Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Was the pressure sender screwed into a blind hole where the pressure never changes?

Interesting idea. And it is items like that which make the spoliation arguments even stronger. How can Rossi claim the results to attack IH if he destroys such evidence? In Penon's test plan the pressure gauges would have been outside the container and thus the pipe they fitted in were destroyed and he sent the gauges out of the country never to be seen again.

Where was the temp sensor placed? Out side on the now destroyed plumbing?

I think it is perfectly reasonable, and expected, that the ERV would maintain custody of the instruments. Would it really be fair to either party for the ERV to have left the instruments with one or the other parties? Not understanding that criticism.

Quote from IH Fanboy

I think it is perfectly reasonable, and expected, that the ERV would maintain custody of the instruments. Would it really be fair to either party for the ERV to have left the instruments with one or the other parties? Not understanding that criticism.

but why not return them after he had the manufacturer checked them (that is what he had promised)

I am still want to know how you or anyone explains why the pressure readings from April (the 30 minute ones) were all below atmospheric pressure for Miami on that day. They were IH's devices as I understand.

Your argument above - why would Rossi destroy the plumbing and not leave it for examination.

Quote from IH Fanboy

I think it is perfectly reasonable, and expected, that the ERV would maintain custody of the instruments. Would it really be fair to either party for the ERV to have left the instruments with one or the other parties? Not understanding that criticism.

a much better option was for him to put them in the shipping container and leave it there under seal so no one, not even he could alter them.

Taking the instruments out of the country that may be evidence against you does not sound like a wise option.

My understanding (?- though not to clear) is that he did not send them directly to the manufacturer but took them himself (delivered to himself). That is why tomorrow's spoliation hearing should be interesting.

Can you imagine a person under investigation removing his gun from a scene and mailing to one of his out of country addresses? Not a good idea. How does would that sound to a jury as an analogy?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Was the pressure sender screwed into a blind hole where the pressure never changes?

I do not know, but it was used at a temperature much higher than the manual says it should be. So it probably broke.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Para,

I like the idea, it is destructively creative. But real...?

peter

Peter,

If there is pressure data that shows fluctuations around times that things were changed in the Plant (disabling reactors, fixing leaks, etc.), then the pressure data might indicate that it is connected in communication with steam pressure.

It is an amazing engineering feat to stick the pressure sender exactly where the condenser vacuum and steam pressure balance to exactly nominal standard atmospheric pressure (even if the reported value bounces around either side of that value by some digital increment).

Three days of pressure data is unfortunately enough data to inform ourselves of whether the pressure sender was working properly or not.

However, near perfect nominal atmospheric pressure continuously for three days is unusual.

Bob, I have seen no evidence (but I may have missed it) that Penon actually sent the devices to the manufacturer and got reports. I sure have not seen any results of such claimed action.

The problem is that Penon took the devices and not just mailed them from Fl to the manufacturer (the best I can understand) In other words, even if some devices were sent to the manufacturer, what evidence is there that they were the ones used and that they were unaltered before sending them on.

The issue is that Rossi, et all must provide evidence and I have seen so little of it from them.

Most of these things would have been resolved if there were controls used and test runs to verify calibrations. I know it is hard to do control runs at 1MW but that is the region of operation they chose. If it was science instead of just a show, a pre and post test should have been done. And to verify that IP was transferred it needed to be someone else other than Rossi at the controls to show it was indeed transferred to someone else. It is a sloppy mess. If Rossi could not turn it over to IH to run then I don't see how he can claim that workable tech was transferred.

Quote from Alan Smith

It depends on exactly how it [the pressure gauge] was installed, but I have not looked for pictures- if they exist. The serpentine coil on the small-bore pipe leading to the pressure sensor is designed to cool the steam enough for it to condense.

Penon's schematic shows the pressure gauge is installed between the reactor and the customer site. The serpentine coil is in the reactor site, so the fluid passes by the pressure gauge first.

There is no scale in the schematic, but the pressure gauge is shown just downstream from the thermometer (the "steam temperature measure").

Let me upload Penon's schematic. No doubt you have seen it, but I think Peter Gluck and others have refused to look at it. Gluck has claimed I did not see it, or that it does not show what it shows. Let me add something to the schematic: two arrows and text showing where the fluid goes into the customer site, and comes out. My addition is in red.

Quote from Peter Gluck

Questions:

- was thw pretty standar Flowmeter exonerated by all nasty accusation? (see what tells Penon about it);

- is considered now possible that the manpmeter indicated well atmospheric pressure. 'cause the condensation of steam

at the JMPlant?

- was the steam pipe 40mm or 6" (152 mm)? i.e. section 14.44 times grateer as natural for 2500 cu.m steam per hour?

- are you sure the thermcopules were misplaced and not at a decent distance from the generators?

