Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

I have already shown many areas where Exhibit 5 was wrong.
>

So you think, but I disagree.



>   You continue to ignore that.
> It was not Penon's job to correct the mistakes.
>

Yes, it was. He was paid large sums of money to correct his own mistakes,
or to point out errors in Murray's analysis. Not only did he refuse to do
this, but he asked for his salary after refusing. That's chutzpah! (See the
quote below)



>   He handed in his report.  If Murray disagrees it is up to him to prove
> it.
> So far he hasn't.
>

How do you know this? Have you met with Murray or Penon, or read their
correspondence?

You and some others have an odd habit. If you personally have not seen a
document, a photo, or some other evidence, you automatically assume that it
does not exist.


Chutzpah from the Answer document:

"Despite have full knowledge of the flaws, Penon nevertheless issued his
false final report on March 28, 2016, claiming that guaranteed performance
was achieved – and that the COPs achieved by the Plant were literally many
multiples greater than ever claimed by anyone else (other than Leonardo and
Rossi) who had ever tested an E-Cat reactor. Not surprisingly, since the
day he left Florida in February 2016, Penon has refused to discuss his
measurements, his measurement plan and design, or his reportwith
Counter-Plaintiffs (though he has requested that Counter-Plaintiffs pay him
for his work)."

More chutzpah! This part is hilarious:

"Penon further knowingly relied on flawed or fabricated data collections in
his supposed evaluation of the Plant’s performance. For example, Leonardo
and Rossi have admitted (on their internet blog postings) that there were
days when portions of the Plant were not operating, but Penon in his final
report does not report any material decrease in output of the Plant on
those days. Rather, he makes the (inexplicable) claim in his final report
that on these days the Plant’s performance either did not change or somehow
even increased."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
You are right that nobody here knows the details of Rossi's signature 
but the plain fact is that IH was formed after Rossi's discussions only 
a couple of days before he had to sign the contract.


I have already shown many areas where Exhibit 5 was wrong.  You continue 
to ignore that.
It was not Penon's job to correct the mistakes.  He handed in his 
report.  If Murray disagrees it is up to him to prove it.

So far he hasn't.

You say you disagree you made a mistake.  What do you question?
What you wrote yourself?
The legal document sent to the court that says Vaughn was not a manager 
of Cherokee?



On 8/10/2016 4:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

After the agreement with Defkalion collapsed Rossi had to get
money from somewhere to continue.


I do not know about this, but I suppose he had enough leeway to wait a 
few days while consulting with his lawyer.


Also, It is possible that I.H. Informed him weeks before that they 
intended to start a new company. I think it would be out of character 
for them to spring this on him at the last minute. I doubt you were 
privy to the conversations or e-mail. So you would not know about 
that. (I don't know about it either.)



Exhibit 5 is full of mistakes.


If it is full of mistakes, Penon should have pointed them out. Rossi 
would have been paid $89 million. Yet Penon did not answer.


I am not aware of any mistakes in this document.


I see you still cannot bring yourself to admit you made a mistake
when you accused me of making something up and I showed a
reference that proved I was right.


I disagree.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> After the agreement with Defkalion collapsed Rossi had to get money from
> somewhere to continue.
>

I do not know about this, but I suppose he had enough leeway to wait a few
days while consulting with his lawyer.

Also, It is possible that I.H. Informed him weeks before that they intended
to start a new company. I think it would be out of character for them to
spring this on him at the last minute. I doubt you were privy to the
conversations or e-mail. So you would not know about that. (I don't know
about it either.)


Exhibit 5 is full of mistakes.
>

If it is full of mistakes, Penon should have pointed them out. Rossi would
have been paid $89 million. Yet Penon did not answer.

I am not aware of any mistakes in this document.


I see you still cannot bring yourself to admit you made a mistake when you
> accused me of making something up and I showed a reference that proved I
> was right.
>

I disagree.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed
After the agreement with Defkalion collapsed Rossi had to get money from 
somewhere to continue.  He had been funding everything himself for a 
long time.  As for Cherokee/IH's behavior, see Mats Lewan's take here. 
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/09/heres-my-hypothesis-on-the-rossi-ih-affair/


Exhibit 5 is full of mistakes.

I see you still cannot bring yourself to admit you made a mistake when 
you accused me of making something up and I showed a reference that 
proved I was right.




On 8/10/2016 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It was pretty obvious that Rossi was under a lot of pressure and
short of funds when he signed the contract.


Where did you hear this?

It sure looks like dirty pool to pull that switch at the last moment.


He couldn't wait a week? He couldn't consult with a lawyer and wait 
one day? Anyway, Rossi is a master at dirty pool. This contract looks 
to me as if he wrote it.


But you will support IH whatever they do apparently.


I support them now. I was neutral until I saw Rossi's data, which is a 
travesty and obviously fraudulent. I cannot understand why anyone 
would support an outright fraud, so I assume you do not think he is a 
fraud. In that case, you have not looked closely at Exhibit 5, and you 
do not realize the customer site could not possibly had a 1 MW 
machine, or any excess heat.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

It was pretty obvious that Rossi was under a lot of pressure and short of
> funds when he signed the contract.
>

Where did you hear this?


It sure looks like dirty pool to pull that switch at the last moment.
>

He couldn't wait a week? He couldn't consult with a lawyer and wait one
day? Anyway, Rossi is a master at dirty pool. This contract looks to me as
if he wrote it.



> But you will support IH whatever they do apparently.
>

I support them now. I was neutral until I saw Rossi's data, which is a
travesty and obviously fraudulent. I cannot understand why anyone would
support an outright fraud, so I assume you do not think he is a fraud. In
that case, you have not looked closely at Exhibit 5, and you do not realize
the customer site could not possibly had a 1 MW machine, or any excess heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

It was pretty obvious that Rossi was under a lot of pressure and short 
of funds when he signed the contract.  It sure looks like dirty pool to 
pull that switch at the last moment.  But you will support IH whatever 
they do apparently.


Do you deny you made a mistake when you wrote "You made that up, and now 
you believe it."?

I showed reference that proves you were wrong.


On 8/10/2016 10:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

But unknown to Rossi, IH was created by Darden 2 days before the
signing and when Rossi arrives at Cherokee to ink the deal, guess
what, he is told by Darden that he now must ink a deal with a
totally new clean skin startup, IH, which did not exist 3 days prior.

He "must ink a deal"? Why? Did they put a gun to his head? He should 
have thought about it for a week, and consulted with a lawyer.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

> But unknown to Rossi, IH was created by Darden 2 days before the signing
> and when Rossi arrives at Cherokee to ink the deal, guess what, he is told
> by Darden that he now must ink a deal with a totally new clean skin
> startup, IH, which did not exist 3 days prior.
>
He "must ink a deal"? Why? Did they put a gun to his head? He should have
thought about it for a week, and consulted with a lawyer.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Background to Rossi's deal with Cherokee/IH

Engineer48 writes:

"Interesting sequence of events.

IH was formed 24 October, 2012.
Rossi visits Cherokee on 26 October to ink the deal with Cherokee that 
he and Darden had hammered out.


Rossi negotiates with Darden / Cherokee and expects to sign the License 
Agreement with Cherokee. But unknown to Rossi, IH was created by Darden 
2 days before the signing and when Rossi arrives at Cherokee to ink the 
deal, guess what, he is told by Darden that he now must ink a deal with 
a totally new clean skin startup, IH, which did not exist 3 days prior. 
Obviously from the complaint, Rossi never negotiated with nor knew about 
IH prior to Darden springing it on a unsuspecting and obviously excited 
Rossi. Well excited until the switcheroo was pulled."

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I was not suggesting the steam was vented directly to the outside. What 
I said was that it would not matter if it were.


To repeat:
AA.  "Touching faith in a company that lied about Vaughn."

Jed.  "You made that up, and now you believe it."

https://twitter.com/The_New_Fire/status/763002369219100672/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
See the bottom highlighted in red and then repeat that I am making it up.

You owe me an apology.  Also you should quit the ad hominem attacks.



On 8/9/2016 10:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Really all that has to be proved is the water volume in and if the
output is at 102.8C at atmospheric pressure . . .


NOT possible. There were pumps pushing the water. It was not at 1 atm.

Also the electric power into the plant for the COP.  It doesn't
matter what happens after the steam leaves the plant. It could
have been vented directly to the outside air.


It would have been detected by the IR cameras and other means. It was 
not. There was NO HEAT anywhere. Not in the fake customer site or 
anywhere else. Not 1 MW. Not 100 kW. Nothing.


You cannot make heat magically vanish away.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

As I have previously said, this is a private legal dispute with no outcome
> that is going to release useful information to the LENR community.
>

If the matter goes to trial and additional exhibits become available
through discovery, those of use who have been following Rossi for several
years will obtain information of a kind and quality that Rossi would never
have voluntarily parted with.  Some amount of light shed upon years of
obfuscation and misdirection.  It may not be information that is all that
useful technically, but it will helpful for understanding how things got to
this point.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Really all that has to be proved is the water volume in and if the output
> is at 102.8C at atmospheric pressure . . .


NOT possible. There were pumps pushing the water. It was not at 1 atm.



> Also the electric power into the plant for the COP.  It doesn't matter
> what happens after the steam leaves the plant. It could have been vented
> directly to the outside air.
>

It would have been detected by the IR cameras and other means. It was not.
There was NO HEAT anywhere. Not in the fake customer site or anywhere else.
Not 1 MW. Not 100 kW. Nothing.

You cannot make heat magically vanish away.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I don't know why you are having trouble grasping a simple basic fact as 
outlined in my previous post.  It doesn't matter what happened to the 
steam.  It could have been condensed in a heat exchanger cooled by mains 
water, for all the difference that makes to the case.


On 8/9/2016 10:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

3. It doesn't matter a damn what the customer's plant did, only
whether Rossi's plant provided 1 MW with a COP>6


The pretend customer's plant did nothing, and no significant heat 
radiated from it. Therefore the COP was 1. Data from customer's 
pretend plant is irrefutable proof that Rossi lied and tried to 
defraud I.H., so it matters a great deal.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Further to my comment about Penon's report being key to the court case, 
consider this.


Really all that has to be proved is the water volume in and if the 
output is at 102.8C at atmospheric pressure, the output is dry steam and 
the heat transferred can be calculated.  Also the electric power into 
the plant for the COP.  It doesn't matter what happens after the steam 
leaves the plant. It could have been vented directly to the outside air.
IH has to prove either the water flow is much less than claimed or the 
temperature is <100C or the pressure is above atmospheric. They have 
already stated (I think) that the pressure was atmospheric.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> 3. It doesn't matter a damn what the customer's plant did, only whether
> Rossi's plant provided 1 MW with a COP>6
>

The pretend customer's plant did nothing, and no significant heat radiated
from it. Therefore the COP was 1. Data from customer's pretend plant is
irrefutable proof that Rossi lied and tried to defraud I.H., so it matters
a great deal.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

AA.  "Touching faith in a company that lied about Vaughn."

Jed.  "You made that up, and now you believe it."

You owe me an apology.  Also you should quit the ad hominem attacks.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Axil Axil]

Jed, a foreign company doing bisiness in the US is certified by the
government. You are being lied to.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> FYI...The company is a chinese company based in England. The validity of
>> the company has be verified by the U.S. government.
>>
>
> The company is a fraud owned by Rossi's lawyer.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
1. Look at my earlier post giving the actual statement by Day Jones that 
Vaughn was not a manager at Cherokee.

https://twitter.com/The_New_Fire/status/763002369219100672/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
See the bottom highlighted in red and then repeat that I am making it up.
2. I have already pointed out (several times) how Exhibit 5 is wrong and 
no proof of what you claim
3. It doesn't matter a damn what the customer's plant did, only whether 
Rossi's plant provided 1 MW with a COP>6



On 8/9/2016 9:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Touching faith in a company that lied about Vaughn.


You made that up, and now you believe it.


  So far I have not seen any solid proof of IH's claims.


Then you have not looked at Exhibit 5. Or you imagine that there are 
answers to it, but Rossi and Penon did not provide them because they 
did not want to be paid $85 million. They just woke up one morning and 
said, "To heck with it, let's not bother answering. We don't need that 
money." Remember, that letter was before the lawsuit.


The contract says the ERV's report is key.  They have to show that
it is wrong by an order of magnitude.


If they show the company is a fraud with no 70-foot machine and no 
heat, the contract will be void. Also, Rossi, Penon and Johnson will 
likely end up in jail. You cannot enforce a contract that has been 
proven to be fraudulent. It makes no difference what the ERV report says.



It seems they (and you) find it easier make ad hominems attacks on
Rossi than come up with actual proof.


You have not read Exhibit 5 if you think all they have are ad hominem 
attacks. Those are not ad hominem issue. You are looking at proof of 
criminal fraud, and there is plenty more proof coming.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Please answer the question.
Nobody told me they didn't given the information to you.  But you claim 
to have it.   Are you now claiming you shouldn't have it?



On 8/9/2016 9:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

The question is why have they given this information to you?


Who told you they have not? And who told you I even want this 
information, or asked for it? What I know is none of your damn 
business. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with this situation. Let 
me repeat, this is simple:


1. These are billionaires being threatened with a $267 million 
lawsuit. The have the resources to make any study or get any 
information they need.


2. You, I, or any person with an ounce of common sense can see that it 
is vitally important to learn the pipe layout, in order to prove the 
pipe was half-full and the flow meter was malfunctioning. If you know 
this, and I know it, obviously the people at I.H. know it.


3. Therefore, it stands to reason that I.H. will do this. It would be 
INSANE and UNTHINKABLE for them not to do this.


  What do they want you to do with it?  Make their case for them?


Why the hell would they do that?!? What you say makes no sense.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Don't confuse the issue with the facts ;-)  They lied about Vaughn, lied 
about the error in the flow meter just below the minimum shown on the 
name plate, used an electronics guy as a piping expert who thinks the 
output steam pipe is  DN40 and apparently is thought to be expert on 
stains.  If Rossi is a fraud why he not seeking money from others than 
his contractual partner, unlike CherokeeIH who took $50 million on the 
strength of the E-Cat?  I couldn't invest in Leonardo even if I wanted 
to.  Before Jed claims the 1 MW plant had nothing to do with it, recall 
that Woodford said they had experts crawling over it for days and were 
super cautious because of the E-Cat & LENR criticisms..



On 8/9/2016 8:37 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
FYI...The company is a chinese company based in England. The validity 
of the company has be verified by the U.S. government.




On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:


a.ashfield > wrote:

Everything else besides the ERV's report are technicalities
that are unlikely to effect the jury's decision.


Are you serious?!? I.H. will present iron-clad proof that Rossi is
a fraud, with a fake company, no excess heat, and no machine in
the fake company. Do you really believe the jury will ignore that?
Those are not "technicalities."

I.H. has one of the best law firms in the country. I am sure they
know more about juries and trials than you do.


  IH has to prove Penon's report was wrong by an order of
magnitude.


Anyone could do that, easily. All you have to do is show that the
pretend customer site had no equipment and emitted not heat. You
don't even need to get into the details of calorimetry.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Touching faith in a company that lied about Vaughn.
>

You made that up, and now you believe it.


  So far I have not seen any solid proof of IH's claims.
>

Then you have not looked at Exhibit 5. Or you imagine that there are
answers to it, but Rossi and Penon did not provide them because they did
not want to be paid $85 million. They just woke up one morning and said,
"To heck with it, let's not bother answering. We don't need that money."
Remember, that letter was before the lawsuit.



> The contract says the ERV's report is key.  They have to show that it is
> wrong by an order of magnitude.
>

If they show the company is a fraud with no 70-foot machine and no heat,
the contract will be void. Also, Rossi, Penon and Johnson will likely end
up in jail. You cannot enforce a contract that has been proven to be
fraudulent. It makes no difference what the ERV report says.



