Once upon a time, IH Fanboy, while clearly a Rossi supporter, was more or less coherent, at least sometimes, as I recall. That’s gone out the window. Gross errors are made but never admitted or directly confronted. If Jed, say, points out a fact that doesn’t fit the IHFB story, IHFB then changes the subject to something else where maybe, he thinks, he might “win.”
At this point he is more or less reduced to “You don’t know everything” and “You have no proof that,” when, in fact, anyone sane recognizes that little is proven, but much is plausible and even probable.
At this point, to be careful, the only evidence that exists in Rossi v. Darden is depositions, most of which we have not seen, basically what is provided under oath. The pleadings are not evidence, rather they supply, sometimes, documents which may later become evidence, being attested under oath — and then the witness may be cross-examined.
Nevertheless, we have seen plenty of evidence that, if introduced — as we would expect if this case goes to trial — would strongly indicate various conclusions. IHFB is arguing against many who are pointing out the problems with what he’s claiming, but he doesn’t back up and become careful. I would not expect him to lie down and play dead, but rather to become more interested in balance.
Here is an example of what I’m writing about:
What, That is what Murray said not what Penon wrote after in the report. I thought you didn’t believe Murray’s views.
Aw, oldguy was poking IHFB, playing Gotcha! Cotcha! Contradiction! What to do when someone pulls that? Smart would have been: “Murray was right here.” And then if he still wants to pay IRYW (I’m right and you’re wrong), he could add. “Got a problem with that? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” At least be funny! Or one’s on-line life is doomed. But, no, IHFB doesn’t get that he’s out on a limb, up the creek without a paddle. He insists on something totally preposterous to anyone who has been following the case and the discussions.
There is nothing about absolute vacuum–anywhere.
Of course there is. Jed first brought it up when he was saying what was in the preliminary ERV report he had seen. “0.0 bar.” Surely IHFB knows that this is an “absolute vacuum” — at least to the nearest tenth of a bar. Bar means absolute pressure. Period.
Then when we saw what appears to be the actual Penon data, sure enough, every day, the “steam pressure” was “0.0 bar.” This was an obvious error, so obvious that Murray simply ignored what it actually said and imagined what it might have meant: 0.0 barG. Gauge pressure. 0.0 barG is the actual atomspherice pressure, because barG is generally with respect to the atmosphere, barG is a difference in pressure.
By saying that “there is nothing about an absolute vacuum — anywhere,” IHFB is stating with great emphasis what is plainly and provably wrong. This has, for years, been my habit: talking about the discussion itself, where there is a record. That may be why I dislike it when moderators delete stuff, because it was there, it was part of the discussion, people saw it and might be reacting to it, but it becomes impossible to disentangle the mess if part of it has been “cleaned up.”
So then IHFB compounds it with a double ad hominem:
You likely picked up on that canard from Jed.
It doesn’t matter who it came from. Jed claimed to base his comments on a preliminary report he’d seen. While we are free to doubt him, the fact is that he now claims that everything that he had seen was in Exhibit 5. That isn’t strictly true, Jed saw the report and lists of numbers, Jed means something slightly different. He means the substance is reflected there. But in this case, we don’t need to depend on Exhibit 5, we can see, more or less, what Jed and Murray saw, almost certainly: 0.0 bar. For the purposes of this discussion, an absolute vacuum. And, yes, it’s preposterous and yes, Penon didn’t mean that. It was a mistake, which is very simple.
I think the author of Exhibit 5 was told certain things (e.g., the atmospheric temperature bit), and expressly claimed other things (e.g., the piping is DN40).
I notice this all the time. Writers make gross errors and don’t fix them. None of this is about “atmospheric temperature.” Murray wrote about “atmospheric pressure.” Some blogs don’t allow corrections, but LENR Forum does. For reference, here, Exhibit 5. Murray states:
The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40.
This has been poorly read in some of the discussions. A fuller context for that statement, Murray addresses Penon in Exhibit 5, which is a memorialization of his questions.
