Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: The ERV broke the seals, disconnected it and sent the flow meter back to > the manufacturer for calibration. That is the statement. If you disagree > show some proof. > Exhibit 5 says Murray looked inside the meter, so it could not have been shipped

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: No one said Rossi sent the meter back. I said the ERV did. > The ERV did not send the meter back. (The ERV is Rossi's puppet -- he does whatever he is told.) It is not in the court documents so you must have got it from IT or Murray, > or made it up.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

The ERV broke the seals, disconnected it and sent the flow meter back to the manufacturer for calibration. That is the statement. If you disagree show some proof. Your ad hominem about the ERV is unwarranted and uncalled for. AA On 8/26/2016 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Alain Sepeda wrote: Just to confirm my understanding. > it seems the rust have been cleaned after inspection? > I have not heard this. This is not what Exhibit 5 says. It says they found lines of rust in the flow meter, which indicate how high the water went. This

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Being a bit naive I would say it is not smart to clean evidences when you > want to convince someone it works, and it is indeed working. > Whether or not this happened, there's a more general point that should be

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:47 AM, a.ashfield wrote: Jed: "Whether or not this happened, there's a more general point that > should be apparent to anyone who has had a chance to read all of the > documents filed so far. Leonardo made zero effort to involve IH in the >

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi might be able to show gauge readings that imply that 1 MW of steam is being delivered while not being an accurate assessment of the real power. I assumed that the information published by Engineer48 in E-CATWORLD.com is accurate. Here he reads the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

The contract saying no one could visit the customer's facility has been widely reported. Rossi stated it and as far as I know IH has not denied it. AA On 8/26/2016 12:41 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: a.ashfield, you give warnings to people not to make speculations and then you speculate

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 09:40 AM, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Alain Sepeda > wrote: Being a bit naive I would say it is not smart to clean evidences when you want to convince someone it works, and it is indeed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: > If IH and Rossi signed an agreement before the trial that no one would be > allowed in the customers plant, why should Murray be allowed to visit it? > Rossi did not allow Murray to visit the reactor, not the customer site. He allowed no one to visit

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

The court will decide what it believes to be true. I personally want to know what the real truth is and not what lawyers are able to convince the judge or jury of. If Rossi is actually delivering the 1 MW then he should prevail in an ideal world. Dave -Original Message-

[Vo]:the adequate LENR scale for LENR

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-26-2016-what-is-adequate-dikwp.html peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson wrote: > If Rossi is actually delivering the 1 MW then he should prevail in an > ideal world. > If Rossi is actually delivering the 1 MW then he and everyone else in that room is dead. They were all cooked in a matter of minutes. You can confirm that from the

Re: [Vo]:The key to LENR is strong coupling between the hydrogen atom and light.

And the key to strong coupling is a strong magnetic (B) field and appropriate resonances to change coherent system energy and angular momentum states IMHO. The SPP's suggested are the key to the magnetic field and coupling to the many-body coherent system. Bob Cook

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Reference? AA On 8/26/2016 2:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: That sounds most unlikely as the ERV was reported to have removed the flowmeter and shipped it back to the manufacturer for calibration. He did not do

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: That sounds most unlikely as the ERV was reported to have removed the > flowmeter and shipped it back to the manufacturer for calibration. > He did not do that. That was a lie. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

ok, this is a good news for the affair... I'm not unrealistically optimistic anyway ;-> 2016-08-26 15:46 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell : > Alain Sepeda wrote: > > Just to confirm my understanding. >> it seems the rust have been cleaned after inspection?

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Jed: "Whether or not this happened, there's a more general point that should be apparent to anyone who has had a chance to read all of the documents filed so far. Leonardo made zero effort to involve IH in the planning and execution of the alleged GPT, and at no point was there an effort to

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

The court will decide who is right, not you. AA On 8/26/2016 11:58 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: /It doesn't look like IH had a single technical person so why do you think they could have contributed anything to the plant design or operation? They ultimately hired Murray, but lacking tech

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: The court will decide who is right, not you. > Technically the jury will decide. Rossi asked for a trial by jury. But if the jury disagrees with Santostasi, the jurors will be mistaken. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield, you give warnings to people not to make speculations and then you speculate yourself all the time. Where is the contract between Rossi and IH saying they could not visit the "customer" operations? Again, please look the entire piece not single isolated bits. We already discussed how

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Eric, While the story is murky, I got the impression Murray was hired late in the game, had an IT background, and was not allowed in the plant;until the trial was over, let alone allowed in the customers plant. If IH and Rossi signed an agreement before the trial that no one would be allowed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Jed:: "It says they found lines of rust in the flow meter, which indicate how high the water went." That sounds most unlikely as the ERV was reported to have removed the flowmeter and shipped it back to the manufacturer for calibration. So when did they get to inspect it? I would think the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

*It doesn't look like IH had a single technical person so why do you think they could have contributed anything to the plant design or operation? They ultimately hired Murray, but lacking tech expertise they hired someone with the wrong experience. Likewise, it seems that they were unable to

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 02:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: If IH and Rossi signed an agreement before the trial that no one would be allowed in the customers plant, *why should Murray be allowed to visit* it? Rossi did

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wrote: Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules Is this known to be a fact? Has Rossi actually described in some reasonably clear way, rather than just giving a handwave to a leading question about feedback? Where

