Eric - thank you for all you do. I know it is a cost and a lot of work. Thanks
Time is perhaps more valuable than money, and I am grateful for the army of intelligent analysts reading through this stuff and highlighting important points so that I don't have to read through all of it myself. 
Doc. 248, defendants' reply on opposition to motion exclude Dr. Wong, now on the docket together with its exhibits:
THH, I'll raise your question internally, since I don't know myself.
Turn that off and the grundfos valve on to bypass through the filter, which is MUCH too clean.
One assumption to avoid, of course, is that the filter was always clean. Presumably it could have been swapped out with a fresh filter late in the timeline. But I do think it is interesting nonetheless that the filter and the housing around it are really clean if the water lines running into the ProMinent pumps are so dirty. I would have expected there to be indelible rust stains in the clear housing of the filter even if the filter was swapped out. I suppose the housing itself could have been replaced as well if one wants to avoid all assumptions whatsoever.
I found the irony in this comment from Enginer48 to be amusing: "IH seems to ignore a lot of data that is inconvenient to their story."
Interesting comment from Andreas Moraitis: "These industrial dryers consume up to 3.5 million BTU/h (that’s about 1 MWh/h)". He links to this picture, with the additional apt comment, "Look at the impressive exhausts...":
I'm unable to vouch for Moraitis's claim. I'd guess that there's an order of magnitude more volume in the exhaust ventilation in this picture than anything contemplated so far in connection with the Doral facility.
Alan (Fletcher), re your idea about the Grundfos pump, you might be right, but interesting to note that your hunch appears to conflict with that of Engineer48. I believe that Engineer48 needs the Grundfos in order to pump the water (steam) back to the reservoir. (Not 100 percent sure.)
Would that water filter and clear plastic housing show rust stains if dirty water were to flow through the filter?
Not sure who the principals [of Florida Energy Trust] are here--I think it's in the depositions somewhere.
From memory, Rossi and USQL.
ETA: link. Florida Energy Trust is an equal manager with Fabiani of USQL.
(Finally all sorted out.)
Doc. 246, an order, and doc. 247 and its exhibits, now on the docket.
Doc. 245 and its attachments now on the docket.
The second paper, by Benyo et al., touches on the apparent inducement of radioactivity in deuterated materials. The paper is an April 2017 report with a lot of researchers directly or indirectly associated with NASA Glenn Research Center that reports preliminary findings. The authors observed beta activity arising both in deuterated polyethylene (PDE) targets and in targets that combine DPE with titanium deuteride, as well as alpha activity in combined samples only (I think). There were several kinds of controls, and the controls showed no activity above the minimum detectable amount (MDA), in contrast to the samples that showed activity, which was in some cases well above the minimum detectable amount. The alpha activity died down quickly, and the beta activity in several samples persisted over a 12 month period.
The authors conclude:
QuoteFourteen tests out of 19 total runs in this test sequence with either DPE or DPE with TiD2 were beta activated. Some samples exhibited alphas, which decayed below MDA in approximately an hour following x-ray exposure. Several of the samples with DPE and TiD2 showed persistent beta activity. Several of the samples (SL10A, SL16, and SL17A) showed beta activity above background with a greater than 4σ confidence level for months after exposure. Portions of SL10A, SL16, and SL17A were scanned using a beta scintillator and found to have beta counts in the tritium energy band, continuing without noticeable decay for over 12 months. Beta scintillation investigation of as-received materials (before xray exposure) showed no beta counts in the tritium energy band, indicating the beta emitters were not in the starting materials.
By "tritium energy band," they're referring to a very general categorization of beta energy levels performed by one of their scintillator detectors into three energy bands, one for tritium, one for carbon-14 and one for phosphorus-32. So the beta emitter might or might not be tritium proper.
The method used in this paper is notably different from that of the first paper, in that x-rays in the range 65 – 280 keV were used, in contrast to the ~ 2 MeV photons that were used in the first paper. The energy of a tritium decay is ~ 19 keV, so the relative energy of these photons is significant. However, there is no way that I know of recognized by physics to induce long-lived beta or alpha activity using x-ray photons. The findings of this paper seem to be important if confirmed.
Lawrence Forsley, a co-author of the second Arxiv paper, which made use of x-rays, is a longtime collaborator with Pam Mosier-Boss and Stan Szpak (assuming he's the same Lawrence Forsley).
More rust photos (from doc. 235-10):
Here's what is reported to be a water filter:
Not exactly sure how these things work and what the white stuff is, but the housing is clean from the outside at any rate:
Docs. 239 – 244, with some exhibits, now on the docket. See the note on the exhibits for doc. 242 and let me know if there are any you would like me to obtain, which I will be happy to do. (Note that the file sizes are provided in the screenshots.)
Abd has kindly brought to my attention that I had failed to upload 236-47, which he has provided from his case files, and that I accidentally mislabeled 238-16 as 236-16. Those of you reading all of the files might or might not have seen these.
@Henry, comment added to this post from a few hours ago.
Docs. 236, 237 and 238, from plaintiffs, now on the docket together with their exhibits.
Doc. 235, a response in opposition to plaintiffs' motion, now on the docket, together with its exhibits (shown in reverse order):
That is why after a reasonable amount of time and discussion, I normally say "adieu" to them. For which is sadder..... someone being a door post, not able or willing to listen or learn..... or someone talking to that same door post for an extended period of time!
I like to bend over backwards so as to make intentions (or perhaps dysfunction) as starkly clear as possible.
One thing I find very dissatisfying about discussions with certain Internet people is that there's no shared learning process. With some, no matter how many data points are collected, it is not possible to come to agreement on the most basic of conclusions. It's like talking to someone with alzheimer's. There's something about the communication that is distorted at a fundamental level. You would not want to have them as a coworker.
