Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

[Che]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I might add: It is damned craven of you to erase my messages. Despite your
> provocations and baseless accusations, I have remained civil with you, and
> in this instance I have provided only facts. Facts grounded in conventional
> engineering. By denying this, and by erasing messages, you have disgraced
> yourself and shown that you are no scientist or engineer any more. Perhaps
> you were once, and you may be again, but you are so obsessed with Rossi,
> and so unwilling to face reality, you have abandoned all objective
> standards.
>
> - Jed
>


It is sad to see all the confusion, despair, conniving, backstabbing and
contention caused essentially by the hubris and base egotism of the likes
of LENR 'heroes' Andrea Rossi. Let's hope instead that the collaborative --
and OPEN -- likes of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, however slow
and plodding, show us the best way and foot forward for a TRUE science of
Cold Fusion.

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Just like Penon.
>

Penon did not respond to this letter. However expert Penon may be, he
cannot contradict what it says on the faceplate of the flow meter. It says:

Minimum operational flow rate 1.6 m3 /hour

Being an expert does give you license to redefine reality or magically
change instruments specifications. That is the minimum flow rate. Penon's
own data show the flow rate was below that. Physical examination of the
meter and pipe showed that the pipe was half full. Therefore, the meter did
not work right. You might assemble 10,000 experts tied together, but you
still cannot deny that means Rossi and Penon were wrong.

This is not about who is an expert. It is about flow meters, and how they
work, and how they fail.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

[Jed Rothwell]

I might add: It is damned craven of you to erase my messages. Despite your
provocations and baseless accusations, I have remained civil with you, and
in this instance I have provided only facts. Facts grounded in conventional
engineering. By denying this, and by erasing messages, you have disgraced
yourself and shown that you are no scientist or engineer any more. Perhaps
you were once, and you may be again, but you are so obsessed with Rossi,
and so unwilling to face reality, you have abandoned all objective
standards.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:


> "The turbine flow meter used for your measurements ."  There is no proof
> that the expert went there or how he got the information. He is just
> questioning the type used and makes some calculations.
>

Give me a break! Of course he went there. Lots of people went there. They
all say this was the meter. They all pointed out it was wrong. Rossi's own
data shows the flow rate is exactly 36,000 kg/day, which proves the meter
measured to the nearest 1,000 kg only. Which is ridiculous.

Stop making up impossible nonsense. It is OVER. The flow meter was the
wrong type, and it was improperly installed in a half-filled pipe. There is
physical proof of this.

- Jed

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

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
It strikes me as highly unlikely that whoever chose the flow meter 
(Penon?) would not talk to the manufacturer for advice on which model to 
get.
I notice their catalog does not specify a minimum rate and with flow 
meters they generally run slower than they should below the bottom of 
the scale.
As for the stain marks, without actually seeing them, I doubt they mean 
much.



On 8/6/2016 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Daniel Rocha > wrote:


http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/volume-parts-for-heat-meters/mwn130-nc-mp130-nc



There are 2 products on this page, with very similar
specifications, mp130-nc-80NC has nearly the same exact
specifications, save for the minimum volume. IH is probably
blowing some hot air to cause confusion in the  case.


Daniel, get a grip! At long last, Get A Grip. The guy who wrote 
Exhibit 5 is an expert engineer. He was _looking at the flow meter_. 
He quoted the numbers on the faceplate! He wrote:


"The Apator PoWoGaz’s device label clearly states that the unit has a 
minimum operational flow rate of 1.6 m3 /hour."


He did not write that to "cause confusion." Penon never answered him. 
It is case closed.


- Jed

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Thanks.  Interesting read.


On 08/06/2016 07:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:

Your link is apparently only useful to members of the NewVortex
group on Yahoo.


Okay. I uploaded the document here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Alright. I am not in the mood for your temper tantrums.
>

I am not in the mood for your utter disregard for the facts. You should not
invent nonsensical accusations that Murray did not see the instrument he
described. He and the others looked at it closely, and at the pipe, as
described in his letter.

