Doc. 235, a response in opposition to plaintiffs' motion, now on the docket, together with its exhibits (shown in reverse order):
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
There are many problems that Rossi must overcome in his attack against IH to prove his case. (remember IH must be assumed innocent with a preponderance of evidence).
But I will start with two big ones:
a) show documents to verify that it was indeed the GPT that was agreed upon by all three involved and with an agreed upon start time.
and
b) Why Rossi did not use a real customer as was signed and verified by Johnson as "independent" and why he did not continue the sell of the heat for the 2 years that were originally claimed for the manufacture of a product (as claimed).
-
to IHSupporter
answering with questions:
a) If the 1 year test was NOT the GPT then why this litigation was not over in a few days? Even IH does not seem to insist on this line
b) Taking in account that it is not easy to find a collaborative Customer and considering what I wrote at pointb) in my editorial of
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…ntentional-idalistic.html
what is more important- a successful test or a n independent Customer with his own schedule and programs. The technology works ut there still are problems and surprises
My opinion
peter
-
From 235-07 of the Court Docket, Rossi "injects" the fuel in his reactors? It almost seems like he's talking about a liquid.
QuoteDisplay More
Q. You changed the fuel in some of the reactors?
A. Not changed but made some test, some injections.
Q. I'm not quite sure what that means. Does that mean you took samples of it or did you make --
A. No, the contrary. The contrary. I have injected some materials to make tests, to make experiments.
Q. You have extracted some of the fuel from the E-Cat reactors to run other experiments?
MR. ANNESSER: Object to form.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PACE:
Q. I'm missing it. I'm sorry.
A. The contrary. I have injected. To [...](document ends here)
-
However, what size pipe Rossi used to deliver his water/steam is unknown because he removed it. It will I hope be clear even to IHFB that asking Rossi what this is now will not generate an answer that can be relied upon. Since this matter proves nothing there is no point pursuing it. IHFB does this under the mistaken apprehension that it shows the nefarious motives of IH. Everyone has heard the evidence and can judge that for themselves.
According to Dewey, they took careful pictures and measurements of all pipes. So apparently it was and is known. And exposing the DN40 claim for what it was is important, because it accompanies a track record of IH putting out misleading information.
-
Some of these people also have no intention of real discussion and learning. Their mind is set, made up and decided upon....
You might wish to take a peek in the mirror! Because that is how I perceive you and others on this forum. In contrast, I am here with intention of real discussion and learning, and have not made up my mind nor decided upon.
-
exhibit 10 !!!!! pictures, windows, no pipes, equipment
-
He does not question but does not state it was larger. You cannot assume it was larger just because you want to. I do not see it in evidence.
So you are really going to stick with the single DN40 output pipe story? I think you and Jed are probably the only ones left here that are that willing. Even Dewey backed off from that claim.
-
Display More
to IHSupporter
answering with questions:
a) If the 1 year test was NOT the GPT then why this litigation was not over in a few days? Even IH does not seem to insist on this line
b) Taking in account that it is not easy to find a collaborative Customer and considering what I wrote at pointb) in my editorial of
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…ntentional-idalistic.html
what is more important- a successful test or a n independent Customer with his own schedule and programs. The technology works ut there still are problems and surprises
My opinion
peter
Remember this thread is about the law suit Rossi vs Darden not about if LENR is real. So the answer is about what Rossi must do to prove his case attacking Darden.
-
So you are really going to stick with the single DN40 output pipe story? I think you and Jed are probably the only ones left here that are that willing. Even Dewey backed off from that claim.
As usual you try to twist things.
I never said that there is a single DN40 pipe, only that there is no evidence what it is, so you musty defer to the fact Rossi must prove his case against IH. He is the one that must show proof. You continue to make claims with out evidence.
What do you now say about the window after seeing exhibit 10 from the investigator's Nov 2015 pics.?
-
I never said that there is a single DN40 pipe, only that there is no evidence what it is,Well, now there is, from IH's other expert! He measured it at 4.5 inches, and with a total pressure drop of only 0.5 PSI! 235-10, page 7. So much for Exhibit 5's hilarious FUD.
-
Exhibit 235-10 is interesting and shows lots of pipes, gives pipe sizes (4.5 inch pipe), shows pictures of equipment etc. He concedes a pressure drop of only 0.5 PSI. Admits that the piping must have been in vacuum to move the steam, then concludes (without basis) that there can be no steam flow regardless of pipe size. He apparently does not understand the concept of a pump to pump the condensate back to the e-Cat side. Boy, this discussion sounds familiar. THH recall our very discussion on this?
-
Exhibit 235-10.
A very thorough and well documented report. Anyone who criticizes this report without substantiating their claims with relevant calculations and firm data and only uses wild conjecture and ad ho·mi·nem, is quite sad. What a pity.
A first review of the report answers many things discussed of late, both with physical evidence, photos and solid calculations.
No heat exchanger amongst other things.
Yes, the outlet pipe is larger than DN40! However, it makes absolutely no difference and the data and math is there to prove it.
People should read this exhibit for themselves. Do not take my word (or others) .
-
Exhibit 235-10 is interesting and shows lots of pipes, gives pipe sizes (4.5 inch pipe), shows pictures of equipment etc. He concedes a pressure drop of only 0.5 PSI. Admits that the piping must have been in vacuum to move the steam, then concludes (without basis) that there can be no steam flow regardless of pipe size. He apparently does not understand the concept of a pump to pump the condensate back to the e-Cat side. Boy, this discussion sounds familiar. THH recall our very discussion on this?
yes, 4.5 inches is now in evidence via today's posted Exhibit 10 You can use that, but it will not help your case much.
again, what do you make of the window pic of Nov 2015?
