Posts by IH Fanboy

    1) Leonardo and IH had a licensor/licensee relationship. Licensees don't (usually) go behind the back of licensors and have a device that contains trade secrets tested by a third party without first consulting and agreeing to such tests with the licensor. This was deceptive on IH's part, whether you like it or not.

    2) Darden admitted under oath that he provided the incorrect fuel to Boeing. Not speculation, and apparently not contrary to IH's interests.

    3) Yes, the poor engineer, who proceeded to waste a bunch of his own time testing a device that had the incorrect fuel mix, as later admitted by Darden.

    as he was deceptive to IH.

    As was IH back to him, and even to Boeing! Sending a reactor to Boeing without disclosing that to Rossi? Not providing Boeing with the correct fuel mix? Without disclosing to Boeing that it wasn't the correct fuel mix? As the poor Boeing engineer spent a good amount of his personal time testing it?

    So you expect IH to be clairvoyant and ask questions a year in advance during customer visits about an imaginary piece of equipment that was not even known about!

    I'm not sure you understand how litigation works. The heat exchanger question was in play during the litigation all the way up to opening arguments in the trial. The point of depositions is for each side to discover information that can then be used in the briefings and at trial.

    Many people visited the site. I spoke with them. They would have noticed such fans. They noticed, for example, the fact that there was nothing in the mezzanine.

    No one of them were even asked [about the fans] [under oath]! And if they were, we don't have their responses! Such an important question, and nobody was asked under oath? All of the people that were paraded through the factory, and none of the lawyers thought to ask the most obvious questions of all regarding the heat exchanger?

    Doesn't add up to me. I suspect both Rossi and IH have withheld the responses from us, and that this issue was to be litigated during the trial.

    No visitor noticed very hot air exiting the window a few feet over their heads, ...


    You know I have doubts on the heat exchanger. But you and Para keep saying things like the above without evidentiary support. I was quite surprised when people weren't asked this question in the depositions (at least not in the excerpts that we have access to). If they were asked, both Rossi and IH have kept their answers from us.

    No. Your assumptions are convoluted and specially adapted to come to the conclusions you desire. Mine aren't.

    And yours are specially adapted to come to the conclusion you desire. For example, when I provide a remarkable observation such as the aggregate pump rate as measured by Alan NEARLY EXACTLY matches the pump rates of the BF3 and BF4, it's almost entirely lost on you and other hyper-skeptics. Yet the probability of this being a coincidence is astronomically low. I've knocked down so much BS on this forum over the years by simply highlighting the evidence on the record, it sometimes makes me wonder how incompetent (or perhaps deceitful) so many people here are. I don't know what motivates you and others. I actually respect you much more than some others here, but you are driven, and I don't really understand by what nature you are here, and for what reasons you devote such great time and effort to your cause.


    It is always helpful to reduce assumptions though. Along these lines, I again request your view on the video of the hose emitting steam at just under 6 kg/hour. Would you not agree that Mr Rossi's hose in the Krivit video is emitting steam at a much lower velocity even though Rossi claims to be generating steam at a higher rate (7kg/h)? The nice thing about the 6 kg/h video is that this steam is also delivered through a hose that is several metres long ... like Rossi's. So, if Rossi's steam is a weak dribble because of internal condensation then that should be the case in the other video too. But it isn't. I sense thaqt you arfe resisting comparing the two videos but I wish you would go ahead and do so.

    I told you my view. But I guess you continue to insist that I don't respond to your critiques, so I'll give you a bit more: you post a video and claim it is 6kg/hour, but we have no idea about who made that video, whether it is accurate, whether it was independently checked, who is behind it, etc. And to be honest, while it does appear to have a bit more oomph, it is in the ballpark of what we observe with Rossi's hose.

    I think that the marks made by the beams would have generally reflected the size and positioning of the heat exchanger.

    I understand what you are saying -- that the beams could have acted like a pedestal upon which the heat exchanger would have sat and which it would have overhung on all sides -- but this is a weak argument. It is an argument designed to allow you to claim that almost any pattern of marks on the floor are evidence of a heat exchanger.

    So no, the marks do not logically eliminate the possibility that a heat exchanger was there, they are not particularly consistent with it either. My main concern is that you then take this weak evidence and turn it into the assertion that "The mezzanine had all the markings for what used to be a heat exchanger." It didn't.

    You make your assumptions. I make mine.

    The mezzanine had marks on the floor, but they were inconsistent with the heat exchanger described in the Rossi v Darden case documents.

    It is a problem that you now take inaccurate information and promote it as a fact.

    If one were to construct a heat exchanger, one would do it on beams so that air would flow beneath it as well. There are clear 90 degree angled markings on the floor that would be consistent with such beams. The mezzanine room dimensions are sized sufficiently to accommodate a heat exchanger.

    With all due respect, I'm not going to re-hash the heat exchange issue. Some of the best debates/evidence actually are in the comments section of, from a couple of years ago. Every detail down to the markings on the floor, the one picture that showed the mezzanine doorway during operation of the test (but conveniently cut off the bottom part of the door so that you could not see whether pipes entered near the floor), the windows, the apparent previous holes in the floor, the markings on the wall, the words on the wall, and every tiny detail to its last iota was explored.

