I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid
facts. The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of
imagination and state that is what happened, while in fact being clueless.
Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be accepted but
it would take the sale of working commercial reactors to quiet the
critics. As he says he hopes to have at least one commercial reactor
working for the parent company of J M Products by the end of 2016
perhaps we will see then.
1.
Frank Acland
July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=136#comment-1204468>
Dear Andrea Rossi:
There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH group
regarding the 1 MW plant test.
a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal authorizations to work
c) JM Products did not have any employees
d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you refused them
e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any manufacturing
process, and the only heat supplied by your plant was 20kW, not 1MW
Can you respond to any of these points?
Thank you,
Frank Acland
2.
Andrea Rossi
July 3, 2016 at 2:03 PM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=136#comment-1204478>
Frank Acland:
Independently from who is the imbecile that wrote such things,
please find hereunder my answers, confined within the limits allowed
not to touch issues that have to be discussed exclusively in Court,
with due evidence.
a) The flowmeter used in the test is property of the ERV. The ERV
has chosen that instrument based on his experience. It is, by the
way, a very common flowmeter, that everybody can buy, even if it is
quite expensive. The flowmeter has been certified and after the test
the ERV has retrieved it and sent it to make a certification of its
margin of error after the test of 1 year, specifically with a flow
of water with the same temperature and the same flows of water that
we had during the test, minimum, maximum, average. So the ERV told
us he was going to do when he retrieved his flowmeter after the shut
down of the plant at the end of the test.
b) Obviously it is false, otherwise the plant would have been closed
after the inspections
c) False
d) Tragicomic: Leonardo Corporation delivered, as per contract, the
plant on August 2013, and we were ready to start immediately the
test, as a continuation of the preliminar test made in Ferrara two
months before with IH. IH had 1 year of time to start the 1 year
test, but they always delayed with the excuse that they did not have
the authorization from the Healthcare Office of North Carolina, due
to the fact that there was the “nuclear reactions” issue. I have
been able to get such permission in Florida and therefore I proposed
the Customer, that has been accepted by IH. Evidence of it is the
contract that IH made with JM. Since the plant was property of IH
and it was in the factory of IH, obviously they could choose the
Customer they wanted, if they had one.
e) When you have not the burden to give evidence of what you say,
you can say every stupidity. This is exactly the case. Anyway, what
counts related to the contract is the energy produced by the 1 MW
E-Cat, and such energy gets evidence from the report of the ERV.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
On 7/3/2016 12:54 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
"Your bias is showing again. Goatguy suggested a possible method to
scam the results and then you take it as read that that was done.
Really?"
It is altogether possible that he was not so clever as GG thinks, as
Jed suggests, but could have still taken advantage of the design flaw
noted by GG. I hope we get to see the raw data from the very
beginning of the test eventually. My speculation previously was that,
if the test were to be faked, he would have played around with the
variables he could tweak to get the meters to show what he wanted.
This would have taken some time, so the closer to the beginning of the
test, the more likely you would be to see a COP of 1. We know from
Dewey Weaver that the Rascal was caught sneaking the flow meter out by
some folks from IH who arrived early for the post-test inspection.
Photographs are said to reveal that the serial number of the flow
meter used did not match the one used originally. If he had trouble
fooling the original meters, he must have had to switch them out. So
again, if there is raw data that was not deleted from the beginning of
the test, I would expect this to be the most accurate.
Maybe people think there is a conspiracy of lies by DW and IH that
would have to extend to others. Although it is not completely
impossible (very low probability) that IH and others have conspired to
lie, it is much easier to believe that a known Rascal is the one doing
the lying. In fact, nearly everyone agrees that he has been known to
lie about a number of things along the way. The hopeful ones hold out
hope that the lies stop at having a working formula. A formula even
hidden from IP patent protection, because he would have had to lie
there too. Or, best case scenario, works very rarely producing a COP
between 1.1 and 1.3.
In short, to believe the Rascal, you must accept a whole truckload of
lies and hold out hope that the one thing he is not lying about, is
that the reactor works. He has not even asserted that he has held
anything back from the patent or from IH, and is quick to praise
anything that looks like a replication. Now, if you know you are
holding something back, and the reaction won't work without it, would
you praise something that you know probably doesn't work? It is
easier to believe the simpler alternative: he doesn't have anything
else to share and it doesn't work.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
"Itwasclever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver
that can cost him dearly, in the end."
Your bias is showing again. Goatguy suggested a possible method
to scam the results and then you take it as read that that was
done. Really?
It would have been easier to fudge the sensors or the
instrumentation reading them. That does not mean that was what
happened either.