You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia). […] According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was […] and the temperature of the water and steam were […]. The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40.
I have previously pointed out that the last sentence has two separable clauses. Is Murray himself stating that “DN40” was reported? From the last sentence, no. It would not be written that way. However, Murray is listing data from what Penon “stated” and what he had “reported.” The verbal statement, apparently, was “nominally atmospheric pressure.” This indicates what Penon meant, in his written reports (the preliminary seen by Jed and the “Final Report,” by 0.0 bar. It was simply an error, it should have been 0.0 barG. As to the piping, the language here indicates that Murray is rehearsing facts for Penon, not an “allegation.” He is not “claiming” that the piping was DN40, he seems to think that this was known and accepted.
Was he in error? Of course that’s possible! I revise my earlier opinion, though, I see no evidence that “DN40” was necessarily Murray’s personal observation, only that he doesn’t seem to think that there is a contradiction. The pipe size is not crucial to Murray’s question, though it would enter into a detailed analysis.
If I had to make a decision based on this evidence, though, it would be that Murray believed the pipe was DN40 and expected that Penon would not argue with this, and I’d assume DN40, then, unless there were stronger evidence for a different size. If the pipes were insulated, it could be difficult to estimate the size from a photo. To be clear, this is about the return pipe, that would carry water, not about the steam pipe itself, pre-condenser.
It is not a matter of whether I believe the author of Exhibit 5–whatever was written in that exhibit was written. The DN40 piping is probably outright false.
I wouldn’t be so sure. IHFB is correct about “belief,” though. At this point, Exhibit 5 is a report of personal information and belief, and, if supported under oath — which is expected — it will be accepted by the court unless and until it is controverted. To the extent that the court accepts Murray as an expert, his conclusions, such as his conclusions about flow, may be admitted, but that is not necessarily his role in the court process. What is probably most important about Exhibit 5 is that the questions were asked and were not answered, indicating default of professional responsibility by Penon. If it is necessary to establish his conclusions, I would expect to see independent expert testimony.
I have good reasons to believe that the DN40 piping claim is false. If you remember, I used a picture of the old plant and using known dimensions of shipping containers, was able to show that the exit pipe of that plant was very likely DN80, based on a proportional analysis. The chances of Rossi changing from DN80 to DN40 is next to nil.
There is a major contradiction running through all this. IHFB is pointing out certain things we don’t know, and more or less demanding that in the absence of definitive knowledge, conclusions must be avoided. Yet he has a “belief” about one of these things. He is effectively, here, asking what has become a number of participants who are highly skeptical of his claims to accept his prior investigation, but he does not link to it or show it. I certainly don’t remember. Many of those discussions became so convoluted that I stopped reading them. He is claiming we don’t know enough, but asserting “I believe.” Doomed, wouldn’t you think?
Was the old pipe insulated? The construction of the customer return was new. DN80 pipe is more expensive than DN40, and perhaps this was a longer run. Bottom line, this is flimsy. But, of course, the devil is in the details. Instead of running on “belief,” how about actually taking the time to find the old discussion and link to it? How about focusing on fact instead of belief. Presumably that old estimate was fact-based. So what facts, how were they analyzed?
On the other hand, the entire purpose of this is doomed. What has been shown is that there are enough problems with the ERV report that it can’t be trusted. Unless Rossi comes up with a Wabbit — he is desperately searching for one, this is obvious in his discovery revelations — the Doral plant wasn’t a GPT, and at that point the actual function of the Plant becomes almost irrelevant. IH will then be, presumably, attempting to prove fraudulent representation, which is more difficult.
