If they haven't, they certainly should! But Dewey and Jed have tended to focus on no heat from the roof. Little mention of other possibilities, until recently by Jed (after it became an issue). Wouldn't they have forcefully argued no water cooling either all along if they already had those water use invoices?
The water bills of JMP can be subpoenaed.
Here are some radiators for a Freightliner: cgj.com/store/category/freightliner-truck-radiators/
Ah ha. The shape is different, isn't it? The first one says:
"37 inches from header to header, 32.25 inches from side to side, and 2.25 inches thick."
I guess the size is in the right ballpark, but the gadget shown in 2011 is a lot thicker. It looks like some sort of radiator but I would not know what kind.
The big one in your picture? Or the semi tractor one?
I meant the one in Rossi's lab, in 2011. (Wasn't it 2011? But there is a American fast food shown in one shot . . .)
All of the heat has to be removed by the water at times. For example, when the factory is closed down at night or on weekends.
I get the impression from those involved that this operation was 24/7, although we could certainly use a LOT more information about what was actually going on with what appears to be a large piece of equipment on what appears to be the customer "side." (I understand there is still some uncertainty as to whether the customer "side" was actually in the adjacent warehouse.)
Rossi claims the reactor produces 1 MW constantly, 24/7, even on days when he also claimed it was turned off and disassembled.
He has also claimed that there were backup units available when other units were being repaired. I think we've hit on this now, probably several times. But you just keep dragging it up don't you. 
So the customer would need a way to dump the heat when the magical endothermic production equipment is not in use.
Again, my impression is that the equipment was in use for the duration of the test.
There is no point to checking the water meter.
Oh yes there is.
It is not possible for a commercial building of this size to consume that much water. The water service line is 2 inches which is much too small.
Please provide proof of the water service line is 2 inches, and that it is much too small. Also, bear in mind, the water cooling may have been implemented in combination with an air-cooling system. (Yes, yes, I know, IH never detected any heat from or around the building--but the evidence for that claim is quite lacking, at least at this point.)
It would be possible to have air cooling. But the air-cooling equipment would be large and readily visible.
I suppose the size of the air cooling equipment would be proportional to the amount of cooling attributed to air cooling equipment versus water cooling.
No such equipment was seen at this site. That is the point of the photographs uploaded by I.H.
Those photographs are pretty skimpy on details. It shows sections of the space, that you claim aren't even the customer "side." It also doesn't show what was outside of the building. The time the photos were taken is also not disclosed.
More to the point, why on earth would Rossi take steps to hide the waste heat by flushing it with water?
It might not have been to hide anything, but more a matter of convenience or necessity.
Even if the city could provide enough water, that would end up costing thousands of dollars more than air cooling.
As Abd pointed out, if all heat was removed by water, it would be about $5k per month, which is well within the scope of the costs involved with this test. Since there were probably air cooling techniques used as well, the cost would naturally be less.
I meant the one in Rossi's lab, in 2011. (Wasn't it 2011? But there is a American fast food shown in one shot . . .)
The one in the background, behind food items, was from Doral. It is behind Fabiani while he is making electrical things. It was supposedly in NC, but it has the same door as the IH photos of Doral. I brightened that area up to have a better look (and expanded the size). You can see (what is probably) the same cooler in the new Doral photo from IH, leaning on some stuff in the hallway (the new Exhibit 26).
That one is probably about the general area of a semi tractor radiator. But I haven't seem one quite like it. It looks like a large condenser, or oil cooler.
The design is hard to make out though, because it is still partly wrapped in its cardboard packing. There is some stuff sitting on top, like cheap crimpers and maybe a roll of aluminum tape.
Edit: It may be thicker than it looks in the Fabiani photo.
The Ferrara shot has two large heat exchangers, pink background. Watch Stirling's movie I posted. Start at 1:05. It will be one simulation of what looking over the wall at Doral might be like. I laughed so hard when I watched it...
No, 70C water down the drain.
As I noted, in Florida the legal limit is 60°C. See:
http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/content/PDF/2001 Florida Codes/Plumbing/Chapter 7_Sanitary Drainage.pdf
You cannot remove much enthalpy raising water from 20°C up to 60°C. Evaporative cooling is much more efficient, but why not use air cooling?
I am pretty sure you cannot buy megawatt scale cooling equipment that dumps the hot water down the drain. No one in Florida would install such a thing. You cannot just go out to Lowe's, buy one, and install it yourself!
So the customer would need a way to dump the heat when the magical endothermic production equipment is not in use.
Again, my impression is that the equipment was in use for the duration of the test.
So you think they were moving tons of product in and out of the factory day and night, holidays and weekends as well?
Even if that were true, they would need an emergency method of dumping the heat in case the magical endothermic machine stopped working. Because the reactor never stopped. So Rossi says, and so it must be true, amen.
