Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    The heat exchanger is your last best hope

    No, it is part of mountain of proof that Rossi lied. It is one of dozens of data points. The pretend data and sequences such as 36,000, 18,000, 36,000 also prove he lied. You have not disproved a single one of these things. You have not even addressed the math that shows the heat exchanger would not work even if it were real.


    You think that by casting doubt about one trivial detail or another disproves the whole story. You imagine there might not be glass. Anyone can see there is glass, but you and a child imagine there isn't. That fact alone overrules other photographs both inside and outside, eyewitness testimony, and the common-sense observation that Rossi would show people the heat exchanger, and he would preserve it, because it was worth $89 million to him. He would take photos of it. You will not discuss any of that, or acknowledge it. Your phantom imaginary missing glass overrules all else. You are grasping at straws.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    No, as pointed out numerous times here, the "was reported" does not modify the last affirmative phrase "the piping is DN40." Basic grammar.

    It is not basic grammar. I am a native speaker of English. Plus I know for a fact that is what Penon told him. Deny it all you like, that is what he meant.


    Perhaps Penon got the wrong pipe size. As I said, it makes no difference. 1.5", 3" or 1 foot would not matter.

    Quote from JedRothwell


    Perhaps Penon got the wrong pipe size. As I said, it makes no difference. 1.5", 3" or 1 foot would not matter.


    Of course it makes no difference to you NOW.... now that it is know to be pure bunk. And you might remember from months ago when we were in the heated battle over this: I promised that if it turned out to really be a single DN40 exit pipe, that I would mark up Rossi and his team as totally incompetent or worse. Why did I do that? Because I have a pretty good sense for FUD and this one had all of the hallmarks.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Data: I see little evidence that it was fabricated or impossible.

    Well then, evidently you wouldn't know fake data if it bit you on the butt.


    If you don't see this is fake, you are totally unqualified to be discussing this. The same numbers day after day. A magic sequence of 36,000, 18,000, 36,000. Pressure of 0.0 bar (or barg -- equally absurd.) If you can't see that is fake you have no clue what real data looks like. As Smith said, in 40 years of engineering he never saw such consistent data. (He was joking.)


    When you admit you see "little evidence this was fabricated or impossible," you are admitting that you have no experience with instruments or calorimetry and no earthly idea how equipment works, or thermometers work, or what real-world data looks like. Ask any engineer or experimentalist. Look at data from any HVAC equipment or experiment. You will never see anything like Rossi's data.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Of course it makes no difference to you NOW.... now that it is know to be pure bunk.

    Well, most of what Penon said was pure bunk, but I have no particular reason to think this detail was. Anyway, ask Rossi. He never denied this as far as I know. You don't believe Penon, and you don't believe me, so ask your guru Rossi. He approved everything Penon said.


    If Rossi tells you it was DN40, will you believe him? He told you there was an invisible heat exchanger that vanished without a trace, and you believe that, so why would you quibble with this?


    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Because I have a pretty good sense for FUD and this one had all of the hallmarks.

    Don't flatter yourself. You know nothing about FUD. You have no information -- you just make stuff up and throw around wild accusations of FUD. Whereas I know that Penon said it was DN40. It might have been a mistake, but he said it.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As I said before, this issue of 1 MW making the building too hot came up again, and again, and again during the test. Many people said this was a problem, including me. Rossi could have resolved it instantly just by taking the visitors out in front of the building and pointing to the fans in the window. Even if there was not 1 MW of power, but only ~100 kW, he could easily have proved this by allowing the I.H. experts to do conventional HVAC air-flow calorimetry in the mezzanine. I.H. would have happily paid him for 100 kW.


    Jed, you seem to be saying that Rossi was told repeatedly throughout the test that there was a problem with heat dissipation. He could have responded by showing IH the heat exchanger, but didn't. So what did he say to people when they told him this was a problem? Did he just ignore them? Did he tell them it wasn't a problem? I'm trying to envision the scenario you're laying out where people are bringing up this issue with Rossi again and again and again. What was his response?

    Joshg mentioned there was a problem with heat dissipation


    Perhaps Rossi addressed this problem with new 6 inch ductwork to the roof vent on the South side of the warehouse

    according to Engineer 48 on ECW disqus just now


    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/…f3e88a80ab5a2aacd9940.png


    E48 also finds it very strange that that both Murray or Smith has never mentioned the south side roof vent and fan.

