Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40.

    You accuse me of misquoting? I posted the link and you posted the wording. It says the pressure and pipe "WAS REPORTED".


    It does not state that Murray took the measurements! Rossi did not even let him in the facility remember! He had Penon's report and was asking specific questions about the report's content, the calculations and results. That is exactly what the link states. Then Penon refused to answer. Your original statement was that IH must correct their inacurracy. Rossi filed the suit and IH defended using questions from the very report that Rossi was basing his lawsuit on. And you think IH should defend the report? Hardly!


    Penon was being paid BY IH. It was IH's plant. IH paid 10 million for the IP. You seem to think it OK that Penon did not answer. You state that Murray will have to retract his statement! Just remember, Rossi always disappoints. Just like his satisfied customer, his sold three plants, his "Chief Engineer", his blurry blue photo, his customer customer test of the QuarkX, his now delayed demo of the QuarkX, and on and on.


    You stated that the QuarkX and the 1mw plants are separate and the 1mw plants are still being built? Please provide evidence. Rossi has not mentioned them for several months! They were supposed to be delivered before now! Please make a post on JONP asking how the satisfied customer likes the new plants. See if it gets posted!


    This will be the last post I make on this subject with you. As I mentioned, you have made a decision to support Rossi regardless of evidence and to point fingers at IH. I am not here to argue against your kicking of the goads.


    I wish you the best, but your faith in Rossi will surely be disappointing. It always is!:(

  • 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.


    So it is symmetrical because both parties are suing. You can see that IH need to give their arguments before discovery, and rossi the same, in order to make them in court. The ecat working is probably relevant both ways so you'd think Rossi would have to put forward the bones of his evidence. Still, what gets out now is a matter of legal convenience and I'm not sure I understand it. Abd has argued that Rossi seems to be submitting things that don't help his case but make him look good(except the don't).

  • Quote

    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.


    Agreed. But the reason for this is rumoured to be that Rossi wanted this big cash bribe to release IP. The conditions of the long-term test are clearly not what IH would have chosen given choice. They are not idiots.


    (Rossi was apparently hawking this round other VCs, none of whom were prepared to take the bait)

  • 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.

    It does matter. Unless the flow rate is as high as it can be for that pipe, or unless the whole system is closed and air-tight, the uphill portion will be full and downhill portion will be mostly empty. Look at any fountain for proof.

    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.

    Rossi's system is not at a high flow rate! It is at a low flow rate. Far lower than 36,000 kg per day. For the sake of argument, assuming it is 36,000 kg/day, that's 25 l per minute, or 6 gallons/minute. 6 gallons per minute in a pipe of this size is a low flow rate. If the pipe is open to air, as this one is, it will not be full on the downhill portion.


    My bathtub tap opening is 1" x 2" (13 cm^2). Just now I filled a 2 gallon bucket from it in 18 seconds. That's 7 gallons per minute. Rossi's flow meter, the Apator MWN130-80-NC, has a DN80 flange, which is 50 cm^2. (DN80 means the diameter is 80 mm.) It is designed for a much higher flow of water than 6 gallons per minute, so obviously the pipes going into it and out of it were not at full capacity. They might have been full of water, if they had been in a U-shaped pipe, but they were not.

  • A DN80 pipe is 3" in diameter. This table shows the capacity of such pipes:


    http://www.slideshare.net/raju175/water-flow-pipe-sizes


    A 3" pipe at "gravity or low pressure" carries 140 gpm (gallons per minute). That is much more than 6 gpm, so obviously this pipe attached to the flow meter was not at full capacity or a high flow rate. Under high pressure, it carries 425 gpm.


    Regarding IH Fanboy's suggestion that I "go outside, plug a hose into your spigot, turn it on at a high flow rate" -- I just did that, didn't I? I suggest Fanboy try the same test, and also look up some basic facts about plumbing.


    Here is a handy table of pipe sizes:


    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…inal-pipe-sizes-d_45.html

  • big grapes due to zeros,

    Big gaps, I think you mean. Grapes could play a role.


    What do you make of this? Aside from the fact that it agrees with I.H.


    You left out some of the line color definitions. I assume orange at the top is flow, in kilograms per day, and the blue line at that bottom is the COP. (Nominal COP.)


    The power is in kilowatt hours per day. It seems Penon and Fabiani both reported about 250 kWh per day, and FPL (Florida Power and Light) reported about 350 kWh/day. The difference is ~100 kWh/day which is to say 5 kW average, or maybe 10 kW when people are there during the day working. That isn't much. It is obviously not enough to run any kind of machinery that uses 1 MW of process heat!


