Wednesday, February 1, 2017

FEB 01, 2017 LENR A FIGHT OF VALUES AND PRIORITIES

MOTTO

 Image result for priority quotesImage result for priority quotes
"Tell me which are your values and priorities and I tell you who you are." (Truism)
(And what are you worth in this action/situation/circumstances)


 DAILY NOTES

 Study of the ERV Report core


The document has logical consistency and technological plausibility in stark contrast with IH's story of total failure and fraud from the first to the last  day of the 1MW test.
For 352 days we have followed with interest the evolution, the problems and in some extent the solutions applied to the plant. Backwards it is easier to understand than forwards.
 See please the graph of COP variation during the 352 days of the Test- great thanks to Gerard McEk who has shown this on Ecatworld

 Thumbnail


Think about the process or if you have time and veins of historian, compare, evaluate it 
with what Rossi told us in his JONP. In 2015 IH has accepted this results, has paid probably well for the ERV 3 monthly reports, invited visitors to the plant, has not published anything (as far I and the Web know) about devilish instruments, terrible measurements, absolute lack of excess heat, no customer to consume the energy and so on. Their story tries to go backwards but  there are no proofs for the IH retro- vision of the test. When has IH discovered the extreme maleficity of its former collaborator?  I dislike their scenario but it seems they are more interested in what the Judge, the Jury thinks, decide. They try very hard- at least on the LENR Forum 
where they have created a rather strange anti-Rossi jargon good for linguistic studies. Sibylline and surreal..
They are acting in full concordance with their values and priorities in this affair- and so am doing I.
OK, things happen, ideas fight; I have asked my friends-readers for opinion papers about the ERV Report and my thanks go to the author of the first arrived such paper, see please below.

 ERV core Report - opinion paper by BOB COOK.
The data reported by someone--it was not clear who or whether it was a factual document associated with the suit--is internally consistent and indicative of large COP's.  The nomenclature associated with the data--Exhibit 1-- is inconsistent with the normal nomenclature associated with a factual document for submittal to the court, i.e., Exhibit A,B etc.  with the use of letters instead of numbers. 

Regarding the data, the pressure reported as 0.0 is a little confusing.  I assumed it was actually a differential pressure between 2 points in the system.  A system diagram with the various instruments shown is needed to fully understand the report.  For a flowing system of water and steam it would seem that there would be some measurable differential pressure created.

That may have occurred in the customer side of the loop.  Nevertheless, the energy added to the flow of water and steam could be determined by measuring the enthalpy (energy) added by the reactor without the knowledge of what happened in the customer's plant.  The specific enthalpy of water and steam (joules per gram)  is determined by their absolute temperatures  and pressures at any given instant.  Thus, if the conditions of the water/steam varied with time, information regarding changes  is necessary to determine the integrated flow of energy (steam and water) over time.  The fact that the enthalpy was mostly steam at a significant supper heating (i.e., a temperature above saturation for steam  at STP) suggests that the energy would be easy to determine.

Assuming there were no other sources of energy supplied to the reactor other than FP&L electrical energy, the demonstration of performance as reported in  Exhibit 1 looks sound to me.   With the large COP's reported  small errors in measurements would make no significant difference in the conclusion about the  reactor's ability  to produce useful energy. 

As far as I am concerned, LENR+ has been demonstrated.

I also have received a paper by Jed Rothwell

ERV core Report - opinion paper by Jed Rothwell, 

who if you remember has declared that he has seen a fragment of this ERV paper and concluded that any sane and rational individual looking to it must conclude in less then 5 minutes- zero excess heat! It seems he has not changed much his opinion, see below:

 You did not describe what data you mean. It is here, in document 128-01 - Exhibit 1.pdf :


This data is complete bullshit. It describes physically impossible phenomena, such as a factory in a perfect vacuum with a pressure 0.0 bar, and water that is exactly the same temperature to the nearest tenth-degree every day for weeks. The instruments used to collect this data were completely wrong for the task, and the configuration made it impossible to use any instruments properly. The major problems were described in Exhibit 5 at the above website:

124-06 - Exhibit 5.pdf

This data proves beyond question that the 1-year test was fraud. It was inept fraud, which anyone with a half a brain can see at a glance. People such as Peter Gluck are incapable of seeing it because they are mesmerized by Rossi, and deluded by wishful thinking.

