Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from IHSupporter

    It sounds like IH are going to go after the 10M as well. The test it was based on did not have the level of energy agreed to and not the number of "engines" and it was stopped before the time required.

    Why did they pay for a test they did not approve of? This is one of the many things IH has begun to complain about just after the suit was filed....

    Quote from barty

    Maybe it made no sense for them.

    But for an outside observer this looks odd!

    It simply was not the independent test Rossi promised us. Period.


    It make no sense for any scientist.

    A lay man from outside can miss the fact that DAQ systems and the Net let scientists and technicians monitor systems from remote locations.

    Also all data (a complete video recording and voltmeter logs) was recorded and analyzed using an apparatus that was out of Rossi control and

    owned by the experimenters !

    So it was an independent test .

    Earlier I said that IH doesn't have a case for spoliation because the destruction of evidence happened before the lawsuit was filed. But after reading their motion in document 264, and assuming that the Jones Day lawyers' reading of case law is correct, it seems that the spoliation claim hinges on the question of whether Rossi should have reasonably anticipated litigation.


    Given all the angry letters going back and forth between Rossi, IH and their lawyers leading up to the end of the test, it seems to reasonable to me that Rossi should have anticipated litigation. But it's hard to say how Rossi's legal team will counter that argument and how the magistrate will rule. But my impression is that IH has a good case with respect to destruction of the heat exchanger.


    As for Fabiani and Penon's destruction of e-mails and other e-documents: assuming Vaughn's statement (264-15) about the meeting between Fabiani and IH's lawyers on March 18, 2016 is correct, then Fabiani should clearly have been anticipating a lawsuit. In fact he appears to have sealed his fate as counter-defendant by not handing over everything he had. However, I don't think a spoliation finding for him will be critical for the case, since his data are not the key point of dispute. It is Penon's spoliation that would be much more crucial, and I haven't seen any evidence that Penon would have reasonably expected litigation. That might very well be the case and seems reasonable, but I didn't see any evidence for it, so I don't think IH will prevail on that point.


    I do find it a bit absurd that IH is trying to bar any of Penon's measurement data as 'hearsay' evidence, since those data are so critical for the outcome of the case. I understand their rationale as a matter of legal tactics, but I still find it absurd.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Whatkind of person is Murray? Murray worked for the deep state industrialsector, mainly on weapons testing.

    Note also that IH has not disclosed Murray's CV as they are required to do for expert witnesses. This is one of Rossi's complaints in his motion to dismiss Murray's expert witness testimony. Although it's true that Murray worked for IH for a number of months, he was laid off in late 2016, so he's no longer an employee and was not working as such (as far as we know) during the lawsuit. Why are they so reluctant to provide information on his work background and scientific expertise? What are they trying to hide?

    If the case survives the spoliation hearing, then the future of the parties will depend on the actual evidence presented, and anything further elucidated by cross-examination of witnesses. (incidentally, it has been said that no new evidence can be introduced after discovery is finished. This is NOT true)


    We here are not in possession of all the evidence, just extracts from depositions. Have any of us here seen photos of the notorious flowmeter and its piping in situ? Can Rossi's repurposed heat - exchanger tubing still be found in his "factory"? Can the Court order Rossi to open this matter up to physical examination, and send someone round to view it, and add up all the lengths now used as desk legs or whatever? - and the "modified" fans? Do IH's attorneys have to hand someone to rebut Wong's calculations?


    Etc., etc.......ad nauseam

    Quote from ele

    It make no sense for any scientist.

    A lay man from outside can miss the fact that DAQ systems and the Net let scientists and technicians monitor systems from remote locations.

    Also all data (a complete video recording and voltmeter logs) was recorded and analyzed using an apparatus that was out of Rossi control and

    owned by the experimenters !

    So it was an independent test .



    Well of course rational and honest scientists and engineers would have raw data and video automatically recorded in secure logs with remote back-up. But where are these logs and videos now? Same place as Rossi's heat exchanger?

    #6347

    I do find it a bit absurd that IH is trying to bar any of Penon's measurement data as 'hearsay' evidence, since those data are so critical for the outcome of the case. I understand their rationale as a matter of legal tactics, but I still find it absurd.


    The legal and real arguments are pretty close. Without the ability to cross-examine Penon, and check every link in the chain from raw results to processed report, these are scientifically of very little value, but capable of confusing a Jury.




    The first argument here seems to be that because AR has deceived so many people, it is not likely that he is a liar. That is confirmation bias. It is directly contradicted by the plentiful evidence of Rossi's deception in the Court documents.


    The second argument here is that because IH have not found working LENR - they are therefore technically incompetent. WTF?


