You left out the word 'if'. You have no idea what software was used.
I But that is what certain people here do on every post! They use their imagination! Yet I see no qualitative response from you to them! Why?
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
Mr Huxley,
I have noticed considerable changes in your grammar and writing so I would then like to know if you have ventured into an agreement where you are paid or if you have any other incentive for writing. The reason why I ask is because among various things I have noted that you started to use the connotation "we" a lot.
I would really appreciate if you answer these questions with yes / no / none of your business. -
Shane ---he placed a radiator in an insulated box?
yes, I don't understand how you get much air flow inside the insulated box. I didn't see enough to tell if there were any way for the air to flow in and out of the box. And if it did flow out of the box how did it get out of the warehouse?
-
Sam
I don't know about Huxley but for me I edit my responses mostly because of "fat fingers" on a little touch pad and I don't notice the mistakes on the small screen. It is not till I view it on the "big" computer screen that I even notice the mistakes.
-
Display More
Mr Huxley,
I have noticed considerable changes in your grammar and writing so I would like to know if you have ventured into an agreement where you are paid or if you have any other incentive for writing. The reason why I ask is because among various things I have noted that you started to use the connotation "we" a lot.
I would really appreciate if you answer this questions with yes / no / none of your business.
No. I can confirm that I am not, and have never been, paid or given any other incentive for writing here. However, if you would like to pay me that would be gratefully received. One proviso - if I am ever paid for posting here I will need to disclose (here) what that payment is.
The issue about grammar is just that when I get indignant enough about misleading technical stuff to work it out properly I tend to improve my grammar etc. I also like to use we when explaining things in detail to an audience I expect to follow for themselves. It needs a few edits. I know that experts as Wong are paid by one party and can therefore deliver partial reports. Wong's report is technically correct - since he only gives an estimate - but actually useless and very misleading. I don't like that. I could not do that myself unless I really believed the estimate. Wong, you would think, has enough background in this area not to do that. But obviously not, and it is amazing how respected theory guys can use equations and approximations inappropriately.
THH
PS - I'm not really Thomas Henry Huxley
-
We have largely not come to a conclusion and acknowledge that there are significant unanswered questions, such the existence, or not, of the heat exchanger.
That is not an unanswered question. There was no heat exchanger. Smith is an expert witness who went to the mezzanine and looked. There was no sign of any heat exchanger, or any of the marks, holes or electrical connections the demolition of the exchanger would leave. Smith will testify to this in court.
What you are saying is that Smith is lying. It would only be an "unanswered question" if he is lying. He is not lying. He would not risk losing his license. Furthermore, I.H. has many photos of the mezzanine to back up what Smith claims, whereas Rossi has no photos and no other evidence to back up his cock and bull story.
-
I didn't see enough to tell if there were any way for the air to flow in and out of the box.
You don't need an air flow. We used to put old fashioned hot water radiators in wooden boxes similar to that container to keep them from heating the room. We did that in rooms where there were too many radiators and the rest of the house was cold.
That box wasn't all that well insulated. Heat will escape from any box, no matter how well insulated. Good insulation means the inside gets hotter than it would with poor insulation. There was only 10 or 20 kW of heat, so it did not get very hot.
-
When people don't want something to be real, they will conjure up all sorts of ad hoc hypothesis
It works both ways. When people want to believe something, and they suffer from wishful thinking, they conjure up ad hoc hypothesis to make it seem the thing is real. Such as invisible pipes going to a mezzanine that is later shown to have no trace of a heat exchanger, or magic endothermic industrial processes that swallow up 24 megawatt hours of heat a day continuously for months.
-
Further points about the heat exchanger for guys like engineer48 who seem to think it is real.
Since it can only dissipate 100kW, you have a problem. Rossi himself stated that he used it for times when the JMP box was not using power. So, since the 1MW you think produced was pretty well continuous, it must be able to dissipate at least a good part of 1MW.
If you suppose much bigger fans (for example X10 as stated by the IH attorney in the Wong transcription) you still can't dissipate more than 500kW. But those much larger fans are highly implausible:
- The fans left in the building (which Rossi says are the ones he used) are clearly not that big
- Such large fans on all the time would show power used separate from the e-cats. But the FPL figures minus the Penon figures don't leave enough power
- The outlet speed through the window is 150mph. Unfeasibly high.
I don't see any way round this. Either the system produced no more than ~100kW or Rossi is lying on oath about the heat exchanger. But such a lie would be weird in the extreme, when he disclosed the heat exchanger only to explain the dissipation problem! If he had some better solution (e.g. fans to the roof) he would surely disclose that.
