Monday, August 1, 2016

AUG 01, 2016 ANSWERING A VERY VAGUE LENR CoMMENT

MOTTO


Image result for vague quotations


DAILY NOTES

Personal note

My decision to write daily an issue of EGO OUT is based on the necessity of being busy- to have an infinite and impossible task is a must for a n old researcher with self-respect. Some days this is very difficult no "regular, normal science papers at al, even no news I will try to find them tomorrow
\
War note

However  I must answer to a comment by Jed Rothwell which I find nasty, false and perfidious= personal opinion
other can consider it a master piece of the battle against  the Evil.
It is about big money = money IH/CHEROKEE owes to Andrea Rossi if the data of the ERV Report are real and what Jed says is not true, big money (150 millions)  obtained by Ih from the investors based on saying the Test goes well and somewhat smaller money - my guess with five zeros paid by IH to the ERV Fabio Penon who is a world class expert in meta-calorimetry and plant evaluation but now is attacked by all means, accused of terrible things. Does this not smell of Sin and what is worse of inefficiency? How dares Jed to compare his own skills and life achievements (except the really valuble LENR-CANR.ORG) to compare himself with Penon? To say he is smarter not only than Penon but as anybody impiied in this analysis.

But it is the case to show here Jed's comment:

 Penon's method of calorimetry was defective. As I.H. said in their Motion to Dismiss, he and Rossi "depart[ed] from the purported test plan, ignor[ed] inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices. There was no way to measure the heat balance with Penon's set up. The only way to measure the heat was to examine the heat exchanger and ventilation in the customer site next door. That is why the I.H. expert "insisted" on getting access, as Rossi said. That is why Rossi refused to let him in. Rossi knows that anyone who glanced inside the room would see that he is committing fraud. There cannot be anything in the customer site but a small radiator. There was not 1 MW of heat released, or 120 kW (6 times input). That could easily be detected from outside the building. The I.H. experts looked for that, and found nothing.

my comment
The calorimetry is not described, the 4 standard accusations from the dismissed-in-essence Dismiss document are vague without any relevant specific data, The accusation against the customer have to withstand the real situation at the Customer. 

The data from Rossi is unclear. It shows a COP of 50. That is preposterous. There are gross errors in the data, and some of it has been erased and replaced with fake data. The pressure readings were all changed to 0.0 bar. It is difficult to estimate the real answer because the instruments and methods are flawed, but the most likely answer is that there is no excess heat.



my comment
Continuing- which gross errors; how can Jed know about the fake data- where Reports after 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th quartile- why were pressure readings all brought to zero?  Who from IH has protested against the flawed instruments and data? Who was the first to do it? Documented? A vague statement- "most likely answer there was no excess heat" Are they other less likely but possibly answers? Is the uncertainty of the data uncertain? This is much worse than simple FUD, Jed it is a a VUCA BOMB - i.e. creating Vulnerabilities, Uncertainties, Confusion and Ambiguity all false, all proof less all without any value.

Finis coronat opus- this is a surprise:
Fortunately, the I.H. experts were able to do valid calorimetry in the end, circumventing the problems with the setup. They measured the heat balance and determined with confidence that there is no excess heat.



my comment

I was worried for Jed's creativity but this is OK! Till now we knew that Hed has a fragment of the ERV Report - from Rossi in some mysterious way, we were indoctrinated  that this report is so obviously showing zero excess heat that any fool can see it clearly  (Jed had, we have to wait) 
Now we learn that the IH experts have done GOOD calorimetry and give us the much desired certainty- zero excess heat (desired by whom?)  It would be useless to ask Jed when has this happened, once, more times? Have they used the existing flawed instruments but correct methods? Have they replaced the bad instruments- with or without Rossi's approval? Was it a fight with Rossi's men?
Can IH now publish this alternative report?
Jed is probably not aware that he has opened a Pandora's box for his friends
with this statement.
During the Trial, under oath these IH experts will be asked what they think about the ERV Report, about instruments,measurements, these alternative measurements will they be witnesses for zero excess heat or for what ERV and Rossi says. Better to lose a ob than Salvation, isn't it?



DAILY NEWS

1) We will not hear anything from Andrea Rossi about the Trial- till it starts


A.
July 31, 2016 at 6:55 PM

Dear Andrea:
Can you explain the situation and the next moves in the litigation on course between you and IH ?
In the blogs there are many contradictory assumptions, can you make the situation more understandable ?
Thank you if you can answer,
Andrea Rossi
August 1, 2016 at 6:44 AM

A.:
My Attorney has ordered me mandatority not to talk on the blogs or anywhere else about issues that have to be properly discussed in Court.
Warm Regards,
A.R.



2) LENR on Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/LENR/

LENR IN CONTEXT-2

Skepticism and the Meaning of Life
John G. Messerly
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/Messerly20160728


17 comments:

  1. "The calorimetry is not described, the 4 standard accusations from the dismissed-in-essence Dismiss document are vague without any relevant specific data . . ."

    The calorimetry is described in the ERV report, and in the sample data I have. If you wish to see it, you must ask Rossi for it. I will not provide it.

