THH's conclusion is based upon analyses which are in this thread for you to go back and read and comment upon. The conclusion is either solid, or there's some holes in it. Perhaps you'll be willing to raise your own comments above the level of conjecture by going back and identifying what is conjecture in THH's conclusion about the upper bound on power dissipation?
It's all conjecture at this point in the discussion, either way.
Display MoreFrom 214- 35:
Mail from JT Vaughn to Paul Lamacraft, Neil Woodford and others.
"I wanted to let you guys know that we will be releasing a public statement tomorrow morning at approximately 10:30 AM ET concerning our position with regard to Rossi's technology. The statement will make it know that based on our experience, analysis and observations we are not in position to announce the successful testing of his technology now or at any previous time. The statement will go on to talk about our portfolio of leading LENR technologies (aside from Andrea Rossi's technology) and announce (for the first time publicly) our serious engineering efforts presently underway [...]"
Answer:
"This is clearly very disappointing given that Rossi's technology was a core element of the initial investment. Can you let me have sight of the statement please."
So it seems to me that Woodford didn't care so much about the portfolio but gave a great importance to Rossi's technology.
SSC,
So is there a problem with that?
Sounds to me like Woodford went into the investment mainly for Rossi, and Rossi never came through. I miss where in that e-mail they blame IH for that? Looks to me, like many others before them, Woodford is now another victim of Rossi. Of course, a few here think that is another feather in his cap. 
And lest we forget, the folks behind APCO are not nice.
Bet no one pro-IH will want to comment on this one.
But yet, here we have Murray admitting that IH dismantled their replication testing efforts and closed up shop too. Why the double standard?
OK, you're baiting here, or in knucklehead territory.
IH did not initiate a quarter billion dollar lawsuit with key findings hinging on the performance of the device he dismantled.
And further, Rossi would instantly become one of the wealthiest, most famous, and recognized as one of the most ingenious individuals in the history of mankind if his device (which he decided to dismantle) worked.
IH had a device which they tested repeatedly and couldn't get to work, was not the subject of any planned lawsuit, and which was of no apparent value.
But I think you already knew this. (I sure hope you did).
It makes me wonder why you ask, though. It kinda makes your partiality obvious, despite assertions to the contrary.
Rossi- Darden chatter can not be heard on Cassini
Rossi briefed his own expert - who got it wrong. If finds mattered, Rossi would have told Wong about them. Unless he does not want $89M.
He doesn't want the $89M, he wants the rights to his IP back.
He, and everyone with a 6th grade education understand that science and technology are not based on proving NEGATIVES, as is the basis of virtually every argument in support of Rossi's claims, and these forum topics.
Another APCO employee?
People whose contributions are little more than annoying innuendo will not last long here. Eric
How can you say that partial corrosion (???? seen from outside ????) if any is evidence that the return pipe was half empty ?
On the inside, obviously. Read what Murray says.
Why do you comment on a document you clearly have not read? Are you trying to make yourself look bad?
He doesn't want the $89M, he wants the rights to his IP back.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Rossi sued, and wants...very badly, $89m, plus extra for a total of $267m, because he claims IH owes him for a successful "GPT".
Quote"I mean look it, this is a big case. [... ] I think we need to have an argument on this or we think that this stuff is hidden in a mountain in Colorado and we shouldn't have to go get it, so we need a judge really to decide whether or not, you know, it's proportional to the needs of the case. Not, you know, oh we gave them videos and we did this and we did that. This is garbage. This is not what I'm here for. So I suggest you guys start working on this stuff a little better. I don't know who is, you know, doing the communicating between you, but if it's not you two and it's someone else, they need to communicate. And if they can't get it accomplished, then you two get it accomplished before you come and see me again. I'm not here to resolve kindergarten matters, and I'm serious about this."
JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE December 20, 2016 in response to Mr. Pace
"Garbage", "Kindergarten Matters", good points Mr. O'Sullivan
Bet no one pro-IH will want to comment on this one.
