Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:


> I  am not able to see how the "thermal signature" of a flux is can be
> measured at a distance without being invasive.
>

With an IR camera. Or by standing on the roof and holding a thermocouple in
the air, and then measuring air speed with an anemometer.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?

[Daniel Rocha]

The sieze exit vent is more than enough to  allow the exit of 1MW. Alan
Fletcher and I showed that.

I  am not able to see how the "thermal signature" of a flux is can be
measured at a distance without being invasive. You have to know the flux
çomes of the convective current to know that. That is invasive method,
you'd have to put smoke right in the exist and see how the ascending column
behave.

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

> On Aug 13, 2016, at 19:21, a.ashfield  wrote:
> 
> Come on Eric.   The basic case is that Rossi said IH failed to pay him.  
> Obviously if there had not been a contract IH would have answered it that way.

Have you had a chance to read the answer yet?  If not, I highly recommend you 
do. The denials of allegation are for the most part extremely succinct, and 
they are numerous. Despite that, IH straight up say that Rossi did not meet the 
terms of the GPT. Perhaps they are lying in their Answer, presumably a very 
dumb thing to do. I'm not betting on that.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Come on Eric.   The basic case is that Rossi said IH failed to pay him.  
Obviously if there had not been a contract IH would have answered it 
that way.



On 8/13/2016 7:51 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 6:43 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


If there had been no contract this would have been mentioned in
the motion to dismiss - and the casewould have been thrown
out.  Do you really think Rossi made it up about the $89 million?


If there is such a contract, hopefully it will come to light.  I don't 
argue that there isn't one. But this detail would not be relevant to 
the Motion to Dismiss, for IH were not allowed to introduce new 
evidence at that time, i.e., factual statements, such as "No contract 
was signed for the Guaranteed Performance Test."  They were permitted 
only to address the allegations that Rossi had raised on their legal 
merits, assuming, along with the court, that the allegations were 
true.  Hence the footnote in the MTD, which alluded to other facts but 
did not elaborate, since that was not the place for it.


In the Complaint, Rossi alleged that there had been an agreement 
between him and IH to the GPT and that he had met the conditions 
needed to start it. In their Answer, IH succinctly deny these 
allegations.  I suppose at a later stage they will elaborate on why 
they disagree with Rossi about this.  Note that IH denied so many of 
Rossi's allegations, that it's almost like two entirely different 
accounts were being presented.  As I said earlier, I think the judge 
is going to become irritated with one of the parties as more 
information comes to light.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 6:43 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

If there had been no contract this would have been mentioned in the motion
> to dismiss - and the casewould have been thrown out.  Do you really
> think Rossi made it up about the $89 million?
>

If there is such a contract, hopefully it will come to light.  I don't
argue that there isn't one.  But this detail would not be relevant to the
Motion to Dismiss, for IH were not allowed to introduce new evidence at
that time, i.e., factual statements, such as "No contract was signed for
the Guaranteed Performance Test."  They were permitted only to address the
allegations that Rossi had raised on their legal merits, assuming, along
with the court, that the allegations were true.  Hence the footnote in the
MTD, which alluded to other facts but did not elaborate, since that was not
the place for it.

In the Complaint, Rossi alleged that there had been an agreement between
him and IH to the GPT and that he had met the conditions needed to start
it. In their Answer, IH succinctly deny these allegations.  I suppose at a
later stage they will elaborate on why they disagree with Rossi about
this.  Note that IH denied so many of Rossi's allegations, that it's almost
like two entirely different accounts were being presented.  As I said
earlier, I think the judge is going to become irritated with one of the
parties as more information comes to light.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

If there had been no contract this would have been mentioned in the 
motion to dismiss - and the casewould have been thrown out.  Do you 
really think Rossi made it up about the $89 million?



On 8/13/2016 7:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 5:59 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


The case would have been thrown out of court already if there
weren't some sort of contract for the performance test.


That's incorrect.  There has been no assessment of facts as of yet.  
There was the Complaint, with its exhibits and allegations, and the 
back and forth with IH's Motion to Dismiss, which considered the 
allegations on their legal rather than factual merits, and now the 
Answer, which has denied allegations from the Complaint and raised new 
ones.  In the Motion to Dismiss and the reply to that motion, which 
are the only instances in which the court has weighed in on the matter 
so far, everything stated in the Complaint was interpreted in the most 
favorable light possible for the plaintiffs, assuming all allegations 
were true.  Now I suppose there will be discovery, where the two 
parties request various kinds of documentation and get depositions 
from key witnesses, along a similar series of replies and rebuttals 
from Rossi's side, considering the legal merits of the allegations 
IH's Answer.


All this time, and for a long time to come, no assessment of facts, 
e.g., whether there was a contract for the performance test.  But I 
doubt that such a separate document will need to be produced, for the 
testing is spelled out in general terms both the License Agreement and 
the Second Amendment (which IH deny is applicable, and which mentioned 
the Six Cylinder Unit rather than the 1MW Plant).


Rossi said he was waiting in vain for IH to come up with a
customer and it does seem strange to me, that with all their
contacts, they didn't.
Apparently we will have to wait for the court for the details to
come out.  Keep in mind Rossi was the one taking it to court and
he knows that the details WILL come out.


Rossi has said many things.  But I interpret the situation as 
generously as possible, given what are most likely to be the fact in 
the matter.  In that light I suspect that Rossi's motives for 
initiating the lawsuit are not transparent.  I think he was trying to 
put pressure on IH to back out of the License Agreement, and that the 
lawsuit was his last move for applying pressure to that end as well as 
his endgame.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 5:59 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

The case would have been thrown out of court already if there weren't some
> sort of contract for the performance test.
>

That's incorrect.  There has been no assessment of facts as of yet.  There
was the Complaint, with its exhibits and allegations, and the back and
forth with IH's Motion to Dismiss, which considered the allegations on
their legal rather than factual merits, and now the Answer, which has
denied allegations from the Complaint and raised new ones.  In the Motion
to Dismiss and the reply to that motion, which are the only instances in
which the court has weighed in on the matter so far, everything stated in
the Complaint was interpreted in the most favorable light possible for the
plaintiffs, assuming all allegations were true.  Now I suppose there will
be discovery, where the two parties request various kinds of documentation
and get depositions from key witnesses, along a similar series of replies
and rebuttals from Rossi's side, considering the legal merits of the
allegations IH's Answer.

