What document # is Rossi's answer? IH mentions exhibit 5 (ex. 5) in paragraphs 72 and 90 in document #50 (second amended answer)
Edit: paragraphs 72 and 89 in the fourth amended answer by IH
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
@DNI
Bull shit? Can you not see that he answered by denial? Do you really believe there was a single DN40 pipe going from the 1 MW plant to the "customer" side? I'll promise you this: if it turns out that there was a single DN40 steam exit pipe from the 1 MW plant, then I will write Rossi and team up as entirely incompetent and the whole thing a sham. But given that the old plant very likely was using DN80 piping, as I demonstrated with hard evidence further up this thread, the chances of the exit pipe in the new plant being DN40 is next to nil.
-
-
@DNI
Bull shit? Can you not see that he answered by denial? Do you really believe there was a single DN40 pipe going from the 1 MW plant to the "customer" side? I'll promise you this: if it turns out that there was a single DN40 steam exit pipe from the 1 MW plant, then I will write Rossi and team up as entirely incompetent and the whole thing a sham. But given that the old plant very likely was using DN80 piping, as I demonstrated with hard evidence further up this thread, the chances of the exit pipe in the new plant being DN40 is next to nil.
I don't think we get any further. I think you might have misunderstood my original question since your answers make no sense to me. -
@DNI
Bull shit? Can you not see that he answered by denial? Do you really believe there was a single DN40 pipe going from the 1 MW plant to the "customer" side? I'll promise you this: if it turns out that there was a single DN40 steam exit pipe from the 1 MW plant, then I will write Rossi and team up as entirely incompetent and the whole thing a sham. But given that the old plant very likely was using DN80 piping, as I demonstrated with hard evidence further up this thread, the chances of the exit pipe in the new plant being DN40 is next to nil.
To answer your question. I have no idea what was the diameter of the pipe. But I think IH was entitled to answers to the questions in exhibit 5 before paying $89,000,000. And I think to sue insted of answering the questions is a very strange way to behave. Assuming he had good answers.
My original question was if there is any source that say that Rossi didn't answer the questions in exhibit 5. And I meant before he sued but I missed to say that. -
Dear DNI
I doubt I could take seriously a plant-illiterate who after
a half hour visit in my plant (I had many( would accuse me that the pipes are only half full.
As I have here a diagram accepted by those who wnt to annihilate those results by fantastic arguments-- I will show you why the pipes and the flowmeter could NOT be half empty.
Peter
-
@DNI
I don't know if there is any source of Rossi not answering prior to the lawsuit. As for filing the lawsuit being a strange move, I beg to differ. Rossi knew IH wasn't going to pay. He had sleuthed that out already. And were it not for this lawsuit, none of us would have the insight that we have now. And there is more insight to be gained, which is good for both those who might think it is real, and for those who think it might be a sham. For the wider LENR community, the lawsuit is a win-win, no matter who wins in court.
-
I generally respect your views and usually choose not to challenge you on them, but this one seems a little off. Rossi has stated that the Quark X is being developed in parallel with his larger plant efforts. The interesting thing is, people excoriate Rossi for making public claims about certain things, only to find out later on that he was telling the truth all along. This has happened many times.
If you had an effect like Rossi's, would you also not feel a need to try and miniaturize the device to perhaps fit different use cases? And it heads off the "Rube Goldberg" allegations at the same time.I'm sorry, but I don't believe it. He could be selling the 1MW plant in all kinds of countries. Plus the claims about the functioning are pure fantasy. It has not happened many times that he has shown something to be functioning. There is not one clear or repeatable method for demonstrating any effect that he has claimed. I excoriate him for using people, hurting them through appealing to their wishes for a better world, and gaining money and delivering nothing. Every test that he has run turned out to appear to be a magnificence, but later was found to be fatally flawed. They are all just for show like the sock puppets on his blog.
If I had developed a real effect (unlikely AR's fake one), I would conduct test after test trying to prove that it doesn't work and listen to every reasonable criticism or alternative explanation (including Mary Yugo). I would not be putting on fake shows of 1mw plants, sock puppets, boasting about fantastical impossible devices, and persecuting a frivolous lawsuit against a partner company that believes it doesn't work. If I couldn't prove my device worked to people who want to believe, then I might have to step back and consider that maybe I made a mistake somewhere along the way. But not AR, if he can't have fame, he'll settle for infamy and try to drag the whole ship down with him.
-
Quote
Bull shit? Can you not see that he answered by denial?
That answer (made by both parties sometimes, but Rossi a lot) is legalese for "I dispute this, you will have to show strong proof". It is an answer to the overall charge, not any specific point. If you want to answer any specific point you can do so with evidence that nullifies it. Rossi, it seems has very little of this.
-
If you want to answer any specific point you can do so with evidence that nullifies it. Rossi, it seems has very little of this.
The answer admits or denies the allegations in the complaint. The evidentiary phase comes later, and is coming. We should all look forward to that.
