Posts by IH Fanboy

    Folks here give much flak about Rossi taking down some pipes that were occupying a large part of his building's space. But yet, here we have Murray admitting that IH dismantled their replication testing efforts and closed up shop too. Why the double standard?


    215-13, p. 103

    ·8· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And where is the device that you

    ·9· ·tested now, if you know?

    10· · · · A.· · I can't say today, but I know before we

    11· ·closed up shop we took everything related to the

    12· ·litigation under the direction of Jones Day and we put

    13· ·it all together, and we boxed it up and we put it into

    14· ·the locked facility in the back of the building.· So I'm

    15· ·sure it's all in there.

    @THH,


    It is strange that Wong wouldn't know about specifics of the heat exchanger--I'll grant you that.


    I find Wong's testimony overall as strange. A rough estimate based on a (brief?) conversation with Rossi about how much piping he had. Not impressive. But there is a possibility that Rossi and team are holding out for the trial. My guess is that both sides have dry powder that hasn't been used yet (but that each side is aware of given that the discovery phase has ended).


    Wong's testimony is not the only strange testimony. Darden's is strange. Vaughn's is too. Murray's is strange that he didn't know specifically where the flow meter was located. I don't even understand how he could construct his own pipes to do his simulations without knowing the most important part: where was the flow meter in relation to the pipe inlet.

    @sig


    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Rossi should have never dismantled the piping after the test. Dumb move. But I was just challenging Jed a little because he was saying that IH has all of these amazing photos of everything proving their case--but what do we get in Smith's report? An image grab from a video with an obstructed view of the door. And we are supposed to consider this as proof there was no heat exchanger?

    (b) would mean Rossi was lying when he described his heat exchanger on oath.


    I readily admit, the suggestion of finned radiators is my conjecture (although it is consistent with how Rossi dissipated heat and condensed steam in the past).


    Nobody ever asked Rossi under oath whether finned radiators were used. In a deposition, if you are not asked about something, it usually doesn't come out.

    The flow meter was above that, and there was no U pipe. Rossi tried to hide that fact by tearing out the plumbing, but there are photos, eye witness accounts and physical evidence such as the corrosion that prove it is true. Murray knows that. Perhaps his deposition confused you, because the lawyer kept asking him in ways that confused the issue. He might have slipped up a little when the question was phrased the right way and repeated for the tenth time. The lawyer was hoping to elicit a confused answer the lawyer can point to. You also hope for that. It is a forlorn hope.


    You are so certain, but Murray said he didn't know--the very expert that was supposed to know perhaps the most important question of all about the flow meter. And there were no lawyer tricks at play. Here is the interchange:


    1· · · · Q.· · Could it have been lower?

    ·2· · · · A.· · Could the?

    ·3· · · · Q.· · The flow meter have been lower than --

    ·4· · · · A.· · Yeah.

    ·5· · · · Q.· · -- the pipe entrance?

    ·6· · · · A.· · Possibly, yeah.

    ·7· · · · Q.· · Okay.· But you don't know one way or another?

    ·8· ·You're speculating?

    ·9· · · · A.· · Yeah, just working from memory, yes.· I don't

    10· ·know.

    11· · · · Q.· · Okay.

    The inlet to the pretend customer site?


    No, the inlet to the reservoir.


    And Smith's supposed mode of fraud (dual circuit flow) is incompatible with Murray's (partially filled pipe). Smith assumed the pipe was full, and had to in order to explain his dual circuit flow conjecture. Don't you wonder why Smith considered the pipe to be full?

    For example, if he had a heat exchanger in the mezzanine, why is it the pipes leading to it do not show up in photos?


    If IH has so many great photos, why is it that Smith provided a screen image grab from a video that shows the door to the mezzanine, the lower portion of which is obstructed by the wall separating the JMP side from the Leonardo side. Doesn't it make you wonder what was in the lower portion of the door leading to the mezzanine?

    1. The explicitly stated that they found a huge, spurious COP. This is not debatable. Whatever else happened, they found the experiments do not work. They told Rossi. He went bonkers and cut the cell apart.


    2. The two documents you pointed to do not contract these facts.


    Yes Darden said it, but I doubt it is true (probably exaggerated), because they later brought on Woodford, and Woodford stated that Rossi was core to their investment.


    As for 2, yes the document and reasoning that I point to do in fact contradict your "facts."