All this time, and for a long time to come, no assessment of facts, e.g.,
whether there was a contract for the performance test.  But I doubt that
such a separate document will need to be produced, for the testing is
spelled out in general terms both the License Agreement and the Second
Amendment (which IH deny is applicable, and which mentioned the Six
Cylinder Unit rather than the 1MW Plant).

Rossi said he was waiting in vain for IH to come up with a customer and it
> does seem strange to me, that with all their contacts, they didn't.
> Apparently we will have to wait for the court for the details to come
> out.  Keep in mind Rossi was the one taking it to court and he knows that
> the details WILL come out.
>

Rossi has said many things.  But I interpret the situation as generously as
possible, given what are most likely to be the fact in the matter.  In that
light I suspect that Rossi's motives for initiating the lawsuit are not
transparent.  I think he was trying to put pressure on IH to back out of
the License Agreement, and that the lawsuit was his last move for applying
pressure to that end as well as his endgame.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

The case would have been thrown out of court already if there weren't 
some sort of contract for the performance test.
Rossi said he was waiting in vain for IH to come up with a customer and 
it does seem strange to me, that with all their contacts, they didn't.
Apparently we will have to wait for the court for the details to come 
out.  Keep in mind Rossi was the one taking it to court and he knows 
that the details WILL come out.



On 8/13/2016 5:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Why didn't IH/Cherokee come up with a customer for a whole year?
They forced Rossi to do something himself.  It looks to me that
they never wanted the test where they might have to pay Rossi $89
million but wanted to profit from the IP thy had obtained for $11
million.


I have reviewed the license agreement and the two amendments, and 
there is no mention that I can find of a third-party customer as being 
a requirement for the Guaranteed Performance Test.  Exhibit 17 to the 
Answer sets out the terms that were signed between IH and Rossi for 
his engagement with JM, the customer [1].  No mention is made of the 
Guaranteed Performance Test. In an email included as Exhibit 16, Rossi 
makes the case for relocating to Florida, arguing that it will look 
good for there to be a customer that is paying for the heat. Again, no 
mention of the Guaranteed Performance Test.


In that same email from Rossi to Darden, Vaughn, Dameron and others, 
Rossi says "Your proposal to put the plant in a factory owned by 
yourself at least until recently is dramatically less convincing."  It 
looks like Darden et al. might have made space available for the 
plant, possibly for the GPT, and Rossi had other ideas.


The connection between the GPT and a customer appears to be a Rossi thing.

The negative folk like you always phrase it that you KNOW the
answer, that Rossi is a fraud and the outcome is certain.  I don't
think it is.


Perhaps you will be able to point to some instances where (1) I've 
said that I know the answer or (2) I assert that Rossi is a fraud or 
(3) I assert that the outcome is certain.  My position is a different 
one:  I think Rossi's behavior has been self-destructive and possibly 
bad for the prospects of LENR, and I don't discount IH's accusations 
of fraud.  My hope is that the consequences can be contained and 
whatever value he might have found be realized, although I am 
profoundly skeptical that anything will come of it.  I think that IH 
have done the field a great service in diving in and funding several 
LENR researchers, with little expectation of a return on their 
investment.  And I hope that this tangle with Rossi does not 
negatively impact that effort.


Eric


[1] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8

Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

It does have a vent.
>

Yes, of course it does. All warehouses do.

The vent is visible in the photo, and in the Google photos of the roof. But
this vent is far too small to vent 1 MW of heat. That's the whole point.



>   What are you going to do when this is proved?
> Say you don't believe it?
>

I said all along there is a vent, visible in the Google photo. Everyone
knows there is one. Anyone who understands ventilation knows it is far too
small and it lacks a powerful fan. If there really were 1 MW the heat would
build up and kill people. Quoting the amended Answer:

Murray also recognized that the building in which the Plant was located had
no method to ventilate the heat that would be produced by the Plant were it
producing the amount of steam claimed by Rossi, Leonardo, and Penon such
that persons would not have been able to work in the building if the
Rossi/Leonardo/Penon claims were true. This conflicted with the claims of
individuals who had been in the building when the Plant was operating, all
of whom claimed the temperature in the building was near or not much
greater than the outside temperature.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jack Cole]

Bob,

We don't know how often Penon was there do we?  It seems to me like he
wasn't often there but was said to be remotely monitoring.

Fabiani, one of the contractors, was named as a co-counter defendant by
IH.  I have a feeling West was not a lackey of AR, since he was not named
in the counter-claims.  Fabiani is from Italy and had prior history with AR
as I understand it.  It seems his primary alliance (or only) all along was
to AR.

These things are addressed in the counter-claims by IH.  The agreement
makes clear that any derived technologies are to be shared with IH and
licensed by IH.  He has no right to keep that from them, but it doesn't
matter anyway.  It is a magic machine that generates anything you want
(i.e., too good to be true).  Part of Fabiani's contract included sharing
any modifications or advancements of the E-Cat IP with IH, which he did not
do.  He refused to turn over raw data as he was contractually obligated.

