Please cite to the court case where the photo was deemed to be admissible. You seem to reference an investigation--can you provide a link to the investigation?
I told you: the Atlanta I-85 disaster. Surely you have heard of it? It has been national front page news. Google finds 56,000 articles on it. It is the worst case of arson since William T. Sherman. The police, the DA and the newspapers have repeatedly cited Google street views in the investigation, for example, here:
It does not make a damn bit of difference.
Oh yes it does. You would never admit it though. Because you simply hate being wrong, and I've never witnessed you admit that you were wrong, even when it was plain as day--like your statement about patent trials / jury trials.
Quote1.5" or 3", it is way too small.
Going from 1.5 to 3 makes a huge difference in the pressure differential required to overcome losses, as I have shown in the past. It is not linear. But you know that. And by the way, we don't know what the diameter of the "main" was. That hasn't been revealed yet. It was greater than DN40--Murray did not dispute that.
QuotePipes used to move a megawatt of steam are a foot or more in diameter.
Pipes of a foot in diameter would be plenty, yes. Indeed, it would be well more than what would be required.
QuoteThere is not the slightest chance this pipe would allow that much steam.
Which pipe?
Quote
Ditto your nonsense about 101 deg C versus 103 deg C.
Sorry, Jed, don't try to make your nonsense my nonsense. Maybe if you had been straight up about the numbers from the get-go, you wouldn't feel that nagging need to repeatedly address the temperature fiasco.
Yes, it is. In the metadata. I don't mean physically in the photo pixels. That would be oh-so-20th century.
Metadata can be stripped, or never inserted. It depends on your equipment used and the file format. In any case, the metadata is not available through the google street view interface.
QuoteI mean all Google street view photos always include the date the
photo was taken.
No they don't.
QuoteDisplay MoreFor example this street view of Rossi's building was
taken in July 2016. Click on the Clock icon at the top left and you can
see previous views of the same place, going back to 2007, with the date
shown for each view.
That is not the date the photo was taken.
Metadata can be stripped, or never inserted.
Are you suggesting that Google is conspiring against Rossi? Are you saying that the photo of his building on Google maps has been altered? If that is not what you mean, what the hell do you mean?
No they don't [have dates].
Well, Google says they do; I am sure you cannot find one that does not; and the court cases and investigations cited above say they do. I do not know what alternative universe you are getting your information from, but here on Planet Earth all Google street view photos have the date.
When you are in a hole, you should stop digging.
That is not the date the photo was taken.
Okay, what date would it be, then? Your birthday? You were born yesterday if you believe this kind of nonsense.
This is a case where a google satellite image was admitted : http://www.techtimes.com/artic…h-imagery-as-evidence.htm
Yes, the satellite images show the actual date, including the day.
QuoteHere's a how-to on getting Streetview admitted -- though this particular case was settled out of court -- http://www.plaintiffmagazine.c…ial_Plaintiff-article.pdf
(They ultimately got a certification from the Google Custodian of Records.)
Great find. So you either: get the defendant to admit the photo is accurate (okay, that makes sense), or you get a witness to testify (yes, that is what I have been suggesting). Or you can subpoena Google and they will send you a disc with photos on it, hopefully with the actual dates each was taken (although the article never addressed whether the disc they received had the actual dates taken).
Maybe if you had been straight up about the numbers from the get-go,
I was straight up! As soon as I discovered I had entered 101 instead of 103, I corrected the mistake. Right here, big as bold, clear as day. I often get numbers wrong. I think programmers often do, we have so many of them crammed into our craniums. I just now fixed the message above from 32,000 to 36,000. Anyone familiar with computers will know why I thought it was 32,000.
But you are missing the point. With these instruments and a flow as large as this, the difference between 101 and 103 is INSIGNIFICANT. It makes no difference. The temperature probably was at 101, 102 and 103 at various places in the pipe and in the fluid. Tap on the thermometer and you will get a different answer.
Display MoreThe hard conclusion has been made: the heat exchanger never existed. And the proof? A google street view image with a timeline date of April, 2015. Nearly every IH Fanboy here (except this one) has pinned their hopes on this google street view image.
Now, let me be clear: I do not know whether the heat exchanger ever existed or not. But I refuse to jump to conclusions on the basis of a google street view image. Such images cannot be relied up on in litigation.
Here you can read about people observing that images can be taken long before the update actually happens on the timeline.
One of the most common complaints of Google street view is that it is out of date. So there is no incentive for Google to post an earlier date, and there is every incentive for Google to post the latest date possible, even if pictures were taken months in advance.
It would also be quite a remarkable thing for Google to update the entire database of street view images between April 1 and April 30, 2015. That would mean every street in every city would have to be driven with a google vehicle within a single month--an amazing feat.
I suggest that you all should be a bit more skeptical of your quick and not-well-thought-out conclusions.
Your link is to a discussion is from 2009, over 8 years ago when Street View didn't even show image capture date. They could not possibly be discussing this date. And if you read the discussion, it revolves around how recent is the street view and not how accurate the image capture date is (which didn't exist).
This is not a question of being "out of date" as you say. The question is how accurate is the image capture date. As far as I know Google does not want you to know the exact date and time for privacy reasons but the month/year associated with the image is accurate. I'm really surprised (in a manner of speaking) that this has fouled you up given your "neutral" position on all of this. The street view date of April 2015 is accurate to the month, which is over a month into the test which started in February. There is no question that there was no heat exchanger venting out that window during the test as Rossi testifies and as Wong, based entirely on what Rossi told him, made his calculations.