Rossi's equipment has remarkable capabilities. He reported that the reactor produced 1 MW of heat on days when he also claimed the reactor was turned off or disassembled. That is surely the most remarkable performance in the history of machinery. But Rossi did not claim that he himself developed the magical endothermic machine in the J.M. site. That is someone else's (imaginary) IP. So I doubt that machine works by itself and robotically brings tons of materials into itself without operator intervention day and night, 24/7. That sounds implausible.
But I'd like Jed to answer, since he seems pretty tight with IH.
I have no information on the investigation or the lawsuit. I had only some of Rossi's data, which was pretty skimpy. It was just 3 items per day for several days: fake flow rate, pretend pressure of 0.0 bar, and iffy temperature that magically starts repeating. Everything I knew about it was revealed in Exhibit 5, along with some things I did not know.
I knew nothing at all about legal issues, contracts and whatnot. Frankly, I don't understand that stuff. I have not put much effort into reading it. The amended Answer has some interesting info. Definitely worth reading.
Quote from JedThere is no point to checking the water meter. It is not possible for a commercial building of this size to consume that much water. The water service line is 2 inches which is much too small.
You need 500g/s for evaporative cooling of 1MW (my calc up above somewhere).
I just measured our house supply: 200g/l from the water mains. We have a long and undersized (22mm) supply pipe. But the flow rate depends on pressure as much as pipe size of course. Two domestic showers will typically use 40l/minute - more than would be needed by Rossi for this flight of fantasy. So, you can't on info disclosed so far tell whether the factory water supply would sustain this rate - it might well.
There are many reasons why this evaporative cooling fantasy will not fly - and I expect, for example by checking water company bills (if water is metered) or factory drain and water pipe layout and/or local mains pressure - it can very easily be knocked on the head. It is also inherently unlikely. It does not do the argument any good to make technical comments that don't stack up based on known information.
If I'm not understanding this - and you can substantiate this comment - please correct me.
Regards, THH
THHuxley wrote:
Maybe so. But why didn't they knock on it already, court filings and all?
"Why didn't they" is a common question that reveals ignorance about court process. They do not need to prove everything they say in the Answer. In this case, they are asserting that there were no facilities for cooling. They are not then going to anticipate every way that there might have been cooling and show proof that it was not used. That is getting way ahead of the process.
Rather, Rossi will, I'd expect, assert what was actually done (or claim ignorance, perhaps, though I doubt it, he did claim he helped them engineer the plant). Then if they need to, they will assert contrary evidence.
It is partly a game. The players will not reveal all their cards ab initio, and there could be a game of tempting the other side to lie, because that's the fastest way to make them look like frauds.
Not for him (he deserve justice, whatever it is), not for IH (they took the risk rationally) but for all sincere NiH efforts.
Maybe we will have to go back to PdD, à la Edmund Storms, à la Iwamura, à la Fralick..
PdD is the most solidly established work and certain PdD efforts will, on that basis, continue. PdD is the demonstration test bed that can, simply by replicating with increased precision what is already confirmed, blow the rejection cascade away, with what the DoE wanted to see: publication in the journal system. And then I see the funding floodgates opening.
NiH work is already under way and will continue, it is just that it will stop talking about itself as "Rossi replication." It will be work that must stand on its own, or as replication of other current work.
"Parkhomov replication" is a term we see. Given that Parkhomov is weak, and that specific protocols are not necessarily being followed, that's not impressive. However, people are leaning the ropes. Parkhomov's latest report is far better than what he did before. What this needs is careful exploration of the protocol, of the experiment. If it keeps moving on to newer and better, I predict erratic process with many artifacts remaining unidentified, only suspected.
So I doubt that machine works by itself and robotically brings tons of materials into itself without operator intervention day and night, 24/7. That sounds implausible.
That does sound implausible, and I agree, such a thing probably didn't happen. But you can have a highly endothermic process without such a requirement. See, e.g., https://disqus.com/home/discus…ermic/#comment-2837007786
Display MoreIH Fanboy wrote:
But I'd like Jed to answer, since he seems pretty tight with IH.
I have no information on the investigation or the lawsuit. I had only
some of Rossi's data, which was pretty skimpy. It was just 3 items per
day for several days: fake flow rate, pretend pressure of 0.0 bar, and
iffy temperature that magically starts repeating. Everything I knew
about it was revealed in Exhibit 5, along with some things I did not
know.
I knew nothing at all about legal issues, contracts and whatnot.
Frankly, I don't understand that stuff. I have not put much effort into
reading it. The amended Answer has some interesting info. Definitely
worth reading.
You seem to be distancing yourself from IH. You've gone from insider to outsider within just 6 months?
JedRothwell wrote:
You seem to be distancing yourself from IH. You've gone from insider to outsider within just 6 months?
I do not recall Jed ever claiming to be an "insider." Dewey Weaver is an insider, an investor in IH, and clearly privy to much "inside information."
Jed is, however, a "cold fusion insider." I.e., people in the field talk with him, and some reveal confidential information to him.
As a result of the role he has played in the cold fusion community, and in spite of not being a scientist, as such, he is highly knowledgeable in certain areas related to the field. Anyone can do that, develop expertise, by getting involved over a long period.