 Dear Jed- thanks however if you are right, please calculate and tell what fraction of a brain have those people who pay good money four times for such misery of a document? Are you insinuating that IH and IQ have nothing in common? You bad boy, biting the hand that cares you?

 Waiting for other  opinion Papers.
DAILY NEWS

 1) From the Miami Court Pacermonitor re the Rossi vs Darden Trial

 129 respm Reply to Response to Motion Tue 11:59 AM
REPLY to Response to Motion re124 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File Fourth Amended Answer, Additional Defenses, Counterclaims and Third-Party Claims filed by Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC, Thomas Darden, IPH International B.V., Industrial Heat, LLC, John T. Vaughn.(Pace, Christopher)
Att: 1 Exhibit A
 (announced yesterday)

Later from LENR Forum Ian Walker
 Doc. 130, the judge's order on IH's motion for leave to file a fourth amended answer, now on the docket.

 2) Rossi vs. IH et al: Rossi’s Team Publishes ‘Daily Valuation of Energy Multiple’ for 1-Year E-Cat Plant Test, Claiming COP Range of 63-139; Also Utility Use Historyhttp://www.e-catworld.com/2017/01/31/rossi-vs-ih-et-al-rossis-team-publishes-daily-valuation-of-energy-multiple-for-1-year-e-cat-plant-test-claiming-cop-63-139/
I advise you to read the comments here!

 3) Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2,pg32. 33...
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?pageNo=32
Mixed comments- however the surreal sibillyne jargon of Dewey Weaver is both symptomatic and remarkable- do (not) miss it!

4) Blizzard of bloviation
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/blizzard-of-bloviation/

5) As always LENR.SEPLM.RU is fast and tells about the ERV 'revelation':
Ответ юристов Росси на жалобу Индастриал Хит (частично результаты годичных испытаний 1 МВт установки)
http://lenr.seplm.ru/novosti/rossi-opublikoval-chastichno-rezultaty-godichnykh-ispytanii-1-mvt-ustanovki

 6) Updated by Uwe Doms:
Good prospects for Leonardo Corp./Andrea Rossi lawsuit vs. Cherokee Investment Partners/Thomas Dardenhttps://thenewfire.wordpress.com/good-prospects-for-rossi-and-leonardo-corp-lawsuit/

 7)  From the New Fire
European Patent Application EP 3 076 396 A1
METHOD FOR THE PRODUCING HEAVY ELECTRONS
https://thenewfire.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/ep16000767nwa1.pdf
Inventor: Schiavon, Mauro 35129 Padova (PD) (IT)
A method is presented for the continuous production of heavy electrons with extra mass values such that they can be captured by hydrogen ions and give rise to the generation of a neutron flux which optionally can be used to trigger and sustain a low energy nuclear reaction. This method is based on the physical phenomenon of Localized Plasmon Resonance (Local Surface Plasmon Resonance - LSPR)

8)  NEW THREAD on LENR Forum
Hollywood Movies, Governments, and LENR technologies
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4854-hollywood-movies-governments-and-lenr-technologies/

9) LENR age

10)  From Andrea Rossi's JONP

Robert
February 1, 2017 at 5:38 AM

Dr Andrea Rossi
Great report from the ERV : is it complete or is there more in the raw data?

Andrea Rossi
February 1, 2017 at 9:24 AM

Robert:
I cannot answer to questions related to the litigation on course.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
11)

Correction to an Assumption in Engineering Challenges for Developing the SunCell’s Concentrator Photovoltaic Cells and Geodesic Dome Array (Michael Lammert)
http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/01/31/correction-to-an-assumption-in-engineering-challenges-for-developing-the-suncells-concentrator-photovoltaic-cells-and-geodesic-dome-array-michael-lammert/

 LENR IN CONTEXT-1

 Energy
What’s at Stake as Trump Takes Aim at Clean Energy Researchhttps://www.technologyreview.com/s/603488/whats-at-stake-as-trump-takes-aim-at-clean-energy-research/

In Science, There Are No “Alternative Factshttps://futurism.com/in-science-there-are-no-alternative-facts/

Ireland Passes Historic Legislation, Set to be the First Nation To Completely Cut Fossil Fuels
Posted by at

7 comments:

  1. sam northFebruary 1, 2017 at 6:34 PM

    From Ecat World

    Reply
    −
    Avatar
    Mats Lewan
    2 hours ago
    Well, now it starts to get interesting. I'm still looking forward to seeing all evidence, from both parties, presented in court.

