I've pointed out the flaws in your contrapositive assumptions. Do you need the physics details for the two false statements you assume about physics?
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
-
Para, I'm disappointed in you. You've been grasping for the past 2-3 pages. It is uncharacteristic of you, and doesn't bolster my confidence in your abilities (which I think overall are quite good).
I am grasping for the truth.
Perhaps, the more tightly one grasps the data, the more the story slips between ones fingers....
-
That is because I make very few when replying to you. You will notice my post that got you hot and bothered was reciting the list of erroneous Rossi assumptions. I guess you don't realise they are that because you refuse to do the technical work to check RossiSays? But I'm disappointed over the Mats one - it is in his book so you should have known...
-
You will notice my post that got you hot and bothered . . .
Maybe hot, but not bothered.
-
Anyways, IHF, I would say that testing the IR camera functions and display parameters have not been done before regarding Lugano, and even if the purple temperature box thing might not have gone anywhere conclusive, the color pallet vs spot temperature size relationship I uncovered last night is new information.
The open question remains, is it easy to make the background display temperature contrast to the semi- hot reactor body low when the object is actually around 200 C, unintentionally?
It certainly has been shown that the IR Dots image (figure 7) doesn't prove anything by itself, since it is easy to manipulate the display, if one were inclined to do so.
-
And your concern is? That the ERV report did not come from Penon?
It was submitted by Rossi. I would think that for the report to be valid it must be signed or endorsed some way by Penon.
If you assume the test was the GPT. then an official report from Penon would be critical to the case. I see no signature. Perhaps it is in Penon's disposition somewhere, but I don't find it.
-
Reply to THH et al :
For the Hotcat the best test is the March 2013 116-hour test of the Ecat HT2.
Levi report : https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
1. Power was measured with a PCE 830 (True RMS)
Edit : single phase
2. The outer cylinder is steel, coated with Macota enamel (albeit coated unevenly)
(The IR analysis is complicated by the flange at one end, but for convection it's mostly a simple, smooth cylinder).
3. Thermal dots valid for the operating range (up to 300C) .. some fell off, but some remained on for the whole test
4. A thermocouple was used, giving results within 2C of the emissivity value (actually, the thermocouple read 2C HIGHER)
5. A dummy run with no charge, the same thermal dots and operating range.
(Unfortunately the power was held constant, rather than cycled as in the live test).
(In this table I used mostly conservative values, eg they recalculate COP as 2.9)
Run Radiated Convection Total Power In Dummy -- Table 6 457 277 734 810 COP 0.56 0.34 0.90 Live -- Table 8 459 281 741 322 COP 1.4 0.87 2.3 Note that for the live test just the radiated value gives a healthy COP of 1.4
Since the "dummy" COP is only 0.9 the live COP is likely to be 10% higher than reported.
-
FWIW, getting a 235 C object against a 25 C background to glow yellow-orange while the background is magenta-purple, and not futzing with the emissivity beyond 0.71, so far I have no luck. Since that is a 10x background difference, the color scale should have strong separation, since the camera "sees" and displays everything as if it had an emissivity of 1, unless modified to see otherwise in selected measurement areas.
Maybe I'll fiddle with it some more later.
Note the standard pallet scales for some Optris temperature ranges, below.
(The last scale (to 1500 C) does not have a ~235 C object in it, but the other two do).
-
IHFanboy - you seem to be keen on sworn testimony. Can you find where Penon signed or under sworn testimony verify that what we have is actually his report and that he approved it? I am still not even sure if Penon's deposition was actualy sworn to in a way approved by the district court rules (remember it was out of country). Discovery is over, so it should be in there somewhere if he really "signed off" on it.
Right now, all I see is Rossi says.
If I was IH's lawyer, I sure would directly question the legality of the report as evidence. That the report entered as evidence was actually from Penon and not just out of Rossi's typewriter. Perhaps it is in Penon's deposition (was that sworn to?) but I haven't found it yet - so many docs.
I am not sure if anymore evidence can be given after discovery and not sure if Penon would show up out of "hiding" to appear in court for testimony. Without some proof that the report is really from Penon, Rossi would have a hard legal go at it.
Remember the case is more about the paperwork than if things worked as claimed.
-
Yes new evidence can be introduced after discovery. How could it be otherwise?
-
You don't need to sign a report if is clear to both parts that the author is you.....
Could you imagine Penon saying "No I had not written it ?"........
Be serious.
In legal issues that has 90M hinged on a verification and approval of a report,
I don't think that a report posted by Rossi, having a place for a signature but not signed is going to have much weight.
In the US, it is customary for the "engineer" to sign and give a certified stamp or bonding number.
Can you imagine Penon never coming out and signing or saying, " yes I approve the report"?
