Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

DNI,

We have no evidence that the pressure reading is 0 barG. That is the assumption being thrown around. But we don't even know what instrument was used to measure the pressure. Some have pointed to a test plan. But test plans can be altered or not followed once the actual implementation is carried out. Not enough info to draw hard conclusions.

Edit: we do have this statement from Exhibit 5:

"You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia)."

@THHuxleynew

Uh, yeah. If there is a diverter tube that entirely skips the heat exchange, and the reservoir, and plugs right back into the e-cat reactors, then that would be a way to cheat. We are down to two possibilities: the data is correct, or Rossi is committing fraud. Because even if the water just reached 100 C and never even underwent a phase change, and even if the pressure is 0 and not 1 atm, then the COP would still have satisfied the terms of the agreement.

Quote from IH Fanboy

DNI,

We have no evidence that the pressure reading is 0 barG. That is the assumption being thrown around. But we don't even know what instrument was used to measure the pressure. Some have pointed to a test plan. But test plans can be altered or not followed once the actual implementation is carried out. Not enough info to draw hard conclusions. So if the measured pressure translates to 1 atm, then your conjecture is incorrect.

"But test plans can be altered or not followed once the actual implementation is carried out"

but if they did not follow the test plan, how can they claim it was an approved GPT even by estoppel.\

Quote from IH Fanboy

@THHuxleynew

Uh, yeah. If there is a diverter tube that entirely skips the heat exchange, and the reservoir, and plugs right back into the e-cat reactors, then that would be a way to cheat. We are down to two possibilities: the data is correct, or Rossi is committing fraud. Because even if the water just reached 100 C and never even underwent a phase change, and even if the pressure is 0 and not 1 atm, then the COP would still have satisfied the terms of the agreement.

"Because even if the water just reached 100 C and never even underwent a phase change, and even if the pressure is 0 and not 1 atm, then the COP would still have satisfied the terms of the agreement."

Not true the agreement required:
"....plant consistently produced energy that is at least four. times greater than the energy consumed by the plant and that the temperature of the steam produced by the piant was consistently 100 degrees Celsius or greater. Paragraph 5.

reread the agreement before you make such strange claims. You seem to be "shooting from the hip" again.

Question: there has been some uncertainty regarding the pipe size/type. Exhibit 5 states it was DN40. Can someone point me to any evidence that corroborates this size?

@oldguy

Okay, fair point. Replace where I said 100 C with 100.1 C (no not that value again!), and replace where I said water with the word steam, and my point stands. And even if the water didn't undergo a phase change, and didn't meet the terms of the agreement, Rossi still would have created one of the most important inventions of our time, worthy of a Nobel prize.

Thanks for your reply THH.

So I understand your point is that if someone wanted to trick the system they could do this rather than the water getting into the steam pipe by some design fault.

I must admit I'm not enough expert on the numbers if it could be tricked that way but I guess some here are.

My personal view is still very doubtful about deliberate fraud though. And I think both sides are also most likely very careful to present the data in court more or less accurately as they see it. But I accept that's my own view.

But although I hold to a different view from you I understand your curiosity in seeing how it could be tricked.

Hi Stephen

I keep an open mind about deliberate. Rossi's history of demos is quite something. They have glaring defects, some, like Lugano, really quite astonishing. Who can say whether this is deliberate? I can say it would be in character for Rossi to insist that an obviously wrong setup was in fact perfectly OK and call anyone questioning that a snake.

The way I see it is that Rossi has a very loose grasp of the importance of test integrity. He will apply equations making assumptions (like 100% phase change) that are most obviously wrong.

Remember the suit is not about verifying LENR or getting a Nobel. It is him attacking IH. It is about if he did what he promised by contract (transferring IP, starting in a timely manner, following protocols, getting proper signatures and/or permissions, paying taxes, and so on). He will never get a Nobel without working with others and doing the "right" things to bring good and benefits to others. You don't get a Nobel from hiding technology from others.

oldguy

If the e-Cat works as claimed, I really don't care about IH, the suit, or whether Rossi deserves a Nobel. None of it really matters in the end. The world changes.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Question: there has been some uncertainty regarding the pipe size/type. Exhibit 5 states it was DN40. Can someone point me to any evidence that corroborates this size?

On the old plant, there were two steam outlets, wrapped in foil. They looked like This: and like This when naked:

Quote from StephenC

Its mentioned I think somewhere that DN40 pipe is used for the steam pipe. Do we know the source of this?

I'm wondering if "schedule 40" pipe was actually meant.

The source for the pipe size diameter (DN40 = 40mm) is Exhibit 5 of IH's counterclaims:
https://drive.google.com/file/…19-wyOTVVVkVva3AxZ1k/view
(And no, Murray is not talking about Schedule40, but DN40)

And if you read the postings here (e.g. the last one from DNI) then you would have seen the screenshot from a calculation which illustrates that you can't push 1500 kg/hour steam (@ 0barg) through a 40mm diameter 6m long pipe.
Just do your own calculation:
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/c…-loss-through-piping.html
And by the way, the 477m/s steam velocity equals to 1067 mph (supersonic speed)!

@Paradigmnoia

Thanks for those. I'm having a hard time perceiving the proportions of the pipe from those photos. Would have been great to have Levi's hand shown next to the naked pipe to at least give some kind of reference point. DN40 is ~1.9 inches outside diameter. Which to me doesn't make much sense to use that sized pipe for a 1MW system. And even going to DN50 (~2.37 inches outer diameter) results in a huge drop in pressure loss through the piping. And, of course, these are pictures of the old plant, so while an assumption could be made that it is similar to the newer plant, we are again up against the wall with assumptions. Really look forward to finding out more details of the setup.

42 "And by the way, the 477m/s steam velocity equals to 1067 mph (supersonic speed)!"

The noise level must have been unbearable

Also, I wonder what is the erosion rate of a steel pipe with steam moving that fast through it.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Thanks for those. I'm having a hard time perceiving the proportions of the pipe from those photos

Here's the other end, naked:

(I might have a better one with Levi's hand on the valve handle)

@Forty-Two

"(And no, Murray is not talking about Schedule40, but DN40)"

I agree that the author of Exhibit 5 is "talking" about DN40. But if the author is Murray (an apparent non-expert in these matters), then it would be nice to have some corroboration that the piping was really DN40.

On this website some more detailed pictures from the "old 1MW plant" steam pipe.

http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/950…r_Gets_A_New_E-Cat_Model/

When you know that the width of a standard container is about 2.4m, then it's quite clear from that picture that the steam pipe is only about DN40.

In case that you don't believe, you could ask Mats Lewan if he has higher resulotion photos. Normally the DN value is stamped into the valve flanges. - So, also for Murray it shouldn't have been any proplem to verify the pipe size.

Here:

Yep - which brings back memories of this classic from StephenRenzzz... I miss him:

lenr-forum.com/attachment/1250/

Para - I was under the impression that we still have no idea on the "other side" of the Doral plant and maybe this photo is something he used for a different demo.

Also that one radiator would barely cool my big block R.V. I am sure it would not cool a MW.

On a completely separate note, there still seems so many questions on this case remaining. I hope that Matts Lewan is keeping notes for a book. IMHO this may be turning off investors but I do not think it is turning off the search for CF.