Posts by IH Fanboy

    Folks, I'm going to be taking a hiatus for the next few days. Some of you might be relieved by that. So if you want to attack me or my view points without a prompt incisive reply, now is your chance!


    Best wishes to all, and may the truth, whatever it is, prevail and be set free.

    Keep reading. He says it is impossible to know for sure, but given the likely pressure it probably was.


    Keep reading my comment. Yes, you would need a vacuum formed on the other side. Murray states that. I and others had stated that long ago. We were ridiculed for it by THH and others. But that is what you would need. And that is probably what existed. How else are you going to evacuate the heat and pump the condensate back?

    Except that the section of transcript you quote from Murray appears to be considering the hypothetical situation where the 0 pressure reading from the data is accurate, which is a detail that is in dispute.


    And yes, I acknowledged that right after I quoted the excerpt. And then I explained that Murray said a vacuum would be needed. And I agree with that. And there probably was a vacuum. In fact, not sure how else you would do it.

    note if the there was an upstairs (say 10 feet above ground level) the water pressure in the pipe due to the added height of the water would be 1.3 bars at the bottom. (bp about 107C)(


    Not if you formed a vacuum with two big fans at the end of the pipe work blowing heat out a window, and a pump pumping the condensate back to the plant.

    No, there wasn't. See document 215-03, starting on p. 167. Learn something about thermodynamics and steam.


    Except that Murray says exactly the opposite--that the water could not have been in liquid form.


    "·9· Q.· · Can you have liquid water that is 101 degrees

    10·Celsius at zero pressure?

    11· A.· · If zero pressure, give -- which pressure?

    12· Q.· · Relative.

    13· A.· · Relative.· No, you wouldn't normally have

    14·that, but --

    15· Q.· · What about gauge?

    16· A.· · That's the same.· Relative is --

    17· Q.· · Okay.

    18· A.· · Absolute?

    19· Q.· · What about absolute?· Sorry.

    20· A.· · Oh, you could -- you would not have at a, at

    21·a pressure of zero absolute, your water would absolutely

    22·be a gas.

    23· Q.· · Okay.· And so at relative or absolute, or

    24·gauge or absolute, water could not be at the temperature

    25·of 101 degrees Celsius in the liquid form --·1· A.· · So we --

    ·2· Q.· · -- correct?

    ·3· A.· · Well, I would have to look at the

    ·4·thermodynamic tables and look at exactly what the, the

    ·5·state is.· We don't know what the flow rate is.· We know

    ·6·what a temperature is, and we know we have a pressure

    ·7·measurement that is outside of the operational range of

    ·8·the pressure transducer.

    ·9· Q.· · Sir, I'm, I'm asking you, if you have zero

    10·relative pressure or zero absolute pressure, whether

    11·water can exist in its liquid form at 101 degrees C.

    12· A.· · No."


    215-03, pages 171-172



    Murray then complained that you would have to have a vacuum on the other side. (Wow, think we have been here before.) Rossi testified that there was a pump on the other side. Murray testified of an irritating noise in the lab (probably the pump).


    P&F were forthcoming and open in all of their procedures, testing methodology and measurement protocols, this is where fault was found with their results.

    Rossi has done none of this, because if he did, the entire Ecat charade would have ended the same month it started.


    Just like the P&F charade was ended the same month it started, right? ;)


    So if there was water under a bit of pressure, and slightly above sea level boiling point, then it would leak as steam.


    So you think that by and large there was no phase change? And you think that for all of Rossi's previous tests there was no phase change? That nobody ever noticed that? That Darden, JT Vaughn, Murray, Dameron, Dewey, and all of the others who visited the Darden plant would never have noticed that?


    Isn't it interesting that (at least from the depositions that I have read so far), none of them have ever claimed what you are claiming. Jed has been a big advocate for there being no steam, but as far as I can tell, it has been only Jed (and now you). [Edit: Dewey might have suggested it before, but I could be wrong. Can't seem to find it right now.]


    And even if there was no steam, and the water was heated to slightly above sea level boiling point, there would still be a massive release of excess energy, assuming the flow meter was correctly positioned. And see, it all comes back to the flow meter. This case will be decided on that issue.

    Forty-Two ,


    COP of 5 and 9 with IH's own reactors: 214-22.