(What looms large, if no GPT, is the problem that, even if Rossi’s devices work with him present, IH claims they could not verify this in independent testing. That’s devastating to “Rossi technology.” Nobody will invest in his technology, in the future, without full and genuinely independent testing, or, at least, if they do, they would have been fully warned. They will be aware that if there is a disagreement, Rossi is likely to sue them. He’s really screwed himself over by filing the action, given what we know.) IHFB continued:
As for the pressure measurements, there are some mixed signals. The test plan had specified an absolute gauge. The ERV data doesn’t specify what is meant by 0 bar. The Exhibit 5 says it was atmospheric pressure. So, take your pick.
Yes, the test plan specified an absolute gauge. 0.0 bar has a very clear and precise meaning, but it would be crazy in context. Exhibit 5 is entirely derived from Penon information on this point. There is a contradiction, one might think, in Exhibit 5, between what Murray wrote and what is actually in the Final Report. There are a number of possibilities. IH has alleged that there was data in the preliminary reports that was missing in the Final Report. Murray was not looking at the final report, but only at preliminary copies. So maybe something changed. However, the simplest explanation is not accusatory. Penon simply used “bar” incorrectly, in the tables. And then Murray, knowing what was intended — and confirmed by what Penon “stated” about atomospheric pressure — simply referred to it as barG. And then we have the problem with 0.0 barG.
What pressure gauge was actually used? Obviously, at this point, we don’t know. Penon removed those instruments. He might have used an absolute gauge and then translated the data to barG, but that seems strange. Much more likely, he used a different pressure gauge.
None of these approaches lead to confidence in Penon’s work. It appears that he was to have been deposed last week in the Dominican Republic. We are unlikely to see that unless there is some dispute over it, until one of two events take place: a Motion for Summary Judgment, which might possibly rehearse some uncontroverted fact, or this goes to trial.
@IH Fanboy ,
And we don’t really know pipe sizes, temperatures measured, electrical energy in, or amount of water heated.
So bin the whole works.
Agreed! That is part of this exercise, to show those who have formed such sure conclusions to question themselves. Nothing is certain at this point. Jumping to conclusions can be very damaging to LENR and the public’s perception of it, and especially LENR+.
IH FB is confusing LENR and “Rossi”. Rossi is Plan A. Plan A does not depend on public support, at all. The only kind of “Plan A” that needs it is faux Plan A, fantasy Plan A. Plan A will happen regardless of what the public thinks. It only takes one person, or, more realistically, a small group. To the extent that Plan A is possible, it cannot be stopped. The Planet Rossi meme of “the market is the judge” is correct, for Plan A. All the cheers and boos and hisses and “sustain” on blogs are irrelevant to Plan A.
So for Plan A, “Rossi Savior” and “Rossi Evil” are irrelevant. The outcome of the trial may affect Rossi’s ability to continue development, but that is the trial outcome, not the Judgment of the Blogs.
For Plan B, however, public support is very important. Because there are private investors and donors, who will disregard the fluff, Plan B may continue even in the face of the maintained rejection cascade, but public funding (which could be greater than private) will be elusive and difficult. For that purpose, the best condition is that the extreme claims of Rossi be discredited, rejected, and that Rossi be considered the way he apparently wanted to be considered, as a fraud, while, at the same time, IH be supported for having had the courage to confirm or disconfirm Rossi’s claims, in spite of obvious appearances. Rossi’s claims were not about LENR itself. Rossi has attached to various theories when it served him, but the entire NiH approach is not the place to start, educating the public about LENR. We do not have a clear theory as to fuel and ash for NiH, no heat/ash ratio, none of that. To the extent that Rossi has been mentioned, the issue has been confused, and it can backfire.
If Rossi is sufficiently damaged by the lawsuit, he might not be able to continue. If the Rossi Effect is real, that would be a shame, but we would also have to notice that he brought this on himself. Perhaps Rossi’s strength was also his weakness, his bull-headedness.
If Rossi sees that he cannot continue, and if he actually cares about children (with cancer or otherwise), he would then disclose all his secrets. Ideally, he’d publish them. Notice that to maintain a patent, he’d have to do this anyway. To hit the market, he’d have to put technology out there where it could be independently examined. Rossi will have to trust someone, or he and his work is toast. Dried-out, cold toast.