    "totally ignored by the IH side"


    "

    Robert,


    To dissipate 1MW using air +15C from ambient, so that in Florida Summer the warehouse would be an unhappy 45C, you need a flowrate (m^3/s) of


    1,000/(15* 1 * 1.225) = 54 m^3/s


    In 6" ducting the corresponding speed is:

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…-pressure-loss-d_444.html

    4400m/s (larger than you get from cross-sectional area because frictional effects reduce the flowrate). Or some 10,000 mph.


    and the pressure loss over 5m is 6MPa, or 60 atmospheres!


    That is an unsupportable speed in the 6" ducting by a factor of more than 100!


    If you or anyone else thinks this is even remotely feasible we could go over the calculations more carefully?


    I think the IH engineers simply have a better understanding of what you need to dissipate 1MW than does Rossi, who it seems is not aware of the air-flow calculations that engineers do when sizing HVAC ductwork.


    PS - if instead the story is that these are the steam pipes that go to the upstairs heat exchanger, then the problem is that that cannot dissipate more than 100kW, based on Rossi's sworn deposition (100-200m of 15cm piping and 2 X 25,000m^3/hour fans).

    THHuxleynew used online engineeringtoolbox online to quickly show unsupportable speed in new 6inch ducting.\

    Those calcs took a lot longer back in the day.. I used a slide rule.

    Save those calcs.Perhaps thorough calculations of an experienced HVAC engineer can be added as an addendum to the Smith report during the appeals process(es)

    I was relaying Engineer48 comments only.

    E48 views differ from yours about the understanding level of some IH engineers, esp. Smith.

    Not knowing E48, Rossi, Smith except from the Net I will wait for the court verdict until expressing an opinion on engineering understanding level.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Exactly. It is a tower of cards.

    What is worthy of some head shaking is that the heat exchanger indeed, does introduce a new host of issues for the faithful.


    If the heat exchanger was in an upper floor, many meters away, then the back pressure to push the steam up there would only increase the problem seen at the eCat module to begin with. To move that amount of steam that far, that fast would require pressure. Pressure would then require higher temperature to change phase.


    The Gundfos pump requires a positive pressure to work, so there could not be a vacuum pulling the steam forward. It would require a significant vacuum to pull that volume, that far, that high, that fast anyway. I heavily doubt that any "falling" column of condensate would form in such a system that could pull the steam forward and generate pressure. It would require a closed system (which this was not) and the balancing of volumes would be quite intricate. I have not done the math, but neither has the claimants of this type of system. But those details do not matter! The "reflection" in the mirror angle is really the scientific proof that some need! Just like Rossi, it is a misdirection from the real heart of the matter. :/


    DN40 or DN80? Does not matter

    Now with the heat exchanger, the exit pipe would need to be even larger! But it still would not matter.


    Glass installed or no glass installed? Does not matter. The described heat exchanger would not dissipate 1MW anyway. Much less leave an open window in the side of the building for a year! Really:?:


    But it all boils down to this.... If Rossi really had what he states, he could easily prove it.... he does not. Therefore those who respect and believe in Rossi have to conjure up defenses for Rossi as he does not. The "waving of wands" conjure up such an unlikely reality it sorely presses sanity.


    Again, why does Rossi simply not prove his case? He cannot.


    And like your "tower of cards", these conjured up defenses cannot stand as a unit. They collapse and fall under their own weight when viewed as a system. :(

    Amazing how "grammar" is such a key cornerstone in some defenses of Rossi!


    Let's see how the same person analyses Rossi's "grammar" for the following:


    The customer is making production. (Of course the customer WAS Rossi)

    The customer reported a lower power bill than what was used in the past. (Was Rossi really making production in the past? )

    The customer had actual conversations with Rossi! (Rossi talking grammar to himself maybe?)

    The customer's chief engineer... (Bass did not even know what the customer was making! Of course the customer was Rossi, so why was Bass needed?)

    Oh, what was Rossi's grammar when he has stated many times of the all the plants he has sold. (Only one to IH. That is not plural.)

    What was Rossi's grammar when he stated he had a new, important partner working on the QuarkX! AND a NEW customer for the QuarkX! :huh:

    (The QuarkX is taking the same road as Rossi has always done. No customer, no partner, no factory, no team.... nothing)


    and it could go on and on and on and on. But then grammar is only used by certain people when it suits their purpose!


