Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Jed Rothwell]

Great work! Good answers. The parts relating to calorimetry look okay to
me, at first glance:

What type of flow measurement sensor was used? Can you list the
> manufacturer and model of the flow sensor?
> A flow measurement sensor was used, a Rain Gauge supplied Oregon
> Scientific - Weather Station WMRS200. It
> generates 1 pulse from 10 g of water.
>

That sounds like good enough resolution.

https://www.amazon.com/Oregon-Scientific-WMR200-Professional-Weather/dp/B000VSTALG

I cannot find that at the Oregon Scientific website. Here is something
similar:

http://www.oregonscientificstore.com/p-358-oregon-scientific-wmr300a-ultra-precision-professional-weather-system.aspx



> Did the water supply for the calorimeter come directly from the drinking
> water faucet? Yes
> Was the flow rate manually set? Yes
>

Both reasonable. Once you set a flow rate with a faucet, it is stable in
most cities.



> What flow rate was used? (for example in, or L/hour) About 4 ml/s
>

240 ml/minute is fine.


At the 1200°C operating point, what was the typical temperature difference
> between the water outlet temperature
> and the water inlet temperature? About 20 deg C.


That's a big temperature difference. The COP is 1.1 to 1.3, so I guess that
up to ~6 deg C of that is anomalous heat. See the other document at this
web site, p. 8:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE=drive_web

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 

Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would probably use 
the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before returning it, rather than 
going through a heat exchanger.

- Jed

Didn’t you see the post on NBF from GoatGuy - which nails the easy way to cheat 
with this type of setup? It’s all about letting air in the line, in the “hidden 
room” where IH was not permitted to even take a look. This is not accidental 
air leakage, but planned that way – to deceive. Of course, GaotGuy’s 
explanation doesn’t work if you have a real customer buying real steam, since 
they immediately know they are getting shortchanged.

That is why this case will likely be dismissed before it ever gets to trial. 
When the swindle of claiming for months that “the customer" is buying a $1000 
per day of steam, is shown to be a make-believe customer with no use for steam 
at all (instead it is your own business partner who is buying nothing) … when 
this fraud is brought to the attention of the Court, the claim against IH will 
likely be tossed.

Goat guy, who seems to have an excellent grasp of this situation, came up with 
the explanation -- which can be seen here by scrolling down to his post in the 
comments.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html

Basically, in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled “water 
reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.

Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2

All that would be needed would be for the steam-condenser loop to have a 
planned amount of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1 
system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from 50:50 
steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the heat 
emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which there are 2: 
(water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank water) → (back 
into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the bottom half…. Etc. Etc. 
An ingenious scam.

It was clever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver that can cost him 
dearly, in the end.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

As far as I know, nobody has any idea what was in the customer's 
equipment.  Presumably it started as steam and the condensate was later 
returned to the 1 MW plant at varying temperatures.  The implication is 
that the customer's side was less than 60C.


On 7/3/2016 9:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Jed,  "Correction: With a counterflow heat exchanger, the cold
fluid will be an average temperature somewhere between 104 and 60
deg C."
What cold fluid are you talking about?


The warm fluid and cold fluid in the heat exchanger.

Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would 
probably use the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before 
returning it, rather than going through a heat exchanger.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Higgins]

Parkhomov's choice of rain gauge for flow meter is an interesting choice -
fits perfectly with his style.  This flow meter is of the bistable conical
cup type.  It flops back and forth as each cup fills to a certain MASS of
water: [I am inserting a small picture - hope it comes through]


​
When one cup fills to 10g of water, it flows over and presents the other
cup.  Each flop causes a magnet to pass a reed switch which causes a
pulse.  Parkhomov said he measured a noise of about +/- 0.1 g for each
flop.  The +/- 0.1 g may not have been the repeatability or noise - for
example the left cup could be 9.9g and the right cup 10.1g depending on the
level of the system.

Measuring the mass of water is much better than measuring the volume of
water because the heat in each gram is much more stable with temperature
than the heat with 1cc.

Also note from the pictures of the system that Parkhomov had a can storing
water up above the reactor.  This can had a water level control to keep the
can filled to a certain height.  This would have controlled the water
pressure (only the dead fall pressure) and helped keep the flow constant.