    I've always thought (and have expressed) that the matter of the heat exchanger is probably the biggest unknown. Had the trial proceeded, we all would have known with certainty whether or not the heat exchanger ever existed. IH and Rossi made the conscious decision to settle the case before we got that far, thus throwing the matter into a state of Heisenberg uncertainty. If you ask ECW mainstays, they might be willing to go over the available evidence with you, but I doubt it. Most people have moved on at this point.

    But first one has to remove the heat, in order to get condensate. Tough to do, if not impossible, while the 'steam' pipes are insulated, and inside an insulated box.

    Don't forget the huge vacuum required to pull all the 'steam' out of the Plant, since it can't push itself out under pressure, since there is no relative pressure in the 'steam" piping.

    And this brings us to the greatest mystery of all. Was there a heat exchanger? The mezzanine had all the markings for what used to be a heat exchanger. Dewey claims there was never one. And had the trial proceeded, maybe we would have gotten to the bottom of that one, since I'm sure much of the evidence had not yet surfaced in the briefings. But IH and Rossi decided to settle, thereby forever leaving this question in a state of limbo. That was their choice. I think it is a shame, at least for us.

    But it’s “interesting”.

    I just learned from IHFB that steam circuits are designed to work under vacuum (“a slight vacuum on the outlet of the steam generator”). - And I was always scared of steam pipe leaks, because I thought invisible, high temperature (overheated) steam might leak out and kill me.

    From now on, when I walk along a steam line I only have to worry that I might get sucked into it...

    How did steam from Rossi’s plant leak out when the system was under vacuum?

    And you learned well.

    If you want an example, here is one:…enstate-Return-System.pdf

    You can also go to Google and type in some key words and get all kinds of information on steam circuit systems with condensate pumps.

    1) It cannot easily create a slight vacuum on the outlet side and simultaneously be a "working fluid circuit". You don't know what your talking about. If you took sophomore level engineering thermodynamics, you would understand why.

    2) Using precision dosimetric pumps all set to 100% makes no sense.

    3) The flow rate is unrealistic in that it varies very little. Thanks for admitting that "mindlessly copying" is a reasonable alternate explanation.

    4) We know that it was a gravity return because of the open to the air tank return tank (see photos).

    5) If the return pipe is not full, it WILL measure incorrectly - the manufacturer states this explicitly in their specs.

    1) Yes it can. Perhaps you skipped out on your classes. This is how steam circuits are designed. There is a pump to pump the condensate. This can create a slight vacuum on the outlet of the steam generator.

    2) Again, I could easily see Rossi setting it to max, and letting them run.

    3) The flow rate jumps quite a bit in the data, with some long stretches of the same rounded values.

    4) Show me a photo of the return pipe to the tank. As I recall, we never got access to that. It seems to me it was always on Jed's word. Here is your chance!

    5) Touche. Now show me the evidence that the return pipe was not full, besides the waterline schtick, which could have been formed at any stage with standing water, and does not mean that the water level was always at the supposed water line mark. And I don't think we ever saw photos of this either.

    No, not in context. Because: 1) it's absurd to have zero back pressure in a working fluid circuit, 2) it's absurd to have all dosimetric pumps at 100%, and 3) it's absurd to think that the flow rate of 36000 would be as steady as reported given all the testimony of leaks, breakdowns, shutdowns, etc. 4) its absurd to think that the return pipe was full in a known gravity return, and 5) it has been demonstrated and is repeatable that flow rates of 5X to 10x will occur in partially filled pipes. There are more reasons than this, but that's a start.

    1) No it isn't. You have a condensate return path with a pump that could easily create a slight vacuum on the outlet side.

    2) No it isn't. I can easily see Rossi just setting them to max settings and letting them run.

    3) The flow rate varies. Look at the tapestry of data. And they are clearly rounding. And in some cases, they are probably mindlessly copying the same value from one day to the next.

    4) The return pipe doesn't need to be full. Jed makes this same mistake. How do you know whether it is purely a gravity return? That's not what the record indicates.

    5) Murray had a setup of his own that didn't match the Doral setup. He even admitted this in his depo. The flow meter spec states the error bars in partially filled pipes. Rossi's attorney hit Murray over the head with it.

    Just for the record, you meant to write "I stand corrected Sig", right?

    Freudian slip? ;-)

    EDIT: I see now that you corrected yourself upthread. Thanks!

    Ha ha, yes. For the record, I stood corrected. Nevertheless, my point remains, that Alan's measured values essentially match the ~27k l/d and ~36k l/d log values. Whether the 4th BF was taken offline for two days or months is up for question. We have witnesses stating it was offline for at least one day. There are always alternative explanations for just about everything. For example, whoever was writing down the flow rates might have just mind-numbingly copied 36,000 for the next few months, when it was actually 27,000.

    Ask yourself this: what are the chances that Alan's measured numbers would NEAR EXACTLY match the 27k l/d and 36k l/d values. Don't you find that extremely interesting?