Posts by IH Fanboy

Quote from Bob

Remember Para, some still believe there was "production" going on!

"...loaded or charged with whatever was being putting in them for heat treatment..."

It will be extremely difficult to argue honestly with someone who has their mind made up with no evidence to support it and then accuse others of being closed minded!

Except that you removed the key word that I used: "supposedly loaded or charged with whatever was being..."

Not nice to drop the key word of my sentence in an attempt to make your point.

I think the "active" insulated pipes are supposedly loaded or charged with whatever was being putting in them for heat treatment. Looking at the serpentine brown uninsulated pipe, it runs at nearly ground level right out of the picture. It doesn't even look like it loops back to the pump. If it is does, I don't see it in the provided pictures.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I don't get how the water in the black box serpentine, which seems to end up at floor level, gets up high enough to be pumped by the little pump without first filling the serpentine almost 3/4 full of water.

@Para,

I think Smith's schematic is missing key elements and has added non-existent elements. It doesn't match what I see in the partial photographs provided in his report. For example, if you look at the lowest brown serpentine pipes in the JMP container, you can see that it looks like it is going some place else altogether, near ground level. But the photo is cut off so we can't see where it goes. There are other parts of his schematic that look like guesses, such as the return pipe being connected to the steam riser, and the steam riser being connected to the internal condensate tank (no photos provided to substantiate these connections).

Quote from Rigel

Rigels prediction--- No one is going anywhere.

I agree. But not because we have exhausted the data (we have truly only scratched the surface of what is available to us), but rather, it is because most participants here don't like to have their preconceived notions challenged. So they sign off in a huff, and say they are out of here. But rest assured, they will be back, if only as a lurker.

Example: THH signed off in a huff, said he was done, and then was back in a few minutes.

Quote from JedRothwell

How do you know there is no photo? Who told you this? Stop making things up.

You know what I meant. There is no photo available to us. You say there is a photo. Fine, please point to it. Unlike your comrades here who prejudge sight unseen, I need to see the evidence and weigh it.

Quote from Shane D.

Thinking of it all, I keep thinking how a jury trial will play out when reading IHTB, and AF posts. Sharp guys.

That's IHFB to you, Mr.

But hey, thanks for the complement. I actually find you to be quite sharp yourself. Although I do miss your fence-sitting days.

Listen, I don't excuse Rossi for the JMP ruse. It was stupid and he probably knows it by now. I think it will not play out well with the jury, and might be the linchpin for the jury to side with IH (in fact, I consider that to be the probable outcome). And if the heat exchanger never existed, and IH can prove that, then it is a done deal. IH wins.

In the meanwhile, we ought not to view the world through exclusively mutual constructions. Just because JMP was a ruse does not automatically mean that there was no excess heat. The more I point out flaws in IH's case (e.g., no photo of flow meter setup and Smith didn't even attack that aspect), the more IH fans like to shift the discussion back to the JMP ruse. I get it: that works for most, and will cause many to throw up their hands and dismiss the whole thing. I see the world in much more nuanced terms.

Quote from Forty-Two

Which four pipes?

See picture posted above.

Quote

And how can the heat dissipated from the "serpentine" pipes (to ambient air) get carried away by piping?

(Or do you mean/see a duct-work?)

Of course, I'm just speculating. But if the heat is dissipated, it would probably be sucked out by that relatively large beige box coming out of the JMP black container, which then appears to have openings for the four pipes (looks like pipe sections are missing in this photo). Alternatively, maybe those four pipes are the steam bypass pipes described by Rossi in his deposition, which I think is more likely. The JMP box probably uses some of the steam for its purposes, and the rest gets bypassed.

Quote from Forty-Two

And btw: The main miracle is still, where does all the heat dissipated from the "serpentines" go?

Well, I would say a good candidate would be up those four pipes. Where from there, who knows?

Quote from IHSupporter

I am not sure but don't care to take the time, since you never took the time to answer about the window picture in 10.

Yes I did, here. You even "liked" my comment.