Also of interest is the most recent street view taken in July 2016. Clearly there is glass in the the window at this time so it begs the question, what were those window guys doing during the 20 minutes Wong happened to be there in Feb 2017 (I believe)?
Folks,
I'm seriously sorry to disrupt your lovely group think that had developed over the course of the last week in my absence. 
After a few weeks off, Fanboy is in full metal jacket argumentative mode again.
What will it take for you to say,
"Rossi's Ecat did not produce and excess heat, it never did.
And do you have the cast iron cajones to do it when this charade is over?
Display MoreDo I really have to spell this out again? Really?
Murray suggested in Exhibit 5 that all of the water flow, i.e.1398 kg/h, was forced through a DN40 pipe. He then went on to state that the pressure differential required to overcome losses in the pipe would preclude it. And guess what? If the pipe really was DN40, then he would be RIGHT! And in fact, back before we had access to the deposition evidence, I stated that if the exit pipe turned out to be DN40, I would immediately mark up Rossi and his team as entirely incompetent or worse.
But then what happened? Murray was put under oath, and a whole new story emerged!
"12· A.· · -- the BF units at the back of the reactor,
13·all of the pipes coming off were what I believe are
14·DN40, 40-millimeter pipes.· I actually have a picture of
15·a pipe joint that actually flags it as a DN40.
16· Q.· · Okay.· And those feed into a larger pipe,
17·correct?
18· A.· · They feed into a main, and then the main goes
19·across to the Johnson Matthey facility."215-3, page 163
If you fail to see that I am vindicated on the DN40 pipe fable, then you are not perceiving the situation with a fair mind.
Is there something that says what size the "main" is/was? Is it DN40 or something else? It might be DN80, DN40 or anything. Once Rossi removed the pipes to hide what was used I am unclear as to what size the "main" was. I seem to remember, vague uncertain remembrance, that Murray thought it might have been DN80 but he could not tell since it was covered. Do you have a definite statement of what it actually was
What will it take for you to say,
"Rossi's Ecat did not produce and excess heat, it never did.
And do you have the cast iron cajones to do it when this charade is over?
Well, I already provided one way in which IH could have done it. They could have proven Murray's Exhibit 5 correct: that a single DN40 pipe was used to transmit all of the steam egress. So much for that one.
Here is another one: they could prove that the water meter on the return was positioned above the pipe inlet. Not looking so promising on that front either with Murray's equivocation during his deposition.
Do you have a definite statement of what it actually was
No, we don't have such a definite statement, unfortunately.
What we have is this exchange:
"12· A.· · -- the BF units at the back of the reactor,
13·all of the pipes coming off were what I believe are
14·DN40, 40-millimeter pipes.· I actually have a picture of
15·a pipe joint that actually flags it as a DN40.
16· Q.· · Okay.· And those feed into a larger pipe,
17·correct?
18· A.· · They feed into a main, and then the main goes
19·across to the Johnson Matthey facility."
215-3, page 163
Murray notes that the individual DN40 pipes feed into a "main" (this part was not in the Exhibit 5). Murray does not dispute the questioner that the "main" was a larger pipe.
You are making an assumption that the month/year shown on the timeline is the month/year in which the photo was taken.
For crying out loud! See:
https://developers.google.com/…ation/streetview/metadata
QUOTE:
"The Google Street View Image API metadata requests provide data about Street View panoramas. Using the metadata, you can find out if a Street View image is available at a given location, as well as getting programmatic access to the latitude and longitude, the panorama ID, the date the photo was taken, and the copyright information for the image."
What the hell else would it be??!???
Can you think of any other association other than this?
A person with a vivid imagination and a screw loose can think of all kinds of associations. It might be the date the photographer last ate lasagna. It might be the 50th anniversary of Nancy Sinatra's hit single, "These Boots are Made for Walking." It might be anything! But a sensible person will know it is the date, and if you are not sure, you can look it up.
Here is another one: they could prove that the water meter on the return was positioned above the pipe inlet.
How do you know what they have done? Are you privy to the exhibits that have not been uploaded? There are dozens of photos, reports and pages from reports referred to that are not part of present exhibits. (I have no idea why, but there is a lot missing.)
@Jed,
Loose screws, vivid imaginations. Sling the insults. Let 'em fly!
Nice find on the API interface. Do you have API credentials? Can you please run the check on the photo and let us know what you find? Because we don't get that through the standard interface.
And if you think Google took photos of every street of every city precisely between April 1st and April 30, 2015 then I have a bridge to sell you.
How do you know what they have done? Are you privy to the exhibits that have not been uploaded? There are dozens of photos, reports and pages from reports referred to that are not part of present exhibits. (I have no idea why, but there is a lot missing.)
I don't know what they have done, do you? I am not privy to the exhibits that have not been uploaded, are you? That has always been my point: we don't have any evidence of where the flow meter was positioned specifically with respect to the pipe inlet, other than Murray saying he didn't know.
You are making an assumption that the month/year shown on the timeline is the month/year in which the photo was taken. Can you think of any other association other than this?
@IH Trollboy
If you select the month/year from the timeline you will see the image capture date in the lower right corner to be exactly the same. What a coincidence!
I do find the dialogue on this thread interesting that the LENR librarian is arguing that Rossi is a fraud and by association most hydrogen / nickel / lithium based systems probably don't work. After watching this for the last five years, I tend to agree with that conclusion.
But i wonder then, why waste your time responding day and night to these threads?
My guess is that even as he argues against. He still has hope he is wrong.
