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.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 >>>Just because I do not spoon-feed you examples of people who use the legal 
 >>>system to steal and commit crimes, that does not mean they do not exist. 

Unfortunately the "people" that would say that a crime has been committed by 
the legal system would generally be the "people" that the legal system has 
judged guilty. Prison is supposedly full of innocent "people" that have been 
found guilty; at least that is what most of the "people" in jail would say. -- 
following the maxim: "they would say that wouldn't they". I can however tell 
you that based on my experience on jury service that I endorse the view that 
the "law is an ass." Most "people" who are street-wise would probably agree.
Historically there are many interesting cases of injustice such as the Dreyfus 
affair, which had high profile; which makes one wonder how many  injustices 
that get glossed over when they are low profile. 


On Saturday, 4 February 2017, 16:36, Jed Rothwell  
wrote:
 

 a.ashfield  wrote: 

 You are getting desperate if the Mafia is the only example you can come up 
with.

There are plenty of other examples. You can do your own homework and find them. 
Just because I do not spoon-feed you examples of people who use the legal 
system to steal and commit crimes, that does not mean they do not exist. You 
can look, for example, at bankers who loan money to elderly people, and then 
sue to take their houses when they make a $0.27 error in a payment. Or they 
tell the elderly person that to have the rate adjusted lower, the person should 
skip a payment -- and when they do, the banker repossess. That's using the 
court system as an accessory to a crime.
(Those techniques were perfected by our new Treasury Sec. Mnuchin, who made 
several hundred million dollars bilking elderly people.)
 
  News to me that Rossi goes around threatening physical harm to IH personnel.


I did not say that. On the other hand, he did learn his techniques in Italy, 
where the Mafia and other gangs have a great deal of influence and power.
I would say that leaving pollution in the ground that cost the local 
municipality 40 million euros to clean up is physical harm.  
As for Santilli, "It was then made clear to me (Film director John Jopson) that 
if the footage was exposed as a hoax before the show aired, the ratings would 
suffer." 
 Beats me how you think that is Santilli taking a victim to court.

He tried to take me to court! Gene Mallove had to spend tens of thousands of 
dollars to get rid of Santilli and his bloodsucking lawsuits.
- 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.

[Brian Ahern]

I think Jed and Jones are hopelessly deadlocked with A.A. and other Rossi fans. 
Neither side will yield or gain influence and it may be best to desist. Both 
sides cannot possibly understand each perspective.


Changing the topic:


I am close to completing a repetition of the 1996 Thermacore runaway reaction. 
This seems like an obvious application of chemical engineering and the 
experiment is straightforward.


 That result may solve a great many riddles in LENR. If it is successful, I 
expect Andrea Rossi and separately Randall Mills will claim full credit for an 
obvious result of their actions.



Seebelow.



AA


On 2/3/2017 10:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:

I would have thought you could tell the difference between some one who has set 
up a long running fraud and someone trying to take advantage of the legal 
system who had no part in causing the problem.

I asked you for one example of the former who has then taken the victim to 
court and you have not been able to find one.

Santilli! And countless other con-men. Threatening a lawsuit is widely used by 
criminals, such as the Mafia in Italy. See:

http://www.newsweek.com/italian-mafia-intimidating-journalists-worst-levels-violence-90s-306352

". . . as well as the increase in mafia violence, defamation lawsuits are also 
to blame for the lack of journalistic freedom in Italy. "When a journalist 
knows that they could face a lawsuit between  EUR5,000 and EUR60,000, they may 
have more of a tendency to self-censor . . ."

- 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:


> You are getting desperate if the Mafia is the only example you can come up
> with.
>

There are plenty of other examples. You can do your own homework and find
them. Just because I do not spoon-feed you examples of people who use the
legal system to steal and commit crimes, that does not mean they do not
exist. You can look, for example, at bankers who loan money to elderly
people, and then sue to take their houses when they make a $0.27 error in a
payment. Or they tell the elderly person that to have the rate adjusted
lower, the person should skip a payment -- and when they do, the banker
repossess. That's using the court system as an accessory to a crime.