What is that beige box coming out the of the black JMP container and going through the wall (or maybe attached to the wall)? What are those four pipes running up the wall and across the ceiling?

Any thoughts anyone?

Edit: as I look more closely, there are four holes in the beige box that appear to be openings for the four pipes, although there might be missing pipe sections? This strikes me as possible parts of the bypass system described by Rossi, which involved four pipes that allegedly piped the steam to a heat exchanger.

Quote from Forty-Two

The "serpentines" supposed to be filled with steam, not with water.

Well, assuming the contraption works as it should, they would be filled with both. Water toward the bottom of the pipes collecting at the pump, and steam higher up filling the more elevated pipes.

@IHS

Can you point to deposition testimony to any of this? I believe it is bologna--something bandied about on this forum.

Rossi et al. must prove their case against IH.

IH must prove their case against Rossi et al.

@42

It is 1). The piping apparently has an inner diameter of 4.5 inches. There is now little if any concern about losses. I previously showed it would be possible with DN80 (~3 in pipe), albeit with a pretty high steam velocity. Going from 3in to 4.5in makes another huge (non-linear) difference in terms of losses, just like going from DN40 to DN80 makes a huge (non-linear) difference.

@THH, Alan,

Regarding the flows not adding up. I would be inclined to agree with Smith that the pump capacity on the ingress side of the e-Cats raises a serious question--were it not for the fact that IH has not provided information or photographs about the placement of the flow meter. This tends to indicate that IH is satisfied that the flow meter positioning was correct (granted, I'm taking some liberties here, but in the absence of a single photograph of the flow meter configuration, and no discussion about it in Smith's reports, then they must not be concerned about it).

And because they have not attacked the placement of the flow meter, the reported flow was probably correct. And since a closed circuit system like this must have a balanced flow, the total flow through the system was likely 6 GPM.

Accordingly, there appears to be missing information about the total pump capacity on the ingress side of the e-Cats. There are probably additional pumps not accounted for and/or additional reactors that were in use.

Quote from Forty-Two

This pumps needs a positive pressure (e.g. 1.9 psi[g] for 165°F water) at the suction side in order to work.
It certainly won't work when there is a vacuum at the suction side.

I think you misunderstand. There would be a column of condensate water providing the positive pressure at the suction side of the pump, and a vacuum would be formed in the serpentine pipes to move the steam as the water was pumped back over to the e-Cat.

@THH

No, you would not have two pumps in series. You have a single pump on the JMP side pumping the condensate back to the e-Cat. What is so hard to understand here? I know you refused to even give me the light of day when I suggested this as a possibility many moons ago. Do you feel any inclination to retract that sentiment?

Quote from JedRothwell

Exhibit 235-09 - Exhibit 9, indicates the flow meter is off by factors of 3 to 6, depending on conditions. (See the Table on p. 3, and the graph "Actual Flow Rate to Ratio of Reported to Actual.)

Yes "depending on conditions" meaning depending on Murray's simulations. Why doesn't IH just provide us with a photograph of the flow meter placement? Why the huge expenditure of effort to try and show various "simulations" when we could just look at how it actually was configured?

Quote from Bob

The pumps could provide pressure to the return loop into the eCats, but this would not pressurize the steam.

The Grundfos pump has the function of pumping condensate back to the e-Cat. This would create a vacuum in the JMP pipes and sufficient pressure differential to move the steam. Long ago, THH suggested such a setup was unlikely. But here we have it now for all to see.

Quote from THHuxleynew

We know* that there was a substantial flow path not going through the e-cats. That means:

You cannot know that without knowing the total flow through all of the e-Cats. Show me the data. Don't just assume.

@THH,

"If flow A > flow B then flow A must include stuff not going through B."

With that statement, I can agree. But what you haven't shown is "flow A > flow B." Your premise rests on an opinion that was rendered by an IH-paid expert, not under oath, put on the docket as an Exhibit, with loads of assumptions made throughout. Why didn't Smith back up his schematic with pictures of each of the connections?