Judge ALTONAGA quotes ERV reports in her ‘background’ summary.

Quote from Shane D.

If Rossi did not get the permits as he claims in his suit, that will be easily proven as a blatant lie, and would greatly hurt his case going forward. I think it was David French who said in his review of Rossi's filing, that you just do not make stuff up in your suit that can not be proven. That is a big no-no, and if caught doing so (and you will be caught) you will pay a big price. It sounds like a sure fire way to lose the case out of hand

Again, some are not reading carefully. Rossi did not claim to actually get any permits. Rather, he claims that IH didn't get permits in North Carolina, or something like that, so he decided to make the test happen. Maybe he or someone read the code in Florida and decided it didn't apply, and they might have been correct, or not. There is no blatant lie there, on this point, because, in fact, Rossi was just talking about his intentions. Can it be proven that he did not intend that? And the fact of whether he did actually get approvals or not is irrelevant. Rossi's possible failure to comply with boiler safety regulations in Florida is moot for the lawsuit.

Quote

Keep in mind too, that IH signed off on the test, and they obviously have been very lawyered up since the beginning. Doubt they would have exposed themselves to some regulatory action by signing onto a rogue boiler operation.

Regulatory action would not be the big issue. That was their boiler. Supposedly they were selling power from it. If it exploded, there could be major damage, even loss of life. That is far more an issue than regulatory violation, which happens all the time and is easily fixed.

However, as to regulatory violation, from the Boiler Safety statute in Florida: "Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable by fine as provided in s. 775.083." And then that provides for a $500 fine.

Quote

There must be something more to this than meets the eye.

The Illuminati! I knew it!

Quote from Shane D.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Again, some are not reading carefully. Rossi did not claim to actually get any permits. Rather, he claims that IH didn't get permits in North Carolina, or something like that, so he decided to make the test happen

LOLs Abd. You are right, "some are not reading carefully". From the judges decision regarding the MTD:

"Despite IH and IPH’s continued failure to secure an adequate testing facility, Rossi took it upon himself to locate and secure a location to conduct the Guaranteed Performance Test, as well as obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for the operation of the E-Cat Unit. (See Compl. ¶ 63)."

Display More

I already quoted that, and also explained why this was not a claim of actually having obtained approvals. To take on a task is not necessary to complete it. That was written about what Rossi decided when the 1 MW plant was in North Carolina. There is no way that this could be interpreted to make Rossi a liar if some approvals were not obtained. And this is becoming tiresome, argument for the sake of argument. Enough.

Quote from "Abd"

they may well also go after the ERV Report as being based on Penon's incompetence, corruption, or alleged vulnerability to Rossi fraud.

yes, they will use every single dirty despicable method they can come up with, No effort will be saved ... starting here with you ... (and of course "certified idiot" Jed has been on it since day one)

Frank is demonstrating the qualities of Planet Rossi trolls. Find something that is wrong in what others write, and emphasize it, and claim victory. It doesn't matter if it is actually wrong, but it's great if it is something that someone who doesn't know or actually research the issue will readily think, 'Yeah, he's right!" In fact, it can be utterly and preposterously wrong, and that can even be better, because it can provoke intemperate response, which then makes the target look bad.

Quote from frankwtu

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

With an internal pressure of 0.0bar how can it be considered a 'closed vessel' and I would say its definitely not in a 'public place' its a private factory.

1. The definition is explicit that pressure does not matter. What is critical is the generation of steam. It "boils" water.
2. The steam is intended for external use. That requires that there be some exit. So "Closed" does not necessarily mean sealed.
3. We do not know if the system is open or not. I.e., is there a "condensation tank," with the water being emptied into it from the return pipe, which could relieve all pressure, or is the system closed? The former would lose quite a bit of water which would need to be replaced. (If the return pipe sparges any returned steam, i.e., is always below the water level in the tank, the water depth will create pressure, 0.1 bar per meter. (Frank must mean 0.0 barG, i.e., atmospheric pressure, not bar, and all this was brought up before, and recently, on lenr-forum.
4. If the reactor is evaporating 36 cubic meters of water a day, as Rossi claimed, this would weigh 36,000 kilograms, and at 0.0 barG, this much steam would occupy a volume 1700 times greater. That would be over 60,000 cubic meters. This volume of steam must pass through a set of pipes and some sort of heat exchanger, with flow restriction even greater than that of a pipe. The flow restriction will create back pressure. I'm not exercised now to do the math. However, 0.0 barG is quite unlikely.