Bob

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Great work! Good answers. The parts relating to calorimetry look okay to
> me, at first glance:
>
> What type of flow measurement sensor was used? Can you list the
>> manufacturer and model of the flow sensor?
>> A flow measurement sensor was used, a Rain Gauge supplied Oregon
>> Scientific - Weather Station WMRS200. It
>> generates 1 pulse from 10 g of water.
>>
>
> That sounds like good enough resolution.
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Oregon-Scientific-WMR200-Professional-Weather/dp/B000VSTALG
>
> I cannot find that at the Oregon Scientific website. Here is something
> similar:
>
>
> http://www.oregonscientificstore.com/p-358-oregon-scientific-wmr300a-ultra-precision-professional-weather-system.aspx
>
>
>
>> Did the water supply for the calorimeter come directly from the drinking
>> water faucet? Yes
>> Was the flow rate manually set? Yes
>>
>
> Both reasonable. Once you set a flow rate with a faucet, it is stable in
> most cities.
>
>
>
>> What flow rate was used? (for example in, or L/hour) About 4 ml/s
>>
>
> 240 ml/minute is fine.
>
>
> At the 1200°C operating point, what was the typical temperature difference
>> between the water outlet temperature
>> and the water inlet temperature? About 20 deg C.
>
>
> That's a big temperature difference. The COP is 1.1 to 1.3, so I guess
> that up to ~6 deg C of that is anomalous heat. See the other document at
> this web site, p. 8:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE=drive_web
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Basically, in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled “water
> reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.
>
> Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
>
> Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
>
> Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1 . .
> .
>
That sounds complicated. I think the people from I.H. would have found that
out sooner or later. I do not think Rossi does complicated sleight of hand
tricks. He uses crude methods that do not fool anyone who takes a close
look. You are only fooled when he releases a vague summary of the test
leaving out most details and data, as he has done in the past.

People who looked at the actual setup, and others who reviewed the
configuration and sample data (including me), saw many problems that made
the 1 MW claim impossible, and probably preclude any excess heat. It was
not difficult to find the problems. There is no indication that some clever
trick is in use that makes it look as if there is 1 MW. Nothing makes it
look like that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

As far as I know, nobody has any idea what was in the customer's equipment.
>

Nothing was in there. I.H. and others used various methods to look for heat
from the customer site. They found no trace of it. There was no equipment
using a detectable level of process heat. Nor was the heat simply dumped
out of the vent. It is not possible to dump that much heat into the water
system, as I pointed out earlier.


 Presumably it started as steam and the condensate was later returned to
> the 1 MW plant at varying temperatures.  The implication is that the
> customer's side was less than 60C.
>

If that were the case, the waste heat would be easily detected. There was
not 1 MW or even 100 kW.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

"Itwasclever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaverthat 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.



On 7/3/2016 10:45 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

*From:*Jed Rothwell

Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would 
probably use the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before 
returning it, rather than going through a heat exchanger.


- Jed

Didn’tyou see the post on NBFfrom GoatGuy -which nails the easy way 
tocheatwiththis type of setup?It’s all aboutlettingair in theline,in 
the “hidden room” where IHwas not permitted toeven take a look.This is 
not accidental airleakage, but planned that way– todeceive.Of 
course,GaotGuy’sexplanationdoesn’t work if you have a real customer 
buyingrealsteam, since they immediately know they are getting 
shortchanged.


That is why this case willlikelybe dismissedbefore it ever gets to 
trial.Whentheswindleofclaiming for months that“the customer"isbuying 
a$1000 per day of steam,isshown to bea make-believe customerwith no 
use for steamat all(instead itisyour own business partnerwho isbuying 
nothing)… when thisfraudis brought to the attention of the Court, 
theclaim against IHwilllikelybe tossed.


Goat guy, whoseems to havean excellentgrasp of thissituation,came up 
withthe explanation--whichcan be seen here by scrolling down to his 
post in the comments.


_http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html_

Basically,in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled 
“water reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.


Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line

Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers

Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1

Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2

All that would be needed would be for the steam-condenserloop to havea 
planned amount ofair in the line for this to be a really misleading 
COP > 1 system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% 
steam from 50:50 steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of 
flim-flam, most of the heat emitted could be combined back into the 
circulating loop (of which there are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to 
ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank water) → (back into ECat₁) → 
(back to water tank 1) … repeated for the bottom half…. Etc.Etc. An 
ingenious scam.


Itwasclever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaverthat can cost him 
dearly, in the end.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

There you go again.  IH was not allowed in the building but you claim 
there was nothing there, based on what IH told you.  To think that IH 
could discern anything from an IR reading of the building walls is 
really pathetic.


Jed.  "If that were the case, the waste heat would be easily detected. 
There was not 1 MW or even 100 kW."


Not clear to me.  Please explain.


On 7/3/2016 11:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

As far as I know, nobody has any idea what was in the customer's
equipment.


Nothing was in there. I.H. and others used various methods to look for 
heat from the customer site. They found no trace of it. There was no 
equipment using a detectable level of process heat. Nor was the heat 
simply dumped out of the vent. It is not possible to dump that much 
heat into the water system, as I pointed out earlier.



 Presumably it started as steam and the condensate was later
returned to the 1 MW plant at varying temperatures.  The
implication is that the customer's side was less than 60C.


If that were the case, the waste heat would be easily detected. There 
was not 1 MW or even 100 kW.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
You never replied to my request for a reference confirming what you said 
that IH offered a customer but Rossi turned it down.


On 7/3/2016 11:16 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Jones Beene > wrote:

Basically,in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled
“water reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.

Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line

Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers

Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water
tank 1 . . .

That sounds complicated. I think the people from I.H. would have found 
that out sooner or later. I do not think Rossi does complicated 
sleight of hand tricks. He uses crude methods that do not fool anyone 
who takes a close look. You are only fooled when he releases a vague 
summary of the test leaving out most details and data, as he has done 
in the past.


People who looked at the actual setup, and others who reviewed the 
configuration and sample data (including me), saw many problems that 
made the 1 MW claim impossible, and probably preclude any excess heat. 
It was not difficult to find the problems. There is no indication that 
some clever trick is in use that makes it look as if there is 1 MW. 
Nothing makes it look like that.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jones Beene]

So let me see if I’ve got this straight. It’s not biased to the repeat the
fabrications of a delusional career criminal, and to persist with non-stop
trolling of this “Rossi says” crap, but it is biased for anyone else to
comment on the most likely way he pulled off the latest scam?  

From: a.ashfield 

"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.

Jones Beene wrote: From: Jed Rothwell 
Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would probably
use the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before returning it, rather
than going through a heat exchanger.
- Jed
Didn’t you see the post on NBF from GoatGuy - which nails the easy way to
cheat with this type of setup? It’s all about letting air in the line, in
the “hidden room” where IH was not permitted to even take a look. This is
not accidental air leakage, but planned that way – to deceive. Of course,
GoatGuy’s explanation doesn’t work if you have a real customer buying real
steam, since they immediately know they are getting shortchanged.
That is why this case will likely be dismissed before it ever gets to trial.
When the swindle of claiming for months that “the customer" is buying a
$1000 per day of steam, is shown to be a make-believe customer with no use
for steam at all (instead it is your own business partner who is buying
nothing) … when this fraud is brought to the attention of the Court, the
claim against IH will likely be tossed.
Goat guy, who seems to have an excellent grasp of this situation, came up
with the explanation -- which can be seen here by scrolling down to his post
in the comments.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html
Basically, in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled “water
reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.
Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2
All that would be needed would be for the steam-condenser loop to have a
planned amount of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1
system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from
50:50 steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the
heat emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which
there are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir
tank water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the
bottom half…. Etc. Etc. An ingenious scam.
It was clever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver that can cost him
dearly, in the end.