    BTW, here's from my recently published piece in the Indian journal World Affairs:

    Meanwhile, people with insight to the ERV report that was never released have explained to me that the result presented in the report is conclusive and that the only possible way to attack it would be to attack Rossi, the ERV and other people involved for fraud. Yet, based on testimonials I have received, I find the fraud hypothesis highly unlikely. Obviously, it is premature to draw any firm conclusions while the lawsuit is ongoing. Still, my strictly personal assessment, adding all the pieces of the puzzle and weighing them in direct contact with several parties, is that IH was acting logically as a venture capitalist, trying to get hold of an incredibly valuable technology at the lowest possible cost, but that it misjudged the difficulties in dealing with the inventor and other people involved. This does not mean that I find IH’s behaviour correct or defendable but again that is for the court to sort out and I have confidence in its ability to do so.

    World Affairs, Vol. 21 No. 4, winter (October-December) 2016
    http://www.worldaffairsjournal...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PweetFebruary 1, 2017 at 8:17 PM

      If the Rossi technology actually worked with a proven COP of 60 to 139, it would be worth billions of dollars on an ongoing and increasing basis.

      Regardless of how difficult Mr Rossi might be to work with, I'm sure any company with more than a hundred dollars to their name would find ways of working around whatever the supposed difficulties might be. They would hire an army of psychologists specifically to deal with the problem and work around whatever the difficulties might be.
      They would not bail out of the deal of a lifetime just because someone is difficult to work with.
      On that basis, half the movies that are made would never get produced because in a cast and crew, there are always difficult people to work with, but the movies almost always get made.
      If the difficult person is of critical importance, the difficulties get worked around.
      I think IH bailed out because they finally accepted that the difficulties centered on Mr Rossi being either unwilling or unable to prove to them that his ecat device worked as claimed. The ludicrous quarterly reports of COPs of between 60 to 139 did nothing to alter that situation when in their own tests, they were unable to obtain a COP in excess of 1, having supposedly been given access to ALL the critical IP covering all aspects of the technology, including secret sauces etc.

      Delete
  2. PweetFebruary 1, 2017 at 7:52 PM

    Looking at the 1MW plant test data data which is slowly filtering out of the litigation process, I find it even more impossible to accept the performance claims for the 1MW plant as being factual.
    In view of all that has happened since the end of the year long test, the claims of long term COPs ranging between 63 to 139 have broken the bounds of believability.
    Here is a device which, supposedly if genuine, is immediately salable worldwide in the order of millions of units, and yet the man who was going to save the planet with it and give the money to sick children is fluffing around with some new quack X device which delivers a whole 20 watts of heat energy, and may or may not even work.
    The 'massive production' which was long said to begin at the end of the year long test is nowhere to be seen. In all probability, even the three plants which were claimed to have been sold on the basis of the year long test have been neither built or delivered. I would be surprised if even one more plant has been made.
    There has been no mention of any massive production facilities being established for the 1MW plant, or producing anything at all, even though this incredible plant has exceeded by a county mile all previously claimed performance levels.
    If this device performed as claimed in the reports, does that make any sense at all?
    It does not!

    ReplyDelete
  3. PweetFebruary 1, 2017 at 7:52 PM

    Looking at it from the side of the partner, here is a company (Industrial Heat) which has paid the relatively small fee of ten million dollars for the exclusive rights to the IP worth billions of dollars (if real) covering half the world, paid at a time when they believed it might have a COP of about six, and even though the test had not even been completed, they managed to get the interest and very significant investment from others, and yet now, after a year long test which allegedly showed the actual COP was in fact between 60 and 139 on a long term basis, they decide to bail out of the deal rather than seal it by paying out the remainder of the previously agreed fee.
    Does that make any sense at all?
    It does not, unless it is clear to them that the supposed test results are a fabricated nonsense.