    The third argument is that Rossi replications work with industrial-level performance in the hands of amateurs (thus presumably reinforcing the incompetence of IH). Well, if this is true, there are an awful lot of people in the field who are not aware of it...


    I think the poster here operates from extreme prejudice. It is true, if you are certain that Lugano-style reactors now work in the hands of amateurs with industrial levels of performance you have to try to fit everything around that. In that position I'd be arguing as you do.



    #6328

    Of course, it is impossible to dissipate 1 MW without heavy ventilation or partially releasing steam. The later can be excluded because “no” (few) water has been used from the Florida water supply. To condense steam you need a sufficiently high temperature difference, lets assume the 30 degrees we see between the two reservoirs(100--> 70). If AR used a heat exchanger steam--> water – inside the long black box – then, as already discussed, a high airflow or a large passive surface is needed to bring the water temperature from 100C down to 70C. The average yearly Temp. of Miami is 23C, thus the average delta T is 62C. Heating air by 20C brings away about 25kw/m3. To move one m3 air you need about 80watts (between 60 and 100 depending on construction). To move 10m3 air out of the cargo door (8m2) you need a wind speed of about 1.2m/s what is very low. Also for 750MW (whole August!) the wind speed (cargo door) is just a moderate 3.6m/s. The airspeed through the roof and the office window(s) must be 2-3 times higher. (Don't forget that at least 120kW – to 220kW, go away by heat conduction. Ask the only left neighbor about his air-condition during summer time!)


    Thus we can conclude: Everything depends on the effective design of the heat exchangers.


    This set of pseudo-arguments would need to be quantified. It goes against common sense, and what a number of qualified people think. I'll comment as far as I can given the rather scattergun approach here:


    120kW-220kW go away by conduction. Well you could count U values. I'd use as limit a +10C rise and therefore unpleasant +43C typical in Summer Florida (more on hot days). That is the warehouse temperature, inside boxes with heaters it would go still higher. I'd be happy for an absolute max of 200kW for conduction and all natural ventilation, though is this an overestimate, but see the caveat below.


    Cargo door ventilation. The first problem here is that you need two sets of cargo doors, well separated in the building, with flow between them. That would indeed be highly effective. It did not in this case exist. The second problem is that even so the numbers don't add up. To move 1m^3 of air you need 80W. That does not make sense, perhaps you mean to move 1m^3/s (3600 m3/hr) you need 80W? And your calculation is therefore 10m^3/s movement. The +20C is too much. You think a temperature (typical) of +53C in the whole of the warehouse - more in enclosed boxes - would not have been remarked? It would be like an oven there, and unlivable. For +10C you get 375kW from 3.2m/s. But that is a very significant, continual, wind. Coupling fan output to the bay doors (and the extra non-existent set of bay doors for the inlet) is difficult and would be seen. The whole thing is a flight of fantasy. I suggest you talk to building ventilation guys about the practicality of this, and you disclose to everyone here where the air inlet is so that this large airflow can exist throughout the warehouse. I suspect we might have somone here who can comment. I don't see cargo door ventilation as helping.


    The third problem. Summer? Florida? A warehouse with sun on the roof? In these conditions the radiant energy on the roof heats the outer surface and conduction is negative through the roof (which will probably be quite well insulated anyway).


    So we have a real needed additional active heat dissipation of at least 750kW and Rossi claims this is from his second floor heat exchanger.


    Even Rossi himself recognised the force of this argument, which is why he disclosed his no evidence heat exchanger that can only dissipate 100kW. Rossi thought it would do 1MW. The trouble with theoretical calculations using one-size-fits-all constants found on the web is they go wrong...


    What Do You want to say ? The same stuff, which I mentioned ? As it seems....this place became, what a pitty, the right place for that.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    You can cry inanity all you want, but it is statements like this that reveal what kind of person you are. Where did you get those quotes? Are you pretending to quote me?

    As always, avoiding the real questions and accusing others. Try to deflect with statements such as above? Your posts clearly speak for themselves and you know it.


    And you can cry IH is the "wolf" all you want and it will not make it any more true.


    Please answer about the Murray memo intent, when it was written, why it was written and how you can still use it continually to state it shows IH evil and Murray and ignorant! That the one sentence requires IH to make a retraction because they have so misled the public! Really? You continue to use this argument but you never answer the criticism. How about disputing THH math on the heat exchanger? No, the real issue is what angle to look at a window to see if a glass pane is there or not. It does not matter! The math shows the exchanger could not work. Yet you put pages on a window and ignore the solid math.


    If Rossi has what he states, he could easily prove it. He does not. So his believers have to conjure up amazing scenarios to provide what he cannot.

    Why? It is clearly evident.


