Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from IH Fanboy

You can say grade school as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that Smith didn't even know the maximum rate of the pumps.

Oh, he got it right. It is written right on the face plate. Plus I happen to know the actual flow rate was much lower than the flow meter indicated.

You may imagine you know differently based on some manual you dug up, but trust me: the face plate is right, whatever manual you found is wrong. I know how manuals get written. It is like making sausage; you don't want to know.

I have seen a lot of statements about 4 1/2 inch I. D. Piping. The pipe is actually 4 1/2 inch O.D. and 4 inch I.D. Pipe at sch 40. More at thinner piping and less at thicker piping. All piping in imperial measurements are listed by I.D. at sch. 40. Thus 2 inch piping is 2 3/8 inch O.D. Just thought I would clarify it for everyone. So if you really want to do accurate calculations, you have to know the wall thickness of the piping.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

IH Fanboy ,

This is what I was talking about earlier:

If anything, it looks like JMP was under-charging. And again, it is obvious that the .75 and 1 values are rough values. Do you really think IH or JMP or anyone else who would look at this would say: "Oh interesting JMP received exactly .75 MW for exactly 15 days and exactly 1 MW for exactly 15 days"?

Quote from LENR Calender

It was after it all got pointed out, so initially it wasn't me. I used some hockey players and maybe some cyclists.

With Rossisms and all? Just goes to show.

Quote from IHSupporter

But the question is not about intentions. It is about if it was true when Johnson signed it, and it wasn't true. That is likely grounds for fraud

I admit, I don't have a firm understanding of the sequence of events on this issue (alas, there are so many). I see lots of crossing out and hand-written additions. What was said and who informed who of what had changed seems a blur to me. Maybe you can run this one to ground? I think I've done this my fair share of times.

Quote from JedRothwell

Oh, he got it right. It is written right on the face plate.

I think this is a central enough issue that it makes sense for the community to crowd fund and test the maximum pump rate, at no back pressure, of the very pump in question. And we can even set up a bet on a prediction market as to who is right: the name plate or the manual.

Quote from WMartin

I have seen a lot of statements about 4 1/2 inch I. D. Piping. The pipe is actually 4 1/2 inch O.D. and 4 inch I.D. Pipe at sch 40. More at thinner piping and less at thicker piping. All piping in imperial measurements are listed by I.D. at sch. 40. Thus 2 inch piping is 2 3/8 inch O.D. Just thought I would clarify it for everyone. So if you really want to do accurate calculations, you have to know the wall thickness of the piping.

You might be right, but that would mean Smith was lying (or mistaken). He stated it was 4.5 ID.

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0235.10_Exhibit_10.pdf

IH Fanboy wrote

You might be right, but that would mean Smith was lying (or mistaken). He stated it was 4.5 ID.

Easy enough mistake to make if your not a pipe fitter or a mechanical engineer.

Edit

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I have only a little background in instrumentation. I believe that the statement would be correct talking about tubing. It might indicate Smith has a background in instrumentation.

Quote from IH Fanboy

If anything, it looks like JMP was under-charging. And again, it is obvious that the .75 and 1 values are rough values. Do you really think IH or JMP or anyone else who would look at this would say: "Oh interesting JMP received exactly .75 MW for exactly 15 days and exactly 1 MW for exactly 15 days"?

Undercharging?

JMP grossly over-"measured" power in each of those months. Very grossly. They recieved far more energy than the Plant was supposedly making.

27000 L represents a nominal 0.75 MW day. 36000 L represents a nominal 1 MW day.

Rossi dictated those invoice requests.

Rossi was simultaneously recording the water meter values for the ERV.

JMP (Rossisays) reported receiving 1 MWday for many days when the Plant reported nominally 3/4 MWdays. IH did not invoice JMP for any heat. Rossi (as JMP) must have been concerned with that detail at least by the end of the second month, for sure by the third.

So now Rossi has an overunity steam pipe that multiplies the energy that the Plant supposedly made?

More likely the person responsible for the JMP measurements and calculations is incompetent.

September, for example, had nothing but nominal 0.75 MWdays, and somehow JMP reports that they managed to receive 15 X 1 MWdays.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

September, for example, had nothing but nominal 0.75 MWdays, and somehow JMP reports that they managed to receive 15 X 1 MWdays.

Yes, and that is under-charging. How could you consider it otherwise? JMP is willing to pay for 15 1 MW days when they only received nominal 0.75 MW days. Maybe a better way to put it is that JMP is over-paying, or at least was willing to do so.

"We recieved from your plant the amount of energy of" etc....

This is not undercharging.

In the cases of the requests I posted, it is an outright lie.

Quote from LENR Calender

Did we have proof of the connection between USQL and Rossi somewhere btw?

See this post from Guest, and follow the links.