-
Display More
Dear DNI
I doubt I could take seriously a plant-illiterate who after
a half hour visit in my plant (I had many( would accuse me that the pipes are only half full.
As I have here a diagram accepted by those who wnt to annihilate those results by fantastic arguments-- I will show you why the pipes and the flowmeter could NOT be half empty.
Peter
If you where manager of IH and the engineer you send to investigate the test site returns with some things he find strange and want's answer to. And if you then don't get any answer to those questions from Penon or Rossi. Would you still think - What the heck, I pay $89,000,000 anyway. Maybe my engineer is a fool.
If Rossi needs IH to believe everything works don't you think it would be better to answer the questions even if Rossi thought them to be stupid.
-
@DNI
I don't know if there is any source of Rossi not answering prior to the lawsuit. As for filing the lawsuit being a strange move, I beg to differ. Rossi knew IH wasn't going to pay. He had sleuthed that out already. And were it not for this lawsuit, none of us would have the insight that we have now. And there is more insight to be gained, which is good for both those who might think it is real, and for those who think it might be a sham. For the wider LENR community, the lawsuit is a win-win, no matter who wins in court.
I think IH had informed Rossi that they had their doubts about the performance and that they would not pay unless they got some good answers. But this only me guessing. Do you have any source for your statement that Rossi knew it?
But it still seems very strange behavior to not answer the questions from IH, assuming that Rossi had some good answers. I think it will look quite bad for Rossi if it can be proved in court that Rossi sued instead of answering the questions. If nothing else he gave IH a perfect excuse for not paying.
-
-
As I have here a diagram accepted by those who wnt to annihilate those results by fantastic arguments-- I will show you why the pipes and the flowmeter could NOT be half empty.
This is not complicated.
Look at any fountain. The pipe going up to the top of the fountain is full. The gravity return portion of the pipe that levels out is half empty, or mostly empty. Like this:
Or like this:
See? Half empty. The pipe going up from the pond to the top of this concrete structure is full. The pipe coming out of the concrete structure is half empty. Same pipe, same pipe diameter. How hard is this to understand?
The pipe going from the Rossi reactor to the heat exchanger in the customer site is full. The heat exchanger produces back pressure, which keeps the pipe full, and also prevents the water from boiling. The water leaving the heat exchange at a lower temperature is in a gravity return pipe. That pipe is half empty. It goes into a large plastic tank, which was shown in a photo posted here. As you see in the photo, the tank is not airtight and not pressurized. Therefore, the pipe going into it has to be gravity return.
-
@DNI
I personally think the agreement was poorly drafted. It was destined to end up in a lawsuit. The interests of Rossi and IH were not properly aligned.
Absolutely. I wouldn't have signed it for either IH or Rossi.
For example the Acceptance test gave IH the right to observe and discuss the test with the ERV. The Guaranteed Performance Test did not: as written, if it was the GPT then the ERV's sign-off is all that's needed for the $89M. -
For crying out loud Jed, if the flow rate is constant through a same-sized pipe, it doesn't matter if the pipe is pointing up or down. I suggest you go outside, plug a hose into your spigot, turn it on at a high flow rate, and point the hose downward. Then take a peak and see whether it is half full or not.
-
@DNI
I personally think the agreement was poorly drafted. It was destined to end up in a lawsuit. The interests of Rossi and IH were not properly aligned.
I defintly agree to that. And I have my theory to why it looks like it does. For instance a large sum up front instead of royalties don't give me the impression that Rossi belived it would be a big hit. But this of course is just me speculating 😀
-
And I think to sue insted of answering the questions is a very strange way to behave. Assuming he had good answers.
Assume for the sake of argument that Leonardo had been acting in good faith all along (a possibility I find very remote), but that things had so soured between them and IH that by the time Murray sent Penon the questions memorialized in Exhibit 5 Rossi believed a lawsuit was inevitable and that the questions were prepared by an attorney seeking to lay a trap. Even with that understanding I think the most likely legal strategy would have been for Leonardo not to prevent Penon from answering those questions as accurately as possible. Since by assumption Leonardo had been acting in good faith, this would have simply consisted of filling in the gaps in Murray's understanding and correcting any mistaken assumptions that might have gone into the questions. When a lawsuit is on the horizon, you probably want to dot all of your i's and cross your t's and go out of your way not to provide the opposing party any basis for complaint due to a technicality, e.g., failing to respond to reasonable questions that fell within the scope of the contract. You want to make sure there is a paper trail where you sought to set the record straight. Obviously this is not what happened.
-
For crying out loud Jed, if the flow rate is constant through a same-sized pipe, it doesn't matter if the pipe is pointing up or down. I suggest you go outside, plug a hose into your spigot, turn it on at a high flow rate, and point the hose downward. Then take a peak and see whether it is half full or not.
The velocity kan be different. Let's say the velocity of the water is twice as high when it leaves the heat exchanger then the pipe will only be half full. Assuming same flow rate and dimension.
-
Peter Gluck,
Please forgive my ignorance. Can you either post to your diagram that you have or inline it? -thx