Jack

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 1:55 PM Bob Cook  wrote:

> What has happened to the two IH employees that manned the plant with
> Rossi, the ERV and the other Rossi helper?   I think that  they were part
> of the IH team Rossi frequently spoke of.   As I recall they were impressed
> with the plant’s performance.
>
>
>
> I would bet their actions and input to the plant ops are on video tape.
> It seemed to me that Rossi was intent on recording everything that went on
> to insure against naysayers.   That’s what I would have done,  if I were
> spending a year of intense effort to prove the plant operated as necessary
> to earn the additional $89 M.
>
>
>
> As I have said before,  if the Quark-X technology is successful, it would
> upstage the E-Cat.  However, that IP was Rossi’s and not part of the IP
> Rossi was selling to IH IMHO based on  reading the Agreement.  The one-
> year test was not intended to pertain to the Quark-X technology.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *a.ashfield 
> *Sent: *Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:14 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
>
>
> As you think an IT's unsigned,report, who worked for IH, is as good as the
> ERV's report there is no point in discussing this further.
>
>
>
> On 8/13/2016 11:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do something
>> about it until after the test was completed.
>>
>
> It would be inconceivable to me, too. But I know they did various things
> long before the test ended.
>
> Once again, you assume that because you do not know what they did, that
> means they did nothing. You think that information you have not seen does
> not exist. This is a delusion.
>
>
>
>> You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated.  Still
>> no piping diagram, still no ERV report.
>>
>
> 1. The proof is in Exhibit 5. It is a good summary of the ERV report data.
> It is as believable as the ERV report itself.
>
> 2. Just because you have not seen the EVR report, that does not prove the
> summary is inadequate.
>
> 3. Even if I.H. or someone else were to hand you a copy of the ERV report,
> you would reject it, claiming it is fake. You claim that Murray and I are
> lying when we say the report lists 36,000 kg per day. (It is not possible
> we read a column of numbers incorrectly.) You do not trust any source
> except Rossi. So there is no point to giving you a piping diagram or the
> ERV report. You would insist the piping diagram and the ERV report are
> forgeries.
>
>
>
>> The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What it was
>> on any particular day is another story.
>>
>
> The ERV report shows no significant variation from one day to the next. As
> Murray pointed out, the data shows 1 MW and a COP of 50 for every single
> day, including days when Rossi said in his blog that the machine was turned
> off, and days when witnesses saw it was off.
>
>
>
>> I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for Cherokee
>> means Vaughn was not a legal manager.
>>
>
> Is there a problem with that? "Manager" has a legal definition. This is a
> court case. Legal, formal definitions should be used.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:comments-short- one scientific paper, dispute...

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter,

In the latest Rossi exchange, Frank Acland asked:

"When you say that the Customer 'used the heat' does this mean that the
manufacturing process was endothermic — i.e. the heat delivered by the
E-Cat was absorbed in the customer’s production process."


Rossi said "yes."

You are a chemical engineer. You know as well as anyone there is no such
thing as an endothermic industrial process that magically swallows up 1 MW
and makes it vanish. At long last, can you not see that Rossi is lying?
This is yet another blatant, extravagant, preposterous lie. Why do you
believe him? Have you lost all common sense? Have you forgotten everything
about chemistry and physics?

You need to get a grip on reality. Rossi has no excess heat. It is all a
lie. The evidence is overwhelming, and now he is reduced to making claims
that any sane chemical engineer knows are impossible.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Why didn't IH/Cherokee come up with a customer for a whole year?  They
> forced Rossi to do something himself.  It looks to me that they never
> wanted the test where they might have to pay Rossi $89 million but wanted
> to profit from the IP thy had obtained for $11 million.
>

I have reviewed the license agreement and the two amendments, and there is
no mention that I can find of a third-party customer as being a requirement
for the Guaranteed Performance Test.  Exhibit 17 to the Answer sets out the
terms that were signed between IH and Rossi for his engagement with JM, the
customer [1].  No mention is made of the Guaranteed Performance Test. In an
email included as Exhibit 16, Rossi makes the case for relocating to
Florida, arguing that it will look good for there to be a customer that is
paying for the heat.  Again, no mention of the Guaranteed Performance Test.

In that same email from Rossi to Darden, Vaughn, Dameron and others, Rossi
says "Your proposal to put the plant in a factory owned by yourself at
least until recently is dramatically less convincing."  It looks like
Darden et al. might have made space available for the plant, possibly for
the GPT, and Rossi had other ideas.

The connection between the GPT and a customer appears to be a Rossi thing.

The negative folk like you always phrase it that you KNOW the answer, that
> Rossi is a fraud and the outcome is certain.  I don't think it is.
>

Perhaps you will be able to point to some instances where (1) I've said
that I know the answer or (2) I assert that Rossi is a fraud or (3) I
assert that the outcome is certain.  My position is a different one:  I
think Rossi's behavior has been self-destructive and possibly bad for the
prospects of LENR, and I don't discount IH's accusations of fraud.  My hope
is that the consequences can be contained and whatever value he might have
found be realized, although I am profoundly skeptical that anything will
come of it.  I think that IH have done the field a great service in diving
in and funding several LENR researchers, with little expectation of a
return on their investment.  And I hope that this tangle with Rossi does
not negatively impact that effort.

Eric


[1] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Dave,
Cavitation would not be a problem if the flow meter was situated ahead 
of the pump, well below the liquid level in the holding tank.The 
pipe is 80mm ID and would remain full.   There is a potential problem 
with turbulence when a flow meter is mounted downstream of the pump, 
that is usually taken care of by having several feet of straight pipe 
ahead of it.
Until we have a piping diagram this is a pointless discussion.  Why this 
should be secret baffles me.   As manager doesn't mean manager in 
legalese perhaps turbulence and cavitation have different meanings to 
super lawyers too.


Having headed engineering for several major corporations and listened to 
top level discussions I am persuaded that "follow the money" has a lot 
of truth.



On 8/13/2016 2:47 PM, David Roberson wrote:

Bob,

You are describing a connection that would be ideal and likely 
accurately monitor the water flow rate.  The key ingredient is for the 
flow setting component to be located downstream of the flow meter 
which should be down stream of the main pumping function.  The pump 
would then ensure that positive pressure is applied to the flow meter.


But, is this what the schematic diagram shows?  Jed's theory that the 
water flow rate is much less than registered would suggest otherwise.  
As previously stated, the answers to our questions will have to wait 
until the proper system information is released.


Another issue that eventually requires addressing is whether or not 
the flow through the meter is continuous or in bursts. A burst system 
, if present,  will further complicate the analysis.  Previously I 
recall discussion of dynamic pump control for each module as being 
part of the overall control system.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Aug 13, 2016 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David

You noted the following:
"The manual describing how to use this device does mention that it 
needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation conditions."


