Posts by IH Fanboy


    You seem to have made out a good case here. Will have to check your calculations later, because Thanksgiving.


    That was much better. You still left out a citation/link to Dr. Wong's claim about the container. For the benefit of the readers, here is a link to Dr. Wong's expert disclosure, where he provides the materials and dimensions of the heat exchanger box: "Encasement: wood panel insulated with rock wool shaped for thermal and acoustic insulation; Dimensions: Aprox. I m (length) X 6.5 m (width) X I m (height)"


    You contend that "There is no way I can position or orient the exchanger to fit the marks." Consider, however, that the container has small enough dimensions such that it fits in either length-wise or width-wise fashion within the mezzanine. It is about the size of a heat exchanger encasement that one would expect to be built within that space. Also take note that there ARE large right-angled markings on the floor of the mezzanine. It seems that your underlying assumption is that the corners of the markings must correspond directly to the corners of the encasement. It would be normal, however, to set the encasement on support beams so that air could flow beneath the heat exchanger encasement. The support beams could quite easily correspond to the markings on the floor.


    Here is the problem. You and your like take a set of circumstances and twist it like a wax nose to fit your preconceived notions. You may accuse me of doing that (in fact you and others have, essentially). But that is just another version of the story about the glass buildings, pot/kettle, etc.

    @THH,


    I'm skeptical of the status quo. I'm skeptical of pathological skeptics. Now with results from Alan F. showing that the same model pump used by Rossi is capable of a pump rate nearly reaching what is necessary for a 1MW heat output, you've lost one more ill-supported accusation. The sand is beginning to shift beneath your feet. What are you going to do?

    Roger ,


    LENR is a passion of mine. And this whole affair is currently ground zero. New readers come here every day. The old timers constantly dredge up worn-out reasoning. I feel a duty to refute what I perceive to be faulty reasoning. At the end of the day, if LENR is to have a break-out moment, there will need to be broad support.

    @IO,


    You obviously haven't reviewed the record. And if you have, it must have been quite a cursory one. Also, hundreds of thousands of people from around the world downloaded the Lugano report within a few days of it being made available. The LENR community and many beyond are intently watching.

    And then there was Fabiani, who both Rossi and Penon said had his own -independent of their own, data collection. Unfortunately, yet again, after Murray tried and tried, that information was never submitted by Fabiani, and I think deleted? Nonetheless, he decided to leave sunny Florida for the better climate in Russia, and that is where he was deposed.


    Fabiani is a key player. If you look at the deposition record, there is some complaining that Fabiani had deleted some emails, but when questioned further by Rossi's attorneys, there are admissions that large batches of data had been received, which the IH team hadn't yet had a chance to review.


    I agree this is all a bit murky. But the fact that Fabiani was taking independent measurements, was contracted by IH, and according to Fabiani, in continual contact with someone from the IH team, considerable questions remain hanging over the idea that Rossi simply made all of the measurements up out of whole cloth.


    Of course, there are those who think Fabiani, Penon, Levi, Kullander, and the rest were all in cahoots with one another in one of the most extensive and complex conspiracies hoisted upon the world in recent memory.

    @Bruce__H,


    I think the reason why you don't comprehend is that you are hyper focused on 1MW output (and therefore your ideas about the heat exchanger and the required pump rate). I've expressed doubt myself about that amount of heat output. But you don't need anything near 1MW for there to be >6 COP.

    Please don't trust Krivit. I'm not asking you to. And pay not attention to his conclusions. Simply tell me what you deduce from what you see and from what Mr Rossi says.


    Please provide your calculations. You need to lay out your stories more cogently. I'm tired of doing the heavy lifting around here. Show me what you think, and I'll give you an honest assessment of what I think.

    I think there are 3 silver bullets regarding the test at Doral. I listed them on Ecat world several months ago.


    https://disqus.com/home/discus…e_cat/#comment-3441348062


    Your three points have been refuted multiple times in various ways. Briefly as to your point 1), even if there was no phase change, the COP would be >6 (no heat exchanger necessary because total output heat would be much less), 2) backup generators, 3) see Alan F. testing of same pump indicating that Smith's claims are not accurate (testing still in progress to flesh it out even more).


    Quote

    In addition, I think that the Krivit video (particularly at 11:30) of his visit to Rossi contains a 4th silver bullet as I have outlined previously. I would be interested to know if you agree.


    I haven't had a chance to look at this yet. Although I trust Krivit and his videos/conclusions about as much as I trust a national politician.

