the 89 Million dollars the promised to give if test is successful . . ."

      No, he did not. That is another Rossi lie.

      Delete
    7. Jed, did it ever occur to you that whomever has been feeding you information may not have been giving you correct data, or if correct data, only the data that supports their position and not the whole picture. I think your distaste for Rossi has clouded your ability to look objectively at the subject.

      Delete
    8. Robert Dorr wrote: "Jed, did it ever occur to you that whomever has been feeding you information may not have been giving you correct data, or if correct data . . .

      I am quite sure it is correct data because Rossi quoted the same numbers in his interview with Lewan, and he described the same configuration with the pipe going to the hidden customer site.

      Plus I have other proof this data came from him, from sources independent of I.H.

      You and Peter Gluck have no ability to look at this situation subjectively or objectively. You have no data. You have no idea why I concluded the test was a farce and there is no excess heat. Until you get a chance to review the data from the Penon report, and a chance to see what I.H. has to say about it, you have basis to judge this situation. Both of you should remain neutral and not take sides. You have absolutely no business saying that I am lying and Rossi is telling the truth. Given his many lies and deceptions, that is outrageous.

      Delete
    9. Jed, I have never called you or any one else a liar, as you have done. You apparently are the arbiter of truth. You say all I have is what "Rossi says", yet all you have is what you say, no proof other than documents and information that supposedly is in possession by you alone. You also say you are using information that Mats Lewan was given by Rossi, what information was that? Oh, I forgot you can't reveal it, but it's the same information. Mats says that the information he has allows him to conclude the opposite of what you say. I tend to beleive Mats. I don't consider Mats to be an ignorant person and I don't think you are ignorant either. He may be biased but he is one hell of a lot less biased than you. I might consider what you say a bit more, if you weren't so strident and mean spirited.

      Delete
    10. I did not say you are a liar. You stated as a fact that "It seems the only communication that was given to Rossi, at least during the first 6 months, was that everything was working . . ."

      That is incorrect. It does not "seem so" at all. No one would tell Rossi everything was working. That's absurd. Anyone who spent five minutes in the lab would see 5 or 6 drastic problems with the setup. It was a fiasco from the start, and Rossi made it worse by removing the steam trap and other instruments, in violation of the contract. The arrangement with the hot fluid going to the closed, hidden customer site was outrageous. It was an obvious, crude attempt to commit fraud.

      I did not say you are a liar. I said you are misinformed. I suppose you heard from Rossi that I.H. told him it was fine. If that is where you heard it, Rossi lied to you. He often lies.

      Delete
    11. You wrote: " Mats says that the information he has allows him to conclude the opposite of what you say."

      If Mats has seen the data, and he concludes the test was valid, he is an idiot. Anyone would believes the hidden customer site has an innocent explanation, and there is no reason why the I.H. expert insisted on seeing it, is an idiot. Anyone who believes the flow rate was exactly 36,000 liters per day is an idiot.

      You should believe the experts at I.H. instead of Mats. And you should believe me.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rossi is exceedingly talented at what he does. He promulgates fraud with aplomb.

    He has succeeded in gathering a corp of followers who have a religious zeal for the Savior A.R.

    His maine goal now is to keep the fraud alive and evade prosecution as he failed to do three times in Italy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You certainly expend a lot of energy denouncing someone that according to you has invented nothing and is producing nothing of value. Why do you feel you need to constantly convince anyone of anything, over and over again. As an apparently intelligent person, it doesn't become you.

      Delete
    2. Envy drives him.

      [hl]

      Delete
    3. Jed,
      the problem is at you, you are unble to explain, qualitatively, logically causally why do you give to a set of data the oposite interpretaion as the ER or Rossi.
      Implicitly this means that you are smarter than them.