I would think that the design of the flow system would position the 
flow meter down stream of the pump to assure a positive pressure on 
the flow meter.  In addition a calibrated orifice to help provide a 
constant flow might be included down stream from the flow meter.


The use of gate valves to control flow is not uncommon, however, IMHO 
not as reliable as an orifice for flow control.  A throttle  valve 
would be the best option to control flow.


Bob Cook

*From:* David Roberson >
*Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2016 2:03 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to 
wonder why he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using 
fractional data?


It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average 
instead of making an effort to track the true data if he did not think 
anyone would care.  Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and 
extreme COP calculations that he did not believe that anyone would 
become too demanding?  I do not know.


Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract 
the data as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to 
do so.  How could you explain to the judge that your data was known by 
you to be inaccurate?


Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to 
think that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he 
really believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.


I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been 
faked out by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how 
to use this device does mention that it needs to be kept free of 
negative pressure and cavitation conditions.  My current theory is 
that a restriction of some type is located ahead of the meter which 
limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through the meter.  
This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.


When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might 
cause the incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a 
hydraulic pump is greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.


So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree 
by this process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we 
need a diagram of the compete system which includes the location of 
all the pumps, meters, and holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know 
the power being drawn be these pumps and tables of their operational 
parameters as a function of power input.


Dave




-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 

RE: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Bob Cook]

Dave

A design drawing of the piping system as well as a schematic diagram and design 
flow calculations should come out in the trial as deposed information.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: David Roberson
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

Bob,

You are describing a connection that would be ideal and likely accurately 
monitor the water flow rate.  The key ingredient is for the flow setting 
component to be located downstream of the flow meter which should be down 
stream of the main pumping function.  The pump would then ensure that positive 
pressure is applied to the flow meter.

But, is this what the schematic diagram shows?  Jed's theory that the water 
flow rate is much less than registered would suggest otherwise.  As previously 
stated, the answers to our questions will have to wait until the proper system 
information is released.

Another issue that eventually requires addressing is whether or not the flow 
through the meter is continuous or in bursts.  A burst system , if present,  
will further complicate the analysis.  Previously I recall discussion of 
dynamic pump control for each module as being part of the overall control 
system.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Aug 13, 2016 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David

You noted the following:
"The manual describing how to use this device does mention that it needs to be 
kept free of negative pressure and cavitation conditions."

I would think that the design of the flow system would position the flow meter 
down stream of the pump to assure a positive pressure on the flow meter.  In 
addition a calibrated orifice to help provide a constant flow might be included 
down stream from the  flow meter.

The use of gate valves to control flow is not uncommon, however, IMHO not as 
reliable as an orifice for flow control.  A throttle  valve would be the best 
option to control flow.

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson >
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to wonder why 
he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using fractional data?

It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average instead of 
making an effort to track the true data if he did not think anyone would care.  
Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and extreme COP calculations that he 
did not believe that anyone would become too demanding?  I do not know.

Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract the data 
as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to do so.  How could 
you explain to the judge that your data was known by you to be inaccurate?

Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to think 
that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he really 
believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.

I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been faked out 
by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how to use this device 
does mention that it needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation 
conditions.  My current theory is that a restriction of some type is located 
ahead of the meter which limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through 
the meter.  This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.

When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might cause the 
incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a hydraulic pump is 
greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.

So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree by this 
process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we need a diagram of 
the compete system which includes the location of all the pumps, meters, and 
holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know the power being drawn be these pumps 
and tables of their operational parameters as a function of power input.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell >
To: vortex-l >
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David Roberson > wrote:

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 
bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed data into the log 
that assumed 

RE: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Bob Cook]

What has happened to the two IH employees that manned the plant with Rossi, the 
ERV and the other Rossi helper?   I think that  they were part of the IH team 
Rossi frequently spoke of.   As I recall they were impressed with the plant’s 
performance.

I would bet their actions and input to the plant ops are on video tape.  It 
seemed to me that Rossi was intent on recording everything that went on to 
insure against naysayers.   That’s what I would have done,  if I were spending 
a year of intense effort to prove the plant operated as necessary to earn the 
additional $89 M.

As I have said before,  if the Quark-X technology is successful, it would 
upstage the E-Cat.  However, that IP was Rossi’s and not part of the IP Rossi 
was selling to IH IMHO based on  reading the Agreement.  The one- year test was 
not intended to pertain to the Quark-X technology.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: a.ashfield
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

As you think an IT's unsigned,report, who worked for IH, is as good as the 
ERV's report there is no point in discussing this further.


On 8/13/2016 11:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:

If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do something 
about it until after the test was completed.

It would be inconceivable to me, too. But I know they did various things long 
before the test ended.

Once again, you assume that because you do not know what they did, that means 
they did nothing. You think that information you have not seen does not exist. 
This is a delusion.


You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated.  Still no 
piping diagram, still no ERV report.

1. The proof is in Exhibit 5. It is a good summary of the ERV report data. It 
is as believable as the ERV report itself.

2. Just because you have not seen the EVR report, that does not prove the 
summary is inadequate.

3. Even if I.H. or someone else were to hand you a copy of the ERV report, you 
would reject it, claiming it is fake. You claim that Murray and I are lying 
when we say the report lists 36,000 kg per day. (It is not possible we read a 
column of numbers incorrectly.) You do not trust any source except Rossi. So 
there is no point to giving you a piping diagram or the ERV report. You would 
insist the piping diagram and the ERV report are forgeries.


The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What it was on any 
particular day is another story.

The ERV report shows no significant variation from one day to the next. As 
Murray pointed out, the data shows 1 MW and a COP of 50 for every single day, 
including days when Rossi said in his blog that the machine was turned off, and 
days when witnesses saw it was off.


I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for Cherokee means 
Vaughn was not a legal manager.