That quote is about as obtuse as it gets, and you provided no attribution or source, nor who inserted the sics.
That quote was uploaded by Rossi in the lawsuit filing. Abd inserted the sics, as I explained previously.
If you do not believe Rossi, who do you believe?
This is what happens, how someone who is expressing sincere belief can be led far astray. There is a conversation. The normal human mind does not remember the sensory, nor, typically, exact wording. It remembers “meaning,” which is invented, in a process that usually creates ideas that will then predict the future. When there is emotional reactivity, it is the emotion that is most strongly remembered and associated. What IHFB remembers is not what was actually stated, but how he thought about it, later, his reaction. His reaction was “it’s wrong,” so then he proceeded to invent reasons for it to be wrong. Since he didn’t notice the attribution, he objected to the lack of it. He did not go back and reread what he’d read. Why should he? He had already read it once!
When what was said becomes controversial, I always attempt to find it and check my memory. Usually, my memory is sound, but not always. If I erred, my stand is to immediately correct it, when possible, hang how it looks, I’ll worry about reputation later.
Now, everyone here should just believe me, right? That would create a Planet Lomax. While trusting my intentions is reasonable — I’d say! — my suggestion is to verify as much as possible. I make mistakes. At this point I remember Jed’s posting and, yes, he did attribute. But what is the reality? It’s crazy to argue about something that can be verified in less time than it takes for normal argument.
Here is what I find. In objecting to the sics and lack of attribution, IHFB was not referring to Jed’s post, but to one by THH. THH did not clearly attribute. Sloppy, to be sure, but that’s common on public fora.
Here is where Jed posted the Penon description, Tuesday, February 21. Perhaps IHFB missed it. Jed credited me for my “[sic]” insertions. One of them was probably incorrect, as another pointed out. The original was here. The Penon description is attributed on that page, linked to a local copy. The description was dated 9 February, 2015. The alleged first day of the “test” was 24 February, 2015, see the “Final Report Annexe.”
(I may have somewhere stated that the test began on 31 January, 2015, because of the weird way that the data is paged. That is, I did make that mistake, but may have caught it and corrected it before publishing.)
IHFB went on and on, apparently not recognizing the taste of his foot in his mouth. I’m going to stop with this one, because I’m mentioned in it. Most of what I point out here is also noticed by others….
The data uploaded by Rossi means nothing to you?
The ERV data deposited in the court docket does mean something. Aside from the weirdness the latter half of November, the data has a certain interesting realness to it, as if there were a real, varying load, and with spikes in input power generally corresponding to FLP data. It doesn’t immediately come across, to me, as fake data.
To someone with high experience reviewing calorimetric data (Jed Rothwell), it does. So start with that, with respect for his experience. That doesn’t mean that he is right, but if you believe he is lying, forgeddaboudit, this all becomes posturing to impress others.
All this counterargument means is “I don’t see it.” The depth of the error is more than might be apparent. There are multiple factors interacting here, and, while it can be useful to focus on one only, reality is generally more discernable by first becoming clear on each factor, as to the range of possibilities, then looking at all of them. With each factor, some alternate explanation might be possible. However, how likely is this? That something is possible does not make it probable. And then, what about a series of possible but improbable “explanations”?
Or do you actually believe the pressure was 0.0 bar and the flow rate
was exactly the same for days, even when Rossi said the machine was
turned off? Do you seriously believe that nonsense?!?
The thing is Jed, you immediately jump to conclusions without considering alternative possibilities.
Perhaps. Jed has been studying and following Rossi since, likely, before 2011. At some point, one settles. Human ingenuity is endless. “Alternative possibilities” may always be invented. However, has IHFB found some? I’m looking. I don’t prejudge, I have learned to set aside expectations — which I have, like everyone else — and see what is actually there. It’s part of my training.
