Note also that IH has not disclosed Murray's CV as they are required to do for expert witnesses. This is one of Rossi's complaints in his motion to dismiss Murray's expert witness testimony. Although it's true that Murray worked for IH for a number of months, he was laid off in late 2016, so he's no longer an employee and was not working as such (as far as we know) during the lawsuit. Why are they so reluctant to provide information on his work background and scientific expertise? What are they trying to hide?
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
If the return pipe cannot be full of water, then how can the pipes above it be full of water, as Murray claims?
Yes. There are two distinct error modes.
- Dual flow - everything full of water - 100% phase change on fluid from e-cats which however is small amount of total flow.
- Or, single flow, flowmeter over-reading, almost no phase change.
There are other error modes as well, and variations (Bruce-h on ecat world suggested the Rossi runs the Grundfoss pump at night one). I don't claim to have worked out exactly which combos are possible.
My point about Peter's questions (and others here) is that it is not necessary - and obviously impossible - to prove both modes are correct at the same time.
Here is the problem. Due to actions of Rossi and Fabiani we do not (as far as I can see) have enough info to work out which of these error modes was used. One of them must be, since we can be sure from heat dissipation arguments that the device did not generate anything like 1MW. But we don't know enough about the now destroyed system to work out how the perhaps spoliated data was came about.
It is entirely possible that IH guys, with much more complete info than has been released, have worked this out. Also quite possible that they cannot tell.
Today 15:00 Florida time is the Rossi Fabiani Spoliation hearing!
-
Jed,
You wrote:
"People could see the pipe was not full because the reservoir is translucent and open to air."
You have a fixation with that reservoir and a mania of the half full pipes. It is a pipe, then a small ascendent pipe (that is the rule) that keeps the flowmeter full and then a pipe to the reservoir. Who the heck can see what? About the portion of pipe leading to the instrument?
Re what Murray says at pp 11 etc. no facts, no hlaf full pipes.
I am sure tha you will regret he many untruths you are saying
because they are beyond limits of decency.
However YOU MUST keep the flowmeter half full at any price..
I must write a LENR blog (today an interesting contribution to PdD hot) have no time to educate you- imposssible task.
peter
-
Wouldn't the AC at the control room just dump heat from the control room into the warehouse? Wasn't it just a container parked inside the warehouse?
Absolutely. But that was not the question Wong was asked, or his answer. And what temperature the control room had is irrelevant if you just want to know the total warehouse heat budget which, I agree, is much more interesting.
-
Sorry but I am confused by your answer - it doesn't make sense:
Quote from Zeus46
If the return pipe cannot be full of water, then how can the pipes above it be full of water, as Murray claims?Your first 'error mode' seems to agree that the return pipe must also be full of water.
Your second 'error mode' just leads back to the same question... If the flow meter is over reading, then presumably the return pipe is half-full.... But how can that pipe be half-full, if the pipe above it is full, as Murray suggests.
As an aside it's interesting that Murray suggests dual flow takes place (through a mysterious hidden connection to the riser), but doesn't show any photos to back up his assertions. Bit odd, no?
-
Jed,
You wrote:
"People could see the pipe was not full because the reservoir is translucent and open to air."
You have a fixation with that reservoir and a mania of the half full pipes. It is a pipe, then a small ascendent pipe (that is the rule) that keeps the flowmeter full and then a pipe to the reservoir. Who the heck can see what? About the portion of pipe leading to the instrument?
Re what Murray says at pp 11 etc. no facts, no hlaf full pipes.
I am sure tha you will regret he many untruths you are saying
because they are beyond limits of decency.
However YOU MUST keep the flowmeter half full at any price..
I must write a LENR blog (today an interesting contribution to PdD hot) have no time to educate you- imposssible task.
peter
-
As an aside it's interesting that Murray suggests dual flow takes place (through a mysterious hidden connection to the riser), but doesn't show any photos to back up his assertions. Bit odd, no?
As I recall, it was Smith that suggests that there is a connection from the return condensate pipe to the steam riser, albeit with no supporting evidence of such a connection. I think we might be witnessing another DN40-like snafu in the works.
-
Jed - you mentioned a hidden pump as part of the fraud.
Is this a) conjecture; b) deduction; or c) a matter of fact supported by solid evidence? Is this the Grundfos pump you're talking about?
-
Display More
Sorry but I am confused by your answer - it doesn't make sense:
Your first 'error mode' seems to agree that the return pipe must also be full of water.