This is just a heads-up that I find that the signal to noise ratio in your posts to be especially low. Please stop trying to turn the discussion of this thread away from the topic at hand and towards the members of this forum, either directly or through vague innuendo, such as in this case.
ele Rossi **SAYS** he was exonerated. For the facts, see Krivit's pages. Rossi was not exonerated in the Petroldragon disaster. And his supposed prototype of the thermoelectric device which gave orders of magnitude more efficiency than current devices was NEVER DELIVERED to the contractor, NEVER SEEN OR TESTED by the contractor and again, existed only in Rossi's fertile imagination. What Rossi DID deliver to the contractor was non working rejects manufactured in Russia (see conversations between Gary Wright and the company which supplied these devices). I tried really hard via the Freedom of Information Act, as did others, to find a single first hand report, attributable to someone I could contact, which said that an efficient Rossi device had been seen and tested and each time, I came up empty. If you know someone I can contact who actually saw one of these wonders, let me know and I will be happy to check them out and report back..
If you go by what Rossi wrote or said, expect to be bamboozled every time.
Rends,
I read those transcripts today (thx Abd), and what you posted is taken out of context. Chaiken (Rossi's lawyer) wanted Pace (IH's lawyer) to better sort out the mountain of info IH provided. Pace explained to the judge the problem from their end, and what they had already done to take that huge amount of data, and format it as simply as possible. After all was said and done, both the judge and Chaiken seemed OK with it.
Pace also pointed out that, whereas Rossi was inundated with info from IH, IH had no such problem from Rossi's side. That about sums up the case so far...IH has submitted a lot, and Rossi just a little. Something we knew already.
And for what it is worth...I am starting to get the impression you last Rossi hold-outs do not play fair. Seldom answer uncomfortable questions, cherry pick, make stuff up, and take things out of context. Guess you guys have learned a thing or two from your hero?
He doesn't want the $89M, he wants the rights to his IP back.
In that case, he should offer to return the $11 million. I believe he said he did that, but he did not.
Since Rossi's 'heat exchanger' idea emerged after Bass' deposition, there are no questions asked of Bass about the alleged mezzanine heat exchanger. You can bet that at trial, Bass will be asked if he has any knowledge about it.
@sig,
Yes, it is strange that Bass wasn't asked. Or maybe he was (since we only have access to excerpts of depositions), and one side is holding out for trial with that information.
IHFB - you are weird.
I have been reading the Smith deposition. The lawyer questioning him is invincibly stupid. He makes the Planet Rossi people here look smart in comparison. Have a look starting on p. 136, going for several pages.
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0215.04_Exhibit_D.pdf
The part about the elevation of Miami versus Leadville on p. 138 takes the cake.
"Q. And you talk about the gauge pressure has a local atmospheric pressure of normally 14.696 PSIA at sea level. Is that something similarly that is widely known, or is that specific to this?
A. Yes. It's widely known, yes, sir. And it is specific to this case also.
Q. How is it specific to this case?
A. Well, it's in -- my next sentence says Think Miami. Doral, Miami, what, 41 feet above sea level, give or take, it definitely applies.
Q. Okay. You said 41 feet above sea level. Where did you get that information?"
That's hysterical. I love Smith's answer to an equally stupid question a few pages back:
"Q. Where did you get this statistic that a conventional steam power plant might have steam leaving the boiler at a pressure of 2485?
A. My power plant experience. That's a typical number.
Q. Okay. Is that something I could look up online?
A. Sure. You know, if it's on the Internet, it must be true."
IH had a device which they tested repeatedly and couldn't get to work, was not the subject of any planned lawsuit, and which was of no apparent value.
This is an interesting part of the story, so I think it merits that we explore further. What we have is Murray building his own reactor that was "modeled" after Dameron's reactor, which was built with Rossi's assistance, and had differences relative to Rossi's reactors.
215-3, 89
"·1· · · · A.· · No, we had not.· Incidentally, it was not a
·2· ·reactor that was designed and built by Mr. Dameron.
·3· ·Myself and my engineering team designed and built it,
·4· ·and it was modeled after a reactor that Mr. Rossi and T.
·5· ·Barker Dameron had built previously.
·6· · · · Q.· · Now, when you say modeled after and, and
·7· ·you've used the term similar, were there differences?
·8· · · · A.· · Yeah, there were differences. . . ."
Murray's reactor was built without Rossi's assistance. They did the testing in "maybe" December, 2015 and January 2016. (Later he says that they ran the test through "maybe" late February or March..)
