Try this one:
The lower two panes (or openings) are obstructed in that view. Didn't Rossi testify that it was the lower two panes that were removed and used as the in/out?
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
See Palm reflection much clearer in 2014, same window.
That was Feb 2014. We know the test was started sometime in
Feb 2014, so showing a picture in the same month as the start of the test is not too convincing. Keep trying. You might find one good one yet.Edit: strike that. Test started in Feb 2015. So you are just pointing to this as something that might be similar? If so, that reflection seems quite dissimilar to what you are claiming is a reflection in the 2015 image.
-
Para how was the heat ventilated without a stain on the exit regarding the difference in temperature? I am putting you on the spot here sorry. I think you will be able to answer this quite simply. Shouldn't we see possible condensation over time? If not why not?
-
If the window was used, it was used to expel heat primarily. If 1 MW of steam was being released into the atmosphere, everyone in Doral would know about it. There might have been times though when steam was escaping--who knows? The state inspector (a disinterested witness) testified that he saw a steam leak.
-
Thanks Para, I would think that any heat regardless (of leaked steam or not) would encounter a temperature difference at the exit point and stain over time. But regardless I would think that even the difference in the heat between the building and outside would show up somehow. I will have to ponder this. I will consider that it was sealed and pressurized and just heat alone--- no leaking steam. Still can not get over the condensation but I will think....
-
Even if one is not so enthusiastic about the possibility of venting of 0.5+ MW of power from the upstairs window during some days of April 2015, we still have the endothermic process, the flushing of heat into the city water main and the evacuation of the heat through a large vent in the roof.
ETA: Here I'm being facetious, and don't really think these other possibilities are worth considering.
-
With all the leaks and heat, I am surprised the windows aren't more fogged-up looking, generally.
-
-
The Leonardo windows all look different to me relative to those on either side section of the building. Something was done to them, or something was placed behind them.
Yeah, there is paper or something behind all the windows. Orange garbage bags on some.
-
Thanks for reviewing all the window stuff - which I was not previously so interested in (after all the heat exchanger cannot work!).
But, I guess if Rossi can be proven to have perjured himself, that is something.
(1) How certain can we be that the window in these photos is the one that Rossi claims he used. Could he, for example, have used a window always behind a tree (if there is one such)?
(2) The heat exchanger would blow hot air, not steam, out of the window. To vent 1MW the air would be at about 100C, given the claimed fans. Of course that would never have happened because you cannot get that transfer of heat from the claimed setup.
(3) Supposing the windows with steam/cloud actually showed steam inside the building it would be no indication of Rossi's claimed heat exchanger, which had all steam enclosed on tubes. Such a plume of steam is not expected from Rossi's story.
(4) @Jed. The public evidence around the DN40 issue is not strong. From Murray's evidence we can see exactly why he wrote exhibit 5 (nothing wrong, nor anything to retract). However there is no clear evidence that the DN40 pipes joined to a main that was DN40 and indeed you would expect that not to be the case. However, what size pipe Rossi used to deliver his water/steam is unknown because he removed it. It will I hope be clear even to IHFB that asking Rossi what this is now will not generate an answer that can be relied upon. Since this matter proves nothing there is no point pursuing it. IHFB does this under the mistaken apprehension that it shows the nefarious motives of IH. Everyone has heard the evidence and can judge that for themselves.
-
Even if one is not so enthusiastic about the possibility of venting of 0.5+ MW of power from the upstairs window during some days of April 2015, we still have the endothermic process, the flushing of heat into the city water main and the evacuation of the heat through a large vent in the roof.
I think we should consider the possibility that Rossi did it with ice cubes. The heat of fusion here is 333kJ/kg. That is higher (by mass of reactants) than any other endothermic process people have come up with. Also both reactants and products are readily available, safe, easy to handle. So for 1MW we need 3kg/s ice movement, or about 12 tonnes/hour of ice in and water out from the premises.
I have three proposals all of which must be disproved before we can eliminate this possibility:
(1) Rossi hired an army of tiny gnomes, disguised as normal people, to move the stuff in their pockets.
(2) Rossi drilled into the main sewer and devised sewer-tolerant autonomous vehicles to run through the sewers each with a payload of maybe 3kg. maybe this would not quite work, because you'd need an arrival rate of 1/second.
(3) Rossi used drones, with a payload of 1kg, to deliver the stuff and take away the water. He has the whole roof of the building so could have multiple drones landing at once (which you'd need). They would be too small to show up on aerial photos. the movement of ice downwards, and water upwards, at the rate of 3kg/s could be done by a specially-designed balanced lift system (probably a continuous belt with buckets on both sides) and roboticised. We know that Rossi has had much previous experience with designing and running robotic factories so this would prove little difficulty.