    Certain faithful never responded and still refuse to respond to the fact that the whole "DN40" memo was :

    1:Written well BEFORE the lawsuit that Rossi filed.

    2: The clear intent of the memo was asking questions of Penon to be clarified, NOT testifying as to what position someone held. (Penon never did respond)

    3: The memo did NOT originate as a deposition and was an email between two individuals. Not something "IH Posted" as PR. So certain people are fabricating "facts" in a distorted way to try and create evidence for their stance.


    To dwell on one word, "was" is like dwelling on the reflection in the window pane. The clear intention of the memo was to ask questions and obtain clarification. NOT a deposition stating fact. And yet certain people dwell on one word, out of context of the intention of the memo. Just like dwelling on a reflection IGNORES the fact the heat exchanger would not have dissipated the heat, the back pressure required would have caused major problems and so on.


    No, these points never acknowledged and the memo is described as "PR FUD" spread by IH! Hardly! But then when one has no evidence, they must conjure up their own while digging that ever deeper hole.

    I wish guys on ECW would just come here and read stuff. People over there are accusing me of FUD by misreading stuff, and not bothering to read the detailed analysis that exists.


    E48 there claims I'm saying 25,000m3/hour fans would use so much power that they would be noticeable on the FPL - ecat measured input graph. There is not much power to spare there.


    Not at all, I make that claim only for 250,000m3/hour fans.


    The heat exchanger analysis is here

    Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2


    E48 seems not to have read the calcs linked above that show 2 X 25,000m3/hour in Rossi's heat exchanger cannot dissipate more than 100kW. In fact even 2 X 250,000m3/hr will top out at about 500kW! And Wong's report says they are 25,000m3/hour surely. So if you believe Rossi we have a total of 50,000m3/hour which given 22X100m of 15cm diameter steam tubing cannot dissipate more than 100kW. Basically, Wong uses 200W/m^2K heat transfer coefficient, which is what you need, but would never get for any feasible airflow over these cylinders.


    In his deposition Rossi said the fans were still in the building - so I guess everyone can check that Rossi was correct about the fan speed...


    Perhaps somone could alert E48 to this since ECW has banned me (a long time ago) for saying things not loved over there about technical stuff. I can't say I would be able to post now - I'll still be saying things about tech stuff that they do not love...

    • Official Post
    Quote from robert bryant

    Perhaps Rossi addressed this problem with new 6 inch ductwork to the roof vent on the South side of the warehouse

    according to Engineer 48 on ECW disqus just now


    RB,


    I know you just relayed E48's latest attempt to help Rossi get rid of all that heat, so this is for him: until Rossisays in sworn testimony that he sent the heat up that pipe, to the roof, can you please stick with the upstairs heat exchanger? TTH has enough on his plate doing the math for that alone, plus we anti-Rossiites are reeling from IHFB's star child (from the mouth of babes!) witness wrecking our carefully constructed window argument, so back to the drawing board. ;)


    According to his own testimony, upstairs is where all the condensing took place, not anywhere else...including inside the black box, or via any other apparatus. So Rossi has made his bed, and it is upstairs.

    Please do not be taken aback if a suggestion casually tossed out by E48 and then relayed here is systematically gone over on this forum. It is nothing personal. We're just trying to extract what diamonds of truth there may be in his confidently worded speculations (if any at all).

    Quote from joshg

    Jed, you seem to be saying that Rossi was told repeatedly throughout the test that there was a problem with heat dissipation. He could have responded by showing IH the heat exchanger, but didn't.

    That is correct. Several people brought this up, including me. Murray listed this issue along with others in Exhibit 29-5.


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…6/11/0029.5_Exhibit_5.pdf

    Quote from joshg

    So what did he say to people when they told him this was a problem? Did he just ignore them? Did he tell them it wasn't a problem? I'm trying to envision the scenario you're laying out where people are bringing up this issue with Rossi again and again and again. What was his response?

    He and Penon did not respond to Murray's letter. I do not know what his response was in person. I never went to the Florida facility or met with Rossi. I don't know, but I have heard that he sometimes brought the discussion to a quick end by claiming the reactor was about to explode. People who have worked with him tell me that he often simply refuses to answer questions. He meets objections with silence. I do not think he answered any of Murray's questions in his blog. He came up with the imaginary heat exchanger recently, in response to the lawsuit.


