Posts by Paradigmnoia

Alan, can you see if you find out out what the rated power of the ceramic resistor used for the previous test was, when you are at the demo? And please note the same for any in the upcoming demo.

TIA

To me the Smith report photo has Rossi taking a photo of the window photographer, in the lower LH pane.

During the test...

I thought I linked here: July 2016

Anyways, I am busy building a NOG-Z...

IH Fanboy ,

The google photos are not inconclusive. At least not all of them. But then you claim they put in and took the windows out again. Which is true for when Wong showed up.

Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Well, one doesn't get shadows on not-glass. Look at the top of the window glass/holes in the various window images.

Here's one version found on the site here. (Not that I want to continue with the window thing unless something new comes up).

IH Fanboy ,

Ok. Probably the image was modified, then, by some Photoshop-like program as it was enlarged. I don't think there are higher resolution versions.

Perhaps we should look into getting the complete Stokes deposition. He was indifferent to what was going on there, and should have examined all of the rooms. I'm not sure what the status of the transcripts are, now that there has been a settlement.

IH Fanboy ,

Your close up image of the window conveniently crops the reflection in the lower window pane.

The door windows are reflecting, except especially the RH paper one.

Of course, Wong was there almost a year to the day after the Plant was shut down. The black container was already gone.

Wong also watched the window guys, who he had to tell to get out of his way, work on replacing four window panes that were not there.

Anyhow, back to the Smith photo. Nice of Rontan to remove their right hand window beside the door for the photo shoot. Why, goodness me, it may even be a paper window!

Quote from IH Fanboy

There is a continuous change in your linked-to video not an abrupt difference as is shown in Smith's photo of the Doral plant. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Uh huh...

Quote from IH Fanboy

Give me a break. That video shows a skyscraper with all window panes obviously intact and present.

Yes, it does.

However, note the different reflection angles of the glass that should be in the same plane relative to the viewer. The windows show sharply edged changes to the reflection of the sky, so in many cases solid blue sky occurs in one pane next to a pane with clouds is in it. As the reflected clouds move, the clouds do not always appear to smoothly glide across all the panes in the same way. Some remain solid blue.

This demonstrates that it possible that two window panes which are immediately adjacent to two other panes that are nominally in the same plane relative to the viewer can indeed reflect different scenes or colors.

Or maybe this will help...

Quote from IH Fanboy

But in the picture provided by Smith, the viewpoint perspective is the same for all four panels, two of which are obviously present, and two of which aren't.

Impossible for this to occur by reflection properties alone...

https://www.shutterstock.com/v…tml?src=rel/26351870:9/3p

Quote from IH Fanboy

I've never made any conclusions on where the fans might have been located--in fact, without any good evidence, I would not make such conclusions. Here is a post where I note there appears to be "equipment" behind the windows at issue. I don't know why you think fans away from the window results in no argument. What do you mean by that? All it takes is a few finned radiators in the wooden container and the cited fans to move the necessary heat out the window. 1MW worth of heat? Doubtful. But you don't need 1MW worth of heat generated (not even close) for the system to have a COP greater than 6.

However, if all the Plant needed was a 6 or better COP, then why cobble together a tale of a COP of 80 to 135, a BS Customer who can't even keep track of what he sends to himself and measures heat in his manufacturing plant with non-existent gauges and a comparison to how much power was needed in a process that never previously ocurred? So an error of > 10 to 20 times makes the required COP of > 6 any more believable?

Do I need to post an image of an apartment building with all the windows on one side mysteriously missing, (maybe even a video of the windows suddenly vanishing as the viewpoint changes), or can we just imagine that?

Why the silent fans and heat pouring out a window hole for a year and no visitor notices something out of place near the building entrance? How many times have visitors arrived at your home and remarked "How neat that all your windows are installed! Your door is not made of paper, although it sure looked like it from the road! Your house has no roaring fans and is not baking hot!"?

Alan Smith ,

A few blocks from where I worked many years a ago a mechanic died in a terrible fire caused by gasoline dripping onto a trouble light while changing out a gas tank. Witnesses saw the beginning of the accident. The bulb popped after a couple of drips, ignited the gasoline, and then the almost empty tank exploded as it fell, dumping out the rest of the gasoline. The immediate area was fully engulfed in flames, and no one could get close enough until it was too late for the mechanic.

Nothing was discussed about the conditions in the bathroom, or how clean was the kitchen area. Probably both places had additional 1MW reactors being stored in them.

The back door was also made of paper. It just looks like a normal door due to the view angles. If someone had an image of the edge of the door, it would be obvious it was made of paper. Alas, there was no discussion of the back door, nor of its construction. The walls were also made of feta cheese. The photos clearly show the correct texture. It was painted over on the lower half to prevent visitors from picking at it.

Except the people that took the window photo for the Smith report were actually there, in person. They were not easily fooled by that peculiar transparency effect sometimes exhibited by windows.

I am glad that Alain used the right way with sugar to wreck an engine.

Sugar in the gas tank is ineffective, although it might plug the fuel filter. It does not dissolve in gasoline.

Sugar dumped into the oil, however, is so abrasive the damage is rapid and severe. Dumped into the oil fill port in a valve cover of an overhead cam engine, the lobes on the cams can be ground nearly flat in half a hour. If the bearings survive that long.