-
(1) How certain can we be that the window in these photos is the one that Rossi claims he used. Could he, for example, have used a window always behind a tree (if there is one such)?
See P's earlier post, here. (I guess it's not certain; but it's a reasonable conclusion.)
-
I have three proposals all of which must be disproved before we can eliminate this possibility:
Yes, those hypotheses are all reasonable, scientific, balanced and neutral, and the burden lies on observers to disprove them. (Here I'm being facetious if it's not already clear, as I was in my earlier post.)
-
One thing I find very dissatisfying about discussions with certain Internet people is that there's no shared learning process. With some, no matter how many data points are collected, it is not possible to come to agreement on the most basic of conclusions. It's like talking to someone with alzheimer's. There's something about the communication that is distorted at a fundamental level. You would not want to have them as a coworker.
-
dissatisfying about discussions with certain Internet people
This is true. Not only dissatisfying, but of no value. Some of these people also have no intention of real discussion and learning. Their mind is set, made up and decided upon.... regardless of how much they say they are "unbiased".
That is why after a reasonable amount of time and discussion, I normally say "adieu" to them. For which is sadder..... someone being a door post, not able or willing to listen or learn..... or someone talking to that same door post for an extended period of time!
-
Display More
No, we don't have such a definite statement, unfortunately.
What we have is this exchange:
"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
Murray notes that the individual DN40 pipes feed into a "main" (this part was not in the Exhibit 5). Murray does not dispute the questioner that the "main" was a larger pipe.
He does not question but does not state it was larger. You cannot assume it was larger just because you want to. I do not see it in evidence.
-
That is why after a reasonable amount of time and discussion, I normally say "adieu" to them. For which is sadder..... someone being a door post, not able or willing to listen or learn..... or someone talking to that same door post for an extended period of time!
I like to bend over backwards so as to make intentions (or perhaps dysfunction) as starkly clear as possible.
-
If you are talking about me, you are full of nonsense. I never said "by association." Nobody I know wants to be associated with Rossi. Especially not Piantelli. I have been in touch with him from time to time. I am sure he wants nothing to do with Rossi. His experiments are radically different from Rossi's. Only the metal is the same.
I did say that nickel results tend to be like Cheshire cat, slowly vanishing, leaving only a smile. There is nowhere near as much good evidence for them as there is for palladium. The power density is usually quite low. There are very few close replications. That's not Rossi's fault. He has done tremendous harm, but you can't blame him for the fact that no one has replicated Piantelli, for example.
The idea of using nickel has been around for a long time. I think the first person who suggested it was Martin Fleischmann around 1991. Titanium was used back in 1989. There hasn't been much follow-up on Ti either.
actually it was earlier than that 4 May '8: see: WO 1990014668 A2 claim 5
-
Regarding lack of agreement, this is caused by problems that cannot be solved at this stage (REMEMBER tomorrow is the 1st year Anniversary of the RvD litigation.)
But let's proceed systematicaly:
a) Which are the unsolved problems on the Energy Generator side?
b) Which are the unsolved problems on the Energy Consumer side of the Plant.
Obviously much mpre info exists for a) than for b). ut can we distinguish facts from assumptions for a)?
peter
-
Display More
I think we should consider the possibility that Rossi did it with ice cubes. The heat of fusion here is 333kJ/kg. That is higher (by mass of reactants) than any other endothermic process people have come up with. Also both reactants and products are readily available, safe, easy to handle. So for 1MW we need 3kg/s ice movement, or about 12 tonnes/hour of ice in and water out from the premises.
I have three proposals all of which must be disproved before we can eliminate this possibility:
(1) Rossi hired an army of tiny gnomes, disguised as normal people, to move the stuff in their pockets.
(2) Rossi drilled into the main sewer and devised sewer-tolerant autonomous vehicles to run through the sewers each with a payload of maybe 3kg. maybe this would not quite work, because you'd need an arrival rate of 1/second.
(3) Rossi used drones, with a payload of 1kg, to deliver the stuff and take away the water. He has the whole roof of the building so could have multiple drones landing at once (which you'd need). They would be too small to show up on aerial photos. the movement of ice downwards, and water upwards, at the rate of 3kg/s could be done by a specially-designed balanced lift system (probably a continuous belt with buckets on both sides) and roboticised. We know that Rossi has had much previous experience with designing and running robotic factories so this would prove little difficulty.
And all those gnome workers never turned on the lights on the weekend as we see in the electric bills.
or we have to assume that the heat was stored over the weekends someway.
And if you can store that much energy someway - that is called a bomb.