Is there a problem with that? "Manager" has a legal definition. This is a court 
case. Legal, formal definitions should be used.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Bob,

You are describing a connection that would be ideal and likely accurately 
monitor the water flow rate.  The key ingredient is for the flow setting 
component to be located downstream of the flow meter which should be down 
stream of the main pumping function.  The pump would then ensure that positive 
pressure is applied to the flow meter.

But, is this what the schematic diagram shows?  Jed's theory that the water 
flow rate is much less than registered would suggest otherwise.  As previously 
stated, the answers to our questions will have to wait until the proper system 
information is released.

Another issue that eventually requires addressing is whether or not the flow 
through the meter is continuous or in bursts.  A burst system , if present,  
will further complicate the analysis.  Previously I recall discussion of 
dynamic pump control for each module as being part of the overall control 
system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Aug 13, 2016 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!



David 



You noted the following: 

"The manual describing how to use this device does mention that it needs to be 
kept free of negative pressure and cavitation conditions."


I would think that the design of the flow system would position the flow meter 
down stream of the pump to assure a positive pressure on the flow meter.  In 
addition a calibrated orifice to help provide a constant flow might be included 
down stream from the  flow meter.

 

The use of gate valves to control flow is not uncommon, however, IMHO not as 
reliable as an orifice for flow control.  A throttle  valve would be the best 
option to control flow.


Bob Cook


From: David Roberson 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
 

I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to wonder why 
he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using fractional data?

It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average instead of 
making an effort to track the true data if he did not think anyone would care.  
Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and extreme COP calculations that he 
did not believe that anyone would become too demanding?  I do not know.

Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract the data 
as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to do so.  How could 
you explain to the judge that your data was known by you to be inaccurate?

Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to think 
that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he really 
believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.

I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been faked out 
by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how to use this device 
does mention that it needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation 
conditions.  My current theory is that a restriction of some type is located 
ahead of the meter which limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through 
the meter.  This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.

When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might cause the 
incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a hydraulic pump is 
greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.

So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree by this 
process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we need a diagram of 
the compete system which includes the location of all the pumps, meters, and 
holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know the power being drawn be these pumps 
and tables of their operational parameters as a function of power input.

Dave







-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!




David Roberson  wrote:



So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 
bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed data into the log 
that assumed everything continued as it had for many long previous periods of 
time.


That might be true of the temperatures, which vary, then start repeating, and 
then vary again. But the flow rate and pressure was the same for every single 
day of the test, as noted by Murray. Penon did not start off off recording 
actual values with variations, and then later repeating values. He stuffed 
36,000 kg into every day, for the entire test.


By the way, as Rossi noted in the Lewan interview, Penon arbitrarily reduced 
the flow by 10% down to 32,400 kg. Both numbers are shown. I think 32,400 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Eric,
"Their position, that Rossi went outside of the terms of the Guaranteed 
Performance Test, "


Why didn't IH/Cherokee come up with a customer for a whole year? They 
forced Rossi to do something himself.  It looks to me that they never 
wanted the test where they might have to pay Rossi $89 million but 
wanted to profit from the IP thy had obtained for $11 million.


You say I always take a negative view of IH.  This is because what I 
read here is always a negative view of Rossi.  I don't know who is 
right   The negative folk like you always phrase it that you KNOW the 
answer, that Rossi is a fraud and the outcome is certain.  I don't think 
it is.



On 8/13/2016 12:02 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:33 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


My reading is that IH had very little in-house expertise


Yes.  They're venture capitalists.  They don't maintain in-house 
expertise.  I suppose they have a nice office with coffee machines and 
other venture capitalists, and maybe a massage room.


so hired gunman Murray.


Ok, so your reading is that Murray is a hired gunman. You go to great 
lengths to read IH's actions in as negative a light as possible.  Have 
you been effective in persuading people here or elsewhere to your 
position?


Murray apparently felt the need to justify his existence and as an
IT guy does not seem to have expertise in the areas he is
criticizing.  He was probably pissed that he had not been allowed
in the plant before.


IH were probably irritated as well that one of the people they hired 
to introduce some technical rigor into their relationship with Rossi 
was not permitted, acting as an agent of IH, to have access to a 
facility that was, by Rossi's claims, the location of the Guaranteed 
Performance Test.  This story is too strange to turn into a movie. 
People would roll their eyes and not take it seriously. Perhaps it 
would work as a B movie on the USA Network.


By sometime in 2014, I would not be surprised if IH did not take any 
action without first consulting their lawyers and thinking carefully 
through each next step.  They surely saw that Rossi was a loose canon 
and that he was capable of doing all kind of things.


I don't buy your argument that the plant didn't work without
seeing Penon's report.


I don't hope to persuade you of anything, and I doubt that you can be 
persuaded.  For the benefit of anyone here who has not had time to 
really look into the details, I'm addressing points you attempt to 
make for their sake.


Rossi maintains it was IH who were keen to stop the test, offering
x millions.  Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11 million
to buy back the license/IP, but IH refused.


It is true that the Complaint and the Answer presented strikingly 
different pictures.  I was taken aback about how many allegations IH 
denied; I would have imagined that there would be more that they could 
have agreed upon with the plaintiffs.  One of the parties to this case 
is presenting a very distorted picture of things.  I suppose the judge 
is going to become quite irritated with one of them once enough 
information comes to light.


The arguments that IH have come up with have all been weak.  I
expect we will know just how weak after Rossi files his reply.
Before that it is silly to leap to conclusions that the plant
didn't work.


The arguments that IH have come up are very strong.  Their position, 
that Rossi went outside of the terms of the Guaranteed Performance 
Test, left for Florida on the pretext of selling power to a fake 
customer, and then went through the motions of the Guaranteed 
Performance Test over IH's objections and without renegotiating the 
terms of the test, looks compelling.  Until that position is tested, 
it would be premature to conclude that IH will win this case. But that 
does not mean that one cannot step back and get a general impression 
of things.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

As you think an IT's unsigned,report, who worked for IH, is as good as the
> ERV's report there is no point in discussing this further.
>

1. The report was signed. For some reason the signature was not included in
the Exhibit.

2. The ERV was also being paid by I.H.

3. The ERV report has a large number of impossible claims, as described in
Exhibit 5. The fact that they are impossible should be apparent to anyone.
They are impossible regardless of how skillful Penon might be. In other
words, the report speaks for itself, and to say that something else might
be "as good as" it makes no sense. It is terrible. Nothing could be worse.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

As you think an IT's unsigned,report, who worked for IH, is as good as 
the ERV's report there is no point in discussing this further.