<>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jack Cole]

"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  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.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

The steam pressure would be closer to 2 psig at 104.  What you discount 
is that the temperature would have been higher if the pressure needed to 
be higher.   It is not unreasonable to assume 2 psi was all that was 
needed with the outlet pipe size used. Remember that Rossi used  a 
stethoscope to listen to the water boiling as a simple way of 
checking.   If IH was concerned about this there are various simple ways 
to check on the water content of the steam, so why didn't they do this 
or ask the ERV to do it?  It doesn't make sense.  IH had a year to think 
about it.  Right now all we have is second hand information - the actual 
temperature is not known.  Presumably the ERV's report spells it out.


On 7/2/2016 7:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > 
wrote:


Jed.  "The fluid leaving Rossi's reactor room was just above 100
deg C. "
Other sources say the temperature was ~104C  in which case it
would probably be steam.


Not if there is any pressure. Which I am sure there was. 104 deg C = 
219 deg F. 3 psi would be enough:


https://durathermfluids.com/pdf/techpapers/pressure-boiling-point.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed,  "Correction: With a counterflow heat exchanger, the cold fluid will
> be an average temperature somewhere between 104 and 60 deg C."
> What cold fluid are you talking about?
>

The warm fluid and cold fluid in the heat exchanger.

Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would probably
use the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before returning it,
rather than going through a heat exchanger.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

Jed,  "Correction: With a counterflow heat exchanger, the cold fluid 
will be an average temperature somewhere between 104 and 60 deg C."
What cold fluid are you talking about?  I thought we were told the 
return temperature to the 1 MW plant varied but was typically ~60C.   
Because it varied it made the precise heat flow difficult to calculate 
and Rossi told the ERV to ignore it entirely to be on the conservative 
side.


On 7/2/2016 7:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I wrote:

The fluid leaving Rossi's reactor room was just above 100 deg C.
Returning it was at 60 deg C. That is what Rossi told Lewan. The
reservoir remained level so it was the same water looping around.
So if there was any process heat in the next room, it came from a
heat exchanger and it had to be cooler than 60 deg C.


Correction: With a counterflow heat exchanger, the cold fluid will be 
an average temperature somewhere between 104 and 60 deg C.


- Jed

[Vo]:LENR is hidden in details

[Peter Gluck]

It is already a certainty- LENR is hidden in details.
What we don't know: in which details and how it hides there.
But we will find out soon!

See please:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/07/jul-03-2016-lenr-is-hidden-in-details.html

HAPPY JULY 4th to all my US readers!

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

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

What "fabrications of a delusional career criminal"?
You just repeated what Goatguy said without an iota of evidence to show 
it was true, writing that that was what happened.  So no, you haven't 
"got this straight."



On 7/3/2016 12:49 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

So let me see if I’ve got this straight. It’s not biased to the repeat the
fabrications of a delusional career criminal, and to persist with non-stop
trolling of this “Rossi says” crap, but it is biased for anyone else to
comment on the most likely way he pulled off the latest scam?

From: a.ashfield

"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.

Jones Beene wrote: From: Jed Rothwell
Someone pointed out to me that at such low temperatures, you would probably
use the hot fluid to heat the equipment directly before returning it, rather
than going through a heat exchanger.
- Jed
Didn’t you see the post on NBF from GoatGuy - which nails the easy way to
cheat with this type of setup? It’s all about letting air in the line, in
the “hidden room” where IH was not permitted to even take a look. This is
not accidental air leakage, but planned that way – to deceive. Of course,
GoatGuy’s explanation doesn’t work if you have a real customer buying real
steam, since they immediately know they are getting shortchanged.
That is why this case will likely be dismissed before it ever gets to trial.
When the swindle of claiming for months that “the customer" is buying a
$1000 per day of steam, is shown to be a make-believe customer with no use
for steam at all (instead it is your own business partner who is buying
nothing) … when this fraud is brought to the attention of the Court, the
claim against IH will likely be tossed.
Goat guy, who seems to have an excellent grasp of this situation, came up
with the explanation -- which can be seen here by scrolling down to his post
in the comments.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html
Basically, in the center of the “reactor shelter” is a box labeled “water
reservoir” which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.
Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2
All that would be needed would be for the steam-condenser loop to have a
planned amount of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1
system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from
50:50 steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the
heat emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which
there are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir
tank water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the
bottom half…. Etc. Etc. An ingenious scam.
It was clever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver that can cost him
dearly, in the end.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

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
   


   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
   


   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 

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jones Beene]

From: a.ashfield 

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.  