    Darden and JT have certainly done a bang up job living up to the APCO PR statement of unable-to-substantiate-all-without-success mantra.

    Nothing in the ERV report is certain, except that the headline power is wrong by some large factor. That is because it is impossible by a factor of more than 2.5 for 1MW to be dissipated from that factory - even adding in Rossi's invisible claimed heat exchanger.


    Now, you might say - OK - maybe there is an error, but COP=50 is so high even a factor of 10 error leaves us with a working e-cat....

    I've felt for some time that this is your strongest contention. We'll have to wait and see what turns up at trial. All it takes is one photo of the innards of the heat exchanger showing several finned radiators at the end of the piping (consistent with methods used by Rossi in the past), and your foundational premise comes crumbling down. I have no idea whether such a photo exists.


    But what I do know: we have more evidence that the heat exchanger was in the mezzanine than we have for a dual-circuit flow (Smith's word).

    @Jed,


    I don't know. But I do know that the picture taken on that day likely shows the two left panes as missing, and the two right panes as present.


    The window is large, and would not need to exhaust 1 MW. As has been pointed out, the building itself by its makeup and dimensions releases 200 KW+, even without any venting.

    The following two notions are irreconcilable:


    1) IH thought that Rossi's stuff was not working

    2) Rossi's technology was a core element of Woodford's initial investment


    Our resident stalwart IH defenders have all taken a crack at attempting to explain away this conundrum, but with little effect in my opinion. Pages of ink spilled attempting to resolve this blatant inconsistency.


    There are but two ways to resolve it.


    1) joshg's suggestion that IH knew the e-Cat didn't work and therefore improperly secured investments in the tens of millions or more.

    2) IH knew it worked and properly secured investments in the tens of millions or more, built upon Rossi's technology as a core element of Woodford's initial investment. And IH has now fabricated (or at least exaggerated), after the lawsuit was filed, their story of them knowing that the e-Cat did not work as early as January of 2014.

    So, given that Rossi's technology was a core element of Woodford's initial investment, we are now supposed to believe that Darden's story about drilling out the dummy reactor in January of 2014 and showing Rossi that there was no fuel in it, even though it performed the same as all of their other reactors--is true? And that after proving the e-Cat didn't work in this manner, IH needed to hire a bunch of "real" experts to tell them that the e-Cat didn't work? And that despite knowing that the e-Cat didn't work (because what better evidence than having a dummy reactor that performs like the rest of them) they proceeded to raise tens of millions from Woodford?


    Either joshg is right or Darden is blowing smoke on the dummy reactor story.

    @Para


    So far, we haven't seen the tracking of events that you suggest. No reports of failed experiments. Just indications that things were full bore ahead, bringing in tens of millions from outside investors some time after the supposed dummy reactor experience. Why would they need to find real experts if they had a dummy reactor that gave performance that was consistent with the non-dummy reactors? It doesn't take an expert to know that the e-Cat doesn't work, if that was really the case. You don't need to send it off to Boeing (an aircraft company who, as far as I'm aware, are not experts in calorimetry) for more precise testing. None of this makes sense.

    @sigmoidal


    The story by Darden about the dummy reactor is fascinating to me. Not because I necessarily believe it, but because of how Darden recounts what a surprise it was to him as early as Christmas '13 or January '14 that the e-Cat didn't work in his opinion. I mean, if IH really had a dummy reactor with performance that was consistent with the non-dummy reactors, that should have been end of story, no? No further seeking of outside investment money. No further tests. They knew it was all a big hoax at that point.


    Or not. It seems like a pretty self-serving story with no paper trail or evidence to support it. And the subsequent behavior of IH belies its veracity.


    Another very odd thing to me is that he stated that Rossi said "No, don't touch it with a thermocouple." And are we to believe that IH in NC doing their own independent testing of their IH-built reactors obeyed Rossi's commands not to double check it with a thermocouple, even though Rossi was half way across the country in FL? It seems like a stretch, does it not?

    @THH,


    The input power X1/3 was debunked, in my opinion (and yes, I did follow all of the twists and turns of that debate back in the day).


    The Levi-style IR measurement on alumina is still in play (I haven't been convinced one way or the other). I'd love for the Swedish professors to weigh in, and my guess is that they eventually will if a peer-reviewed paper by a credentialed scientist were to criticize (yes, with a zeta) the Lugano report.