Rossi's own data and what he told Lewan backs this up. The instrument
measured only to the nearest 1,000 kg.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> It strikes me as highly unlikely that whoever chose the flow meter
> (Penon?) would not talk to the manufacturer for advice on which model to
> get.
>

Oh, I expect they did consult. Then they deliberately selected an
instrument that gave the wrong answer. They selected several other
instruments that also gave the wrong answers. Several people told them
that, but they refused to fix the problems.

I assume they did this to inflate the apparent excess heat. Defkalion did
something similar when they deliberately induced backflow.

As I said here before, if you read the manual for a flow meter, or any
instrument, you will find ways to get the wrong answer. Any fool can do
that.

You need to think about this. This meter has the minimum flow rate written
right there on the face plate. Anyone who looks at it, and then looks at
the data, will see that it is wrong. It is blatantly, irrefutably,
in-your-face OBVIOUS that this instrument will give the wrong answer. It
took me about 10 seconds to figure this out, seeing only Rossi's data and
bare-bones description. I told you here many times it was wrong. I saw
that *the
instant I read what kind of flow meter it was*, and how much it was
supposedly measuring. It does not take a rocket scientist.

So what are you saying? That no one noticed? That Rossi did not read the
face plate?!? How could that be? Of course he knew! Of course they told
him! Why wouldn't they?

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

As for the stain marks, without actually seeing them, I doubt they mean
> much.
>

Since you have not actually seen them, HOW CAN YOU DOUBT anything about
them??!? That's crazy.

Millions of dollars are at stake here. Has it not occurred to you that with
that much money at stake, I.H. has brought in world-class experts in stain
marks to determine exactly what they mean? If you were a billionaire, and
someone was suing you for $267 million, would you leave that to chance, or
just guess, or neglect to do that?

THINK. Have some common sense.

- Jed

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

[Eric Walker]

For anyone interested in the action, the minutiae of IH's reply are being
pored over on LENR Forum with great enthusiasm.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/

(In several threads.)

Eric


On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> Your link is apparently only useful to members of the NewVortex group on
> Yahoo.
>
> It calls itself a "public" group but I couldn't get it to show me the
> file, none the less, and didn't immediately see a way to join it (yet
> another social networking site, just what everybody needs).
>
> I found a number of bits and pieces on the same topic, uploaded by Abd,
> but I couldn't get Yahoo to show them to me, either.
>
> In any case, if this (which you've mentioned before) is true,
>
> *"As you see in this exhibit, Penon recorded this flow rate of 36,000 kg
> for every day in the ERV, including days when the reactor was not
> operating."*
>
> then it's totally Game Over and anyone who still thinks there's something
> here should be counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.  Only totally
> blind unreasoning faith could account for believing Rossi had anything at
> all at this point.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2016 04:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> This is Exhibit 5, Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 29-5.
>
> groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/
>
>
>

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

Your link is apparently only useful to members of the NewVortex group on
> Yahoo.
>

Okay. I uploaded the document here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E

- Jed

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

[Daniel Rocha]

Just like Penon.

2016-08-06 21:38 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

> .
> Daniel, get a grip! At long last, Get A Grip. The guy who wrote Exhibit 5
> is an expert engineer.
>

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

[Jed Rothwell]

All Exhibits are here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8

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

[Daniel Rocha]

On exhibit there are some pictures of stuff which looks like flowmeters
(though I am not sure they are), page 3. They have a zigzag shape of
mp130-nc-80NC
and not the straight and chubby form of   MWN130-80-NC

2016-08-06 22:32 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> It does give and it is simple.
> For example:
>
> "The turbine flow meter used for your measurements ."  There is no proof
> that the expert went there or how he got the information. He is just
> questioning the type used and makes some calculations.
>
> "was manufactured by Apator PoWoGaz. The model number is MWN130-80-NCThe
> Apator PoWoGaz’s device label clearly states that the unit has a minimum
> operational flow rate of 1.6 m3/hour." Any MWN130-80-NC will have that
> label,
>
>  http://meromuszer.revolshop.hu/shop_ordered/4196/shop_
> altpic/big/MWN130-80NC_altpic_1.jpg?time=1446800468
>
> so this doesn't mean the expert had saw the plate on that flowmeter.
>
>
>
>
> 2016-08-06 22:07 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :
>
>>
>> Being an expert does give you license to redefine reality or magically
>> change instruments specifications
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

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

[Daniel Rocha]

Alright. I am not in the mood for your temper tantrums.