Rossi was right, was he? LOL. That is you informed opinion?

Then tell us why the skeptics aren’t they quiet now  – since Rossi has
already announced that he sold 13 commercial reactors in 2012. He has never
withdrawn that announcement.

That big sale should quiet them down, even if only one of the 13 works… but
oops… didn’t he lie about that sale, just as he is lying now? 

A pathological liar simply cannot be trusted in any circumstance. It is
unlikely that Rossi will ever sell another reactor until he cannot show that
they work. After 5 years of claims, he has no scientific proof that he has
ever produced a watt of excess energy. Of course, he can easily invent
another fake “customer” but wouldn’t it be a lot easier just to have one the
13 customers from 2012 come forward with their story?

I held out some hope for the quark-X, but that too was another sham. He
didn’t have time to build a credible prop so he submits a blurred blob as
proof it works. What a clown.



<>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jack Cole]

"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  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
>
> 
>
>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
>
> 
>
>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 

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

Jones Beene,
AA "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."

JB.  Rossi was right, was he? LOL. That is you informed opinion?"

AA.  Is that really the best you can do?  Pray tell me what is not true in that 
forecast.


On 7/3/2016 4:50 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

From: a.ashfield

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.

Rossi was right, was he? LOL. That is you informed opinion?

Then tell us why the skeptics aren’t they quiet now  – since Rossi has
already announced that he sold 13 commercial reactors in 2012. He has never
withdrawn that announcement.

That big sale should quiet them down, even if only one of the 13 works… but
oops… didn’t he lie about that sale, just as he is lying now?

A pathological liar simply cannot be trusted in any circumstance. It is
unlikely that Rossi will ever sell another reactor until he cannot show that
they work. After 5 years of claims, he has no scientific proof that he has
ever produced a watt of excess energy. Of course, he can easily invent
another fake “customer” but wouldn’t it be a lot easier just to have one the
13 customers from 2012 come forward with their story?

I held out some hope for the quark-X, but that too was another sham. He
didn’t have time to build a credible prop so he submits a blurred blob as
proof it works. What a clown.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

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 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 > 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




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




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, 

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jack Cole]

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  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> 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
>>
>> 
>>
>>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
>>
>> 
>>
>>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 

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of how Rossi
> could cheat was actually implemented.
>

Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told you how Rossi cheats is
Rossi himself. He said refused to allow anyone into his pretend customer
site. The only plausible reason for doing that is to hide the fact that
there is only a 15 kW radiator in there. Other reasons that have been
suggested are absurd. If there was an actual machine in there, Rossi would
be paid $89 million for showing it to the I.H. experts. There is no way he
would fail to do that.

It is obvious he is covering up fraud by doing that. Add to that the fact
that there is no heat or noise coming from the pretend customer site, and
it is case closed.

Here is his latest outrageous lie, by the way. These are my comments at
lenr-forum:


Thinking more about what Rossi said here: "b) Obviously it is false,
otherwise the plant would have been closed after the inspections . . ."

Parsing this, he claims:

1. There were inspections.
2. After these inspections, the plant remained open.
3. Therefore it passed.

I find this improbable. I think it is extremely unlikely that the state of
Florida has a set of procedures to inspect or certify an aneutronic cold
fusion nuclear reactor. Most scientists do not think such a thing can exist.

I suppose that if an inspector from Florida came, made measurements, and
determined that the machine was producing far more output heat than the
input electricity, he would not merely shrug his shoulders, sign off on the
safety certificate, and go back to the office. This would be an
unprecedented inspection. It would be unlike anything that has ever
happened in Florida, or the U.S. or anywhere in the world. I think the
inspector would be at a loss as to what to do. He would report this to his
superiors. A Boiler Safety Section inspector would never take full
responsibility for certifying such a machine on his own authority. They, in
turn would be astounded, and they would take action and do something about
it. Public safety officials when confronted by something that sounds very
dangerous, with no legal codes to guide them, do not merely turn away and
ignore it. Their first instinct would be to close it down and ask the next
higher set of officials for guidance. If there was some sort of accident,
these officials would lose their jobs and possibly face a jail sentence, so
they would take action.