Your second 'error mode' just leads back to the same question... If the flow meter is over reading, then presumably the return pipe is half-full.... But how can that pipe be half-full, if the pipe above it is full, as Murray suggests.
As an aside it's interesting that Murray suggests dual flow takes place (through a mysterious hidden connection to the riser), but doesn't show any photos to back up his assertions. Bit odd, no?
OK. I think you are not understanding the two ways in which the Penon results could have been got from COP=1.
A. first error mode. Correct, in this case the flowmeter could be full of water, and the dual flow means that even though the claimed flow is correct, the heat calculation is wrong.
B second error mode. here the flowmeter is not full of water and so over-reading by 4. Dual flow (up the riser) is not needed. The COP is one because there is no (or almost no) phase change.
My point, which you are not yet seeing, is that maybe Murray, like me., does not know which of these modes is correct. He does not know whether the pipe is full. Or, maybe he does, and the info we have is incomplete. The point is that this test as it stands is obviously unsafe. We are not required to be able to work out exactly which way it is unsafe.
There is a real logical inability of those arguing this point to see that you can have two incompatible error modes and not know which one applies.
We know that the Penon results are incorrect from heat dissipation considerations.
Therefore it is not necessary to prove the water circuit did not work as claimed by Rossi/Penon. We need only show that it could have worked some other way with COP=1. Rossi/Fabiani/Penon removal of evidence makes proving anything here quite difficult.
-
OK. I think you are not understanding the two ways in which the Penon results could have been got from COP=1.
A. first error mode. Correct, in this case the flowmeter could be full of water, and the dual flow means that even though the claimed flow is correct, the heat calculation is wrong.
And you base this possibility on what evidence?
QuoteB second error mode. here the flowmeter is not full of water and so over-reading by 4. Dual flow (up the riser) is not needed. The COP is one because there is no (or almost no) phase change.
As Para has pointed out, the COP would still be 5+.
-
@IHFB, re your last post. Please provide evidence for your assertions?
P said COP would be 5 with no phase change - but with flowmeter errors this can go down to COP=1.
As for dual flow I base this possibility on the fact that it is possible! Would you care to prove to me it is not possible? Obviously, with dual flow, we cannot know there is phase change in the recirculated fluid, and we cannot know what is the water temperature of the recirculated fluid and hence we cannot know what heat input is required to sustain the measured flowrate.
In any case - you are up shit creek without a paddle here. The main problem for you is that the missing heat dissipation method shows the Penon results are incorrect. Therefore if you can't work out how they are incorrect - well that is just because you are not perfect.
Luckily, there are not one but two distinct ways that the results could be incorrect noted here - and a few more way-out ones - like Bruce-h on ECW's Rossi runs the Grundfoss secretly at night method.
-
As far as I can see, the maths that denies the possibility of the required amount of heat dissipation is solid, and enough to deny Rossi his $89 million.
So far as piping, flowmeters, sensors, data logging and other physical stuff goes, there is an uncomfortable mixture of evidence, conjecture, and just plain Making Stuff Up. My opinion FWIW is that the Rossi supporters do most of this, but the other side are sometimes guilty - or at least do not always make themselves plain as to the evidence they are working from
-
@IHFB, re your last post. Please provide evidence for your assertions?
P said COP would be 5 with no phase change - but with flowmeter errors this can go down to COP=1.
Touché. That is what he said. But we have no evidence of flowmeter errors. Jed's FUD has been debunked.
Quote
As for dual flow I base this possibility on the fact that it is possible! Would you care to prove to me it is not possible?So when I propose alternate possibilities that are based on some evidence, I am accused of embracing wild beliefs. But when you or other IH supporters propose alternate possibilities with no supporting evidence, we are to take it seriously?
-
Touché. That is what he said. But we have no evidence of flowmeter errors. Jed's FUD has been debunked.
So when I propose alternate possibilities that are based on some evidence, I am accused of embracing wild beliefs. But when you or other IH supporters propose alternate possibilities with no supporting evidence, we are to take it seriously?
IHFB - Bob gets very indignant and I am just very very annoyed because you seem like a genuine person wanting to contribute to shared understanding, but then you argue in this way.
I won't feed the trolls, but if you have any genuine problem with my last post man up and state where you think I'm wrong, and we can check who is right. I'm always happy to do that.
