Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

I feel like the burden of evidence has been incorrectly reversed, which is the only thing that allows the discussion of these details to seem half normal.

Quote from Eric Walker

If a window looks opaque from one angle, perhaps it shows a reflection from another angle around the same time.

I agree it would be helpful for someone to gather all the photos and group them by date. But, when a photo that is taken straight on has two panes from a window clearly in place and two panes from a window clearly missing (the very window in which Rossi testified that two section of the window were used for venting), it is hard to blame this on clouds or angles.

Quote from Eric Walker

But would you agree that if the date of the Smith photo is accurate, we can probably set aside E48's suggestion (as conveyed by joshg) about there being screens in the window specifically above the doors?

Just to be clear, E48 only said there were screens in the middle door. I was the one who then made the observation that there also appeared to be screens instead of glass in the windowpanes above the door, not E48. Although he did seem to agree with me. It doesn't really matter, though, because the state of that window is not in dispute. It's the middle window, and Smith's picture quite clearly shows the top and bottom left panes are not glass, as IHFB astutely pointed out (along with calling out Smith's misdirection). But that still doesn't explain the April 2015 Google Streetview photo that Paradigmnoia dug up, which pretty clearly looks like a reflection.

I will say that In Smith's photo of the windows over the door that you pasted in, it seems to me quite clear that there is NO GLASS in the bottom left pane. All the others are reflecting quite clearly except for that one. I don't think it follows that if there was glass in the other panes in November that there was glass in them in April. He could have removed them and replaced them once he realized they would not be needed. I'm not saying that's what happened. I don't even think it's likely that it happened. But as a matter of logic, I don't think it necessarily follows.

Quote from IH Fanboy

But, when a photo that is taken straight on has two panes from a window clearly in place and two panes from a window clearly missing

It would obviously be a tendentious assertion to assert that the windows are clearly missing and not simply not reflecting from the specific angle of the camera:

But, to the heart of the matter: does anyone supposing that the panes are missing suspect that there is 0.75 - 1 MW heat being vented through that window?

Here is another view previously posted by Para, with annotations added:

This is consistent with what we see in the photo included in Smith's report.

And entirely and obviously consistent with there being glass in the window as well, including in the area you've annotated as "No Pane".

Quote from Eric Walker

And entirely and obviously consistent with there being glass in the window as well, including in the area you've annotated as "No Pane".

Eric, I'm surprised that you are pushing back so hard on this. Look at the pane labeled as "no pane." Then look at the one immediately to the right and look at the reflection pattern. If there were a "pane" in the "no pane" section, you would see a similar reflection.

It's quite easy to see that that could be glass, and to assert that it is clearly not glass is tendentious. Change the angle of the camrea and all of those windows will look quite different. We can concede the academic point that whether there's glass in that specific window in that specific photo is inconclusive.

Now let's assume for the sake of argument that there is no glass: does that look like the likely outlet for 0.5 – 1.0 MW process heat, or an inlet vent for the air rushing in to replace the air that must be leaving?

Quote from IH Fanboy

Look at the pane labeled as "no pane." Then look at the one immediately to the right and look at the reflection pattern. If there were a "pane" in the "no pane" section, you would see a similar reflection.

I am looking at the door/window at the lower left coner of your photo, and don't see any reflection neither, although we may be sure that there is glass in it.

Oh, for heavens's sake! Look at all the windows in the complex, from few different angles.

Some look 'missing', some look reflective, some have something behind the glass.

And then move to another viewpoint along the street view, and suddenly the "missing-looking', reflective, stuff behind, etc. looks a little different.

It's not like all the tenants were busy popping out and quickly replacing windows as the Google car drove by, just to confuse us.

Just moving up the road a bit to the right of Rossi, there are windows looking exactly the same and I'm sure there's no steam venting out of them

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Just moving up the road a bit to the right of Rossi, there are windows looking exactly the same and I'm sure there's no steam venting out of them.

Maybe Rossi needed more space for secret experiments, bought them, and what we are seeing is steam evidence of those experiments? He could even have run a subterranean steam pipe all the way to the other premises using one of those robotic pipe diggers. That explains how the 1MW was dissipated. He had a whole local heating system going.

Now I think about it - this serendipitous steam evidence from an adjacent window could be the key to the whole mystery.

If 1mW of heat where flowing out of a window, I would think that there would be wavy resolution around the window. Have you ever looked across a hot car and noticed how there is "atmospheric distortion"? As an amateur astronomer, "atmospheric distortion" is often a problem in getting good photos.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Maybe Rossi needed more space for secret experiments, bought them, and what we are seeing is steam evidence of those experiments? He could even have run a subterranean steam pipe all the way to the other premises using one of those robotic pipe diggers. That explains how the 1MW was dissipated. He had a whole local heating system going.

Now I think about it - this serendipitous steam evidence from an adjacent window could be the key to the whole mystery.

Anyone remember when the Pepsi Co plant close by was a favorite for using up the steam?

A steam tunnel to Pepsi solves a host of heat dissipating problems

I did some investigation of the two 'glass' trucks in Wongs picture, 197-01 Exhibit A-2

It's High Service Glass at 305-231-4897

http://highserviceglassfl.com/

"If you have an emergency glass repair, contact us! Our service will get to your house or business within 30 minutes. "

(Smith did say it was an extremely rapid demolition).

Edit : Glass truck photo :

Doorway to customer area, contrast enhanced to show the "4 pipes" ... Like Smith's, no sign of them coming to the mezzanine.

Try this one:

Back to Prominent Gamma-L : http://www.kmdahl.no/uploads/2…ipment-catalogue-2011.pdf page 1-5

"When metering at atmospheric pressure the pump can achieve several times the stated feed rate" ...

"Several" is more than "Two" ...

DT : I have personally used that model of Prominent pump and at a pressure of 0.2 Bars its flow rate is about 90 liters per hour.

I rate "Three" as "several", so it looks as though the prominents could deliver the required 60 lph, compared to their rated 30.

So a secondary (hidden?) pump is not needed. Nor is E48's dual-flow with its associated problems. However, it's not clear what all the other plumbing around the big frankies is for.

So much for metering...

I read that comment as saying that at atmospheric pressure the Gamma L would deliver AND meter several times the 2-bar rating, not that it would read 30 l/h but deliver 60.