    Wong's expert report (197-1, page 4, bottom) lists the size of the wooden structure he was told enclosed the supposed mezzanine heat exchanger. It was 1m x 6.5m x 10m.


    Rather that posting diagrams, photos, etc here, I refer you to the discussion I had with Engineer48. You will see there a suggested layout of the heat exchanger diagrammed in blue. That is Engineer48's diagram, not mine. I just drew the red lines on ii in a position that I though corresponded to the marks on the floor. The point I was making is that there is no orientation of a 6.5 x 10 m structure that can be made to correspond to the marks on the floor. I also hope this illustrates that my I always try to make my arguments evidence based.


    https://disqus.com/home/discus…e_cat/#comment-3411268502


    Please lay it out here. I followed your disqus link and it seems to only show a picture of the mezzanine with a giant rectangular marking on the floor. I don't see a suggested layout of the heat exchanger or your red lines. You mentioned that you used Google Maps to do some proportional measurements. Put together a cogent story and perhaps you will persuade me. Right now all I see is evidence that something large once sat upon the floor of the mezzanine.

    IH Fanboy ,

    Did we ever get to the bottom of which pipe was supposed to be DN40?

    The steam pipes coming out of the BF's seem pretty small. (see page 25, Smith supplemental report)


    Murray's premise in the infamous "memo" was that a pipe having a size of DN40 would be incapable of moving the amount of steam generated by the plant (which of course is true, assuming the outlet pipe really was DN40, which it wasn't). Many here swore by this premise and would not budge even in view of solid contradictory evidence. None of the deposition testimony that I recall reading stated that any of the "internal" pipes had a diameter of DN40. That is not to say that they didn't. Looking back on Murray's deposition, he stated that he had a picture of a pipe joint flagged as DN40, but eventually admitted that the pipes coming off the BF units feed into a larger main.

    Using Google Earth to make measurements on the roof of the Doral building, I find that mezzanine is roughly 11 metres by 10 metres with the longer side having the windows in it. Using these dimensions as a guide I don't see how the markings in the picture bear any resemblance to a heat exchanger that according to Wong is about 10 x 6.5 meters. Do you?


    Make your case. Show some pictures, your proportional dimension comparisons, a cite for your Wong assertions, etc. I can be persuaded with solid evidence.


    There was a time when I would do the heavy lifting for you. For example, Forty-Two once stated that outlet steam pipe from

    the container was "only about DN40." I went and did some proportional measurements, and it turns out the outlet pipe on another container used by Rossi was significantly larger, and I took the position based on that hard evidence that Murray's memo was most likely wrong. I mean, why would Rossi choose to use an outlet pipe with a smaller diameter than what he had used before?


    Oh the shock and awe from the peanut gallery! I was accused by Forty-Two of creating "alternative facts." Dewey remained coy stating that "R will be learning about what the experts have to say soon enough," as if to suggest that Forty-Two was right. Then oldguy stated that he "would take the Exhibit 5 claimed by an eyewitness [referring to Murray]" over my assertions.


    To Para's credit, he basically agreed with me in light of the evidence, despite the intoxicating narrative that Rossi had flubbed up using a DN40 outlet pipe. I've seen this quality in Para on multiple occasions and appreciate that intellectual honesty. LENR Calender was keen to conclude "that it was likely that DN40 was a mistake by Murray, because no one would ever choose such a small pipe for that amount of steam." LENR Calender has always struck me as even-keeled when it comes to his analysis of facts. And to THH's credit, he stated "IHFB has good evidence the old pipe was correctly sized."


    Jed was the most vehement in his belief that "It is not disputed! Except by people here. The pipe was exactly as Murray described it" and that "Murray had no trouble measuring the pipe." Jed continued in his erroneous belief even after deposition testimony from Murray himself, which just goes to show how difficult it is for some people to change their position once they are certain of a thing.

    @Shane,


    I don't generally bring it up. Bob brought it up this time. Admittedly, the window evidence is not the greatest. I've always felt (and have stated many times) that the presence (or lack thereof) of the heat exchanger in the mezzanine was probably Rossi's weakest link.


    I just happen to be able to comprehend details where others might not. For example, Jed seems pretty certain that photographic evidence proves that there is no piping running to the mezzanine. But upon closer inspection, the only photographic evidence that we have is cut off near the bottom of the door, once again casting doubt on Jed's position. Jed would also suggest that there were no markings on the mezzanine floor. But upon closer inspection of the extant photographs, there were markings that seem to correspond to a large box being previously present on the floor, and clean areas along near the bottom of the door and bottom of the wall that seem to correlate to a previous presence of pipes, again casting doubt.