Jed's opinions are his own, but he is also informed, and I have never seen any thing from him hinting of deception or misrepresentation of what he knows.
Display MoreI get the impression from those involved that this operation was 24/7, although we could certainly use a LOT more information about what was actually going on with what appears to be a large piece of equipment on what appears to be the customer "side." (I understand there is still some uncertainty as to whether the customer "side" was actually in the adjacent warehouse.)
He has also claimed that there were backup units available when other units were being repaired. I think we've hit on this now, probably several times. But you just keep dragging it up don't you.
Again, my impression is that the equipment was in use for the duration of the test.
Oh yes there is.
Please provide proof of the water service line is 2 inches, and that it is much too small. Also, bear in mind, the water cooling may have been implemented in combination with an air-cooling system. (Yes, yes, I know, IH never detected any heat from or around the building--but the evidence for that claim is quite lacking, at least at this point.)
I suppose the size of the air cooling equipment would be proportional to the amount of cooling attributed to air cooling equipment versus water cooling.
Those photographs are pretty skimpy on details. It shows sections of the space, that you claim aren't even the customer "side." It also doesn't show what was outside of the building. The time the photos were taken is also not disclosed.
It might not have been to hide anything, but more a matter of convenience or necessity.
As Abd pointed out, if all heat was removed by water, it would be about $5k per month, which is well within the scope of the costs involved with this test. Since there were probably air cooling techniques used as well, the cost would naturally be less.
The water warmed from 13C to 75C at 1 MW/second is 3.66 gallons per second.
There must have been an "heat on demand" relationship between the customer and the reactor such that the demand for heat varied with the "maximum heat production rate" being limited to 3.66 gallons per second. Rossi's reactor control mechanism must self throttle to reduce heat production based on demand. The reactor must automatically reduce power production based on the heat required by the customer on a heat required per second basis.
This must be true because the customer was billed by IH for the amount of heat consumed.
The high power rating of the reactor provides fast water warmup. This would have produced a high productivity capability to the customer by reducing water process warmup time.
Somebody should ask Rossi if this speculation on steam volume control is true.
Somebody should ask Rossi if this speculation on steam volume control is true.
"Should" could imply moral imperative, whereas at this point, a compassionate moral imperative would be to leave the guy alone, he needs to talk with his attorney and any other counselors he trusts. We do not need to know anything about the details of how the heat was dissipated, if it was. This is all kibbitzing, and I get the impression of a guy being kicked while he's down. By his "friends."
You seem to be distancing yourself from IH. You've gone from insider to outsider within just 6 months?
I never was an insider, and I never claimed I was. Except insofar as they gave me an advanced look at some of Rossi's data. That was before the lawsuit. I believe they were planning to publish it. I was not happy to be stuck knowing about it and not able to discuss it. Fortunately, everything I know (and more) came out in Exhibit 5. As I described before, you can easily make a facsimile of it. You just need three numbers per day:
Flow rate 36,000 kg/day, pressure 0.0 bar, temperature 102 deg C plus or minus 2. Use a random number generator for the temperature and Bob's your uncle. For no apparent reason you subtract 10% of the flow, and also from time to time fill in several days with the same temperature.
It is bogus nonsense, so the facsimile is as good as the original.
There must have been an "heat on demand" relationship between the customer and the reactor such that the demand for heat varied with the "maximum heat production rate" being limited to 3.66 gallons per second. Rossi's reactor control mechanism must self throttle to reduce heat production based on demand.
Wrong. Rossi's data shows almost exactly the same level of heat production every day for the entire test. Even on days when Rossi himself said the reactor was turned off and disassembled, his records show that it produced a steady 1 MW. So there was no control on demand.
Of course, Rossi's data is impossible and manifestly fake. He actually only produced ~20 kW. But if you are going to indulge in a fantasy, you should stick to the pretend information that Rossi gave you. When you do an analysis of Harry Potter you don't get to make up new characters or magic powers not described in the book. When you discuss Rossi's preposterous claims and you make up imaginary justifications for them, you have to stick to his claims, and those claims rule out heat on demand.
Wrong. Rossi's data shows almost exactly the same level of heat production every day for the entire test. Even on days when Rossi himself said the reactor was turned off and disassembled, his records show that it produced a steady 1 MW. So there was no control on demand.
Of course, Rossi's data is impossible and manifestly fake. He actually only produced ~20 kW. But if you are going to indulge in a fantasy, you should stick to the pretend information that Rossi gave you. When you do an analysis of Harry Potter you don't get to make up new characters or magic powers not described in the book. When you discuss Rossi's preposterous claims and you make up imaginary justifications for them, you have to stick to his claims, and those claims rule out heat on demand.
your assumption is that the water circuit is the same as the steam circuit. If the two circuits are different, then the flow meter says nothing about the amount of steam produced.
By the way, IMHO, no industrial heat boiler is restricted to producing a constant amount of heat. These units are heat on demand systems.
waiting for it...