    Rossi removes and destroys all the evidence. Why? It is clearly evident.


    Rossi lies and creates fake customers, fake engineers, fake sales, fake partners, fake.... why? It is clearly evident.


    Rossi does not provide any hard evidence to the court documents! His only expert witness is testifying only from "Rossi says". why? It is evident.


    So my challenge to you is, if you TRULY are "seeking truth", then attempt to justify all of Rossi's actions from their own merit. From Rossi's own scientific evidence. From Rossi's own credibility! So far all I have seen from you, is to try and white wash Rossi by attempting to paint IH evil. The painted picture is "I will be on Rossi's side because IH is worse that Rossi!"


    I do not criticize Rossi by trying to paint IH an angel. I challenge you to even find one post I have made about IH and "how good they are". I criticize Rossi because of HIS actions, HIS fraud, HIS dealings. You try to support him by trying to deride IH. A big difference.

    What Doral warehouse temperature is livable?


    Actually an interesting question. I take this as a first reference:

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-…a-human-being-can-survive


    The key is that humidity and temperature are equally relevant. Also, even if Florida air is high humidity, upping the temperature in the Doral warehouse will reduce the relative humidity. Essentially, workers there can stay cool, given enough water, by sweating a lot, providing the relative humidity is low. The important criterion for comfort is wet-bulb temperature. This is much lower than normal temperature, and humans die when it gets above 35C.





    So take typical Florida Summer air at peak day-time temperature (33C). The actual comfort depends on humidity, and is shown as wet-bulb temperature. Adding +10C to the air temperature. maintaining the same water content will reduce relative humidity, and therefore the affect on wet-bulb temperature will be a rise of less than 10C.


    http://deltacooling.com/TS_Documents/WetBulb.pdf


    The above design guidelines show what is the maximum wet-bulb temperature for 1%, 5%, 15% over summer months. Let us take 5% of time, we get 80F throughout Florida or 26.6C wet-bulb. Within 8.4C of lethal which I guess is why there is so much AC in Florida. Note how difficult it is to elevate these high wet-bulb temperatures. adding +10C to real temperature increases wet-bulb here by +2C.


    +10C on warehouse temperature (at constant air moisture) gives +2C on wet-bulb temperature of 26.6C, or 28.6C (83.5F). That is well above the 1% Summer condition line for any US city. To actually kill people you need wet-bulb of +35C (at which people cannot reduce temperature by sweating and quite quickly die). But livable conditions are much lower.

    https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_iii/otm_iii_4.html

    The limits here for health and safety state wet-bulb of 30C maximum for continuous light work. Much less for moderate or heavy work. +20C on warehouse temperatures would exceed these limits for 15% of the Summer time.


    With +10C air temperature that warehouse would still have been very very uncomfortable indeed, for much of the Summer. If Rossi or anyone else was working continuously inside a container at an air temperature higher than the warehouse by 5C or so he would suffer even more. Anecdotal evidence is that the container temperature was higher than warehouse by more than 5C, so it would be a big deal.


    The internet is a wonderful resource, it is impressive that we can come to a definite answer to what temperature excess inside a Florida warehouse would be livable.

    Mr Rossi ,what you want?

    The theme tune to Mr Rossi , a kids cartoon from the 70s,80s .lovely little song about Mr Rossi's pursuit of happiness. Uncannily prescient I thought.(Mr Rossi goes in search of fancy things to make him happy then realises he's already happy cos he's got a friendly dog, if only...) Such a great little tune too...even features a rocket car.

    Quote from Peter Gluck

    Can you enumerate what faults have fpound now Murray with theFlowmeter, really?

    Yes, really. Read his deposition, Document 215-3, starting on p. 111.


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0215.03_Exhibit_C.pdf

    Quote from Peter Gluck

    Why do you need to find MORE faults?


    I don't need to. This isn't me. Murray found more faults. He has far more information than I do.

    Quote from Peter Gluck

    Dewey told the flowmeter is incorrect in 5 respects but Dewey was debunked by Vaughn as unable to confront a mastermaind of manipulation as Rossi. You, despite you omni-science was een not mentioned.

    You are wrong about that. Everything Dewey said was confirmed in careful testing.

    Quote from Peter Gluck

    The flowmeter is installed NOT in a free-falling gravity pipe but it is fed by a pump, you know the sine qua non condition

    Of course it was fed by a pump! How else could the water go through? It was fed by a hidden pump as part of the fraud. Any pond waterfall is fed by a pump, but it is also gravity return. From the pretend customer site back to the reservoir it was gravity return. You can see that easily. Look at the photo of the reservoir. It is open to air. The return pipe cannot be full of water in that condition. It cannot be pressurized.