On 8/13/2016 11:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do
something about it until after the test was completed.


It would be inconceivable to me, too. But I know they did various 
things long before the test ended.


Once again, you assume that because you do not know what they did, 
that means they did nothing. You think that information you have not 
seen does not exist. This is a delusion.


You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated.
Still no piping diagram, still no ERV report.


1. The proof is in Exhibit 5. It is a good summary of the ERV report 
data. It is as believable as the ERV report itself.


2. Just because you have not seen the EVR report, that does not prove 
the summary is inadequate.


3. Even if I.H. or someone else were to hand you a copy of the ERV 
report, you would reject it, claiming it is fake. You claim that 
Murray and I are lying when we say the report lists 36,000 kg per day. 
(It is not possible we read a column of numbers incorrectly.) You do 
not trust any source except Rossi. So there is no point to giving you 
a piping diagram or the ERV report. You would insist the piping 
diagram and the ERV report are forgeries.


The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What
it was on any particular day is another story.


The ERV report shows no significant variation from one day to the 
next. As Murray pointed out, the data shows 1 MW and a COP of 50 for 
every single day, including days when Rossi said in his blog that the 
machine was turned off, and days when witnesses saw it was off.


I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for
Cherokee means Vaughn was not a legal manager.


Is there a problem with that? "Manager" has a legal definition. This 
is a court case. Legal, formal definitions should be used.


- Jed

[Vo]:comments-short- one scientific paper, dispute...

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-13-2016-lenr-short-comment-info.html

best wishes,
peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?

[a.ashfield]

It does have a vent.  What are you going to do when this is proved?
Say you don't believe it?

On 8/13/2016 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Rossi never claimed the customer used all the heat in the
process.  He said the balance was vented.


Rossi lied. It cannot be vented. There are no adequate vents. 
Furthermore, if it were vented this would be easy to detect. No such 
large heat flux was detected, anywhere.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Bob Cook]

David


You noted the following:

"The manual describing how to use this device does mention that it needs to be 
kept free of negative pressure and cavitation conditions."


I would think that the design of the flow system would position the flow meter 
down stream of the pump to assure a positive pressure on the flow meter.  In 
addition a calibrated orifice to help provide a constant flow might be included 
down stream from the  flow meter.



The use of gate valves to control flow is not uncommon, however, IMHO not as 
reliable as an orifice for flow control.  A throttle  valve would be the best 
option to control flow.


Bob Cook


From: David Roberson 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to wonder why 
he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using fractional data?

It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average instead of 
making an effort to track the true data if he did not think anyone would care.  
Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and extreme COP calculations that he 
did not believe that anyone would become too demanding?  I do not know.

Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract the data 
as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to do so.  How could 
you explain to the judge that your data was known by you to be inaccurate?

Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to think 
that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he really 
believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.

I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been faked out 
by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how to use this device 
does mention that it needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation 
conditions.  My current theory is that a restriction of some type is located 
ahead of the meter which limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through 
the meter.  This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.

When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might cause the 
incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a hydraulic pump is 
greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.

So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree by this 
process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we need a diagram of 
the compete system which includes the location of all the pumps, meters, and 
holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know the power being drawn be these pumps 
and tables of their operational parameters as a function of power input.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David Roberson > wrote:

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 
bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed data into the log 
that assumed everything continued as it had for many long previous periods of 
time.

That might be true of the temperatures, which vary, then start repeating, and 
then vary again. But the flow rate and pressure was the same for every single 
day of the test, as noted by Murray. Penon did not start off off recording 
actual values with variations, and then later repeating values. He stuffed 
36,000 kg into every day, for the entire test.

By the way, as Rossi noted in the Lewan interview, Penon arbitrarily reduced 
the flow by 10% down to 32,400 kg. Both numbers are shown. I think 32,400 kg is 
used to compute heat. If a 10% reduction is valid, why not 20% or 90%?

It was sloppy of Penon to record positive flow rates, elevated temperatures and 
1 MW heat production on days when Rossi in his blog said the reactor was turned 
off. Eyewitnesses confirm that it was actually off. If you are going to commit 
fraud, you should at least try to make it look convincing. These people were 
just phoning it in!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:33 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:


> My reading is that IH had very little in-house expertise


Yes.  They're venture capitalists.  They don't maintain in-house
expertise.  I suppose they have a nice office with coffee machines and
other venture capitalists, and maybe a massage room.

so hired gunman Murray.


Ok, so your reading is that Murray is a hired gunman.  You go to great
lengths to read IH's actions in as negative a light as possible.  Have you
been effective in persuading people here or elsewhere to your position?

Murray apparently felt the need to justify his existence and as an IT guy
> does not seem to have expertise in the areas he is criticizing.  He was
> probably pissed that he had not been allowed in the plant before.
>

IH were probably irritated as well that one of the people they hired to
introduce some technical rigor into their relationship with Rossi was not
permitted, acting as an agent of IH, to have access to a facility that was,
by Rossi's claims, the location of the Guaranteed Performance Test.  This
story is too strange to turn into a movie.  People would roll their eyes
and not take it seriously.  Perhaps it would work as a B movie on the USA
Network.

By sometime in 2014, I would not be surprised if IH did not take any action
without first consulting their lawyers and thinking carefully through each
next step.  They surely saw that Rossi was a loose canon and that he was
capable of doing all kind of things.


> I don't buy your argument that the plant didn't work without seeing
> Penon's report.
>

I don't hope to persuade you of anything, and I doubt that you can be
persuaded.  For the benefit of anyone here who has not had time to really
look into the details, I'm addressing points you attempt to make for their
sake.