If the system produces 100kW then those Penon figures are not just a bit out, they are way out by a factor of 10. you need to explain that. And then you need to show why if 90% of the claimed power does not exist, then maybe 98% of it does not exist!
There is no wiggle room here that I can see.
PS - for those not willing to follow the heat flow derivation (not so hard) note that Prof Wong was technically not wrong. He provided an estimate. It just turns out - as anyone with decent physical intuition would expect - to be a very bad estimate.
-
That is not an unanswered question. There was no heat exchanger. Smith is an expert witness who went to the mezzanine and looked. There was no sign of any heat exchanger, or any of the marks, holes or electrical connections the demolition of the exchanger would leave. Smith will testify to this in court.
What you are saying is that Smith is lying. It would only be an "unanswered question" if he is lying. He is not lying. He would not risk losing his license. Furthermore, I.H. has many photos of the mezzanine to back up what Smith claims, whereas Rossi has no photos and no other evidence to back up his cock and bull story.
Since Smith either did not know about or outright ignored the boiler site glass, and assumed in a sloppy fashion that the total pump power comprised only the 6 pumps per BF, I give little weight to his remaining conclusions. He either misled intentionally or did not take care in understanding the system.
-
a mezzanine that is later shown to have no trace of a heat exchanger
Hi Jed,
Do you dismiss the Wong pictures of the mezzanine as "showing no trace"?
JB
-
@THH
I can completely appreciate your shift to the heat exchanger as the center of your criticism now that most remaining questions about pipe sizes, pumps, site glass, and flow have been driven to ground.
It is amusing how one IH canard after the next has to be shot down, and the critics must then move to the next best one. I think you are correct in that the questions about the heat exchanger will give you the most mileage. In fact, I tried to nudge you in that direction before. It seems you are just now taking that advice.
-
I thought that was a pretty good analysis.
What I wonder is, with a small amount of heat loss (say 5%), how long does it take for the mezzanine area to become a deadly oven?
-
Since Smith either did not know about or outright ignored the boiler site glass, and assumed in a sloppy fashion that the total pump power comprised only the 6 pumps per BF, I give little weight to his remaining conclusions.
So, you are saying that he went into the mezzanine, and there were clear signs that equipment had been installed there, such as holes, electric wires, and so on. But he did not see these signs. You are not saying you "give little weight" to his conclusions. You are saying he is a lunatic. You are saying that despite 40 years experience in engineering, he does not recognize ordinary hardware and carpentry.
Either that, or you are saying he was lying.
You are making extreme claims here. Own up to it.
By the way, I am sure you and the Engineer are wrong about the boiler glass and the rest.
-
Do you dismiss the Wong pictures of the mezzanine as "showing no trace"?
Which pictures do you mean? Wong did not visit the site or go into the mezzanine.
-
By the way, I am sure you and the Engineer are wrong about the boiler glass and the rest.
Are you about as sure as you were about there being a single DN40 exit pipe?
-
I can completely appreciate your shift to the heat exchanger as the center of your criticism now that most remaining questions about pipe sizes, pumps, site glass, and flow have been driven to ground.
This is your imagination only. No one has conceded any of these points, but you act as if you won, like the black knight in Monty Python.
-
Are you about as sure as you were about there being a single DN40 exit pipe?
I am sure that it makes absolutely no difference whether that pipe is DN40 or DN80 or 1 foot in diameter. I am sure it would not make the slightest difference whether the temperature was 101 deg C or 104 deg C. I am sure that you focus on details that have no technical meaning and you imagine you have found a "gotcha" that magically invalidates elementary thermodynamics. You think you know more than people such as Murray and Smith, where in fact you have no clue what you are talking about. It is as if you were lecturing me about Japanese grammar.
You remind me of these crazy people who think they do not have to pay taxes because there are flags with fringes on them in some courtrooms.
-
Which pictures do you mean? Wong did not visit the site or go into the mezzanine.
Wong was there and took photos on Feb 10 2017.
The Plant was shut down Feb 17, 2016.
The suposed mezzanine heat exchanger was dissasembled immediately after Plant shut down, and certainly before April 2016. Or so the story goes.
We are led to believe that the middle window that was used for venting, etc., was missing for nearly two years. It was being replaced when Wong was there, Feb 10, 2017, even though it was in place in many photos in 2015.
-
I am still waiting for someone, anyone to give evidence that Rossi had 1MW with COP60 that is not based on what Rossi says or data that was given by Rossi. It is Rossi that must prove his case against IH. I don't see where that has been done with the preponderance of the evidence. What has Rossi offered to prove his case?
The few statements that he has made like customers and hidden fans, he has not supported by documents or photos. Most of his items read like a defense instead of a prosecution.
