[Vo]:New Explorations on the Moon Model

[Harvey Norris]

 http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/MoonModel_F04.pdfThe 
last pages(71-72) of this document on figure 14 becomes relevant in certain 
relativistic speculations. The four diagonals bisecting the cube are said to be 
magnetically neutral with respect to each other, and do not form a 90 degree 
angle between them but some 109.5 degrees. A very similar arrangement showing a 
60 degree separation of an equilateral edges of the four faced or triangular 
pyramid exists where How many points in space may separate so that each 
(reference) point in movement sees identical separations from the other points 
in movement? The answer after some introspection concerning symmetrical 
separation of reference points so that EACH reference point sees the same thing 
with respect to its neighbors as it does itself; after further mental 
introspection of these claims of absolute mirror image symmetry and its 
analogous magic square arrangements of numbers; another amazing thing is 
encountered; which is ANOTHER four points in space taken as reference points 
from the same equilateral pyramid that can separate and remain symmetrical in 
their respective separation viewpoints. And here perhaps a DISTINCT difference 
in both of these spatial "Magic" movements can be shown. Each of these 
spatially symmetrical movements are described as expansional movements in the 
spaces between them; where a certain amount of space exists in the beginning of 
this mental exercise of analogies. Before anything begins in each case four 
reference points as specified geometrically in space have a certain amount of  
relative separation between them. The TWO significant differences between these 
two systems is that one begins with a shorter separation distance then the 
other one; and perhaps more importantly when those symmetries are run in 
reverse direction of time; one system fails symmetry and the other does not! 
The sheisse gets deeper then this, perhaps even going into cosmology. Now in 
the first described system of the four points of the equilateral four faced 
pyramid moving outwards we would have 12 possible extensions of movements 
outwards in space., all coming from the edges of the pyramid. If we reversed 
these movements so that each corner showed a path of collision with its 
opposite corner in the middle of the edge pathway from both opposite movements; 
obviously we then have four separate collisions in geometrical space at the 
midpoints of each edge; but the question remains difficult at first glance as 
to whether symmetry is preserved on that inward movement. In the second case 
not elaborated on all the reverse pathways come to a single point. Now for 
equations in two dimensional xy coordinate mappings if two linear equations are 
other then parallel, then they must have an intersection point in common. But 
for equations with x,y,z coordinates each equation line could appear to be 
perpendicular in reference yet have no intersection point. However may be the 
case one here one symmetrical system does appear to have an intersection point 
in space with the other one and their movements do appear to be orthogonal to 
one another. Actually I have read other comments about my past writings saying 
that I speak in a language of my own making which is seemingly undecipherable 
to others. Well just imagine this then; what might appear to be a complexity 
within a complexity might just be simple to begin with. If we have two systems 
of symmetrical separations in space each at 90 degree angles to another how 
would those symmetrically derived separations appear to each other? Would they 
still be symmetrical to each other. I doubt it. HDNPioneering the Applications 
of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

I don't recall either of them taking their victims to court.
> It was the other way around.
>

Your analysis is too narrow. You are missing the point. The point is,
people such as Madoff and Rossi have enormous chutzpah, and they are
reckless. They will say or do anything. They assume they will always find a
way to win out. Rossi must have thought he could blazon his way through and
demand money from IH. He thought they would fold, and pay something, if not
the full amount.

The specifics details about whether Madoff was sued or Rossi filed suit is
not at all what I am getting at. The key thing is, these people will do or
say anything, even filing a lawsuit they cannot win.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

[bobcook39923]

I do not recall that the IH/Rossi contract says anything about the nature of a 
customer being a manufacturer.  The customer may have only been an energy sink, 
a steam condenser for example.  

The objective of the test was to produce energy for 350 days out of a year.  

I’ll review the contract and check out the specs for the customer.

Bob Cook

From: a.ashfield
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It 
isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering 
with.Seebelow.

I don't recall either of them taking their victims to court.
It was the other way around.

AA
On 2/2/2017 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield  wrote:
 
At this point it strikes me that it is extraordinarily unlikely that a 
fraudster would take the supposed victim (IH) to court.