2016-08-06 23:09 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Stop making up impossible nonsense. It is OVER.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Your link is apparently only useful to members of the NewVortex group on 
Yahoo.


It calls itself a "public" group but I couldn't get it to show me the 
file, none the less, and didn't immediately see a way to join it (yet 
another social networking site, just what everybody needs).


I found a number of bits and pieces on the same topic, uploaded by Abd, 
but I couldn't get Yahoo to show them to me, either.


In any case, if this (which you've mentioned before) is true,

*"As you see in this exhibit, Penon recorded this flow rate of 36,000 kg 
for every day in the ERV, _including days when the reactor was not 
operating_."*


then it's totally Game Over and anyone who still thinks there's 
something here should be counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.  
Only totally blind unreasoning faith could account for believing Rossi 
had anything at all at this point.




On 08/06/2016 04:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This is Exhibit 5, Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 29-5.

groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/ 

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

[Daniel Rocha]

exhibit 3

2016-08-06 22:39 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> On exhibit there are some pictures of stuff which looks like flowmeters
> (though I am not sure they are), page 3. They have a zigzag shape of  
> mp130-nc-80NC
> and not the straight and chubby form of   MWN130-80-NC
>
> 2016-08-06 22:32 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :
>
>> It does give and it is simple.
>> For example:
>>
>> "The turbine flow meter used for your measurements ."  There is no proof
>> that the expert went there or how he got the information. He is just
>> questioning the type used and makes some calculations.
>>
>> "was manufactured by Apator PoWoGaz. The model number is MWN130-80-NCThe
>> Apator PoWoGaz’s device label clearly states that the unit has a minimum
>> operational flow rate of 1.6 m3/hour." Any MWN130-80-NC will have that
>> label,
>>
>>  http://meromuszer.revolshop.hu/shop_ordered/4196/shop_altpi
>> c/big/MWN130-80NC_altpic_1.jpg?time=1446800468
>>
>> so this doesn't mean the expert had saw the plate on that flowmeter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-08-06 22:07 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :
>>
>>>
>>> Being an expert does give you license to redefine reality or magically
>>> change instruments specifications
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

[Jed Rothwell]

I copied the message "Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court
document" to your blog. You deleted it, twice.

You need to face reality. When Rossi runs the wrong kind of flow meter in a
pipe half full of water, it produces the wrong answer. This was deliberate,
I am sure. People pointed out the problem to him. He did nothing.

You are angry at me and you delete my messages, but this changes nothing.
You must realize that you have been wrong. Despite what you said, it is
possible to deliberately set up a flow meter to give the wrong answer.
Defkalion did it, and so did Rossi. Rossi took other steps to inflate the
apparent excess heat.

Do not blame the messenger. I have been telling you the truth all along.
Face it. Deal with it.

- Jed

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

[Daniel Rocha]

http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/volume-parts-for-heat-meters/mwn130-nc-mp130-nc

There are 2 products on this page, with very similar specifications,
mp130-nc-80NC has nearly the same exact specifications, save for the
minimum volume.  IH is probably blowing some hot air to cause confusion in
the  case.

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/
> volume-parts-for-heat-meters/mwn130-nc-mp130-nc
>
> There are 2 products on this page, with very similar specifications,
> mp130-nc-80NC has nearly the same exact specifications, save for the
> minimum volume.  IH is probably blowing some hot air to cause confusion in
> the  case.
>

Daniel, get a grip! At long last, Get A Grip. The guy who wrote Exhibit 5
is an expert engineer. He was *looking at the flow meter*. He quoted the
numbers on the faceplate! He wrote:

"The Apator PoWoGaz’s device label clearly states that the unit has a
minimum operational flow rate of 1.6 m3 /hour."

He did not write that to "cause confusion." Penon never answered him. It is
case closed.

- Jed

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

[Daniel Rocha]

It does give and it is simple.
For example:

"The turbine flow meter used for your measurements ."  There is no proof
that the expert went there or how he got the information. He is just
questioning the type used and makes some calculations.

