Well, one doesn't get shadows on not-glass. Look at the top of the window glass/holes in the various window images.
I don't understand what you mean by this. One gets shadows on screens, which are not-glass. That said, I think the Google photos are inconclusive whether panes are missing or not. Whereas Smith's photo clearly (to me) shows two missing panes.
The google photos are not inconclusive. At least not all of them. But then you claim they put in and took the windows out again. Which is true for when Wong showed up.
The google photos are not inconclusive. At least not all of them. But then you claim they put in and took the windows out again. Which is true for when Wong showed up.
Yes, I suppose there were re-configurations happening throughout the year.
BTW, the photo you linked to is from 2015, which was before the test even began.
BTW, the photo you linked to is from 2016, which was after the test had been completed.
I thought I linked here: July 2016
Anyways, I am busy building a NOG-Z...
BTW, the photo you linked to is from 2015, which was before the test even began.
Rossi says he installed the 2nd story heat-exchanger near the beginning of February 2015 and then took it down almost immediately after the test ended near the end of February 2016. The test itself began on Feb 23 2015.
@Para,
I stand corrected. Brain fart. That photo IS from July 2016, about five months AFTER the test had been completed. And that is what the window looks like with four panels present. As you can see, it is quite different from how Smith's photo looks, which was taken DURING the one year test.
During the test...
@Para,
I stand corrected. Brain fart. That photo IS from July 2016, about five months AFTER the test had been completed. And that is what the window looks like with four panels present. As you can see, it is quite different from how Smith's photo looks, which was taken DURING the one year test.
These windows look different from the Smith photo in every picture I have seen of them so that mean nothing. The Smith photo show all 4 panes in place but reflecting different things. The 2 panes on the right show a reflected trunk of a palm tree and the 2 on the left show the reflection of a mass of dark leaves in the tree beside the palm tree (you can see some of the dark leaves reflected in the right hand panes).
These windows look different from the Smith photo in every picture I have seen of them so that mean nothing. The Smith photo show all 4 panes in place but reflecting different things. The 2 panes on the right show a reflected trunk of a palm tree and the 2 on the left show the reflection of a mass of dark leaves in the tree beside the palm tree (you can see some of the dark leaves reflected in the right hand panes).
If I gaze at it long enough I can entertain your interpretation of what you see. But sorry, can't embrace it.
To me the Smith report photo has Rossi taking a photo of the window photographer, in the lower LH pane.
@Para,
I stand corrected. Brain fart. That photo IS from July 2016, about five months AFTER the test had been completed. And that is what the window looks like with four panels present. As you can see, it is quite different from how Smith's photo looks, which was taken DURING the one year test.
Sorry, I am not following your timeline. I thought the panels were not replaced till almost a year after the runs. That is the repair crew did not replace the glass till then but now you say the windows were present between the time of the end of the runs and claimed replacement times.
If you now say that the panels were present in July what does that do to your Wrong explanation's?
Can you give a recap of what you are claiming as the window time line? When test started, when exchanger turned on, when the windows were or when they were not there, when they were repaired?
It is not my timeline. The timeline is what it is. I don't know when panels were put in the window or taken out as I wasn't there. As I've suggested before, I would suppose that there would be reconfigs before, during, and after the test.
IHFB,
You know you have lost the argument when you are forced to say: "it is what it is". Lame! Especially so for you, who can make a case out of the littlest advantage. You would have made a great lawyer, but even the best would have dropped the window pane defense long ago, and focused on other strengths. And you do have some.
@Shane,
I don't generally bring it up. Bob brought it up this time. Admittedly, the window evidence is not the greatest. I've always felt (and have stated many times) that the presence (or lack thereof) of the heat exchanger in the mezzanine was probably Rossi's weakest link.
I just happen to be able to comprehend details where others might not. For example, Jed seems pretty certain that photographic evidence proves that there is no piping running to the mezzanine. But upon closer inspection, the only photographic evidence that we have is cut off near the bottom of the door, once again casting doubt on Jed's position. Jed would also suggest that there were no markings on the mezzanine floor. But upon closer inspection of the extant photographs, there were markings that seem to correspond to a large box being previously present on the floor, and clean areas along near the bottom of the door and bottom of the wall that seem to correlate to a previous presence of pipes, again casting doubt.
Is any of this irrefutable evidence or counter-evidence? Of course not. It's all circumstantial evidence. And boy did we have a ton of that to sift through, with very few silver bullets. Indeed, I don't remember feeling like there was a single silver bullet for either side. No wonder why each side disagreed on about every single point. I remember the judge remarking how unusual it was that the two parties disputed basically every point. And this comports very well and is quite consistent with the overall history of LENR.
IHFB,
Well, you start off admitting the weakness of your upstairs HE arguments, and then go on to dig a deeper hole. Yes, you can "comprehend details" others can not, but that does not mean your comprehension is perfect.
You have made other good points, that I thought were very impressive in light of what you have to work with.
Take care.
@Shane,
I must say, you are the master of underhanded compliments. 
IHFB,
A critic can point out the strengths of a movie, and the weaknesses, and not be accused of an "underhanded compliment". Many here, including me, have given you your due. You honestly have little to work with, as most here have said, and do a very good job of it. There may actually be something to Rossi, and we shall see shortly.
But those window panes...
Shane: "There may actually be something to Rossi, and we shall see shortly."
I think the safest thing that one can say about the forthcoming Rossi event is that it will change absolutely nothing. I'm sure there will be wild and dramatic assertions from all quarters in the wake of the demo for a little while but within weeks we will be back to the same pointless bickering between those who believe in spite of everything and those who can't understand why anybody would. So, in the big picture, I am confident that we will see very little shortly.
@IO,
I agree that the demo will do little if anything to change the present status quo.