Your personal level of incredulity is not a valid metric. Look at famous scams 
such as Ponzi or Bernie Madoff. They seem incredible, but they were real.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[a.ashfield]

I don't recall either of them taking their victims to court.
It was the other way around.

AA

On 2/2/2017 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

At this point it strikes me that it is extraordinarily unlikely
that a fraudster would take the supposed victim (IH) to court.


Your personal level of incredulity is not a valid metric. Look at 
famous scams such as Ponzi or Bernie Madoff. They seem incredible, but 
they were real.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> At this point it strikes me that it is extraordinarily unlikely that a
> fraudster would take the supposed victim (IH) to court.
>

Your personal level of incredulity is not a valid metric. Look at famous
scams such as Ponzi or Bernie Madoff. They seem incredible, but they were
real.

- Jed

[Vo]:Radiola III up and running

[Frank Znidarsic]

Subject: Radiola III up and running


opps the wrong video was sent the corrected link is pasted below.






This is a short video showing the operation of a 1924 super regenerative 
battery operated radio receiver.  It's back into service.


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/operation.mp4





Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:Radiola III up and running

[Frank Znidarsic]

opps the wrong video was sent the corrected link is pasted below.






This is a short video showing the operation of a 1924 super regenerative 
battery operated radio receiver.  It's back into service.


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/operation.mp4





Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:Radiola II up and running

[Frank Znidarsic]

This is a short video showing the operation of a 1924 super regenerative 
battery operated radio receiver.  It's back into service.


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/operation.wmv




Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[Jones Beene]

Giovanni,

This "valid customer" detail should come out during deposition.

I suspect the IH Attorney will be relentless with tough questions, and 
for once, Rossi will be cautioned not to throw a tantrum and walk out. 
(he could do so nevertheless).


The most unfortunate possibility of all - which is seldom mentioned but 
actually of relatively high probability, is that Rossi has a system 
which gives excess heat, but less than needed to get the big payout.


I would love to see a rock solid 2:1 ratio of output to input but the 
data is probably too compromised for even that lower expectation - as 
Rossi would be the last to want this.



Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
Not just a customer, but a valid, legit, independent customer, not a 
Rossi's agent.


Giovanni


Jones Beenewrote:

To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive
amount of steam to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one
from IH was allowed to visit) could be  instantly validated if
there was indeed a real customer using the steam.

If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a
real manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how
much reputed steam was being supplied.

This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the
judge if Rossi cannot present a prima facie case that there really
was a real customer using steam to manufacture a product. It's
really pretty simple, no?

Was there a customer using the steam or not?

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Not just a customer, but a valid, legit, independent customer, not a
Rossi's agent.