> It seems they (and you) find it easier make ad hominems attacks on Rossi
> than come up with actual proof.
>

You have not read Exhibit 5 if you think all they have are ad hominem
attacks. Those are not ad hominem issue. You are looking at proof of
criminal fraud, and there is plenty more proof coming.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> The question is why have they given this information to you?
>

Who told you they have not? And who told you I even want this information,
or asked for it? What I know is none of your damn business. Furthermore, it
has nothing to do with this situation. Let me repeat, this is simple:

1. These are billionaires being threatened with a $267 million lawsuit. The
have the resources to make any study or get any information they need.

2. You, I, or any person with an ounce of common sense can see that it is
vitally important to learn the pipe layout, in order to prove the pipe was
half-full and the flow meter was malfunctioning. If you know this, and I
know it, obviously the people at I.H. know it.

3. Therefore, it stands to reason that I.H. will do this. It would be
INSANE and UNTHINKABLE for them not to do this.



>   What do they want you to do with it?  Make their case for them?
>

Why the hell would they do that?!? What you say makes no sense.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Touching faith in a company that lied about Vaughn.  So far I have not 
seen any solid proof of IH's claims.
The contract says the ERV's report is key.  They have to show that it is 
wrong by an order of magnitude.
It seems they (and you) find it easier make ad hominems attacks on Rossi 
than come up with actual proof.



On 8/9/2016 8:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Everything else besides the ERV's report are technicalities that
are unlikely to effect the jury's decision.


Are you serious?!? I.H. will present iron-clad proof that Rossi is a 
fraud, with a fake company, no excess heat, and no machine in the fake 
company. Do you really believe the jury will ignore that? Those are 
not "technicalities."


I.H. has one of the best law firms in the country. I am sure they know 
more about juries and trials than you do.



  IH has to prove Penon's report was wrong by an order of magnitude.


Anyone could do that, easily. All you have to do is show that the 
pretend customer site had no equipment and emitted not heat. You don't 
even need to get into the details of calorimetry.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

No surprise they haven't given me the information.  The question is why 
have they given this information to you?  What do they want you to do 
with it?  Make their case for them?


On 8/9/2016 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

So - why has the piping layout not been provided?


Why do you think I.H. would provide this to you? Who are you? Did they 
provide you with any other evidence? There was a great deal uploaded 
the other day. Did they send any of it to you beforehand? I doubt 
that. But before the upload, surely you realized that such evidence 
exists, even though you had not seen it yet. Just because you 
personally have not seen additional evidence, it still might exist.


I'm still waiting for these other "experts" to surface.


Again, I.H. is not doing this for your benefit. Just because you 
personally have not met the experts, or heard of them, that is not a 
reason for you to doubt they exist. There are billions of people in 
the world you have not met or heard of. I think you should ask 
yourself: "Is it likely that billionaires would go in to a trial where 
they might lose $267 million without making preparations?" If it clear 
to you or I that experts should evaluate the pipes and the 
configuration, why do you suppose I.H. would not do this? What would 
stop them? You know they have the money to do it. So you should take 
it for granted they will leave no stone unturned, and come to the 
trial with a mountain of evidence for all of their claims.


Wouldn't you do that, if you were a billionaire being threatened with 
a $267 million lawsuit? Have some common sense.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

FYI...The company is a chinese company based in England. The validity of
> the company has be verified by the U.S. government.
>

The company is a fraud owned by Rossi's lawyer.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Axil Axil]

FYI...The company is a chinese company based in England. The validity of
the company has be verified by the U.S. government.



On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Everything else besides the ERV's report are technicalities that are
>> unlikely to effect the jury's decision.
>>
>
> Are you serious?!? I.H. will present iron-clad proof that Rossi is a
> fraud, with a fake company, no excess heat, and no machine in the fake
> company. Do you really believe the jury will ignore that? Those are not
> "technicalities."
>
> I.H. has one of the best law firms in the country. I am sure they know
> more about juries and trials than you do.
>
>
>   IH has to prove Penon's report was wrong by an order of magnitude.
>>
>
> Anyone could do that, easily. All you have to do is show that the pretend
> customer site had no equipment and emitted not heat. You don't even need to
> get into the details of calorimetry.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Everything else besides the ERV's report are technicalities that are
> unlikely to effect the jury's decision.
>

Are you serious?!? I.H. will present iron-clad proof that Rossi is a fraud,
with a fake company, no excess heat, and no machine in the fake company. Do
you really believe the jury will ignore that? Those are not
"technicalities."

I.H. has one of the best law firms in the country. I am sure they know more
about juries and trials than you do.


  IH has to prove Penon's report was wrong by an order of magnitude.
>

Anyone could do that, easily. All you have to do is show that the pretend
customer site had no equipment and emitted not heat. You don't even need to
get into the details of calorimetry.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

So - why has the piping layout not been provided?
>

Why do you think I.H. would provide this to you? Who are you? Did they
provide you with any other evidence? There was a great deal uploaded the
other day. Did they send any of it to you beforehand? I doubt that. But
before the upload, surely you realized that such evidence exists, even
though you had not seen it yet. Just because you personally have not seen
additional evidence, it still might exist.



> I'm still waiting for these other "experts" to surface.
>

Again, I.H. is not doing this for your benefit. Just because you personally
have not met the experts, or heard of them, that is not a reason for you to
doubt they exist. There are billions of people in the world you have not
met or heard of. I think you should ask yourself: "Is it likely that
billionaires would go in to a trial where they might lose $267 million
without making preparations?" If it clear to you or I that experts should
evaluate the pipes and the configuration, why do you suppose I.H. would not
do this? What would stop them? You know they have the money to do it. So
you should take it for granted they will leave no stone unturned, and come
to the trial with a mountain of evidence for all of their claims.

Wouldn't you do that, if you were a billionaire being threatened with a
$267 million lawsuit? Have some common sense.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

So - why has the piping layout not been provided?
I'm still waiting for these other "experts" to surface.

On 8/9/2016 6:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It would be really simple to figure if the pipe was only half full
from a plan of the piping.  Without that you have nothing.


Who told you I do not have that? What on earth makes you think _I.H. 
does not have that_?!?


Do you think their only proof of this is the rust level in the pipe? 
Do you think they did not bother to examine the pipe configuration?


As I said before, these people are billionaires. They are being 
threatened by a lawsuit that will take $267 million if they lose. They 
will hire as many experts who will do as much analysis as it takes to 
prove their case beyond any question. They will leave no stone unturned.


Seriously, you need to think through this. Have some common sense! 
Stop imagining that I.H. is not checking things like the pipe 
configuration. Just because I have not given you evidence here in this 
forum, that does not mean there is no such evidence, or that it never 
occurred to the people at I.H. they will need it.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Everything else besides the ERV's report are technicalities that are 
unlikely to effect the jury's decision.  IH has to prove Penon's report 
was wrong by an order of magnitude.



On 8/9/2016 5:55 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
As I have previously said, this is a private legal dispute with no 
outcome that is going to release useful information to the LENR 
community.


It is a quite uphill battle for Rossi.  He has to prove that he met 
ALL of the requirements of the license agreement that entitle him to 
the next round of payments - this is more than the guaranteed 
performance test.  IH only has to prove that at least one aspect of 
the agreement has not been met and Rossi will be found not entitled to 
such payment yet.  I don't have enough information to say who will 
win, and I have 0-zero-0 stake in the outcome.  Vortex pundits will 
also have no effect on the outcome.  I will let the legal process run 
its course with minimal personal angst.


But it is educational to see where proof fails.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:36 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Bob,
I read that Penon had all the instruments connected, but of course
that is not proof he did.
If I had been responsible for monitoring a plant with so much
riding on the outcome I know I would log everything
automatically.   No one would want to spend 24 hours a day there,
so it is logical that he did.

If Penon did that, it would explain why Rossi is so confident.  As
others have iout, IH has failed to supply simple proof that the
plant didn't work. Just suppositions of how Rossi could have
cheated. IH apparently lied about Vaughn not being a manager at
Cherokee so they must be worried.


On 8/9/2016 2:53 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

The flow meter used only seems to read out visually in integer
m^3 with a mechanical digital roll-over indicator (probably
readable to 1/2 digit).  However, the flow meter is available
optionally with a pulse output that apparently pulses for each
0.5 liter passing. Do we know if there was electronic acquisition
of the flow count?  If so, this electronic measure of the flow
would be in increments of 0.5 liter even though the mechanical
digital roll-over meter indicates in increments of 1000 liters.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

I now read that all the ERV's equipment was connected to his
computer and recorded the readings electronically. It will be
interesting to compare the data logged with what Jed is claiming

Engineer48, who has direct contacy with Rossi, writes:
"Rossi told me this meter registers zero for backflow.
The flow is very constant as the big prime and multiple
smaller top up pumps all have multiple 1 way valves and micro
computer controlled flow regulation against varying pressure.
The engineers basically dial in / program the pumps for
1,500kg/hr and that is what the condensate circulation system
pumps deliver, 24/7/365."


Weaver told Engineer48 that they had lost tract of the
reactors IH shipped to Lugano.   - Unbelievable.

Remember the E-Cat underwent trials at IH before commuting to
the 1 MW plant and it was Rossi, not IH who filed the suit in
court.  If the E-Cats never worked why would Rosssi shut down
some to repair them?
What with IH claiming Vaughn was not a manager at Cherokee
and the mistake riddled Exhibit 5 no wonder Cherokee has
spent big bucks to retain APCO and Jones-Day...  In essence,
Ih have not provide any hard evidence to show the 1 MW plant
didn't work and that should have been easy if it didn't
without taking 66 pages.of legalese, speculating on
possibilities and ad hominems.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
Exhibit 5 has errors as I've pointed out.  It is useless as proof.
You are relying on the word of an electronics guy, without even a photo, 
about the "stains".  The pipe could have been stained before it was 
assembled.  What is key is a drawing of the pipe layout - that so far 
you decline to provide.  Without that you CANNOT be certain of what you 
are claiming.


You claim no no said Vaughn was not a manager at Cherokee.  Perhaps you 
should read what Day Jones wrote - in their official submission to the 
court.  With lies like that why would you believe them? Maybe some 
electronics guy can redefine what manager means.


https://twitter.com/The_New_Fire/status/763002369219100672/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw



On 8/9/2016 5:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

As others have iout, IH has failed to supply simple proof that the
plant didn't work.


IH has provided simple proof the plant did not work! Look at Exhibit 
5. Rossi inadvertently provided simple proof that the plant does not 
work. His data shows that, as described in Exhibit 5.



  Just suppositions of how Rossi could have cheated.


These are not "suppositions." This is ironclad proof, such as rust 
showing that the pipe was half full for extended periods. Anyone 
seeing the pipe would know it was half full. And, such as showing 
there was no heat coming from the pretend customer site.


IH apparently lied about Vaughn not being a manager at Cherokee so
they must be worried.


No one said he is not a manager at Cherokee. They say the two 
organizations are separate. A person can work at two different 
organizations simultaneously.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> It would be really simple to figure if the pipe was only half full from a
> plan of the piping.  Without that you have nothing.
>

Who told you I do not have that? What on earth makes you think *I.H. does
not have that*?!?

Do you think their only proof of this is the rust level in the pipe? Do you
think they did not bother to examine the pipe configuration?

As I said before, these people are billionaires. They are being threatened
by a lawsuit that will take $267 million if they lose. They will hire as
many experts who will do as much analysis as it takes to prove their case
beyond any question. They will leave no stone unturned.

Seriously, you need to think through this. Have some common sense! Stop
imagining that I.H. is not checking things like the pipe configuration.
Just because I have not given you evidence here in this forum, that does
not mean there is no such evidence, or that it never occurred to the people
at I.H. they will need it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

The real point is that Rossi would not have bothered to do anything if 
they were not working in the first place.


On 8/9/2016 5:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

That is an unbelievable stretch using recirculated water..


Do you mean that they were mechanically plugged up? It is not a 
stretch. The water was reportedly filthy. It was circulating around 
for a long time. Water used in radiators and industrial equipment does 
get filthy with organic black gunk and rust. There was rust and gunk 
in the flow meter pipe, proving it was only half filled.


Anyway, I was only speculating. I do not know why the reactor was 
turned off and disassembled. Perhaps there was some other reason. I 
just assumed it was clogged up, given all those pipes and tubes.


Cold fusion flowing water calorimeters often get clogged up.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> As others have iout, IH has failed to supply simple proof that the plant
> didn't work.
>

IH has provided simple proof the plant did not work! Look at Exhibit 5.
Rossi inadvertently provided simple proof that the plant does not work. His
data shows that, as described in Exhibit 5.



>   Just suppositions of how Rossi could have cheated.
>

These are not "suppositions." This is ironclad proof, such as rust showing
that the pipe was half full for extended periods. Anyone seeing the pipe
would know it was half full. And, such as showing there was no heat coming
from the pretend customer site.



> IH apparently lied about Vaughn not being a manager at Cherokee so they
> must be worried.
>

No one said he is not a manager at Cherokee. They say the two organizations
are separate. A person can work at two different organizations
simultaneously.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
It would be really simple to figure if the pipe was only half full from 
a plan of the piping.  Without that you have nothing.


On 8/9/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Peter Gluck > wrote:

I told tyht what yoiu said- re cheating with flowmeters is totally
false and imoral.


It is not false at all. It is true, and there is physical proof of 
that, in the stains in the pipe and elsewhere.


Youi have shown that the flowmeter used by Rossi can have some
error if
working a bit under the minimum flow not that he made frsud. I
hope you will abandon this moronism with pipes half full.


For crying out loud! Half-empty pipes are common. Any plumber knows 
how to make a pipe half empty. There is nothing "moronic" about it. It 
was obvious to all observers this pipe was half empty. It had to be, 
given its position in the setup. The rust stains in the pipe confirmed 
this, as did additional testing.



As regarding Defkalion, they wanted to speak with you but then
they were informed that you are working for a group interested in
their IP aand have told ou to not come. From here your hatred.


I have nothing to do with Defkalion or the crimes they committed. They 
lied to you. I was not working with any such group. The only reason I 
hate them is because they defrauded DE. They did nothing to me, other 
than stiffing me for $1,200.


As regarding the Gambearle report it is about error not fraud.


Don't be ridiculous. Read the report:

. . . DGT did not allow DE to use such measurement in any of the
tests of their technology. As a further improvement we added a
second flowmeter upstream of the water system in order to verify
the behavior of the main flowmeter during the measurement of the
excess power but also in this case the added flowmeter was readily
removed by the DGT technicians forbidding us to make any verification.

- In no case has DGT enabled DE engineers to attend the assembly
phase of the active components in the reaction chamber of the
reactor R5 (built by us according to the DGT diagrams) nor left
the reactor R5 complete with all the necessary elements for
running the experiment in the DE laboratories without their
physical presence.

The total lack of cooperation from the part of DGT regarding both
the technical information and crosschecks have made it necessary
to carry out independent verification tests of the calorimetric
measurements of excess power, especially to protect clients who
were about to sign trade agreements and pay fees for the access to
the DGT technology.


We were not able to make a direct measurement of the pressure
fluctuations in the hydraulic circuit because we were not allowed
by DGT to make any change in the hydraulic system . . .

DE has not been put in a position to carry out independent tests
on the technology outside of a strict protocol defined by DGT and
all the tests that DE has witnessed, even in its laboratories,
have always been performed entirely by technicians from DGT (HJ
and AS). During the periods when the DGT staff was not present at
the DE site some component considered essential for obtaining the
reaction was removed in order to prevent DE from making
independent tests. . . ."


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

That is not a mistake. That's fraud. DE put themselves out of 
business, and DGT vanished.


You say you worked with flowmeters, can you mimick the logical
results from the 9 hours yest at ICCF-18 working with two simple
valves and a flowmeter? Can you attain controllable reverse flaw?