-
But wait, there's more! The author of Exhibit 235-10 does in fact admit that there was a pump, apparently found by Murray, on the JMP side. Since the pump is a water pump, he assumes that the entire system was piping water, and that there is no steam! (This despite the state inspector, a disinterested witness, testifying that he observed a steam leak.)
-
again, what do you make of the window pic of Nov 2015?I think the unnamed "investigator" who allegedly took the photo "during" October, 2015 needs to be deposed or placed on the witness stand and questioned. Other than that, if the photo is authentic and was taken when alleged, I think it is damaging to Rossi.
-
Exhibit 235-10 is interesting and shows lots of pipes, gives pipe sizes (4.5 inch pipe), shows pictures of equipment etc. He concedes a pressure drop of only 0.5 PSI. Admits that the piping must have been in vacuum to move the steam, then concludes (without basis) that there can be no steam flow regardless of pipe size. He apparently does not understand the concept of a pump to pump the condensate back to the e-Cat side. Boy, this discussion sounds familiar. THH recall our very discussion on this?
IHFB, you seem to not have read the report. You assert, without basis, that Smith 'concludes (without basis)' that there can be no steam.
You're not scoring any bases with your baseless assertions of Smith's baselessness.
Mr. Smith provides a lot of basis for his conclusion that there can be no steam (and he has 42 years of experience in steam systems). Here is an excerpt of IH's expert witness Smith's analysis from 235-10 in italics below:
In the current case, the “steam” pressure is 0 bar, gauge (atmospheric pressure). The saturation
temperature of the steam leaving the BF units is 100° C. To reach the reported temperatures of 103° C to
105° C, some type of superheater needs to be installed in the “steam” outlet. In point of fact, all steam
superheaters are pipes which take steam from the boiler drum and heat the steam externally to the boiler
drum.
The construction of the BF units precludes the use of internal superheaters. All the heating elements ofthe BF units are submerged in water, which means that they can only generate saturated “steam”. Since
there are no heating elements above the alleged water line, there can be no internal superheat. Are there
external superheaters on the BF units?
[Three very detailed, annotated photos are presented to answer this question. This is followed by his conclusion from the photographic evidence]
As the photos of the BF units illustrate, there are no superheaters, thus there can be no superheated steam.
Because of this, Mr. Penon’s reported steam temperature numbers are not valid, thus his whole report is invalid.
Now, you may disagree with IH's expert witness, but careful analysis of Exhibit 10 (Doc 235) utterly contradicts your assertion that Smith's conclusion that there was no steam is 'baseless'. Smith carefully lays out his reasoning in 22 pages of written and photographic analysis.
(Welcome back
) -
It's Smith's opinion that there was no steam, based on a load of assumptions.
It's the state inspector's testimony that there was steam, based on his personal observation.
But let's assume for a moment that Smith was right, and there was no steam, and the system was just pushing around hot water. Then as Para has calculated, the system still produces COPs that are sufficient to pass the required COPs of the GPT.
-
Smith in 235-10, page 10 states:
"The author believes that Mr. Rossi has stated that the pipes (6” nominal) from the black box to the mezzanine heat exchanger went through the door to the mezzanine."
He then shows a picture of the door to the mezzanine that doesn't show pipes.
However, I've searched through all of Rossi's depositions (including JMP, etc.) and can't find where Rossi ever mentions that the pipes go through the door to the mezzanine. Of course, we only have excerpts of the depositions.
-
This exhibit, 235-10, is extremely informative. Now, for the first time, we have photographs of the 'Black Box' on the 'JMP' side of the plant, as well as photographs taken from a high enough angle to see into both sides of the warehouse.
This setup is just unbelievably 'hoaky'. There are these plywood partitions (with no ceilings) to separate the two areas, which we now know was entirely conceived by, controlled, and paid for by Rossi.
We now know that all those written claims that the super secret customer wouldn't let IH or anyone else see the JMP side were fabrications of Rossi.
We now know with near certainty how Rossi defrauded IH: by circulating hot water and making it appear that it was steam.
We now know with near certainty that Rossi perjured himself in testifying that there was a 'heat exchanger' on the mezzanine level: no lights, a door less than two feet wide only attainable by a rickety ladder, inadequate electrical service to support alleged large ventilation fans, no discernible entryway or exit for any pipes, wires, or ducts needed to the alleged 'heat exchanger', pictures taken in Feb. 2016 on the day after the 'end of the test' showing no pipes to the mezzanine, Florida Power and Light records showing that the electrical consumption of the E-Cat (even as described by Penon) contradicts that there was sufficient electrical consumption by any ventilation fans to exhaust the alleged .85 MW hot air out windows, windows that are clearly glazed in photographs at the start, in the middle, and on conclusion of the test, no billing records for any components or labor of the 'heat exchanger' despite records for billing, expenses, and witnesses (West and others) for other construction activities.
From my perspective, Rossi really 'jumped the shark' with the mezzanine 'heat exchanger' testimony (under oath).
If proven that there was no heat exchanger (and the evidence is mounting rapidly), he's put himself at risk for jail time.
But maybe he can sleep on Fabiani's couch in Moscow, instead.