    Is any of this irrefutable evidence or counter-evidence? Of course not. It's all circumstantial evidence. And boy did we have a ton of that to sift through, with very few silver bullets. Indeed, I don't remember feeling like there was a single silver bullet for either side. No wonder why each side disagreed on about every single point. I remember the judge remarking how unusual it was that the two parties disputed basically every point. And this comports very well and is quite consistent with the overall history of LENR.

    oldguy ,


    It is not my timeline. The timeline is what it is. I don't know when panels were put in the window or taken out as I wasn't there. As I've suggested before, I would suppose that there would be reconfigs before, during, and after the test.

    These windows look different from the Smith photo in every picture I have seen of them so that mean nothing. The Smith photo show all 4 panes in place but reflecting different things. The 2 panes on the right show a reflected trunk of a palm tree and the 2 on the left show the reflection of a mass of dark leaves in the tree beside the palm tree (you can see some of the dark leaves reflected in the right hand panes).


    If I gaze at it long enough I can entertain your interpretation of what you see. But sorry, can't embrace it.

    @Para,


    I stand corrected. Brain fart. That photo IS from July 2016, about five months AFTER the test had been completed. And that is what the window looks like with four panels present. As you can see, it is quite different from how Smith's photo looks, which was taken DURING the one year test.

    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]


    Yes, I suppose there were re-configurations happening throughout the year.


    BTW, the photo you linked to is from 2015, which was before the test even began.


    BTW, the photo you linked to is from 2016, which was after the test had been completed.

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


    I don't understand what you mean by this. One gets shadows on screens, which are not-glass. That said, I think the Google photos are inconclusive whether panes are missing or not. Whereas Smith's photo clearly (to me) shows two missing panes.

    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.


    I'd love to see the complete Stokes deposition. We have only seen a small fraction of the deposition testimony. It was frustrating to be reading along to the point where the most interesting information was about to be revealed, and then, CUT, jump to next section. The pieces we have are basically the minimum each party felt was needed to get past summary judgment.

    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.


    I didn't crop that photo. I copied it from this forum. If you can find or make a better/clearer close up, please do. I tried but the granularity was terrible. It seems whoever cropped the closeup above had access to a higher resolution original to start from.


    Of course the door windows reflect some light, but as I said above, they are not reflecting sunlight in a mirror-like fashion as the windows above the doors and to the left of the doors (minus the two missing panes).

    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!


    The doors (all of them) are inset and therefore are not reflecting sunlight in a mirror-like fashion as the windows above the doors and to the left of the doors (minus the two missing panes).

    Dr. Wong, Rossi's engineering expert, testified in his deposition that the fans were in the two bottom panes. See page 98 lines 8-9 in doc 264-7.


    Um no. Let's see what Dr. Wong actually said in context. He wasn't there until months after the test had completed when some updates/changes were apparently being made to the mezzanine.


    2 Q. You saw the two holes?

    3 A. For the two fans.

    4 Q. Let's see if we can get to your exhibit

    5 and you can tell me where it is.

    6 A. Yeah, this. (Indicating.)

    7 Q. A-2. So you're saying out of A-2 --

    8 A. The two bottom holes were occupied by the

    9 two fans.

    10 Q. And let's clarify a little bit.

    11 You called them "holes." Those

    12 are frames.

    13 A. Frames.

    14 Q. This is frames. These are window panes,

    15 correct?

    16 A. It's not panes. When I was there, it was

    17 empty. There were two workmen by the site here.

    18 Q. Okay. There was no glass in these?

    19 A. No.

    20 Q. There was no glass in any of these four?

    21 A. No.

    22 Q. I'm sorry. Exhibit A-2 shows four squares

    23 for a window, and you're saying there was no glass

    24 in any of the four squares? Okay.

    25 A. Yes.


    So when he was there, it was empty. Nothing. No panes. No fans. His comment about the two bottom "holes" being occupied by fans appears to be inconsistent with what he actually observed. And it doesn't really matter since he is not a first hand witness to anything that happened during the test.

    Uh huh...


    Uh huh. Get real. You captured a frame, then zoomed in to a panel that is near the top of the video frame with a sharply oblique point of reference. Now go look at the Doral photo in Smith's report, which is essentially a straight shot view of the window with an abrupt difference between the two panes on the right and the two on the left. I'm going to again include it here (for the umpteenth time) so that everyone can at least have a chance to see through (no pun intended) this nonsense.


    1740-pasted-from-clipboard-jpg


    ?thumbnail=1

    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.


    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.