Gamberale's report proves that is what they did. They never denied it. 
They vanished, instead. That's what frauds do when someone catches them.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Bob Higgins]

As I have previously said, this is a private legal dispute with no outcome
that is going to release useful information to the LENR community.

It is a quite uphill battle for Rossi.  He has to prove that he met ALL of
the requirements of the license agreement that entitle him to the next
round of payments - this is more than the guaranteed performance test.  IH
only has to prove that at least one aspect of the agreement has not been
met and Rossi will be found not entitled to such payment yet.  I don't have
enough information to say who will win, and I have 0-zero-0 stake in the
outcome.  Vortex pundits will also have no effect on the outcome.  I will
let the legal process run its course with minimal personal angst.

But it is educational to see where proof fails.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:36 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Bob,
> I read that Penon had all the instruments connected, but of course that is
> not proof he did.
> If I had been responsible for monitoring a plant with so much riding on
> the outcome I know I would log everything automatically.   No one would
> want to spend 24 hours a day there, so it is logical that he did.
>
> If Penon did that, it would explain why Rossi is so confident.  As others
> have iout, IH has failed to supply simple proof that the plant didn't
> work.  Just suppositions of how Rossi could have cheated.  IH apparently
> lied about Vaughn not being a manager at Cherokee so they must be worried.
>
>
> On 8/9/2016 2:53 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> The flow meter used only seems to read out visually in integer m^3 with a
> mechanical digital roll-over indicator (probably readable to 1/2 digit).
> However, the flow meter is available optionally with a pulse output that
> apparently pulses for each 0.5 liter passing.  Do we know if there was
> electronic acquisition of the flow count?  If so, this electronic measure
> of the flow would be in increments of 0.5 liter even though the mechanical
> digital roll-over meter indicates in increments of 1000 liters.
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> I now read that all the ERV's equipment was connected to his computer and
>> recorded the readings electronically. It will be interesting to compare the
>> data logged with what Jed is claiming
>>
>> Engineer48, who has direct contacy with Rossi, writes:
>> "Rossi told me this meter registers zero for backflow.
>> The flow is very constant as the big prime and multiple smaller top up
>> pumps all have multiple 1 way valves and micro computer controlled flow
>> regulation against varying pressure.
>> The engineers basically dial in / program the pumps for 1,500kg/hr and
>> that is what the condensate circulation system pumps deliver, 24/7/365."
>>
>>
>> Weaver told Engineer48 that they had lost tract of the reactors IH
>> shipped to Lugano.   - Unbelievable.
>>
>> Remember the E-Cat underwent trials at IH before commuting to the 1 MW
>> plant and it was Rossi, not IH who filed the suit in court.  If the E-Cats
>> never worked why would Rosssi shut down some to repair them?
>> What with IH claiming Vaughn was not a manager at Cherokee and the
>> mistake riddled Exhibit 5 no wonder Cherokee has spent big bucks to retain
>> APCO and Jones-Day...  In essence, Ih have not provide any hard evidence to
>> show the 1 MW plant didn't work and that should have been easy if it didn't
>> without taking 66 pages.of legalese, speculating on possibilities and ad
>> hominems.
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Bob,
I read that Penon had all the instruments connected, but of course that 
is not proof he did.
If I had been responsible for monitoring a plant with so much riding on 
the outcome I know I would log everything automatically.   No one would 
want to spend 24 hours a day there, so it is logical that he did.


If Penon did that, it would explain why Rossi is so confident.  As 
others have iout, IH has failed to supply simple proof that the plant 
didn't work.  Just suppositions of how Rossi could have cheated.  IH 
apparently lied about Vaughn not being a manager at Cherokee so they 
must be worried.



On 8/9/2016 2:53 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
The flow meter used only seems to read out visually in integer m^3 
with a mechanical digital roll-over indicator (probably readable to 
1/2 digit).  However, the flow meter is available optionally with a 
pulse output that apparently pulses for each 0.5 liter passing.  Do we 
know if there was electronic acquisition of the flow count?  If so, 
this electronic measure of the flow would be in increments of 0.5 
liter even though the mechanical digital roll-over meter indicates in 
increments of 1000 liters.


On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


I now read that all the ERV's equipment was connected to his
computer and recorded the readings electronically. It will be
interesting to compare the data logged with what Jed is claiming

Engineer48, who has direct contacy with Rossi, writes:
"Rossi told me this meter registers zero for backflow.
The flow is very constant as the big prime and multiple smaller
top up pumps all have multiple 1 way valves and micro computer
controlled flow regulation against varying pressure.
The engineers basically dial in / program the pumps for 1,500kg/hr
and that is what the condensate circulation system pumps deliver,
24/7/365."


Weaver told Engineer48 that they had lost tract of the reactors IH
shipped to Lugano.   - Unbelievable.

Remember the E-Cat underwent trials at IH before commuting to the
1 MW plant and it was Rossi, not IH who filed the suit in court. 
If the E-Cats never worked why would Rosssi shut down some to

repair them?
What with IH claiming Vaughn was not a manager at Cherokee and the
mistake riddled Exhibit 5 no wonder Cherokee has spent big bucks
to retain APCO and Jones-Day...  In essence, Ih have not provide
any hard evidence to show the 1 MW plant didn't work and that
should have been easy if it didn't without taking 66 pages.of
legalese, speculating on possibilities and ad hominems.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> That is an unbelievable stretch using recirculated water..
>

Do you mean that they were mechanically plugged up? It is not a stretch.
The water was reportedly filthy. It was circulating around for a long time.
Water used in radiators and industrial equipment does get filthy with
organic black gunk and rust. There was rust and gunk in the flow meter
pipe, proving it was only half filled.

Anyway, I was only speculating. I do not know why the reactor was turned
off and disassembled. Perhaps there was some other reason. I just assumed
it was clogged up, given all those pipes and tubes.

Cold fusion flowing water calorimeters often get clogged up.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
That is an unbelievable stretch using recirculated water..


On 8/9/2016 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

If the Ecats never worked, why would Rossi stop some to repair them?


I presume they were mechanically plugged up.

They did not 'work' in the sense that they did not produce anomalous 
heat, but Rossi pretended they did. It was all a facade.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:

Jed,
>
> Here is the information from the counter-complaint regarding data.
>
> "85. As just one example, in late February 2016, shortly after the
> conclusion of the purported Guaranteed Performance test, USQL and Fabiani
> committed to send certain data and a report by the end of March . . .
>

Thanks. I saw this, but I did not read it carefully. I guess I should read
it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

I told tyht what yoiu said- re cheating with flowmeters is totally false
> and imoral.
>

It is not false at all. It is true, and there is physical proof of that, in
the stains in the pipe and elsewhere.



> Youi have shown that the flowmeter used by Rossi can have some error if
> working a bit under the minimum flow not that he made frsud. I hope you
> will abandon this moronism with pipes half full.
>

For crying out loud! Half-empty pipes are common. Any plumber knows how to
make a pipe half empty. There is nothing "moronic" about it. It was obvious
to all observers this pipe was half empty. It had to be, given its position
in the setup. The rust stains in the pipe confirmed this, as did additional
testing.


As regarding Defkalion, they wanted to speak with you but then they were
> informed that you are working for a group interested in their IP aand have
> told ou to not come. From here your hatred.
>

I have nothing to do with Defkalion or the crimes they committed. They lied
to you. I was not working with any such group. The only reason I hate them
is because they defrauded DE. They did nothing to me, other than stiffing
me for $1,200.


As regarding the Gambearle report it is about error not fraud.
>

Don't be ridiculous. Read the report:

. . . DGT did not allow DE to use such measurement in any of the tests of
their technology. As a further improvement we added a second flowmeter
upstream of the water system in order to verify the behavior of the main
flowmeter during the measurement of the excess power but also in this case
the added flowmeter was readily removed by the DGT technicians forbidding
us to make any verification.

- In no case has DGT enabled DE engineers to attend the assembly phase of
the active components in the reaction chamber of the reactor R5 (built by
us according to the DGT diagrams) nor left the reactor R5 complete with all
the necessary elements for running the experiment in the DE laboratories
without their physical presence.

The total lack of cooperation from the part of DGT regarding both the
technical information and crosschecks have made it necessary to carry out
independent verification tests of the calorimetric measurements of excess
power, especially to protect clients who were about to sign trade
agreements and pay fees for the access to the DGT technology.


We were not able to make a direct measurement of the pressure fluctuations
in the hydraulic circuit because we were not allowed by DGT to make any
change in the hydraulic system . . .

DE has not been put in a position to carry out independent tests on the
technology outside of a strict protocol defined by DGT and all the tests
that DE has witnessed, even in its laboratories, have always been performed
entirely by technicians from DGT (HJ and AS). During the periods when the
DGT staff was not present at the DE site some component considered
essential for obtaining the reaction was removed in order to prevent DE
from making independent tests. . . ."


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

That is not a mistake. That's fraud. DE put themselves out of business, and
DGT vanished.



> You say you worked with flowmeters, can you mimick the logical results
> from the 9 hours yest at ICCF-18 working with two simple valves and a
> flowmeter? Can you attain controllable reverse flaw?
>

Gamberale's report proves that is what they did. They never denied it. They
vanished, instead. That's what frauds do when someone catches them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Peter Gluck]

Jed,

your ;logic is flawed but you must demonstrate no heat excess and Rossi
was scamming.
I know well what errors cn you make with many instruments I have worked 40
years in the chemical industry. You are here lying shemelessly with" ou
claimed that it is impossible to make mistakes with flowmeters' I told tyht
what yoiu said- re cheating with flowmeters is totally false and imoral.

Youi have shown that the flowmeter used by Rossi can have some error if
working a bit under the minimum flow not that he made frsud. I hope you
will abandon this moronism with pipes half full.
As regarding Defkalion, they wanted to speak with you but then they were
informed that you are working for a group interested in their IP aand have
told ou to not come. From here your hatred.
As regarding the Gambearle report it is about error not fraud. You say you
worked with flowmeters, can you mimick the logical results from the 9 hours
yest at ICCF-18 working with two simple valves and a flowmeter? Can you
attain controllable reverse flaw?
Defkalion failed due to materials science reasons could not heat when
changed fro plug sparkks to direct plasma discharge.

A pipe having air all the time must get it by injection, and half the volume
is much. A few bubbles do not make harm.

Why you cannot answer t=re schematic- simple not secret- pipes and
flowmeter, horizonal vertical. You are- and it is not an offense but a
compliment kind of scammer. add noproofs to your titles.
peter

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> which schematic?
>>
>
> It has not been published. You will have to wait to see it.
>
> I realize you do not like to wait. You prefer to jump to conclusions with
> no knowledge at all, while you attack me and others even though you have no
> idea what we are talking about. You demonstrated that over the last few
> months when you claimed that it is impossible to make mistakes with
> flowmeters. You said that even though I showed you dozens of ways in the
> Omega site, and even though Gamberale reported in detail how Defkalion
> committed fraud with a flowmeter, stealing millions of dollars from
> investors.
>
> You continue to say that even though you have now been shown how Rossi
> committed fraud with his flowmeter. Even though you know that Rossi and
> Penon never answered the questions in Exhibit 5, making it clear they have
> no answers and they are guilty. No amount of proof will satisfy you.
>
> Now you claim it is impossible to have air in a pipe. Apparently you know
> nothing about plumbing.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jack Cole]

Jed,

Here is the information from the counter-complaint regarding data.

"85. As just one example, in late February 2016, shortly after the
conclusion of the purported Guaranteed Performance test, USQL and Fabiani
committed to send certain data and a report by the end of March 2016 that
would “bring to light all the flaws and functional deficiencies of the
system” and identify “the plant stop periods (total or partial).” In later
emails, USQL and Fabiani also committed to provide Industrial Heat with the
raw data that USQL and Fabiani collected while working with the Plant in
Doral, Florida. Despite repeated reminders, however, USQL and Fabiani have
refused to provide either the report or the raw data to Industrial Heat.
See, e.g., Ex. 21."

Back to the flow meter. It appears that flow was only measured into the
plant with no out flow measured.  I had previously thought this was an
output flow meter, but apparently not.

"86. For his part, among other things, Penon primarily contributed to the
scheme in a variety of ways relating to the purported measurement of the
Plant’s operations in Florida during the purported Guaranteed Performance
test.7 To start, his initial plan and design for measuring the power coming
into and out of the Plant was, as he well knew, fundamentally flawed –
including using improper equipment to measure the flow of fluid into the
Plant and no equipment to measure the flow of heated fluid out of the
Plant. Moreover, when the purported Guaranteed Performance test departed
from Penon’s plan and design almost immediately after the testing began –
including that the number of reactors being operated was far less than the
number of reactors specified in Penon’s plan and design – Penon simply
disregarded the massive deviation. See Ex. 5."

And here's more:

"87. Penon further knowingly relied on flawed or fabricated data
collections in his supposed evaluation of the Plant’s performance. For
example, Leonardo and Rossi have admitted (on their internet blog postings)
that there were days when portions of the Plant were not operating, but
Penon in his final report does not report any material decrease in output
of the Plant on those days. Rather, he makes the (inexplicable) claim in
his final report that on these days the Plant’s performance either did not
change or somehow even increased. 88. In February 2016 at an in-person
meeting with Penon, Murray identified a number of flaws in how Penon was
conducting his measurements of the Plant. Some of those flaws were also
presented in writing to Penon on March 25, 2016. See id. Despite have full
knowledge of the flaws, Penon nevertheless issued his false final report on
March 28, 2016, claiming that guaranteed performance was achieved – and
that the COPs achieved by the Plant were literally many multiples greater
than ever claimed by anyone else (other than Leonardo and Rossi) who had
ever tested an E-Cat reactor. Not surprisingly, since the day he left
Florida in February 2016, Penon has refused to discuss his measurements,
his measurement plan and design, or his report with Counter-Plaintiffs
(though he has requested that Counter-Plaintiffs pay him for his work)."

Jack



On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:15 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
> The flow meter used only seems to read out visually in integer m^3 with a
>> mechanical digital roll-over indicator (probably readable to 1/2 digit).
>> However, the flow meter is available optionally with a pulse output that
>> apparently pulses for each 0.5 liter passing.  Do we know if there was
>> electronic acquisition of the flow count?
>>
>
> I have heard it did not, but I could be wrong about that. I have heard
> they kept handwritten logs, which were a mess. The data looks to me like it
> was transcribed from handwritten logs, with errors and truncation typical
> of that.
>
> Sigh . . . I am probably from the last generation of people who recognize
> data that was collected by hand. This is like being able to recognize
> computation done on a slide rule, with 1 or 2 digit precision.
>
> There could be electronic data elsewhere. There was something in the court
> filings about electronic data, as pointed out by Jack Cole above:
>
> "There supposedly is raw data, which AR as referred to as millions of data
> points.  Unfortunately, if this data exists, it was never shared with IH by
> either Fabiani or Penon despite multiple requests and contractual
> obligations. . . ."
>
>
> I have no knowledge of this.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:

The flow meter used only seems to read out visually in integer m^3 with a
> mechanical digital roll-over indicator (probably readable to 1/2 digit).
> However, the flow meter is available optionally with a pulse output that
> apparently pulses for each 0.5 liter passing.  Do we know if there was
> electronic acquisition of the flow count?
>

I have heard it did not, but I could be wrong about that. I have heard they
kept handwritten logs, which were a mess. The data looks to me like it was
transcribed from handwritten logs, with errors and truncation typical of
that.

Sigh . . . I am probably from the last generation of people who recognize
data that was collected by hand. This is like being able to recognize
computation done on a slide rule, with 1 or 2 digit precision.

There could be electronic data elsewhere. There was something in the court
filings about electronic data, as pointed out by Jack Cole above:

"There supposedly is raw data, which AR as referred to as millions of data
points.  Unfortunately, if this data exists, it was never shared with IH by
either Fabiani or Penon despite multiple requests and contractual
obligations. . . ."