    Since you have not seen it, you have no business commenting on it. You have no idea what I am talking about, so you cannot judge whether I.H. is right, or Rossi is right. No engineer or scientist should ever try to judge technical data he has not seen. When you do that, you disgrace yourself! Shame on you!


    "Continuing- which gross errors; . . ."

    The ones in Rossi's data. I repeat: You must ask him for the data.


    "how can Jed know about the fake data-"

    It is obvious. Anyone can see it. The pressure cannot be 0.0 bar.


    ". . . where Reports after 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th quartile- why were pressure readings all brought to zero?"

    All of the ones I have seen.


    "Who from IH has protested against the flawed instruments and data?"

    All of the I.H. experts protested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The proof of at least one protest, please

      What has resulted from the protests?

      Answer please how the IH experats succeeded to make good measurements?

      I cannot ask IH, cannot ask Rossi he keeps ll the data for the Trial, you come with other vague data and accusations.
      ou tell us an incredible proofless techno-fairy tale
      Even a 6 years old will not believe you, sorry.
      One proof or your castle of cards collapses.

      peter

      Peter


      Delete
    2. The proof of at least one protest, please

      What has resulted from the protests?

      Answer please how the IH experats succeeded to make good measurements?

      I cannot ask IH, cannot ask Rossi he keeps ll the data for the Trial, you come with other vague data and accusations.
      ou tell us an incredible proofless techno-fairy tale
      Even a 6 years old will not believe you, sorry.
      One proof or your castle of cards collapses.

      peter

      Peter


      Delete
    3. "What has resulted from the protests?"

      Rossi sued them.


      "Answer please how the IH experats succeeded to make good measurements?"

      By conventional methods. Rossi's "measurements were flawed and the instruments unsuitable" as I.H. put it in their Motion to Dismiss. I.H. experts were able to use proper methods, over Rossi's objections.

      Delete
    4. Jed
      Do you know who I.H
      Experts are and for how
      long they ran there tests?

      Delete
  2. Scott Kevin
    August 1, 2016 at 3:29 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Are you confirming that the production of the industrial E-Cat is already started, or you had to stop it for some reason ?

    Andrea Rossi
    August 1, 2016 at 6:42 AM
    Scott Kevin:
    I confirm the production is started.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This issue re Jed Rothwell's comments seems simple ! ...

    1) Jed is accusing Rossi and Penon of fraud.
    2) But, Jed was not present at the test at any time
    3) Jed did not participate in the active test in anyway

    Jed could be right in his accusations, but based on what ? - hearsay ?, opinion ?, remote analysis after the fact ?.

    IMHO (again irrespective of what eCats actually do) Jed is on thin ice making accusations of fraud based on his role (or lack of it) in the test and contract.

    Doug Marker

    Next we will be told that Jed is IH's star expert witness asked to tell the jury how Rossi and Penon lied and cheated.

    Jed is (as already said) on thin ice in terms of proofs suitable for a court of law, in this test.

    Doug Marker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Jed could be right in his accusations, but based on what ? - hearsay ?, opinion ?, remote analysis after the fact ?."

      I told you: this is based on my analysis of Rossi's data. I.H. has other proof, but I have not seen it.

      Delete
  4. Hey Jed -
    Constant-pressure calorimeter vs high pressure calorimeter
    A constant-pressure calorimeter measures the change in enthalpy of a reaction occurring in solution during which the atmospheric pressure remains constant. With this method the use of atmospheric pressure (Bar) is not required - and as such one atmosphere is equal to 0-Bar. You seem to be under much pressure lately, so you would understandably be unable to understand this until after the trial.
    Thor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pressure was higher than 1 bar in a previous version of the data. It was changed to 0.0 bar.

      Delete
  5. Further comments on the IH / Rossi saga:

    One path this litigation could be leading to is that if indeed Rossi and Penon *did* do as Rothwell and IH are claiming/implying and cheat or lie during the test or in the report, then one might ask if IH used the alleged Rossi fraud during the 1-year test period, to harvest investment from a variety of sources.

    The 89 or so Million $ to Rossi sure is a great temptation to him, just as harvesting the claimed $150 million from investors into IH/Cherokee would be if harvested based on Rossi 'progress'.

    So what did IH really believe about Rossi's eCats during the extraordinarily long test period?. Was it an opportunity they could not grab ?.

    An altogether unpleasant possibility but one that cannot be ignored.

    Doug Marker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction:

      they could not grab ? -- should have said ...
      they could not resist ?

      DSM

      Delete
    2. Also add to the original comment that IH and Rossi have had a longer than 3 year relationship.

      That in itself must rank as ample time to have done some deep due diligence/testing especially with the est $89 million completion fee to be paid after 1-year test.

      DSM

      DSM

      Delete
    3. IH is investing in many research and startup.

      all other I heard of, like Jed, like Abd, like Peter, were happy of IH behavior.

      Rossi just seems to be a risky lotery ticket, low chances, high loot.
      it seems over.

      Delete
    4. Precision:
      "all other I heard of, like Jed, like Abd, like Peter,"

      I mean, they are aware like me of happy scientists funded by IH.

      Delete
    5. Hey Alain

      It ain't over until the fat ladies had sung in court .. (at least we're all still here counting peanuts :)

      Delete
  6. Is there any example of IH investment or is this more hear say?

    ReplyDelete