Can you show the whole building and identify which unit you are referring to?
I think you are looking at the wrong unit.
@pgm: My post was clear enough. Just do the search yourself again if you don't believe...
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
I don't believe because I did the search dozens of times.
I just finished looking at the front windows from dozens of angles yesterday.
I am not arguing to be annoying, I am seeking clarification.
-
Except that the section of transcript you quote from Murray appears to be considering the hypothetical situation where the 0 pressure reading from the data is accurate, which is a detail that is in dispute.
And yes, I acknowledged that right after I quoted the excerpt. And then I explained that Murray said a vacuum would be needed. And I agree with that. And there probably was a vacuum. In fact, not sure how else you would do it.
-
Is there a Barry West or Dewey deposition somewhere amongst this document avalanche?
-
I don't see that trusting Rossi's measurements - something no-one in their right mind would do - enters into this.
I'm tempted to get drawn into a long back-and-forth with you about the ins-and-outs of this issue, but I don't feel like it and have other things I need to be doing. My last word on it is this:
If you can't see how not trusting Rossi's measurements doesn't enter into a decision to spend tens of thousands of dollars every month, then I don't see what the point of the discussion would be. The case is clear. Darden is either a businessman with "astonishingly poor judgement who is pathologically bad at due diligence" or he had an ulterior motive (and maybe still does). It's one or the other.
You're saying that he was willing to let the customer be the litmus test for whether the thing worked, since he couldn't trust Rossi's measurements. But he had many reasons to doubt the customer's legitimacy before agreeing to the test. You want to tell me he was willing to ignore all the warning signs, cross his fingers and hope for the best because of a 1% chance that Rossi had something? How would he even know if Rossi had something?
But how much do you want to bet that he never shared these misgivings with Woodford or the Chinese? You think he told Woodford that he felt the instrumentation couldn't be trusted and that the customer's President was Rossi's lawyer who had no manufacturing experience, let alone any clue what they were going to be doing? No chance.
-
Except that Murray says exactly the opposite--that the water could not have been in liquid form.
Keep reading. He says it is impossible to know for sure, but given the likely pressure it probably was.
-
Remember the mis-matched water meter serial number FUD that was pushed on all of us here? As if this was proof of fraud?
All just one big mistake by Murray. 215-03, pages 263-264.
-
Keep reading. He says it is impossible to know for sure, but given the likely pressure it probably was.
Keep reading my comment. Yes, you would need a vacuum formed on the other side. Murray states that. I and others had stated that long ago. We were ridiculed for it by THH and others. But that is what you would need. And that is probably what existed. How else are you going to evacuate the heat and pump the condensate back?
-
And that is probably what existed.
Not a chance!
-
How else are you going to evacuate the heat and pump the condensate back?
Rossi managed to make condensate flow uphill against a vacuum by itself in Bologna. No pumps needed.
-
Folks, I'm going to be taking a hiatus for the next few days. Some of you might be relieved by that. So if you want to attack me or my view points without a prompt incisive reply, now is your chance!
Best wishes to all, and may the truth, whatever it is, prevail and be set free.
-
So IH said to investors that the Plant worked well in order to collect money and considered that the Plant was a deceit when they had to pay for it....and you find that it is a fair attitude?
SSC - Do you have the entirety of what IH said to investors?
I didn't think so. Don't make stuff up--it doesn't help your argument.
Companies, be it oil companies doing exploration in new fields or medical companies doing research on new drugs, always tout their products but also provide the usual caveats. Investors know this.
-
Portions of Barry's depo are included in the IH exhibits. I don't see where Rossi's legal team used any of my deposition in their latest exhibits which is not a surprise mainly because the testimony is devastating for Rossi (and beyond).
What the heck is "durapox" anyway - a derivative of chickenpox or smallpox on Planet Rossi?
-
-
I wonder if there's a manual or discussion somewhere on the Internet in the manner of the Anarchist's Cookbook that goes into how to trick flow meters, whose recommendations parallel some of what we know about the Doral setup (other than the discussion in this site).
Yes there is. It's again my friends at GSVIT.
-
anrea.s, this one is nice, but it postdates the start of the Doral matter, so it would not have been available for consulting at the time.