Giovanni


On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive amount of
> steam to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one from IH was allowed
> to visit) could be  instantly validated if there was indeed a real customer
> using the steam.
>
>
> If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a real
> manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how much reputed
> steam was being supplied.
>
>
> This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the judge if
> Rossi cannot present a prima facie case that there really was a real
> customer using steam to manufacture a product. It's really pretty simple,
> no?
>
>
> Was there a customer using the steam or not?
>
>
> Legal definition of Fraud - A false representation of a matter of
> fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or
> by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is
> intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her
> or his legal injury.
>
>
>
> Brian Ahern wrote:
>
> Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the water
> was above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase. The
> metering device cannot function with a compressible fluid. It will always
> measure higher values than measuring it as a single liquid phase at the
> input.
>
> Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output
> temperature is below  100C.  Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C is a
> surfire way to get inflated flow measurements.
>
> Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it anyway
> because it is so easy the provide inflated values.
>
> I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible.  Use
> the minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters operate in a
> two phase mode that is guaranteed to over report flow rates due to the
> increased compressibility.
>
> Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* bobcook39...@gmail.com 
> 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:27 PM
> *To:* Jed Rothwell; Vortex
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It
> is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.
> Seebelow.
>
>
> The enthalpy calculations of Ahern do not appear to account for the change
> of the phase of water to steam at about 100 C.  This is about 540 calories
> per gram and should add to the heating of the liquid phase over about 30 C.
>
>
>
>
> This amounts to 540 /30  or about 1800% additional enthalpy—joules or
> calories whatever units you want-- IMHO.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Jed Rothwell 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:40 PM
> *To: *Vortex 
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It
> is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.
> Seebelow.
>
>
>
> Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>
>
> The water flow rate is 36000kG/day  or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG  x 1
> day/84,600 sec/day = 425.5 G/sec
>
>
>
> Note:
>
>
>
> 1. Rossi and Penon arbitrarily reduced the flow rate by 10%. That is what
> Rossi told Lewan in an interview. That is shown in this spreadsheet, in the
> "reduced flowed water (kg/d)" column. So, use 32,400 kg instead of 36,000
> kg.
>
>
>
> 2. They used the wrong kind of flow meter, and it was installed in the
> gravity return pipe, which was only about half full of water. The manual
> for this flow meter says it does not work in a pipe that is half full, so
> the flow rates are far too high. It is difficult to say how far off they
> are, but they cannot be right.
>
>
>
> 3. The numbers are impossible in any case. No flow rate can be exactly the
> same, every day, for weeks. This meter measures to the nearest 1000 kg,
> which is ridiculous, but given that it does, it would record something like
> 35,000 kg one day, 34,000 the next, and 36,000 the next even if the flow
> was extremely consistent.
>
>
>
>
>
> The change in temperature is 69.1 C up to 103.9 =  a temperature  rise of34.8
> degrees C.
>
> Heat capacity of water = 4.2 joules/gram/C
>
> The power needed for this temperature rise at that flow rate is:
>
> Flow rate (G/sec )   x   Temp. rise (degrees C)   xheat capacity of
> water (4.2 joules/G/degree C)
>
> 425.5g/sec  x  34.8C  x  4.2 Joules/gram/C leaves units of Joules/second
> =  62,191watts
>
>
>
> The authors claim that the water was vaporized, so they used the heat of
> vaporization. It could not have been vaporized, because there was some back
> pressure from the equipment. 

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[a.ashfield]

Jones,
I understand the legal system well enough.  Like in England, the law is 
an ass  (as stated by the Chief Justice.)


What I said was that, relatively speaking, the customer is unimportant.  
What really matters is if there is a commercial LENR plant.  I've read 
the supposed contract (I don't believe much that is posted) and it 
didn't strike me that the customer mattered.


At this point it strikes me that it is extraordinarily unlikely that a 
fraudster would take the supposed victim (IH) to court.   If anybody 
knows if the E-Cat works it is Rossi, who has been working on it for ten 
years with many different models.   Many writers here and on the LENR 
forum write in continuously insulting terms, to the point that it seems 
only MIT of CalTec are to believed.  As I recall they blew the 
replication of Pons & Fleischmann in order to meet a deadline and failed 
to adequately load the Palladium.  I suppose the claim that hot fusion 
is only ten years away - for 60 years, passes your clean hands 
criteria.  ITER is only costing $25 billion and will provide lifetime 
employment and fat pensions for hundreds.


I don't even find it curious that so many libel Rossi.  Typical troll 
behavior.



On 2/2/2017 1:06 PM, Jones Beene wrote:



Adrian,


Perhaps the problem is that you do not understand the US legal system, 
insofar as you maintain that it "doesn't matter" that Rossi may have 
committed fraud by inventing a fake customer and fake manufacturing 
plant to use the steam.



Note - I am not saying he did or didn't invent the customer. From the 
pleadings, it appears that IH believes that they are the victim of a 
fraudulent scheme with a fake customer that Rossi called J 
Chemicals. Under our legal system, a plaintiff cannot commit fraud and 
then use the courts to win a monetary judgment in a situation where 
the defendant was misled by the fraud.



That is true even when the the fraud is relatively minor. This is due 
to the rule of law known as the "clean hands doctrine".


http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=211


The only thing which really does not matter here would be that IH 
"failed to find a customer." That is, unless they were contractually 
obligated to do so. Remember, IH did not dream up this test and they 
claim that they wanted it done in North Carolina under any 
circumstances, but Rossi refused.



For over a year, in dozens of posts to his blog, Rossi maintained that 
there was a real customer using the steam. Rossi even led his loyal 
flock to believe that the customer was a subsidiary of Johnson and 
Matthey the famous supplier of the palladium for Pons and Fleischmann.