    Quote from Peter Gluck

    The flowmeter is innocent and was full with water, finita la storia.

    Definitely not. People could see the pipe was not full because the reservoir is translucent and open to air. They confirmed that again when they looked inside the flow meter at the corrosion on the lower part of the static fins, but not the upper part. Facts are facts. You can deny them all you like, but it is fact that the flow meter pipe was mostly empty, and the meter results were wildly incorrect, for that reason and several others.


    Your problem is that you think you can just make stuff up and invent your own version of physics. Plus, when Rossi himself gives you a schematic that proves you are wrong, and he publishes photos of the reservoir that prove you are wrong, you ignore them. You don't believe me, you don't believe your own eyes, and you won't even believe Rossi. Nothing can change your mind.

    • Official Post

    Wytennbach,


    Good to see you back. Here is what Wong said in his deposition (264-07, 147-148), had there been no upstairs heat exchanger:


    20 Q. My question to you is, if the heat

    21 exchanger didn't exist, wouldn't that warehouse have

    22 become unbearably hot?

    23 MR. EVANS: Object to the form.

    24 THE WITNESS: The reactor reacts,

    25 generates heat, even though it's insulated.

    Page 148

    1 Dr. Rossi did tell me it was 1,500 degrees

    2 centigrade inside, at least in one spot. But

    3 the control room, I believe, is where -- the

    4 one that was padlocked was there, human beings

    5 would sit, including Dr. Rossi, to take data,

    6 is probably air conditioned.

    7 That reactor room would be the hottest.

    8 BY MR. PACE:

    9 Q. The reactor room would be the hottest and

    10 then it would go out to the rest of the warehouse?

    11 A. Whoever would be in the reactor room would

    12 be dead first, if it's not in the control room.

    13 Q. Sorry. Say that for me again.

    14 A. Somebody in the reactor would be suffering

    Wall U values:


    0.3W/m^2 new build best practice

    0.6W/m^2 - last 30 years unfilled cavity wall

    2W/m^2C - solid brick wall


    Doral factory: http://warehousespaces.com/war…ited-States/FL/Doral/2082

    For a factory space 6000sq ft = 600sq m or 60m X 10m and 7m high the walls provide 1000 sq m or 2000W/C heat loss if solid brick (which would be highly unlikley). +10C thus gives 20kW total wall loss. Very small, we can ignore it


    Roof on a Summer day will give absorption, not loss, suppose 0.


    Floor will provide a heat buffer, averaging out day and night temperatures. Typical admittances to bare concrete floors are 5W/m^2C. Or for 600m^2 we have 3000W/K. +10C gives 40kW. +15C (larger expected, due to floor thermal mass) gives 60kW heat sink to floor thermal mass.


    So for heat conduction does not look significant in this case - a maximum of 80kW making highly conservative assumptions for a +10C rise. Or 120kW if you want +20C rise (in this case the air to average floor temperature goes up from 15C to 25C).


    Convection via roof vents or wall-mounted fans certainly is significant. However, when Murray was there (throughout 1.5 days) the walls fans and roof vent fans (if it existed) were all off. The bay doors were shut. So the only convective heat loss method was natural convection through the roof vent. Which pretty obviously is not enough for 1MW or even 100kW as he found.


    And Murray was surprised the factory was not hotter, which means at most +5C rise then, not +10C, certainly not +20C.


    He was unclear about how much the plant was on, except that it was certainly on until 10:30am on the day he arrived. That would be enough to get temperatures high (think about central heating).


    So - even if we have +20C temperature rise in the factory, the total building heat loss, on the day Murray arrived, would be much less than 220kW. Rossi's fictitious heat exchanger certainly is needed.


    Shane. I know Wong is an esteemed expert but this does not make much sense. If the control room was air conditioned then it need not be hotter than the rest of the factory (and would probably be lower). High reactor heat loss into it would just mean you needed more AC. What you could say is that the AC input power would need to be maybe 50% of the thermal power compensated (assuming an AC efficiency of 200% - sorry probably the wrong word). So it might be significant extra AC power if you reckon 5% (50kW) heat losses inside the blue box. In theory the losses need not be anything like that high because the actual reactors are very small and cooled externally to 100C. So - bottom line - AC enough to make blue box habitable would be possible. And in reality I'm not convinced Rossi had any AC? It would have added to the tight power budget.


    Tech guys, asked on-the-spot tech questions outside their field, tend to give random answers. In this case Wong knows a lot of convection etc theory, but is not a building heat control person. And I have to say his use of textbook convection theory in his Rossi heat exchanger estimate is pretty rough - in that case it was a properly prepared report so less excuse.

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.