      Just simply: they say... but I see that ...This manner to answer to Robert Dorr and me is not correct, not fair.
      Make an effort and explain logically what you disagree with in the original interpreatation.
      And please retrct what you have said about IH triyng to give Rossi all the chances after getting zero results, this is an offense to IH, a suicidal strategy letting a 94 million contrct functional despite a disastruous Test. They cannot be so autodestructive. Even accepting the test is valid and OK is better for the prestige of IH.
      peter

      Delete
    4. And the evidence is ???
      Envy and greed.

      Delete
  7. Peter Gluck wrote: "the problem is at you, you are unble to explain, qualitatively, logically causally why do you give to a set of data the oposite interpretaion as the ER or Rossi.
    Implicitly this means that you are smarter than them."

    Yes, evidently I am smarter than them. So are the experts from I.H. You have seen Rossi's previous tests. You know that he made sloppy, terrible mistakes. He almost killed Jim Dunn and the people from NASA. So, based on this, you know that just about anyone is smarter than Rossi.

    Dewey and I have given you many reasons why the test was absurd. If there was any back pressure from the pretend customer equipment, there was no steam, only hot water. There was no test of the steam. Rossi removed the steam trap. The flow rate was supposedly 36,000 liters per day, exactly, which is ridiculous. It was actually much smaller.

    The water went to the pretend customer site, cooled down, and came back. Without knowing what is in the customer site it is impossible to fully evaluate this test. The instruments in Rossi's lab showed no heat, but they were crude and incorrectly installed. A careful test at the customer site might have revealed some excess heat, or it might have confirmed there was none. Rossi refused to let anyone into the customer site. Since the customer was set up by Rossi's lawyer, and has no employees, does no business, and has never had an equipment inspection, there can be nothing in the customer site but a radiator. It is an obvious fraud. You do not see that because you are blinded by your wishful thinking and by Rossi's deceptions.


    "And please retrct what you have said about IH triyng to give Rossi all the chances after getting zero results, this is an offense to IH, a suicidal strategy letting a 94 million contrct functional despite a disastruous Test."

    What you say makes no business sense. Letting Rossi continue was was a good strategy. It was not a bit suicidal. Rossi had the equipment and the lab set up. It did not cost I.H. extra money to let him continue to try. It did no harm to them. At the time they hoped (and I hoped) that he might come to his senses and do a proper test.

    You need to put aside all these absurd conspiracy theories and wacky notions about business. There is nothing "suicidal" about letting Rossi stew in his own juices for months, trying to make his reactor work. (Although in fact he did not try. He did nothing to correct the problems.) I am telling you the truth. I have no reason to lie. I am not a stockholder in I.H. You know that I have devoted much of my life to cold fusion, so I have no reason to harm it. You are being irrational thinking that I am lying while you believe Rossi. He tells you nothing. His stories make no sense. His previous tests were stupid fisacos, and so is this one. He gives you no data. Ask him for some!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Peter,

    You and I are speaking to a wall. Jed knows that not knowing what the "customer" did with the heat is a red herring. It is absolutely not required to know anything about what the customer did with the water/steam except to know the incoming temperature, pressure and flow and outgoing water/steam temperature pressure and flow. It doesn't make any difference if the "customer" made chemicals, chocolate bars, flushed it down the toilet or let it go outside. I.H. signed an agreement to the effect that I.H. would not have access to the customer's site and then when the said they wanted to have access to the customer's site and weren't allowed they cried about it at the end of the test. It is useless to try and communicate with Jed any longer, it will just frustrate you and raise your blood pressure. I think it is best to just write him off.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Jed knows that not knowing what the "customer" did with the heat is a red herring."

    The I.H. expert disagreed with you, as Rossi himself said.


    "It is absolutely not required to know anything about what the customer did with the water/steam except to know the incoming temperature, pressure and flow and outgoing water/steam temperature pressure and flow. . . ."