"was manufactured by Apator PoWoGaz. The model number is MWN130-80-NCThe
Apator PoWoGaz’s device label clearly states that the unit has a minimum
operational flow rate of 1.6 m3/hour." Any MWN130-80-NC will have that
label,


http://meromuszer.revolshop.hu/shop_ordered/4196/shop_altpic/big/MWN130-80NC_altpic_1.jpg?time=1446800468

so this doesn't mean the expert had saw the plate on that flowmeter.




2016-08-06 22:07 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

>
> Being an expert does give you license to redefine reality or magically
> change instruments specifications
>

[Vo]:war news in full development

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-6-2016-lenr-war-news-in-development.html

let's see

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

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

[Jed Rothwell]

I stated here several times that in my opinion the flow meter used in the 1
year test of Rossi's 1-MW reactor was probably in error. It probably
over-estimated the flow. I said that in the data I have seen, it measured
36,000 kg of water every day, exactly. I found this number impossible to
believe. I was not free to explain the problems with the flow meter. In the
response filed by I.H. in response to the suit, there is a letter from an
I.H. expert, Murray, to Penon. This is Exhibit 5, Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA
Document 29-5.

groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/

Read this exhibit carefully and you will know everything I learned about
the flow meter from Rossi's data, and more. Let me quote part of it:

"The turbine flow meter used for your measurements was manufactured by
Apator PoWoGaz. The model number is MWN130-80-NC.

The Apator PoWoGaz’s device label clearly states that the unit has a
minimum operational flow rate of 1.6 m3 /hour. That is a minimum of 38.4 m3
/day. Using 977.8 kg/m3 as the density of water at 70ºC, the minimum
operational mass flow rate measurable with this sensor is 37,548 kg/day.
With few exceptions, your daily valuation reports reflect a flow rate
clearly below this level. How can the measurements of the flow meter be
valid when they are consistently below the minimum operating value?

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]. The visible iron stain
waterline marks on the static vanes indicate that the pipe was not
continuously full of liquid, as required by the manufacturer’s
specifications, but rather had a substantial portion free of liquid. See
Exhibit A. How can the measurements of the flow meter be valid when the
pipe volume was far less than full?"


Some time ago, I said that the meter data shows exactly 36,000 kg per day.
In the interview with Lewan, Rossi hinted that this is a round number, and
the actual amount might be 35,792 kg (for example). From the specifications
of this meter, you see that this is not a round number. This flow meter
measures in increments of 1,000 kg. That's the minimum reading. There are
several problems with this:

Rossi and Penon claim that it clicked over 36 times every day, or once
every 40 minutes. EXACTLY once every 40 minutes; exactly 36 times a day.
Not 35 some days, 37 others. That's ridiculous. Even if the flow was
remarkably stable, surely there would be days when the instrument clicked
over at 5 minutes to midnight (37 times that day), so the next day it would
click only 35 times.

As you see in this exhibit, Penon recorded this flow rate of 36,000 kg for
every day in the ERV, including days when the reactor was not operating.

More to the point, a flow meter operated well below its minimum recommend
range will give the wrong answer. In my experience, when instruments
measure below the minimum threshold, they tend to measure too high, tending
toward the threshold.

Also as described in the exhibit, a meter that is supposed to work with a
full pipe will give the wrong answer when the pipe is half empty.

Those are the two main problems with the meter. I believe there may be
others. Both of those problems are described in the Omega guide I
referenced earlier:

omega.com/prodinfo/flowmeters.html

"The accuracy requirements should be separately stated at minimum, normal,
and maximum flowrates. Unless you know these requirements, your flow
meter's performance may not be acceptable over its full range. . . .

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) . . .


In other words, these are known problems, described in the literature and
in the manuals for the flow meters affected by these problems.

I believe these problems caused the flow meter to measure the flow too high
by a considerable margin. I believe the COP was 1, not 50. This flow meter
problem alone is probably not enough to account for the apparent COP of 50,
but this combined with other errors inflated the COP. I have estimated the
flow meter error, but I would like to carefully examine the data released
by I.H. before publishing my estimate.

- Jed