LF Discussion Review 2017-01-25

THHuxleynew wrote: [my emphasis added]

LENR Calender wrote:

It’s not either exhibit 5 is correct or it’s a lie.
First, of course the exhibit is correct in that Murray should be asking those questions.
Then, I don’t think there are any lies in there. Just Murray trying to understand what’s going on.
Finally, it is likely that at least some of those concerns could have been dispelled if Penon had answered.
There are 5 observations in the e-mail.
#5 could be a mistake if Murray got the pipe diameter wrong.
#1 has the potential to be proven wrong. Specifically the part about minimum operational flow rate being a major issue needs to be confirmed. Murray apparently has a point, but it needs to be tested. What if Penon’s reply was that they calibrated the device at that flow and were satisfied with it?
#2 I’d like to see an explanation from Penon as to why the flow was written down as 36m3/day for a month. Did Penon pull a Parkhomov cut and paste? Did Fabiani’s control system pull a masterpiece?
What about the rest of the year? Did it then vary from day to day?
# 3 is about the number of units varying while keeping the same output. I submit that perhaps there was some redundancy in the system.
#4 I don’t really understand.
So no, no lies. Not necessarily 100% correct either. I’m more concerned that Penon came only once in a blue moon (was it once a month in the contract?) and ended up just collecting data fed by Rossi.

I’d agree with this. There is no way that this initial evidence can be definitive, it is not meant to be without Discovery and testing in Court. However we have heard nothing in rebuttal from Rossi in his answer. He needs to give some indication of his arguments in order for IH to have a fair shot at discovery. And he is giving nothing of substance here which means i guess there is nothing of substance. The Court will not like him introducing whole new lines of argument at a later date – if i read this correctly. Wish Abd were here…

Which means: this evidence is damning, because not answered.

There is also a whole lot of other evidence that points so strongly in the direction of this test being a charade that this is proven beyond reasonable doubt, even though any one piece of evidence, as this, can always be argued around.

Abd is here, where he has always been. THH, you are welcome here. You could follow this blog, easily. You could ask questions here, you can comment. I may or may not see what you write on LENR-forum.

You could even write posts here. If you ask, we can discuss it. You clearly have much to contribute.

Now, as to the points. LENRC expressed himself cogently. I also agree with him, overall, in what he wrote. However, there is something I noticed by 2011: to accept Rossi’s work as genuine, it was always necessary to suspend disbelief, to set aside what might seem obvious in order to allow what could be considered possible. Maybe Rossi is just protecting his secrets. Maybe the error of using a humidity meter to measure steam quality, and failure to check for overflow water was just an oversight. Maybe Rossi’s checkered past is irrelevant, maybe it was all the Mafia, maybe this and maybe that, an increasing string of them. At some point, we create another maybe. Maybe the obvious appearance is reality. Maybe this is all “magic,” i.e., appearance created.

However, logically, LENRC is correct. Nevertheless, the judge will make decisions based on clear fact and legal reasoning, and where fact is not clear, it will be determined by a court based on the preponderance of the evidence. (Which tends to be Occam’s Razor.) We can choose to weigh evidence differently, we may decide that what a jury though was important wasn’t, we each make those choices.

What Exhibit 5 shows is not conclusive, Jed overstates the matter. Murray asked, as LENRC notes, questions that were completely proper for him to ask. Peter Gluck has railed against these questions as insults, but that was just a rant. The questions are simple, and, yes, each one might have some answer that doesn’t torpedo the test. Or not.

There is more. Penon removed all the test equipment the last day of the test, allegedly sending it back to the manufacturer. Was this approved by IH? If not, Penon was destroying evidence. Spoliation. That’s one more piece on a pile of circumstantial evidence, each one of which has some possible excuse.

I could discuss how some of LENRC’s speculations don’t really work. But it doesn’t really matter.

There is, of course, the issue of discovery and Rossi disclosing his evidence and arguments. Yes, he must do that or face sanctions, including dismissal ipso facto or other adverse decision. However, I understand that Rossi has now, finally, provided requested discovery. We do not see this. We must understand that. He may have a Wabbit and he has just lobbed it at Industrial Heat, and we won’t know unless he or IH reveal it. If it is Protected, they can’t do that without facing sanctions. (A party may declare what they provide in discovery to be protected, i.e., confidential, and it can even be “attorney eyes only,” i.e., say, just as an example, Rossi could reveal his Secret (real or alleged) and Jones Day would see it, but not Darden. Jones Day would be under a strict obligation to protect the Secret.) Protection can be appealed. Arguments to be presented at trial could not be protected, I’m sure.

When I assess prospects in this case, I assume that no major evidence is missing. That is obviously rebuttable. However, just as the jury will finally decide on the preponderance of the evidence that they have seen, I tentatively decide, for my own purposes, on the basis of what I’ve seen.