(Those techniques were perfected by our new Treasury Sec. Mnuchin, who made
several hundred million dollars bilking elderly people.)



>   News to me that Rossi goes around threatening physical harm to IH
> personnel.
>

I did not say that. On the other hand, he did learn his techniques in
Italy, where the Mafia and other gangs have a great deal of influence and
power.

I would say that leaving pollution in the ground that cost the local
municipality 40 million euros to clean up is physical harm.



> As for Santilli, "It was then made clear to me (Film director John Jopson)
> that if the footage was exposed as a hoax before the show aired, the
> ratings would suffer."
> Beats me how you think that is Santilli taking a victim to court.
>

He tried to take me to court! Gene Mallove had to spend tens of thousands
of dollars to get rid of Santilli and his bloodsucking lawsuits.

- 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]

Jed,
You are getting desperate if the Mafia is the only example you can come 
up with.  News to me that Rossi goes around threatening physical harm to 
IH personnel.


As for Santilli, "It was then made clear to me (Film director John 
Jopson) that if the footage was exposed as a hoax before the show aired, 
the ratings would suffer."

Beats me how you think that is Santilli taking a victim to court.

AA


On 2/3/2017 10:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I would have thought you could tell the difference between some
one who has set up a long running fraud and someone trying to take
advantage of the legal system who had no part in causing the problem.

I asked you for one example of the former who has then taken the
victim to court and you have not been able to find one.


Santilli! And countless other con-men. Threatening a lawsuit is widely 
used by criminals, such as the Mafia in Italy. See:


http://www.newsweek.com/italian-mafia-intimidating-journalists-worst-levels-violence-90s-306352

". . . as well as the increase in mafia violence, defamation lawsuits 
are also to blame for the lack of journalistic freedom in Italy. “When 
a journalist knows that they could face a lawsuit between  €5,000 and 
€60,000, they may have more of a tendency to self-censor . . ."


- 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:


> I would have thought you could tell the difference between some one who
> has set up a long running fraud and someone trying to take advantage of the
> legal system who had no part in causing the problem.
>
> I asked you for one example of the former who has then taken the victim to
> court and you have not been able to find one.
>

Santilli! And countless other con-men. Threatening a lawsuit is widely used
by criminals, such as the Mafia in Italy. See:

http://www.newsweek.com/italian-mafia-intimidating-journalists-worst-levels-violence-90s-306352

". . . as well as the increase in mafia violence, defamation lawsuits are
also to blame for the lack of journalistic freedom in Italy. “When a
journalist knows that they could face a lawsuit between  €5,000 and
€60,000, they may have more of a tendency to self-censor . . ."

- 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.

[Bob Higgins]

Perhaps someone could remind me of the terms of the GPT.

I thought I remembered that the GPT had to achieve at least a COP>=4 for
250 days continuously.  I don't think it required anything like the 1 MW
output.  Perhaps Rossi created the 1MW array of devices as a "reactor" to
give himself the flexibility under computer control to swap out
non-functional or marginally-functional units so as to maintain his COP
over the reliability period.  That would be a shrewd way of maintaining his
claim of continuous reliability.

So, not making 1MW is not a problem for the GPT (I think).

Even having a COP << than what was reported is not a problem, as long as it
is found to have a COP of at least the minimum requirement of the GPT.  The
very high reported COP could be a ruse to have the real, much lower COP
(but greater than the GPT requirement), come out by independent analysis as
a surprise twist in the case.

Perhaps the validity of the "customer" may be a sticky legal point, but it
may be just a semantic and the court, particularly a jury, could overlook
it.

There is the other sticky point for Rossi - he has not lived up to his end
of the bargain in usefully transferring the technology into IH so that they
can make a product.  That's what they paid $11M for.  Technology transfer
would seem to be a prerequisite to beginning the GPT.  If Rossi is making a
case for having a COP of at least 4 (to use that number for the GPT), how
can he not have transferred that technology to IH before the GPT?  Had he
done this, everybody would be happy today.  This is certain to weigh in a
jury's decision.

