Posts by IH Fanboy

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'm making no assumptions, nor assuming Smith's schematic is correct.

Yes you are. You stated: "FM includes flow that does not go through the ecats (steam riser)." You must assume that Smith's schematic is correct to believe this.

Quote

That only 4 BF modules were normally used is (a) pretty obvious since
they were supposed to be 250kW (b) on depositions but no I'm not going
to look for them (c) in the sworn testimony form 235-10, which I've
referenced.

Exhibit 235-10 is not sworn testimony. It is an expert report: an opinion that is not made under oath.

You say it is "pretty obvious" that only the 4 BF modules were being used and that they were "supposed" to be 250kW. Your choice of phrasing "pretty obvious" and "supposed" are alternative ways of stating assumptions.

@THH,

You are assuming that Smith's schematic is accurate, without any supporting evidence. You are also making assumptions about the total flow rate through the e-Cats. Too many assumptions for my taste. Provide supporting links to each of your points, and show that only the BF modules were being used, their duty cycle, and data that shows the total flow rate through all of the e-Cats, and maybe you will be more convincing.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

235-11, PDF page 33

"11. Operations: BW indicated that it is clear that when standing near the E-CAT heater tank that the water in the tank is boiling vigorously."

This contrasts sharply with the 58 to 80°C tank water T from the Penon report.

Another unknown author writing about something that was allegedly said in a meeting by Barry West, none of it under oath. And we have no record of Barry West making the same claim under oath (at least in the portions of the depositions that we have).

Quote from Alan Fletcher

As I said above, I see no evidence that the steam riser connects to the condensate tank.

You mean you aren't convinced by Smith's little drawing?

Quote from THHuxleynew

There is absolute evidence that either the flowmeter massively over-reads, or this happens, because the flowrate as measured by the flowmeter is double the maximum possible flow through the 4 operational e-cats.

These are absolute assumptions not absolute evidence. I'm not even sure that "absolute evidence" is such a thing. If you are so certain that the flow meter is over reading, why don't we have a photograph of its positioning at this relatively late stage of the litigation?

I think you would be better to direct your ire at the alleged heat exchanger in the mezzanine. I think the evidence is building that such equipment did not exist.

And with all of the photos and analysis provided in 235-10, we are still left without a single photo of the flow meter placement. This must truly be top secret information.

Smith in 235-10, page 24 makes the assumption that there is no superheater to heat the steam from 100 to 103+. He makes this assumption by using an external view of the e-Cat, as if it is impossible for the steam to be superheated within the e-Cat. But as we know from looking at the internals of e-Cats in past experiments, Rossi uses fins that rise out of the water, and have the function of superheating the steam.

Smith in 235-10, page 10 states:

"The author believes that Mr. Rossi has stated that the pipes (6” nominal) from the black box to the mezzanine heat exchanger went through the door to the mezzanine."

He then shows a picture of the door to the mezzanine that doesn't show pipes.

However, I've searched through all of Rossi's depositions (including JMP, etc.) and can't find where Rossi ever mentions that the pipes go through the door to the mezzanine. Of course, we only have excerpts of the depositions.

@sigmoidal

It's Smith's opinion that there was no steam, based on a load of assumptions.

It's the state inspector's testimony that there was steam, based on his personal observation.

But let's assume for a moment that Smith was right, and there was no steam, and the system was just pushing around hot water. Then as Para has calculated, the system still produces COPs that are sufficient to pass the required COPs of the GPT.

Quote from IHSupporter

again, what do you make of the window pic of Nov 2015?

I think the unnamed "investigator" who allegedly took the photo "during" October, 2015 needs to be deposed or placed on the witness stand and questioned. Other than that, if the photo is authentic and was taken when alleged, I think it is damaging to Rossi.

But wait, there's more! The author of Exhibit 235-10 does in fact admit that there was a pump, apparently found by Murray, on the JMP side. Since the pump is a water pump, he assumes that the entire system was piping water, and that there is no steam! (This despite the state inspector, a disinterested witness, testifying that he observed a steam leak.)

Exhibit 235-10 is interesting and shows lots of pipes, gives pipe sizes (4.5 inch pipe), shows pictures of equipment etc. He concedes a pressure drop of only 0.5 PSI. Admits that the piping must have been in vacuum to move the steam, then concludes (without basis) that there can be no steam flow regardless of pipe size. He apparently does not understand the concept of a pump to pump the condensate back to the e-Cat side. Boy, this discussion sounds familiar. THH recall our very discussion on this?

Quote from IHSupporter

I never said that there is a single DN40 pipe, only that there is no evidence what it is,

Well, now there is, from IH's other expert! He measured it at 4.5 inches, and with a total pressure drop of only 0.5 PSI! 235-10, page 7. So much for Exhibit 5's hilarious FUD.

Quote from IHSupporter

He does not question but does not state it was larger. You cannot assume it was larger just because you want to. I do not see it in evidence.

So you are really going to stick with the single DN40 output pipe story? I think you and Jed are probably the only ones left here that are that willing. Even Dewey backed off from that claim.

Quote from Bob

Some of these people also have no intention of real discussion and learning. Their mind is set, made up and decided upon....

You might wish to take a peek in the mirror! Because that is how I perceive you and others on this forum. In contrast, I am here with intention of real discussion and learning, and have not made up my mind nor decided upon.

Quote from THHuxleynew

However, what size pipe Rossi used to deliver his water/steam is unknown because he removed it. It will I hope be clear even to IHFB that asking Rossi what this is now will not generate an answer that can be relied upon. Since this matter proves nothing there is no point pursuing it. IHFB does this under the mistaken apprehension that it shows the nefarious motives of IH. Everyone has heard the evidence and can judge that for themselves.

According to Dewey, they took careful pictures and measurements of all pipes. So apparently it was and is known. And exposing the DN40 claim for what it was is important, because it accompanies a track record of IH putting out misleading information.

@Para,

The Leonardo windows all look different to me relative to those on either side section of the building. Something was done to them, or something was placed behind them.

@Rigel

If the window was used, it was used to expel heat primarily. If 1 MW of steam was being released into the atmosphere, everyone in Doral would know about it. There might have been times though when steam was escaping--who knows? The state inspector (a disinterested witness) testified that he saw a steam leak.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

See Palm reflection much clearer in 2014, same window.

That was Feb 2014. We know the test was started sometime in Feb 2014, so showing a picture in the same month as the start of the test is not too convincing. Keep trying. You might find one good one yet.

Edit: strike that. Test started in Feb 2015. So you are just pointing to this as something that might be similar? If so, that reflection seems quite dissimilar to what you are claiming is a reflection in the 2015 image.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Try this one:

The lower two panes (or openings) are obstructed in that view. Didn't Rossi testify that it was the lower two panes that were removed and used as the in/out?