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: I am not sure that I understand the point Eric. Why would any reasonable > person not want to know the real truth and not accept a possible > fabrication by the judicial system? Even though we are subject to the > court

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: I was expecting you couldn't because it's secret. > A little bird is about as solid as the rest of the speculations. > You have a peculiar definition of the word "speculation." If I said, "I suppose Rossi did not send the flow meter back for

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I recall Rossi discussing power control on numerous occasions. Why would he hire control experts if that were not the reason? Do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously for any significant period of time had he not discussed that issue? Of course he has never given us a wiring

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Eric Walker wrote: > . . . You would say, "wait a minute, that doesn't make sense. You want me > to give you all that money without really believing or having a basis for > believing that what you're saying is true. Sorry, no dice." > > This is all apart from any legal

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 05:28 PM, David Roberson wrote: I am trying to figure out how Rossi could have faked it just as you mention. We should be able to achieve that goal by using scientific logic, at least that is my assumption. Perhaps the fact that I leave open the possibility that he may be

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 05:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Actually, that is central to the legal questions. People on Planet Rossi have the peculiar notion that contracts are enforced based strictly on the words in them. If you can write a clever enough contract, you can force someone to pay you no

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I am not sure that I understand the point Eric. Why would any reasonable person not want to know the real truth and not accept a possible fabrication by the judicial system? Even though we are subject to the court orders that does not prove that they are honest and accurate. Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I was expecting you couldn't because it's secret. A little bird is about as solid as the rest of the speculations. Why no piping drawing, that is key to most of it? Easier to argue without the facts? AA On 8/26/2016 3:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I am trying to figure out how Rossi could have faked it just as you mention. We should be able to achieve that goal by using scientific logic, at least that is my assumption. Perhaps the fact that I leave open the possibility that he may be telling the truth is where we differ. I am much

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 02:04 PM, David Roberson wrote: I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi might be able to show gauge readings that imply that 1 MW of steam is being delivered while not being an accurate assessment of the real power. I assumed that the information published by Engineer48

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson wrote: The court will decide what it believes to be true. I personally want to > know what the real truth is and not what lawyers are able to convince the > judge or jury of. If Rossi is actually delivering the 1 MW then he

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: This is why Darden is an idiot, because he signed a contract which says > just this! He accepted a Rossi appointee to perform this 'test', and > signed a contract which forbids him from making any type of independent

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: Reference? > A little bird. > > AA > > > On 8/26/2016 2:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > a.ashfield wrote: > > That sounds most unlikely as the ERV was reported to have removed the >> flowmeter and shipped it back to the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Bosh. Go back to the discussion of *where the 1 megawatt of heat was > dumped**.* There was no megawatt of heat dumped on the "customer site". > Rossi claimed there was. What more proof do you need? The rest is just > details. The details may

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David, you are doing the equivalent of using a physics model to predict whether airplanes should have knocked down the WTC. Back in the day, a lot of people slammed FEMA for not doing exactly that, and for, instead, using a parametrized model to figure out /how/ the WTC collapsed. In the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Eric Walker writes: > ... It's now time > for you to pay up. Suppose for the sake of argument that the thing did > in fact flibbertygibbet. If you're being realistic, would you hand > over the money, given that you've had good reason in other contexts to > think that the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: This is why Darden is an idiot, because he signed a contract which says > just this! I will also add that IH roundly dispute that what happened in Doral, Florida, was what was specified in the contract they signed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 05:55 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: On 08/26/2016 05:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Actually, that is central to the legal questions. People on Planet Rossi have the peculiar notion that contracts are enforced based strictly on the words in them. If you can write a clever enough

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I am referring to the famous HotCat test where the three scientists wrote a nice long report. I believe it was the last demonstration before the year long test. Perhaps someone can find the exact reference, but it has been a while now. Jed, give me a hand here. It was well publicized and

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 06:31 PM, David Roberson wrote: I am referring to the famous HotCat test where the three scientists wrote a nice long report. I believe it was the last demonstration before the year long test. Perhaps someone can find the exact reference, but it has been a while now. Jed,

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 05:40 PM, David Roberson wrote: I recall Rossi discussing power control on numerous occasions. Why would he hire control experts if that were not the reason? I don't know why he does anything. I was asking for a specific assertion. AFAIK he never made such an assertion.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

You wont get an arguement from me suggesting that I.H. should pay without knowing the truth. The truth is what I seek; did the Rossi system deliver 1 MW for the year or did it not? We owe it to Rossi and I.H. to determine the actual truth of the matter. I realize that many on the list have

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Jed, I worry that you are placing too much emphasis upon that rust stain. It would be wise to speak with an expert from the company that makes the device to determine if they agree. Also, you should be able to get additional information about that stain from the witness. He should be able

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

No one said Rossi sent the meter back. I said the ERV did. You say that is a lie but offer no proof for your statement. It is not in the court documents so you must have got it from IT or Murray, or made it up. AA On 8/26/2016 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Just to confirm my understanding. it seems the rust have been cleaned after inspection? If I don't make an error, this tells much more. what other "evidence" have been cleaned. I remember of cooling circuit fluid (which thus may be salted, eg for highering vaporisation temp)... Being a bit