    As for the claimed COP of 11, IH stated: "We tested our plant . . . for four days." Now, you pointed out that the excerpt available in the deposition appeared to be referring to the Ferrara test, although it doesn't state that in the deposition. And the Ferrera test was a 2 day test not a 4 day test. Erik followed your comment stating that important context had been omitted from the excerpt, with which I agree. I then conceded that upon closer inspection, it probably refers to the Ferrara test. The timing of the test is similar, although the 2 and 4 day discrepancy, and the fact that IH (presumably JT Vaughn) states that "we tested our plant" seem a bit curious, don't you think?

    @Shane D,


    I think that exchange is hilarious, but okay, I'll back off on the FUD accusation. I actually highly value your presence here, despite our more recent differences (you at one time were one of the only others "on the fence" so to speak, and it's been lonely since you went full IH).


    And as for the steam, the steam ought not to be high pressure according to the data. So that fits. And you must admit, having a disinterested party testify that there was steam is a pretty big reveal.

    Jed:

    It was under some pressure from the heat exchanger, so it was liquid water, not steam. Since there was no steam, and the flow rate was far lower than recorded, there was no excess heat.


    Jed again:

    There was no steam. The radiator (heat exchanger) must have produced some back pressure. Even with a slight increase in pressure, at 103 deg C the fluid would be water, not steam.


    Jed again:

    There must have been some back pressure from the heat exchanger. At these temperatures there was no steam; it was all liquid water.


    Disinterested state inspector: there was steam.


    207-52, page 169:

    4 Q. Now, stepping back for a moment back to

    5 you had mentioned, again, seeing steam coming out of

    6 one of the pipes --

    7 A. Uh-huh.

    8 Q. -- near the red shipping containers.

    9 A. Correct.


    [The "red shipping containers" refer to the e-Cat, see bottom of page 169.]


    207-52, page 169:

    "17 ... and that was not high pressure steam but it

    18 was a steam leak

    ."


    This is probably one of the most important depositions that we have on the record. Because we have been hearing the no phase-change FUD for a long time now. There was steam. And that is very important to know in untangling this mystery. It in fact makes it very difficult to claim that there was no excess energy, and in fact points to massive amounts of it.


    Shane, now you made me have to go read 207-52. I'm pretty disappointed in your analysis. I haven't known you to FUD before.


    James Stokes testified that there was a container and piping on the JMP side, not just small tools. I think we all are aware of that by now.


    Stokes admitted that he had no ability to know how much or the temperature of the steam being produced:


    207-52, Page 210

    "13 Q. You also have no ability to know how much

    14 or the temperature of the steam being produced by the

    15 plant?

    16 A. That is correct."

    He wasn't there to investigate any of that. All he was doing was walking around with his Geiger counter--that's it. 207-52, Pages 95-96.


    As for the pressure, he said it wasn't high pressure, and when he had previously said "pressurized" he meant he had noticed a leak.


    207-52, page 169.

    "10 Q. You had used the word pressurized steam.

    11 A. Uh-huh.

    12 Q. What makes you state that? What do you

    13 mean by pressurized steam?

    14 A. Well, pressurized steam is going to give

    15 you a little bit of a hissing sound and it's going to

    16 get louder and louder and higher and higher in

    17 pressure and that was not high pressure steam but it

    18 was a steam leak.

    19 Q. So it wasn't high pressure steam, it

    20 wasn't --

    21 A. It wasn't something that would turn over

    22 a steam turbine, no."


    He didn't mention the heat exchanger on the second floor because he wasn't asked about it. In fact, the second floor isn't even mentioned in his deposition so he likely never even went up there.


    What is also interesting to me is we have a non-interested party testifying that there was steam.

    215-03, page 368 (Murray again)


    "8· Q.· · And for lack of a better word, I think there

    9·were discrepancies between Fabiani's numbers versus the

    10·FP&L's numbers.· Do you have any reason to believe that

    11·that is a result of Mr. Fabiani manipulating the data

    12·that he was putting into his spreadsheets?

    13· A.· · At this point, I have no evidence of that

    14·whatsoever.

    15· Q.· · And do you anticipate any kind of work in the

    16·future between now and trial where you would come to a

    17·different conclusion?

    18· A.· · I can't say at this point because I think

    19·that there's a lot of data that's just becoming

    20·available.· For example, I think the raw data from

    21·Mr. Fabiani just became available, and I have not looked

    22·at that at all." (emphasis added.)

    @Dewey,


    You keep claiming that all the data was destroyed. But as I read the record, I see discussion of data everywhere.


    For example:


    215-03, page 147 (Murray)

    "2· Q.· · What about the input power?· Is that logged

    3·digitally?