Quote from JedRothwell

Only if you do not understand grade school level science. I will grant, many people do not, including some of the people commenting here.

Including probably most of the Jurors.

I think a connection between USQL and Rossi is reasonable. Is the US not a free country in which business connections of common interest can have inter-relationships? Is this really a crime in your mind?

Rossi has denied any kind of ownership interest in USQL and states that all of the details of the ownership of USQL are accessible as follows: "ownership of USQL is also very easy to verify in the published documents and in the public register of the USA companies:also such document has been published in Court."

Has anyone been able to confirm who actually owns USQL? Eric's link to Guest's post, and associated link, do not show ownership information.

Quote from JedRothwell

I realize the modern era is politically correct, and many people are delicate snowflakes who cannot stand to be told they are wrong. But I do not see how this applies. IH Fanboy boldly and repeatedly makes impossible claims that violate grade school science. He says that steam leaking from a pipe proves there is steam in the pipe. He agrees with Bass that you can "probe" (magically measure) the energy of steam with a thermometer and a water flow meter. Anyone with knowledge of grade school science knows that these assertions are wrong. They are nonsense. The fact that they are nonsense and the reasons they are nonsense have been described here time after time after time. How could anyone fail to see this?!? These issues are fundamental to this discussion, as pointed out by Smith. They are the ABCs of thermodynamics. They prove beyond any doubt that Penon's report is meaningless. If you don't see that, you see nothing, and you understand nothing about this discussion.

How am I being rude when I point these things out? If this were a discussion group about Shakespeare, and IHFB repeatedly asserted the Shakespeare wrote the Star Wars movies, would it be an insult to point out this is preposterous? Where do we draw the line? Just how stupid does he have to be, and how many times does he have to make the same damn mistake, before it is relevant to point out he is wrong? Are there no technical standards here at all? Are we never allowed to point to conventional textbook science to show that someone is wrong?

IHFB "degrades" himself. He insults himself. I merely point out that is what he is doing.

God it must be hard to be humble when you're the smartest guy in the world, like Jed.

Quote from IH Fanboy

You might be right, but that would mean Smith was lying (or mistaken). He stated it was 4.5 ID.

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0235.10_Exhibit_10.pdf

from exh.10

"Mr. Bass, in his deposition, recalled that the steam line was 3” or 4”. If the steam line diameter was

reduced down from the E-cat outlet to a smaller size, the theoretical steam velocity would go up,

dramatically."

We don't know what the size was into the customer. It was removed by Rossi when he destroyed the evidence. 4.5 ID might have come out but Bass said it was reduced. You either have to accept the testimony of both or take the legal view of adverse interpretation that with out physical evidence to take the view that it proves nothing and give the attacked defendant the benefit of the interpretation most favorable to the defendent.

Quote from IHSupporter

4.5 ID might have come out but Bass said it was reduced. You either have to accept the testimony of both or take the legal view of adverse interpretation that with out physical evidence to take the view that it proves nothing and give the attacked defendant the benefit of the interpretation most favorable to the defendent.

Bass did not say it was reduced. Smith said it might have been reduced. And if you think the diameter of the pipe was reduced, then I have a bridge to sell you. There would be no reason to, and only reasons to expand it to, for example, DN150.

@Bob

Oh, common Bob. If you think Rossi/JMP was stating in strict terms that they received 1 MW exactly when they received something less (but were willing to pay for the full 1 MW), then we are in outlandish literalist land. Consider this: had it been swapped, you would have accused Rossi/JMP of attempting to shaft IH by paying for less than the energy they actually received!

Quote from IH Fanboy

E48 on JONP:

"Murray, Smith and IH are not going to like this. Smoking gun stuff:

Interesting photo from Dr. Wong:

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/…0f3ffd3d44f80a741a558.png

Inquisitive minds would ask why is the floor on the left clean and not walked on?

Maybe because there was a steam pipe there, that connected the bypass in the JM container to the upper story heat exchanger?

Also note a telltale lighter mark from the centre of that clean patch toward the outer edge of the landing.

Sure looks like, to this Black Swan, that a steam pipe could have been there for the duration of the 350 day test.

Best regards,

Engineer48"

Display More

I'm sorry, but this is getting too ridiculous..

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that walking on a floor causes that much difference in wear/tear.

How many times do you need to walk on just the entrance to the room where you are installing

a massive heat exchanger ?

Do you go up there every few hours to make sure it is still exchanging heat ?

But NO, best not step foot once inside the Heat Exchanger room.

There is a MegaWatt of stuff going on in there.

And that ONLY a steam pipe could have caused that barely noticeable highlight on the floor.

The only way to know for certain would be to check with a child's input.

But make sure you phrase it :

"if someone had walked on this floor with muddy boots, where on this picture do you think that could have been ?"

Should get a definitive answer that way.

Pete