I have no knowledge of this.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

which schematic?
>

It has not been published. You will have to wait to see it.

I realize you do not like to wait. You prefer to jump to conclusions with
no knowledge at all, while you attack me and others even though you have no
idea what we are talking about. You demonstrated that over the last few
months when you claimed that it is impossible to make mistakes with
flowmeters. You said that even though I showed you dozens of ways in the
Omega site, and even though Gamberale reported in detail how Defkalion
committed fraud with a flowmeter, stealing millions of dollars from
investors.

You continue to say that even though you have now been shown how Rossi
committed fraud with his flowmeter. Even though you know that Rossi and
Penon never answered the questions in Exhibit 5, making it clear they have
no answers and they are guilty. No amount of proof will satisfy you.

Now you claim it is impossible to have air in a pipe. Apparently you know
nothing about plumbing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

You might well be correct Jed.  But, he had, I believe about 100 individual
> test devices.  Is it likely that every one failed?
>

The data I have seen, which is described in Exhibit 5, is for the entire
system. It is calorimetry applied to the outlet pipe for all reactors. I
have no knowledge of whether calorimetry was also performed for individual
units.

The system as a whole did not produce measurable anomalous energy, so I
guess that means individual units did not.



> Also, is the granularity of the test able to confirm that zero excess heat
> was generated?  Some believe that he is achieving a COP of 1.2? or so which
> might be undetected under this condition.
>

Rossi's own data is so vague, with such a gigantic error margins that I
cannot rule out the possibility of a COP slightly above 1, but my estimate
is that it is below 1. That is after I make some crude adjustments for what
I consider nonsense, such as the pressure being 0.0 bar. Taken at face
value the numbers do indicate 1 MW.

I.H. reportedly has better data which shows no excess heat. I have not seen
it. I can well imagine how they collected it. It would not be difficult to
circumvent Rossi's instruments.


If he actually did not generate any additional heat, I would be concerned
> that this form of LENR is totally without merrit.  If so, it is time to go
> back into hibernation.
>

Other people have reported positive results with Ni powder, so I think it
merits continued investigation. There is nothing in Rossi's techniques or
experiments that anyone else can use. No useful information has been
released. Even if it works, no one has any idea how to replicate it. Rossi
failed to transfer any IP to experts at I.H. (assuming he has IP). So it is
of no use to the rest of the field.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Bob Higgins]

The flow meter used only seems to read out visually in integer m^3 with a
mechanical digital roll-over indicator (probably readable to 1/2 digit).
However, the flow meter is available optionally with a pulse output that
apparently pulses for each 0.5 liter passing.  Do we know if there was
electronic acquisition of the flow count?  If so, this electronic measure
of the flow would be in increments of 0.5 liter even though the mechanical
digital roll-over meter indicates in increments of 1000 liters.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> I now read that all the ERV's equipment was connected to his computer and
> recorded the readings electronically. It will be interesting to compare the
> data logged with what Jed is claiming
>
> Engineer48, who has direct contacy with Rossi, writes:
> "Rossi told me this meter registers zero for backflow.
> The flow is very constant as the big prime and multiple smaller top up
> pumps all have multiple 1 way valves and micro computer controlled flow
> regulation against varying pressure.
> The engineers basically dial in / program the pumps for 1,500kg/hr and
> that is what the condensate circulation system pumps deliver, 24/7/365."
>
>
> Weaver told Engineer48 that they had lost tract of the reactors IH shipped
> to Lugano.   - Unbelievable.
>
> Remember the E-Cat underwent trials at IH before commuting to the 1 MW
> plant and it was Rossi, not IH who filed the suit in court.  If the E-Cats
> never worked why would Rosssi shut down some to repair them?
> What with IH claiming Vaughn was not a manager at Cherokee and the mistake
> riddled Exhibit 5 no wonder Cherokee has spent big bucks to retain APCO and
> Jones-Day...  In essence, Ih have not provide any hard evidence to show the
> 1 MW plant didn't work and that should have been easy if it didn't without
> taking 66 pages.of legalese, speculating on possibilities and ad hominems.
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Peter Gluck]

which schematic? say a horizontal pipe, flowmeter, valve, vertical
pipe= descending or ascending, valve, no air injection in the ssytem.
again, a schematic of the schematic!
peter

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> tell this to APATOR, was air injected in the circuit?
>>
>
> How would Apator know? Their manual warns you not allow air into the pipe,
> but they were not present in this installation.
>
> Again I ask: Why would the Apator manual warn against this if it is
> impossible? See Exhibit 5:
>
> "The flow meter requires that the entire pipe volume be full of liquid to
> function properly, as described in the Apator PoWoGaz Operating
> Instructions [section 6.6 in document I-EN-2- 003/2013, Operating
> Instructions, Flange water meters DN40 - 500]."
>
>
>
>> I repeat this half full pipe idea is too X to be possible.
>>
>
> It is not only possible, it is inevitable with the arrangement shown in
> the schematic.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

tell this to APATOR, was air injected in the circuit?
>

How would Apator know? Their manual warns you not allow air into the pipe,
but they were not present in this installation.

Again I ask: Why would the Apator manual warn against this if it is
impossible? See Exhibit 5:

"The flow meter requires that the entire pipe volume be full of liquid to
function properly, as described in the Apator PoWoGaz Operating
Instructions [section 6.6 in document I-EN-2- 003/2013, Operating
Instructions, Flange water meters DN40 - 500]."



> I repeat this half full pipe idea is too X to be possible.
>

It is not only possible, it is inevitable with the arrangement shown in the
schematic.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Peter Gluck]

tell this to APATOR, was air injected in the circuit? I repeat this half
full pipe idea is too X to be possible. Think a bit, are you losing
your sense of reality?
peter

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> the idea of half full pipes and half full flowmeter is a total idiocy
>>
>
> No, it is not. That is easy to arrange. That is why the manual for this
> flow meter specifically *warns you not to do it*. If it were impossible,
> why would they say that?
>
> All flowmeter guides say that. See:
>
> "Expected minimum and maximum pressure and temperature values should be
> given in addition to the normal operating values when selecting flow
> meters. Whether flow can reverse, *whether it does not always fill the
> pipe*, whether *slug flow can develop (air-solids-liquid)*, whether
> aeration or pulsation is likely, whether sudden temperature changes can
> occur, or whether special precautions are needed during cleaning and
> maintenance, these facts, too, should be stated."
>
>
> http://www.omega.com/prodinfo/flowmeters.html
>
>
> you have no idea how water flows in the pipes and in the flowmeter.
>>
>
> I do know, in some detail. I am sure the pipe was half empty. I.H. knows
> in great detail.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

I now read that all the ERV's equipment was connected to his computer and
> recorded the readings electronically. It will be interesting to compare the
> data logged with what Jed is claiming
>

I am not claiming anything about computer data. I do not know anything
about such data.

As far as I can tell this flowmeter is not electronic, so it could not be
connected to anything. Perhaps I have misread the brochure. The only
version I can find is an Polish. Anyway, I am sure this was Penon's
instrument, because the Exhibit 5 letter is addressed to Penon. So if he
had a computer log, I guess the flow rate was not part of it. I do not see
any other flowmeters in the schematic but perhaps there was one.



> Engineer48, who has direct contacy with Rossi, writes:
> "Rossi told me this meter registers zero for backflow.
>

No one asserts there was backflow. I do not see how there could have been.



> The flow is very constant as the big prime and multiple smaller top up
> pumps all have multiple 1 way valves and micro computer controlled flow
> regulation against varying pressure.
>

I suggest you take what Rossi says with a grain of salt. He is not a
reliable source of information.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Russ George  wrote:

Hmm. So we are to believe that the observation of Rossi’s e-cat not working
> is so simple and obvious that anyone can so surmise without any special
> abilities.
>

Who said that? That I.H. experts have special abilities. More than Penon
does, as you see in Exhibit 5.


Yet IH spent a year conducting tours of the Rossi plant showing it off to
> prospective investors from whom they secured scores of millions of dollars
> of investment.
>

That is incorrect. They did not do that. I do not know where you heard that
rumor but it is wrong.



> And the result of this is that some here are petulantly proclaiming Rossi
> a fraud and scam artist while IH reaped ten times the cash of Rossi from
> its investors…
>

On the contrary, the test was a thorn in I.H.'s side. They were complaining
about it, not boasting about it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

the idea of half full pipes and half full flowmeter is a total idiocy
>

No, it is not. That is easy to arrange. That is why the manual for this
flow meter specifically *warns you not to do it*. If it were impossible,
why would they say that?

All flowmeter guides say that. See:

"Expected minimum and maximum pressure and temperature values should be
given in addition to the normal operating values when selecting flow
meters. Whether flow can reverse, *whether it does not always fill the pipe*,
whether *slug flow can develop (air-solids-liquid)*, whether aeration or
pulsation is likely, whether sudden temperature changes can occur, or
whether special precautions are needed during cleaning and maintenance,
these facts, too, should be stated."


http://www.omega.com/prodinfo/flowmeters.html


you have no idea how water flows in the pipes and in the flowmeter.
>

I do know, in some detail. I am sure the pipe was half empty. I.H. knows in
great detail.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

I now read that all the ERV's equipment was connected to his computer 
and recorded the readings electronically. It will be interesting to 
compare the data logged with what Jed is claiming


Engineer48, who has direct contacy with Rossi, writes:
"Rossi told me this meter registers zero for backflow.
The flow is very constant as the big prime and multiple smaller top up 
pumps all have multiple 1 way valves and micro computer controlled flow 
regulation against varying pressure.
The engineers basically dial in / program the pumps for 1,500kg/hr and 
that is what the condensate circulation system pumps deliver, 24/7/365."



Weaver told Engineer48 that they had lost tract of the reactors IH 
shipped to Lugano.   - Unbelievable.


Remember the E-Cat underwent trials at IH before commuting to the 1 MW 
plant and it was Rossi, not IH who filed the suit in court.  If the 
E-Cats never worked why would Rosssi shut down some to repair them?
What with IH claiming Vaughn was not a manager at Cherokee and the 
mistake riddled Exhibit 5 no wonder Cherokee has spent big bucks to 
retain APCO and Jones-Day...  In essence, Ih have not provide any hard 
evidence to show the 1 MW plant didn't work and that should have been 
easy if it didn't without taking 66 pages.of legalese, speculating on 
possibilities and ad hominems.



On 8/9/2016 1:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

You keep repeating that what you say is absolutely true despite
the errors I pointed out in Exhibit 5.


There are no errors in Exhibit 5. If there were, Rossi and Penon would 
have pointed them out. They were contractually obligated to point out 
such errors and if they had done so to everyone's satisfaction they 
would have been paid $89 million.



Contrary to what you write, it would be to Rossi's advantage for
IH to summit errors of fact.  It would not be in Penon's interest
to correct them with a court case pending, without legal guidance.


This letter was mailed before Rossi filed suit. These same questions 
were being asked long before that. Asked, but not answered. Many other 
concerns were raised, but not answered.


Short of reading the contract, you don't know if Penon was
obligated to talk to an outside consultant.


I repeat: Murray was _not_ an outside consultant. Furthermore, people 
within I.H. asked these same questions. Rossi and Penon refused to answer.


You need to stop making up stuff like this.


  Murray has never claimed he was employed directly by IH.


How the hell would you know that?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

Jed, do your sources confirm that the readings were made on a daily basis
> and not calculated at the end of the experiment?


I.H. was sent periodic reports during the test with daily totals. Since the
temperature varied slightly someone must have been keeping a daily log.
Eyewitnesses told me there were handwritten logs.

Perhaps you are suggesting the flow rate was the average for a long period.
If that were the case, it would be a different average for each interim
report, but it was the same in all cases. Also, it makes no sense to use an
average flow rate when temperature and other parameters change and when
reactors are taken off-line. I suppose the flow rate must have changed when
reactors were off-line, so an average would give you the wrong answer.



> Does the flow meter reset its total reading at the end of each day?


Not as far as I know. Look at the manual.



> Lewan says that the average was 36000 kg/day which can be derived in many
> different ways.
>

That's silly. Anyway, it was not listed as an average. If it was an
average, or an estimate, Penon should have said so in response to Exhibit 5.



> Suppose you read a large number after the completion of the test.  If you
> divide that large number by the number of days during which the test takes
> place you will likely get a fractional value.


Since other conditions change, this would give you the wrong answer, as I
said.



> We can eliminate that possibility if you can confirm that the meter was
> reset each day after the reading was taken.  Can you verify this occurred?
>

I cannot, but I do not see a reset button on the meter and I have never
heard of such a thing. This would be inaccurate. It would throw away the
volume above 36,000 kg, which might be as much as 3% (36/37). If you let
the thing run, and after a week or so you would see approximately how much
volume above 36,000 there is.

More to the point, using an instrument that registers only 36 units per day
is insane. A properly sized flowmeter would register thousands of times a
day.



> I am attempting to uncover what actually took place during the testing and
> do not have a horse in the race.  This should not be a controversial
> question.
>

Everything about the flowmeter is not just controversial, it ridiculous. It
is unprofessional, half-assed and outrageous. With $89 million at stake you *do
not* select an instrument that anyone can see is unfit for the purpose.

This is another example of Rossi deliberately introducing confusion into a
test, making it impossible to do a proper evaluation.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jack Cole]

Dave,

There supposedly is raw data, which AR as referred to as millions of data
points.  Unfortunately, if this data exists, it was never shared with IH by
either Fabiani or Penon despite multiple requests and contractual
obligations.  I suspect if we could ever get our hands on this data, it
would be very useful in figuring out what happened.  That assumes it exists.

Fabiani refused to turn it over from what I can tell even when he would
have received his last check for doing so (according to IH's
counterclaims).  Penon wouldn't answer legitimate questions by Murray about
the flow meter and why the report showed 1MW output on days when the plant
was down.

I would expect this to be subpoenaed by the court, so maybe we'll see it
some day.

Jack

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:00 PM David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> Jed, do your sources confirm that the readings were made on a daily basis
> and not calculated at the end of the experiment?  Does the flow meter reset
> its total reading at the end of each day?  Lewan says that the average was
> 36000 kg/day which can be derived in many different ways.
>
> Suppose you read a large number after the completion of the test.  If you
> divide that large number by the number of days during which the test takes
> place you will likely get a fractional value.  Now, if rounded off to the
> 1000 kg reading step size you might get 36000 kg/day.  Could that be what
> the guys did?
>
> We can eliminate that possibility if you can confirm that the meter was
> reset each day after the reading was taken.  Can you verify this occurred?
>
> I am attempting to uncover what actually took place during the testing and
> do not have a horse in the race.  This should not be a controversial
> question.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:38 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court
> document
>
> David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the truth
>> if he were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact.  Is that not
>> giving him the benefit of the doubt?  Can anyone be 100% confident that he
>> is completely lying?
>>
>
> Yes, I am 100% confident he is lying. Take Exhibit 5. If Rossi or Penon
> had legitimate answers to the issues raised in that document, they would
> have answered them. They had a contractual obligation to answer, and it
> would have been in their interests to do so. They did not respond at all.
> That tells me they have no answers and the damning assertions made in that
> document are correct. I have other proof of that. Independent observers
> told me these assertions are correct.
>
> I am also certain there was not 1 MW of waste heat coming out of the
> customer site.
>
> I have seen Penon's data, and I confirm it has 36,000 kg in every day, for
> weeks. As I explained here, that is impossible. If you reset the counter to
> zero every day it might go past 36,000 every day, for example, to 36,410,
> 36,228, etc., and with this meter that would show up as 36,000 every day.
> Except when daylight savings changes. But that is not what happened.
>
> 32,000 may be a reasonable approximation of what the meter showed, but it
> is definitely made-up data that was stuffed into the tables.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Russ George]

Hmm. So we are to believe that the observation of Rossi’s e-cat not working is 
so simple and obvious that anyone can so surmise without any special abilities. 
Yet IH spent a year conducting tours of the Rossi plant showing it off to 
prospective investors from whom they secured scores of millions of dollars of 
investment. And the result of this is that some here are petulantly proclaiming 
Rossi a fraud and scam artist while IH reaped ten times the cash of Rossi from 
its investors… hmmm the apportionment of the label of fraud seems wildly out of 
whack. Perhaps the old adage ‘follow the money’ is most appropriate here. Let’s 
see where is the most money, let’s start looking there. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 8:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

 

Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com <mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Jed, do you have a system diagram for the 1 year test unit?