    All of which you could not POSSIBLY measure with the instruments Rossi installed. He pulled out the steam trap and other instruments to determine steam quality. As Dewey pointed out, he recorded the pressure as 0.0 for every data point. The incoming and outgoing TCs were in the wrong places. There is zero chance the flow rate was what he claimed, given the type and location of the flowmeter, which was in violation of agreement. Anyone who looked at the instruments and configuration could see they could not accurately measure ANY OF THE PARAMETERS you just listed, and most parameters were not measured at all.

    What the hell do you make of a pressure of 0.0? Do you believe Rossi, that it was in a vacuum? How likely is that?


    "It doesn't make any difference if the "customer" made chemicals, chocolate bars, flushed it down the toilet or let it go outside . . ."

    The customer does not exist. No one was seen entering or leaving the customer site, except Rossi. Florida records show the customer had no employees and conducted no business. There was no noise from the customer site. There was no equipment inspected in the customer site. Do you really believe that equipment consuming 1 MW of process heat would be silent, operated without human intervention, and not inspected?

    The customer was a fraud. There was nothing in the customer site but a radiator.

    Rossi blocked access to the customer site to cover up fraud. If you do not see that, Rossi has you completely bamboozled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, Jed that's just what you say. I've heard the same thing over and over. The only person that is capable of discerning the real truth. And that pressure you state as 0.0 is referenced to atmospheric pressure i.e 0.0 above atmospheric. You'd have to be brain dead to think he was referencing a vacuum.

      Delete
    2. "Again, Jed that's just what you say."

      Okay, so what does Rossi say? What technical details have you heard from him? NOTHING.


      "I've heard the same thing over and over."

      So try reading what I say. Think about why he would list 0.0 pressure, or lock the experts out of the customer site. What does that tell you?

      You have no reason to disbelieve what I say. My information comes from Rossi. If you don't think so, ask him for the data directly.


      "And that pressure you state as 0.0 is referenced to atmospheric pressure i.e 0.0 above atmospheric."

      That is incorrect. It was zero -- a vacuum. But even if it was 1 atm as you claim, that is still absurd. How can there be no back pressure from the customer equipment in the next room?


      "You'd have to be brain dead to think he was referencing a vacuum."

      I was joking. The pressure was listed in an earlier version but he deleted the numbers because they showed that the water was liquid, not steam. Plus he removed all equipment that allowed a test of steam quality, or ensured steam quality, such as the steam trap. Why do you think he did that?

      Delete
    3. The pressure units are bars, by the way. 0.0 bar is a vacuum. So Rossi is claiming there is 1 MW of process steam but somehow the pipe is a perfect vacuum. The previous version of the data had the correct value, which showed there was no steam. The values mysteriously disappeared. Gee, I wonder why?

      Delete
  10. Backpressure in a condenser?

    Jed, you really should stop commenting on things you don't have a clue about. It makes you look very silly.

    And 0.0 bars is clearly a gauge pressure, but because you have been listening to the Chinese whispers of another wannabe engineer (Dewey Weaver) no wonder you are getting all mixed up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "And 0.0 bars is clearly a gauge pressure . . ."

    That would mean the pressure 1 atm. You are saying that 1 MW of steam is being produced by this machine, sent to equipment in the next room, but the pressure is only 1 atm. That is impossible.

    And why do you suppose the values mysteriously changed from one status report to the next?

    These are not Chinese whispers. This is data from Rossi, confirmed from him by sources outside of I.H.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear Jed,

    This is really funny, Jed Rothwell on a lone wolf attack spree.
    Almost as humoring as the ratpack in the ECN dungeon.
    Listen to you and the gang makes one really think you guys are on a steady glass shards diet.
    If Rossi really had nothing, there would be no reason for barking and pissing on every tree in the vicinity.
    You guys are really applying the scientific method to your arguments.
    You don't believe in LENR any more ?
    Ahh I forgot - LENR is real - but belongs to the exceptional people only.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Brian
    J.C. Is my saviour .
    A.R is an interesting fellow I follow.
    Sam

    ReplyDelete