-
Display More
I think so. The Florida test could be allowed for one of the following reasons:
(1) If the customer were real, regardless of measurements, it is validation
(2) To deny Rossi this would cause him to go off the deep end and if their reactors can be got to work anyhow keeping Rossi sweet is important
(3) (contributory to (1) or (2). The money spent on the test is much smaller than $10.5M. They might as well see through a thorough "crushing the tests" in their in-house testing keeping open the possibility of backing Rossi should things prove good by giving him what he asks for.
(4) Note that having signed the contract they have to continue with the test, or break contract. That could only be justified by accusing Rossi of fraud and legal action something i doubt IH would want to initiate...
I don't see that trusting Rossi's measurements - something no-one in their right mind would do - enters into this.
You conveniently forget the most obvious one (why am I not surprised); the pure reason for any VC to exist. Getting money from investors. Being as wordy as you normally are it is a but suspicious when you leave obvious stuff out, almost like the whole point is to move focus from this fact. Isn't it mr FUD?
-
Yes, you would need a vacuum formed on the other side. Murray states that. I and others had stated that long ago.
I'm sure I never disputed that the condensation of the steam inside the heat exchanger would create a vacuum.
But I think I also pointed out, that the whole system would have been unbelievable (hydraulic) balanced, because the pressure at the point of the pressure gauge is always recorded as 0.0 bar (lets call it bar-g, because 0.0 bar-a would be even more nonsense).
Keep in mind that the capacity of the 1MW plant varied at least between 100% and 75%, which means that the "steam flow" varied at the same range.
The vacuum created - because of the condensation of steam inside the heat-exchanger - depends on the (varying) rate of condensation as well on the (varying) steam supply flow.
The pressure reading at the "certified gauge" (which by the way is only good for an operating temperature of 50°C) should vary depending on the supply pressure from the e-cats, the pressure loss through the piping (which varies with the flow) and the (varying) vacuum inside the heat exchanger. -
Edit: for clarity and to save confusion In the post below I was referring to Paradigmnoia original post and picture. Not the one above which already already clarifies the issue.
Paradigmnoia Wyttenbach . I'm avoiding contributing to the debate here as for me it's for the court too decide. I have my own bias and opinions and I can feel quite strongly about them too and hope real justice is served to who ever deserve it but I'm not really into trying to convince people to my point of view and as a non court member I still try to hold out hope it comes down to process rather than deliberate miss behavior on either side. For me diverse opinions are more interesting in debate than two battling giants. But I must admit I'm irresistibly drawn to some of the debate and especially the data. In this situation of controversy it's important to be sure we are looking at the right data though.
With reference to Paradigmnoia picture of the roofs are we sure we are choosing the right one?
I don't think it's the middle one in the picture as it is to the right of the front doors so it could be the one mentioned Wyttenbach which I think is below this.
On the otherhand it looks to me the second one from the top could be the one. This one is interesting as it has what looks like a normal sized additional air conditioning unit on the near back of the warehouse and what looks like a small chimney in the middle towards the end that to me could line up with the pipe going to the roof by the door seen in one of the pictures from inside the warehouse.
More interesting are what look like barrels at the back of this warehouse. If it is the right one i wonder what they contain?
Regarding circulating heat from the customer plant to an external cooler (by the window). I'd be very surprised if it is steam as that would be wasted useful heat. given the return temperatures of the condensate from the external plant to the ECat more likely to me this customers cooling circuit is also circulating liquid at 60 deg. Or if greater amounts of energy are to be removed at this lower Temperature a fluid that has a lower phase change temperature such as ethanol or something similar. Just a thought based on the return temperature data. It could be wrong of course.
Any way if you can confirm which warehouse in Paradigmnoia picture is the right one I'm curious.
-
Paradigmnoia Ahh i took so long to write me post I see you already answered...! ! Yup that one... looks like the pipe I thought might be the chimney was there in 2007 so that question is answered.
Edit: I see the unit I originally saw with the additional heat exchanger on the roof at the back and barrels outside is a couple of units down from 7861. I think the picture from Wyttenbach may be the next one down from that. And the 7861 is off the top of the original Paradigmnoia roof picture. But his latest pictures have it correctly identified.