215-3, 87-88
"15· · · · Q.· · Which reaction system did you model?
16· · · · A.· · We modeled a reactor system called RCT 005.
17· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Which was the brain child of which
18· ·inventor?
19· · · · A.· · It was a replication of one of the reactor
20· ·systems that T. Barker and Mr. Rossi had tested
21· ·previously, earlier on.
22· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And what was the result of that
23· ·modeling?
24· · · · A.· · Modeling was that the, the, the heat transfer
25· ·as we had envisioned was actually almost identical to·1· ·what we had measured in the calorimetry system.
·2· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So when did you do that modeling?
·3· · · · A.· · We began doing that about probably October of
·4· ·2015.· And we engaged with a group to consult on how to
·5· ·structure and lay out those models, and then
·6· ·subsequently we ran those models in maybe December and
·7· ·January, which was synchronous with when we were
·8· ·actually doing the testing.
·9· · · · Q.· · December 2015 --
10· · · · A.· · January of 2016."
Something was "going on" and Murray was trying to find out what. So what was "going on"?
215-3, 89
"We started out very,
17· ·very simple, and then we added more and more
18· ·sophistication to see if we could find out what was
19· ·going on."
Murray wanted to "improve upon" the Dameron/Rossi-built reactors:
215-3, 90
"8· · · · A.· · Because T. Barker Dameron had some old
·9· ·reactors that he had brought from Triangle Drive.
10· · · · Q.· · Okay.
11· · · · A.· · And we looked at them, measured them, and
12· ·then figured out how to improve them."
Murray didn't test any of the Dameron/Rossi-built reactors:
215-3, 90
"17· · · · Q.· · Okay.· The, you said T. Barker Dameron had a
18· ·couple old reactors.· Did you test any of the old
19· ·reactors?
20· · · · A.· · We did not."
And the most interesting exchange to me, Murray has no idea what the fuel is or whether Darden loaded it correctly:
215-3, 106
"14· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Now, you said Mr. Darden prepared the
15· ·fuel?
16· · · · A.· · Yes.
17· · · · Q.· · Did you watch him prepare it?
18· · · · A.· · No.
19· · · · Q.· · Do you know if he followed the formula?
20· · · · A.· · I have no idea."
215-3, 108-109
"18· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So, but I just want to make sure.
19· ·Sitting here today you don't know whether it was
20· ·properly mixed or not?
21· · · · A.· · Absolutely not.· Absolutely not.
22· · · · Q.· · He could have put a handful of gravel from
23· ·outside --
24· · · · A.· · Absolutely.
25· · · · Q.· · -- for all you know?
·1· · · · A.· · Yeah.· I mean gravel would have been hard to
·2· ·fit through the hole, but, but he could have put
·3· ·anything in there --
·4· · · · Q.· · Sand.
·5· · · · A.· · -- yes.· Absolutely, yes."
So in summary, these are the vigorous and amazing tests that Murray did of Rossi's (not) e-Cat device.
IHFB - you are weird.
I might be. But if so, no more weird than you. If anything, we share our weird fascination with this case.
I might be. But if so, no more weird than you. If anything, we share our weird fascination with this case.
OK - so maybe you just can't read?
This is an interesting part of the story, so I think it merits that we explore further. What we have is Murray building his own reactor that was "modeled" after Dameron's reactor, which was built with Rossi's assistance, and had differences relative to Rossi's reactors.
IHFB,
I disagree. That exchange needs no further exploration. IH brought in Murray because Dameron, after earlier *apparent* successes, was not seeing any excess heat. TD even had a "come to Jesus meeting" with Rossi to tell him it was not working. Murray was much more suited than Dameron as Vaughn testifies. So of course Murray would try and improve on what did not work before. Why would he be so stupid as to go down the same failed path as before?
And you make it sound like it is a big deal that TD did not let him (Murray) watch the fuel being prepared. It is not! Rossi personally handed over the "recipe" to TD...only. Surely some others in his inner circle know, but you just do not give out something like that to someone down the food chain.
This is getting real stupid. Can you Rossi faithful gather your wits, and present a better front than what I have been subjected to today?
