# Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

• Measurement of the width of the shipping container in the picture with a ruler: ~12.8 cm or ~128 mm.

Measurement of the pipe in the picture with a ruler: ~5mm

So the pipe diameter / container width ratio is ~0.039.

Standard shipping container width: 2.438 meters or 2438 mm.

So the naked pipe appears to have a diameter of: 95 mm.

That ain't no DN40 pipe. Even if we are conservative and say the pipe in the picture is only ~3mm, it would still appear to have an outer diameter of 57 mm, which would be pretty close to DN50 piping.

• Maybe working out the size of the corrugations on the container is more accurate:

## Images

• The front face of each corrugation (not counting the slanted sidewalls) is about 6mm in the picture that I posted above, which is actually 1 mm more than my 5 mm high-estimate for the pipe width. The pipe width appears to be about the same as the width of the front face of each corrugation in your pictures. So using the corrugations as a guide seems to support my estimates above.

• What do you mean? The values in the report could be 0 bar absolute or 0 bar relative (barG). Zero bar absolute (vacuum) makes no sense at all so it's either 0 barG or the pressure meter is not working. The pressure meter specified in the test plan measure bar absolute so that must be wrong.

But I don't think you get my point. With a 6 m DN40 pipe you need at least 1.42 bar abs in one end of the pipe even if you have vacuum (0 bar abs) in the other end. And if we have 1.42 bar and 104 degrees Celsius then there is no steam then it's water. Something must be wrong, either the the pipe was wider than DN40, shorter than 6m, the flow lower than 36 000 kg/day, the temperature higher than 104 degrees or there was no steam.

• I had guessed it was a 2" pipe (not the fittings) in the past. OD.

Here is the best one I have of the markings on the fitting...

## Images

Edited once, last by Paradigmnoia ().

• Purely eye-balling it, I can understand how you might think it is about 2 inches. But using my more quantitative method (although admittedly, there is some degree of eye-balling involved), I estimate it is well over 3 inches OD, naked pipe, not including the fittings.

• Something must be wrong, either the the pipe was wider than DN40, shorter than 6m, the flow lower than 36 000 kg/day, the temperature higher than 104 degrees or there was no steam.

Well said, and I can agree with this. I think the DN40 pipe is the most likely to be incorrect.

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

• Why are you guys spending all this time analyzing the old reactor pipes? Pictures were taken and pipes were measured in Doral and R will be learning about what the experts have to say soon enough. Those radiators should do look familiar though.

By the way, do you think Rossi will be able to find an expert to testify on behalf of his "masterpiece"?

Lastly, the theme song on Planet Rossi for this weekend "To Dream the Impossible Dream".

• Why are you guys spending all this time analyzing the old reactor pipes?

Because that is about all we have to go by.

Quote

Pictures were taken and pipes were measured in Doral

So you are confirming that there was a single steam exit DN40 pipe?

Quote

Those radiators should do look familiar though.

So you have seen the customer side, and you saw those radiators there and nothing else?

Quote

By the way, do you think Rossi will be able to find an expert to testify on behalf of his "masterpiece"?

Maybe not. Does that make you feel smug? Like you are a huge supporter of LENR?

• Official Post

I can see now why Rossi went to such great lengths, and deceptions to have the 1MW used...instead of a single Ecat, or "6 cylinder" the contract required, for what he claims to be the GPT. More bells and whistles, plumbing, meters, gauges, TCs, more space needed, electric bills, just gave him more room to mask, or confuse whatever his deception was. Easier to get lost trying to sort it all out. Tailored made for a jury, or gullible partner.

It seems to have worked too, as from the data just released, everyone here seems stumped. Even TTH thinks it is uncorrupted, although admittedly, he and others feel more info is needed to figure out what the trick is...if there is indeed a trick?

Any ideas? If IH has to go in front of a jury and admit the data looks good, but the 1MW could not have worked because there was no where for 1MW thermal to dissipate, they may be in big trouble.

• Because that is about all we have to go by.

No, that's not we have to go by.
We have the statement from Murray in Exhibit 5 - which says that the pipe from the 1MW plant to the "customer side" was 6m DN40.

• I agree that you have to believe the author of Exhibit 5 (whether that was Murray or IH's lawyers) that there was a single DN40 pipe going from the 1 MW plant to the "customer" side. We have no photographic corroboration or otherwise at this point.

• And what's more, the 'old' photos seem to show a properly sized steam pipe. Just about.

• Purely eye-balling it, I can understand how you might think it is about 2 inches. But using my more quantitative method (although admittedly, there is some degree of eye-balling involved), I estimate it is well over 3 inches OD, naked pipe, not including the fittings.

What was your more quantitative method? There appears to be a 2 on the valve.

• Please see a further up the thread. I do agree that there appears to be a 2 on the valve. Bear in mind that DN dimensions are generally expressed in mm not inches. It is interesting to note, however, that a DN50 pipe has a nearly 2 inch bore. I think the pipe in the old plant is probably a DN80, based on my measurements above.

• And what's more, the 'old' photos seem to show a properly sized steam pipe. Just about.

No, a properly sized steam pipe would be DN100 or larger.
Even the photos from the "old container" certainly don't show a DN100 pipe (rather DN50 at max)

• No, a properly sized steam pipe would be DN100 or larger.
Even the photos from the "old container" certainly don't show a DN100 pipe (rather DN50 at max)

I respectfully disagree. The pressure loss using a DN80 pipe would be minuscule. At atmospheric pressure, a steam flow rate of 1500 kg/h, and a 6 meter long pipe, the loss would be 0.98 psi. And from my measurements above, the pipe in the old plant was probably DN80.

• I respectfully disagree. The pressure loss using a DN80 pipe would be minuscule. At atmospheric pressure, a steam flow rate of 1500 kg/h, and a 6 meter long pipe, the loss would be 0.98 psi. And from my measurements above, the pipe in the old plant was probably DN80.

For steam piping, the recommended steam velocity is 80 ft/sec.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…ng-steam-pipes-d_266.html
The velocity of 1500kg/h steam @0 barg through a DN80 pipe is 428 ft/sec. - Certainly no properly sizing.
And anyway, it's not a DN80 pipe.

## SPEAKERS ON LENR AND FUTURE ENERGY

Would you like to know more about LENR, aka 'cold fusion'? This is the real scientific discovery that won't go away. One-third of a century of research by scientists in over a dozen countries has shown that LENR is both an exciting new science and a potentially important source of clean energy that can provide uniquely zero-carbon zero waste power to the poorest and the richest people in the world, it is the future of distributed energy. If you want to know more, LENR-Forum working with the ISCMNS can find expert speakers on this topic for your conference, anywhere in the world. Simply click here to contact us.