Maybe there was a customer even if not J It does not have to be 
them but it needs to be someone, if there is to be no fraud involved. 
We should find out soon.



Apparently Rossi will be deposed this month, so we should find out 
then if the customer was fake or not. One thing is certain, if there 
was no real customer but Rossi led IH to believe that there was, then 
that is fraud and he cannot win a judgment because of it, no matter 
how much excess heat is claimed.



I find it curious and disappointing if not morally repugnant that 
Rossi's followers are suggesting that he could be justified in 
devising a fraudulent plan, as if the end justifies the means - and 
furthermore blaming IH as being partly responsible. Sick.





On 2/2/2017 9:09 AM, a.ashfield wrote:
Jones, contrary to what you wrote, I don't think it matters a damn 
whether the customer was real of not.  IH failed to find a customer 
for a year and possibly Rossi decided just to find a suitable heat sink.
What matters is how the 1 MW plant performed.  Did it really produce 
1 MW with a COP of ~86?  We won't know until a drawing showing the 
layout of things like the flow meter is made available and 
speculation from second hand sources doesn't really help.


As to the other comments and a unnecessary multi-line title, it 
obviously comes as a surprise to Ahern that engineers frequently use 
the most convenient dimension, particularly if it is in comment use 
and understandable by most.  Most people don't think in terms of 
millions of grams per second.


"something real that he is blundering with." Blundering with?  A 
possible working LENR device?  Comments like that are something up 
with which I will not put.


Adrian Ashfield

On 2/2/2017 10:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive amount 
of steam to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one from IH 
was allowed to visit) could be instantly validated if there was 
indeed a real customer using the steam.



If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a 
real manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how much 
reputed steam was being supplied.



This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the 
judge if Rossi cannot present a prima facie case that there really 
was a 

[Vo]:total polarization re RvD, LENR info

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/02/feb-02-2017-lenr-info.html


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

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[Jones Beene]

Adrian,


Perhaps the problem is that you do not understand the US legal system, 
insofar as you maintain that it "doesn't matter" that Rossi may have 
committed fraud by inventing a fake customer and fake manufacturing 
plant to use the steam.



Note - I am not saying he did or didn't invent the customer. From the 
pleadings, it appears that IH believes that they are the victim of a 
fraudulent scheme with a fake customer that Rossi called J Chemicals. 
Under our legal system, a plaintiff cannot commit fraud and then use the 
courts to win a monetary judgment in a situation where the defendant was 
misled by the fraud.



That is true even when the the fraud is relatively minor. This is due to 
the rule of law known as the "clean hands doctrine".


http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=211


The only thing which really does not matter here would be that IH 
"failed to find a customer." That is, unless they were contractually 
obligated to do so. Remember, IH did not dream up this test and they 
claim that they wanted it done in North Carolina under any 
circumstances, but Rossi refused.



For over a year, in dozens of posts to his blog, Rossi maintained that 
there was a real customer using the steam. Rossi even led his loyal 
flock to believe that the customer was a subsidiary of Johnson and 
Matthey the famous supplier of the palladium for Pons and Fleischmann.



Maybe there was a customer even if not J It does not have to be them 
but it needs to be someone, if there is to be no fraud involved. We 
should find out soon.



Apparently Rossi will be deposed this month, so we should find out then 
if the customer was fake or not. One thing is certain, if there was no 
real customer but Rossi led IH to believe that there was, then that is 
fraud and he cannot win a judgment because of it, no matter how much 
excess heat is claimed.



I find it curious and disappointing if not morally repugnant that 
Rossi's followers are suggesting that he could be justified in devising 
a fraudulent plan, as if the end justifies the means - and furthermore 
blaming IH as being partly responsible. Sick.





On 2/2/2017 9:09 AM, a.ashfield wrote:
Jones, contrary to what you wrote, I don't think it matters a damn 
whether the customer was real of not.  IH failed to find a customer 
for a year and possibly Rossi decided just to find a suitable heat sink.
What matters is how the 1 MW plant performed.  Did it really produce 1 
MW with a COP of ~86?  We won't know until a drawing showing the 
layout of things like the flow meter is made available and speculation 
from second hand sources doesn't really help.