 

I have a diagram but I do not think it is detailed enough to answer this 
question.

 

 

If I were Rossi, and I knew that some of the units would have to be taken off 
line, I would design in bypass valves.  

 

I suppose this would allow the flow rate to remain about the same. But not so 
precisely the same that it would be exactly 36,000 kg that day. However, in 
that situation the temperature would be lower and the heat output would be 
lower. The data shows 1 MW being produced when the log book shows half the 
units were off line. In some cases the data shows 1 MW when the entire reactor 
was turned off.

 

I do not think it would be a good idea to leave the same flow rate when half 
the units are off-line. I suppose this would cool the remaining units too much.

 

 

Do you have evidence that the water circulation pump(s) was ever shut off?

 

Eyewitness observers told me they were off. They said the entire reactor was 
disassembled at times, yet the data shows the flow rate was 36,000 kg and heat 
output was 1 MW on these days. I find that improbable. Highly improbable.

 

 

  Even if the reactors themselves were shut down, the water flow could remain 
constant.

 

Ah, but the temperature would vary, so heat output would be reduced. Yet it was 
within a few degrees every day. Apparently, when half the units were turned off 
the remaining units magically put out twice as much heat. If you believe the 
data.

 

 

Looking at the flow gauge spec, there is some discrepancy in the specification. 
 It has 6 digit mechanical readout, claims a range of 1E6 m^3, but also claims 
an indication of down to 0.5 liter.

 

It measures to the nearest metric ton. 1,000 L to be exact. (It is volumetric 
and it only works with liquids, I believe.)

 

 

However, what one would expect to see in that case of constant flow is the 
water output temperature to be reduced during reactor shutdown or bypass.  Do 
you have that corresponding temperature data?

 

The temperature was supposedly about the same, every day.

 

I do not actually believe any of this data. It is bogus. Some of the numbers 
were confirmed by witnesses, but clearly they came from instruments that were 
not working correctly, such as the flow meter in a half-empty pipe. This is 
Grade-A, in your face, ham-handed, half-assed bullshit. It is fraud. The most 
outrageous fraud I have ever seen. This is obvious for the reasons given in 
Exhibit 5, and for many other reasons not yet revealed, such as the fact that 
there was no measurable heat in the customer site. In my opinion, there is not 
slightest chance this machine produced excess heat.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Peter Gluck]

the idea of half full pipes and half full flowmeter is a total idiocy
you have no idea how water flows in the pipes and in the flowmeter.
peter

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
>> the pipes were half, 1/3 parts full in the ascending portions too.?
>>
>
> How would that work? Explain what you mean. Either that, or stop making
> flippant, stupid comments.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> If the Ecats never worked, why would Rossi stop some to repair them?
>

I presume they were mechanically plugged up.

They did not 'work' in the sense that they did not produce anomalous heat,
but Rossi pretended they did. It was all a facade.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> You keep repeating that what you say is absolutely true despite the errors
> I pointed out in Exhibit 5.
>

There are no errors in Exhibit 5. If there were, Rossi and Penon would have
pointed them out. They were contractually obligated to point out such
errors and if they had done so to everyone's satisfaction they would have
been paid $89 million.



> Contrary to what you write, it would be to Rossi's advantage for IH to
> summit errors of fact.  It would not be in Penon's interest to correct them
> with a court case pending, without legal guidance.
>

This letter was mailed before Rossi filed suit. These same questions were
being asked long before that. Asked, but not answered. Many other concerns
were raised, but not answered.



> Short of reading the contract, you don't know if Penon was obligated to
> talk to an outside consultant.
>

I repeat: Murray was *not* an outside consultant. Furthermore, people
within I.H. asked these same questions. Rossi and Penon refused to answer.

You need to stop making up stuff like this.



>   Murray has never claimed he was employed directly by IH.
>

How the hell would you know that?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> the pipes were half, 1/3 parts full in the ascending portions too.?
>

How would that work? Explain what you mean. Either that, or stop making
flippant, stupid comments.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

Please forgive me for asking you for clarification.  You state that there is a 
holding tank @60 to 70C from which the water is drawn.  Is this tank open to 
the atmosphere or is the system closed?

Also, do you know where the flow meter is located relative to this tank?  Is it 
lower than the tank and located ahead of the pump?  Do you have a reference 
drawing that shows the system layout?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 10:17 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
There are several reasons why Penon might have declined to answerMurray.
Your theory that the flow meter was reading significantly high hasbeen 
shot down.
As the flow rate was controlled downstream of the meter, one would
expect it not to vary much.
Exhibit 5 has errors as pointed out earlier.
If the customer had a strongly endothermic process you would not get1 
MW released into the building
I don't know who is telling the truth, but is not yet proven that IHis.

The theory (not yours) earlier about vapor in the line effecting the
flow meter neglects that the return from the customer is into aholding tank 
@ 60 - 70C.  Water drawn from that would not have freevapor. 



On 8/9/2016 9:38 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


  

  
David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
  


I would hope that  you could be convinced that Rossi is telling 
the truth  if he were to present a solid scientific proof to 
that  fact.  Is that not giving him the benefit of the  
doubt?  Can anyone be 100% confident that he is  
completely lying?





Yes, I am 100% confident he is lying. Take Exhibit 5.  If Rossi or 
Penon had legitimate answers to the issues  raised in that 
document, they would have answered them.  They had a contractual 
obligation to answer, and it would  have been in their interests to 
do so. They did not  respond at all. That tells me they have no 
answers and the  damning assertions made in that document are 
correct. I  have other proof of that. Independent observers told me 
 these assertions are correct.




  
I am also certain there was not 1 MW of waste heatcoming out of 
the customer site.
  

  


I have seen Penon's data, and I confirm it has 36,000  kg in every 
day, for weeks. As I explained here, that is  impossible. If you 
reset the counter to zero every day it  might go past 36,000 every 
day, for example, to 36,410,  36,228, etc., and with this meter 
that would show up as  36,000 every day. Except when daylight 
savings changes.  But that is not what happened.




32,000 may be a reasonable approximation of what the  meter showed, 
but it is definitely made-up data that was  stuffed into the tables.




- Jed




  

  


  

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

Jed, what did the IH guys present during the actual test period say about the 
meter readings?  They appear to be a party to the deception unless they can 
verify that the readings were not reasonable during their watch.

Both groups should have something to say about the daily readings during their 
presence.  If they fail to mention this then pox on them all.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:57 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> wrote:


  
I'm not convinced the meter readings were totally faked, or even
necessarily faked at all.




Then explain how they could be exactly 36,000 per day for weeks. As I pointed 
out, the flow rate would have to be exactly the same to 1 second per day for 
this to happen.


This is simply not possible.


If Penon had said "these are approximate values" in response to Exhibit 5, that 
would be reasonable. Sloppy, but reasonable. No response at all is tantamount 
to admitting it is fake data.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

You might well be correct Jed.  But, he had, I believe about 100 individual 
test devices.  Is it likely that every one failed?

Also, is the granularity of the test able to confirm that zero excess heat was 
generated?  Some believe that he is achieving a COP of 1.2? or so which might 
be undetected under this condition.

If he actually did not generate any additional heat, I would be concerned that 
this form of LENR is totally without merrit.  If so, it is time to go back into 
hibernation.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


As I stated, I have many concerns about his system.  On the other hand, I have 
a much more positive belief that some form of nickel, hydrogen, lithium gas 
system might generate additional heat.  As long as that possibility exists 
within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's experiment would be completely 
invalid. 



Many cold fusion experiments fail to produce any heat. Experiments with Pd and 
Ni both fail. They are "completely invalid" but the authors say they did not 
work, so there is no problem. Some of Rossi's early experiments might have 
produced excess heat. I cannot rule that out. This one did not.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

Jed, do your sources confirm that the readings were made on a daily basis and 
not calculated at the end of the experiment?  Does the flow meter reset its 
total reading at the end of each day?  Lewan says that the average was 36000 
kg/day which can be derived in many different ways.

Suppose you read a large number after the completion of the test.  If you 
divide that large number by the number of days during which the test takes 
place you will likely get a fractional value.  Now, if rounded off to the 1000 
kg reading step size you might get 36000 kg/day.  Could that be what the guys 
did?

We can eliminate that possibility if you can confirm that the meter was reset 
each day after the reading was taken.  Can you verify this occurred?

I am attempting to uncover what actually took place during the testing and do 
not have a horse in the race.  This should not be a controversial question.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:38 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the truth if he 
were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact.  Is that not giving him 
the benefit of the doubt?  Can anyone be 100% confident that he is completely 
lying?



Yes, I am 100% confident he is lying. Take Exhibit 5. If Rossi or Penon had 
legitimate answers to the issues raised in that document, they would have 
answered them. They had a contractual obligation to answer, and it would have 
been in their interests to do so. They did not respond at all. That tells me 
they have no answers and the damning assertions made in that document are 
correct. I have other proof of that. Independent observers told me these 
assertions are correct.



I am also certain there was not 1 MW of waste heat coming out of the customer 
site.



I have seen Penon's data, and I confirm it has 36,000 kg in every day, for 
weeks. As I explained here, that is impossible. If you reset the counter to 
zero every day it might go past 36,000 every day, for example, to 36,410, 
36,228, etc., and with this meter that would show up as 36,000 every day. 
Except when daylight savings changes. But that is not what happened.


32,000 may be a reasonable approximation of what the meter showed, but it is 
definitely made-up data that was stuffed into the tables.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Interesting that IH in their response deny that Vaughn was a manager at 
Cherokee.

See his current CV.  http://cherokeefund.com/jt-vaughn/

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,

If the Ecats never worked, why would Rossi stop some to repair them?


On 8/9/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Bob Higgins > wrote:


Jed, do you have a system diagram for the 1 year test unit?


I have a diagram but I do not think it is detailed enough to answer 
this question.


If I were Rossi, and I knew that some of the units would have to
be taken off line, I would design in bypass valves.


I suppose this would allow the flow rate to remain about the same. But 
not so precisely the same that it would be exactly 36,000 kg that day. 
However, in that situation the temperature would be lower and the heat 
output would be lower. The data shows 1 MW being produced when the log 
book shows half the units were off line. In some cases the data shows 
1 MW when the entire reactor was turned off.


I do not think it would be a good idea to leave the same flow rate 
when half the units are off-line. I suppose this would cool the 
remaining units too much.


Do you have evidence that the water circulation pump(s) was ever
shut off?


Eyewitness observers told me they were off. They said the entire 
reactor was disassembled at times, yet the data shows the flow rate 
was 36,000 kg and heat output was 1 MW on these days. I find that 
improbable. Highly improbable.


  Even if the reactors themselves were shut down, the water flow
could remain constant.


Ah, but the temperature would vary, so heat output would be reduced. 
Yet it was within a few degrees every day. Apparently, when half the 
units were turned off the remaining units magically put out twice as 
much heat. If you believe the data.


Looking at the flow gauge spec, there is some discrepancy in the
specification.  It has 6 digit mechanical readout, claims a range
of 1E6 m^3, but also claims an indication of down to 0.5 liter.


It measures to the nearest metric ton. 1,000 L to be exact. (It is 
volumetric and it only works with liquids, I believe.)


However, what one would expect to see in that case of constant
flow is the water output temperature to be reduced during reactor
shutdown or bypass.  Do you have that corresponding temperature data?


The temperature was supposedly about the same, every day.

I do not actually believe any of this data. It is bogus. Some of the 
numbers were confirmed by witnesses, but clearly they came from 
instruments that were not working correctly, such as the flow meter in 
a half-empty pipe. This is Grade-A, in your face, ham-handed, 
half-assed _bullshit_. It is fraud. The most outrageous fraud I have 
ever seen. This is obvious for the reasons given in Exhibit 5, and for 
many other reasons not yet revealed, such as the fact that there was 
no measurable heat in the customer site. In my opinion, there is not 
slightest chance this machine produced excess heat.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
You keep repeating that what you say is absolutely true despite the 
errors I pointed out in Exhibit 5.
Contrary to what you write, it would be to Rossi's advantage for IH to 
summit errors of fact.  It would not be in Penon's interest to correct 
them with a court case pending, without legal guidance.
Short of reading the contract, you don't know if Penon was obligated to 
talk to an outside consultant.  Murray has never claimed he was employed 
directly by IH.



On 8/9/2016 10:32 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

There are several reasons why Penon might have declined to answer
Murray.


No, there are no reasons. He was being paid to respond to Murray. He 
was contractually obligated. He and Rossi must have known that if he 
did not respond to that document would be used in a lawsuit against 
them, which they were planning at that time. If there are any mistakes 
or misunderstandings in that document, it was extremely important for 
them to respond and correct these mistakes.


There are no mistakes. Every assertion in that document is correct, 
and damning.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Peter Gluck]

zjed,

the pipes were half, 1/3 parts full in the ascending portions too.?
peter

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
> Jed, do you have a system diagram for the 1 year test unit?
>>
>
> I have a diagram but I do not think it is detailed enough to answer this
> question.
>
>
> If I were Rossi, and I knew that some of the units would have to be taken
>> off line, I would design in bypass valves.
>>
>
> I suppose this would allow the flow rate to remain about the same. But not
> so precisely the same that it would be exactly 36,000 kg that day. However,
> in that situation the temperature would be lower and the heat output would
> be lower. The data shows 1 MW being produced when the log book shows half
> the units were off line. In some cases the data shows 1 MW when the entire
> reactor was turned off.
>
> I do not think it would be a good idea to leave the same flow rate when
> half the units are off-line. I suppose this would cool the remaining units
> too much.
>
>
>
>> Do you have evidence that the water circulation pump(s) was ever shut off?
>>
>
> Eyewitness observers told me they were off. They said the entire reactor
> was disassembled at times, yet the data shows the flow rate was 36,000 kg
> and heat output was 1 MW on these days. I find that improbable. Highly
> improbable.
>
>
>
>>   Even if the reactors themselves were shut down, the water flow could
>> remain constant.
>>
>
> Ah, but the temperature would vary, so heat output would be reduced. Yet
> it was within a few degrees every day. Apparently, when half the units were
> turned off the remaining units magically put out twice as much heat. If you
> believe the data.
>
>
>
>> Looking at the flow gauge spec, there is some discrepancy in the
>> specification.  It has 6 digit mechanical readout, claims a range of 1E6
>> m^3, but also claims an indication of down to 0.5 liter.
>>
>
> It measures to the nearest metric ton. 1,000 L to be exact. (It is
> volumetric and it only works with liquids, I believe.)
>
>
>
>> However, what one would expect to see in that case of constant flow is
>> the water output temperature to be reduced during reactor shutdown or
>> bypass.  Do you have that corresponding temperature data?
>>
>
> The temperature was supposedly about the same, every day.
>
> I do not actually believe any of this data. It is bogus. Some of the
> numbers were confirmed by witnesses, but clearly they came from instruments
> that were not working correctly, such as the flow meter in a half-empty
> pipe. This is Grade-A, in your face, ham-handed, half-assed *bullshit*.
> It is fraud. The most outrageous fraud I have ever seen. This is obvious
> for the reasons given in Exhibit 5, and for many other reasons not yet
> revealed, such as the fact that there was no measurable heat in the
> customer site. In my opinion, there is not slightest chance this machine
> produced excess heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

:-)  OK.  I actually meant exactly what I said, and nothing more -- "Not 
convinced they were /totally/ faked" ... maybe they were approximately 
what was claimed (most of the time, obviously not all the time) and 
maybe the meter didn't go totally into lala land when it hit the bottom 
end of its scale.