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 don't find it incredible that you believe any bad fake news you can 
find on Rossi.
According to what I've read the waste was reclassified as toxic 
retroactively.
In order to prove your point you need to show a photo copy of the final 
sentences and appeals, not the charges.  I won't hold my breath.
Rossi was convicted of tax evasion and possibly not paying duty on an 
import, from what I've read.

AA


On 2/3/2017 5:26 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Adrian,

Incredibly, you state as fact that

As for "Petroldragon," he was cleared of all charges.  Doesn't that 
count?


It might count, but he was NOT cleared. This is another Rossi deceit. 
How it stays online is incredible and indicative of blind followers 
who, like yourself, reinforce his continuing mythology.


According to court documents found by journalists at Swedish Radio, 
Rossi was convicted and sent to prison on three accounts of 
environmental crime on which he was never acquitted. [16] The 
government of Lombardy spent over forty million euros to dispose of 
the 70,000 tonnes of toxic waste that Petroldragon had improperly 
dumped.[4] According to the mayor of Lacchiarella, Luigi Acerbi, "In 
the years when [Rossi] was working here, he didn't produce a single 
drop of oil, as far as we know."[15]


See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)#Petroldragon

Adrian - Why not do your homework before blindly quoting Rossi and 
sounding like one of his sock-puppets?


It might save you further embarrassment.

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]

Jed.
I would have thought you could tell the difference between some one who 
has set up a long running fraud and someone trying to take advantage of 
the legal system who had no part in causing the problem.


I asked you for one example of the former who has then taken the victim 
to court and you have not been able to find one.


AA

On 2/3/2017 4:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the
fraudster took his victim to court.


It happens all the time! Using the court system to commit fraud is a 
very common M.O. For example, people suit for fake damage claims, 
hoping to get paid. They pretend to slip on a banana in a grocery 
store, file suit, and try to settle out of court.


Frauds and criminals also use the threat of lawsuits to frighten off 
people and stop newspapers from publishing facts about them. That guy 
Santilli in Florida files lawsuits at the drop of a hat. He is one of 
the the worst scientific fraud I know. See:


http://www.scientificethics.org/ir2.htm


That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all
the facts come out IN COURT.


Nope. Cases seldom come to trial. Most people settle out of court. 
That is what the frauds hope for.


- 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.

[Jones Beene]

Adrian,

Incredibly, you state as fact that

As for "Petroldragon," he was cleared of all charges.  Doesn't that 
count?


It might count, but he was NOT cleared. This is another Rossi deceit. 
How it stays online is incredible and indicative of blind followers who, 
like yourself, reinforce his continuing mythology.


According to court documents found by journalists at Swedish Radio, 
Rossi was convicted and sent to prison on three accounts of 
environmental crime on which he was never acquitted. [16] The government 
of Lombardy spent over forty million euros to dispose of the 70,000 
tonnes of toxic waste that Petroldragon had improperly dumped.[4] 
According to the mayor of Lacchiarella, Luigi Acerbi, "In the years when 
[Rossi] was working here, he didn't produce a single drop of oil, as far 
as we know."[15]


See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)#Petroldragon

Adrian - Why not do your homework before blindly quoting Rossi and 
sounding like one of his sock-puppets?


It might save you further embarrassment.

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,
Of course truth is a defense against libel.  Why act like this is 
kindergarten?
The problem, as you well know, is whether the accusation you made WERE 
true.  You have no proof of it and it is just malicious speculation
"an ongoing scam"  (There's no need of a trial as you KNOW the answer 
already)
"Rossi could see that IH/Cherokee etc. were raking in lots of cash...so 
he sued to get a bigger share"
As for "Petroldragon," he was cleared of all charges.  Doesn't that 
count?  I read that someone has recently started a similar process here 
as the patents have run out.
"so he can gloat in fake support. He needs clinical help."  Apart from 
being a great scientist (perhaps you can post your achievements) you are 
a psychologist too?


Likewise your ad hominem attack about me being a "Rossi lover."  I know 
that is untrue, or do you claim to know what I'm thinking better than I 
do?.  Can I now sue you?


AA

On 2/3/2017 3:15 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


Adrian,

Why do I have to keep reminding you that in the USA, truth is a 
defense to libel?


Do you simply not understand this, or do you not want to understand it 
because you adore Rossi to such a strange and unhealthy degree?


As for "defamation of character" - Rossi has no favorable reputation 
to defend, given his past scams, failures, crimes and repeated 
dishonesty - even stooping so low as to compose adulating mail to 
himself - with fake sender names so he can gloat in fake support. He 
needs clinical help.


Plus, defamation requires proof of malice, and I have no malice 
whatsoever against Rossi. In fact at one time, both Rothwell and 
myself thought he could be a great and misunderstood inventor. We 
called AR "the most interesting man in the world" until the level of 
dishonesty became overwhelming. Apologies to Dos Equis for sliming 
their guy in the process :-)


I would love to see megawatt overunity proved by Rossi or anyone else 
and I hope he can show something of value when this litigation is 
over. Problem is - Rossi has not been been capable of proving any 
claim scientifically. Even so, I am willing to believe that he has 
discovered an anomalous effect of Ni-H because so many others in the 
field have done so before him at lower levels. But he is not content 
to show what others have shown and wants to be seen as special. Sadly, 
he is not special and no longer qualifies as interesting.


And please stuff the libel crap back where it came from... it derives 
from the naive and unhealthy adulation of a con artist.



On 2/3/2017 11:37 AM, a.ashfield wrote:

Jones,
Probably.  Probably this and probably that.  Never give any proof, 
just libelous speculation


AA


On 2/3/2017 12:31 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


I would add this to what Giovanni has observed.

Rossi probably sued first because not only was his failure to 
perform obvious to all insiders at IH, but moreover - he considered 
Industrial Heat to be his actual partner in an ongoing scam which 
"could have" dragged on for far longer (had they been dishonest).


The problem was - Rossi could see that IH/Cherokee etc. were raking 
in lots of cash from investors - far more of the loot than Rossi was 
getting, so he sued to get a bigger share -- hoping they would 
settle, rather than expose what he thought was a joint windfall, in 
which he was not getting his fair cut.


He possibly believed that IH had valuable deep pocket investors in 
other projects of dubious merit, and did not want to risk loosing 
them when the money seemed to be flowing in strongly from Europe and 
China. The "brownfield" businesses of IH and Cherokee etc had itself 
been claimed by some to be ripe territory for scam artists, and 
Rossi was fully familiar with that niche in Italy due to his prior 
scam in brownfields: the Petroldragon affair.


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiPetroldragonStory.shtml

When viewed from the perspective and history of Petroldragon, 
Leonardo, brownfields and Rossi's past contacts (at high level in 
our DoE - the other Leonardo) which were involved with his TEG scam, 
then a "silent partner in crime" scenario makes sense ... especially 
to a delusional inventor like Rossi.



Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
The courts are full of frivolous lawsuits and crazy claims of all 
types. People spin the truth or straight lie all the time in court 
proceedings from divorce to business cases.
And it is well known that filing first gives you a psychological 
advantage.
So Rossi could have simply anticipated he would be sued so he sued 
first.

The fact he filed first is not the proof of anything.
Giovanni



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the
fraudster took his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have
all the facts come out IN COURT.

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:

Jed,
> It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the fraudster
> took his victim to court.
>

It happens all the time! Using the court system to commit fraud is a very
common M.O. For example, people suit for fake damage claims, hoping to get
paid. They pretend to slip on a banana in a grocery store, file suit, and
try to settle out of court.

Frauds and criminals also use the threat of lawsuits to frighten off people
and stop newspapers from publishing facts about them. That guy Santilli in
Florida files lawsuits at the drop of a hat. He is one of the the worst
scientific fraud I know. See:

http://www.scientificethics.org/ir2.htm


That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all the facts
> come out IN COURT.
>

Nope. Cases seldom come to trial. Most people settle out of court. That is
what the frauds hope for.

- 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.

[Jones Beene]

Adrian,

Why do I have to keep reminding you that in the USA, truth is a defense 
to libel?


Do you simply not understand this, or do you not want to understand it 
because you adore Rossi to such a strange and unhealthy degree?


As for "defamation of character" - Rossi has no favorable reputation to 
defend, given his past scams, failures, crimes and repeated dishonesty - 
even stooping so low as to compose adulating mail to himself - with fake 
sender names so he can gloat in fake support. He needs clinical help.


Plus, defamation requires proof of malice, and I have no malice 
whatsoever against Rossi. In fact at one time, both Rothwell and myself 
thought he could be a great and misunderstood inventor. We called AR 
"the most interesting man in the world" until the level of dishonesty 
became overwhelming. Apologies to Dos Equis for sliming their guy in the 
process :-)


I would love to see megawatt overunity proved by Rossi or anyone else 
and I hope he can show something of value when this litigation is over. 
Problem is - Rossi has not been been capable of proving any claim 
scientifically. Even so, I am willing to believe that he has discovered 
an anomalous effect of Ni-H because so many others in the field have 
done so before him at lower levels. But he is not content to show what 
others have shown and wants to be seen as special. Sadly, he is not 
special and no longer qualifies as interesting.


And please stuff the libel crap back where it came from... it derives 
from the naive and unhealthy adulation of a con artist.



On 2/3/2017 11:37 AM, a.ashfield wrote:

Jones,
Probably.  Probably this and probably that.  Never give any proof, 
just libelous speculation


AA


On 2/3/2017 12:31 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


I would add this to what Giovanni has observed.

Rossi probably sued first because not only was his failure to perform 
obvious to all insiders at IH, but moreover - he considered 
Industrial Heat to be his actual partner in an ongoing scam which 
"could have" dragged on for far longer (had they been dishonest).


The problem was - Rossi could see that IH/Cherokee etc. were raking 
in lots of cash from investors - far more of the loot than Rossi was 
getting, so he sued to get a bigger share -- hoping they would 
settle, rather than expose what he thought was a joint windfall, in 
which he was not getting his fair cut.


He possibly believed that IH had valuable deep pocket investors in 
other projects of dubious merit, and did not want to risk loosing 
them when the money seemed to be flowing in strongly from Europe and 
China. The "brownfield" businesses of IH and Cherokee etc had itself 
been claimed by some to be ripe territory for scam artists, and Rossi 
was fully familiar with that niche in Italy due to his prior scam in 
brownfields: the Petroldragon affair.


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiPetroldragonStory.shtml

When viewed from the perspective and history of Petroldragon, 
Leonardo, brownfields and Rossi's past contacts (at high level in our 
DoE - the other Leonardo) which were involved with his TEG scam, then 
a "silent partner in crime" scenario makes sense ... especially to a 
delusional inventor like Rossi.



Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
The courts are full of frivolous lawsuits and crazy claims of all 
types. People spin the truth or straight lie all the time in court 
proceedings from divorce to business cases.
And it is well known that filing first gives you a psychological 
advantage.
So Rossi could have simply anticipated he would be sued so he sued 
first.

The fact he filed first is not the proof of anything.
Giovanni



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the
fraudster took his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all
the facts come out IN COURT.

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,
Probably.  Probably this and probably that.  Never give any proof, just 
libelous speculation


AA


On 2/3/2017 12:31 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


I would add this to what Giovanni has observed.

Rossi probably sued first because not only was his failure to perform 
obvious to all insiders at IH, but moreover - he considered Industrial 
Heat to be his actual partner in an ongoing scam which "could have" 
dragged on for far longer (had they been dishonest).


The problem was - Rossi could see that IH/Cherokee etc. were raking in 
lots of cash from investors - far more of the loot than Rossi was 
getting, so he sued to get a bigger share -- hoping they would settle, 
rather than expose what he thought was a joint windfall, in which he 
was not getting his fair cut.


He possibly believed that IH had valuable deep pocket investors in 
other projects of dubious merit, and did not want to risk loosing them 
when the money seemed to be flowing in strongly from Europe and China. 
The "brownfield" businesses of IH and Cherokee etc had itself been 
claimed by some to be ripe territory for scam artists, and Rossi was 
fully familiar with that niche in Italy due to his prior scam in 
brownfields: the Petroldragon affair.


