As far as I'm aware, Penon/Rossi have never claimed such a thing (perfect vacuum). Can you provide a reference?
Penon claimed 0 bar pressure every day without variation (notice that is NOT the same as 0 Bar(g) pressure)
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
Yes, yes. But Penon said it was nominally atmospheric, i.e., 0 kPaG. But you already knew that, didn't you.
reference where Penon said it was atmospheric? I only see 0 bar. Please give your proof.
-
Yes, yes. But Penon said it was nominally atmospheric, i.e., 0 kPaG. But you already knew that, didn't you.
for someone who appeals to grammar, you should also apply the same standard to Penon when he claims 0 bar.
-
IHFB - The chances for SJ on Planet Rossi may be zero but I think they are more like 75% that Rossi's Claim 1 gets tossed by the Federal Court before summertime
That means that Rossi's hope for $89M goes into the sunset and a well-constructed and precision targeted counter-suit will still be heading R's way.
Not looking good for your underhanded overlord these days.
-
No, it would not be impossible, despite what Murray (an apparent non-expert in these matters) states. You don't understand how heat exchangers work.
you are not making sense. Do you mean that the exchanger pulled a vacuum but the 0bar was atmospheric and not sub atmospheric? You can't have it both ways.
Again do not confuse Murray's questions to Penon's with the report claimed by Rossi to be Penon's report which clearly says 0 bar. Murray was questioning that report and Penon never answered.
-
The bar is a metric unit of pressure, but is not approved as part of the International System of Units (SI). It is defined as exactly equal to 100000 Pa, which is slightly less than the current average atmospheric pressure on Earth at sea level.[1][2]
Oh! Goodness me. Atmospheric pressure is 1.01325 bar. I am off by a factor of 13/1000ths. So everything I say is wrong. I am not approved -- yeah, verily, I am cast into the outer darkness by the authority of the Système international d'unités.
Got it!
You have jumped the shark.
-
The heat exchanger can create enough of a vacuum and pressure differential to move the steam from the reactor to the heat exchanger. I'm not the only one stating this. Others on ECW and elsewhere have explained this.
The heat exchanger could make a vacuum upon steam condensation, but if the supply is via a large diameter pipe, the pipe pressure will obtain equilibrium throughout the steam path. Something must restrict the steam flow to the condenser in order to maintain negative pressure on that side. This puts limits on pipe sizes throughout the steam system.
Not the same as plugging numbers in calculator.
-
-
I don't think IH ever intended to pay the $89 million. Why would they?
They would pay it it worked, because it would bring them hundreds of billions of dollars with no muss, no fuss, and no lawsuit. If it actually does work and they commercialize it, they will eventually lose the lawsuit have to pay 3 times $89 million instead. So it would be foolish not to pay now.
Even if you are right, and I.H. did not intend to pay, as I said, an experienced businessperson would answer Murray's questions, before filing a lawsuit. That takes away any excuse I.H. might have to refuse payment. It demonstrates good faith on Rossi's part. It puts Rossi in a much stronger position to file a lawsuit, and to win it.
Please note, you did not address what I just said. You are evading the issues and dancing around the subject. You make yourself look silly by doing this.
-
Evidence and testimony have already been submitted that proves beyond any doubt that IH was in position to pay any and all obligations that it might have incurred as part of its effort to find LENR technology that can be characterized, confirmed and commercialized. There was no $89M obligation on behalf of IH - Rossi blew that with his delays and intentional trickery. Rossi's needs to start thinking about how he is going to pay back the $10M license fee plus damages and attorney fees.
-
Easy. He has this great invention you see....
-
Display More
Rossi is in serious jeopardy of having his case issued a summary judgement if he gives the judge nothing. The judge has already threatened sanctions on him.
AND my understanding is that one must produce all evidence during this phase so the defense can prepare. That is why Rossi asked for so much information from IH, he was fishing. IH asked for hard evidence such as the actual recorded data and Rossi had refused to turn it over, after (3) requests! Wonder why?
Now, we may not see all the evidence published in the court documents true, but the court participants will see it before trial.
So based upon my limited understanding, Rossi is would not be correct in declining at this late in the game. Since the judge threatened sanctions, I believe that position is correct.
You are correct: Federal rules governing the case https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37
specify :
Failure to Disclose or Supplement. If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.
Withholding the data would likely mean that he could not use it in the trial.
-
See: Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2
The heat exchanger can create enough of a vacuum and pressure differential to move the steam from the reactor to the heat exchanger. I'm not the only one stating this. Others on ECW and elsewhere have explained this.
If what you claim is true then why wouldn't the pressure out of the unit be sub atmospheric?
-
Maybe this is the science behind the e-cat
-
Ah yes Malcolm - quite nice! Some lovely associated naming conventions that we may be able to apply here - kind of surprised that similarly named R SPs have not surfaced yet.
New to the game are the Knatterpout, Poof-Poof goes your money, Phut Phut you or Pouet-Pouet in your suet options to choose from. While not related, I'd also to take the opportunity to add "spread-out porcupine" to the list as well.
He's going down down down down down.
-
If what you claim is true then why wouldn't the pressure out of the unit be sub atmospheric?
It was said to be nominally atmospheric. We've only seen a fraction of the actual data.
-
It was said to be nominally atmospheric.
Where does it say that? Who said that? 0.0 bar is a vacuum. That's what Penon's data shows. Are you saying that is a mistake?
-
Where does it say that?
Your beloved Exhibit 5. The author of Exhibit 5 stated that Penon told him this.
QuoteWho said that?
See above.
Quote0.0 bar is a vacuum.
QuoteThat's what Penon's data shows. Are you saying that is a mistake?
Penon's data does not indicate an absolute vacuum.
Sheesh. Your repetition is almost mind-numbing. But I'm willing to continue to correct your inaccuracies as long as you are willing to continue to restate them.
-
It was said to be nominally atmospheric. We've only seen a fraction of the actual data.
But the final report lists 0.0 bars every day.
Do you believe the report that Rossi claims is Penon's?
If that is to be believed then the "vacuum" you claim from a heat exchanger could not be more than
-0.1 bar (g). (Assuming he is using gauge)
-
But the final report lists 0.0 every day.
Do you believe the report that Rossi claims is Penon's?
I believe that there are a number of possible explanations for the 0.0 bar as shown in the partial report. And I do know for sure: the talk of absolute vacuum is unfounded and just plain stupid.