Quote

Game set and match I think.

Thanks.

In what I wrote, the argument actually being made was that Rossi must have gotten regulatory approval because if not, he'd have lied and this would then cause Awful Things To Happen. But he did not actually claim to have gotten approval, only that he intended to get what was necessary, and perhaps he thought this particular approval it was not necessary. And then Frank came up with nonsense about "it's not a boiler," which is patently false. It boils water (or some other liquids), it's a boiler, unless it's an open pan and it's fairly obvious they are not going after teakettles or anything with a relatively large opening that doesn't feed steam through a system to somewhere else.

Okay, the issue of "public." I researched this, spent quite a bit of time on it, when this was discussed before. There is a case where a boiler was considered "public" because it was located in a building next to a sidewalk. The regulations seem to mean one thing when read casually, but may mean something different in actual practice. If in doubt, the legal obligation would be to ask for an opinion from the State Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal is probably going to rule very conservatively, i.e., toward requiring inspection, because if not, and the thing explodes, his butt is on the line. But what kind of permit is required, and the details, I did not find it easy to determine. So if I were operating there, I'd probably call. Unless I didn't want the hassle and felt safe enough.

As I pointed out, it's a $500 fine for failure to comply. Not exactly a federal crime!

Quote from Wyttenbach

The main steam tube looks like having 30cm diameter which gives (9/4*π)*10 =70l/meter with 714l/s we have a flow speed of somewhat more than 10 meters/s that's well below sound speed...

Indeed. So? That is not the issue. The issue will be flow resistance in the pipe, and even more in whatever heat exchanger which is in the customer area, which must have much higher surface area to cross sectional area, or it would not efficiently exchange heat, only the surface of the steam (i.e., in contact with the wall of the pipe or other passage) can exchange heat efficiently with the walls.

Quote

If the main tube would have half the diameter, You would get 40m/s steam speed... This is somewhat more than You can drive on US highways. Still a noise people are familiar with.

0.0 barG is nonsens? <-- Not if the driving force is the condesation! (= vacuum) The classical princip of steam machines.

for 30 cm diameter I get 707 square cm cross-sectional area, which is then 70.7 liters per meter of pipe . The overall flow rate is 36 cubic meters of water per day. That converts to about 61,200 cubic meters of steam per day, or about 0.708 cubic meters per second. that is 708 liters per second. So, yes, with that size pipe and the specified flow, Wyttenback is correct, about 10 meters per second. My impression, though, is that the pipe is about half that diameter, so, again, he would be correct, that the flow rate would be four times as fast. That would be about ninety miles per hour. In roughly a seven-inch pipe.

0.0 barG is atmospheric pressure, and the claim is that this is an open system, i.e., open to a condensate tank. and if the water just pours into the tank, the pressure at that end of the system is 0.0 bar. However, that's not the pressure we have been talking about, we are talking about the pressure at the other end, where the steam exists the boiler. That pressure must be adequate to drive 708 liters per second of steam through the length pipe and intervening system.

The velocity of the steam will be much higher within a heat exchanger, so there will be much more back-pressure there, and all this pressure will be additive at the boiler outlet pipe.

Using a steam pressure calculator, I find the pressure drop from an 8 inch standard pipe is less than I expected. However, the restriction in a heat exchanger must be far higher. If there really is no significant pressure drop, that would indicate to me that there is no heat exchanger, just a straight pipe. However, I am not now trusting my intuition on this. Rossi apparently specifies, from Engineer48's comment on Peter's blog, 0.2 barG, which may or may not be reasonable. This would take more study than I'm willing to put into this now.

The original point was that this is a boiler. The issue of 0.0 bar was a red herring, the pressure is not part of the definition of "boiler," and I quoted Florida law.

Quote

As long as they are not covering up fraud or doing anything illegal they should be fine.