As to the other comments and a unnecessary multi-line title, it 
obviously comes as a surprise to Ahern that engineers frequently use 
the most convenient dimension, particularly if it is in comment use 
and understandable by most.  Most people don't think in terms of 
millions of grams per second.


"something real that he is blundering with."   Blundering with?  A 
possible working LENR device?  Comments like that are something up 
with which I will not put.


Adrian Ashfield

On 2/2/2017 10:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive amount 
of steam to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one from IH 
was allowed to visit) could be  instantly validated if there was 
indeed a real customer using the steam.



If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a real 
manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how much 
reputed steam was being supplied.



This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the judge 
if Rossi cannot present a prima facie case that there really was a 
real customer using steam to manufacture a product. It's really 
pretty simple, no?



Was there a customer using the steam or not?


Legal definition of Fraud - A false representation of a matter of 
fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading 
allegations, or by concealment of what should have been 
disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that 
the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.



Brian Ahern wrote:
Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the 
water was above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid 
phase. The metering device cannot function with a compressible 
fluid. It will always measure higher values than measuring it as a 
single liquid phase at the input.


Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output 
temperature is below  100C.  Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C 
is a surfire way to get inflated flow measurements.


Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it 
anyway because it is so easy the provide inflated values.


I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible. 
 Use the minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters 
operate in a two phase mode that is 

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

[bobcook39923]

Adrian—

IMHO if anyone is blundering its IH.  They way under estimate Rossi’s resolve 
and intelligence, not even considering his lawyers input and their incentives.  
 

I agree with your conclusions.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: a.ashfield
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 9:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It 
isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering 
with.Seebelow.

Jones, contrary to what you wrote, I don't think it matters a damn whether the 
customer was real of not.  IH failed to find a customer for a year and possibly 
Rossi decided just to find a suitable heat sink.
What matters is how the 1 MW plant performed.  Did it really produce 1 MW with 
a COP of ~86?  We won't know until a drawing showing the layout of things like 
the flow meter is made available and speculation from second hand sources 
doesn't really help.

As to the other comments and a unnecessary multi-line title, it obviously comes 
as a surprise to Ahern that engineers frequently use the most convenient 
dimension, particularly if it is in comment use and understandable by most.  
Most people don't think in terms of millions of grams per second.

"something real that he is blundering with."   Blundering with?  A possible 
working LENR device?  Comments like that are something up with which I will not 
put.

Adrian Ashfield
On 2/2/2017 10:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive amount of steam 
to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one from IH was allowed to visit) 
could be  instantly validated if there was indeed a real customer using the 
steam.

If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a real 
manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how much reputed steam 
was being supplied.

This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the judge if Rossi 
cannot present a prima facie case that there really was a real customer using 
steam to manufacture a product. It's really pretty simple, no? 

Was there a customer using the steam or not?

Legal definition of Fraud - A false representation of a matter of fact—whether 
by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment 
of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive 
another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Brian Ahern wrote:
Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the water was 
above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase. The metering device 
cannot function with a compressible fluid. It will always measure higher values 
than measuring it as a single liquid phase at the input.

Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output temperature is 
below  100C.  Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C is a surfire way to get 
inflated flow measurements.

Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it anyway because 
it is so easy the provide inflated values. 

I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible.  Use the 
minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters operate in a two phase 
mode that is guaranteed to over report flow rates due to the increased 
compressibility.

Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .



From: bobcook39...@gmail.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:27 PM
To: Jed Rothwell; Vortex
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is 
veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. 
Seebelow. 
 
The enthalpy calculations of Ahern do not appear to account for the change of 
the phase of water to steam at about 100 C.  This is about 540 calories per 
gram and should add to the heating of the liquid phase over about 30 C.   
 
This amounts to 540 /30  or about 1800% additional enthalpy—joules or calories 
whatever units you want-- IMHO.
 
 
Bob Cook
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:40 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is 
veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. 
Seebelow.
 
Brian Ahern  wrote:
 
The water flow rate is 36000kG/day  or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG  x 1 day/84,600 
sec/day = 425.5 G/sec
 
Note:
 
1. Rossi and Penon arbitrarily reduced the flow rate by 10%. That is what Rossi 
told Lewan in an interview. That is shown in this spreadsheet, in the "reduced 
flowed water (kg/d)" column. So, use 32,400 kg instead of 36,000 kg.
 
2. They used the wrong kind of flow meter, and it was installed in the gravity 
return pipe, which was only about half full of water. The manual for this flow 
meter says it does not work in a pipe that is half full, so the flow rates are 
far too high. It is difficult to say how far off they are, but they 

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[a.ashfield]

Jones, contrary to what you wrote, I don't think it matters a damn 
whether the customer was real of not.  IH failed to find a customer for 
a year and possibly Rossi decided just to find a suitable heat sink.
What matters is how the 1 MW plant performed.  Did it really produce 1 
MW with a COP of ~86?  We won't know until a drawing showing the layout 
of things like the flow meter is made available and speculation from 
second hand sources doesn't really help.


As to the other comments and a unnecessary multi-line title, it 
obviously comes as a surprise to Ahern that engineers frequently use the 
most convenient dimension, particularly if it is in comment use and 
understandable by most.  Most people don't think in terms of millions of 
grams per second.


"something real that he is blundering with."   Blundering with?  A 
possible working LENR device?  Comments like that are something up with 
which I will not put.


Adrian Ashfield

On 2/2/2017 10:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive amount 
of steam to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one from IH was 
allowed to visit) could be  instantly validated if there was indeed a 
real customer using the steam.



If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a real 
manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how much reputed 
steam was being supplied.



This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the judge 
if Rossi cannot present a prima facie case that there really was a 
real customer using steam to manufacture a product. It's really pretty 
simple, no?



Was there a customer using the steam or not?


Legal definition of Fraud - A false representation of a matter of 
fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading 
allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that 
deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual 
will act upon it to her or his legal injury.



Brian Ahern wrote:
Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the 
water was above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase. 
The metering device cannot function with a compressible fluid. It 
will always measure higher values than measuring it as a single 
liquid phase at the input.


Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output 
temperature is below  100C.  Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C 
is a surfire way to get inflated flow measurements.


Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it 
anyway because it is so easy the provide inflated values.


I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible. 
 Use the minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters 
operate in a two phase mode that is guaranteed to over report flow 
rates due to the increased compressibility.


Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .




*From:* bobcook39...@gmail.com 
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:27 PM
*To:* Jed Rothwell; Vortex
*Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. 
It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is 
blundering with. Seebelow.


The enthalpy calculations of Ahern do not appear to account for the 
change of the phase of water to steam at about 100 C. This is about 
540 calories per gram and should add to the heating of the liquid 
phase over about 30 C.


This amounts to 540 /30  or about 1800% additional enthalpy—joules or 
calories whatever units you want-- IMHO.


Bob Cook

Sent from Mail  for 
Windows 10


*From: *Jed Rothwell 
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:40 PM
*To: *Vortex 
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. 
It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is 
blundering with. Seebelow.


Brian Ahern > wrote:

The water flow rate is 36000kG/day  or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG  x 1
day/84,600 sec/day = 425.5 G/sec

Note:

1. Rossi and Penon arbitrarily reduced the flow rate by 10%. That is 
what Rossi told Lewan in an interview. That is shown in this 
spreadsheet, in the "reduced flowed water (kg/d)" column. So, use 
32,400 kg instead of 36,000 kg.


2. They used the wrong kind of flow meter, and it was installed in 
the gravity return pipe, which was only about half full of water. The 
manual for this flow meter says it does not work in a pipe that is 
half full, so the flow rates are far too high. It is difficult to say 
how far off they are, but they cannot be right.


3. The numbers are impossible in any case. No flow rate can be 
exactly the same, every day, for weeks. This meter measures to the 
nearest 1000 kg, which is ridiculous, but given that it does, it 
would record 

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

[bobcook39923]

Higgins’s question about the schematic plan of the plant should settle 
everything. 

 Normally a system producing steam as the heat transfer agent will have a 
condenser with a condensate pump in the sump of the condenser.   There is a 
negative pressure—not a back pressure as Jed has suggested.  It is created by 
the condenser,  thus the condenser creates the differential pressure driving 
the steam from the  boiler to the heat sink.  

The feed pumps require a net positive suction head to operate properly without 
cavitation.  This would normally be established by the condensate pump(s).  If 
there were voids—air bubbles for example—in the feed line, the pumps would fail 
in short more than likely.  

Undesirable two-phase (air/water) feed flow to the reactor would create water 
hammer which could not be tolerated for long and be very noticeable to anyone 
near the steam producing plant.  

I find it hard to believe that Rossi would file suit without knowing for sure 
the steam system worked as I have suggested. 

It is telling that discovery has not brought such a schematic into the court 
record.  Rossi’s lawyers stand to make a fortune on IH stringing out the court 
proceedings IMHO.   

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 7:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It 
isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering 
with.Seebelow.

Has there yet been published in the court documents, a schematic of Rossi's 
system showing the location of the pumps and flow gauge?

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the water was 
above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase. The metering device 
cannot function with a compressible fluid. It will always measure higher values 
than measuring it as a single liquid phase at the input.

Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output temperature is 
below  100C.  Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C is a surfire way to get 
inflated flow measurements.

Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it anyway because 
it is so easy the provide inflated values. 

I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible.  Use the 
minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters operate in a two phase 
mode that is guaranteed to over report flow rates due to the increased 
compressibility.

Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[Jones Beene]

To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive amount of 
steam to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one from IH was 
allowed to visit) could be  instantly validated if there was indeed a 
real customer using the steam.



If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a real 
manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how much reputed 
steam was being supplied.



This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the judge if 
Rossi cannot present a prima facie case that there really was a real 
customer using steam to manufacture a product. It's really pretty 
simple, no?



Was there a customer using the steam or not?


Legal definition of Fraud - A false representation of a matter of 
fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, 
or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and 
is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it 
to her or his legal injury.



Brian Ahern wrote:
Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the 
water was above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase. 
The metering device cannot function with a compressible fluid. It will 
always measure higher values than measuring it as a single liquid 
phase at the input.


Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output 
temperature is below  100C.  Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C 
is a surfire way to get inflated flow measurements.


Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it 
anyway because it is so easy the provide inflated values.


I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible. 
 Use the minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters 
operate in a two phase mode that is guaranteed to over report flow 
rates due to the increased compressibility.


Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .




*From:* bobcook39...@gmail.com 
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:27 PM
*To:* Jed Rothwell; Vortex
*Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. 
It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is 
blundering with. Seebelow.


The enthalpy calculations of Ahern do not appear to account for the 
change of the phase of water to steam at about 100 C.  This is about 
540 calories per gram and should add to the heating of the liquid 
phase over about 30 C.


This amounts to 540 /30  or about 1800% additional enthalpy—joules or 
calories whatever units you want-- IMHO.


Bob Cook

Sent from Mail  for 
Windows 10


*From: *Jed Rothwell 
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:40 PM
*To: *Vortex 
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. 
It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is 
blundering with. Seebelow.


Brian Ahern > wrote:

The water flow rate is 36000kG/day  or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG  x 1
day/84,600 sec/day = 425.5 G/sec

Note:

1. Rossi and Penon arbitrarily reduced the flow rate by 10%. That is 
what Rossi told Lewan in an interview. That is shown in this 
spreadsheet, in the "reduced flowed water (kg/d)" column. So, use 
32,400 kg instead of 36,000 kg.


2. They used the wrong kind of flow meter, and it was installed in the 
gravity return pipe, which was only about half full of water. The 
manual for this flow meter says it does not work in a pipe that is 
half full, so the flow rates are far too high. It is difficult to say 
how far off they are, but they cannot be right.


3. The numbers are impossible in any case. No flow rate can be exactly 
the same, every day, for weeks. This meter measures to the nearest 
1000 kg, which is ridiculous, but given that it does, it would record 
something like 35,000 kg one day, 34,000 the next, and 36,000 the next 
even if the flow was extremely consistent.


The change in temperature is 69.1 C up to 103.9 =  a temperature
 rise of34.8 degrees C.

Heat capacity of water = 4.2 joules/gram/C

The power needed for this temperature rise at that flow rate is:

Flow rate (G/sec )   x   Temp. rise (degrees C)   xheat
capacity of water (4.2 joules/G/degree C)

425.5g/sec  x  34.8C  x  4.2 Joules/gram/C leaves units of
Joules/second = 62,191watts

The authors claim that the water was vaporized, so they used the heat 
of vaporization. It could not have been vaporized, because there was 
some back pressure from the equipment. At these temperatures, even a 
little pressure will prevent vaporization.


However, their calculations result in a COP of 82.3. Who knows
where that came from?

Probably the adjustments I just described account for it, but the data 
is fake and the instruments and 

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[Bob Higgins]

Has there yet been published in the court documents, a schematic of Rossi's
system showing the location of the pumps and flow gauge?

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

> Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the water
> was above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase. The
> metering device cannot function with a compressible fluid. It will always
> measure higher values than measuring it as a single liquid phase at the
> input.
>
> Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output
> temperature is below  100C.  Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C is a
> surfire way to get inflated flow measurements.
>
> Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it anyway
> because it is so easy the provide inflated values.
>
> I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible.  Use
> the minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters operate in a
> two phase mode that is guaranteed to over report flow rates due to the
> increased compressibility.
>
> Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .
>

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[Brian Ahern]

Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the water was 
above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase. The metering device 
cannot function with a compressible fluid. It will always measure higher values 
than measuring it as a single liquid phase at the input.

Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output temperature is 
below  100C.  Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C is a surfire way to get 
inflated flow measurements.

Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it anyway because 
it is so easy the provide inflated values.

I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible.  Use the 
minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters operate in a two phase 
mode that is guaranteed to over report flow rates due to the increased 
compressibility.

Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .




From: bobcook39...@gmail.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:27 PM
To: Jed Rothwell; Vortex
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is 
veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. 
Seebelow.


The enthalpy calculations of Ahern do not appear to account for the change of 
the phase of water to steam at about 100 C.  This is about 540 calories per 
gram and should add to the heating of the liquid phase over about 30 C.



This amounts to 540 /30  or about 1800% additional enthalpy-joules or calories 
whatever units you want-- IMHO.





Bob Cook



Sent from Mail for Windows 10



From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:40 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is 
veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. 
Seebelow.



Brian Ahern > wrote:



The water flow rate is 36000kG/day  or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG  x 1 day/84,600 
sec/day = 425.5 G/sec



Note:



1. Rossi and Penon arbitrarily reduced the flow rate by 10%. That is what Rossi 
told Lewan in an interview. That is shown in this spreadsheet, in the "reduced 
flowed water (kg/d)" column. So, use 32,400 kg instead of 36,000 kg.



2. They used the wrong kind of flow meter, and it was installed in the gravity 
return pipe, which was only about half full of water. The manual for this flow 
meter says it does not work in a pipe that is half full, so the flow rates are 
far too high. It is difficult to say how far off they are, but they cannot be 
right.



3. The numbers are impossible in any case. No flow rate can be exactly the 
same, every day, for weeks. This meter measures to the nearest 1000 kg, which 
is ridiculous, but given that it does, it would record something like 35,000 kg 
one day, 34,000 the next, and 36,000 the next even if the flow was extremely 
consistent.





The change in temperature is 69.1 C up to 103.9 =  a temperature  rise of34.8 
degrees C.

Heat capacity of water = 4.2 joules/gram/C

The power needed for this temperature rise at that flow rate is:

Flow rate (G/sec )   x   Temp. rise (degrees C)   xheat capacity of water 
(4.2 joules/G/degree C)

425.5g/sec  x  34.8C  x  4.2 Joules/gram/C leaves units of Joules/second =  
62,191watts



The authors claim that the water was vaporized, so they used the heat of 
vaporization. It could not have been vaporized, because there was some back 
pressure from the equipment. At these temperatures, even a little pressure will 
prevent vaporization.





However, their calculations result in a COP of 82.3. Who knows where that came 
from?



Probably the adjustments I just described account for it, but the data is fake 
and the instruments and configuration are preposterous, so it means nothing.



- Jed