I had never observed that kind of behavior from you until you became intimately involved with IH. It is a shame. 0.0 bar.. what? We need more information. 1 atmosphere? With DN80 piping and a slight vacuum created by the heat exchanger, you all of the sudden plausibly have the pressure instrument showing 0.0 bar. Are you sticking with DN40 as your final answer?
Jed is a major figure in the field, and has been granted some level of access on promise of confidentiality. I have been granted that (to a lesser degree than Jed). My project is facilitating research, creating structures and processes that will resolve the scientific question of LENR. It is not promotion of anything other than scientific research, which must be, overall, neutral. I.e., I’m not suggesting and working for research to “prove” something, but rather to resolve questions and confirm or disconfirm prior work. I would be delighted to find that the Rossi Effect is real and that he hits the market with a product. However, absent that showing and activity, and aside from bringing a certain level of attention, a double-edged sword, Rossi has harmed and continues to harm the field. Above, IHFB is arguing like the last valiant defender of the flame of truth, in a hostile world. “DN40” is a tiny detail, and Jed doesn’t actually know the pipe size, he has reports — apparently more than one, but he can correct that. IHFB has convinced himself that the pipe was DN80. While that affects some of the arguments seen, it’s irrelevant to others. By focusing on where he thinks he can win, IHFB misses the trees in front of him in favor of an imaginary forest.
0.0 bar has a very clear meaning, if it is the reading of a gauge. Because that meaning is impossible, we — starting with Murray — interpret it as 0.0 barG. Atmospheric pressure, by definition, i.e., the actual pressure, not merely nominal pressure, pressure varies with altitude and the weather. If the system is open at the other end, as it appears it is, i.e., the “other end” is the internal tank to which system cooling water is returned, then we have an issue of what creates high flow. There is an obvious possible answer which has been rarely mentioned: a pump in the customer area, after the heat exchanger. This pump creates low pressure there, allowing high flow with 0.0 bar in the steam line. Peter Gluck thinks there must be a pump there, before the flow meter. He might be right, but it would not be the E-cat pumps.
The flow rate was exactly the same for days probably because the granularity of measurement apparently was 1000 kg/h for this flow meter, and once you dial in the pumps, the variance is quite small, as has been pointed out numerous times here by different people. You refuse to consider these as explanations, but that doesn’t mean that alternate possibilities don’t exist.
Within the restricted world of IHFB’s attention, he can construct alternate scenarios. First of all, the flow meter was the wrong meter for the application, because of the 1000 kg increments of the flow meter reading. This would not be a rate reading, it would be integrated water flow. The meter is being operated below specified minimum flow, which, as pointed out, could produce lower flow readings, not higher. However, in the contrary direction, pipe volume occupied by other than water, typically air, could produce higher readings than actual water flow. Depending on what happens in the customer area, there could be extensive error. One of the kinds of pumps used with steam condensers uses an injected fluid or gas; this would work with air or water. It would create the vacuum needed, but could also fill the pipe largely with air.
Absent some kind of pressure manipulation in the customer area, and with the internal tank being also at 0.0 barG, there is a difficult problem, but it gets worse.
As to the even when “machine was turned off.” What machine? Which one was turned off? The plant was composed of multiple conglomerations of e-cat reactors grouped into “tigers,” with backups to spare. We have no idea what was actually going on!
The question refers to variance in the number of “machines” operating. This particular issue is complicated and I have not been following all the discussions. At some point perhaps I will review this. What is the correlation between:
- The daily flow
- The input power
- The Johnson reports of delivered power (it was always either 750 or 1000 KW).
“We have no idea” is not true. We have ideas, indications, and some evidence. IHFB’s position is obvious: because the evidence is strongly indicating that something was off about the “Test,” he is making the “you have not proven it” defense. But we don’t need to prove anything. We are simply, for the most part, observers, noticing this or that. Some of us have agendas like proving that we are right, we were always right, unlike the rest of you. If only they had listened to good, sensible people, IH could have saved themselves millions of dollars. However, what I notice with IH is that they seem to be over $20 million ahead, with more money on tap if they need it.
