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&M
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&M. 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 guaranteed to over report flow
rates due to the increased compressibility.
Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [email protected] <[email protected]>
*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 <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
Windows 10
*From: *Jed Rothwell <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:40 PM
*To: *Vortex <mailto:[email protected]>
*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 <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
