Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from IH Fanboy

The 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.

No, the proof is the photos made of the pretend customer site do not show the pipe going up to the second floor. These photos were uploaded as evidence for the lawsuit. Do you think they are fake (Photoshopped)? That would be perjury -- a serious crime.

No witnesses saw this exchanger. Rossi's own witnesses such as Wong did not see it.

If Rossi had photos or any proof of this heat exchanger existed, I think he would have uploaded them.

Rossi claims he dismantled the pipes and heat exchanger. You have to ask why Rossi would destroy such crucial evidence in his favor. It was worth $89 million to him, but he decided to use the pipes for some other purpose? Where are these pipes?

There is far more proof that it does not exist than you are willing to admit, and -- more to the point -- there is not a shred of evidence it existed.

@Bob

No insults, just stated opinion. And it isn't my job to provide proof that the heat exchanger is real. I have no ability to do so. I do have an ability, however, to point out that drawing any kind of solid conclusion at this point is premature.

You assume THH (a pseudo-anonymous poster) is more of an expert than the experts. That is your prerogative.

As for the exit pipe, Murray testified that the pipes fed into a single exit pipe that was larger than DN40. You can look at Murray's deposition. I've posted the excerpt before, so you could also click on my username and find it.

As for the multiple steam pipes to get the steam upstairs, that was Rossi's testimony. If you have multiple steam pipes in parallel with return condensate forming a vacuum in each of them, there will be a vacuum formed. And Rossi also testified that there was a pump that pumped the condensate back to the other side. Murray complained of an irritating noise in the warehouse--that was probably the pump. I had explained these as likelihoods some time ago, before the SJ motions and evidence. Many of you dismissed me then, and even with further evidence, continue to dismiss those possibilities.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Well, there is the story from the Darden depositions of the un-fuelled reactor that had positive COP results when it was tested.

That would give me pause, to say the least. That's about the worst news you can get. Mind you, it has happened to me, and to many others.

Seriously, that is proof the calorimetry is bogus.

When people drill for oil, they sometimes hit a certain layer of rock which is "hard, tough and devoid of porosity." As Deffeyes put it, "Old-timers called it 'suitcase rock': time to pack up the suitcase and go home." When your null experiment with no fuel produces the same results as the positive one, you are finished. Time to go home.

Quote from JedRothwell

No, the proof is the photos made of the pretend customer site do not show the pipe going up to the second floor.

Then what is this?

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/…dae2a28d5.png?w=480&h=551

Looks like at least four pipes to me. This was posted in the comments on ECW, and there is further commentary there:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2017…energy-consumed/#comments

Quote from IH Fanboy

Why is there no evidence for the flow meter being misplaced, other than JedSays? This one issue is probably the most important question to be resolved in this dispute. Jed claims for a fact that the return pipe was only half full and repeatedly points to Murray's deposition as proof. But Murray, when asked whether the flow meter was above or below the pipe inlet, stumbled on his language, equivocated, and then eventually said he didn't know.

No, he said that the stains, corrosion and wear and tear on the static vanes in the flow meter prove that it was used in pipe that was only partially full. He made that quite clear. I am sure they have photographic proof of that.

Also, the people there could see the reservoir was not air tight. You can see that yourself, from the photos of it. Therefore it had to have a gravity return. The people there could see the pipe did not have a U. A video posted here shows what happens when there is no U. The flow meter does not work, period.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Then what is this?

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/…dae2a28d5.png?w=480&h=551

I do not know, but it does not go to the customer site. And even if it did, computations posted here prove it would not suffice to cool down 1 MW of heat. As I said before, you should look at the cooling systems that the law requires in commercial kitchens to remove ~250 kW. They are huge, with blowers the size of a person. Yet commercial kitchens, bakeries, factories an other places with a fraction of 1 MW are very hot places. Rossi's warehouse with the machine running full blast was not hot.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Do you have proof that no endothermic process was taking place?

No industrial endothermic process absorbs more than a tiny fraction of the heat. Baking bread is a typical example, which is often listed in textbooks. The only endothermic process that could absorb a significant fraction of the heat would be melting ice. Tons of ice, every day. No ice was seen being brought into the customer site.

If you know of a candidate endothermic process that absorb more than a few percent of the heat, tell us what it is.

Quote from JedRothwell

The people there could see the pipe did not have a U. A video posted here shows what happens when there is no U. The flow meter does not work, period.

And yet, we don't have a single instance of "the people" testifying that there was no U. Don't you find that a little strange? No photographic evidence. No video evidence. Nada. Do you think this is the "dry powder" that Dewey suggested is being saved for the big finally?

Quote from IH Fanboy

+++ Why would he have? Murray never clarified the glaring errors in Exhibit 5 until his deposition. Why didn't he clear that up before his deposition?

There are no errors in Exhibit 5. If you think there are, you are seeing things where nothing exists.

Quote from IH Fanboy

an inadmissible Google image with uncertain date.

Google photos are admissible these days, and the date is always right there on the photo. A Google photo was used by the investigators in Georgia looking into the arson destruction of I-85 in Atlanta, which has paralyzed the city.

they look like electrical conduits to me.

Quote from JedRothwell

There are no errors in Exhibit 5. If you think there are, you are seeing things where nothing exists.

Do 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.

Quote from JedRothwell

Google photos are admissible these days, and the date is always right there on the photo. A Google photo was used by the investigators in Georgia looking into the arson destruction of I-85 in Atlanta, which has paralyzed the city.

The date is not right there on the photo (at least not on the google street view photos). All you get is the timeline month/year, which doesn't necessarily correlate to the actual date the photo was taken--that is the problem, and the reason why these are inadmissible.

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?

@Shane,

Good to be back. Glad you felt it necessary to at least comment on my comments.

Quote from IH Fanboy

No photographic evidence.

Only a few photographs have been uploaded. The depositions refer to many more, so I assume they will follow. I recall that Murray referred to a photo of the static vanes during his deposition.

I do not know why the court system does not have the photos and other exhibits described in the testimony, but it doesn't.

Quote from IH Fanboy

And guess what? If the pipe really was DN40, then he would be RIGHT!

He probably was. His letter was more accurate than the deposition. He was being hectored by the lawyer, who was a nitwit who admitted he knows nothing about science.

Quote from IH Fanboy

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.

It does not make a damn bit of difference. 1.5" or 3", it is way too small. Pipes used to move a megawatt of steam are a foot or more in diameter. There is not the slightest chance this pipe would allow that much steam.

Ditto your nonsense about 101 deg C versus 103 deg C. That's within the margin of error for these instruments. Heck, there is probably that much difference within the fluid in the pipe. You are pointing to trivial numbers that cannot affect the outcome, and fraudulent numbers. There are dozens of examples that you refuse to look at, or comment on. For example, I pointed out that flow rate dropping to 18,000 kg/day when half the reactors were shut down is obvious, in-your-face, bullshit. You cannot get 36,000, 18,000 and 36,000 unless they stood by and shut down the reactors and then turned them on the next day at the same hour and minute.

Quote from IH Fanboy

The date is not right there on the photo (at least not on the google street view photos).

Yes, it is. In the metadata. I don't mean physically in the photo pixels. That would be oh-so-20th century. I mean all Google street view photos always include the date the photo was taken. For 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.

https://www.google.com/maps/@2…!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Quote from IH Fanboy

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?

This is a case where a google satellite image was admitted : http://www.techtimes.com/artic…h-imagery-as-evidence.htm

Quote

A federal appeals court has just [June 2015] ruled that Google Earth images and other such content can be used as evidence in a trial.

Here'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.)