"I have no reason to thinkDewey 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."
Do you have a reason to true AR more than Jed, DW, IH, and many others?
There is no wild flight of imagination here. It is all based on facts
and reasoning. GG's analysis is based on how the apparatus design
could be used to produce false results. I gave a reasonable scenario
for how and hypothesis for how AR could have approached the problem of
faking the results. DW provided an account of AR switching out the
flow meters. AR himself told you he prevented access to the
"customer" site. These are not flights of imagination.
Do you disagree that AR lied in his patent and to IH about the formula
needed to produce the effect?
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:23 PM a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
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.