I think that better focus on Vaughn deposition he clearly explains how confused and uncertain actually IH leaders are

and what are their proofs

techno-calumniating is not so easy if it wants to be taken in consideration. Please refer to the Plant not to Rossi.

peter

Display More

Peter - I think you are confused here as to the burden of proof.

A B C D E F (logical propositions, each showing problems with the test)

The case you argue is that:

A and B and C and D and E and F

is possibly false

The case everyone else cares about is:

A or B or C or D or E or F

which is certainly true

The various error modes for the Rossi test are not all compatible (as you'd expect) so there is no way that all error modes can be true. And your questions cannot all be answered, alas, due to the removal of stuff that will possibly tomorrow be viewed as Spoliation with dire consequences for Rossi et al. Though the consequences for them don't look great in any case - just look at the expert Witness tally (and note how easily destructible is Wong's evidence).

Quote from Alan Smith

I hadn't seen it, thanks for sharing. Not all that helpful really for determining if the sensor was too hot or too cold.

This is helpful because elsewhere the make and model of the pressure gauge was revealed, and the manual says it can only be used between 20°C and 50°C (Murray deposition, Document 215-3, p. 169). So, it would not survive anywhere in the loop, even in the reservoir, which Rossi said was at 80°C. But it would surely not survive for long at the 103°C temperature of the fluid measured by the "probe for steam temperature." The fluid would not cool by much when it reaches the pressure gauge some distance down that same pipe. The total length of the pipe is given somewhere . . . it was not long.

Is it known how the steam temperature was taken, was the probe measuring internal or just the pipe temperature itself? THHuxley raises the very important issue that the pipe itself could well be much higher due to conduction from the reactors.

I myself consider the original 10kW copper 'reactors' fooled the temperature sensor by feeding most of the water directly from inlet to the outlet via the cartridge heater and a smaller amount to the very hot external casing heated by the band heater thus producing flash steam and high temperature readings. A similar scaled up version like the big red box could easily be implemented using band heaters on the outlet pipe just inside the shipping container, out of sight but near the temperature sensor.

IMO Rossi is a stage magician, the question is who is the engineer that designed the props?

Watch carefully, aberacadabera

Quote from Peter Gluck

Questions:

- was thw pretty standar Flowmeter exonerated by all nasty accusation?

No. On the contrary, Murray's deposition revealed many more problems with the flow meter than we have discussed here. Not only was the pipe half full, but the meter was installed incorrectly in various other ways, without the required hardware, and the flow rate was far below the minimum. The corrosion in the meter confirmed that the pipe was half full and tests showed that the meter was wildly wrong in that condition.

Also, as Penon's schematic shows, the meter was in the return line, where you insisted again and again it could not be. Do you still say that? Do you not believe Penon and Rossi?

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Is it known how the steam temperature was taken,

The only thing I know about this is Murray's deposition, document 215-3, p. 170 - 171. Murray says it was a K-type thermocouple that appeared to be "fine." I think he would have said something if he saw they were mounted incorrectly. He said that all of the other instruments were wrong:

23· · · · · · · And specifically on the pressure side he used

24· ·a pressure meter that was actually only operational

25· ·between 0, or I'm sorry, 20 and 50 degrees C, but he was

·1· ·measuring steam temperature of 100 and let's say about

·2· ·102 to 104 degrees C.· So the pressure sensor was not

·3· ·operating in its operational range, and the volume flow

·4· ·rate sensor on the condensate line was not operational

·5· ·in its, in its range.· The temperature sensors, I think

·6· ·they were fine.· I believe they were K type

·7· ·thermocouples, and they logged those to some type of a

·8· ·device.· But it was just a series of errors.

On p. 168 and 169 he describes the idiotic 0.0 bar notation in Penon's report. He says that he assumed that was a typo or a mistake, and he assumed it should be barG, but he wasn't sure about that:

19· · · · · · · So in this system we didn't have a measure of

20· ·the steam flow rate.· We had a measure of the pressure

21· ·that Mr. Penon provided, but he indicated in the final

22· ·report -- this was all before the final report I should

23· ·note.· He indicated in the final report that the

24· ·pressure was zero bar, and bar is an absolute measure of

25· ·pressure.· So zero bar would be a perfect vacuum.· You

·1· ·would have to indicate that it's pressure relative or

·2· ·pressure gauge.· So normally somebody would say bar G or

·3· ·bar relative.· And so what you --

·4· · · · Q.· · What did he report?

·5· · · · A.· · In the report what I saw was bar.· And so, so

·6· ·we know that has to be a typo or an error or something

·7· ·has to be wrong there.

·8· · · · Q.· · Well, it could be bar gauge or --

·9· · · · A.· · If he indicated it was bar gauge, then it

10· ·would say bar G or bar-G or bar relative or -- it could

11· ·be a lot of things.· It was a, it could be a typo.· It

12· ·could have been an error.· It could be a

13· ·misinterpretation, whatever.

I believe that the return line into the open tank was exactly the proposed position for the flow meter, hence the possibility of a half filled pipe.