    This is probably enough to run some meters, a refrigerator, microwave oven, etc. The average U.S. house uses 20 kWh per day. See:


    https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3


    A factory with a machine that needs 1 MW of process heat (or steam) is going to use a lot more electricity than your house. It would also need a 1 MW capacity cooling tower such as the ones shown here, which is low power but I imagine it still takes 10 or 20 kW.


    http://www.viflow.fi/uploads/coolingtowerseng.pdf


    You wonder where Rossi managed to hide the tower.

  • If Rossi really had what he said, why in the world wouldn't he at least tell IH's engineer the size of the pipe and answer some of the other simple questions.


    If I had 90M on the line, I sure won't withhold simple things like the size of the pipe. You might have an argument for him not answering about the makeup of a catalyst but the size of a simple pipe. Come on get real. He is/was hiding things and not delivering full IP disclosure to the ones that would have gladly paid if it was real.

  • The other legend is hidden under the forum image software thing. Using the expand arrows should detail it better.

    If I had to guess, I would say that there were big problems starting especially in August, September was a Gong Show, and something is really wrong where the power input lines cross in November-December.


    By "grapes" I meant the long drips to zero. (Welding term for big drips).

  • @Jed he is obviously using an arc smelter Ok-devils-advocate do you think that the meters are just measuring his microwave meal load?

    He is stealthy and uses stealth trucks to move the product load in and out. Now as far as the heat went. It went into the specially hazard marked boxes that JMP provided. That much heat could power all the food trucks in Miami daily. After the test he moved his office out in the same trucks. He is shrewd and learned alot about business and those shady characters after petrodragon. Well admit is sounds as plausible?

  • You accuse me of misquoting?

    Yes, because you did.


    Quote

    I posted the link and you posted the wording.

    Yes, and the wording that I quoted was correct. Yours wasn't.


    Quote

    It says the pressure and pipe "WAS REPORTED".

    No it doesn't. The pertinent sentence states:


    "The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40."


    I hesitate to do this, but apparently it is necessary. The word "reported" modifies the phrase "to be 0 kPaG." It doesn't modify the phrase "the piping is DN40." The reason is because of the difference between the words "was" and "is." Had the author intended the word "reported" to also modify the phrase "the piping is DN40," he would have instead stated: "The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and that the piping was DN40.

  • 6 gallons per minute in a pipe of this size is a low flow rate.

    A pipe of what size?

    Rossi's flow meter, the Apator MWN130-80-NC, has a DN80 flange, which is 50 cm^2. (DN80 means the diameter is 80 mm.)

    Oh, so you agree with me that piping was DN80?


    Quote

    They might have been full of water, if they had been in a U-shaped pipe, but they were not.

    Can you please provide the photographic evidence of the configuration?

  • What do you make of this? Aside from the fact that it agrees with I.H.

    To the contrary, the data for the most part agrees with Rossi. The only weirdness in November could be explained by any number of things, starting with faulty transmissions from a smart meter. And because of the granularity of the FLP data, it was most likely a smart meter.

  • Oh, so you agree with me that piping was DN80?

    The pipes going into and out of the flow meter are DN80. The pipes coming out of the reactor were smaller, according to Exhibit 5.

    Can you please provide the photographic evidence of the configuration?

    Nope. You will have to take my word for it.


    How much photographic evidence has Rossi provided you with? Has he shown you his 1 MW cooling tower? Why do you believe him but not me?


    Anyway, I am sure you will again claim that the pipe was at full capacity whatever size it was. Or, like Peter Gluck, you will deny that water can flow at different rates in a pipe, and you will say that if one portion of the pipe is full, the rest has to full as well.

  • would have gladly paid if it was real.

    IH likely would never have paid, even if they knew it was real. Because of how the contract was drafted. They believe Rossi's patent's are invalid, as they have stated in their 4th amended answer. They own their own improvements, based on the language of the agreement. There was simply no inducement whatsoever to make the $89 million payment, irrespective of whether the e-Cat works or not. But we've been through this in detail before, although it seems that the same arguments tend to get regurgitated now and again.

  • @Jed,


    Nothing personal, but I have my reasons not to believe you. So, reveal your photographs. And if you don't have any, then you can say that, which is fair enough: we can all wait for more evidence.

  • @Jed,


    Well for starters, you to this day have not answered my question as to whether IH or its associates have ever compensated you with money or in-kind payments. You claim it is none of my business. And that is certainly your prerogative to say that. But it is my prerogative to not believe everything you say when you so vigorously defend IH.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.