I would not say “beyond doubt.” There are too many loose ends at this point. However, the “preponderance of the evidence” at this point is as THH has said. The test was, at least in some respects, enough to invalidate it, a “charade.”

SSC wrote:

The best way to convince a jury that your system works is to prove it in public before the trial begins. Delaying proof of performance just improves the case for the defence.

Every time Rossi made a public test, there always been someone who considered that test was not accurate enough, someone who thought the test could have been done in a better way.

If you want to prepare a proper test, you have to choose carefully every detail, especially if you are disclosing to the world a new and revolutionary kind of object. How could you do everything in the right way if you are spending most of your time with an attorney?

Now Rossi is trying to win a battle, and I think he can’t do it in the best way if he has to organize the QuarkX launch. His choice is the best one.

Axil’s comment is consistent with his general misunderstanding of what Ross v. Darden is about. This discussion is in reference to Rossi’s recent announcement of postponement of his announced February demonstration of the Quark-X until after the trial. Yet the Quark-X could be spectacular, the energy future of humanity, and be totally irrelevant to Rossi v. Darden — except as more evidence that Rossi is holding onto his secrets and not following the Agreement.

SSC understates what has been seen about Rossi demonstrations. It is not just that “someone” has an objection or skeptical claim, it is that people who understand LENR, consider it possible, and who would truly like to see it be successful, notice that there are major errors, not just minor details. Rossi, until IH made the Agreement with him, setting aside and ignoring all the obvious reasons Rossi had set up to prevent that — one way of looking at his behavior. After he stiffed Hydro Fusion, and bragged about it, would you enter an agreement with him?

Rossi is spending most of his time with an attorney because he decided to tilt with a windmill. However, given that he has done that, he has two sane options: delegate the work with an attorney to others whom he informs fully — and to whom he remains available for consultation — or delegate the arrangement of a demonstration to another. Fabiani left for Russia. Charges have been dropped. He could invite Fabiani back. He talks about his team, but the sense is that there is no team that Rossi has empowered to carry on when he is not available. This is difficult for him because he has made it so, by not trusting others.

My sense is that Annesser, his attorney, is simply doing what Rossi tells him to do. Rossi is in charge. Always. That is his identity. If someone won’t let him be fully in charge, he walks. He trusts nobody.

SSC wrote:

oldguy wrote:

That is: what evidence is offered that a unit actually fulfilled the requirements? It seems to me that a single unit had to deliver the level of output for the entire 350 days and not just a series of individuals.

The Doral test was the first one of that kind even for Rossi.

As far as I know he had never tested a single Hotcat for such a long time, so he choose to use many of them in order to ensure a continuous heat production. It doesn’t seems to me such a strange thing …

The Guaranteed Performance Test was quite unclear about crucial details, it is obvious that this was not developed with careful engineering consideration. It is obvious that a 1 MW plant was created to be a spectacular claim. It had benefits for Rossi: He could sell, he believed or claimed, a 1 MW plant for $1.5 million. IH bought one. Was that ready to test? The first test did not produce a megawatt, it produced an amount of power, allegedly, that was oddly equal to the capacity of the genset on hand. A ready excuse for that genset: 1 megawatt at COP 6 would require 160 KW input power, which exceeds what is easily available electrically. But why a 1 MW plant for demonstrations? Why make it so difficult?

One might assume that a year test would show reliability, but, in fact, we could just as easily claim it as designed to cover up unreliability. The specs for the 1 MW plant were included with the Agreement. It is said that the output thermal power is 1 MW. There is no tolerance, no minimum power below which it would be failing. COP is stated as 6. Again, no tolerance, nor is it stated as “minimum.” There are 52 modules. Warranty is two years, but lifespan is given as 20 years. Lifespan of what?

This is a plant consisting of 52 modules. Have any of these modules been tested even for two years? Rossi kept changing his designs. He did, as Dewey Weaver points out, claim a long term operation in a factory, but …. was that a single unit? Rossi never made public any reliability data, and still has not. The GPT was not designed nor, apparently, data collected, to be able to make a reliability analysis. The MTBF for a reactor could be a few days, and all Rossi would have to do is keep repairing or replacing them. Murray’s questions point out the substantial numbers of non-operational reactors. Some then explain that there was redundancy. So perhaps 31 out of the 64 reactors in the Tigers were operational and still delivering … delivering what? The GPT has no minimum delivered power specification, it is totally COP-based.

A tiny amount of power would satisfy the GPT, on the face of it, as long as the input power was smaller, and substantial power could be supplied chemically, with ease. Further, if any of Rossi’s reactors work, all but one could fail and the plant would still be functional from this crazy “GPT” perspective.

Back to what SSC wrote, if Rossi never tested “a single HotCat for so long,” how could he claim a 20 year life?


Leave a Reply