I find it absolutely impossible to believe that the authorities in the
Boiler Safety Section would *ignore a nuclear reactor that works by unknown
principles*, one that is producing dangerous levels of heat in a building
not zoned for that. They would not let Rossi go on testing this device in a
building with other people, in a crowded neighborhood.

To be blunt, I think the scenario outlined by Rossi in this one sentence is
so utterly improbable that it is either a lie or a lunatic fantasy. I
cannot imagine why anyone believes him, or takes this at face value.


- Jed

[Vo]:Article: Paper-Based Microbial Fuel Cell Operates without External Power

[Jack Cole]

A team of researchers from Iowa State University in Ames have demonstrated
a proof-of-concept three dimensional paper-based microbial fuel cell (or
MFC) that could take advantage of capillary action …

http://flip.it/WQ4L9

Sent via Flipboard , your personal magazine.
Get it for free  to keep up with the news you care
about.

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed we have been through this twice already.  I do not find anything Rossi
> has said shows that he was cheating.
>

There are none so blind as those who will not see.


You have no idea what machinery was in the J M Products' plant although you
> also imply that you know.
>

Whatever machinery it was, it produced no heat measurable from outside or
from the vents on the roof.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

Jack,
" You give AR the benefit of the doubt, but everyone else gets the doubt.  "

I said I didn't know if Rossi was right.  But I have reason whatsoever 
to believe that somebody's idea of how Rossi could cheat was actually 
implemented.  Even the author didn't say it was.   All the recent anti 
Rossi stuff can be traced back to feeds from IH.


On 7/3/2016 7:50 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
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 > 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 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 > 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




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
   

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[a.ashfield]

Jed we have been through this twice already.  I do not find anything 
Rossi has said shows that he was cheating.
The agreement at the start of the trial was that no one from IH should 
visit J M Products, nor that anyone from J M Products was allowed to 
visit the 1 MW plant.  Presumably both had proprietary secrets.  You 
keep ignoring this and keep claiming it was Rossi who stopped IH from 
visiting.


You have no idea what machinery was in the J M Products' plant although 
you also imply that you know.
You still have not given a reference for the supposed customer IH found 
before J M Products.


Nether you nor I know if the plant was inspected but if it was it would 
be for safety reasons only and possibly Rossi's safety certificate had a 
bearing on that.



On 7/3/2016 8:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of
how Rossi could cheat was actually implemented.


Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told you how Rossi 
cheats is Rossi himself. He said refused to allow anyone into his 
pretend customer site. The only plausible reason for doing that is to 
hide the fact that there is only a 15 kW radiator in there. Other 
reasons that have been suggested are absurd. If there was an actual 
machine in there, Rossi would be paid $89 million for showing it to 
the I.H. experts. There is no way he would fail to do that.


It is obvious he is covering up fraud by doing that. Add to that the 
fact that there is no heat or noise coming from the pretend customer 
site, and it is case closed.


Here is his latest outrageous lie, by the way. These are my comments 
at lenr-forum:



Thinking more about what Rossi said here: "b) Obviously it is false, 
otherwise the plant would have been closed after the inspections . . ."


Parsing this, he claims:

1. There were inspections.
2. After these inspections, the plant remained open.
3. Therefore it passed.

I find this improbable. I think it is extremely unlikely that the 
state of Florida has a set of procedures to inspect or certify an 
aneutronic cold fusion nuclear reactor. Most scientists do not think 
such a thing can exist.


I suppose that if an inspector from Florida came, made measurements, 
and determined that the machine was producing far more output heat 
than the input electricity, he would not merely shrug his shoulders, 
sign off on the safety certificate, and go back to the office. This 
would be an unprecedented inspection. It would be unlike anything that 
has ever happened in Florida, or the U.S. or anywhere in the world. I 
think the inspector would be at a loss as to what to do. He would 
report this to his superiors. A Boiler Safety Section inspector would 
never take full responsibility for certifying such a machine on his 
own authority. They, in turn would be astounded, and they would take 
action and do something about it. Public safety officials when 
confronted by something that sounds very dangerous, with no legal 
codes to guide them, do not merely turn away and ignore it. Their 
first instinct would be to close it down and ask the next higher set 
of officials for guidance. If there was some sort of accident, these 
officials would lose their jobs and possibly face a jail sentence, so 
they would take action.


