I understand Adrian. You give AR the benefit of the doubt, but everyone else gets the doubt. "AR says" carries more weight in your opinion than Jed, the people Jed has talked to who have seen the data, Dewey Weaver, and IH. Multiple sources say the swapped out flow meter was inappropriate, so it's not just "Dewey said."
If the patent does not include the necessary details, then it is invalid. He either lied or it doesn't work as specified (and he still lied). It is not likely productive for us to continue this discussion, since we're not likely to agree or have much influence on each other's opinions. On Sun, Jul 3, 2016, 5:38 PM a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > Jack, > I give Rossi the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise. As I said, > I don't know, but neither do the skeptics. > If you don't think there have been wild flights of imagination you have > not been following the story. GG's analysis means nothing: it is just > another possible way of cheating. There are many of those and most are > simpler than his suggestion. > So Dewy said the flow meter was switched. Did you read my last post? > Rossi pointed out that it was the ERV's instrument and he sent it away for > calibration at the end of the test. > AR didn't "prevent access to the customer's site." He pointed out this > was the agreement made in the contract and the ERV backed this up saying it > was not necessary. > > I don't know if Rossi lied in the patent. I'm don't think you could lie > without invalidating the patent. There are other possibilities such as > pretreatment of the materials and how the operation is controlled that > effect the operation. > > Any more "Dewey said" items to shoot down? > > > > > > On 7/3/2016 4:00 PM, Jack Cole 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." > > 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> > 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> >> wrote: >> >>> "It was clever 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >