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiPetroldragonStory.shtml

When viewed from the perspective and history of Petroldragon, 
Leonardo, brownfields and Rossi's past contacts (at high level in our 
DoE - the other Leonardo) which were involved with his TEG scam, then 
a "silent partner in crime" scenario makes sense ... especially to a 
delusional inventor like Rossi.



Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
The courts are full of frivolous lawsuits and crazy claims of all 
types. People spin the truth or straight lie all the time in court 
proceedings from divorce to business cases.
And it is well known that filing first gives you a psychological 
advantage.
So Rossi could have simply anticipated he would be sued so he sued 
first.

The fact he filed first is not the proof of anything.
Giovanni



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the
fraudster took his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all
the facts come out IN COURT.

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]

I would add this to what Giovanni has observed.

Rossi probably sued first because not only was his failure to perform 
obvious to all insiders at IH, but moreover - he considered Industrial 
Heat to be his actual partner in an ongoing scam which "could have" 
dragged on for far longer (had they been dishonest).


The problem was - Rossi could see that IH/Cherokee etc. were raking in 
lots of cash from investors - far more of the loot than Rossi was 
getting, so he sued to get a bigger share -- hoping they would settle, 
rather than expose what he thought was a joint windfall, in which he was 
not getting his fair cut.


He possibly believed that IH had valuable deep pocket investors in other 
projects of dubious merit, and did not want to risk loosing them when 
the money seemed to be flowing in strongly from Europe and China. The 
"brownfield" businesses of IH and Cherokee etc had itself been claimed 
by some to be ripe territory for scam artists, and Rossi was fully 
familiar with that niche in Italy due to his prior scam in brownfields: 
the Petroldragon affair.


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiPetroldragonStory.shtml

When viewed from the perspective and history of Petroldragon, Leonardo, 
brownfields and Rossi's past contacts (at high level in our DoE - the 
other Leonardo) which were involved with his TEG scam, then a "silent 
partner in crime" scenario makes sense ... especially to a delusional 
inventor like Rossi.



Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
The courts are full of frivolous lawsuits and crazy claims of all 
types. People spin the truth or straight lie all the time in court 
proceedings from divorce to business cases.
And it is well known that filing first gives you a psychological 
advantage.

So Rossi could have simply anticipated he would be sued so he sued first.
The fact he filed first is not the proof of anything.
Giovanni



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the
fraudster took his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all
the facts come out IN COURT.

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]

Giovanni,
You seem to be one of those who can't resist trying to pull down anyone 
in the news.  Rossi has never defrauded you.
There is a lot of evidence that Rossi has in fact discovered something.  
See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/


The evidence from IH is all second hand and as far as I can tell 
unsubstantiated.   For example Dewey/Jed saying the steam temperature 
was 100.1C when in fact it was reported to be over 103C.
You need to wait for the actual facts to come out and hold off declaring 
Rossi guilty before the trial.

AA


On 2/3/2017 11:26 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
The courts are full of frivolous lawsuits and crazy claims of all 
types. People spin the truth or straight lie all the time in court 
proceedings from divorce to business cases.
And it is well known that filing first gives you a psychological 
advantage.

So Rossi could have simply anticipated he would be sued so he sued first.
The fact he filed first is not the proof of anything.
Giovanni



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the
fraudster took his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all
the facts come out IN COURT.

AA
.

On 2/2/2017 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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 is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[Giovanni Santostasi]

The courts are full of frivolous lawsuits and crazy claims of all types.
People spin the truth or straight lie all the time in court proceedings
from divorce to business cases.
And it is well known that filing first gives you a psychological advantage.
So Rossi could have simply anticipated he would be sued so he sued first.
The fact he filed first is not the proof of anything.
Giovanni



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
> It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the fraudster
> took his victim to court.
> That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all the facts
> come out IN COURT.
>
> AA
> .
>
> On 2/2/2017 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> 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 is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the fraudster 
took his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all the 
facts come out IN COURT.


AA
.

On 2/2/2017 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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 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 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

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 

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 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 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

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.

[bobcook39923]

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)   x    heat 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