I find it absolutely impossible to believe that the authorities in the 
Boiler Safety Section would _ignore a nuclear reactor that works by 
unknown principles_, one that is producing dangerous levels of heat in 
a building not zoned for that. They would not let Rossi go on testing 
this device in a building with other people, in a crowded neighborhood.


To be blunt, I think the scenario outlined by Rossi in this one 
sentence is so utterly improbable that it is either a lie or a lunatic 
fantasy. I cannot imagine why anyone believes him, or takes this at 
face value.



- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:

Parkhomov's choice of rain gauge for flow meter is an interesting choice -
> fits perfectly with his style.  This flow meter is of the bistable conical
> cup type.  It flops back and forth as each cup fills to a certain MASS of
> water: [I am inserting a small picture - hope it comes through]
>

That is interesting.

Ed Storms and Mike McKubre both used this style of mass-flow meter. This
has some advantages over turbine types, calorimetric types (that heat the
water) and others described here:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flow-meters-d_493.html

The direct mass flow ones are less likely to clog up, and they are accurate
over a broad range of flow rates.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Bob—

Great communication with AP.  It would be nice to get AP to confirm that D does 
not change the energy generation of the experiment except in so far as the H 
concentration is reduced.

In his answers to your question about deuterium AP seemed to hope it had no 
effect on the reaction???

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2016 7:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

Parkhomov's choice of rain gauge for flow meter is an interesting choice -
fits perfectly with his style.  This flow meter is of the bistable conical
cup type.  It flops back and forth as each cup fills to a certain MASS of
water: [I am inserting a small picture - hope it comes through]


​
When one cup fills to 10g of water, it flows over and presents the other
cup.  Each flop causes a magnet to pass a reed switch which causes a
pulse.  Parkhomov said he measured a noise of about +/- 0.1 g for each
flop.  The +/- 0.1 g may not have been the repeatability or noise - for
example the left cup could be 9.9g and the right cup 10.1g depending on the
level of the system.

Measuring the mass of water is much better than measuring the volume of
water because the heat in each gram is much more stable with temperature
than the heat with 1cc.

Also note from the pictures of the system that Parkhomov had a can storing
water up above the reactor.  This can had a water level control to keep the
can filled to a certain height.  This would have controlled the water
pressure (only the dead fall pressure) and helped keep the flow constant.

Bob

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Great work! Good answers. The parts relating to calorimetry look okay to
> me, at first glance:
>
> What type of flow measurement sensor was used? Can you list the
>> manufacturer and model of the flow sensor?
>> A flow measurement sensor was used, a Rain Gauge supplied Oregon
>> Scientific - Weather Station WMRS200. It
>> generates 1 pulse from 10 g of water.
>>
>
> That sounds like good enough resolution.
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Oregon-Scientific-WMR200-Professional-Weather/dp/B000VSTALG
>
> I cannot find that at the Oregon Scientific website. Here is something
> similar:
>
>
> http://www.oregonscientificstore.com/p-358-oregon-scientific-wmr300a-ultra-precision-professional-weather-system.aspx
>
>
>
>> Did the water supply for the calorimeter come directly from the drinking
>> water faucet? Yes
>> Was the flow rate manually set? Yes
>>
>
> Both reasonable. Once you set a flow rate with a faucet, it is stable in
> most cities.
>
>
>
>> What flow rate was used? (for example in, or L/hour) About 4 ml/s
>>
>
> 240 ml/minute is fine.
>
>
> At the 1200°C operating point, what was the typical temperature difference
>> between the water outlet temperature
>> and the water inlet temperature? About 20 deg C.
>
>
> That's a big temperature difference. The COP is 1.1 to 1.3, so I guess
> that up to ~6 deg C of that is anomalous heat. See the other document at
> this web site, p. 8:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE=drive_web
>
> - Jed
>
>