-
THH: I understand the situation well enough thank you:
1. If the upper pipe is full of water, as
MurraySmith claims, then the lower return pipe must also be full of water.2. Assuming a single circuit - If the lower return pipe is full of water, the flow meter is accurate to within 3%. Assuming the temperature readings are correct, the COP is somewhere around 5 (According to Paradigmoia, I haven't checked his calcs, but he's not daft).
3. Because of that, Smith needs to claim that the flow meter is vastly over estimating the flow, hence the need to suppose a dual circuit.
4. There is no evidence of a dual circuit in any photos, despite Smith being pretty handy with a camera and desktop publishing software.
It seems to me that not only are the lawyers getting rich of this, but also the expert witnesses (Wong included), who seem prepared to say almost anything to earn their $350 dollars per hour.
Luckily people like Jed can see through the unsubstantiated potential BS of Smith: Jed has stuck by his claim that the return pipe is only half-full - which is in direct contravention of Smith's report... Although I'm not sure that he understands this.
Quote from THHWe know that the Penon results are incorrect from heat dissipation considerations.
Indeed. It's obvious that the plant wasn't putting out 1MW. But based on the evidence I've read, no other conclusions, can be drawn.
(Apart from the fact the Rossi has an uncomfortable relationship with the truth, and that IH like to smear as much shit as possible, with the help some dubious expert witnesses)
-
Quote
Assuming a single circuit - If the lower return pipe is full of water, the flow meter is accurate to within 3%. Assuming the temperature readings are correct, the COP is somewhere around 5 (According to Paradigmoia, I haven't checked his calcs, but he's not daft).
No - Paradigmnoia was not taking into account dual flow. Please state how you are incorporating dual flow into this? because it is obvious that Ps calculation (which is same as mine roughly) cannot work if you have dual flow. You should really ask him if you take him as authority instead of working it out for yourself. I'm not saying that is bad idea - P is pretty good!
if he disagrees with me I'll talk to him here and I'm sure we will converge on something we can agree.
-
Quote
Indeed. It's obvious that the plant wasn't putting out 1MW. But based on the evidence I've read, no other conclusions, can be drawn.
Right. I'm happy with no conclusions can be drawn. But that means that we have no more info about Rossi's stuff working than we had before this test - or would have had if the test had not been done.
Basically, the only way we have learnt more over the test is we now have proof of the many ways in which Rossi distorts the truth in his business relationships and in what he posts on JONP. Some of us were pretty sure of that any way, but now we have it in black and white.
The job of IH here is to prove that the test results are not reliable and therefore even if the GPT contract were to apply (they hope it does not) Rossi would still not have passed it. They are not trying to draw more conclusions except on the separate matter of whether Rossi is fraudulent.
if you think they are arguing more perhaps you could provide evidence?
-
But based on my last post above, why does Smith go to so much trouble to suggest a flooded double circuit with a mystery hidden connection inside the riser?
I mean, he should just say that "the condensate pipe is half full" and leave it at that. That would be so much easier.
I wonder what he saw on his site visit that precluded him from taking that easy option?
-
Quote from Zeus46
Assuming a single circuit - If the lower return pipe is full of water, the flow meter is accurate to within 3%. Assuming the temperature readings are correct, the COP is somewhere around 5 (According to Paradigmoia, I haven't checked his calcs, but he's not daft).
No - Paradigmnoia was not taking into account dual flow. Please state how you are incorporating dual flow into this? because it is obvious that Ps calculation (which is same as mine roughly) cannot work if you have dual flow.
That's why I said "assuming a single circuit".
I've noticed a pattern of you repeatedly miscomprehending what I type (the tennis/wife thing, and the time I agreed with your convection calculator, and now this...)
Please pay more attention as I'm struggling keep a lid on the kind responses usually reserved for jokers such as Abd and Hody.
Quote
Right. I'm happy with no conclusions can be drawn. But that means that we have no more info about Rossi's stuff working than we had before this test - or would have had if the test had not been done.Yup, but as we all know, Rossi's technology was always just a sideshow compared to the truly interesting aspects of this saga: The weird foibles of Rossi and of those who seek to either boost or discredit him. (With bonus points for those that have done both....)
-
@THH,
The dual flow conjecture rings as true as the single DN40 outlet pipe FUD. And I'll give you the same promise that I did before: if it turns out to be true, then I'll mark Rossi and team up as complete incompetents and frauds.
But you seem to latch on to things that appear to have a glide angle of a brick.