    In Japanese, this technique of not responding to the question is called "mokusatsu" (黙殺). This is the word the Japanese government famously used in response to the Potsdam Declaration in 1945. It means: "deliberately ignore; refuse even to comment on; take no notice of; treat ~ with silent contempt." This is how people on Planet Rossi respond to technical discussions, such as how pumps rated at 3 gpm might produce 6 gpm. This is how they respond when I ask them why Rossi did not simply point to the heat exchanger and collect $89 million. They refuse to answer the questions, or even address them. They change the subject. They talk about imaginary missing glass which magically appears when you look at the window from a different angle. Or they invent some weird reason to dismiss the facts. IHFB, for example, finds what may be an inconsequential error made by Penon -- the 1.5" size of the pipe. He then ascribes this error to Murray instead of Penon; he declares it is a gigantic error, and he then dismisses everything Murray said because of it. In short, he points to a non-error not made by Murray as the reason to ignore textbook physics.

    Quote from Bob

    DN40 or DN80? Does not matter

    Now with the heat exchanger, the exit pipe would need to be even larger!


    This is the one nugget worth responding to. As we now are told, the exit pipe is larger. 4.5 inches inner diameter, which is more than enough.


    Quote


    But it still would not matter.


    Okay Jed. Got it.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    This is how people on Planet Rossi respond to technical discussions, such as how pumps rated at 3 gpm might produce 6 gpm.


    We did not answer in silence. It was pointed out that Smith apparently didn't even read the manual, which states that the actual maximum pump rate is several times the rated output.


    Quote

    This is how they respond when I ask them why Rossi did not simply point to the heat exchanger and collect $89 million.


    Again, we did not answer in silence here either. Rossi's position has always been that the COP can be determined despite what was behind the wall. And he is right! And for the GPT, it was the COP that mattered, not the type of heat exchanger used.


    Quote

    They refuse to answer the questions, or even address them.


    Wrong.


    Quote

    They change the subject.


    Wrong. If anything, we are accused of doggedly pursuing the subjects of interest here.


    Quote

    They talk about imaginary missing glass which magically appears when you look at the window from a different angle.


    Show me one example of reflections in the two left panes of the window at issue. As you'll find out (if you take the time to investigate as did I), there aren't any (besides the single cloud/steam shot).


    Quote

    Or they invent some weird reason to dismiss the facts. IHFB, for example, finds what may be an inconsequential error made by Penon -- the 1.5" size of the pipe. He then ascribes this error to Murray instead of Penon; he declares it is a
    gigantic error, and he then dismisses everything Murray said because of it. In short, he points to a non-error not made by Murray as the reasonto ignore textbook physics.


    It wasn't a gigantic error. It was an IH PR magnificence. Dewey said that they had taken pictures of and measured all of the pipes. They apparently knew all of that before depositing Exhibit 5 on the docket.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    accusing me of FUD by misreading stuff, and not bothering to read the detailed analysis that exists.

    It is sad, but is evident. There is a certain number of people of a mind set that will only read what supports their pre-conceived belief and then make derogatory comments about what they have NOT read, but believe is against their faith. And then they claim to be unbiased and "seeking truth"! To these people, this drama has become a religion, not a scientific endeavor. Solid math, logic and systems analysis do not matter. They will point to a window opening as "proof", but ignore all the cascading issues that an upstairs heat exchanger adds to the system earlier in the flow path. Minor, singular questions that are unknown can be "blown" into major proportions because there is no objective measure to them. One can bend them at will. Where one cannot argue solid math if it is indeed solid. However, one can argue that a child "saw no reflection" and somehow equate that to the same level of importance as air flow calculations! :?: :(


    I guess we have to realize (and I chuckle when they use the term FUD) that to many, solid math and logic is FUD. FUD meaning :

    "F" Fear that Rossi is a deceiver, fraudulent and the eCat does not work. How else would calculating air flow cause FEAR in people?

    "U" Unacceptable! Anything that raises questions as to the truthfulness or validity of Rossi or eCat claims is unacceptable. Not matter how solid the math or logic.

    "D" Denial. The math and logic cannot be correct because "the alternative is unthinkable"!

    (Edit: Or it is possible that the "D" is Dig that hole they are in a little Deeper!)

    :/

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.