"I have no reason to thinkDewey Weaver is a credible witness.
I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for solid
facts. The pathological skeptics jump on every wild flight of
imagination and state that is what happened, while in fact being
clueless.
Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be
accepted but it would take the sale of working commercial
reactors to quiet the critics. As he says he hopes to have at
least one commercial reactor working for the parent company of J
M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps we will see then."
Do you have a reason to true AR more than Jed, DW, IH, and many
others?
There is no wild flight of imagination here. It is all based on
facts and reasoning. GG's analysis is based on how the apparatus
design could be used to produce false results. I gave a
reasonable scenario for how and hypothesis for how AR could have
approached the problem of faking the results. DW provided an
account of AR switching out the flow meters. AR himself told you
he prevented access to the "customer" site. These are not
flights of imagination.
Do you disagree that AR lied in his patent and to IH about the
formula needed to produce the effect?
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:23 PM a.ashfield <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I have no reason to think Dewey Weaver is a credible witness.
I don't know what happened and am quite willing to wait for
solid facts. The pathological skeptics jump on every wild
flight of imagination and state that is what happened, while
in fact being clueless.
Rossi was right when he forecast that no test would ever be
accepted but it would take the sale of working commercial
reactors to quiet the critics. As he says he hopes to have
at least one commercial reactor working for the parent
company of J M Products by the end of 2016 perhaps we will
see then.
1.
Frank Acland
July 3, 2016 at 12:42 PM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=136#comment-1204468>
Dear Andrea Rossi:
There are some accusations apparently coming from the IH
group regarding the 1 MW plant test.
a) The flow meter used in the test was not fit for purpose
b) 1 MW plant did not have the required legal
authorizations to work
c) JM Products did not have any employees
d) IH had proposed another customer to you, but you
refused them
e) JM did not use the heat you produced in any
manufacturing process, and the only heat supplied by your
plant was 20kW, not 1MW
Can you respond to any of these points?
Thank you,
Frank Acland
2.
Andrea Rossi
July 3, 2016 at 2:03 PM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=136#comment-1204478>
Frank Acland:
Independently from who is the imbecile that wrote such
things, please find hereunder my answers, confined within
the limits allowed not to touch issues that have to be
discussed exclusively in Court, with due evidence.
a) The flowmeter used in the test is property of the ERV.
The ERV has chosen that instrument based on his
experience. It is, by the way, a very common flowmeter,
that everybody can buy, even if it is quite expensive.
The flowmeter has been certified and after the test the
ERV has retrieved it and sent it to make a certification
of its margin of error after the test of 1 year,
specifically with a flow of water with the same
temperature and the same flows of water that we had
during the test, minimum, maximum, average. So the ERV
told us he was going to do when he retrieved his
flowmeter after the shut down of the plant at the end of
the test.
b) Obviously it is false, otherwise the plant would have
been closed after the inspections
c) False
d) Tragicomic: Leonardo Corporation delivered, as per
contract, the plant on August 2013, and we were ready to
start immediately the test, as a continuation of the
preliminar test made in Ferrara two months before with
IH. IH had 1 year of time to start the 1 year test, but
they always delayed with the excuse that they did not
have the authorization from the Healthcare Office of
North Carolina, due to the fact that there was the
“nuclear reactions” issue. I have been able to get such
permission in Florida and therefore I proposed the
Customer, that has been accepted by IH. Evidence of it is
the contract that IH made with JM. Since the plant was
property of IH and it was in the factory of IH, obviously
they could choose the Customer they wanted, if they had one.
e) When you have not the burden to give evidence of what
you say, you can say every stupidity. This is exactly the
case. Anyway, what counts related to the contract is the
energy produced by the 1 MW E-Cat, and such energy gets
evidence from the report of the ERV.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
On 7/3/2016 12:54 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
"Your bias is showing again. Goatguy suggested a possible
method to scam the results and then you take it as read that
that was done. Really?"
It is altogether possible that he was not so clever as GG
thinks, as Jed suggests, but could have still taken
advantage of the design flaw noted by GG. I hope we get to
see the raw data from the very beginning of the test
eventually. My speculation previously was that, if the test
were to be faked, he would have played around with the
variables he could tweak to get the meters to show what he
wanted. This would have taken some time, so the closer to
the beginning of the test, the more likely you would be to
see a COP of 1. We know from Dewey Weaver that the Rascal
was caught sneaking the flow meter out by some folks from IH
who arrived early for the post-test inspection. Photographs
are said to reveal that the serial number of the flow meter
used did not match the one used originally. If he had
trouble fooling the original meters, he must have had to
switch them out. So again, if there is raw data that was
not deleted from the beginning of the test, I would expect
this to be the most accurate.
Maybe people think there is a conspiracy of lies by DW and
IH that would have to extend to others. Although it is not
completely impossible (very low probability) that IH and
others have conspired to lie, it is much easier to believe
that a known Rascal is the one doing the lying. In fact,
nearly everyone agrees that he has been known to lie about a
number of things along the way. The hopeful ones hold out
hope that the lies stop at having a working formula. A
formula even hidden from IP patent protection, because he
would have had to lie there too. Or, best case scenario,
works very rarely producing a COP between 1.1 and 1.3.
In short, to believe the Rascal, you must accept a whole
truckload of lies and hold out hope that the one thing he is
not lying about, is that the reactor works. He has not even
asserted that he has held anything back from the patent or
from IH, and is quick to praise anything that looks like a
replication. Now, if you know you are holding something
back, and the reaction won't work without it, would you
praise something that you know probably doesn't work? It is
easier to believe the simpler alternative: he doesn't have
anything else to share and it doesn't work.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM a.ashfield
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
"Itwasclever on Rossi’s part, but the type of cleaver
that can cost him dearly, in the end."
Your bias is showing again. Goatguy suggested a possible
method to scam the results and then you take it as read
that that was done. Really?
It would have been easier to fudge the sensors or the
instrumentation reading them. That does not mean that
was what happened either.