Some people I know have made it very clear to Rossi's lawyers that they are, in fact, covering up fraud and that Rossi is entirely FOS and they should not believe his claims. Whether they attend to those warnings is another matter. Anyway, they are a pissant law firm with no credible or proven ability in this sort of litigation. IIRC, their specialty is real estate law. And they have four lawyers (IIRC). And they are up against Jones Day. Good luck with that! I do agree that US courts rarely sanction attorneys for representing clients, even if the attorney knows or should know that the client is a crook! Anyway, I meant that Rossi's lawyers will lose financially, not that they will be sanctioned by the court.

Quote from Alan Smith

It is wrong to assume a heat exchanger is restrictive per se. A radiator can have as many core tubes and fins as are desired, and thus any cross-sectional area it is not impossible to imagine a situation where the flow-resistance of a heat exchanger is lower than that of the pipe that supplies it. While this may not be desirable for technical or economic reasons, you cannot state that flow restriction is always the case.

As I wrote, my sense of how *much* restriction there would be was off. With large pipes, it's quite low. I did the math. However, the whole system is not large pipes, we think.

Yes. Alan is correct. If there are many small pipes in parallel, there will be low flow in each, hence low back pressure. Thus, as I wrote, a net back pressure of 0.2 bar, as apparently specified by Rossi in negotiations with another customer (per Engineer48), could be reasonable. 0.0 barG implies no back pressure, but could also imply back pressure lower than 0.05 bar. That seemed possible to me if the system was a long pipe. Length would matter. (I.e, twice the length, twice the back pressure. Small pipes required enormous pressure. But an 8 inch pipe is not small.

And this whole discussion was not only off topic of the thread, but also off topic of the subtopic developed, the issue of regulatory approval of a "boiler" (Supposedly confirmed by the judge, an error in itself.) The claim was made that because the pressure was allegedly 0.0 bar, it was not a boiler, which is patently false by definition and common sense.

Quote from Shane D.

I give. If two LENR insiders tell me that "obtain", does not mean Rossi is actually saying he got the regulatory approvals, who am I to say otherwise? I always thought the word "is" was pretty straight forward too, so what do I know.

Oops, I see it is happy hour, so pardon me while I attain me a drink and give this some more thought.

You may leave to obtain a drink, but if you slip and fall and end up in the hospital, you did not actually get a drink. What is happening here is that some are reading statements out of contect. The context is that Rossi was impatient with IH not, he alleged, getting the test going in North Carolina, and the reasons or excuses were, possibly among others, that IH did not obtain regulatory approvals.

So, in that context, Rossi decided to handle it himself. As part of that, he may have discovered or decided that a boiler permit was not necessary, so he didn't do it. What other approvals would be involved? Nuclear Regulatory? Not. That's already been addressed. My opinion is that a company concerned about possible liability would have gotten a boiler permit. But Rossi may not have been. IH may not have been paying attention to this detail. Etc. There is nothing that can be clearly derived from what is in the Complaint on the point of a boiler permit. Jed says that there is no record of such a permit, and he's correct, as to the the ordinary permit. Was one required? That's a question of Florida law that I do not find crystal clear.

Contrary to what some assert, the Rossi complaint was not entered with an attestation of truthfullness. An attorney is an officer of the court and is expected to not lie, but will also not second-guess the client. Many errors are filed in complaints, and the only negative side to them is that it can be embarrassing later if the error is shown. Here, the statement is about *intention* and it does not actually state that approvals were obtained, only that he set out to do it in reaction to the North Carolina situation.

Shallow thinkers imagine that language has one fixed meaning. And then if other meanings are pointed out, they think they are prevarication or pedantry. The point here is that there is no way, even if that Complaint were filed under penalty of perjury, to derive that the lack of some required regulatory would show perjury. Perjury would require strict construction and clarity of language. Like, "I obtained a boiler permit" if he didn't.

Rossi is a master of unclear language, in fact. And he commonly states intention or possibility as if it were a realized fact. Lots of people do this, by the way.

I'd say that he does it in ways that routinely mislead, because Planet Rossi scours what he writes trying to extract meaning.