@Para,
How would palm branches be reflected at that angle? It doesn't look like palm branches to me at all.
IH Fanboy
Member
- Member since May 23rd 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by IH Fanboy
-
-
@Para,
Finally was able to get your view with some serious finagling around. I must say, dropping that guy onto the lane was kind of fun. And looking up into the sky, the clouds looking nothing to me like what is apparently coming out of the window, except that they are both white and look like water vapor.
-
Good to be back, although my time will be limited going forward. This is such a draw for me though because I love a good mystery. I think the dissipation of the ~1 MW of heat energy is possible. Those who say otherwise have not followed the varying view points very closely. Whether the heat exchanger existed or not is a central question. Whether the flow meter was positioned above or below the pipe inlet is another central question. IH could easily swing me to their side if they could prove that the heat exchanger never existed and/or that the flow meter was positioned above the inlet.
-
Eric,
The immediate question being debated is whether the window shows a reflection or something else. In the view where the construction is in the street, I would say it is indeterminate whether the panes are present or not. In Para's view, there appears to either be a reflection or something coming out of the window like steam. Jed says it is a reflection of the clouds, but (in a sort of funny way) I think he was using the view that shows the construction in the street (which is probably why he hasn't responded to me).
-
Eric,
Yeah, that still shows the construction in the road.
Para, can you post a link that gets me to your view? For the life of me, I can't seem to get there.
-
@Jed,
Your link leads to the exact same view that I have: with construction. Para's view has no construction. In Para's view, the construction warning lights are thrown up on the grass, like the construction has been completed. Does your view show the construction in the road, or does it show the construction warning lights up on the grass?
-
@Jed,
Can you post a pic of the clouds? I'm not even sure how Para got this photo. My google street view from April 2015 shows construction all along that street. Para's doesn't. It is definitely the same window, I just can't seem to get Para's view.
-
@Bob
I think you misunderstand me deeply. I would encourage photos of all of these whether from Rossi or IH. I call on all to release photos on the important aspects of contention: the placement of the flow meter and the heat exchanger--especially these two. We have some raw data. Apparently IH now has much raw data as described by several in the depositions.
-
@Para,
Another thing to consider regarding that image: it is almost a straight-on view. So if what you are seeing is a reflection, it would have to be something in a straight linear path to the window (i.e., orthogonal to the window). Otherwise, you would not see the reflection. Think of the window as a mirror. If you are looking straight onto the mirror, you will see yourself. This is virtually a straight-on view (a very slight angle at most).
And since we know there is nothing in front of the window, then what you see is probably not a reflection.
-
@Bob
You do amuse me and I enjoy reading your posts. I suggest, however, that you take a few deep breaths and enjoy life.
-
This is possibly the best image of the window that shows that it is a window with glass in it, some time in April 2015.
Strangely enough, that actually looks like steam coming out of the window. Note how the other windows in the two building sections on either side look starkly different. The windows on the Leonardo section don't seem to reflect anything.
-
@Jed,
Not babbling. Just driving the discussion toward the truth--because that is what we care about, right?
-
If you go around the corner of the warehouse block, it starts into May 2015 images. So much for getting all Miami done in April.
True that. Playing with it now. I'd encourage IH to subpoena Google and try to get the actual year/day/time of images that clearly show the suspect window. In fact, I'd encourage Leonardo's lawyers to do the same. Because this issue is not going away.
-
They don't record the day in the metadata! It says right there. Month and year only. I don't know why. Maybe it is a privacy issue, as noted above.
Google makes no warranties that the information is accurate. In fact, they disclaim all warranties.
https://www.google.com/intl/ALL/policies/terms/index.html
It appears that they provide the month/year of the "image capture date" but won't stand behind it. A subpoena would be in order, and I would encourage IH to do so.
-
Yes, let the hate flow. Call me IH Trollboy. It feels good to insult doesn't it?
Okay, I concede, it shows the purported "image capture date" without any specificity. Why doesn't Google show the actual date with the day? Guess you have to subpoena them if you want that information.
-
How do you know what they have done? Are you privy to the exhibits that have not been uploaded? There are dozens of photos, reports and pages from reports referred to that are not part of present exhibits. (I have no idea why, but there is a lot missing.)
I don't know what they have done, do you? I am not privy to the exhibits that have not been uploaded, are you? That has always been my point: we don't have any evidence of where the flow meter was positioned specifically with respect to the pipe inlet, other than Murray saying he didn't know.
-
@Jed,
Loose screws, vivid imaginations. Sling the insults. Let 'em fly!
Nice find on the API interface. Do you have API credentials? Can you please run the check on the photo and let us know what you find? Because we don't get that through the standard interface.
And if you think Google took photos of every street of every city precisely between April 1st and April 30, 2015 then I have a bridge to sell you.
-
Do you have a definite statement of what it actually was
No, we don't have such a definite statement, unfortunately.
What we have is this exchange:
"12· A.· · -- the BF units at the back of the reactor,
13·all of the pipes coming off were what I believe are
14·DN40, 40-millimeter pipes.· I actually have a picture of
15·a pipe joint that actually flags it as a DN40.
16· Q.· · Okay.· And those feed into a larger pipe,
17·correct?
18· A.· · They feed into a main, and then the main goes
19·across to the Johnson Matthey facility."
215-3, page 163
Murray notes that the individual DN40 pipes feed into a "main" (this part was not in the Exhibit 5). Murray does not dispute the questioner that the "main" was a larger pipe.
-
What will it take for you to say,
"Rossi's Ecat did not produce and excess heat, it never did.
And do you have the cast iron cajones to do it when this charade is over?
Well, I already provided one way in which IH could have done it. They could have proven Murray's Exhibit 5 correct: that a single DN40 pipe was used to transmit all of the steam egress. So much for that one.
Here is another one: they could prove that the water meter on the return was positioned above the pipe inlet. Not looking so promising on that front either with Murray's equivocation during his deposition.
-
Folks,
I'm seriously sorry to disrupt your lovely group think that had developed over the course of the last week in my absence.