"Not _/necessarily/_ faked at all" -- I don't believe it's necessary to 
assume the meter readings where grossly incorrect on a continuous basis 
in order to conclude that the overall demonstration was bogus; the lack 
of 1 MW of effluent heat already proves that.  Everything else is 
details.   The claimed excess heat could have been faked by another 
means, and in particular the claim of high velocity low pressure steam 
in one of the lines looks very dubious.


And if you write again and say "That's stupid!" I'll say "Oh well, 
perhaps you're right" and concede your point.  I confess I haven't 
studied the setup the way I should.


On 08/09/2016 09:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:

I'm not convinced the meter readings were totally faked, or even
necessarily faked at all.


Then explain how they could be exactly 36,000 per day for weeks. As I 
pointed out, the flow rate would have to be exactly the same to 1 
second per day for this to happen.


This is simply _not possible_.

If Penon had said "these are approximate values" in response to 
Exhibit 5, that would be reasonable. Sloppy, but reasonable. No 
response at all is tantamount to admitting it is fake data.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:

Jed, do you have a system diagram for the 1 year test unit?
>

I have a diagram but I do not think it is detailed enough to answer this
question.


If I were Rossi, and I knew that some of the units would have to be taken
> off line, I would design in bypass valves.
>

I suppose this would allow the flow rate to remain about the same. But not
so precisely the same that it would be exactly 36,000 kg that day. However,
in that situation the temperature would be lower and the heat output would
be lower. The data shows 1 MW being produced when the log book shows half
the units were off line. In some cases the data shows 1 MW when the entire
reactor was turned off.

I do not think it would be a good idea to leave the same flow rate when
half the units are off-line. I suppose this would cool the remaining units
too much.



> Do you have evidence that the water circulation pump(s) was ever shut off?
>

Eyewitness observers told me they were off. They said the entire reactor
was disassembled at times, yet the data shows the flow rate was 36,000 kg
and heat output was 1 MW on these days. I find that improbable. Highly
improbable.



>   Even if the reactors themselves were shut down, the water flow could
> remain constant.
>

Ah, but the temperature would vary, so heat output would be reduced. Yet it
was within a few degrees every day. Apparently, when half the units were
turned off the remaining units magically put out twice as much heat. If you
believe the data.



> Looking at the flow gauge spec, there is some discrepancy in the
> specification.  It has 6 digit mechanical readout, claims a range of 1E6
> m^3, but also claims an indication of down to 0.5 liter.
>

It measures to the nearest metric ton. 1,000 L to be exact. (It is
volumetric and it only works with liquids, I believe.)



> However, what one would expect to see in that case of constant flow is the
> water output temperature to be reduced during reactor shutdown or bypass.
> Do you have that corresponding temperature data?
>

The temperature was supposedly about the same, every day.

I do not actually believe any of this data. It is bogus. Some of the
numbers were confirmed by witnesses, but clearly they came from instruments
that were not working correctly, such as the flow meter in a half-empty
pipe. This is Grade-A, in your face, ham-handed, half-assed *bullshit*. It
is fraud. The most outrageous fraud I have ever seen. This is obvious for
the reasons given in Exhibit 5, and for many other reasons not yet
revealed, such as the fact that there was no measurable heat in the
customer site. In my opinion, there is not slightest chance this machine
produced excess heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:

I think that claiming Rossi is lying or scamming could be extrapolating his
> behavior akin to "reductio ad absurdum".  The truth is seldom so black and
> white.
>

It is black-and-white in this case. Read Exhibit 5. If there were answers
to any of the damning facts in that document, Rossi and Penon would have
made those answers. They said nothing.

They stand to lose $89 million because they did not respond to this letter.
If they have reasonable answers, how can you explain their silence?

Independent witnesses confirmed all of the claims Exhibit 5. Many of them
are readily apparent from Rossi's own data. I saw much of those issues
myself, the moment I looked at his data.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> There are several reasons why Penon might have declined to answer Murray.
>

No, there are no reasons. He was being paid to respond to Murray. He was
contractually obligated. He and Rossi must have known that if he did not
respond to that document would be used in a lawsuit against them, which
they were planning at that time. If there are any mistakes or
misunderstandings in that document, it was extremely important for them to
respond and correct these mistakes.

There are no mistakes. Every assertion in that document is correct, and
damning.



> Your theory that the flow meter was reading significantly high has been
> shot down.
>

This is not a theory. It is a fact. I.H. has rock-solid proof that the
meter was wrong.



> As the flow rate was controlled downstream of the meter, one would expect
> it not to vary much.
>

For these numbers to be true it would not vary by one second per day for
months. Furthermore, it was read manually. Someone would have to come in
and read it the very same minute every day including weekends and holidays,
for months. They would have to magically adjust it when daylight savings
changes. This scenario is utterly ridiculous and impossible.


Exhibit 5 has errors as pointed out earlier.
>

No it does not. If it did, Rossi and Penon would have pointed these errors
out. $89 million is at stake. They would have made the effort to show that
their claims are correct.



> If the customer had a strongly endothermic process you would not get 1 MW
> released into the building
>

There is no such thing as an industrial endothermic process which uses more
than a tiny fraction of the heat. A typical endothermic process is baking
bread. Bakeries are hot because most of the heat ends up as waste heat.



> I don't know who is telling the truth, but is not yet proven that IH is.
>

I.H. is telling the truth. Exhibit 5 is correct in every respect. If it
were not, Rossi and Penon would have responded with corrections. When I say
it was in their interests I mean it is worth $89 million to them. That is a
strong motivation! They did not respond with *one word*.



> The theory (not yours) earlier about vapor in the line effecting the flow
> meter neglects that the return from the customer is into a holding tank @
> 60 - 70C.  Water drawn from that would not have free vapor.
>

Theory has nothing to do with this. The flowmeter was run in a pipe that
was half empty. (Possibly two thirds empty; I do not know the details.)
There is no way it could have given the right answer. The manual for this
meter specifically warns against doing this.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Bob,
My point of view too

On 8/9/2016 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I think that claiming Rossi is lying or scamming could be 
extrapolating his behavior akin to "reductio ad absurdum". The truth 
is seldom so black and white.  Rossi is known to shrewdly lead people 
on wild goose chases to obfuscate what he does know.  He may well 
exaggerate the performance of his technology.  So far, evidence 
suggests that Rossi does have some working LENR technology, but 
perhaps not the COP>50 technology being presently claimed.


Look at the hotCat for example.  Rossi taught IH how to build the 
Lugano device.  The Lugano researchers measured it as having excess 
heat.  We all know at this point that the Lugano measurements and 
subsequent analysis were flawed; however, from my analysis I never 
believed the device produced zero XH.  In subsequent analysis by A. 
Parkhomov, the fuel was deduced and tested.  Parkhomov makes a good 
case for this LENR fuel system having measurable XH.  Other 
researchers, including S. Jiang and Zhanghang have also reported XH 
from this same system.  So, where did this LENR fuel formulation come 
from?  Well, it came from Rossi.  So, it is certainly an imaginative 
extrapolation to imply that Rossi has no LENR technology.


The question really boils down to whether he has met the terms of his 
license agreement with IH to receive his next round of funding.  As 
the technology license recipient, IH genuinely believes that the 
technology has not been transferred, because they cannot use what they 
have been given to produce high COP, high power heating promised by 
Rossi.  Taken with what IH knows about the 1 year testing, they do not 
believe that he met _that_ contract milestone either.  Rossi could 
well have failed to meet the contractual milestones required to 
receive the next round money under the contract, may have exaggerated 
the results of the 1 year test, but that doesn't mean that he did not 
produce any XH.


Jed is logically extending the possibility for large scale statistical 
errors into the conclusion that there was no XH. While I don't have 
the data, that is not necessarily the most probable conclusion from 
those results.  This is the same for the Lugano test - the data taken 
and errors made in analysis provided no _proof_ of XH or COP>2, but 
that doesn't mean that the most probable conclusion from the data was 
that there was zero XH.  Parkhomov believed there was enough 
probability of XH from the Lugano experiment that he was motivated to 
invest his time and try it for himself.  In the end, his experiments 
support existence of at least some XH in that system.


Analysis of the Lugano results benefited the greater LENR community 
and opened the possibility for a new line of LENR research because 
sufficient details were released about the experiment to permit some 
level of back engineering.  Community analysis made that possible.  
That same benefit does not seem to be forthcoming in this case - we 
are all just pundits in a private legal matter between IH and Rossi. 
None of this Vortex dialog will not bring out details of the reaction 
useful to extend the science.  We are all wasting our time commenting 
on the case (I have been sucked in just like everyone else).

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Bob Higgins]

Jed, do you have a system diagram for the 1 year test unit?  If I were
Rossi, and I knew that some of the units would have to be taken off line, I
would design in bypass valves.

Do you have evidence that the water circulation pump(s) was ever shut off?
Even if the reactors themselves were shut down, the water flow could remain
constant.

Looking at the flow gauge spec, there is some discrepancy in the
specification.  It has 6 digit mechanical readout, claims a range of 1E6
m^3, but also claims an indication of down to 0.5 liter.  It has a pulse
output option, and I suspect with that option, it will detect the 0.5 liter
passage; however, just reading the dial, it will be in m^3 or 1000 liters,
~1000kg.  So, if the flow rate were constant due to the pump in continuous
operation, then the daily flow could be easily constant to within the
incremental reading of 1000kg.

However, what one would expect to see in that case of constant flow is the
water output temperature to be reduced during reactor shutdown or bypass.
Do you have that corresponding temperature data?

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced the meter readings were totally faked, or even
>> necessarily faked at all.
>>
>
> Then explain how they could be exactly 36,000 per day for weeks. As I
> pointed out, the flow rate would have to be exactly the same to 1 second
> per day for this to happen.
>
> This is simply *not possible*.
>
> If Penon had said "these are approximate values" in response to Exhibit 5,
> that would be reasonable. Sloppy, but reasonable. No response at all is
> tantamount to admitting it is fake data.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
There are several reasons why Penon might have declined to answer Murray.
Your theory that the flow meter was reading significantly high has been 
shot down.
As the flow rate was controlled downstream of the meter, one would 
expect it not to vary much.

Exhibit 5 has errors as pointed out earlier.
If the customer had a strongly endothermic process you would not get 1 
MW released into the building

I don't know who is telling the truth, but is not yet proven that IH is.

The theory (not yours) earlier about vapor in the line effecting the 
flow meter neglects that the return from the customer is into a holding 
tank @ 60 - 70C.  Water drawn from that would not have free vapor.



On 8/9/2016 9:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

David Roberson > wrote:

I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the
truth if he were to present a solid scientific proof to that
fact.  Is that not giving him the benefit of the doubt?  Can
anyone be 100% confident that he is completely lying?


Yes, I am 100% confident he is lying. Take Exhibit 5. If Rossi or 
Penon had legitimate answers to the issues raised in that document, 
they would have answered them. They had a contractual obligation to 
answer, and it would have been in their interests to do so. They did 
not respond at all. That tells me they have no answers and the damning 
assertions made in that document are correct. I have other proof of 
that. Independent observers told me these assertions are correct.


I am also certain there was not 1 MW of waste heat coming out of the 
customer site.


I have seen Penon's data, and I confirm it has 36,000 kg in every day, 
for weeks. As I explained here, that is impossible. If you reset the 
counter to zero every day it might go past 36,000 every day, for 
example, to 36,410, 36,228, etc., and with this meter that would show 
up as 36,000 every day. Except when daylight savings changes. But that 
is not what happened.


32,000 may be a reasonable approximation of what the meter showed, but 
it is definitely made-up data that was stuffed into the tables.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Bob Higgins]

I think that claiming Rossi is lying or scamming could be extrapolating his
behavior akin to "reductio ad absurdum".  The truth is seldom so black and
white.  Rossi is known to shrewdly lead people on wild goose chases to
obfuscate what he does know.  He may well exaggerate the performance of his
technology.  So far, evidence suggests that Rossi does have some working
LENR technology, but perhaps not the COP>50 technology being presently
claimed.

Look at the hotCat for example.  Rossi taught IH how to build the Lugano
device.  The Lugano researchers measured it as having excess heat.  We all
know at this point that the Lugano measurements and subsequent analysis
were flawed; however, from my analysis I never believed the device produced
zero XH.  In subsequent analysis by A. Parkhomov, the fuel was deduced and
tested.  Parkhomov makes a good case for this LENR fuel system having
measurable XH.  Other researchers, including S. Jiang and Zhanghang have
also reported XH from this same system.  So, where did this LENR fuel
formulation come from?  Well, it came from Rossi.  So, it is certainly an
imaginative extrapolation to imply that Rossi has no LENR technology.

The question really boils down to whether he has met the terms of his
license agreement with IH to receive his next round of funding.  As the
technology license recipient, IH genuinely believes that the technology has
not been transferred, because they cannot use what they have been given to
produce high COP, high power heating promised by Rossi.  Taken with what IH
knows about the 1 year testing, they do not believe that he met *that*
contract milestone either.  Rossi could well have failed to meet the
contractual milestones required to receive the next round money under the
contract, may have exaggerated the results of the 1 year test, but that
doesn't mean that he did not produce any XH.

Jed is logically extending the possibility for large scale statistical
errors into the conclusion that there was no XH.  While I don't have the
data, that is not necessarily the most probable conclusion from those
results.  This is the same for the Lugano test - the data taken and errors
made in analysis provided no *proof* of XH or COP>2, but that doesn't mean
that the most probable conclusion from the data was that there was zero
XH.  Parkhomov believed there was enough probability of XH from the Lugano
experiment that he was motivated to invest his time and try it for
himself.  In the end, his experiments support existence of at least some XH
in that system.

Analysis of the Lugano results benefited the greater LENR community and
opened the possibility for a new line of LENR research because sufficient
details were released about the experiment to permit some level of back
engineering.  Community analysis made that possible.  That same benefit
does not seem to be forthcoming in this case - we are all just pundits in a
private legal matter between IH and Rossi.  None of this Vortex dialog will
not bring out details of the reaction useful to extend the science.  We are
all wasting our time commenting on the case (I have been sucked in just
like everyone else).

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

I'm not convinced the meter readings were totally faked, or even
> necessarily faked at all.
>

Then explain how they could be exactly 36,000 per day for weeks. As I
pointed out, the flow rate would have to be exactly the same to 1 second
per day for this to happen.

This is simply *not possible*.

If Penon had said "these are approximate values" in response to Exhibit 5,
that would be reasonable. Sloppy, but reasonable. No response at all is
tantamount to admitting it is fake data.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

As I stated, I have many concerns about his system.  On the other hand, I
> have a much more positive belief that some form of nickel, hydrogen,
> lithium gas system might generate additional heat.  As long as that
> possibility exists within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's experiment
> would be completely invalid.
>

Many cold fusion experiments fail to produce any heat. Experiments with Pd
and Ni both fail. They are "completely invalid" but the authors say they
did not work, so there is no problem. Some of Rossi's early experiments
might have produced excess heat. I cannot rule that out. This one did not.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the truth if
> he were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact.  Is that not
> giving him the benefit of the doubt?  Can anyone be 100% confident that he
> is completely lying?
>

Yes, I am 100% confident he is lying. Take Exhibit 5. If Rossi or Penon had
legitimate answers to the issues raised in that document, they would have
answered them. They had a contractual obligation to answer, and it would
have been in their interests to do so. They did not respond at all. That
tells me they have no answers and the damning assertions made in that
document are correct. I have other proof of that. Independent observers
told me these assertions are correct.