Rossi maintains it was IH who were keen to stop the test, offering x
> millions.  Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11 million to buy back
> the license/IP, but IH refused.
>

It is true that the Complaint and the Answer presented strikingly different
pictures.  I was taken aback about how many allegations IH denied; I would
have imagined that there would be more that they could have agreed upon
with the plaintiffs.  One of the parties to this case is presenting a very
distorted picture of things.  I suppose the judge is going to become quite
irritated with one of them once enough information comes to light.


> The arguments that IH have come up with have all been weak.  I expect we
> will know just how weak after Rossi files his reply. Before that it is
> silly to leap to conclusions that the plant didn't work.


The arguments that IH have come up are very strong.  Their position, that
Rossi went outside of the terms of the Guaranteed Performance Test, left
for Florida on the pretext of selling power to a fake customer, and then
went through the motions of the Guaranteed Performance Test over IH's
objections and without renegotiating the terms of the test, looks
compelling.  Until that position is tested, it would be premature to
conclude that IH will win this case.  But that does not mean that one
cannot step back and get a general impression of things.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do something
> about it until after the test was completed.
>

It would be inconceivable to me, too. But I know they did various things
long before the test ended.

Once again, you assume that because you do not know what they did, that
means they did nothing. You think that information you have not seen does
not exist. This is a delusion.



> You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated.  Still
> no piping diagram, still no ERV report.
>

1. The proof is in Exhibit 5. It is a good summary of the ERV report data.
It is as believable as the ERV report itself.

2. Just because you have not seen the EVR report, that does not prove the
summary is inadequate.

3. Even if I.H. or someone else were to hand you a copy of the ERV report,
you would reject it, claiming it is fake. You claim that Murray and I are
lying when we say the report lists 36,000 kg per day. (It is not possible
we read a column of numbers incorrectly.) You do not trust any source
except Rossi. So there is no point to giving you a piping diagram or the
ERV report. You would insist the piping diagram and the ERV report are
forgeries.



> The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What it was on
> any particular day is another story.
>

The ERV report shows no significant variation from one day to the next. As
Murray pointed out, the data shows 1 MW and a COP of 50 for every single
day, including days when Rossi said in his blog that the machine was turned
off, and days when witnesses saw it was off.



> I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for Cherokee
> means Vaughn was not a legal manager.
>

Is there a problem with that? "Manager" has a legal definition. This is a
court case. Legal, formal definitions should be used.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Rossi never claimed the customer used all the heat in the process.  He said
> the balance was vented.
>

Rossi lied. It cannot be vented. There are no adequate vents. Furthermore,
if it were vented this would be easy to detect. No such large heat flux was
detected, anywhere.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do 
something about it until after the test was completed.


You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated. Still 
no piping diagram, still no ERV report.


The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What it was 
on any particular day is another story.


I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for Cherokee 
means Vaughn was not a legal manager.



On 8/13/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

So it was Murray who raised the alarm at the last minute . . .


Alarms were raised throughout the test, and made known to many people, 
including me. Your assertion that this happened only at the end is 
factually incorrect. I expect you will go on repeating it, but it is 
wrong.



The report of a constant water flow rate maybe explained by the
flow meter giving a running total and the constant flow that Jed
makes much of, was simply the average flow calculated by dividing
the total by the number of days.


First, I make "much of it" because the actual flow was something like 
3 to 10 times lower than this, as shown by the rust and by various tests.


Second, if the flow varied significantly, then an "average flow" would 
be worse than useless for calorimetry. You compute the heat by 
multiplying the flow rate by the heat of the water or steam. Since the 
temperature varied, you would be multiplying the wrong flow rate, and 
the results would be meaningless.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?

[a.ashfield]

Rossi never claimed the customer used all the heat in the process. He 
said the balance was vented.


On 8/13/2016 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Rossi answered the question n his blog, saying the the customer
used the heat in an endothermic process.


That is impossible. There are endothermic industrial processes, but 
they use only a tiny faction of the heat. The rest is waste heat. 
Textbooks often list baking bread as a typical endothermic process. 
Most of heat comes out of the oven, which is why a bakery is hot.


Frankly, I am astounded that anyone would take this statement by Rossi 
at face value. It is even more preposterous than his usual oeuvre.


I also gather the revised response showing photos of the
customer's space conveniently left out showing the ventilation system.


That is incorrect. The photos in Exhibit 26 clearly show the 
ventilation system. If that is the customer site in the enclosed area, 
then the entire 1 MW of heat would be released in this suite, which is 
100% absolutely utterly COMPLETELY ridiculous.


The text accompanying Exhibit 25 is a little unclear to me. It says:

82. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in
February 2016 and examined the Plant, the methodology being used
to operate the Plant, and the methodology being used to measure
those operations, he immediately recognized that those
methodologies were fatally flawed.  Some of the flaws that he was
quickly able to identify are explained in Exhibit 5. Murray also
recognized that the building in which the Plant was located had no
method to ventilate the heat that would be produced by the Plant
were it producing the amount of steam claimed by Rossi, Leonardo,
and Penon such that persons would not have been able to work
in the building if the Rossi/Leonardo/Penon claims were true. This
conflicted with the claims of individuals who had been in the
building when the Plant was operating, all of whom claimed
the temperature in the building was near or not much greater than
the outside temperature. Photographs of the building ceiling from
the inside are attached hereto as Exhibit 26.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Eric,
My reading is that IH had very little in-house expertise so hired gunman 
Murray.  Murray apparently felt the need to justify his existence and as 
an IT guy does not seem to have expertise in the areas he is 
criticizing.  He was probably pissed that he had not been allowed in the 
plant before.


I don't buy your argument that the plant didn't work without seeing 
Penon's report.
Rossi maintains it was IH who were keen to stop the test, offering x 
millions.  Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11 million to buy 
back the license/IP, but IH refused.


The arguments that IH have come up with have all been weak.  I expect we 
will know just how weak after Rossi files his reply. Before that it is 
silly to leap to conclusions that the plant didn't work.



