Jed, Here is the information from the counter-complaint regarding data.
"85. As just one example, in late February 2016, shortly after the conclusion of the purported Guaranteed Performance test, USQL and Fabiani committed to send certain data and a report by the end of March 2016 that would “bring to light all the flaws and functional deficiencies of the system” and identify “the plant stop periods (total or partial).” In later emails, USQL and Fabiani also committed to provide Industrial Heat with the raw data that USQL and Fabiani collected while working with the Plant in Doral, Florida. Despite repeated reminders, however, USQL and Fabiani have refused to provide either the report or the raw data to Industrial Heat. See, e.g., Ex. 21." Back to the flow meter. It appears that flow was only measured into the plant with no out flow measured. I had previously thought this was an output flow meter, but apparently not. "86. For his part, among other things, Penon primarily contributed to the scheme in a variety of ways relating to the purported measurement of the Plant’s operations in Florida during the purported Guaranteed Performance test.7 To start, his initial plan and design for measuring the power coming into and out of the Plant was, as he well knew, fundamentally flawed – including using improper equipment to measure the flow of fluid into the Plant and no equipment to measure the flow of heated fluid out of the Plant. Moreover, when the purported Guaranteed Performance test departed from Penon’s plan and design almost immediately after the testing began – including that the number of reactors being operated was far less than the number of reactors specified in Penon’s plan and design – Penon simply disregarded the massive deviation. See Ex. 5." And here's more: "87. Penon further knowingly relied on flawed or fabricated data collections in his supposed evaluation of the Plant’s performance. For example, Leonardo and Rossi have admitted (on their internet blog postings) that there were days when portions of the Plant were not operating, but Penon in his final report does not report any material decrease in output of the Plant on those days. Rather, he makes the (inexplicable) claim in his final report that on these days the Plant’s performance either did not change or somehow even increased. 88. In February 2016 at an in-person meeting with Penon, Murray identified a number of flaws in how Penon was conducting his measurements of the Plant. Some of those flaws were also presented in writing to Penon on March 25, 2016. See id. Despite have full knowledge of the flaws, Penon nevertheless issued his false final report on March 28, 2016, claiming that guaranteed performance was achieved – and that the COPs achieved by the Plant were literally many multiples greater than ever claimed by anyone else (other than Leonardo and Rossi) who had ever tested an E-Cat reactor. Not surprisingly, since the day he left Florida in February 2016, Penon has refused to discuss his measurements, his measurement plan and design, or his report with Counter-Plaintiffs (though he has requested that Counter-Plaintiffs pay him for his work)." Jack On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:15 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The flow meter used only seems to read out visually in integer m^3 with a >> mechanical digital roll-over indicator (probably readable to 1/2 digit). >> However, the flow meter is available optionally with a pulse output that >> apparently pulses for each 0.5 liter passing. Do we know if there was >> electronic acquisition of the flow count? >> > > I have heard it did not, but I could be wrong about that. I have heard > they kept handwritten logs, which were a mess. The data looks to me like it > was transcribed from handwritten logs, with errors and truncation typical > of that. > > Sigh . . . I am probably from the last generation of people who recognize > data that was collected by hand. This is like being able to recognize > computation done on a slide rule, with 1 or 2 digit precision. > > There could be electronic data elsewhere. There was something in the court > filings about electronic data, as pointed out by Jack Cole above: > > "There supposedly is raw data, which AR as referred to as millions of data > points. Unfortunately, if this data exists, it was never shared with IH by > either Fabiani or Penon despite multiple requests and contractual > obligations. . . ." > > > I have no knowledge of this. > > - Jed > >