I am also certain there was not 1 MW of waste heat coming out of the
customer site.

I have seen Penon's data, and I confirm it has 36,000 kg in every day, for
weeks. As I explained here, that is impossible. If you reset the counter to
zero every day it might go past 36,000 every day, for example, to 36,410,
36,228, etc., and with this meter that would show up as 36,000 every day.
Except when daylight savings changes. But that is not what happened.

32,000 may be a reasonable approximation of what the meter showed, but it
is definitely made-up data that was stuffed into the tables.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I'm not convinced the meter readings were totally faked, or even 
necessarily faked at all.


All I'm truly convinced of is that the *demo* was faked, one way or 
another.  First, there's the missing heat; second, there's the angry IH, 
which would no doubt be tickled pink to buy the process for 89M$ if it 
actually worked; and third, there's the fact that I've followed Rossi 
off and on for six years and for the last four or five years (not sure 
the exact date without digging in old email -- it was an AHA moment) 
I've been convinced he's a fraud.


But none of this militates against either the assertion that he probably 
was getting *some* excess heat, at least some of the time, since he's 
using a legit combination of reactants, nor does it militate against the 
notion that you might have to pre-heat a gas phase reaction to make it work.


And your attempt to determine exactly where this demo jumped the tracks, 
and what exactly was *really* going on, does indeed seem reasonable to 
me now.


Unfortunately I've totally got to sign off.  Up late running tests and I 
ran into a bug and it's all gotta get fixed tonight and I'm on EDT so 
it's almost 3 AM here.  Oy.



On 08/09/2016 02:27 AM, David Roberson wrote:
I understand your reasoning now.   You thought I assumed 1 MW which is 
obviously not the case.


But, are you convinced that the meter readings were totally faked?  
According to most of the information I have seen that may not be the 
case.  Rossi and IH have both implied that they had their own agents 
on site during much of the testing.  It seems unlikely that the IH 
guys would just stand by and fail to verify that the meter readings 
were correct while they were present.


It seems much more likely to me that everyone present would take notes 
of the water flow rate readings, any temperature measurements or other 
indications that were available.   If true then I suggest that some 
process must be taking place to modify the readings and void their 
accuracies.  Temperature measurements are difficult to fake in most 
cases without detection.  The water flow rate would appear to be the 
most likely measurement to be in error.


Jed has suggested that the input flow rate appears to be off by a 
factor of 3 or so and that is an excellent assumption to begin with.  
The true rate may be more or less, but I have a suspicion that the 
meter actually reads in line with what has been reported by Rossi.  
So, the goal is to figure out a scientific reason why the reading does 
not match the actual flow rate.  That is where this discussion began.


Bob Higgins has found information concerning the water flow rate meter 
which suggests that it remains reasonably accurate when not completely 
full of fluid.  This is also true with respect to accuracy when 
reading less than the minimum flow rate specification.  I would like 
to determine how a meter of this type can be so fooled.  That is my quest.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 1:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court 
document


In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something like this:


*You said:*

OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of how a heat 
pump operates.  It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) 
and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat 
exchangers.  A low pressure return pipe carries the active fluid in 
vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the 
expanding mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form


*after Daniel said:
*
I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, *which had to cool 1MW*.



From this, I (naturally?) concluded that you guys were /assuming/ 
there was 1 MW of heat involved, and all else followed from that.


Aside from that, frankly, I don't care how the meter numbers were 
bolixed -- if the values which were hand-recorded were clearly not 
real (as they were!) then I don't see how the meter's actual 
performance matters in the least.  The performance of the human in the 
system has been proved unreliable and no additional failure modes are 
needed.


Furthermore, the meter itself may be a red herring. There was /steam/ 
in the system which was supposedly carrying massive amounts of heat -- 
but we don't have proof that the steam was actually steam and not 
liquid water, and if it wasn't actually vaporized, then the massive 
amounts of heat simply weren't there, no matter what the flow rate.


In short, there were multiple points where the system breaks down once 
you have acknowledged that the humans setting it up and recording its 
performance were lying. And sorting out the exact details of what the 
system was really doing just doesn't seem all that interesting -- it's 
not going to lead to new science, new physics, or new energy sources.  
In fact, it's

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

I understand your reasoning now.   You thought I assumed 1 MW which is 
obviously not the case.

But, are you convinced that the meter readings were totally faked?  According 
to most of the information I have seen that may not be the case.  Rossi and IH 
have both implied that they had their own agents on site during much of the 
testing.  It seems unlikely that the IH guys would just stand by and fail to 
verify that the meter readings were correct while they were present.

It seems much more likely to me that everyone present would take notes of the 
water flow rate readings, any temperature measurements or other indications 
that were available.   If true then I suggest that some process must be taking 
place to modify the readings and void their accuracies.  Temperature 
measurements are difficult to fake in most cases without detection.  The water 
flow rate would appear to be the most likely measurement to be in error.

Jed has suggested that the input flow rate appears to be off by a factor of 3 
or so and that is an excellent assumption to begin with.  The true rate may be 
more or less, but I have a suspicion that the meter actually reads in line with 
what has been reported by Rossi.  So, the goal is to figure out a scientific 
reason why the reading does not match the actual flow rate.  That is where this 
discussion began.

Bob Higgins has found information concerning the water flow rate meter which 
suggests that it remains reasonably accurate when not completely full of fluid. 
 This is also true with respect to accuracy when reading less than the minimum 
flow rate specification.  I would like to determine how a meter of this type 
can be so fooled.  That is my quest.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 1:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something likethis:


  

  

You said:

OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of 
   how a heat pump operates.  It consists of a closed systemwith a 
pump(compressor) and a strong restriction to theflowing fluid as 
well as heat exchangers.  A low pressurereturn pipe carries the 
active fluid in vapor form to thepump.  If sufficient heat is not 
absorbed by the expandingmixture then some of it remains in the 
liquid form

after Daniel said:


I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism,  which had to cool 
1MW.
  

  

  




  From this, I (naturally?) concluded that you guys were assuming  
there was 1 MW of heat involved, and all else followed from that.
  
  Aside from that, frankly, I don't care how the meter numbers were  
bolixed -- if the values which were hand-recorded were clearly not  real 
(as they were!) then I don't see how the meter's actual  performance 
matters in the least.  The performance of the human in  the system has been 
proved unreliable and no additional failure  modes are needed.
  
  Furthermore, the meter itself may be a red herring.  There was steam  
in the system which was supposedly carrying massive amounts of  heat -- but 
we don't have proof that the steam was actually steam  and not liquid 
water, and if it wasn't actually vaporized, then  the massive amounts of 
heat simply weren't there, no matter what  the flow rate.
  
  In short, there were multiple points where the system breaks down  
once you have acknowledged that the humans setting it up and  recording its 
performance were lying.  And sorting out the exact  details of what the 
system was really doing just doesn't seem all  that interesting -- it's not 
going to lead to new science, new  physics, or new energy sources.  In 
fact, it's most likely not  even going to lead to a provably correct model, 
just one you think  might be correct, because you'll never get the physical 
 proof you need to from the one who could provide it, which is  Rossi.
  
  At best it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer  
operated.
  



On 08/09/2016 01:00 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


You fail to understand.  I am seeking a reasonable  explanation for the 
error in the flow rate that Jed is  assuming.  That is the scientific 
way to explain his belief  without just plain guessing.  For some 
reason you think that I  believe that Rossi is actually generating the 
1 MW of heat  without any reservations.
  
  Could this be the reason why you seem so negat

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Axil Axil]

"So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat was much
lower than a megawatt,"

There was no requirement for the power produced to be a megawatt in the
licence agreement. A system producing 750 KW is acceptable to
meet daily  payment.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> :-)OK.  I'll stop bugging you about it.
>
>
>
> On 08/09/2016 01:32 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> I think that's interesting. It may even help future scammers and I am not
> ashamed of this possibility.
>
> 2016-08-09 2:22 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence :
>
>> t it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

You appear to be missing the point here.   It amazes me that you seem to 
believe that gas phase LENR is possible but for some reason are certain that 
Rossi does not see any extra heat generation.   I would conclude that gas phase 
LENR is likely not possible what so ever if Rossi's system does not generate 
some excess heat.   The question is how much does he produce?  There is 
evidence of excess heat generation during his earlier demonstrations that I 
consider reasonably sound.

And, his structure makes a great deal of sense to many of us.   Surely you 
realize that the active mixture must be heated in order to initiate the 
reaction.  And, once a reaction takes off, it can be controlled by modulating 
the input drive power.  I fail to understand why you believe that the internal 
heater is not required?  That is not to suggest that an external heat source 
could not be substituted in an alternate configuration.

I am curious about how you would construct a gas phase system that is 
practical?  What would be the three dimensional shape that you would choose, 
the type of heating employed, active material, etc.?  Once you begin the actual 
engineering of the device you will find that Rossi is not totally out in left 
field.

Should I say it again?  I have serious doubts about whether or not Rossi is 
making the 1 MW that he claims in his current system.  And, I want to 
understand how the meters might be hiding the real results if they in fact are 
wrong.  There must be a good explanation in science that we can find if we 
think about the problem and eventually get the data from him.  This new 
knowledge will guide us in the future in case others become confused in a 
similar manner.  I hate guessing if the truth can be determined.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 12:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


You don't seem to get it.

Rossi has been shown to be lying and fabricating results.

ROSSI.

ROSSI is not to be believed.  His "experiments" are consequently
worthless, because the basic assumption of good faith, on which all
conventional analysis of experiments ultimately rests, is gone.

This has nothing to do with gas-phase LENR, which has lookedpromising 
ever since it was first tried, in Italy, IIRC, a fewdecades ago.  
Unfortunately Rossi has totally muddied the water withhis Rube Goldberg 
machine which apparently has as its single purposeto provide a (bogus) 
justification for including a heater within thereactor, which makes all of 
his results a little harder to believeright from the get-go.  Wet LENR 
requires a power source to drivethe electrolysis, which hairs up the 
analysis, but it'sunavoidable.  Gas-phase LENR, OTOH, doesn't naturally 
require apower source; Rossi's claims that his machine was "too dangerous" 
tooperate WITHOUT a heater inside rang false to start with andnothing's 
made it sound any better since.

People lie, scammers exist.  Once you've figured out that's whatyou're 
dealing with, you should understand that you have *no* goodinformation on 
anything about his "experiments" and any analysis isunlikely to get you 
anything useful.



On 08/09/2016 12:43 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


As I stated, I have many concerns about his system.   On the other 
hand, I have a much more positive belief that  some form of nickel, 
hydrogen, lithium gas system might  generate additional heat.  As long 
as that possibility exists  within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's 
experiment would be  completely invalid. 
  
  Are you convinced that LENR is not a real phenomena?  If so, I
  will understand why you are taking the position that Rossi  
absolutely can not be believed.  That is OK, everyone is  entitled to 
their beliefs.
  
  If it becomes clear to me that my attempts to uncover a  
scientific explanation of how someone might be scamming an  experiment

I don't understand what you mean by that.

He lies about meter readings, about power input, about flow rate,about 
the phase (gas or liquid) of the water in his system.

What's to "learn" or "uncover" here?  How to be a world-class liar? 
Humans have evolved that ability over millions of years; we'remostly pretty 
good at it.

The "physics" of his experiments, if any, is utterly uninteresting
because it is entirely lost in the smoke he blows in order toconceal what 
he's actually doing.  And it's vanishingly unlikelythat the "physics" 
involves anything deeper than V=IR plus a bit ofmisdirect

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

:-)OK.  I'll stop bugging you about it.


On 08/09/2016 01:32 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I think that's interesting. It may even help future scammers and I am 
not ashamed of this possibility.


2016-08-09 2:22 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence >:


t it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Daniel Rocha]

I think that's interesting. It may even help future scammers and I am not
ashamed of this possibility.

2016-08-09 2:22 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence :

> t it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something like this:


*You said:*

OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of how a heat 
pump operates.  It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) 
and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat 
exchangers.  A low pressure return pipe carries the active fluid in 
vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the 
expanding mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form


*after Daniel said:
*
I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, *which had to cool 1MW*.



From this, I (naturally?) concluded that you guys were /assuming/ there 
was 1 MW of heat involved, and all else followed from that.


Aside from that, frankly, I don't care how the meter numbers were 
bolixed -- if the values which were hand-recorded were clearly not real 
(as they were!) then I don't see how the meter's actual performance 
matters in the least.  The performance of the human in the system has 
been proved unreliable and no additional failure modes are needed.


Furthermore, the meter itself may be a red herring.  There was /steam/ 
in the system which was supposedly carrying massive amounts of heat -- 
but we don't have proof that the steam was actually steam and not liquid 
water, and if it wasn't actually vaporized, then the massive amounts of 
heat simply weren't there, no matter what the flow rate.


In short, there were multiple points where the system breaks down once 
you have acknowledged that the humans setting it up and recording its 
performance were lying.  And sorting out the exact details of what the 
system was really doing just doesn't seem all that interesting -- it's 
not going to lead to new science, new physics, or new energy sources.  
In fact, it's most likely not even going to lead to a provably correct 
model, just one you think /might/ be correct, because you'll never get 
the physical proof you need to from the one who could provide it, which 
is Rossi.


At best it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated.


On 08/09/2016 01:00 AM, David Roberson wrote:
You fail to understand.  I am seeking a reasonable explanation for the 
error in the flow rate that Jed is assuming.  That is the scientific 
way to explain his belief without just plain guessing.  For some 
reason you think that I believe that Rossi is actually generating the 
1 MW of heat without any reservations.


Could this be the reason why you seem so negative about my attempts to 
uncover the truth?  Perhaps you can explain to us how the flow rate is 
reading much greater than it should, especially taking into 
consideration the recent excellent posts by Mr. Higgins, and others?  
If you are a scientist or engineer then you should want an honest 
explanation for the errors in flow rate readings.  Otherwise it would 
be better for you to leave that determination to those of us that have 
the proper training.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court 
document


If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging in massive 
doublethink here.


You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while /assuming/ 
that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat.


If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably 
/correct/, and in that case there's nothing funky about the meter that 
needs to be explained, save for the constant flow rate and other 
anomalies Jed has mentioned.


It's only if the system /wasn't/ generating a megawatt that there's an 
anomalously high flow reading to explain, and in that case you can't 
very well assume that much heat is being dissipated.


So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat was 
much lower than a megawatt, /or/ the meter reading was more or less 
bang-on, and there was a megawatt of heat being dissipated somewhere.  
But not both.


On 08/08/2016 11:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:

OK, interesting concept. I was thinking along the lines of how a
heat pump operates.  It consists of a closed system with a
pump(compressor) and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as
well as heat exchangers.  A low pressure return pipe carries the
active fluid in vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient heat is not
absorbed by the expanding mixture then some of it remains in the
liquid form.   I wonder if a significant portion of that mixture
in Rossi's case might be vapor, leading to false reading within
the gauge ahead of the pump?

This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow mete

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

You fail to understand.  I am seeking a reasonable explanation for the error in 
the flow rate that Jed is assuming.  That is the scientific way to explain his 
belief without just plain guessing.  For some reason you think that I believe 
that Rossi is actually generating the 1 MW of heat without any reservations.

Could this be the reason why you seem so negative about my attempts to uncover 
the truth?  Perhaps you can explain to us how the flow rate is reading much 
greater than it should, especially taking into consideration the recent 
excellent posts by Mr. Higgins, and others?  If you are a scientist or engineer 
then you should want an honest explanation for the errors in flow rate 
readings.  Otherwise it would be better for you to leave that determination to 
those of us that have the proper training.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging inmassive 
doublethink here.

You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while assuming
that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat.

If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably correct,
and in that case there's nothing funky about the meter that needs tobe 
explained, save for the constant flow rate and other anomaliesJed has 
mentioned.

