I have three proposals all of which must be disproved before we can eliminate this possibility:
Yes, those hypotheses are all reasonable, scientific, balanced and neutral, and the burden lies on observers to disprove them. (Here I'm being facetious if it's not already clear, as I was in my earlier post.)
(1) How certain can we be that the window in these photos is the one that Rossi claims he used. Could he, for example, have used a window always behind a tree (if there is one such)?
See P's earlier post, here. (I guess it's not certain; but it's a reasonable conclusion.)
Even if one is not so enthusiastic about the possibility of venting of 0.5+ MW of power from the upstairs window during some days of April 2015, we still have the endothermic process, the flushing of heat into the city water main and the evacuation of the heat through a large vent in the roof.
ETA: Here I'm being facetious, and don't really think these other possibilities are worth considering.
I don't think it's indeterminate whether we're looking at a window with glass in it with respect to view with the construction; I'd give it a 98 percent chance that we're looking at glass (just to be conservative)? Whatever it is, it is not a vent for 0.5-1 MW high quality steam.
But why does it matter if this view is slightly different from P's if there's clearly a window in the link I posted? I think the detail presently at issue, if we allow the April 2015 date, is whether there was glass in the windows at that time. It seems there was, in both Jed's and P's views. The only remaining question I suppose would be whether April 2015 is correct, which supposedly a subpoena will be needed to clear up.
You can get to a really similar view to P's by turning 180 degrees from Jed's first link and then sliding to the left several times:
Note the similar cars on both sides of the parking lot, although the truck is missing from P's version. It looks like the images were taken at different times, but not too far apart.
Maybe they would open up the windows from time to time to let out some of the MWs, and then would close them at other times. 
My point on that one is that even if you were somewhat sure of rb0's real identity, and rb0 were making no huge effort to conceal it, still best not to discuss it here, as there are others in whose identity we might have a lot of confidence and nonetheless we're making efforts to protect their anonymity such as it exists, to the point of banning offenders. It is a question of even-handedness and avoiding favoritism if possible. A blanket rule is easy to follow and makes things much simpler.
ultrasure, if you have little more to contribute here than catty accusations, perhaps your special talents and abilities would be better suited to another forum?
Hi randombit0 is Rossi ,
See the "Court Docket" link at the top of the page for most or all documents at and after doc. 30. Abd ulRahman Lomax also provides a list of case files along with accompanying annotations. They're similar lists of documents, but Abd's is more informative.
Can you clarify your thinking, P., with regard to that radiator?
Ok, Shane, let's go with that. Just for the sake of argument, on the basis of what you know, would you be willing to allow a combination of a partially endothermic process (50% efficient, say), together with the jerry-built heat exchanger? Let the proposed scenario be improbable in the extreme, just not impossible, e.g., as a result of being contradicted by sympathetic testimony in the court docs.
Here I am not phrasing things along the lines of my own understanding and am just curious whether it is possible to get broad agreement on the remaining set of possibilities. Will people agree that the water main scenario can definitely be ruled out, for example?
I'll ask a question I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to: is it normal/common/expected to build a hand-rolled heat exchanger to dissipate on the order of 1 MW, or is the common thing to do in this scenario to buy a commercial heat exchanger?
Just for the sake of cleaning up the books, I'll note that we now have two surviving possibilities for dissipating the 1 MW power: the endothermic process (going back to JONP) and the hand-rolled upstairs heat-exchanger (going back to the depositions). Can reasonable people agree, regardless of political persuasion, that with the evidence we have now the possibility of dissipating 1 MW heat through the water main can be ruled out? Or are there any holdouts who are still willing to defend this scenario?
The question I think is interesting in this context is whether H2/D2 + electric current + a heavy element such as tungsten, platinum, thorium, uranium, etc., will lead to a minute amount of fissioning or induced alpha decay of the heavy element. Nickel may or may not do anything in addition, but it does not factor into this question except as something in the environment. When trying something that has a precedent such as Piantelli that seems to have worked, it's good not to make too many changes (e.g., removing nickel) until the core phenomenon has been isolated.
I am open to hearing suggestions for changes to experiment protocol - so please feel to post them. Changes to some things will be easy to incorporate and others will require more work to change hardware.
At the risk of being a boor, a question of mine is whether the presence of a current-carrying filament made of something as heavy as or heavier than tungsten, say, inside the reactor volume and exposed to the hydrogen, will make a difference. Platinum and tungsten are two examples, but much heavier would be even better. (You probably aren't prepared in the present experiment to look at this, but I hope a future experiment will.)
Unless it's significant amounts, it's the other people who are putting money where the mouth of Darden/Vaughn is.
I agree about the "significant amounts" — if they're just giving people 5,000 here and there, that's nothing to even mention, in contrast to 50,000, 500,000 or 5 million, say. But Darden and Vaughn at any rate are not being flashy at all about what they've been doing. They did not even want publicity and were forced out of stealth mode by circumstances. And if they have simply served as a conduit for other people's money rather than their own (the details of which I would like to better understand), this does not seem to be something to criticize them for if they've been transparent with the other parties. That funding would not have otherwise been available.
I appreciate your point, Alan, about thinking twice before swallowing tempting morsels.
Pjotr, consider only the case of Rossi himself; that's 10.5 million (and legal fees). I've heard that Kim has been provided millions, although I do not have a source, so take it as speculation.
Yes, thank you, Alan. I stand corrected on a point of detail. I'll give a list I know about for sure, then, from Marianne Macy's IE article:
Anecdotally I understand they've provided funding to others, including Yoeng Kim. And there is a long list of developments and potential developments in doc. 214-35. So my main point still stands up quite well.