    And now, here we are trying to unravel a magicians trick by sifting through the snippets of information which were produced to support the illusion which the magician was trying to create. This data is has not been created to record reality. It has been selectively created and produced to support an illusion. I think the few people who had a closer relationship with the test and the data and how it was collected can see this and have reported the matter more accurately.
    The task would be much easier and we could make a much more reliable conclusion if we had access to ALL the information regarding the test, but we don't for very good reason. If we had it the illusion would fail.
    Only one person has all the information and he is most unlikely to pass it on the anybody, even if directed to do so.
    Keep in mind that at the time of setting up the test procedure and protocol, this same person knew what the real performance was, and also knew what to measure and what not to measure so as to give the appearance of the whole thing working to the performance levels claimed. Others standing on the side lines and arguing about the reality of the measurements taken, mean nothing regarding the validity of the technology, simply because they are discussing parameters which were carefully selected and measured in a way which would give the desired results for the device working as claimed.
    In other words, like all magician tricks, you only get to see the the details which will support the illusion. All other actions are designed to distract your attention away from the actual reality and to concentrate your attention on the points which create the illusion.
    I have no doubt that the test procedure was written do precisely that. It was written, and the mechanics of the test rig set up, by the person who knew exactly what factors could be fudged to give the appearance of a positive COP.
    I think it would have been more believable if the results had been fudged the extent of a positive COP consistent with previously fudged results of say six to ten maybe, but a COP of up to 139 under the circumstances of everything else surrounding this circus is well outside of what is believable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon DerricuttFebruary 2, 2017 at 3:31 AM

      Pweet - also relevant is the need to dissipate that 1MW of heat in the closed and locked "customers room". This would require ventilation (which would produce a visible heat-plume) or to run hot water down the drains (which would also have been visible on an IR survey as well as noticeable through the feet after a while). It appears Rossi made no such provisions, and yet that 1MW disappeared without leaving evidence of where it went. It's thus pretty certain that Rossi did not expect to need to deal with 1MW, and that 1MW was not produced. Magician's tricks only go so far.

      Given that mismatch between the measured results and the lack of evidence for the heat being dissipated, the measurements (no matter how detailed or convincing) must be wrong. Peter says that Rossi will explain where the heat went, and that it will be scientifically valid when he does, but so far that explanation is conspicuously absent.

      If Rossi had produced figures stating a COP of 4-6 or so, then the veracity of them would be difficult to challenge from the external observations. An order of magnitude or more higher can however be shown to be false data by the corroborative evidence (or the lack of it, to be precise).

      Even at this point, though, we can't really be certain that there was no gain at all, and that there was no reaction at all. We can only be certain that there wasn't much heat produced, and that the COP was of the order of 1. On the other hand, data from IH (if correct) implies zero excess heat.

      I would think that despite the published data, that if IH had seen a COP greater than 2 in their tests then they would have completed on the deal. As you say, it's worth billions. The difficult part is getting it to work in the first place, so once they have a start-point that works it can be improved. It seems to me that IH were prepared to spend as much money as it takes to get a working system.

      I suppose you realise that our analyses of the available data will not convince anyone who believes that Rossi has a working system. Maybe in a few years and a few more new Rossi designs (with the older ones abandoned although proved) people will be less gullible. Then again, maybe Rossi will have the breakthrough he's been hoping for (the reason for all the delaying-tactics) and amaze us.

      Delete
  4. sam northFebruary 2, 2017 at 5:40 AM

    JPR
    February 2, 2017 at 5:00 AM
    Update?

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    February 2, 2017 at 7:47 AM
    JPR:
    Minor problem, no stop, on our way to 5 Sigma.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Testo XtremeFebruary 4, 2017 at 2:53 AM

    Musli, Mulethi Vijaysar, Semal and Nagarbel that paintings to restore the losrt pressure in ladies. it's far a completely unique combo of several varieties of bhasma like http://guidemesupplements.com/biogenic-xr/

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)