In the interim, exhibit 5 is interesting.
You mean where your expert claimed that the piping is DN40... Ah yes, that expert.
In the interim, exhibit 5 is interesting.
You mean where your expert claimed that the piping is DN40... Ah yes, that expert.
Bruce H - the letter was to Fulvio. The pipe would have had to be full to avoid rust. I don't think that any magnetic spin was used on the flowmeter - we were able to prove that flow in a 20% full pipe was equal to the flow measurement in a full pipe using the meter that Rossi selected. That, combined with the rust,
was something that Rossi did not want to have to defend on the stand.
You mean where your expert claimed that the piping is DN40... Ah yes, that expert.
I think you are misreading Exhibit 5. It appears to me to say that it is Penon who supllied the information that the piping is DN40
i.e., Murray writing to Penon
"
According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on
average 33,558 kg/day (1398 kg/h) and the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively. The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40."
So why is it my job to "engage over what happened to the heat" when I am saying the missing heat exchanger is a real issue? I think I have it figured out. Basically, Dewey just thinks of whatever negative and insulting he can say and get away with it while hiding behind the skirts of moderators, and throws it out there. He is deliberately polluting the thread.
You are correct in that the missing heat exchanger is a real issue.
It is your job to address this because you are the one here claiming you think there is some positive evidence for Rossi's claims in spite of the many negatives. If you admit Doral is another negative, we can move on. Otherwise the missing heat exchanger is an issue. Unless you can show a viable way that 1MW can have been dissipated Rossi is lying about the output of his e-cats, as is the Penon report.
You can guess it is a real issue when the number of Rossi obvious lies / circumlocutions as here gets larger.
Bruce H - the letter was to Fulvio. The pipe would have had to be full to avoid rust. I don't think that any magnetic spin was used on the flowmeter - we were able to prove that flow in a 20% full pipe was equal to the flow measurement in a full pipe using the meter that Rossi selected. That, combined with the rust,
was something that Rossi did not want to have to defend on the stand.
I think you are misreading Exhibit 5. It appears to me to say that it is Penon who supllied the information that the piping is DN40
i.e., Murray writing to Penon
"
According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on
average 33,558 kg/day (1398 kg/h) and the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively. The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40."
I believe that you are misreading it. The "and the piping is DN40" is Murray's statement, not Penon's.
I believe that you are misreading it. The "and the piping is DN40" is Murray's statement, not Penon's.
I believe you are wrong. Murray is saying that the DN40 information is from Penon.
I believe you are wrong. Murray is saying that the DN40 information is from Penon.
No, the DN40 bomb has a rich history. Go back and read this forum carefully. You will see.
Thanks Bruce_H for the Oct 13 Statement.
We saw on the bf1,2,3 chart that many internal units were at 0 amps.
It explains why that diagram was included for those days only.
Fabianus log doesn't indicate when bf4 was on or off. (I'm on my fone so can't look it up).
Just dig out the “Tests Plan”.
There one can find the sensor specs (of course they are used outside of specifications), the number of reactors to be used in the test, who will do the reporting of results, etc.
No, the DN40 bomb has a rich history. Go back and read this forum carefully. You will see.
So do the magic front windows.
Here is the link: Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion
Bruce, I don't see a link to the video. Can you provide a link? Then I'll view and comment.
Really, IHFB? So you're citing Wyttenbach's second-hand intepretation of Anesser's highly biased assessment (Annesser being Rossi's LAWYER, has no technical training related to physics, thermodynamics, flowmeters, etc.), as being authoritative and the basis for your argument against the flow meter error and of the DN40 story? Even though Wyttenbach gave no evidence for asserting that Murray sourced the "DN40 story"?
Really, IHFB? So you're citing Wyttenbach's second-hand intepretation of Anesser's highly biased assessment (Annesser being Rossi's LAWYER, has no technical training related to physics, thermodynamics, flowmeters, etc.), as being authoritative and the basis for your argument against the flow meter error and of the DN40 story? Even though Wyttenbach gave no evidence for asserting that Murray sourced the "DN40 story"?
I thought Wytten captured the situation pretty well in that comment. You can go read the Murray deposition. It's all there. It is one of the only depositions that was made available in its entirety.
I thought Wytten captured the situation pretty well in that comment. You can go read the Murray deposition. It's all there. It is one of the only depositions that was made available in its entirety.
Well it's not surprising that you agree with his opinion, but that doesn't support your assertion that court evidence shows that Murray is the initiator of the "DN40 Pipe Story" vs. the alternative explanation that Murray was merely quoting Penon. At best, citing the evidence you provided, one can conclude that the record is ambiguous.
Well it's not surprising that you agree with his opinion, but that doesn't support your assertion that court evidence shows that Murray is the initiator of the "DN40 Pipe Story" vs. the alternative explanation that Murray was merely quoting Penon. At best, citing the evidence you provided, one can conclude that the record is ambiguous.
This is what Murray said:
"The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40." (emphasis added to was and is)
Dewey and Jed ran with this BIG TIME and made all kinds of insinuations and arguments that the supposed DN40 pipe sized ruled out the claimed flow values.
Now, think to yourself, what motivation would Penon have had to claim that the pipe was ridiculously small? Why would he do that?
On the other hand, when the cloud of confusion permeated here about what had happened in Doral, and the parties involved in the litigation were sharpening their spears, Dewey and Jed latched on to the DN40 pipe size as an apparent attempt to hijack the narrative early on. This was one of the earliest (fallacious) attempts to cast doubt on the Doral setup, which would be followed by an endless stream of similar accusations, many if not most of which would be shot down with evidence that would trickle out over the next year or so, until after opening arguments, both sides agreed to settle.
Now, Murray is a bright fellow and very careful with his language. Had he been attributing the statement about the DN40 pipe to Penon, he would have said:
"The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and that the piping is was DN40."
Because that would have been the grammatically correct way of attributing the statement to Penon. But he didn't do that. He was making the allegation himself.
I humbly submit that Murray said “piping” not “pipe”.
Glad you gave a thumbs up on that, IHF.
Now, what size is the steam piping from each BF to the main outlet?
Smith's supplemental report (252-05) has lots of pictures.
Glad you gave a thumbs up on that, IHF.
Now, what size is the steam piping from each BF to the main outlet?
Smith's supplemental report (252-05) has lots of pictures.
You must understand the context of Murray's statement. He is stating that the "piping" is DN40. Why is he stating that? It is because he is attacking the mass flow rate of the system, not of individual pipes.
"According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on
average 33,558 kg/day (1398 kg/h) and the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively. The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40."
So if you think he was somehow referring to the piping from each BF to the main outlet, I think you'd be wrong. If that is what he meant, then there would have been no reason to include this attack in his letter.
This is why I'm glad you're back IHFB. You never cease to amaze me with the creative interpretations of common sense context. And because I can be sarcastic at times (a failing I'm trying to work on), I'll repeat that I mean that sincerely.
Obviously, I come from a different perspective and I look at the evidence from Doral and see an obvious scam with crude stagecraft and layers and layers of "strategically confusing" incompetence.
And then you remind me of how this specific DN40 issue was all litigated back and forth here on LENR-Form with "verb tense-gate".
Those were some fun times.
Anyway, I agree with you that we seem to be in the end stages of this story, with either one of the greatest inventions of all time changing the world in incredibly disruptive ways, or an aging con man, who has painted himself into a corner, running out of ways to cover his chronic deception.
Pass the popcorn?