It's only if the system wasn't generating a megawatt thatthere's an 
anomalously high flow reading to explain, and in thatcase you can't very 
well assume that much heat is being dissipated.

So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat wasmuch 
lower than a megawatt,  or the meter reading was moreor less bang-on, and 
there was a megawatt of heat being dissipatedsomewhere.  But not both.


On 08/08/2016 11:52 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the  lines of how a heat 
pump operates.  It consists of a closed  system with a pump(compressor) 
and a strong restriction to the  flowing fluid as well as heat 
exchangers.  A low pressure  return pipe carries the active fluid in 
vapor form to the  pump.  If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the 
expanding  mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form.   I 
wonder  if a significant portion of that mixture in Rossi's case might  
be vapor, leading to false reading within the gauge ahead of  
the pump?
  
  This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.
  
  Dave

 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
  To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
      Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described  
in court document
  
  

  
I was thinking more of the coolingmechanism, which had to cool 
1MW. The surface area isvery large. In less then 3D (scale of 
the tubes in 1D incomparison to other), turbulence can go from 
smallvortices to high, and when it exits to large tubes it  
  goes from high vortices to low. Depending on the design,  
  a lot of cavitation may form and accumulate in the flowmeter, 
if no system to elimate bubles is developed.


  
2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00David Roberson 
<dlrober...@aol.com>:

I agree, the pump might actually lower  the pressure at 
its input enough to allow the  water to vaporize if the 
flow is restricted  ahead of the gauge.
  
  Dave



  
  

  

  

  

  

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

You don't seem to get it.

Rossi has been shown to be lying and fabricating results.

ROSSI.

ROSSI is not to be believed.  His "experiments" are consequently 
worthless, because the basic assumption of good faith, on which all 
conventional analysis of experiments ultimately rests, is gone.


This has nothing to do with gas-phase LENR, which has looked promising 
ever since it was first tried, in Italy, IIRC, a few decades ago.  
Unfortunately Rossi has totally muddied the water with his Rube Goldberg 
machine which apparently has as its single purpose to provide a (bogus) 
justification for including a heater within the reactor, which makes all 
of his results a little harder to believe right from the get-go.  Wet 
LENR requires a power source to drive the electrolysis, which hairs up 
the analysis, but it's unavoidable.  Gas-phase LENR, OTOH, doesn't 
naturally require a power source; Rossi's claims that his machine was 
"too dangerous" to operate WITHOUT a heater inside rang false to start 
with and nothing's made it sound any better since.


People lie, scammers exist.  Once you've figured out that's what you're 
dealing with, you should understand that you have *no* good information 
on anything about his "experiments" and any analysis is unlikely to get 
you anything useful.



On 08/09/2016 12:43 AM, David Roberson wrote:
As I stated, I have many concerns about his system. On the other hand, 
I have a much more positive belief that some form of nickel, hydrogen, 
lithium gas system might generate additional heat.  As long as that 
possibility exists within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's experiment 
would be completely invalid.


Are you convinced that LENR is not a real phenomena?  If so, I will 
understand why you are taking the position that Rossi absolutely can 
not be believed.  That is OK, everyone is entitled to their beliefs.


If it becomes clear to me that my attempts to uncover a scientific 
explanation of how someone might be scamming an experiment


I don't understand what you mean by that.

He lies about meter readings, about power input, about flow rate, about 
the phase (gas or liquid) of the water in his system.


What's to "learn" or "uncover" here?  How to be a world-class liar? 
Humans have evolved that ability over millions of years; we're mostly 
pretty good at it.


The "physics" of his experiments, if any, is utterly uninteresting 
because it is entirely lost in the smoke he blows in order to conceal 
what he's actually doing.  And it's vanishingly unlikely that the 
"physics" involves anything deeper than V=IR plus a bit of misdirection 
while he switches samples in order to fool the rubes.


Gas-phase LENR is worthwhile and deserves to be explore further. Rossi's 
so-called ECAT, on the other hand, isn't, and *any* attempt at guiding 
exploration of gas-phase LENR using Rossi's "results" is wasted effort.




is wasting time for 'everyone' on this list, I will refrain from that 
effort.


You may not remember that I have contributed to the resolution of many 
important issues in the past.  Also, I have constructed thermal system 
models that yield quite interesting results that you can find in the 
list archives if interested.


YOUR VALUE is _not_ in question.  The value of doing anything more with 
ROSSI (and, indeed, Rossi's value) most certainly IS in question.


There is no need to "resolve" this issue.  It's already resolved. The 
only thing to be "resolved" is the deep denial in which a number of 
members of Vortex are still residing.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

As I stated, I have many concerns about his system.  On the other hand, I have 
a much more positive belief that some form of nickel, hydrogen, lithium gas 
system might generate additional heat.  As long as that possibility exists 
within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's experiment would be completely 
invalid. 

Are you convinced that LENR is not a real phenomena?  If so, I will understand 
why you are taking the position that Rossi absolutely can not be believed.  
That is OK, everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

If it becomes clear to me that my attempts to uncover a scientific explanation 
of how someone might be scamming an experiment is wasting time for 'everyone' 
on this list, I will refrain from that effort.

You may not remember that I have contributed to the resolution of many 
important issues in the past.  Also, I have constructed thermal system models 
that yield quite interesting results that you can find in the list archives if 
interested.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document





On 08/08/2016 11:39 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi  is telling the 
truth if he were to present a solid scientific  proof to that fact.  Is 
that not giving him the benefit of the  doubt?  Can anyone be 100% 
confident that he is completely  lying?
  
  As long as there is any question about the facts, 


No.  Wrong criterion.  There will always be some questionsabout the 
facts.

The courts do not require guilt to be proved "beyond a shadow of a
doubt" or "beyond any question" or "beyond any possibility of error"because 
it is almost never possible to prove anything thatdefinitely.

On the other hand, Rossi has been proved to be a liar and ascammer 
beyond a reasonable doubt which is thecriterion jurors are generally asked 
to apply.  The number ofunlikely assumptions which must hold in order for 
him to be anhonest researcher is vastly larger than the number of 
assumptionswhich must hold if he is what he appears to be, which is a 
greedysleazebucket who's stealing money and wasting everybody's time. 
Concluding in the face of the evidence that you must give him  another 
chance is flat-out irrational -- i.e.,  it's anemotional decision, not a 
reasoned one, because there is noreasonable ground for concluding that.

If you want to waste time giving him endless chances to try yetagain 
and maybe this time produce an honest result that shows hisequipment really 
does work, feel free, but you are seriously wastingeverybody else's time by 
doing it here.  At this time it appearsthat there's a larger chance that 
you'll hit Megabucks than thatyou'll wake up and find out Rossi was 
vindicated.  (And that goesdouble if you actually buy a lottery ticket.)


  

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging in massive 
doublethink here.


You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while /assuming/ 
that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat.


If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably 
/correct/, and in that case there's nothing funky about the meter that 
needs to be explained, save for the constant flow rate and other 
anomalies Jed has mentioned.


It's only if the system /wasn't/ generating a megawatt that there's an 
anomalously high flow reading to explain, and in that case you can't 
very well assume that much heat is being dissipated.


So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat was much 
lower than a megawatt, /or/ the meter reading was more or less bang-on, 
and there was a megawatt of heat being dissipated somewhere.  But not both.


On 08/08/2016 11:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:
OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of how a heat 
pump operates.  It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) 
and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat 
exchangers.  A low pressure return pipe carries the active fluid in 
vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the 
expanding mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form.   I 
wonder if a significant portion of that mixture in Rossi's case might 
be vapor, leading to false reading within the gauge ahead of the pump?


This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court 
document


I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool 1MW. 
The surface area is very large. In less then 3D (scale of the tubes in 
1D in comparison to other), turbulence can go from small vortices to 
high, and when it exits to large tubes it goes from high vortices to 
low. Depending on the design, a lot of cavitation may form and 
accumulate in the flow meter, if no system to elimate bubles is developed.


2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com 
<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>>:


I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at its input
enough to allow the water to vaporize if the flow is restricted
ahead of the gauge.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of how a heat pump 
operates.  It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) and a strong 
restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat exchangers.  A low pressure 
return pipe carries the active fluid in vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient 
heat is not absorbed by the expanding mixture then some of it remains in the 
liquid form.   I wonder if a significant portion of that mixture in Rossi's 
case might be vapor, leading to false reading within the gauge ahead of the 
pump?

This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document



I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool 1MW. The 
surface area is very large. In less then 3D (scale of the tubes in 1D in 
comparison to other), turbulence can go from small vortices to high, and when 
it exits to large tubes it goes from high vortices to low. Depending on the 
design, a lot of cavitation may form and accumulate in the flow meter, if no 
system to elimate bubles is developed.



2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>:

I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at its input enough to 
allow the water to vaporize if the flow is restricted ahead of the gauge.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/08/2016 11:39 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the 
truth if he were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact.  Is 
that not giving him the benefit of the doubt?  Can anyone be 100% 
confident that he is completely lying?


As long as there is any question about the facts,


No.  Wrong criterion.  There will /always/ be some questions about the 
facts.


The courts do not require guilt to be proved "beyond a shadow of a 
doubt" or "beyond any question" or "beyond any possibility of error" 
because it is almost never possible to prove /anything/ that definitely.


On the other hand, Rossi /has/ been proved to be a liar and a scammer 
/beyond a _reasonable_ doubt/ which is the criterion jurors are 
generally asked to apply.  The number of unlikely assumptions which must 
hold in order for him to be an honest researcher is vastly larger than 
the number of assumptions which must hold if he is what he appears to 
be, which is a greedy sleazebucket who's stealing money and wasting 
everybody's time. Concluding in the face of the evidence that you /must 
give him another chance/ is flat-out irrational -- i.e.,  it's an 
emotional decision, not a reasoned one, because there is no reasonable 
ground for concluding that.


If you want to waste time giving him endless chances to try yet again 
and maybe this time produce an honest result that shows his equipment 
really does work, feel free, but you are seriously wasting everybody 
else's time by doing it here.  At this time it appears that there's a 
larger chance that you'll hit Megabucks than that you'll wake up and 
find out Rossi was vindicated.  (And that goes double if you actually 
buy a lottery ticket.)

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[David Roberson]

I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the truth if he 
were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact.  Is that not giving him 
the benefit of the doubt?  Can anyone be 100% confident that he is completely 
lying?

As long as there is any question about the facts, we should be able to explore 
the complexities of the experiment.  So far, it appears that most of the folks 
with great reservations believe that the water flow rate measurements are where 
he confuses us the most.  I am attempting to follow up on that lead and 
determine whether or not it is based upon scientific fact.   If we can not 
convince ourselves that this is the source of the error, then we are coming up 
short.

I would hope that you, me and the others can actually figure out why the 
experiment is not indicative of reality.  Let's not become pseudo skeptics 
unless the data leads to that conclusion. Also, no one should assume that I 
believe most of what Rossi is saying because I harbor many serious concerns.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document





On 08/08/2016 08:27 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


I suppose that Rossi may not be telling the truth as  you have concluded, 
but I am attempting to give him the  benefit of the doubt.  

You have got to be kidding.

We have been discussing Rossi in this group for the last sixyears.

The first Vortex email I have regarding Rossi is from March, 2010. It's 
from Jed, and it's quite positive.

The road from initial elation with Rossi's fabulous results to the
conclusion that it's all just a fable with nothing to back it up waslong, 
contentious, and littered with a lot of dubious claims (fromRossi) and 
difficult to unearth facts (about what he was reallydoing).

The "benefit of the doubt" ran out long ago for this guy.

  

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Daniel Rocha]

He was contributing in his point of view why this kind of discussion
happens and you just tell him to shut up, just because you think that is
not serious. LOL.

2016-08-09 0:03 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

>
>
> Do you have anything to contribute? Or do you just accept this particular
> nonsense from Rossi because Rossi Said It?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

LOL. Wow.
>

LOL yourself. Would you care to explain how a flow meter might register
exactly 36,000 kg every day for months, without variation?

Do you have anything to contribute? Or do you just accept this particular
nonsense from Rossi because Rossi Said It?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Daniel Rocha]

LOL. Wow.

2016-08-08 23:32 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

>  suggest you shut up.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

Russ George  wrote:

There is no blacker hole than the hole of social media speculation and
> pontification, therein lies universes filled with churlish senseless time
> wasting bullshit…
>

You do realize, I hope, that I am looking at actual data from the
experiment, from Rossi, and also data that I.H. uploaded to the court
system in a lawsuit? That is not "social media speculation." Data submitted
to a court case is more reliable than informal lab notes from Parkhomov or
the MFMP (as estimable as they may be). This is a serious matter. I.H. is
making serious allegations, backed up by teams of experts. More evidence is
waiting in the wings. For example, hard data will show there was no heat
coming from the customer site. So Rossi's claim is a violation of
thermodynamics. That's a scientific issue. Not speculation, pontification
or bullshit.

I am not pontificating; I am pointing out very specific things about the
data, such as the fact that in order to actually record 36,000 kg per day
for months, like clockwork, you would have to have water flowing at a
precise rate to the nearest second -- like a clock. Do you dispute this?
Can you explain these repeated figures of 36,000 kg some other way? Either
Rossi has miraculously good control over the flow -- even managing to
adjust for daylight savings time -- OR this data is fake. Which do you
suppose it is?

If you have no actual scientific content to contribute to this discussion,
for example if you cannot suggest a plausible reason why the flow might
actually be 36,000 kg every day for months, then YOU are the one who
pontificating and bullshitting. You are interrupting a serious discussion.
I suggest you shut up.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Russ George]

There is no blacker hole than the hole of social media speculation and 
pontification, therein lies universes filled with churlish senseless time 
wasting bullshit…

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

 

Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

This acrimonious discussion of Rossi with the posturing pretentious claims of 
‘insider knowledge’ by one disgruntled camp follower, utterly unsubstantiated 
and without any verifiable facts/data . . .

 

If documents filed with the court are not substantiation and not verifiable, 
what would be? What sort of proof would satisfy you?

 

What proof have you seen from Rossi?

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Nope. Not possible, I think. That would require the flow to be
> synchronized to the clock such that it clicks *exactly* every 40 minutes,
> to the nearest second, every day for months. If it were a little late on
> the last click, it would show 35,000 that day, pushing the next click into
> the next day. Slightly faster and it would be 37,000. The flow would have
> to be regulated to a fraction of a liter.
>

As someone pointed out at lenr-forum, Rossi would have to adjust the flow
twice a year for daylight savings time. It would be a difficult adjustment.
He would have to turn down the flow exactly enough to retard it on March
13, then on November 6 he would increase the flow.

This reminds me of the hypothesis that the pretend customer went to great
lengths to hide the 1 MW of waste heat, so that no IR camera or other
method could detect it. Why would anyone do that? Why would JM care whether
someone is detecting their waste heat?

Do you know what I think happened? I think they stuffed the number "36,000"
into the flow rate, for every day. They didn't even bother skipping days
when the machine was turned off. Then they stuffed "0.0" into the pressure.
Probably, observers saw that the flow meter was recording one click every
hour or so, so 36,000 kg is plausible. That is not the actual flow, but if
you watch the meter for a few hours you would see something like that.
Observers probably saw that the pressure indicated there was water, not
steam, so they erased the actual pressure numbers and put in 0.0.

That's what I suppose happened.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Daniel Rocha]

I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool 1MW. The
surface area is very large. In less then 3D (scale of the tubes in 1D in
comparison to other), turbulence can go from small vortices to high, and
when it exits to large tubes it goes from high vortices to low. Depending
on the design, a lot of cavitation may form and accumulate in the flow
meter, if no system to elimate bubles is developed.

2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00 David Roberson :

> I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at its input enough
> to allow the water to vaporize if the flow is restricted ahead of the gauge.
>
> Dave
>
>