What proof is there (I may have missed it) that the Report is truly from Penon and not just something submitted by Rossi?
At the least, I would think that Rossi would need to show something that what he submitted was indeed from Penon.
-
Yes new evidence can be introduced after discovery. How could it be otherwise?
I know that exculpatory evidence can be submitted after discovery ( potentially benefit defendants)
I am unclear as to what accusatory evidence can be submitted after discovery. especially in terms of documents.
It does seem that evidence that existed at the time of a motion or trial but that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to a court ruling upon the motion or the trial's completion might be possible to be introduced. But I am unclear if the prosecution can "surprise" the deferent with new evidence that could have been discovered before the trial.
-
What proof is there (I may have missed it) that the Report is truly from Penon and not just something submitted by Rossi?
At the least, I would think that Rossi would need to show something that what he submitted was indeed from Penon.
I was going to comment that this seems like a trivial matter. Who cares whether Rossi wrote it or Penon did? Penon seems to consider any information from Rossi true. He is Rossi's lap dog, as I said.
However, I think what you are saying is that one of the main issues in this trial is whether I.H. agreed to the test ahead of time. As I recall, by mutual agreement Penon was designated as the "ERV" -- a sort of impartial observer. So, if he did not write the report, it wouldn't be the ERV report, and it doesn't count. That would be yet another reason to reject it.
I suppose Penon has to come to the courtroom during the trial and say under oath that he wrote the report, and it contains his own professional evaluation. If he doesn't do that, I suppose the report would not be allowed as evidence. If Rossi wrote it, it wouldn't count because I.H. would not agree to let him be the judge of his own test.
Perhaps Penon would not have to come. Would a signature alone suffice? I wouldn't know. I have not seen a signature on the ERV report itself, but perhaps there was a signed cover letter from Penon. I wouldn't know about that, either.
-
Yes new evidence can be introduced after discovery. How could it be otherwise?
A quick search of legal opinions indicate that it can be introduced in some cases, but not others. The Cornell Law School says:
"After-Discovered Evidence
Definition
In a civil or criminal case, evidence that existed at the time of a motion or trial but that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to a court ruling upon the motion or the trial's completion. Upon later discovery, a losing party may assert after-discovered evidence, a.k.a. newly discovered evidence, as grounds for a court to reconsider a motion or order a new trial."
-
@IHS
The excerpts we have of Penon testifying under oath refer to the incremental reports and the final report fairly frequently. He is being questioned by both attorneys as if he is the author of the reports. I don't think that is even a contention at issue between the parties. Presumably, IH will have emails and reports from Penon, which would have been handed over to Rossi's team, and vice versa.
-
@IHS
The excerpts we have of Penon testifying under oath refer to the incremental reports and the final report fairly frequently. He is being questioned by both attorneys as if he is the author of the reports. I don't think that is even a contention at issue between the parties. Presumably, IH will have emails and reports from Penon, which would have been handed over to Rossi's team, and vice versa.
but the legal issue is if the report that is the docs the final report? Penon would need to verify that it is. If you been on a jury for such things, The lawyers usually hold up the document or item and have the witness verify it.
Or at least show a chain of evidence to show its source.
So far, I do not see a signature or a verification of the report in evidence is by Penon. Again, it will be interesting what will come out in trial and what will be blocked.
By the way, can you point out to me where Penon's deposition was under oath? I have "lost" that. I would think that it is in there but not finding it.
-
I can find where Penon emailed partial reports and a draft of the "final report" but not where he sent a signed "final report" with his agreement that it passed the "test". My understanding is that the ERV had to "verify" the "test". I see it in unsigned drafts but not for a final verification.
It seems like for something like this you would want a signed copy. I know I would if I was buying a house. The deal isn't really done without a signature.
-
getting a 235 C object against a 25 C background to glow yellow-orange while the background is magenta-purple, and not futzing with the emissivity beyond 0.71, so far I have no luck.
Colors have NOTHING to do with the emissivity ! he he he he he Read the manual at least and try to understand it !
In Optris SW you have many palettes to render the thermal image in false colors or even in BW.
You can regulate the contrast and actual rendering of the palette using the cursors at the bottom of the picture !
-
Penon seems to consider any information from Rossi true. He is Rossi's lap dog, as I said.
Again insults Jed.
Other people has been banned from this forum for much less!
Penon has used his own instruments, and btw Penon was accepted by IH as ERV in the contract.
In legal issues that has 90M hinged on a verification and approval of a report,
I don't think that a report posted by Rossi, having a place for a signature but not signed is going to have much weight.
As a fact is quite sure that IH has a signed copy and that Penon can prove to have sent that signed copy to IH.
Otherwise all the case was surely all the case was dismissed at his starting. (remember the IH motion to dismiss ?)