    4· A.· · That was logged to the power analyzer.· So --

    5· Q.· · So that was logged?

    6· A.· · Yeah.· It was not clear who logged it because

    7·the data between Mr. Penon and Mr. Fabiani are virtually

    8·identical.·"


    215-03, page 244 (Again Murray)

    "·3· Q.· · Are there --

    ·4· A.· · I did a comparison of the Florida Power and

    ·5·Light company data to the data provided by Mr. Fabiani

    ·6·and Mr. Penon." (emphasis added.)


    215-03, pages 193-194 (Again Murray)

    "8· Q.· · Do you feel Mr. Fabiani has hidden any

    9·information from you?

    10· A.· · Yes, I do.

    11· Q.· · What information?

    12· A.· · Well, he committed to providing us data that

    13·he said he had encrypted and stored on a server in

    14·Russia, and he committed to providing us with a final

    15·report.· And so I feel that he was not being transparent

    16·with us in providing us the information in a timely way.

    17· Q.· · Has he provided those now?

    18· A.· · I don't know.· I, I'm, really I'm not -- I

    19·saw --

    20· MR. LOMAX:· Objection to --

    21· A.· · I'm not sure what they provided.

    22· MR. LOMAX:· -- to the extent it gets in to

    23·communications with counsel.

    24· Q.· · You have never seen them?

    25· A.· · I have seen -- I have not reviewed the

    423

    1·detailed data.· I have seen a couple of files. I

    2·haven't reviewed them, but I have never seen a final

    3·report by Mr. Fabiani."


    Whoa, that was interesting exchange. Clearly something sensitive going on there.


    Logged temperature and pressure discussion with Murray at 215-03, pages 146-148.


    Looks like flow meter was logged manually. The data isn't destroyed because it appears in Penon's report. You might argue that it isn't correct, but it certainly wasn't "destroyed."

    Forty-Two ,


    I find your comment about Rossi's health issue distasteful. Nevertheless, here is the expected state of a post-hernia patient for days 1-4:


    Patients should not plan any significant personal or work related
    activities during this time period. Only basic daily functions should be
    performed: walking around the house, visiting the store, and eating at
    home. Patients should expect to be off from work or school for this
    time period and should expect to feel moderate pain, which often
    requires oral prescribed pain pills (Percocet, Codeine).

    http://californiaherniaspecialists.com/hernia-recovery/


    I can imagine that if Rossi could walk and eat, he would be at the Doral location.

    @Dewey,


    It sounds like you have some concern that your non-IP related emails might be used at trial. You might be right about winning the trial. I think the JMP situation will not look good before a jury, at all.


    Now to the important matter: where was the flow meter located on the return pipe? Was it above or below the pipe inlet?

    These are relatively smart people that have believed in the Rossi Ecat story.

    For them, it is just unthinkable that they, as relatively smart people, could possibly be hoodwinked by a scam artist and not see the scam, after all, they're smart people.


    To that end, they will continue to come up with ridiculous, inane, incomprehensible arguments to delay the inevitable, that they were wrong, because that would be impossible.


    @RL67,


    You've made this point a few times, so permit me to address it, as I consider you to be a relatively smart person as well. Many here (I estimate about 80%) had made up their mind long ago that IH and team were the good guys and Rossi and team were the bad guys. I struggle to see the world in such stark black and white terms. There are many shades of grey here, well more than 50. This situation is so complex that it requires a nuanced and flexible approach to understanding it.


    When the evidence reveals that the JMP was not independent of Rossi, I don't excuse that behavior. To the contrary, I call it what it is: a ruse, and take Rossi to task for it. In contrast, when evidence reveals that IH have been untruthful, you, Jed, and team dismiss it, and come up with ridiculous, inane, and incomprehensible excuses for IH's behavior. So, it might make sense to do some self reflection.

    You must believe Mr. Weaver is paid by IH to post here!


    Yes, I think Mr. Weaver is paid by IH. And I don't think Mr. Weaver would dispute that.


    Quote


    Just like I believe YOU are paid by Rossi to post here! ^^


    Believe what you want, but I can assure you that I've never received any kind of compensation, monetary or otherwise, from Rossi or any of his affiliates. Have never met Rossi or any on his team. [Edit: try to get Jed to make this same statement re: IH. Go ahead, try!]


    My motivations are pure. I'm here because I've followed LENR since 1989 and take great interest in it. And I sense that something is amiss with IH. I don't excuse Rossi's mess ups either, and call those out when appropriate.