On 8/13/2016 9:32 AM, a.ashfield wrote:

The revised answer from IH says:
"82. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in 
February 2016 and examined the Plant,"


So it doesn't look like Murray got access to the plant until after it 
was shut down.  It looks like IH didn't think there was much wrong 
before that or presumably they would have done something about it.  So 
it was Murray who raised the alarm at the last minute, which explains 
why IH didn't make the payment or at least start negotiating and 
appear to have been caught with their pants down when Rossi took it to 
court.


The report of a constant water flow rate maybe explained by the flow 
meter giving a running total and the constant flow that Jed makes much 
of, was simply the average flow calculated by dividing the total by 
the number of days. I would be surprised if the ERV doesn't have a 
detailed record that was probably automatically logged on his computer.


AS repeatedly stated, we need to see the ERV's report and a piping 
diagram before deciding what actually happened.
Rossi sounds confident that he can answer all the points brought up by 
IH so we will probably get more information when his rebuttal is filed.

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> So it was Murray who raised the alarm at the last minute . . .


Alarms were raised throughout the test, and made known to many people,
including me. Your assertion that this happened only at the end is
factually incorrect. I expect you will go on repeating it, but it is wrong.



> The report of a constant water flow rate maybe explained by the flow meter
> giving a running total and the constant flow that Jed makes much of, was
> simply the average flow calculated by dividing the total by the number of
> days.


First, I make "much of it" because the actual flow was something like 3 to
10 times lower than this, as shown by the rust and by various tests.

Second, if the flow varied significantly, then an "average flow" would be
worse than useless for calorimetry. You compute the heat by multiplying the
flow rate by the heat of the water or steam. Since the temperature varied,
you would be multiplying the wrong flow rate, and the results would be
meaningless.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Rossi answered the question n his blog, saying the the customer used the
> heat in an endothermic process.
>

That is impossible. There are endothermic industrial processes, but they
use only a tiny faction of the heat. The rest is waste heat. Textbooks
often list baking bread as a typical endothermic process. Most of heat
comes out of the oven, which is why a bakery is hot.

Frankly, I am astounded that anyone would take this statement by Rossi at
face value. It is even more preposterous than his usual oeuvre.



> I also gather the revised response showing photos of the customer's space
> conveniently left out showing the ventilation system.
>

That is incorrect. The photos in Exhibit 26 clearly show the ventilation
system. If that is the customer site in the enclosed area, then the entire
1 MW of heat would be released in this suite, which is 100% absolutely
utterly COMPLETELY ridiculous.

The text accompanying Exhibit 25 is a little unclear to me. It says:

82. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in February
2016 and examined the Plant, the methodology being used to operate the
Plant, and the methodology being used to measure those operations, he
immediately recognized that those methodologies were fatally flawed.  Some
of the flaws that he was quickly able to identify are explained in Exhibit
5. Murray also recognized that the building in which the Plant was located
had no method to ventilate the heat that would be produced by the Plant
were it producing the amount of steam claimed by Rossi, Leonardo, and Penon
such that persons would not have been able to work in the building if the
Rossi/Leonardo/Penon claims were true.  This conflicted with the claims
of individuals who had been in the building when the Plant was operating,
all of whom claimed the temperature in the building was near or not much
greater than the outside temperature. Photographs of the building ceiling
from the inside are attached hereto as Exhibit 26.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?

[a.ashfield]

Rossi answered the question n his blog, saying the the customer used the 
heat in an endothermic process.


I also gather the revised response showing photos of the customer's 
space conveniently left out showing the ventilation system.

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 8:32 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

The revised answer from IH says:
> "82. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in February
> 2016 and examined the Plant,"
>
> So it doesn't look like Murray got access to the plant until after it was
> shut down.  It looks like IH didn't think there was much wrong before that
> or presumably they would have done something about it.  So it was Murray
> who raised the alarm at the last minute, which explains why IH didn't make
> the payment or at least start negotiating and appear to have been caught
> with their pants down when Rossi took it to court.
>

IH hired Murray in the middle of 2015 (para. 80).  In July 2015 Rossi
denied Murray access to the plant (para 81), so he was hired sometime
before this.  July 2015 is 4-5 months after the start of the purported
test.  It is straightforward to assume that IH had concerns at or before
the time that Murray was brought on.  Indeed, it is straightforward to
assume that IH had serious concerns as far back as 2014 or 2013, and that
they felt they had a situation to manage.

If we go with the Answer, Rossi appears to have believed that he could
initiate the GPT without IH's participation or consent.  My idle
speculation is that he was putting pressure on IH to back out of the
license agreement on terms that would allow him to keep the 11.5 million
dollars by going through the motions of a GPT that he knew they would not
agree to but whose outcome was not straightforward to predict if the matter
went to court.

The report of a constant water flow rate maybe explained by the flow meter
> giving a running total and the constant flow that Jed makes much of, was
> simply the average flow calculated by dividing the total by the number of
> days. I would be surprised if the ERV doesn't have a detailed record that
> was probably automatically logged on his computer.
>

IH appear to agree with you.  In the Answer, they say that Fabiani agreed
to send them "raw data," but that he didn't do this (para. 88).  That
detail alone should be enough to give onlookers a sense of how strange
things got.  This is the stuff of reality TV.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

The revised answer from IH says:
"82. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in 
February 2016 and examined the Plant,"


So it doesn't look like Murray got access to the plant until after it 
was shut down.  It looks like IH didn't think there was much wrong 
before that or presumably they would have done something about it.  So 
it was Murray who raised the alarm at the last minute, which explains 
why IH didn't make the payment or at least start negotiating and appear 
to have been caught with their pants down when Rossi took it to court.


The report of a constant water flow rate maybe explained by the flow 
meter giving a running total and the constant flow that Jed makes much 
of, was simply the average flow calculated by dividing the total by the 
number of days. I would be surprised if the ERV doesn't have a detailed 
record that was probably automatically logged on his computer.


AS repeatedly stated, we need to see the ERV's report and a piping 
diagram before deciding what actually happened.
Rossi sounds confident that he can answer all the points brought up by 
IH so we will probably get more information when his rebuttal is filed.