Also, the laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. You cannot heat a small space with 1 MW of heat with no ventilation and survive. That is a fact. You can deny, deny, deny it, but facts are facts and this is indisputable, irrefutable proof that Rossi is lying and that you are deluded. You are ignorant of the fundamentals of physics and common sense.
And no, there was no invisible chimney.
I would not say “lying.” Rossi is, most likely, my opinion, delusional, but high-functioning in a way that can confuse the naive. I don’t think that IH was naive; rather, they recognized the alternate interpretations that IHFB wants to point out. They decided to find out. They found out. That, in my book, was a win, even if they’d have won much more if Rossi had a real technology and followed the Agreement.
But there was ventilation. And there was a chimney! This has been pointed out by Alan with photographic proof. The chimney is not sized to vacate ALL of the 1MW heat. But it could a large portion of it, and the rest could be used to heat vats of water, then mixed with cold water on its way down the drain, keeping it under the regulated heat levels. This too has been shown by others to be possible, including your friend Abd! You can deny, deny, deny, but there are plausible alternate explanations for nearly every puzzle.
Alternate, yes. Plausible, no, not collectively. I explored cooling with water last year, extensively, researching the water economics and regulations. As Jed points out, you cannot discharge 80 C water in the public sewer system, it would create visible effects and it would be illegal. The chimney shown is not in a location to be used for the suggested purpose. This is truly a major problem for the idea that Rossi was actually generating a megawatt. IHFB here, simply names some alternatives but does not actually explore them. I’d encourage him to do the math. Rossi originally claimed that whatever heat was not “consumed” by the customer was vented out the roof. Large endothermic process without a large movement of product doesn’t seem to be possible. A great one would be melting ice. But there would be a very large amount of ice needed, day in and day out. The simplest thing would be venting steam, but that would, of course, be highly visible.
It is obvious: IHFB is desperately clinging to whatever possibility allows him to “keep the faith.” In a way, this is noble, but he has added something that is not noble. He’s claiming that others are wrong. I like Richard Garwin’s “They say there is no doubt. But I doubt.” It’s honest, and that is, in fact, a great counterargument, except for one problem. It does not correctly state what “they say.” Garwin has cartoonized the “believers.” His “they must be doing something wrong” was a plain admission of his pseudoscientific position (more commonly called, in a case like this, “pseudoskeptical.”)
What comes to mind for me as the strongest issue is the combined claim of 0.0 barG steam pressure, constant water flow, about 104 C steam temperature and then an assumption of complete vaporization. I’m not the first to point out that if there is total vaporization, there is no control on the steam temperature, a small change in heat generation will produce a significant change in steam temperature.[Thanks to THH for the link to his post covering this issue, it was that post that brought this out clearly.]
From the tightly constant normal daily total flow — a problem because of timing effects as point out by many — we must assume that the reactor metering pumps are set to create a constant flow, regardless of actual heat production.
As reactors aged, there would be a decline in efficiency, apparently. Why did Rossi refuel on the last day of the Test? If Rossi was able to tightly control heat production, to maintain the constant steam temperature at full vaporization, what was he varying? Originally, the main control was heat, but if he is operating in Self-Sustain mode, that’s gone. He isn’t controlling the cooling rate, we just defined that as constant. As well, what happens when the load changes?
There is a conclusion: bottom line, the flow data shown was not a recording of flow meter readings. It was calculated, at best. Or it was assumed. The flow meter does not show rate: it shows accumulated water flow, in units of a metric ton, 1000 kg. IHFB, with his “1000 kg/h” is not simply making a spelling error, he is missing the point. The apparent set rate is 1500 kg/h, but the meter would be just like a water company water meter, which doesn’t show rate, but accumulated usage, in units of 1000 kg.